Environment

Leading scientists and economists, including Ross Garnaut, say a world on track for 4C warming will put Australia ‘under assault’

Oliver Milman

Expert says it is 'very likely' that the risk of tuberculosis in cattle has gone up after the cull failed to reach target

The failure of the controversial badger cull in Gloucestershire to come close to its target means it is "very likely" that the risk of tuberculosis in cattle has gone up, not down, according to a leading scientist.

Badger culling is intended to cut bovine TB but the pilot cull in Gloucestershire, despite having been almost doubled in length to 11 weeks, killed just 39% of the badgers estimated to be in the area. The initial target had been a minimum of 70% in a maximum of six weeks.

"It's very likely that so far this cull will have increased the TB risk for cattle inside the Gloucestershire cull zone rather than reducing it," said Prof Rosie Woodroffe, a key member of the team that conducted an earlier, decade-long trial of badger culling.

However, the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, told parliament on Monday that the extended cull had been a success. "The extension in Gloucestershire has been successful in meeting its aim in preparing the ground for a fully effective four-year cull," Paterson said. "The independent panel of experts will now consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease." He said that between January and August 2013, more than 22,500 otherwise healthy cattle had been slaughtered because of bovine TB.

The extended Gloucestershire cull ended on Saturday, three weeks earlier than planned due to very low numbers of badgers being shot. Natural England revoked the extension licence, with the agreement of the culling company and the National Farmers Union (NFU), but licences permitting six-week culls over four years in Gloucestershire and Somerset remain in place.

Prof David Macdonald, a badger expert at Oxford University and lead scientist on the board of Natural England, told the Guardian: "Revoking the licence was the right decision. Those facing this decision at Natural England should be congratulated on their dedication to following the evidence."

Anti-cull campaigners labelled the cull a fiasco and a shambles after the end of the cull was revealed by the Guardian on Friday. Maria Eagle, shadow environment secretary, said: "The decision to revoke this badger cull licence is a humiliation for Owen Paterson and must spell the end for his misguided and unscientific policy. It's clear that the government's continual moving of the goalposts on these culls has rendered them worthless, while risking the further spread of TB, and they should now be abandoned."

The pilot culls were intended to test whether shooting free-running badgers at night could kill sufficient numbers of the animal to reduce TB in cattle herds. An earlier, decade-long trial called the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT) found that culling could after four years curb TB infections by about 16%, but it used the more expensive method of trapping the badgers in cages before shooting them.

The RBCT culls were also carried out quickly – within eight to 11 days – and experts have warned repeatedly that the much longer and less effective current pilots risk actually increasing TB, as fleeing badgers spread the disease more widely, an effect called perturbation. The scientists behind the decade-long trial have called the cull "mindless" and a "costly distraction".

Woodroffe told the Guardian: "The current situation shows the risks of trying to control cattle TB by killing badgers. The 70% target has been revised down again and again, from at least 70%, to hopefully 70%, to 53%, and now we learn that only 39% was achieved."

"Culling low numbers of badgers, over a prolonged period, during these winter months, are all associated with increased TB," she said. "As Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs], Natural England, the NFU, and the farmers themselves consider how to proceed, they can bear in mind two important lessons learned from these pilot culls. First, because cull companies can't kill enough badgers, fast enough, the disease control benefits of this sort of culling are likely to be smaller than Defra estimated. Second, because free shooting didn't work and because there was massive public protest, the costs of culling are much higher than expected."

Woodroffe said the £1m spent on policing just the first six weeks of culling in Gloucestershire could have secured five years of volunteer-led badger vaccination over a similarly large area. "Vaccination by volunteers is cheaper than culling and it also builds bridges between farmers and wildlife lovers, instead of setting them at odds," she said.

Paterson's written statement to parliament said: "I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the pilots in both areas, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority." He added: "Culling is only one part of our approach to tackle the spread of TB. We are using every tool available including tougher movement controls for cattle, better biosecurity on farms and working to develop effective and usable cattle and badger vaccines."

• Badgers
• Wildlife
• Animals
• Bovine tuberculosis
• Rural affairs
• Farming
• Animal welfare

Damian Carrington
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Every year milllions of reptile skins are traded, but illegal activity and a lack of transparency has led to poor management and poor animal welfare standards

The Python Conservation Partnership (PCP) was launched last week by the IUCN/SSC Boa & Python Specialist Group (BPSG), the International Trade Centre (ITC) and the multi-brand group Kering (owner of Gucci, among others). The initiative aims to contribute to the conservation of two of the world's largest snakes; the Reticulated and Burmese pythons.

Over the next three years the BPSG will conduct research and analysis, and provide recommendations on sustainability, transparency, animal welfare and local livelihoods related to the python skin trade worldwide.

But why is this important? Well, let's put this trade into context. Each year, several million reptile skins are traded internationally, half a million of which are from pythons in South East Asia. The primary use of these skins is for luxury leather goods (handbags, shoes) and traditional musical instruments in China, however the meat and gall bladder is also utilised in South East Asia for traditional medicine. Combined, these uses have resulted in increased pressure on python populations.

The trade in pythons is regulated internationally by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and is consequently subjected to controls at the exporting and importing level. However, this has not been enough to guarantee trust in a growing trade, which according to a recent study by the ITC, the Trade in Southeast Asian Python Skins (PDF), involves not less than six countries of the region, hundreds of thousands of hunters and generates about $1bn per year. Despite being a significant industry in its own right, circulation of images and video from python slaughterhouses via the internet has once again thrust this trade into the spotlight.

Despite the increased attention, concerns surrounding this trade are not new. During the 1990s there were warning signs that trade in pythons could negatively impact the conservation of some species. Scientific studies were carried out, reports and recommendations were issued, but little or nothing was actually accomplished. Commitment from the industry was haphazard. Only regional associations participated in the initiative - but none of the major brands followed - and the trade went on with no visible improvements or innovations. This is where the PCP initiative aims to remedy that situation.

Today we know that in spite of the benefits represented by python trade to local communities, there are serious deficiencies in the commercial chain and sourcing, which results in lack of transparency and favours illegal activity. The lack of transparency and the illegal nature of at least part of the trade hinder proper management of pythons at the local level, favour unfair benefit-sharing among stakeholders, and impede the application of better standards for animal handling.

Furthermore, an increasing proportion of python skins in trade are being declared as originating from breeding facilities. However serious reservations have been expressed about the economic and biological viability of these operations. Even though this is not necessarily a matter of survival for South East Asian pythons, which have been exploited for at least eight decades, the current system of utilisation endangers the sustainability of the activity as a whole, and with it the livelihoods of the people who cohabit with them.

The PCP will contribute to addressing these issues with several projects concerning wild harvest, captive breeding, animal health and welfare, and the impact on livelihoods. Over the next 18 months we expect to publish a series of reports that will highlight the findings and recommendations.

Over the next month we will be finalising the first report on the feasibility of captive rearing of pythons. By the end of the first year we propose to have a third report on the livelihood impacts that the python has for local people in South East Asia and a management protocol for ensuring sustainable wild harvests. These documents will provide the data and recommendations for CITES, government authorities and the private sector to begin creating systems for improved monitoring of the trade in terms of sustainability, traceability and animal welfare.

The BPSG faces the challenge of coping with conservation problems for nearly 200 species worldwide. Even though this initiative relates to fewer than 3% of the species within our remit, the approach is innovative and the hope is it will pave the road toward a new paradigm for conservation.

Until now, collaboration by scientists, specialists in international trade and major industry stakeholders to improve wildlife trade has not been accomplished. This is an exciting initiative for all stakeholders and for python conservation. Watch this space!

Tomás Waller is chair of the Boa & Python Specialist Group (BPSG) and a member of International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC)

Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a member of the Guardian Sustainable Business Network to get more stories like this direct to your inbox

• Supply Chain
• Sustainability
• Snakes
• Animal welfare
• Fashion industry

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

At the start of a three-day visit to China on Monday, prime minister David Cameron speaks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing

Oliver Jeffcott: Police fined Alex Paxton for going through a red light because the Advanced Stop Line box was filled by a car

The scale of the elephant poaching epidemic could lead to local populations becoming extinct, an IUCN report says

Africa will lose one-fifth of its elephants in the next decade if the continent's poaching crisis is not stopped, data published on Monday shows.

There were about 10 million African elephants (Loxodonta africana) at the turn of the 20th century, but that number has fallen to half a million due to poaching and habitat loss, and the new figures show 22,000 were killed in 2012. While less than the record 25,000 deaths in 2011, the rate of killing compared to natural population growth means the largest animal on Earth could soon become extinct in local areas, conservationist warn.

John E Scanlon, secretary-general of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), the treaty that protects endangered species, said: "Current elephant poaching in Africa remains far too high, and could soon lead to local extinctions if the present killing rates continue. The situation is particularly acute in central Africa – where the estimated poaching rate is twice the continental average."

Eight men were arrested in the past week in the Democratic Republic of Congo for illegal wildlife trafficking. One of the eight, a 32-year-old Chinese national, was arrested with ivory jewellery while attempting to board a flight. Much of the demand for ivory is driven by China, where a growing middle-class is buying it as a status symbol.

Tom Milliken, ivory trade expert at Traffic, which monitors the illegal wildlife trade, said: "From 2000 through 2013, the number of large-scale ivory movements has steadily grown in terms of the number of such shipments and the quantity of ivory illegally traded. 2013 already represents a 20% increase over the previous peak year in 2011; we're hugely concerned."

The new figures, from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), come as African leaders and ministers meet today in Gaborone, Botswana, to discuss measures to tackle illegal poaching.

Lamine Sebogo, African elephant programme Manager at WWF International, said: "Wildlife crime is a serious global security issue and participation by all countries is required to stop it. In many places improvements are needed in regulation, enforcement, transparency, resourcing and transnational collaboration."

• Illegal wildlife trade
• Endangered species
• Wildlife
• Conservation
• Animals
• Africa

Adam Vaughan
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

How the government measures might work and how your energy bill might fall

The government has anounced a series of measures which it claims will cut household energy bills by an average of £50.

How will the cuts be made?

There are two measures which could save consumers cash:

• The cost of the energy company obligation (Eco), an insulation scheme delivered by major energy suppliers, will be reduced – a move that should shave £30-£35 off bills.

• The Department of Energy & Climate Change (Decc) will offer customers a rebate of £12, payable for the next two years.

• The electricity distribution network companies have volunteered to reduce network costs in 2014/15, which will lop about £5 off electricity bills, which energy suppliers can pass on to their customers as well.

Will my bill fall?

Not necessarily – and if it does, not by as much as it has already risen this year. British Gas has announced it will cut household gas and electricity prices by an average of 3.2%, which is equivalent on average to £41 off the annual dual fuel bill – on top of this its customers will get the £12 rebate. However, it just put prices up by 9.2%, or £107 a year. Also, the cuts will not be implemented until 1 January 2014.

Npower has said it will reduce its prices, but it is still to calculate by how much, while SSE has announced a 4% decrease which will be implemented before the end of March, but it has just put prices up by 8%.

EDF had already factored in the changes to the Eco costs when it announced a 3.9% rise, set to come into force in January, so it will only reduce bills by the £12 offered through the rebate.

Co-operative Energy had done the same, reducing a planned price rise in November, so its customers will see bills reduced by just £12 a year.

Does this mean my bill won't rise next year?

Sadly not. Even npower's pledge not to raise energy prices before spring 2015 came with the caveat "unless there are increases in wholesale energy costs or network charges".

Will the energy companies' profits be reduced?

With the exception of the agreement to reduce distribution costs, the rest of the cuts are being funded by the government, so energy firms' profits are not set to be hit.

Will there still be help to make homes energy efficient?

Yes there will. The energy companies will still be required to help vulnerable households improve their efficiency by offering "easy" measures such as free loft and cavity wall insulation through the Eco. What is being reduced is their obligation to do difficult work like solid wall insulation, although they will still have to provide a minimum of 100,000 homes with this.

There will also be a new payment for homebuyers to fund energy-saving measures when they move into a property.

How will that work?

Details are scant, but if you are buying a property you will be able to claim money to help you make it more energy-efficient. This could be up to £1,000 for measures like insulation, or up to £4,000 for particularly expensive measures like solid wall insulation.

How it will work is to be consulted on – it could be linked to the green deal, or run as a separate scheme. A spokesman for Decc said it is unlikely to come into effect until the next financial year.

• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Consumer affairs
• Utilities
• Energy industry
• Energy

Hilary Osborne
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A stunning time-lapse HD video of an artist at work drawing a beautiful, realistic parrot

Sometimes, watching an artist at work is almost like watching magic happen. A flat surface of paper or canvas is transformed into a three-dimensional picture that looks real. In this case, I was so impressed by Italian artist Marcello Barenghi's drawing of a blue-and-yellow macaw, Ara ararauna, that I had to share the stunning time-lapse video of its creation with you.

The blue-and-yellow macaw -- also known as the blue-and-gold macaw -- is a large parrot with a long pointed tail. These parrots are sapphire blue with lemon yellow underparts, an emerald green forehead, a charcoal black throat and a white face. Blue-and-yellow macaws are large; adults measure between 76 to 86 cm from beak to tail-tip, and weigh between 900 to 1500 grams (2-3.3 pounds).

These parrots live throughout dry woodlands of South America in family groups and loose flocks. Although the blue-and-yellow macaw is nearly extirpated from some areas (Paraguay in particular), it nevertheless is common throughout much of its range, so it is classified as "least concern". Wild blue-and-yellow macaws are protected from capture, trade and hunting under international law.

Wild blue-and-yellow macaws consume a tremendously varied diet of fruits, vegetable material and nuts. Their large beak evolved as a multi-purpose tool that the parrots use to break open the hard shells of nuts, to redecorate nest cavities and they also use it as a "third hand" for climbing.

Although loud and destructive, captive-bred blue-and-yellow macaws are commonly kept in the United States and throughout parts of Europe because, when handled respectfully and often, they make gentle and affectionate pets. They are long-lived, intelligent and trainable and they require a lot of attention and interaction on a daily basis. These parrots can mimic the human voice, although I think they sound like they are shouting rather than chatting.

As promised, here's a time-lapse video of the artist creating a drawing of this parrot species. I particularly enjoy that special moment when the drawing goes from being a flat representation to something more -- when the parrot seems to pop right off the surface. This 3 minutes and 48 seconds long video captures the entire creation process, which the artist says took 3 hours and 52 min to complete:

[Video link]

Illustrator Marcello Barenghi specialises in creating hyperrealistic speed drawings for HD videos. He maintains an extensive website filled with time-lapse videos of him drawing a huge variety of subjects.

GrrlScientist can also be found here: Maniraptora. She's very active on twitter @GrrlScientist and sometimes lurks on social media: facebook, G+, LinkedIn, Pinterest.

• Art
• Birds
• Zoology
• Science
• Animals
• Pets

GrrlScientist
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

British Gas says it will cut average £41 from dual-fuel bills, while Scottish & Southern Energy expects to cut £50

Britain's under-fire energy suppliers have said they will cut household bills after the government confirmed a shakeup of green levies.

British Gas said it would reduce gas and electricity prices by an average of 3.2%, equivalent to £41 from an annual dual-fuel bill, with an extra £12 rebate for the government's warm home discount scheme.

Its rival Scottish & Southern Energy said it expected a saving for the typical dual-fuel customer of around 4% before the end of March, equivalent to a saving of around £50.

The moves come after the chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the costs of some energy-efficiency schemes would be rolled back in this week's autumn statement.

Npower said it did not plan to increase energy prices before spring 2015 unless there were increases in wholesale energy costs or network charges.

The cut in British Gas bills comes two weeks after it raised electricity prices by 10.4% and gas tariffs by 8.4%, adding around £123 to the average annual bill.

British Gas's managing director, Chris Weston, said on Monday: "British Gas is pleased to be cutting energy bills by an average of £53 from 1 January.

"We have been able to do this because the government has committed to making changes to the environmental and social obligations that are paid for through energy bills. These changes will now allow us to help more people at a lower cost."

The government is cutting the cost of the energy company obligation (Eco), an insulation scheme delivered by major energy suppliers, in a move that should shave £30-£35 off bills, on average, next year.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change also announced it was establishing a rebate, saving the average customer £12 on their bill for the next two years.

Electricity companies will also take voluntary action to reduce network costs in 2014-15, funding a one-off reduction of around £5 on electricity bills.

The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said: "Energy bills are a big concern for many people, which is why we've been working to reform the energy market, increase competition and make it easier for people to shop around and switch supplier.

"Today's announcement confirms a serious, workable package which would save households around £50 on average."

• Energy bills
• Utilities
• Household bills
• Energy industry

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Parties to separate fates of Climate Change Authority and Clean Energy Finance Corporation to test 'rationale' for abolishing them

Singer Katy Perry's new album has been adored in some reviews, but one critic is the Australian Department of Agriculture. Seeds included in the CD could pose a threat to the environment there.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

The prime minister returns to parliament on Monday beset by criticism over his broken promise on Gonski, the debt ceiling and the wash up on GrainCorp. Follow the day as it happened

Gabrielle Chan

Guardian News & Media publishes annual sustainability report:  Scott Trust values in a digital age

Christopher Hodgson

Wild Network is urging parents to encourage children to play with nature and the outdoors rather than technology

With sales of tablets, smartphones and gadgets predicted to soar this Christmas, many British households will soon be temples to the latest technology.

But parents are now being asked to consider a low-tech alternative – to root around in the back garden and give their children a stick or a stone instead, in place of the latest smartphone, and to swap "screen time" for "wild time".

The Wild Network (www.projectwildthing.com) wants to drag youngsters off the sofa and get them interested in nature and outdoor play.

The network has therefore drawn up an "alternative Christmas list for kids" that suggests a stick makes a brilliant gift. Sticks, it helpfully suggests for baffled parents, are "easy to pick up, perform a thousand different uses and can be thrown away as easily as you found it. Great for helping with imaginary games, playing Pooh sticks, building things."

Think that may be a tad tricky to wrap? Then what about a smooth stone "which can be skimmed or carved" or a pair of wellington boots for "jumping in puddles, wading through streams, walking along muddy lanes".

A National Trust spokesman said: "Technology has a role to play in all of our lives but so does time spent in nature and playing outdoors – whether that's a local park, green space or a trip to the country."

The Wild Network was founded in September this year and members include the National Trust, Play England, the Scouts, the National Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, Play England, RSPB, NHS Trusts, schools, playgroups, local authorities and outdoor centres. They have all signed up to encourage children to spend time outside.

New research has shown that children spend an average of 4.5 hours a day looking at electronic screens.

• Christmas
• Toys
• Children
• Tablet computers
• iPad
• Computing
• Wildlife
• The National Trust

Rebecca Smithers
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Labour pushes for Lords amendment to energy bill that would cut emissions and close dirtiest plants

Labour will this week urge MPs to vote for tougher controls on Britain's coal-fired power stations forcing them to reduce their emissions and pollution, as new figures show the old-style plants are responsible for 1,600 premature deaths a year. A report from the Health and Environment Alliance has found air pollution from coal plants causes respiratory problems that have a big impact on public health.

The charity released an analysis showing coal pollution leads to health complications resulting in more than 360,000 lost working days each year.

On Wednesday, MPs will vote on a Lords amendment to the energy bill, led by a coalition of Liberal Democrat and Labour peers, which would close a legal loophole and bring old coal-fired power plants under new regulations – in effect, closing them earlier than planned.

Most of the dirtiest coal stations are expected to close anyway under laws to cut pollution. But without a change to the law, those that upgrade to meet these standards could stay open and avoid regulations on cutting carbon emissions.

Genon Jensen, executive director of the Health and Environment Alliance, said bringing the coal stations under new regulations would have huge health benefits. "Rapidly growing evidence of how coal affects air pollution and our health is pushing this issue on to centre stage in the energy debate. Our report has had a great response from energy ministers and health professionals who are increasingly aware that coal is costly for public health. The time is now ripe to bring the health facts and figures into national debates and cost assessments. Wednesday's vote offers a unique opportunity."

Dr Michal Krzyzanowski, visiting professor at King's College London and formerly with the European Centre for Environment & Health (ECEH) of the World Health Organisation, said: "The scientific evidence that air pollution causes disease is no longer in doubt. Ambient air pollution is recognised as a leading determinant of health globally and in western Europe – and coal combustion is an important source of this pollution. Energy policy must seriously consider the significant health costs resulting from the use of coal."

Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the costs to health from coal power were "among the largest of any form of electricity production".

"The costs of reducing greenhouse gases by reducing coal-powered generation would be partially paid back because of lower health costs," he said.

Environmental groups urged MPs to vote for the Lords amendment. Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, said coal power stations "cost the economy and our health service billions of pounds. If the amendment is voted down in the Commons on Wednesday, it could leave much of the UK's power coming from ageing coal plants for years to come – that will critically damage the health of thousands of people and harm the environment ." But Lady Verma, energy minister, warned the amendment could undermine the country's energy security and increase fuel prices.

"The government's goal is an orderly transition away from coal to lower carbon fuels over time in a way which was does not create unnecessary costs for consumers."

• Coal
• Pollution
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Green politics
• Labour
• House of Lords
• Energy industry

Rowena Mason
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Forensic analysis fits description given by Young's mates, who bravely struggled with shark when it attacked

Industry minister Ian Macfarlane ‘doesn’t have a clue’ about the impact of CSG extraction, says former independent MP

Oliver Milman

The prime minister has come out against shark culls owing to the difficulty of pinpointing which creature launched the attack

Helen Davidson

MPs urge coalition to be honest about oil, gas and nuclear subsidies and restate commitment to end fuel poverty

The government has been urged to be more honest about the levels of subsidies given to oil and gas producers and the companies who will build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

A parliamentary watchdog argued on Monday that ministers should admit they are already providing £12bn of annual subsidies to fossil fuel operations and windfarms while lining up more support for shale gas and nuclear.

The environmental audit committee (EAC) said subsidies to oil and other carbon fuels should be scaled back because of the impact on global warming, and also urged ministers to restate a previous commitment to ending fuel poverty.

A report on energy subsidies just published by the committee says the chancellor's autumn statement later this week is an ideal chance to provide a "clear and comprehensive analysis of energy subsidies in the UK".

The report says such a move would bring much needed transparency and provide a basis for an overdue debate on the rationale and justifications for providing public money to support the energy sector.

"At the Rio+20 [climate change] summit and the G20, the government committed itself to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions," said MP Joan Walley, chair of the EAC. "The government must set a target to reduce subsidies to harmful fossil fuels."

The lower rate of VAT on domestic and business fuel bills – 5% as opposed to the standard 20% – is also effectively a hidden subsidy, as are field allowances for North Sea oil and gas despite government claims to the contrary, said the EAC.

The committee also believes the public commitment to capacity payments to encourage energy companies to build new gas-fired power stations are a subsidy.

But its biggest criticism is over ministers' insistence that the deal agreed by the Treasury and EDF to fund the construction of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset is not a subsidy.

"New nuclear is being subsidised and the coalition should come clean and admit it," said Walley. "The government cannot escape that clear fact by talking about 'support mechanisms' and 'insurance policies' instead of 'subsidies'."

The EAC report was informed by a detailed paper on energy subsidies in the UK commissioned by the committee from William Blyth of Oxford Energy Associates, an independent consultancy.

Last week Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive and a government adviser, called the Hinkley deal "very, very expensive". He said giving more state subsidies to oil and gas than to renewable energy was "like running both the heating and the air conditioning at the same time".

The EAC is also wary about government moves to switch the ECO energy efficiency scheme from household bills to general taxation and particularly its switch in method for counting those in fuel poverty.

Walley said: "The government is shifting the goalposts on fuel poverty so that official statistics record far fewer households as fuel-poor. The changes to the fuel poverty definition and target, in part being made through amendments to the energy bill, should be stopped unless the government is prepared to make a public commitment to end fuel poverty altogether."

She added: "A short-term bid to cut bills must not throw energy and climate change policy off course.

"In the longer term green levies could actually keep bills down if they drive energy efficiency improvements that cut the cost of heating our homes.

"Insulating homes and supporting green technologies is vital to help the fuel-poor and cut the emissions causing climate change."

Friends of the Earth agreed with the committee's findings. "MPs are spot on. The only way to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty and rocketing energy bills is through a well-funded programme of insulation and not handouts for oil barons and fracking firms, under a veil of green-bashing," said David Powell, FoE's economics campaigner.

"It's astonishing that the chancellor is preparing to slash funding to insulate the homes of the poorest in society, while throwing billions of pounds of tax breaks at oil and gas firms to keep the nation hooked on increasingly costly fossil fuels.

"There are good subsidies, and extremely bad ones – government funding should be targeted at energy efficiency and renewables and building a low-carbon power system we can all afford."

• Oil and gas companies
• Energy industry
• Nuclear power
• Fossil fuels
• Fuel poverty
• Energy
• Gas
• Oil
• Commodities
• Utilities
• Oil
• Gas
• George Osborne
• Energy bills
• Poverty

Terry Macalister
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Originally published in the Manchester Guardian on 5 December 1913

The roaring wind worked hard last night; it stripped the tattered remnants from the hedgerows and smashed the weaker, sapless twigs from the trees; it whirled the clustered ash-keys into space. Wind is more awe-inspiring, sounds more vindictively destructive in the dark than in the light. Then came a strange lull and impressive hush, and we looked out this morning upon the transformed world; the winter snow had come. The thaw followed quickly, and the peewits, fieldfares, and redwings soon found damp, bare spots where food was to be found; the tits and dunnocks discovered the insects which had been driven into shelter by wind rather than cold, and the autumn seed stores for the finches were soon available. Famine does not immediately follow the first fall of snow. There are limitations to the intelligence of insects. The winter gnats and small flies have sense enough to discover holes in which they can shelter from the wind, rain, or snow, though we cannot tell how they find them. They do not, at any rate, take into consideration the fact that their natural foes can also see and investigate holes. A pair of blue tits this morning were thoroughly enjoying the short-sighted policy of the sheltering insects which had selected one large hollow and were slumbering on its dry roof. The tits did not even enter; they could reach the food by hanging from the lip, and the ecstatic movements of the their short but expressive tails indicated their enjoyment.

• Rural affairs
• Birds
• Insects

Thomas Coward
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds