[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Copenhagen climate change conference 2009]
EU puts €100bn-a-year price on tackling climate change
Leaders agree cost will amount to €100bn a year by 2020, but fail to agree on short-term aid for developing world
Ian Traynor in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT Article history
European leaders agreed for the first time today that the price tag for tackling global warming would amount to €100bn (£89bn) a year by 2020, up to half of which would need to come from taxpayers' money in the developed world.
But mired in wrangling over how to split the European share of the bill among 27 countries and how much Europe collectively should spend, they failed to agree on urgent short-term funding for combating climate change in the developing world.
Five weeks ahead of the Copenhagen conference on a new international treaty on global warming, an EU summit spent two days immersed in number-crunching rows over the costs and who should bear them.
Difficult decisions were shelved because of an east-west dispute pitting the poorer member states against the wealthy western countries, and because leading EU states such as Germany, France and Italy were reluctant to make specific commitments on funding for the developing world before hammering out an agreement with the US, Japan and other rich states.
"Europe is leading the way, making these bold proposals," said Gordon Brown. "The major decision to come out of this is we're leading the way on the climate change negotiations."
The agreements fell well short of what had been sought by the Swedish presidency of the EU, the Danish government hosting the Copenhagen conference, the UK and the European commission.
In the short-term, the leaders agreed that up to €7bn a year was needed from January for three years for "fast-track" funding in the developing world. The EU said only that it would seek to persuade others to share that bill and that Europe would pay its "fair share".
Some of the east Europeans, led by Poland, which balked at being asked to pay up, are refusing to contribute and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, admitted that European contributions to the fund would be "voluntary", meaning they may not be made at all.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was said to have fought strongly to avoid firm funding pledges. She goes to Washington next week, as do other EU leaders, for what could be crucial negotiations with the Obama administration on how to come up with a global fund for the poor countries. The issue of financing climate change measures in the developing world is a possible deal-breaker at Copenhagen.
The Germans were highly critical of the east European reluctance to share the bill, arguing that it was difficult to ask some of the world's emerging economies to contribute when Europe's poorer countries were saying no.
"EU leaders speak loud and clear on the global challenges of climate change, but remain tongue-tied when it comes to meeting their own responsibilities," said Rebecca Harms, leader of the Greens in the European parliament. "EU governments have now acknowledged the need for an annual €100bn towards climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, but have once again failed to put a clear figure on the EU's contribution."
While the Swedes, Danes and others argued that Europe had to take the lead on climate change and send a strong signal for Copenhagen, the Germans are more skeptical, noting that there are limits to leadership and calling for the other rich countries to step up to the plate.
It is not yet clear on what basis the contributions will be made. The west Europeans want to combine the "polluter pays" principle with ability to pay, meaning that a donor country's GDP and level of greenhouse gas emissions will determine how much it puts in.
Of the €100bn euros ballpark figure, the Europeans said €22bn-€50bn should be public sector money in annual transfers to the developing world by 2020.
Although the Europeans refused to specify the European share, Merkel said it should be around one-third; the same amount should be supplied by the US, and Germany would foot around 20% of the European bill.
The 22-50 cost range is wide and vague enough for lots of wiggle room. Britain says €50bn is "unaffordable" and €22bn is not enough. It sought a narrower range of €30bn-€40bn.
Rather than detailing specific European pledges, the leaders agreed only to contribute a "fair share" to the global fund and stressed that the offer was "conditional" on agreement with the other main donors.
[Business > BP]
US safety authorities impose record £53m fine on BP for Texas City failings
British company has not fixed hazards after 2005 explosion at industrial complex that cost 15 lives
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 19.30 GMT Article history
The US government raised grave questions over BP's safety culture today by imposing a record fine of $87.4m (£53m) on the British company for failing to fix hazards at its Texas City oil refinery in the wake of a disastrous explosion that killed 15 people four years ago.
The fine is four times higher than any previous penalty levied by America's workplace safety regulator, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and it raises the possibility that a criminal prosecution of BP over the tragedy could be reopened.
In a sharply worded critique, the Obama administration's labour secretary, Hilda Solis, said that BP had reneged on commitments to fix flaws at America's third-biggest refinery, leaving the plant, south of Houston, in a condition that "could lead to another catastrophe".
"This administration will not tolerate disregard of our laws," said Solis, who said that BP had a moral responsibility to look after its employees at Texas City. "We don't need to see another loss of another life there. Our motto is we would like to see people go into work and be able to come home to their families."
The Texas City disaster was the worst industrial accident in the US for a generation. It happened in March 2005 when workers overfilled a container with volatile chemicals, sparking an explosion that sent a geyser of burning liquid cascading over nearby accommodation trailers. In addition to claiming 15 lives, the resulting chaos left more than 170 people injured.
The fresh sanction over the accident comes amid a tougher attitude towards business from the new Democratic administration in Washington. It is a severe setback to BP's efforts to repair its reputation in the US after a string of problems earlier in the decade, including leaking oil pipelines in Alaska and a price-fixing scandal in the propane trade.
An official investigation into the causes of the Texas City explosion concluded in 2007 that senior BP executives, under the company's former chief executive, Lord Browne, had failed to act on red flags over safety at Texas City. Fatigue was a factor as one of the employees involved had worked 12-hour shifts for 33 consecutive days. And living quarters were positioned too close to safety-critical machinery.
After the disaster, BP paid a $21.3m fine to OSHA and undertook a long list of improvements under the supervision of an independent safety auditor. But the authority today announced that it had since issued 270 notifications to BP for failure to correct hazards and that it had found 439 new "willful violations".
BP immediately pledged to appeal against the fine, which it described as "disappointing", and said that it "strongly disagrees" with OSHA's findings.
"We believe our efforts at the Texas City refinery to improve process safety performance have been among the most strenuous and comprehensive that the refining industry has ever seen," said Keith Casey, manager of BP's Texas City site. "We remain committed to further enhancing our safety and compliance systems and achieving our goal of becoming an industry leader in process safety."
Senior BP officials expressed dismay, saying that, until recently, they had enjoyed a good relationship with regulators, who have carried out 17 inspections of the plant over four years. Most of the violations relate to management of safety procedures and failures to install pressure relief systems on the type of chemical tower that exploded at Texas City.
Lawyers acting for victims of the disaster suggested that the renewed action could put BP in breach of a plea agreement two years ago in which it pleaded guilty to a single felony and paid $373m to settle a string of criminal charges.
Among those bereaved at Texas City was Eva Rowe, who lost both her parents in the disaster. Through her lawyer, Brent Coon, she issued a statement saying she wanted "criminal prosecution and conviction" of BP executives.
"I think it's fantastic that OSHA is standing up to BP," said Rowe, who secured a settlement that included $32m of donations by BP to her chosen charitable causes. "I hope this sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated."
[Environment > Copenhagen climate change conference 2009]
EU puts €100bn-a-year price on tackling climate change
Leaders agree cost will amount to €100bn a year by 2020, but fail to agree on short-term aid for developing world
Ian Traynor in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 17.38 GMT Article history
European leaders agreed for the first time today that the price tag for tackling global warming would amount to €100bn (£89bn) a year by 2020, up to half of which would need to come from taxpayers' money in the developed world.
But mired in wrangling over how to split the European share of the bill among 27 countries and how much Europe collectively should spend, they failed to agree on urgent short-term funding for combating climate change in the developing world.
Five weeks ahead of the Copenhagen conference on a new international treaty on global warming, an EU summit spent two days immersed in number-crunching rows over the costs and who should bear them.
Difficult decisions were shelved because of an east-west dispute pitting the poorer member states against the wealthy western countries, and because leading EU states such as Germany, France and Italy were reluctant to make specific commitments on funding for the developing world before hammering out an agreement with the US, Japan and other rich states.
"Europe is leading the way, making these bold proposals," said Gordon Brown. "The major decision to come out of this is we're leading the way on the climate change negotiations."
The agreements fell well short of what had been sought by the Swedish presidency of the EU, the Danish government hosting the Copenhagen conference, the UK and the European commission.
In the short-term, the leaders agreed that up to €7bn a year was needed from January for three years for "fast-track" funding in the developing world. The EU said only that it would seek to persuade others to share that bill and that Europe would pay its "fair share".
Some of the east Europeans, led by Poland, which balked at being asked to pay up, are refusing to contribute and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, admitted that European contributions to the fund would be "voluntary", meaning they may not be made at all.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was said to have fought strongly to avoid firm funding pledges. She goes to Washington next week, as do other EU leaders, for what could be crucial negotiations with the Obama administration on how to come up with a global fund for the poor countries. The issue of financing climate change measures in the developing world is a possible deal-breaker at Copenhagen.
The Germans were highly critical of the east European reluctance to share the bill, arguing that it was difficult to ask some of the world's emerging economies to contribute when Europe's poorer countries were saying no.
"EU leaders speak loud and clear on the global challenges of climate change, but remain tongue-tied when it comes to meeting their own responsibilities," said Rebecca Harms, leader of the Greens in the European parliament. "EU governments have now acknowledged the need for an annual €100bn towards climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, but have once again failed to put a clear figure on the EU's contribution."
While the Swedes, Danes and others argued that Europe had to take the lead on climate change and send a strong signal for Copenhagen, the Germans are more skeptical, noting that there are limits to leadership and calling for the other rich countries to step up to the plate.
It is not yet clear on what basis the contributions will be made. The west Europeans want to combine the "polluter pays" principle with ability to pay, meaning that a donor country's GDP and level of greenhouse gas emissions will determine how much it puts in.
Of the €100bn euros ballpark figure, the Europeans said €22bn-€50bn should be public sector money in annual transfers to the developing world by 2020.
Although the Europeans refused to specify the European share, Merkel said it should be around one-third; the same amount should be supplied by the US, and Germany would foot around 20% of the European bill.
The 22-50 cost range is wide and vague enough for lots of wiggle room. Britain says €50bn is "unaffordable" and €22bn is not enough. It sought a narrower range of €30bn-€40bn.
Rather than detailing specific European pledges, the leaders agreed only to contribute a "fair share" to the global fund and stressed that the offer was "conditional" on agreement with the other main donors.
[Business > BP]
US safety authorities impose record £53m fine on BP for Texas City failings
British company has not fixed hazards after 2005 explosion at industrial complex that cost 15 lives
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 19.30 GMT Article history
The US government raised grave questions over BP's safety culture today by imposing a record fine of $87.4m (£53m) on the British company for failing to fix hazards at its Texas City oil refinery in the wake of a disastrous explosion that killed 15 people four years ago.
The fine is four times higher than any previous penalty levied by America's workplace safety regulator, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and it raises the possibility that a criminal prosecution of BP over the tragedy could be reopened.
In a sharply worded critique, the Obama administration's labour secretary, Hilda Solis, said that BP had reneged on commitments to fix flaws at America's third-biggest refinery, leaving the plant, south of Houston, in a condition that "could lead to another catastrophe".
"This administration will not tolerate disregard of our laws," said Solis, who said that BP had a moral responsibility to look after its employees at Texas City. "We don't need to see another loss of another life there. Our motto is we would like to see people go into work and be able to come home to their families."
The Texas City disaster was the worst industrial accident in the US for a generation. It happened in March 2005 when workers overfilled a container with volatile chemicals, sparking an explosion that sent a geyser of burning liquid cascading over nearby accommodation trailers. In addition to claiming 15 lives, the resulting chaos left more than 170 people injured.
The fresh sanction over the accident comes amid a tougher attitude towards business from the new Democratic administration in Washington. It is a severe setback to BP's efforts to repair its reputation in the US after a string of problems earlier in the decade, including leaking oil pipelines in Alaska and a price-fixing scandal in the propane trade.
An official investigation into the causes of the Texas City explosion concluded in 2007 that senior BP executives, under the company's former chief executive, Lord Browne, had failed to act on red flags over safety at Texas City. Fatigue was a factor as one of the employees involved had worked 12-hour shifts for 33 consecutive days. And living quarters were positioned too close to safety-critical machinery.
After the disaster, BP paid a $21.3m fine to OSHA and undertook a long list of improvements under the supervision of an independent safety auditor. But the authority today announced that it had since issued 270 notifications to BP for failure to correct hazards and that it had found 439 new "willful violations".
BP immediately pledged to appeal against the fine, which it described as "disappointing", and said that it "strongly disagrees" with OSHA's findings.
"We believe our efforts at the Texas City refinery to improve process safety performance have been among the most strenuous and comprehensive that the refining industry has ever seen," said Keith Casey, manager of BP's Texas City site. "We remain committed to further enhancing our safety and compliance systems and achieving our goal of becoming an industry leader in process safety."
Senior BP officials expressed dismay, saying that, until recently, they had enjoyed a good relationship with regulators, who have carried out 17 inspections of the plant over four years. Most of the violations relate to management of safety procedures and failures to install pressure relief systems on the type of chemical tower that exploded at Texas City.
Lawyers acting for victims of the disaster suggested that the renewed action could put BP in breach of a plea agreement two years ago in which it pleaded guilty to a single felony and paid $373m to settle a string of criminal charges.
Among those bereaved at Texas City was Eva Rowe, who lost both her parents in the disaster. Through her lawyer, Brent Coon, she issued a statement saying she wanted "criminal prosecution and conviction" of BP executives.
"I think it's fantastic that OSHA is standing up to BP," said Rowe, who secured a settlement that included $32m of donations by BP to her chosen charitable causes. "I hope this sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated."
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます