Energy policy is a shambles because the government is driven by ideology….

A leading energy academic and government adviser has called on ministers to take an equity stake in the planned new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, saying it would not make sense to prefer Chinese money.

The comments from Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, came as trade union leaders accused the government of letting political beliefs override practical and safety issues in the nuclear sector.

In a paper entitled British Energy policy – What Happens Next? , Helm said the British government should issue debt or specific nuclear guaranteed bonds, that could cut the cost of capital from 10% to 2%.

“It is a no-brainer,” said Helm. “Add in the military and security issues of letting Chinese state-owned companies into the heart of the British nuclear industry, and it seems positively perverse to prefer Chinese government money to British government money in so sensitive a national project.”

Helm usually champions free-market methods and is on the economic advisory committee at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Meanwhile the attack on government nuclear policy from the GMB union came after comments from Amber Rudd, the energy and climate change secretary, left the door open to Chinese state companies building and operating a new plant at Bradwell, in Essex.

May 22, 2013

Gary Smith, the union’s national secretary for energy, said the Conservatives seemed ready to allow Beijing to use its own equipment and supply chain in return for funding the new stations at Bradwell and Hinkley Point.

“Energy policy is a shambles because the government is driven by ideology. It will do anything to bring in private or Chinese state money to build British energy infrastructure rather than have it (debt) on George Osborne’s balance sheet,” he said.

This would extend to the Chinese being allowed to ship over large amounts of equipment from Chinese factories, potentially affecting British nuclear safety and as well as hitting UK jobs, he said. Smith noted that an eminent Chinese nuclear scientist, He Zuoxiu, had raised concerns about the safety of his country’s atomic equipment.

The comments from the GMB followed a wider BBC Today programme interview with Rudd on the phasing out of wind subsidies. In the interview the energy secretary sidestepped an opportunity to rule out a Chinese-built and operated plant at Bradwell, saying that any new atomic power station would face stringent British safety regulation.

There has been speculation that the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation has been playing hardball, realising that the French company and British government are both desperate for the cash from Beijing. The Chinese are said to be demanding a right to provide components to Hinkley and to be given a green light to build a new station at Bradwell on its own and with a much greater volume of its own equipment.

The GMB and some industry sources said Beijing wants to use Britain as a shop window to sell its own nuclear designs and capability around the world.

The DECC would not comment on this but denied there was any major worry about the future of Hinkley. “We are still waiting to finalise the project. EDF is still expecting to start power production in 2023.”

(Excerpted from The Guardian 2015)

 

Humpback Whales Are Starving, and Climate Change Is to Blame

Two months ago, a dead humpback whale washed up onto the beaches of Washington state. Although the cause of its death remains a mystery, initial observations found that the whale was overly thin, with little blubber and little of its associated oil, which humpbacks use for fuel and warmth.

It was not an isolated occurrence. In Western Australia, the number of humpback whale stranding events has been on the rise for the past several years. The region used to see just two or three dead whales a year; that has now increased to dozens per season. Like the humpback in Washington, tests down under have revealed that most of the dead whales in Australia also had low blubber levels. Experts described the animals as “extremely malnourished.”

The exact cause may never be known, but new research has emerged that suggests that the deaths will continue.

The humpback whales that migrate to Australia rely on Antarctic krill for most of their food. They gorge themselves for three months while in the Southern Ocean and then fast during their months-long journey to their breeding grounds off the coast of Western Australia, 6,000 to 11,000 miles away. That requires packing away an awful lot of calories before they hit the road.

Krill, however, is in short supply these days. The tiny oceanic crustaceans depend on sea ice for their habitat because they eat algae that grow underneath the ice. Sea ice, meanwhile, is in decline in many areas of Antarctica owing to the effects of climate change. Previous research has indicated that krill populations have dropped by as much as 80 percent since the mid-1970s. Species such as whales and penguins depend on krill for survival.

This means humpback whales have a lot less to eat, and they may not be able to build up enough fat reserves for their 10,000-mile migration. That could leave them exhausted and less able to survive, according to research published in two new papers led by Janelle Braithwaite, a marine biologist and Ph.D. student at the University of Western Australia.

The first paper, published in the journal Polar Biology, looked at historical records to understand how krill abundance affects the health of humpback whales. Records for krill levels in decades past do not exist, but we do know how much oil used to be extracted from whales caught off the coast of Western Australia between 1947 and 1963. Scientific samples taken more recently indicate that the whales today have much lower oil content in their blubber, a sign that the whales are not as healthy as they were 50 years ago.

The second paper, published in the journal Conservation Physiology, looked at how much energy humpback whales need to complete that long migration. Braithwaite and her fellow researchers calculated exactly how much energy whales expend as they swim and how much more they need to use if their migration patterns are disturbed by shipping vessels, mining activities, fishing, and other things that get in their way.

The conclusion: Many whales, especially mothers who recently calved and need to feed their young, could start running out of energy during their long migration and die from exhaustion.

“Our research shows that the body condition of whales can be affected by changes in sea ice [ leading to the destruction of their staple diet ]” Braithwaite said.

“From our research, all we can say is that if sea ice declines in the future, then this will have consequences on the food source and migration condition of humpback whales.”

Braithwaite suggested that it might be time to take proactive steps to protect humpbacks at the tail end of their long migration, when they might be the most depleted and any disturbances could push them over the edge.

For example, she pointed to Western Australia’s Exmouth Gulf, which she said “is an important resting area for southbound migrating humpback whales. This area is also a hubbub of offshore mining. Adjusting shipping movements and speeds around the Exmouth Gulf area during these resting times would minimize disturbance and reduce whales spending any unnecessary energy.”

This new research from Janelle Braithwaite & her team, comes less than two months after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing most humpback whale populations, including those off the coasts of Australia, from the endangered species list.

Taken from an article written by John R. Platt | Takepart.com 

The Navitus Windfarm Project……after centuries of Conservative politicians & fossil fuels who needs it?

Here is a picture of the Google Logo, Google love sustainable energy so much that they have entered negotiations to invest $700 million in the largest windfarm project.The project will span 40,000 acres, raise Kenya’s energy capacity by 20 percent, and be an enormous boon to a country where less than 25% of the population has access to power.

Here is a picture of the windfarm project which Navitus wishes to construct, it will occupy 37,807 acres, which is an area the size of Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch combined. It will be about 13 miles out to sea from Bournemouth and Poole.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd, a joint venture between EDF and Eneco, has said that it has every confidence in the proposals, which it claims will bring £1.62 billion into the area’s economy. It looks nice doesn’t it? Plus it will provide 70,000 households with sustainable energy what an attractive, alluring, modern proposition. Here is a picture of another Google logo. Now, imagine all those happy African householders tapping into all that good, clean energy, it certainly does my heart good.

Here is a picture of Robert Drax MP for Dorset South, Mr Drax is the latest in a very long line of Conservative MPs to hold this seat, in fact his party have held this seat for two hundred years. As a result, Mr Drax feels that when it comes to good, clean, energy, he knows what is best for his constituents.

Mr Drax MP does not like the wind farm, in fact he has stated that “The development will desecrate one of the most beautiful parts of our country”. Desecrate? This is Poole Harbour & the Bournemouth Seafront we’re talking about, thirteen miles out from them in fact, not Stonehenge. 

As aware as I am that sitting up on Sherwood Road, glancing around at the palatial housing and looking down onto various yachting clubs and across Poole Harbour, can be an almost ‘religious’ experience.

I must confess that I have yet to attribute those same ‘spiritual’ feelings to the experience of sitting on a park bench across the harbour from the commercial clutter of various yacht buildings and factory premises down the lower end of Poole, where all the great unwashed – and unemployed – sit. It seems to me, that they might benefit from the employment that the Navitus windfarm would provide, but I digress, here’s a picture of one of the wind turbines Google is investing more millions in.

Now here is a picture of Robert Syms, MP for Poole which has been electing Conservative MPs for over fifty years (there’s hope they’ll change their preference then….eventually).

Having decided that he also knows what’s right for Poole, Robert Syms told attendees of the parliamentary debate called on Monday, that the “strength of opposition” in his constituency had been highlighted as he campaigned during the general election. This is the gentleman of whom it was said by Emily Bradbury (one of his constituents) that, 

“I feel very strongly that in his unwillingness to attend any of the five hustings arranged. He treats his constituents with contempt,”

This is the gentleman who made so many visits to Poole during the General Election that I had to do a Google search just to find out what he looked like.

On behalf of the same constituents he couldn’t previously be bothered to visit, Mr Syms MP has declared that the Navitus Windfarm  is “a very real threat to yachting, birds, the community and the view,”.

The view?

• 78 of the most powerful wind turbines creating 630MW of clean sustainable energy,  
• Enough renewable energy to power up to 700,000 homes each year. 
• Offsetting approximately 1,290,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year. 
• Potentially a minimum of 1,700 local jobs during the four year construction phase and 140 local permanent jobs annually for the 25 year operational life of the project. 
• Significant opportunities for local businesses to become part of the project’s supply chain by providing their services and products. 

Taking the long term view what’s not to like?

Never mind! Here’s a pretty picture of the Whitelee Windfarm near Glasgow. Deary me, this one’s on land & accompanied by a visitors centre!

WWF Scotland published figures claiming that wind power generated enough power to supply the electrical needs of 98 per cent of the country’s households on average in 2014. The annual average suggests that the SNP’s target of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of the country’s electricity was all but met in 2014, six years ahead of the party’s 2020 deadline.

Here’s another pretty picture, this time of Amsterdam’s latest sustainable energy project. Can’t you just smell all that good, clean, air?

Please see the ‘Challenge Navitus’ – as opposed to global warming – webpage.

Nut spat: Stop eating Nutella and save forests, French ecology minister says

Sweet foods can be bad for you, but some are bad for the environment, too. France’s ecology minister is calling for a boycott of Nutella, the hazelnut chocolate spread, saying its use of palm oil is contributing to deforestation in Asia and Latin America.

France’s environment minister, Segolene Royal, said people should stop eating Nutella as one of its primary ingredients is palm oil, and producing it leads to massive deforestation.

“We have to replant a lot of trees because there is massive deforestation that also leads to global warming. We should stop eating Nutella, for example, because it’s made with palm oil,” Royal said.

“Oil palms have replaced trees, and therefore caused considerable damage to the environment,” she said.

She made the comments on France’s Canal+ TV on Monday evening.

The program’s presenter, Yann Barthès, objected to her boycott call, saying the spread tasted good. Royal agreed, but insisted that people should stop eating it nevertheless, and here’s why.

Our consumption of palm oil is rocketing: compared to levels in 2000, demand is predicted to more than double by 2030 and to triple by 2050. Over 70 per cent ends up in food, but the biofuels industry is expanding rapidly. Indonesia already has 6 million hectares of oil palm plantations, but has plans for another 4 million by 2015 dedicated to biofuel production alone.

Commitments from various governments to increase the amount of biofuels being sold are pushing this rise in demand, because they’re seen as an attractive quick fix to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2020, 10 per cent of fuel sold in the EU will be biofuel and China expects 15 per cent of its fuel to be grown in fields, while India wants 20 per cent of its diesel to be biodiesel by 2012.

The irony is that these attempts to reduce the impact of climate change could actually make things worse – clearing forests and draining and burning peatlands to grow palm oil will release more carbon emissions than burning fossil fuels.

But this phenomenal growth of the palm oil industry spells disaster for local communities, biodiversity, and climate change as palm plantations encroach further and further into forested areas. This is happening across South East Asia, but the problem is particularly acute in Indonesia which has been named in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records as the country with fastest rate of deforestation. The country is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to deforestation.

Much of the current and predicted expansion oil palm expansion in Indonesia is taking place on forested peatlands. Peat locks up huge amounts of carbon, so clearing peatlands by draining and burning them releases huge greenhouse gases. Indonesia’s peatlands, cover less than 0.1 per cent of the Earth’s surface, but are already responsible for 4 per cent of global emissions every year. No less than ten million of Indonesia’s 22.5 million hectares of peatland have already been deforested and drained.

Sustainable palm oil?

Industry efforts to bring this deforestation under control have come through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). It was set up in 2001 to establish clear ethical and ecological standards for producing palm oil, and its members include high-street names like Unilever, Cadbury’s, Nestlé and Tesco, as well as palm oil traders such as Cargill and ADM. Together, these companies represent 40 per cent of global palm oil trade.

But since then, forest destruction has continued. Many RSPO members are taking no steps to avoid the worst practices associated with the industry, such as large-scale forest clearance and taking land from local people without their consent. On top of this, the RSPO actually risks creating the illusion of sustainable palm oil, justifying the expansion of the palm oil industry.

Greenpeace’s investigations – detailed in their report Cooking The Climate – found evidence that RSPO members are still relying on palm oil suppliers who destroy rainforests and convert peatlands for their plantations. One member – Duta Palma, an Indonesian palm oil refiner – has rights to establish plantations on land which theoretically is protected by law.

There are ways to stop this. A moratorium on converting forest and peatland into oil palm plantations will provide breathing space to allow long-term solutions to be developed, while restoring deforested and degraded peatland provides a relatively cheap, cost effective way to make huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia.

Google is reportedly in talks to back the largest wind power project in Africa

Google is in talks to invest in the largest wind power project in Africa.

According to CNBC, Google wants to back Kenya’s Lake Turkana Wind Power Project, a massive undertaking that will require more than $700 million.

The project will span 40,000 acres, raise Kenya’s energy capacity by 20 percent, and be an enormous boon to a country where less than 25% of the population has access to power.

Though most of Google’s green energy investments have been within the United States, it has invested in Africa before — most notably in 2013 when it poured $12 million into a South African solar project, one of the largest on the continent.

Kwame Parker, Standard Bank’s head of power and infrastructure for East Africa, told CNBC that Google’s global profile would send ripples beyond Turkana itself. Google’s investment would be “a significant vote of confidence for investors considering African power market entry,” he said.

But that’s not the only impact this investment could have. It could also help secure a $250 million investment based on President Barack Obama’s Power Africa initiative. To receive the government investment, the Turkana project would require “meaningful involvement of the U.S. private sector,” which Google’s investment would likely satisfy.

Google also has significant interest in wind power on the technology side. Its innovative arm, Google X, is currently developing the potential next phase in wind energy production. Google’s Makani wind turbines fly in the air like kites to utilize the strong winds available at higher altitudes.

A GIANT WINDWHEEL IS COMING TO ROTTERDAM

Goodbye, windmill. The Dutch clean energy movement will soon have a new face: the windwheel. Come 2020, the shores of Rotterdam will be home to the 570-foot-tall Dutch Windwheel, a giant mixed-use structure distinguished by its unique circular shape and energy-positive output.

The steel-and-glass creation, designed by BLOC and Meysters in collaboration with Doepel Strijkers architecture studio, will rise above Europe’s largest port from a subaquatic foundation, giving the illusion of buoyancy. Visitors will have a chance to experience the wheel firsthand with forty mobile cabins that transport travelers around the structure’s circumference, offering views as far as Delft, The Hague, and Dordrecht. Upon its completion, the Windwheel will house both a 160-room hotel and a 72-unit residential development.

Function, however, is what will earn the Windwheel its acclaim. The wheel, known as the Electrostatic Wind Energy Converter (EWICON), will transform wind energy into usable electricity without mechanical input. Moreover, the building has been imagined with Rotterdam’s residents in mind—its technology runs silently, without casting the distracting intermittent shadows often associated with wind energy. Above all else, the building will give the booming city of Rotterdam its own distinct landmark and is expected to draw 1.5 million new visitors annually.

Beyond The Pale There is Tony Abbott

With a 22,300-mile coastline, offshore winds and almost perpetual sunshine, Australia could be leading the world in replacing carbon-spewing fossil fuels with renewable-energy sources.

That is unlikely to happen, though, under Tony Abbott, who has proclaimed coal to be “good for humanity” – and who revealed that he detests wind farms, calling them noisy and “visually awful”.

To the dismay of the multi-billion-dollar clean-energy sector, and to the mortification of many Australians, Mr Abbott bragged that he had halted the spread of wind farms by slashing the amount of energy to be generated by renewable sources by 2020.

Explaining a compromise which he reached with opposition parties in the Senate last month to cut the target by 20 per cent, he told a right-wing radio host, Alan Jones: “What we did recently in the Senate was to reduce… the number of these things [wind farms] we are going to get in the future.”

He added: “I frankly would have liked to have reduced the number a lot more. But we got the best deal we could, and if we hadn’t had a deal, we would have been stuck with even more of these things… I’ve been up close to these wind farms, there’s no doubt that not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise.”

Not that Mr Abbott is the only member of the global elite to utter those thoughts, American business tycoon Donald Trump has attacked Alex Salmond, saying the former First Minister should be “ashamed of himself” for backing plans to build offshore windfarms near a golf course owned by the flamboyant US billionaire.

Mr Trump is battling to halt the development of an 11-turbine scheme off the Aberdeenshire coast, which he says will spoil the views of golfers playing at his nearby Trump International Golf Links.

Last week the US businessman lost his latest legal challenge against the windfarm, which was approved by the Scottish government in 2013.

However, Mr Trump went on the offensive at a press conference yesterday saying: “We will be appealing. Windmills are littering Scotland, they are destroying the magnificent landscape of Scotland.

“There is nothing like [this landscape] in the world and they are destroying it.”

The billionaire, who was in Scotland to launch a $10m clubhouse at the Turnberry golf club in Ayrshire which he bought last year, said he expected to be successful in his legal battle, though it could take up to five years.

“[Windmills] are bad for what I have [as in, his business interests)] and bad for Scotland….Alex [Salmond] should be ashamed of himself because he is ruining one of the great landscapes in the world,” he said. Whilst we’re talking of ruined landscapes the Navitus Windfarm Project intended for the Dorset coast deserves a mention.

Bournemouth Borough Council has launched a fresh campaign urging the government not to go ahead with the Navitus Bay offshore wind farm proposal.

The excuse is that the council wants to save England’s only natural World Heritage Site the Jurassic Coast, as well as Poole Bay (oh please!).

Their real motivation is £1 billion worth of annual tourism which they claim would be adversely impacted by the wind farm which would be situated off the Dorset coast.

In a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, Leader of Bournemouth Council, John Beesley said:

“Navitus Bay offshore wind farm would be highly visible from land and dramatically alter and damage the intrinsic appeal and beauty of what is currently a natural and untouched seascape. The industrial-scale turbines would be classed as permanent structures and fall into the highest category of harm in terms of visual assessment…Our natural coastline is the main reason why 6.7 million tourists from across Great Britain and overseas flock here every year. Bournemouth is “Britain’s premier resort” which competes with “the best in Europe” and damaging its progress would be madness”. As mad as doing nothing to encourage the widespread use of sustainable forms of energy? I doubt it. 

UN climate talks agree major forest protection plan

One of the key elements for a global climate deal has been unexpectedly resolved in Bonn, with governments signing off on plans for a UN-backed forest protection scheme.

Envoys spoke of their surprise at the agreement, which will see the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Redd+) programme form part of a Paris pact in December.

“It was successful… we all got a little of what we wanted,” said Ghana negotiator Yaw Osafo, who represented the Africa group at the meeting.

A US official in Bonn said the draft text, which will be formally agreed in Paris, was a big moment for efforts to slow deforestation and protect regions holding vast stores of carbon.

“It is big. It has been ten years of work. It concludes all of guidance around a really important issue which is how you reduce emissions from forests in developing countries,” she told RTCC, speaking in a background briefing.

One major issue was the “non-carbon benefits” generated from protecting forests, said Osafo, which include the protection of indigenous peoples and valuable ecosystems.

Many communities have complained of forest carbon initiatives which failed to consult or at worst displaced villages and in some cases did not share revenues with locals.

In Africa, where forest degradation is a bigger problem than industrial scale logging, this meant initiatives needed to be better coordinated with local communities, said Osafo.

In another well documented case, a Panama forest tribe engaged in a year-long campaign against Redd+, which it said ignored their rights and effectively sold off their traditional lands to outside investors.

With Paris looming and pressure mounting for a decision in other venues at the Bonn talks, it appears countries that previously held tough positions backed down for the sake of progress.

Norway, the EU and Switzerland had demanded tougher measures to ensure environmental and human rights “safeguards”, and faced a Brazil-Africa coalition resistant to new guidelines.

 

What emerged was a compromise, suggested Gustavo Silva-Chávez from the Washington DC-based Forest Trends NGO, with countries keen to see a full package ready by the end of the week.

“In simple terms in the last several years the UN has provided the rules for how to provide a Redd+ mechanism… they have the written guidance,” he said.

Even Bolivia, long an opponent of the role of carbon markets in the Redd+ mechanism, agreed not to block a deal which leaves the door open for a variety of funding flows.

“Many others told Bolivia – some of us want to use them… maybe not now but we want to keep options open,” added Silva-Chávez.

Experts warn the decision leaves plenty of work for negotiating teams and those charged with implementing Redd+ on the ground in the coming months.

Deforestation and land degradation is on the rise, and accounts for around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s IPCC climate science panel.

Tougher safeguards and transparency would generate more confidence from the finance sector, said the US official, with the UN’s Green Climate Fund and World Bank forest carbon fund other potential donors.

Ghana estimates it needs half a billion dollars to roll out a full Redd+ programme, said Osafo.

Around $4bn of the $100bn pledged at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit was supposed to be directed towards forests, but in reality the figures have been far smaller, he added.

Still, the early agreement on forests has boosted confidence in the UN process at a time when the main strand of talks on a global deal appear stuck in an 80-page long quagmire of a text.

Often, said Silva-Chávez, this strand of negotiations was used as bargaining chip to call for more progress on finance or make other demands. That didn’t happen when matters came to a crunch.

In 2000 the then “Redd” talks led to the collapse of talks in the Hague at the annual UN summit. Since then careful confidence-building measures have developed relationships among envoys.

“Most people are foresters and understand issues and appreciate different situations in other countries… it’s not too hard to empathise and try and find ways to accommodate each other,” said Osafo.

Better communication and more field visits were key to this result, said the US official, allowing better understanding between countries – which negotiate individually rather than in blocks.

“It’s a really important thing we have done… probably made possible because of the tight knit community working on forests and climate,” she said.

“A deep base of sharing and knowledge and a lot of trust… that’s what has allowed us to move forward.”

Tim Yeo: I ‘thought’ humans were to blame for global warming….err…….

The chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee said he accepts the earth’s temperature is increasing but said “natural phases” may be to blame. Such a suggestion sits at odds with the scientific consensus. One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm.

Mr Yeo, an environment minister under John Major, is one of the Conservative Party’s strongest advocates of radical action to cut carbon emissions. Or at least he was one of the strongest advocates of radical change to cut carbon emissions until this. His comments are significant as he was one of the first senior figures to urge the party to take the issue of environmental change seriously. He insisted that the action to cut carbon emissions is “prudent” given the threat climate change poses to living standards worldwide. But, he said, human action is merely a “possible cause”.

Asked on Tuesday night whether it was better to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change than to prevent it in the first place, he said: “The first thing to say is it does not represent any threat to the survival of the planet. None at all. The planet has survived much bigger changes than any climate change that is happening now.

He went on: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”

“But there is at least a risk that the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a possible cause. We’ve just gone through the 400 parts per million [a measure of the atmospheric concentration of CO2] this year. I think a prudent policy would say if we can do things about that which are no-regrets polices like being efficient in the use of energy, looking at none-fossil fuel sources, I think that’s prudent to do so.”

Mr Yeo has previously spoken with great certainty about the science of climate change. He said in 2009: “A significant number of core Conservative voters – mostly among older people – are reluctant to accept the evidence. I don’t think they [doubting Tory MPs] will be a significant influence in the next parliament and will gradually diminish in the population.

“The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”

Mr Yeo, who was speaking to an audience of energy industry representatives and diplomats at the Westminster Russia Forum, renewed his call for the Government to build a third runway at Heathrow. Now to any political outsider this would constitute a massive about face, whereas to Mr Yeo this is probably nothing more than an ingratiating tug of his forelock, towards the luminous moneys of global corporatism.

(based on a Telegraph article)