I’ve just met with a company that wants to use carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery (EOR) beneath the North Sea. Although I have become the European Parliament’s in-house expert on carbon capture and storage issues (CCS) this was the first time I can recall people talking to me seriously about developing EOR in Europe.
The principle is simple. By pumping CO2 into the rock that bears oil you flush out more of it than will come to the surface naturally. Most of the CO2 stays underground, but what comes back up to the surface with the oil gets captured and pumped back down again for permanent storage.
Enhanced oil recovery has been carried out in the USA for decades, but for the most part the carbon dioxide has come not from power plants where it is a by product of fuel burning but has been extracted from dormant volcanoes and piped for hundreds of miles specifically for the purpose.
Applied in Britain it could allow us to gain value from the North Sea oilfields for decades longer than will otherwise be the case, while reducing our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere at the same time.
One of the most interesting meetings I have had in a long time.
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Friday, 8 October 2010
WHERE ARE EU LAWS HIDDEN?
EU laws have to be turned into national laws before they can be applied. How this is done is up to each government and parliament. In one country, for example, it could be that the requirements of a single EU law might be broken into parts with different bits then included in modifications to a range of existing laws. Sometimes bits go “missing” or get “overlooked.”
The easy way to make sure that this doesn’t happen is for every government to publish a correlation table that shows how the different clauses of an EU law have been transposed into national laws. The European Commission wants this to be done in every instance, the European Parliament agrees, but the Council of Ministers has fought off attempts to get the principle established as standard practice.
So a series of individual battles are taking place. Sometimes the MEPs negotiating the final shape of legislation manage to get inserted a clause that insists that Member States shall publish a correlation table that will show where every article of an EU law can be found in national legislation, and sometimes they don’t. It depends on how keen each side is to get the law made quickly, and how much the individuals concerned care about the issue.
I’m involved in one such skirmish at present, being part of the negotiating team working on legislation that restricts the use of hazardous substances in electronic equipment.
The Belgian Presidency is keen to get a feather in its cap by getting this sorted during its term of office. Parliament’s rapporteur (team leader), Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans, is holding firm on a few key issues but has compromised or backed down on many others. A deal between the Parliament and the Council must be close.
I’m holding out for the correlation table. Using my notes, Jill insisted that this was a matter of “good governance” at our most recent meeting with the Belgian deputy ambassador (who negotiates on behalf of the Council). The European Commission representative supported her. The Council’s argument was so weak (“it’s not a requirement of the inter-institutional agreement between Parliament and Council”) that one of their officials later came over to apologise to me for it.
We have one more meeting scheduled. If agreement is reached on all other matters will the Council really refuse to support an agreement because MEPs want people to be able to find out how each country is putting the law into practice?
Who will blink first?
The easy way to make sure that this doesn’t happen is for every government to publish a correlation table that shows how the different clauses of an EU law have been transposed into national laws. The European Commission wants this to be done in every instance, the European Parliament agrees, but the Council of Ministers has fought off attempts to get the principle established as standard practice.
So a series of individual battles are taking place. Sometimes the MEPs negotiating the final shape of legislation manage to get inserted a clause that insists that Member States shall publish a correlation table that will show where every article of an EU law can be found in national legislation, and sometimes they don’t. It depends on how keen each side is to get the law made quickly, and how much the individuals concerned care about the issue.
I’m involved in one such skirmish at present, being part of the negotiating team working on legislation that restricts the use of hazardous substances in electronic equipment.
The Belgian Presidency is keen to get a feather in its cap by getting this sorted during its term of office. Parliament’s rapporteur (team leader), Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans, is holding firm on a few key issues but has compromised or backed down on many others. A deal between the Parliament and the Council must be close.
I’m holding out for the correlation table. Using my notes, Jill insisted that this was a matter of “good governance” at our most recent meeting with the Belgian deputy ambassador (who negotiates on behalf of the Council). The European Commission representative supported her. The Council’s argument was so weak (“it’s not a requirement of the inter-institutional agreement between Parliament and Council”) that one of their officials later came over to apologise to me for it.
We have one more meeting scheduled. If agreement is reached on all other matters will the Council really refuse to support an agreement because MEPs want people to be able to find out how each country is putting the law into practice?
Who will blink first?
Thursday, 7 October 2010
GET CAMERON A SPEECHWRITER!
The cuts have started. They have begun amongst the Prime Minister’s speech writing team.
Content counts, but style matters - especially to the audience. Cameron’s conference speech in Birmingham was rhetoric light, sleep-inducing heavy.
Could this climax have got the Conservative party faithful to their feet if they hadn’t been expected to perform for the TV cameras: "Let’s come together. Let’s work together. In the national interest.”
Uuugh!
There are times when it matters what you say. And there are times when what matters is how you say it.
Here’s a freebie for Cameron. Next time, try it this way:
“So Conference, in the national interest......let’s come together, let’s work together, let’s succeed – TOGETHER!”
Prime Minister, for a consideration, I might be free to help out from summer 2014.
Content counts, but style matters - especially to the audience. Cameron’s conference speech in Birmingham was rhetoric light, sleep-inducing heavy.
Could this climax have got the Conservative party faithful to their feet if they hadn’t been expected to perform for the TV cameras: "Let’s come together. Let’s work together. In the national interest.”
Uuugh!
There are times when it matters what you say. And there are times when what matters is how you say it.
Here’s a freebie for Cameron. Next time, try it this way:
“So Conference, in the national interest......let’s come together, let’s work together, let’s succeed – TOGETHER!”
Prime Minister, for a consideration, I might be free to help out from summer 2014.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
SAVE OUR SEAS
I like the new Fisheries Commissioner, and after her presentation to the European Parliament’s Environment Committee a week ago (28 September) I guess I am not alone.
Maria Damanaki is Greek, has been a socialist Member of Parliament in her country for many years, and arrived in Brussels knowing next to nothing about fisheries policy. But she is no fool. Nor is she without courage; as a student she was a radio voice of liberation who was tortured for her views by the dictatorship of the time.
I had asked that she speak to the committee about her plans for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I hoped that its ‘greenish’ tinge would strengthen her convictions, counter balancing the less ambitious views of the Fisheries Committee with whom she normally works.
She did not disappoint.
“The proposals I make next year will be ambitious. If we lose this opportunity there will be no future for fishing," she said.
"We cannot ignore the scientific advice any more. 80% of EU fish stocks are not healthy. We need root and branch reform.
“We cannot continue to give money to fishermen to throw fish back in the sea, dead. (Discards) are unacceptable. Money should be used instead to provide help with storage and market intelligence.
“Small scale fisheries are the most sustainable and provide economic opportunities for coastal areas. We want to support them while controlling industrial fishing. The owners of the big boats take most of the fish and have the loudest voices, but they employ few people.
“I do not have many allies among the EU’s governments. Fisheries ministers are not generally supportive of radical change. There will be a hostile reaction to change. The Commission has tried to achieve radical reform in the past and twice has failed. I need help.”
My number one political objective is to make sure that she gets it.
Maria Damanaki is Greek, has been a socialist Member of Parliament in her country for many years, and arrived in Brussels knowing next to nothing about fisheries policy. But she is no fool. Nor is she without courage; as a student she was a radio voice of liberation who was tortured for her views by the dictatorship of the time.
I had asked that she speak to the committee about her plans for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I hoped that its ‘greenish’ tinge would strengthen her convictions, counter balancing the less ambitious views of the Fisheries Committee with whom she normally works.
She did not disappoint.
“The proposals I make next year will be ambitious. If we lose this opportunity there will be no future for fishing," she said.
"We cannot ignore the scientific advice any more. 80% of EU fish stocks are not healthy. We need root and branch reform.
“We cannot continue to give money to fishermen to throw fish back in the sea, dead. (Discards) are unacceptable. Money should be used instead to provide help with storage and market intelligence.
“Small scale fisheries are the most sustainable and provide economic opportunities for coastal areas. We want to support them while controlling industrial fishing. The owners of the big boats take most of the fish and have the loudest voices, but they employ few people.
“I do not have many allies among the EU’s governments. Fisheries ministers are not generally supportive of radical change. There will be a hostile reaction to change. The Commission has tried to achieve radical reform in the past and twice has failed. I need help.”
My number one political objective is to make sure that she gets it.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
CLEGG'S REVENGE
For 5 years Nick Clegg and Roger Helmer represented the East Midlands region as Euro-MPs. On the one hand was Clegg, an utterly pro-European Liberal Democrat who despite his years as a Commission insider is a pragmatist who condemns the absurdities of some EU practices. On the other hand was Helmer, a frothing-at-the-mouth Conservative Europhobe who wants Britain out of the EU immediately if not sooner. Their different views were reflected in the debates they had in the letters' columns of local newspapers.
Helmer has had his triumphs. He has seen his party grown to be dominated by people of like instinct. He has seen the Tory Group pull out of the European Peoples' Party and form an alliance with a handful of fellow sceptics. And in the May general election he saw his party become the largest in the House of Commons.
But from that moment it has all gone downhill.
New Europe Minister David Liddington is proving another pragmatic soul who gets on with the work in hand. His statement on the Coalition Government's European Policy is one I can endorse. Essentially it says that the UK government will not agree to any further transfer of powers from member states to the EU without there first being a referendum, but that there will not be a referendum in the next 5 years. (I don't approve of referendums so I am glad that there will be none). Changes in EU rules that do not involve a transfer of power - such as the accession of Norway or Croatia - will be put to a vote in the House of Commons.
The statement did not make reference to the big change it represents in the Tory position: there will be no attempt to repatriate powers from the EU.
I think I heard Nick Clegg sum up the compromise agreed as "we lower our ambitions, they drop their nonsense." It means that the government will just get on with the business of Britain in Europe, dealing with the issues as they arise.
But for Roger Helmer this is terrible stuff. "I start to despair for my party and my country," he told a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference yesterday.
Eat your heart out Roger. On Europe, Clegg has won.
Helmer has had his triumphs. He has seen his party grown to be dominated by people of like instinct. He has seen the Tory Group pull out of the European Peoples' Party and form an alliance with a handful of fellow sceptics. And in the May general election he saw his party become the largest in the House of Commons.
But from that moment it has all gone downhill.
New Europe Minister David Liddington is proving another pragmatic soul who gets on with the work in hand. His statement on the Coalition Government's European Policy is one I can endorse. Essentially it says that the UK government will not agree to any further transfer of powers from member states to the EU without there first being a referendum, but that there will not be a referendum in the next 5 years. (I don't approve of referendums so I am glad that there will be none). Changes in EU rules that do not involve a transfer of power - such as the accession of Norway or Croatia - will be put to a vote in the House of Commons.
The statement did not make reference to the big change it represents in the Tory position: there will be no attempt to repatriate powers from the EU.
I think I heard Nick Clegg sum up the compromise agreed as "we lower our ambitions, they drop their nonsense." It means that the government will just get on with the business of Britain in Europe, dealing with the issues as they arise.
But for Roger Helmer this is terrible stuff. "I start to despair for my party and my country," he told a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference yesterday.
Eat your heart out Roger. On Europe, Clegg has won.
Monday, 4 October 2010
THE CLIMATE CHANGE GAME
Europe’s climate action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, has been dealt a poor hand.
She has the thankless task of leading the EU’s efforts to secure an international agreement on measures to fight global warming, and to encourage our own Member States to sign up to initiatives that will demonstrate Europe’s continuing leadership on the issue while meeting other goals, such as strengthening energy sufficiency and reducing our use of scarce resources.
But despite the scientific evidence of climate change having been wholly vindicated, continuing scepticism about the need for action prevails and saps political will, both here and elsewhere. The world needs the USA – the largest per capita emitter of CO2 – to sign up to far-reaching reforms, but there is not the slightest indication that they are likely to do so in the near future.
If the largest emitters of global warming gases will not make a commitment to reduce them it is hard for Europe’s politicians to argue that the EU, releasing just 13% of the total, must incur the costs of action alone.
COP16, the next conference of the parties (governments) who have signed the UN’s framework convention on climate change, meets in a few weeks’ time in Cancun, Mexico. After the disappointment of Copenhagen the expectations are low. Hedegaard set out to the European Parliament’s environment committee on Monday (4 October) a very limited set of criteria by which to measure its ‘success’.
“Cancun MUST keep the momentum,” she told MEPs. “If Cancun does not deliver substantial progress it is difficult to see where such progress will be made.”
Gamblers may recognise the need to play even a bad hand with confidence.
She has the thankless task of leading the EU’s efforts to secure an international agreement on measures to fight global warming, and to encourage our own Member States to sign up to initiatives that will demonstrate Europe’s continuing leadership on the issue while meeting other goals, such as strengthening energy sufficiency and reducing our use of scarce resources.
But despite the scientific evidence of climate change having been wholly vindicated, continuing scepticism about the need for action prevails and saps political will, both here and elsewhere. The world needs the USA – the largest per capita emitter of CO2 – to sign up to far-reaching reforms, but there is not the slightest indication that they are likely to do so in the near future.
If the largest emitters of global warming gases will not make a commitment to reduce them it is hard for Europe’s politicians to argue that the EU, releasing just 13% of the total, must incur the costs of action alone.
COP16, the next conference of the parties (governments) who have signed the UN’s framework convention on climate change, meets in a few weeks’ time in Cancun, Mexico. After the disappointment of Copenhagen the expectations are low. Hedegaard set out to the European Parliament’s environment committee on Monday (4 October) a very limited set of criteria by which to measure its ‘success’.
“Cancun MUST keep the momentum,” she told MEPs. “If Cancun does not deliver substantial progress it is difficult to see where such progress will be made.”
Gamblers may recognise the need to play even a bad hand with confidence.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Nick, go Dutch!
I like the Dutch. I like the liberal nature of their politics that I am sure will prevail despite the 15% of votes recently won by the anti-Islam ‘Freedom’ Party. I like the impression the Dutch create of having fewer hang-ups than the British. Maybe it’s a consequence of our sanctimonious tabloid press, or an unwillingness here to confront the disproportionate influence of religious extremists, but when it comes to dealing with controversial issues like drugs, prostitution, and medically assisted dying the Dutch are simply more grown up.
Dutch law provides for people suffering unendurably with no hope of recovery to seek medical help to die. Safeguards ensure that all such decisions reflect patients’ free will. Investigations have been made into a few ‘grey area’ cases but no doctor has ever been prosecuted. By contrast, British citizens experiencing great suffering who make the decision to bring forward their time of dying have to travel to Switzerland to seek medical assistance through the Dignitas organisation.
The war on illegal drugs is lost. It has been an expensive failure, and the worldwide cost paid in lives destroyed and honest society undermined has been vastly more damaging than the health effects of the drugs themselves. Debate about replacing prohibition with a regime of licensing and regulation is now firmly on the agenda in the Americas. Dutch policy of permitting the sale of cannabis from authorised outlets has driven a wedge between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. Consumption of all types in the Netherlands is very much less than in the UK.
The ‘oldest profession’ is not going to go away. Prostitution is legal in Britain but if two or more people work together for their mutual protection they face prosecution. Licensing rules might prove problematic for local councillors but brothels should be made legal, as they are in the Netherlands.
Liberal Democrats have progressive policies on these issues and we should use our role in government to place them on the agenda. Nick Clegg is the first Dutch-speaking leader of our party; I look to him to bring some of the no-nonsense pragmatism of his mother’s country to debate here.
Dutch law provides for people suffering unendurably with no hope of recovery to seek medical help to die. Safeguards ensure that all such decisions reflect patients’ free will. Investigations have been made into a few ‘grey area’ cases but no doctor has ever been prosecuted. By contrast, British citizens experiencing great suffering who make the decision to bring forward their time of dying have to travel to Switzerland to seek medical assistance through the Dignitas organisation.
The war on illegal drugs is lost. It has been an expensive failure, and the worldwide cost paid in lives destroyed and honest society undermined has been vastly more damaging than the health effects of the drugs themselves. Debate about replacing prohibition with a regime of licensing and regulation is now firmly on the agenda in the Americas. Dutch policy of permitting the sale of cannabis from authorised outlets has driven a wedge between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. Consumption of all types in the Netherlands is very much less than in the UK.
The ‘oldest profession’ is not going to go away. Prostitution is legal in Britain but if two or more people work together for their mutual protection they face prosecution. Licensing rules might prove problematic for local councillors but brothels should be made legal, as they are in the Netherlands.
Liberal Democrats have progressive policies on these issues and we should use our role in government to place them on the agenda. Nick Clegg is the first Dutch-speaking leader of our party; I look to him to bring some of the no-nonsense pragmatism of his mother’s country to debate here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
