# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (residency basis) by the transport industry sector increased by just over 5% between 2017 and 2018.

There were reductions in GHG emissions by the energy supply and manufacturing sectors between 2017 and 2018 of around 4% and 2% respectively.

The air transport industry accounted for just over 8% of the UK's total GHG emissions in 2018.

Emissions from all road transport accounted for around one-fifth of total UK GHG emissions in 2018.

Over two-thirds of environmental tax revenue in 2018 related to road transport, with just under 8% relating to tax on air transport.

Estimates in this bulletin are based on a residency basis and all sectors and industries mentioned relate to those defined under the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007.

Back to table of contents

2. Greenhouse gas emissions

The transport sector accounted for 15% of total UK GHG emissions in 2018

Between 2017 and 2018, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) ( residency basis) by the transport sector ¹ increased by just over 5%, mainly because of an increase in emissions from aviation ². This increase offset reductions in GHG emissions by the energy supply ³ and manufacturing sectors, which fell by just over 4% and 2% respectively. This meant that GHG emissions remained relatively stable between 2017 and 2018, at 564 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Despite a slight increase between 2017 and 2018, GHG emissions have steadily declined since 1990 and were almost a third lower in 2018 than in 1990. This reduction is largely because of a switch from the use of coal and heavy-polluting fuels by the energy supply and manufacturing industries to other, more efficient, fuels such as natural gas and, more recently, renewable sources. More details on this can be found in previous Environmental accounts bulletins.

The transport sector and households ⁴ have not seen the same decline in GHG emissions as the manufacturing and energy supply sectors, making them more important in the overall level of GHG emissions. Since 2015, households have been the largest emitters of GHGs, accounting for over a quarter of total emissions in 2018. The transport sector represented 15% of the UK's total GHG emissions in 2018, compared with around 8% in 1990.

There are several ways of calculating greenhouse gas emissions, which can impact on the estimates. An explanation of the differences and uses can be found in the article Net zero and the different official measures of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The air emissions bridging table illustrates the difference between these estimates.

Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions by the transport sector rose almost 30% between 1990 and 2018

Greenhouse gas emissions for the four highest-emitting industries, including households, UK, 1990 to 2018

Source: Office for National Statistics - UK Environmental Accounts

Notes:

1. Industry aggregations are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007. Households include "consumer expenditure" and "activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods and services - producing activities of households for own use" (for example, employing a cleaner and growing vegetables for your own consumption). The electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply sector is referred to as the energy supply sector. The transport and storage sector is referred to as the transport sector.

2. Greenhouse gas emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).

3. The potential of each greenhouse gas to cause global warming is assessed in relation to a given weight of CO2 so all greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Download this chart

The air transport industry accounted for around 8% of UK's total GHG emissions in 2018

There was a steady increase in GHG emissions by the transport sector between 1990 and 2005. Despite a gradual decline after 2005, emissions from the transport sector started rising again from 2013. Although still below their 2005 peak, GHG emissions by the transport sector in 2018 were almost 30% above 1990 levels.

These changes in emissions have largely been because of changes in the consumption of fuel oil used in aviation and shipping. In the UK Environmental Accounts, emissions from international aviation and shipping relating to UK operators are included. These are excluded from the data compiled for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) purposes.

From 1990 to 2018, aviation fuel use in the UK increased by 93%. In the same period, emissions from the air transport industry have more than doubled (Figure 2). In 2018, the air transport industry was responsible for over half (54%) of all GHG emissions by the transport sector and accounted for 8% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions. UK-registered airlines flew over 2.2 billion kilometres in 2018 (XLS, 18KB). This distance has been increasing since 2010, when UK-registered airlines flew around 1.7 billion kilometres.

Following a ban on all non-essential travel as part of the UK's lockdown to help contain the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, EUROCONTROL report that air traffic in the UK during April and May 2020 has fallen on average 90% compared with the same time the previous year. We plan to undertake future analysis of the impact this reduction in travel may have had when 2020 environmental accounts data are available.

Emissions from the water transport industry peaked in 2002. Although year-on-year emissions for this industry fluctuate because of changes in fuel consumption, there has been a general decline since then. Despite a sharp rise between 2017 and 2018 (19%), because of an increase in the use of fuel oil, 2018 emissions were around 38% lower than in 1990. Global energy efficiency and GHG standards for shipping have been set by the International Maritime Organisation and are currently being reviewed.

Further information can be found in the Energy use and Atmospheric Emissions datasets released with this bulletin.

Figure 2: Greenhouse gas emissions from the air transport industry more than doubled between 1990 and 2018

Greenhouse gas emissions for industries within the transport sector, UK, 1990 to 2018

Source: Ricardo Energy and Environment, Office for National Statistics - UK Environmental Accounts

Notes:

1. Industry aggregations are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007. Taxis, buses, coaches and other public urban transport not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.) relates to the "Buses, coaches, trams and similar public urban transport n.e.c" and "taxis and other renting of private cars with driver" industries combined. Rail, underground and metro is the "rail transport" and "underground, metro other non interurban rail services" combined. Other is all other industries in section H, found in the Atmospheric Emissions: Greenhouse Gases by Industry and Gas dataset.

2. Greenhouse gas emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).

3. The potential of each greenhouse gas to cause global warming is assessed in relation to a given weight of CO2 so all greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Download this chart

Around 46% of GHG emissions by households related to travel in 2018

Fluctuations in GHG emissions by households tend to be explained by temperature, as households consume more or less energy depending on the weather. However, around 46% of GHG emissions by households in 2018 related to travel, mostly from domestic car use. This equated to 67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, almost 12% of the UK's total GHG emissions in 2018.

The increasing number of cars (PDF, 410KB), the majority of which are registered to households, may help explain why energy consumption and GHG emissions by households have not been falling. While the number of alternative fuel cars has been increasing in the UK, at the end of 2019 there were around 795,000, or 2.4% of all licensed cars (XLS, 29KB).

On 23 March 2020, the UK announced a lockdown to help contain the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This included a ban on non-essential travel in the UK. It led to an immediate decrease in the usage of all types of transport. Road traffic fell dramatically, with car use reaching lows of 22% in April, although there has been a gradual rise to 51% on 15 May (XLSX, 283KB) as rules have started to relax. We plan to undertake future analysis of the impact this reduction in travel may have had when 2020 environmental accounts data are available.

Further information on energy use by households can be found in the Energy use and Atmospheric emissions datasets released with this bulletin.

GHG emissions from road transport by all industries and households accounted for one-fifth of total GHG emissions in 2018

While the environmental accounts focus on energy use and emissions by sector and industry, it is also useful to consider certain types of emissions across all industries. GHG emissions from road transport by all industries and households were stable between 2017 and 2018, at 118 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This was almost 6% higher than in 1990 and represented around one-fifth of total UK GHG emissions in 2018.

Emissions from the majority of other pollutants from road transport have been falling, largely because of more stringent emissions standards.

Information on emissions related to road transport can be found in the Atmospheric emissions: road transport dataset.

Notes for: Greenhouse gas emissions

1. The transport sector refers to the transport and storage industry section as defined under the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007. Emissions relate to this sector rather than all emissions related to transport.

2. In the UK Environmental Accounts, emissions from international aviation and shipping relating to UK operators are included. These are excluded from the data compiled for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) purposes.

3. The Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply industry section is referred to as the energy supply sector.

4. Households include "consumer expenditure" and "activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods and services - producing activities of households for own use" (for example, employing a cleaner and growing vegetables for your own consumption).

Back to table of contents

Over two-thirds of environmental tax revenue in 2018 related to road transport

Environmental taxes are designed to promote environmentally positive behaviour, reduce damaging effects on the environment and generate revenue that can potentially be used to promote further environmental protection. In 2019, revenue from environmentally-related taxes stood at £51.6 billion, equivalent to 6.9% of total taxes and social contributions and 2.3% of the UK's gross domestic product (GDP).

Up to 68% of environmental tax paid in 2018 related to road transport. These include indirect taxes like Fuel Duty as well as direct taxes like Vehicle Tax.

The largest single contributor to revenue from environmental taxes is Hydrocarbon Oil Duty, also known as Fuel Duty. This tax covers petrol and diesel fuels despite being classified as an energy tax. In 2019, Fuel Duty accounted for 54% of total revenue from all environmental taxes, equivalent to £27 billion.

Transport taxes consist mainly of taxes related to the ownership and use of motor vehicles, although taxes on other transport and related transport services are also included. In 2019, revenue from transport taxes was £12.4 billion, 24% of all environmental tax revenue. The majority of this (£7.2 billion) was from tax on motor vehicles.

Figure 3: Motorists, including commercial motorists, paid two-thirds of environmental taxes in 2019

Environmental tax revenue by type, UK, 2019

Source: Office for National Statistics - UK Environmental Accounts

Notes:

1. Fuel duty is tax on hydrocarbon oils and includes petrol, diesel and other fuels used for transport or heating. It is classed as an energy tax.

2. Transport tax on motor vehicles includes Vehicle Registration Tax, motor vehicle duties paid by household and business, and Northern Ireland Driver Vehicle Agency.

3. Other transport taxes include Air Passenger Duty, Air Travel Operators Tax, and Rail Franchise Premia.

4. Other environmental taxes include pollution/resource taxes and energy taxes except fuel duty.

Download this chart

Motor vehicle taxes paid by households accounted for over two-thirds of total transport tax revenue in 2019

Looking at individual transport taxes, motor vehicle taxes paid by households accounted for 37% of total transport tax revenue in 2019. Motor vehicle duties are also known as Vehicle Excise Duty, this is payable annually by owners of most types of vehicles. The drop in revenue in 2001 was likely because of changes to taxes relating to road transport. Fuel tax for road vehicles was reduced following national protests, and during the same year there was also a change from taxing based on engine size to fuel type and carbon dioxide emissions, further reducing tax revenue.

Air taxes accounted for 31% of total transport taxes in 2019, and around 8% of all environmental taxes. Air Passenger Duty (APD) is levied on passenger flights from UK airports and is chargeable per passenger. The rate doubled in 2007 to £10 for flights to Europe and £20 for flights to the rest of the world.

Figure 4: Environmental transport taxes generated £12.4 billion in tax revenue in 2019

Environmental transport tax revenue, UK, 1997 to 2019

Source: Office for National Statistics - UK Environmental Accounts

Notes:

1. The chart shows government revenue from environmental transport taxes from 1997 to 2019. Data are available from other types of environmental tax in the Environmental taxes dataset.

2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest billion.

3. Road fuel tax was cut in 2001 following national protests.

4. Air Passenger Duty rates doubled in 2007.

Download this chart

Back to table of contents

Greenhouse gas

The greenhouse gases included in the atmospheric emissions accounts are those covered by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). These gases are widely believed to contribute to global warming and climate change. The potential of each greenhouse gas to cause global warming is assessed in relation to a given weight of CO2 so all greenhouse gas emissions are measured as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Residency basis

Estimates compiled on a residency basis include data relating to UK residents and UK-registered businesses, regardless of whether they are in the UK or overseas. Data relating to foreign visitors and foreign businesses in the UK are excluded.

Territory basis

Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions compiled on a territory basis include emissions within UK borders. UK air emissions statistics on a territory basis are published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Environmental taxes

Environmental taxes are taxes designed to promote environmentally positive behaviour, reduce damaging effects on the environment and generate revenue that can potentially be used to promote further environmental protection. They are defined as a tax whose base is a physical unit such as a litre of petrol, or a proxy for it, for instance a passenger flight, that has a proven specific negative impact on the environment.
Back to table of contents

The UK Environmental Accounts are "satellite accounts" to the main UK National Accounts and they are compiled in accordance with the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA), which closely follows the UN System of National Accounts (SNA). This means they are comparable with economic indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP). They cover topic areas including energy use, air emissions, material flows, environmental protection expenditure and environmental taxes.

Air emissions

The air and energy accounts in the UK Environmental Accounts are compiled by Ricardo Energy and Environment on behalf of the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The main source of information for this reporting is the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI). The NAEI is maintained by Ricardo Energy and Environment on behalf of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). These data sources provide air emissions data, calculated from activity data and emission factors, for all relevant sources in the UK as a starting point for generating the air emissions accounts. The residence principle is then applied to these datasets thereby apportioning the emissions to an industrial classification based on Standard Industrial Classification: SIC 2007.

More quality and methodology information on strengths, limitations, appropriate uses, and how the data were created is available in the Environmental accounts air emissions QMI.

Revisions are made to the environmental accounts estimates of GHG and energy consumption every year, resulting from changes to the underlying data or methodological improvements. Estimates of emissions for a given year may differ from estimates of emissions for the same year reported previously.

For the 2018 datasets, revisions caused by updates to estimates used in their calculations included:

various revisions to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics data for 2016 to 2017, for example, industrial coal combustion, domestic natural gas combustion and aviation fuel use

major revisions to supply-use tables, following incorporation of data from the Annual Purchases Survey

Methodological improvements have also impacted on the figures. The main one of these was the inclusion of Annual Purchases Survey data, in combination with or replacing Purchases Inquiry survey data, as a basis for road-transport, non-road mobile machinery and commercial stationary combustion.

The cumulative impact of these and other smaller changes on the headline figures can be seen in Table 1, which shows the differences between estimates published in UK Environmental Accounts in 2019 and 2020. The June 2019 release was to provide provisional estimates of 2018 GHG emissions and the series was not revised, hence why there is no difference between published figures in 2019 releases.

Taxes

Most taxes in the UK are collected by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC provide monthly data to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) detailing each individual tax collected and the amount of revenue associated with that tax.

Environmental taxes data have been compiled by the ONS from 1997 to 2018. Some taxes were introduced and/or collected at different times throughout the time series.

An environmental tax is defined as a tax whose base is a physical unit such as a litre of petrol, or a proxy for it, for instance a passenger flight, that has a proven specific negative impact on the environment.

Measures of environmental taxes should be interpreted and used with care. In particular, the levels of revenues from environmental taxes do not necessarily indicate the relative importance or the success of environmental policy. High environmental tax revenues can result either from high rates of taxes or from high levels of environmental problems (for example, pollution), leading to a large tax base. The broad measure of revenues can also fail to capture the effect of the differential rates that encourage a shift away from higher-impact behaviour (such as the use of leaded petrol).

Further information is available in the Quality and Methodology Information report.

Quality

Other methodology documents relating to the compilation of the environmental accounts can be obtained.
Back to table of contents

7. Strengths and limitations

Air emissions and energy accounts

The UK is required to report its air emissions to fulfil a range of international agreements. In addition to measures compiled in accordance with the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are required to fulfil reporting obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and for the Kyoto Protocol. While this variety of estimates is potentially confusing for users, the figures are released alongside "bridging tables", which explain the differences between the reporting used for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) air accounts and for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and UNFCCC.

One of the main differences relates to whether estimates are on a territory basis or residency basis. ONS air emissions are on a residency basis. This means that whilst the majority of air emissions will be released into the UK environment, some emissions from UK-resident economic units will be released into the environment of the rest of the world. Air emission accounts for the UK exclude emissions released here by tourists and foreign transport operations and include the emissions of UK residents abroad.

UK air emissions statistics on a territory basis are published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Estimates of the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can also be calculated on a consumption basis. These are often known as a carbon footprint and for the UK they are published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). They provide estimates of UK GHG emissions based on the consumption of all goods and services by households within the UK. They include estimates of emissions associated with each stage of the supply chain for those goods and services, irrelevant of whether or not their production process occurs within the UK. They therefore include emissions associated with what the UK imports but exclude emissions associated with UK exports.
Back to table of contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Environmental Accounts - Office for National Statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (residency basis) by the transport industry sector increased by just over 5% between 2017 and 2018. There were reductions in GHG emissions by the energy supply and manufacturing sectors between 2017 and 2018 of around 4% and 2% respectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The popular notion that the COVID-19 pandemic has been "good for the environment"-that nature is recovering while humanity stays at home- appeals to many people grasping for some upside to the global tragedy. Reality, though, may not cooperate with such hopes.

The benefits many found heartening early on-from cleaner air to birdsong newly audible as cars and planes went quiet-were always likely to be temporary. And with lockdowns easing, they have already begun to dissipate. Now, some experts fear that the world risks a future with more traffic, more pollution, and climate change that worsens faster than ever. It's too soon to know whether that gloomy scenario will play out, but concerning signs seem to be growing all around the world.

In early April, with shutdowns widespread, daily global carbon emissions were down by 17 percent compared to last year. But as of June 11, new data show that they are only about 5 percent lower than at the same point in 2019, even though normal activity has not yet fully restarted.

"We still have the same cars, the same roads, the same industries, same houses," says Corinne Le Quéré, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia in Britain and lead author of the original study and subsequent update. "So as soon as the restrictions are released, we go right back to where we were."

Now, "the risk is very high" that carbon output could surge past pre-pandemic levels, she says, "especially since we've done it in the past, not very long ago." During the 2007-08 financial crisis, emissions dropped but then bounced back.

Hints of a dirty recovery in China

As the first country to shut down when the virus hit, and one of the earliest to start reopening, China's experience offers a preview of what could be in store elsewhere. The dramatic air quality improvements seen as manufacturing and transportation largely came to a halt in February and March have now vanished.

As factories pushed to make up for lost time, pollution returned in early May to pre-coronavirus levels, and in some places surpassed them for a short time, although it's fallen back a bit since. Meanwhile, provincial officials desperate for the economic boost that comes with any construction are giving the go-ahead to a raft of new coal-fired power plants, says Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Helsinki-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which reported the pollution data from China. That will lock in big future health and climate problems if the new plants go forward, since such infrastructure tends to be used for many years, experts warn.

"Suddenly a lot more permits are being handed out," says Myllyvirta. If the world is to avoid the most catastrophic climate scenarios, China must ramp up its investment in clean energy, not coal, he says. "So that is very alarming." ( See how your location's climate could change by 2070.)

Polluters 'bolder than ever'

In the midst of the pandemic and resulting economic implosion, industries such as fossil fuels, plastics, airlines, and automobiles have been scrambling for advantage. Some governments-particularly the United States'-are acceding to companies' pleas for cash, regulatory rollbacks, and other special favors.

"There's a serious risk that polluters could emerge from this crisis bolder and potentially more profitable than ever," says Lukas Ross, a senior policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, an advocacy group.

One industry raking in a great deal of cash is oil and gas. Companies' aggressive lobbying is winning them billions of dollars in public funds intended to ease the pandemic's economic damage, says Ross, who's written two reports on those efforts.

The aid has included tax changes that benefit the industry, breaks on the royalties companies pay to drill or mine on public lands, and access to the Federal Reserve's $600-billion Main Street Lending program. That program "has already been modified specifically along the lines the oil and gas industry requested," Ross says.

The fracking industry, which has been bleeding cash for years, is among those pleading for help. "Which means not just a risk to the climate in propping up these failing companies, but also to taxpayers who are being asked to bear the risk of bailing them out," he says.

The American Petroleum Institute says the oil and gas companies it represents have not sought special favors, but are drawing on programs designed to help all sectors weather the economic storm. Tax changes and lending initiatives "apply to all businesses-from manufacturers and retailers to restaurants and energy producers-experiencing financial hardship," says Scott Lauermann, a spokesperson for the group.

But the financial support comes on top of the aggressive regulatory rollbacks the Trump Administration has continued to push forward during the pandemic. Among many other moves, the administration has effectively suspended enforcement of air and water pollution regulations, curtailed states' ability to block energy projects, and suspended a requirement for environmental review and public input on new mines, pipelines, highways, and other projects.

"Throughout April, honestly, it became almost a full-time job" to keep up with all the giveaways to industry, says Amy Westervelt, a journalist and host of the podcast Drilled, who has been tracking them.

The administration might have sought many of the changes anyway, but "what we're seeing is just way less pushback than they would have gotten" had the pandemic not been absorbing most attention, she says.

Another worry is traffic. With social distancing hard to maintain on public transportation, and many travelers likely to avoid it out of fear of contracting the virus, cities could be headed for a post-shutdown "carpocalypse," as one transportation news site warns.

In China, traffic is back to pre-pandemic levels, even though many people have yet to resume commuting and traveling, Myllyvirta says. And while cities around the world are rushing to expand bike lanes to manage the shift away from subways, trains, and buses, "whether those are going to be anywhere near enough is a big question mark," he says.

Free-for-all in the Amazon

In Brazil, illegal loggers have accelerated their destruction of the Amazon rainforest while the coronavirus ravages the nation. According to satellite data from the space research agency INPE, 64 percent more land was cleared in April 2020 than in the same month last year-even though 2019 was the biggest year for deforestation in more than a decade.

President Jair Bolsonaro has long advocated more commercial exploitation of the Amazon. In recent months illegal loggers, miners, and ranchers have faced little hindrance from law enforcement as they grab public land.

"You can do whatever you want in the Amazon and you won't be punished," says Ane Alencar, director of science at IPAM Amazônia, a scientific nonprofit. Officials are using the pandemic "as a smokescreen, a distraction," to allow the destruction to go ahead.

The Amazon, including its indigenous population, is among the worst hit by COVID-19 in a country that has become a global epicenter for the disease. Now, its two crises are threatening to converge. Cleared vegetation is typically set alight starting in July, after it has dried, and the resulting thick smoke causes heart and lung problems to spike.

Last year's fires were devastating, but this time around-with so much vegetation already cut and waiting to be burned, and a respiratory illness running rampant-the perils are greater still. On top of the climate impacts of rainforest loss, the smoke could aggravate COVID-19 patients' suffering, and further increase pressure on hospitals already struggling to cope with the pandemic, Alencar says.

'What will their priorities be?'

Even in places such as Europe, where leaders are not pushing wholesale repeal of environmental rules, the still-unfolding health and economic crises could pull leaders' attention away from the slower-moving disaster of climate change, which had finally been moving up the political agenda last year as youth strikes drove home its urgency, says Åsa Persson, research director at the Stockholm Environment Institute.

"What will their priorities be?" she asks: Will governments seek to shore up the economy by bolstering old, polluting industries, or embrace calls for a "green stimulus" and use recovery funds to create jobs in sectors such as clean power and energy efficiency?

Allocating those vast sums in a way that moves the world toward a low-carbon future-and also addresses the racial and economic inequalities the pandemic has laid bare-would yield far more than a few months of reduced emissions, Ross argues.

"We're not going to get another shot at this," he says. "We cannot afford to rebuild into the old status quo."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why COVID-19 will end up harming the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though the air has been cleaner as a result of the global lockdowns, a more polluted future has been brewing while we weren't looking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"There is a hugely important connection between the products we buy and their wider environmental footprint, which is why the government is consulting today on new measures that would make it illegal for businesses in the UK to use commodities that are not grown in accordance with local laws," said international environment minister Lord Goldsmith.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: New UK law to curb deforestation in supply chains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"There is a hugely important connection between the products we buy and their wider environmental footprint, which is why the government is consulting today on new measures that would make it illegal for businesses in the UK to use commodities that are not grown in accordance with local laws," said international environment minister Lord Goldsmith.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The EU has begun legal proceedings against the UK after it refused to ditch plans to override sections of its Brexit divorce deal.

An EU deadline for the government to remove sections of the Internal Market Bill expired on Wednesday.

The "letter of formal notice" could eventually lead to a court case against the UK at the European Court of Justice, the EU's top court.

But the EU has not walked away from talks over a post-Brexit trade deal.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the UK would have until the end of November to respond to the EU's concerns over the draft legislation.

UK-EU trade talks are continuing in Brussels this week. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said both sides should "move on" if a deal was not reached by mid-October.

In a brief statement, Mrs von der Leyen said the bill was a "full contradiction" of previous UK commitments over how a hard border on the island of Ireland should be avoided.

She added that the bill was by its "very nature a breach of the obligation of good faith" contained in the withdrawal agreement that took the UK out of the EU in January.

A spokesperson for the UK government said the bill was a necessary "safety net" to protect trade between different parts of the UK.

They added the government would respond the EU's letter "in due course".

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte appeared to play down the importance of the Commission's letter, calling the move "more administrative than political".

What powers does the EU have?

Analysis by Nick Beake, BBC Brussels Correspondent

Although the headline is dramatic, this was the EU's next logical step.

When it fired the UK an ultimatum to scrap the most controversial parts of the Internal Market Bill by the end of September, it knew it would likely have to follow up on its threat. And now it has.

But any legal path is long and unpredictable - with no resolution likely to come before the UK's transition period ends on 31 December.

The legal advice given to the EU member states has been that for any alleged breach of the withdrawal agreement committed in 2020, they would have a further four years to pursue the UK.

For any alleged breach committed after the transition period, the EU could use the dispute settlement mechanism (which both sides agreed to in the agreement) to penalise and fine the UK.

Or, it could ask the European Court of Justice to do the same. But this is drawn out legal territory.

It seems the latest legal development will not torpedo the ongoing trade talks - for now.

Both sides insist they do want a deal within the coming weeks, but the EU says it won't sign one off, as long as the UK's bill remains as it is.

The EU and the UK are now trying to walk two tightropes. And it's precarious balancing act.

One route leads to a trade deal, the other to an ugly court battle.

But both sides are looking dead ahead, and neither want to blink first.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called for both the UK and EU to work together over trade differences, adding: "A deal can be done here".

"It's absurd that with weeks to go, the focus and the energy is not on their negotiations, it's on threatened court proceedings," he added.

MPs gave their final backing to the Internal Market Bill earlier this week. However, it will have to be approved by the House of Lords before it becomes law.

In a bid to head off a potential rebellion from Tory backbenchers, ministers have granted the Commons a say before powers to override the Brexit divorce deal could be used.

The letter sent to the UK is the first stage in the process the Commission uses against countries it believes have broken EU law.

It can end with the Commission taking governments to court at the European Court of Justice.

The ECJ continues to have powers over the UK during the transition period, including over the interpretation and implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

The court has powers to force countries to comply with its rulings, including imposing financial penalties.

However, most cases are settled before then - and it can take many years for a case to move through the court.

What is the Internal Market Bill?

The bill sets out rules for the operation of the UK internal market - trade between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - after the end of the Brexit transition period in January.

No new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain

Giving UK ministers powers to modify or "disapply" rules relating to the movement of goods that will come into force from 1 January if the UK and EU are unable to reach an alternative agreement through a trade deal

Powers to override previously agreed obligations on state aid - government support for businesses.

The bill explicitly states that these powers should apply even if they are incompatible with international law.

Ministers say the legislation is needed to prevent "damaging" tariffs on goods travelling from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland if negotiations with the EU on a free trade agreement fail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: EU starts legal action against UK over deal breach plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The EU has begun legal proceedings against the UK after it refused to ditch plans to override sections of its Brexit divorce deal. An EU deadline for the government to remove sections of the Internal Market Bill expired on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a marked departure from previous hands-off policy, Facebook will ban ads that discourage people from getting vaccinated. Facebook already bans ads spreading vaccine misinformation but did allow ads expressing opposition to vaccines if they did not contain false claims. That loophole will now be closed to avoid undermining a flu vaccination public health campaign.

Facebook takes a tougher line on anti-vaxxers

Facebook is getting tougher on fringe campaigners working to undermine the use of medical vaccinations.

The social network has announced an outright ban on ads which discourage people from getting inoculated, but has stopped short of silencing anti-vaxxers and related conspiracy theorists entirely.

As such, anti-vaccine content and debate will still be permitted within individual news feeds and broader groups.

The toughened stance extends a prior ban on adverts touting vaccine hoaxes and is expected to be backed up by stringent enforcement within a matter of days.

The volte-face amounts to a U-turn from chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, who has previously positioned himself as a champion of free speech.

Facebook makes a clear distinction between paid-for content and user-generated content, arguing that it holds the responsibility to manage adverts while individuals are best placed to curate what appears on their news feeds.

Why it matters

Medical misinformation is running rampant online - despite the majority of anti-vaccine adverts being traced to just two individuals.

Such messaging has raised glaring brand safety issues for companies operating within Facebook's walled garden, with numerous companies finding themselves inadvertently associated with conspiracy theories.

Facebook has also faced mounting pressure from governments and public health groups to act against misinformation, especially anti-vaccine and Holocaust denial content.

Zuckerberg finally agreed to ban content denying or distorting the facts of the Holocaust on Monday, after being presented with ' data showing an increase in antisemitic violence '.

Facebook has also been busy banning content from QAnon conspiracy theorists, while also blocking political ads from 3 November to prevent the spread of misinformation following the US presidential election.

The network is also promoting vaccinations for established flu strains and is working with the World Health Organization (WHO) and Unicef.

// Featured in this article

Find out more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook to ban anti-vaxxer ads, but not related content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a marked departure from previous hands-off policy, Facebook will ban ads that discourage people from getting vaccinated. Facebook already bans ads spreading vaccine misinformation but did allow ads expressing opposition to vaccines if they did not contain false claims. That loophole will now be closed to avoid undermining a flu vaccination public health campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The cyberattack occurred on June 22nd, 2018, according to the ICO, but British Airways only became aware of the problem on September 5th when it was alerted by someone outside of the company.

Hackers managed to gain access to details on 429,612 customers and staff of the airline. Sensitive information including the names, addresses, payment card numbers and CVV numbers of 244,000 customers were caught up in the data breach.

The financial information stolen in the hack could have allowed criminals to make fraudulent purchases using customers' cards. Combined sets of credit card numbers and CVV numbers of 77,000 customers were stolen. It is thought around 108,000 customers had only their card numbers stolen in the breach.

Hackers broke into the airline's database by using a stolen password to move between different parts of the airline's computer network.

The hackers managed to find an administrator password stored without encryption on the airline's network which game them greater access, according to the ICO's penalty notice issued to British Airways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British Airways fined £20m for data breach affecting 400,000 customers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cyberattack occurred on June 22nd, 2018, according to the ICO, but British Airways only became aware of the problem on September 5th when it was alerted by someone outside of the company. Hackers managed to gain access to details on 429,612 customers and staff of the airline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So why are these memes tugging at the heartstrings of so many? Claire Goodwin-Fee, a psychotherapist and founder of NHS therapy service Frontline19, says it could be because the pandemic is making us nostalgic for simpler times.

"Prior to Covid-19, we lived such busy fast-paced lives where we are always striving towards the next goal. Things like this appeal to people, because it gives them permission to reflect on where they've been and what they've achieved," she says.

She adds that posts like Shannon's are comforting when the world feels uncertain: "Nostalgia is a known emotion, where we can set our own mental boundaries. We're choosing to revisit these memories by choice; as a result, we feel the positive feelings that accompany them."

Looking at old photos can also trigger the release of feel-good endorphins, says Goodwin-Fee. "If you think about a favorite meal you had when you're younger, you psychologically associate it with a positive emotion. Our brains experience those feelings as if it's happening now, even though we know logically we aren't there," she adds.

As with any social media challenge, celebrities are now jumping on the bandwagon. The singer Ellie Goulding chose to share a nostalgic look back at her early career days performing at an Amnesty gig, while French footballer Paul Pogba posted an image of him looking nervous as a young player.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How it started vs how it's going: the viral trend that channels positive narcissism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So why are these memes tugging at the heartstrings of so many? Claire Goodwin-Fee, a psychotherapist and founder of NHS therapy service Frontline19, says it could be because the pandemic is making us nostalgic for simpler times. "Prior to Covid-19, we lived such busy fast-paced lives where we are always striving towards the next goal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Alicia Lee, CNN

"Ching chong eyes!" That's what elementary school kids used to call Sophie Wang. It was an insidious racist slur casually thrown around as they mocked her Asian ethnicity while pulling on the corner of their eyes. Upward for Japanese. To the side for Chinese. Downward for Korean.

Wang is now 17 and many years removed from the days when her Asian American identity was reduced to "a single facial feature." And yet, scrolling through social media posts in recent months has brought those memories flooding back thanks to a new beauty trend: "fox eyes."

On Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, people from all over the world have been posting videos and photos modeling the look -- using makeup and other tactics to emulate the lifted, so-called "almond-shaped" eyes of celebrities such as Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid and Megan Fox.

Fox-eye makeup tutorials show how to use a combination of eye shadow, eyeliner and fake eyelashes, to get a winged aesthetic. Tips include shaving off the tail end of eyebrows and redrawing them to appear straighter and angled upwards. Others have also suggested pulling hair back into a high ponytail or using tape to further lift the eyes. Accentuating eyes to appear slanted, or elongated in shape, creates a more sultry effect, according to some makeup artists creating the look.

But to Wang and other Asian Americans, the "migraine pose" that sometimes accompanies these images -- using one or two hands to pull the eyes up by the temples to exaggerate the result -- is far too similar to the action used to demean them in the past.

Emma Chamberlain, an influencer with 9.8 million followers on Instagram, was recently criticized for posting a picture that showed her striking this pose while sticking out her tongue.

Her fans rushed to defend her, commenting that those that felt offended were "overreacting." Chamberlain later deleted the picture and apologized, saying it wasn't her "intention" to pose in an "insensitive way" and that she was "so sorry to those who were hurt by it."

But the damage had already been done.

"They mock my eyes then say ching chong call me a dog eater and then call me a ch*nk. Like why would you think I'd be fine with Emma's post?" one person tweeted. "Obviously if she gets to do slant eyes whilst getting praised but it's my natural eye shape and I'm getting discriminated (of course) I'm mad."

"It's a new trend that brings out old stereotypes and old taunts," Wang said in a phone interview. "Because it makes people like me feel uncomfortable and (to) some degree annoyed, it's time to talk about it."

What people don't understand, Wang wrote in an op-ed for student-run newspaper Stanford Daily in July, is that the gesture has "racially-charged historical weight," referring to past satirical depictions of Asians in Western media -- caricatures poking fun at facial features to portray them as "barbaric," "subhuman" and inferior.

"Yet in the 21st century, these Asian features have suddenly transformed into beauty trends for non-Asian people," she wrote, adding that the trend is an act of cultural appropriation.

Appropriating Asian eyes

Kelly H. Chong, a sociology professor at the University of Kansas, defines cultural appropriation as the adoption, often unacknowledged or inappropriate, of the ideas, practices, customs and cultural identity markers of one group by members of another group whom have greater privilege or power.

"The cultural influencers from the dominant group legitimize it as a cool, style 'trend,' and in the process exoticizes and eroticizes it," Chong added in an e-mail interview. Even the term "almond eyes," she says, which is being used to describe the shape of fox eyes, has long been used to describe the shape of Asian eyes.

She points to Hollywood's uncomfortable past in the appropriating the shape of Asian eyes. In the early 1930s, makeup artist Cecil Holland used techniques -- some, similar to creating fox eyes today -- to transform White actors into villainous Asian characters, like Fu Manchu. And Mickey Rooney, the White actor playing the part of Holly Golightly's thickly-accented Japanese neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" cemented "the buck-toothed, slit-eyed Asian man look" in the popular imagination.

TikTok user @LeahMelle, whose video denouncing the fox-eye look went viral, said she couldn't believe that such a trend could be so popular nowadays.

"This wasn't some dated movie where you could blame the distorted norms of the time period. This was happening now. And it was still viewed as acceptable," she wrote in an email.

Like most beauty trends, the craze for fox eyes will eventually subside, and has begun to already since it first came about earlier this year. But that's exactly the problem, according to Stephanie Hu, founder of Dear Asian Youth, a California-based organization that encourages Asian activism.

In an Instagram post, entitled "The problem with the #FoxEye trend," the organization wrote, "While it may not have originated from a place of ill-intent, it appropriates our eyes and is ignorant of past racism."

"It really feels like this is a temporary trend," Hu said, adding that she believes Asians' eye shapes aren't just something to be casually adopted and then "given back" when the trend is over.

"Our eyes are something that we have to live with every day," Hu said in a phone interview.

Pressure to assimilate

Many Asians have long felt the pressure to alter the shape of their eyes, and to make them appear larger.

Blepharoplasty is used to create double eyelids, or a supratarsal eyelid crease. It's one of the most common cosmetic procedures in East Asian countries, as well as among Asian Americans. But when it was first popularized, in the early 1950s, it was used as a tool for Korean women to assimilate in the US.

According to The Korea Herald, American military plastic surgeon Dr. David Ralph Millard first performed the surgery during the Korean War. His first patients were Korean war brides who had married American soldiers. Because the brides were considered "both cultural and racial threats to the US," the paper wrote, many of them would get the surgery in an effort to assimilate and appear "less threatening."

"Surgically altering the 'slanted' eyes became a mark of a 'good' and trustworthy Asian, one whose modification of the face provided a comforting illustration of the pliable Asian, and served as evidence of the US as the model and Asia as the mimic," wrote Taeyon Kim, then a PhD student at Bowling Green State University, in her 2005 dissertation, which is quoted in the article.

"While it is primarily beauty that motivates (today's women's) desire to alter their eyes, this beauty is built on a legacy of history of Western science and race that privileged the white body as the normal, beautiful body," Kim wrote.

That pressure to assimilate has carried to recent decades. In 2013, TV personality and news anchor Julie Chen, revealed on "The Talk" that she had blepharoplasty done as a 25-year-old, to get ahead in her career. A former boss had told her that "Asian eyes" made her look "disinterested" and "bored."

After surgery, Chen said, "I did look better, at least by societal standards," in a 2016 op-ed for Glamour.

When social trends go viral

What is deemed attractive these days is significantly influenced by social media, where beauty trends can quickly go viral, and arguably just as quickly become destructive to a person's confidence and self worth.

On Tiktok, the hashtag #foxeye has already accumulated 72.8 million views, while on Instagram, the hashtag #foxeyes has more than 70,000 posts.

Asian American makeup artist Marc Reagan said when he first spotted the fox eye trend, he didn't think it was problematic. He simply saw it as a set of makeup techniques to enhance the eyes and to exaggerate an almond shape.

But it "morphed into something different," he said, noting that it became offensive when people started adding the gesture of pulling up at the temples.

"I absolutely think that everyone needs to pause before they take (that) action," Reagan said in a phone interview. "Everyone needs to pause, take a step back: 'Is this something that could be interpreted the wrong way?' 'Am I taking it down the path where it turns from being a simple makeup trend into appropriation?'"

Reagan added he isn't surprised that some people are feeling hurt by the trend, especially in light of the pandemic, when East Asians have been increasingly targeted with racist attacks or slurs. Some people, including the US president have referred to Covid-19 as the "China virus" or "kung flu."

"You can't be surprised that someone's going to be offended by you exaggerating a feature on your face that mimics something that they've been made fun of or discriminated against for. So we are (living) in a really sensitive time and those types of things need to be taken (into consideration) every single day."
Top image caption: Screenshot from Instagram of the #foxeyes hashtag.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why the 'fox eye' beauty trend is being slammed as racially insensitive - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 'fox eye' beauty trend continues to spread online. But critics insist it's racist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written by Alicia Lee, CNN "Ching chong eyes!" That's what elementary school kids used to call Sophie Wang. It was an insidious racist slur casually thrown around as they mocked her Asian ethnicity while pulling on the corner of their eyes. Upward for Japanese. To the side for Chinese.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Over the past few years, the plant buggy has trundled through strawberry fields in California and soybean fields in Illinois, gathering high quality images of each plant and counting and classifying every berry and every bean," it said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google reveals Mineral crop-inspecting robots

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Over the past few years, the plant buggy has trundled through strawberry fields in California and soybean fields in Illinois, gathering high quality images of each plant and counting and classifying every berry and every bean," it said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK will need to invest heavily in digital infrastructure and drive through reforms to raise productivity if it is to repair long-term economic damage left by the Covid-19 crisis and the effects of Brexit, the OECD said on Wednesday.

Britain's economy is one of the hardest hit by the pandemic among the 37 tracked by the international organisation, which said UK gross domestic product was set to be 10.1 per cent smaller at the end of 2020 than it was a year earlier and to recover only some of the ground in 2021, with growth of 7.6 per cent.

These forecasts are contingent on the course of the virus, and the extent of restrictions needed to contain it, but the UK's prospects are even more uncertain because of the risk of a disorderly exit from the EU single market, which the OECD said could depress GDP by 5 per cent over two years.

Further public investment would be needed in digital infrastructure, such as high-speed broadband in deprived or rural areas, and the government could do more to push the transition to green technology, for example by making support to businesses in polluting industries conditional on switching to cleaner processes.

"Actions taken to address the pandemic and decisions made on future trading relationships will have a lasting impact on the UK's economic trajectory for years to come, so they should be in line with long-term objectives," said Laurence Boone, the OECD's chief economist. "Productivity growth in service sectors will have to accelerate significantly for the recovery to be long-lasting and sustainable," she said.

The immediate challenge is to support low-income households and get people back into good jobs, it found. Alvaro Santos Pereira, the OECD's director of country studies, said higher unemployment would have "a massive impact" if it became entrenched, scarring the economy "for many years to come".

The OECD urged the UK government to go further in offering companies incentives to hire new workers and in spending to help unemployed adults retrain, with a focus on digital skills. It also said that making welfare payments more generous would be a better way to help low-income households than relying on further increases in the minimum wage, which might put jobs at risk.

Fiscal support for the economy should continue for now, Mr Pereira said, even though the UK would have to confront levels of debt not seen outside wartime once the crisis was over - with the OECD projecting debt would climb to 140 per cent of GDP next year.

Recommended

Later, it will be necessary to get the public finances under control. The OECD said this should involve spending cuts, as well as measures to boost productivity that would reduce debt as a share of GDP.

It said the government should scrap the costly "triple lock" that guarantees generous increases in state pension, and instead raise pensions in line with average earnings growth.

Talks with the EU had so far focused on avoiding barriers to trade in goods, but the priority for the UK should be maintaining access for trade in services, the OECD noted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK risks lasting economic scars from Covid and Brexit, OECD warns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK will need to invest heavily in digital infrastructure and drive through reforms to raise productivity if it is to repair long-term economic damage left by the Covid-19 crisis and the effects of Brexit, the OECD said on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jobless people up by 138,000 quarter on quarter to 1.52m in three months to August - highest since 2017

Office for National Statistics says unemployment rate rose to 4.5%, from 4.1% in the prior three months

FTSE 100 index of Britain's leading companies is down 0.6% or 35 points to 5,967 today following the data

However ONS also revealed vacancies surged by record 144,000 to 488,000 between July and September

The number of UK redundancies has risen at its fastest rate since the 2008 financial crisis, as unemployment surges to 1.5million amid fears millions more will be on the dole queue by Christmas.

Figures by the Office of National Statistics show 156,000 were made redundant in the three months to July - an increase of 48,000 from the three months to the end of May, and the sharpest quarterly rise since 2009 - when Britain was in the grip of the global financial crisis.

In the three months to August, the number of jobless people rose by 138,000 quarter on quarter to 1.52million in the three months to August - the highest since 2017. The unemployment rate rose to 4.5 per cent, from 4.1 per cent in the prior three months.

The Office for National Statistics added that the number of UK workers on company payrolls fell by 673,000 between March and September, despite edging up by 20,000 last month.

The FTSE 100 index of Britain's leading companies was down 0.6 per cent or 35 points to 5,967 today following the news, which added to concerns about the economic impact of new coronavirus-led business restrictions.

ONS deputy national statistician Jonathan Athow said: 'Since the start of the pandemic there has been a sharp increase in those out of work and job-hunting but more people telling us they are not actively looking for work.

'There has also been a stark rise in the number of people who have recently been made redundant.'

Experts warned that unemployment will continue to ramp up as the Government's furlough programme comes to an end, with firms having to start making a 10 per cent contribution to the costs of staff on the scheme last month.

The scheme will come to an end on October 31. But there was a small dose of cheer as the data showed a sign of recovery in vacancies, which surged by a record 144,000 to 488,000 between July and September.

Despite this, vacancies still remain below pre-coronavirus levels and 40.5 per cent lower than a year earlier.

The ONS also said regular pay, excluding bonuses, grew by 0.8 per cent in the three months to August, although average total pay, including bonuses, was unchanged.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak insisted the Government's Plan for Jobs would help protect employment and 'ensure nobody is left without hope'.

'I've been honest with people from the start that we would unfortunately not be able to save every job,' he said. 'But these aren't just statistics, they are people's lives.

'That's why trying to protect as many jobs as possible and helping those who lose their job back into employment is my absolute priority.'

Analysis: Unemployment rises, but the worst is yet to come

By SUSANNAH STREETER

The UK jobs market is already more precarious than forecast with unemployment rising by 4.5 per cent in the three months to August, pushing up the total to 1.52 million, the highest level for more than three years.

The worst is yet to come however, given that the mass furlough scheme won't be ending for another few weeks.

With the general subsidy removed, many thousands more people are expected to be ejected from their jobs into what will be a difficult search for work.

Although employers can still access support from the government under the new scheme, they have to afford to pay staff part-time wages and that won't be easy as consumer demand in many sectors remains depressed.

The arts, entertainment and recreation sector is expected to be particularly badly hit, with 51 per cent of workers on furlough with so many venues still closed.

The prospects for employment in the hospitality sector are also gloomy given the indications that bookings may be slowing.

Although there was a sharp increase in business over the summer for the restaurants, bars and hotels, due to the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and 'staycations', fresh restrictions on trade such as the 10pm curfew and new local lockdowns, are leading to a decline in trade.

Research from the ONS shows that, over the last couple of weeks, people have been less likely to leave home to socialise and there has been a reduction in the percentage of adults eating or drinking at a restaurant, café, bar or pub.

Susannah Streeter is a senior investment and markets analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown

But businesses and economists said they are braced for mounting job losses, in spite of the Chancellor's follow-up worker support schemes.

Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said: 'The Job Support Scheme will do little to hold back the tide of redundancies.

'We continue to expect the headline rate of unemployment to shoot up over the coming months.'

Tej Parikh, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, said: 'With the furlough scheme unwinding, cash-strapped firms have been forced into difficult decisions about retaining their staff.

'Demand remains weak and as restrictions ramp up again many businesses will be stretched when it comes to paying wage bills.

'The Job Support Scheme may need to be beefed up if the Government wants to avert further rises in unemployment.'

Prime Minister Boris Johnson introduced a new system of restrictions for England yesterday and a minister said government may have to go further.

The Confederation of British Industry said ramping up the government's testing regime will be a key component to securing an economic recovery.

The Bank of England has forecast that the unemployment rate will hit 7.5 per cent by the end of the year. But BoE Governor Andrew Bailey yesterday repeated his warning that the economy could prove weaker than the central bank's forecasts.

Britain's economy grew in August at its slowest pace since May as its bounce-back from the lockdown slowed.

Tom Pickersgill, chief executive of Orka, which provides a platform for shift workers, said: 'Almost a million people have lost their jobs since the start of the pandemic and, given the latest lockdown measures, this number could climb again in the coming months.

'While this is a terrible situation for so many to be in, the picture of the job market isn't completely black and white and there are some opportunities out there.

'Permanent 9-5-style roles are going to take time to recover to pre-Covid levels, but we're also going to see a spike in temporary job opportunities as businesses favour flexibility in their approach to hiring.'

Scores of companies in Britain have announced plans to cut jobs since the pandemic struck.

Last week the owner of clothing retailers Edinburgh Woollen Mills, Peacock's and Jaeger put 24,000 jobs at risk by saying it was set for administration.

Rebecca McDonald, senior economist at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: 'With redundancies increasing sharply even before the national furlough scheme is fully unwound, today's figures are a stark reminder that this crisis still has a long way to run.

'This is not the time for half measures: the government can still act quickly and decisively to prevent a wave of unemployment that will hit the poorest hardest.

'And those who have already lost their jobs should be able to rely on a properly funded benefits system and given the opportunity to gain the skills they need to get back into work.'

Major oil and gas firm ExxonMobil 'to cut 400 jobs in the UK by January next year'

Hundreds of UK jobs are set to be axed by American oil and gas firm ExxonMobil.

The multinational company, one of the largest in the world by revenue, expects to cut around 400 jobs in the UK by January next year, according to reports.

Though no details have yet be revealed about where the jobs will be cut, around 100 jobs are set to lost at its Fawley Refinery in Hampshire, reports the Southern Daily Echo.

In a statement, an ExxonMobil spokesperson said the job losses will focus 'primarily on office-based positions'.

A spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Proposed changes are subject to local information and consultation processes, and result from insight gained through reorganisations and work-process changes made over the past several years to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

'The impact of COVID-19 on the demand for ExxonMobil's products has increased the urgency of the ongoing efficiency work.

'It is anticipated that approximately 400 positions will be impacted in the UK by the end of 2021.

'The UK remains an important market for ExxonMobil, and we will continue to have a strong presence in the country including refining and fuels marketing, lubes, petrochemicals and sales of natural gas.

'We operate the UK's largest refinery, and continue to serve our customers daily through a network of around 1,200 Esso-branded service stations.

'However, significant actions are needed at this time to improve cost competitiveness and ensure the company manages through these unprecedented market conditions.'

Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that ExxonMobil was planning to cut up to 1,600 jobs in Europe.

The job cuts amount to more than a 10th of the company's European workforce, the paper added.

The group's share price has fallen by more than half this year - amid a loss in demand during the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unemployment rises by 138,000 after official figures are revised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jobless people up by 138,000 quarter on quarter to 1.52m in three months to August - highest since 2017 Office for National Statistics says unemployment rate rose to 4.5%, from 4.1% in the prior three months FTSE 100 index of Britain's leading companies is down 0.6% or 35 points to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Talks between the UK and EU over a post-Brexit trade agreement are "over", Downing Street has said.

No 10 argued there was "no point" in discussions continuing next week unless the EU was prepared to discuss the detailed legal text of a partnership.

UK chief negotiator Lord Frost said he had told EU counterpart Michel Barnier there was now no "basis" for planned talks on Monday.

Number 10 said the two sides had agreed to talk again next week - by phone.

Earlier, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tweeted that the Brussels negotiating team would go to London after the weekend to "intensify" discussions.

France's Europe minister Clément Beaune told BBC Newsnight that, while the EU would not pursue a deal at any cost, "we will listen to what the UK side wants to say to us".

Meanwhile, ratings agency Moody's has downgraded the UK's credit status, citing falling economic strength due to the coronavirus pandemic and uncertainty over Brexit.

The prime minister had set this week's EU summit as the deadline for the two sides to agree a deal.

But there are still major disagreements over fishing rights and state help for businesses.

And the UK government hardened up its message to the EU over the course of Friday.

In the morning, Boris Johnson said the country had to "get ready" to trade next year without an agreement, although he did not say the talks were over.

He suggested the EU was unwilling to consider seriously the UK's preferred option of a comprehensive free trade agreement based on the bloc's existing arrangement with Canada.

The UK, he added, must look at the "alternative" - which he suggested was Australia's much-more limited set of agreements with the EU.

As statements go, those four words from the prime minister's spokesman this afternoon were something of a bombshell.

But Michel Barnier, due to come to London next week to continue talks, might not be unpacking his briefcase just yet.

There's no doubt that Downing Street is sending the clearest signal possible that it expects the EU to make the next move.

And the rhetoric accompanying the talks has reached a new level.

But both sides still want a deal, the process has not broken down and there is still time to reach an agreement.

It's one thing to declare the talks over; it's another thing to refuse to continue talking.

The prime minister's official spokesman took a tougher line with Brussels later in the day.

"There is only any point in Michel Barnier coming to London next week if he's prepared to address all the issues on the basis of a legal text in an accelerated way, without the UK required to make all the moves or to discuss the practicalities of travel and haulage," he said.

"If not, there is no point in coming."

He added: "Trade talks are over. The EU have effectively ended them by saying they do not want to change their negotiating position."

The UK and EU had been hoping for a "zero-tariff" agreement to govern their trading relationship once the UK's post-Brexit transition period ends on 31 December.

If no deal is reached, they will operate on World Trade Organization rules, meaning tariffs are imposed.

Brussels 'deeply unimpressed'

By BBC Brussels correspondent Nick Beake

Boris Johnson's public declaration that the UK should prepare for no deal did not cause great concern within EU circles.

The immediate response came in a tweet from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who said it was full steam ahead for trade talks next week and that EU negotiators would be getting on the Eurostar to London as planned.

But the subsequent statement from the prime minister's official spokesman that the "trade talks are over" has left senior diplomats "deeply unimpressed", as one put it.

Although "we're getting used to being part of Johnson's pantomime", they added.

Some EU figures fear Boris Johnson still doesn't know if he actually wants a deal and is trying to buy time while he grapples with the Covid crisis.

Following the hardening of the British position by No 10, France's President Macron called on the prime minister to make up his mind, while there was still time.

Many in Brussels remain "cautiously optimistic" some sort of deal can be agreed, but any route there is now even harder to see.

After the EU summit concluded on Friday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it would be best to get a deal and that compromises on both sides would be needed.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the UK needed a Brexit deal more than the EU did.

For Labour, shadow Cabinet Office minister Rachel Reeves urged the UK government to "step back from the brink" and "stop posturing".

"Any tariffs or any delays at the border will make it harder for goods to flow freely, whether those are foods or medicines," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: Trade talks with the EU are over, says No 10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talks between the UK and EU over a post-Brexit trade agreement are "over", Downing Street has said. No 10 argued there was "no point" in discussions continuing next week unless the EU was prepared to discuss the detailed legal text of a partnership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sherelle called Sunak's comments "deplorable" in an interview on BBC Newsnight.

UK chancellor Rishi Sunak's recent interview with ITV has caused an uproar among the music and arts communities.

In an interview published yesterday, Sunak suggests that musicians and artists who cannot find work in the pandemic, largely due to fact that government restrictions mean venues must remain closed or operate at low capacities, should retrain and find different jobs. "I can't pretend that everyone can do exactly the same job that they were doing at the beginning of this crisis," Sunak said, echoing the sentiment around his new " jobs support scheme" focused on securing "viable jobs."

Sunak said workers and businesses will need to "find ways to adapt and adjust to the new reality," and pointed to theatres livestreaming performances as an example. However, the ability of livestreaming to provide a secure, stable method of generating income for all artists remains unclear. Some UK venues have already adapted their formats in order to safely reopen in the pandemic, though recent changes to government restrictions now forces bars and pubs to close at 10 PM and puts them at risk of a £1,000 fine for playing music over 85 decibels and "allowing dancing."

ITV has since updated the interview headline and story to be more general following a complaint from Sunak, but the article URL indicates the original headline: "rishi-sunak-suggests-musicians-and-others-in-arts-should-retrain-and-find-other-jobs." The video interview remains, and here you can read a transcript of a portion where Sunak addresses musicians and artists.

ITV: If you're a professional musician, what's your message right now? If they can't earn enough money to live, is your message to them, you're going to have to get another job.

Rishi Sunak: My simple message to everybody is we're trying to protect as many jobs as possible.

ITV: But they don't think you are, in that sector, they don't think you are.

RS: It's a very sad time. Three quarters of a million people have already lost their jobs, we know that and that is likely to increase and many more people will. I can't pretend that everyone can do exactly the same job that they were doing at the beginning of this crisis. And that's why we've put a lot of our extra resource into trying to create new opportunities for people. So our "kickstart scheme," for example, for young people who are at most at risk of becoming unemployed, all the way up to the age of 24, are going to benefit from a fully funded job placement.

ITV: But that's a different job isn't it? That's you saying go and get a different job.

RS: That is a fresh and new opportunity for people. That's exactly what we should be doing.

ITV: But we're a country that created so many fabulous artists and musicians and actors, and you're effectively saying, look, I know it's hard but get another job.

RS: I think you're not quite right in that there's no work available for everyone at all.

ITV: For a lot of them, there isn't.

RS: As in all walks of life, everyone's having to adapt. I'm getting emails and seeing how theatre companies are adapting and putting on different kinds of performances. It is possible to do theatrical performances online as well and for people to engage with them that way and for new business models to emerge. Plenty of music lessons are still carrying on, the same thing is happening certainly in my household and elsewhere. Can things happen in exactly the way they did? No. But everyone is having to find ways to adapt and adjust to the new reality. And that's what we all have to do, and that's why we're allowing that to happen but also providing new opportunities for people if that's the right vehicle for them.

Sunak also cited the self-employed income support scheme and £1.57 billion UK Culture Recovery Fund as evidence of the government's support for artists and musicians. The self-employment scheme covers six months of income total via two grants, and the pandemic relief package was confirmed to be made available to electronic music venues and festivals following the #LetUsDance campaign. While some venues have been notified they'll be receiving grants from the Arts Council England-led fund, the October 5th announcement for remaining successful applicants has been delayed to the 12th.

In an interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight, Sherelle spoke about how the week-long delay of the UK Culture Recovery grant is affecting those in the music industry: "There'll be people who run clubs in London at the moment having really difficult conversations with their landlords whether they're actually going to be able to pay their rent on time this week. And they were expecting that money to come in."

The Six Figure Gang member also addressed Sunak's suggestion of livestreaming as a means of income-"streaming isn't profitable"-and his other "deplorable" comments. "Hearing what Rishi Sunak was saying today that, 'We can't save all of the jobs,' and we 'can retrain' really broke my heart, and I'm sure it broke a lot of people's hearts at home," she said. "We've trained so long to be in our jobs and we're completely suffering."

Watch a clip of the interview.

"The whole industry, live music, is in complete dire straights. It's very stressful for us all."

DJ and radio presenter @iamsherelle talks to @maitils about how the coronavirus pandemic has affected the music industry and how self-employed artists are faring#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/SwznEjxBH3
- BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) October 6, 2020

A range of artists and music scene figures, including Daniel Avery, Doc Scott, Mat Dryhurst, Posthuman and Liam Gallagher, have also condemned Sunak's comments.

The thing about @RishiSunak comments is this. The vast majority of people who are in the arts get into whatever they do for the love of it, not money, its a calling, its within you, music, dance, comedy, acting, film, art.
You just do not walk away from a life's calling. #viable
- Doc Scott (@docscott31) October 7, 2020

A recent survey by the Musicians' Union found that one-third of UK musicians are considering "abandoning" their music career, with 70 percent of artists saying they've been unable to secure "more than a quarter of their usual work" and 36 percent reporting they "do not have any work at all." 88 percent believe the UK government hasn't done "enough" to provide support for musicians and the arts.

Update: Watch a clip of MP Kevin Brennan challenging Sunak's statements in parliament on October 6th.

The Chancellor @RishiSunak needs to stop this talk about people in the creative industries going on and doing something else. These are proper jobs in the fastest growing sector in the UK. The government needs to realise this - actors, artists, musicians are vital to our economy https://t.co/RSwTkgzzDx pic.twitter.com/Klc6TSo0z3
- Kevin Brennan MP (@KevinBrennanMP) October 6, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK chancellor Rishi Sunak suggests musicians should retrain to find new jobs in pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sherelle called Sunak's comments "deplorable" in an interview on BBC Newsnight. UK chancellor Rishi Sunak's recent interview with ITV has caused an uproar among the music and arts communities. In an interview published yesterday, Sunak suggests that musicians and artists who cannot find work in the pandemic, largely due to fact that government restrictions mean venues must remain closed or operate at low capacities, should retrain and find different jobs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New coronavirus restrictions have come into force in England with more than half the population facing further curbs on their social lives.

Vast swathes of the north, London and parts of the south east are now subject to tougher COVID-19 rules.

At 6pm on Friday a ban on visiting Wales from areas of high infection came into force and Northern Ireland entered a stricter lockdown than the rest of the UK.

The stronger measures have placed more than 28 million people in England into the top two tiers of restrictions.

They include:

Tier 3 rules across Lancashire meaning almost no socialising outside a household bubble is allowed and pubs, bars and restaurants are closed except for takeaway services.

Areas newly affected by the new Tier 3 rules are Burnley, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre.

Tier 2 rules, meaning households cannot mix indoors or in pubs, cafes and restaurants, came into force across parts of northern and south east England.

Areas newly affected by Tier 2 rules are London, Essex, Elmbridge, Barrow-in-Furness, North East Derbyshire, Erewash, Chesterfield and York.

The rule changes at midnight on Friday came just hours after the prime minister pitted himself against the city of Manchester by promising to impose the highest level of restriction - with or without Mayor Andy Burnham's blessing.

Speaking at a Downing Street news conference, Boris Johnson described the coronavirus outbreak in the city as "grave".

"On recent trends, in just over two weeks there will be more COVID patients in intensive care than at the peak of the first wave so I urge the mayor to reconsider and engage constructively.

"I cannot stress enough: time is of the essence. Each day that passes before action is taken means more people will go to hospital, more people will end up in intensive care and tragically more people will die.

"Of course, if agreement cannot be reached, I will need to intervene in order to protect Manchester's hospitals and save the lives of Manchester's residents," he said.

But on Friday the government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance told the same briefing "baseline" Tier 3 measures "almost certainly aren't enough" to get infection numbers down.

And when asked by Sky News deputy political editor Sam Coates if people would die as a result of the row between Downing Street and Manchester leaders, he said: "These are horrendously difficult decisions and there are harms on both sides, as it's been pointed out previously.

"From a purely epidemiological point of view, it is important to go quite fast on this, it's important to make sure that you go hard enough to get the R below 1 and the sooner you do that, the sooner you get this under control."

In Liverpool, Tier 3 restrictions have been in place since Monday, but after it was announced yesterday that Lancashire would join them in the "very high" risk level, there were accusations of inconsistencies between the two regions.

The decision to close gyms in Liverpool but not Lancashire was described as an "inconsistent mess" by the city's mayor, Joe Anderson.

In a joint statement, the regional mayor, Steve Rotherham, and six other local leaders added: "We simply will not accept our region being treated differently to other Tier 3 areas, without robust scientific evidence.

"These inconsistencies in restrictions between areas within the same tier risk undermining the new system from the beginning."
:: Subscribe to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
According to the latest data from the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), the UK R number - the rate at which coronavirus is spreading - has increased from 1.2 to 1.5 to 1.3 to 1.5 on average.

This means that for every 10 people who have the virus, they will go on to infect between 13 and 15 others.

COVID-19 hospital admissions jumped by another 844 on Friday, with a total of 5,311 patients currently being treated for the virus in England.

There were a further 15,650 new cases confirmed across the country - down from 18,980 on Thursday and 19,724 on Wednesday.

And there was also a big jump in the total believed to be infected in England - rising from an estimated 224,400 to 336,500 in a week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coronavirus: New COVID-19 restrictions affect more than half of England population

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New coronavirus restrictions have come into force in England with more than half the population facing further curbs on their social lives. Vast swathes of the north, London and parts of the south east are now subject to tougher COVID-19 rules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fur sales could be banned after Brexit under plans being considered by the Department for Environment, it has emerged.

The UK was the first country in Europe to ban fur farming in 2000, but sales of some furs are still legal in this country and across the EU.

The move to an outright ban is reportedly being spearheaded by the Tory peer Zac Goldsmith, minster at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and also a close friend of Boris Johnson's partner, Carrie Symonds, who last year described anyone who wanted to buy fur as "really sick".

Once the UK leaves the single market, it will have the power to unilaterally ban fur sales, something it is now considering.

A spokeswoman for Defra said: "We have some of the highest welfare standards in the world, and that is both a source of pride and a clear reflection of UK attitudes towards animals.

"Fur farming has rightly been banned in this country for nearly 20 years. Once our future relationship with the EU has been established there will be an opportunity for the government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales."

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which has been campaigning against fur sales for decades, says hundreds of fashion designers and brands - including Coach, Giorgio Armani, Gucci, Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren and Versace - have already stopped using fur.

Peta helped changed the face of activism using nudity and gore to get its message across. Many of its adverts were banned but its slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur", used in campaigns featuring celebrities including the model Naomi Campbell, the actor Eva Mendes and the musician Pink, had such resonance it survived for more than three decades before being retired this year.

According to reports, Goldsmith met the anti-fur organisation Humane Society International in May to explore the issues around the fur trade.

Government sources said that during the Brexit transition period, which ends on 31 December, "it is not possible to introduce restrictions relating to the fur trade as this would restrict free movement within the EU single market".

But once Brexit happens, "there will be an opportunity for the government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales".

Goldsmith argued that Brexit meant "whatever barriers may have prevented us from raising standards on imports at the point of entry" would have gone.

The British Fur Alliance is gearing up to fight any move to ban sales, arguing that natural fur is an antidote to the environmentally damaging cheap fashion and if ethically sourced should not be prohibited.

"Natural fur is inextricably linked to the environment: it is a sustainable material which represents heritage, quality and individuality. Environmental stewardship is one of the foundations of the contemporary fur trade and fur is part of the solution to the 'fast' fashion problem," it said.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK considering outright ban on fur sales after Brexit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fur sales could be banned after Brexit under plans being considered by the Department for Environment, it has emerged. The UK was the first country in Europe to ban fur farming in 2000, but sales of some furs are still legal in this country and across the EU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seven years ago this week the Abbott government released the exposure draft of legislation to "repeal the carbon tax". It was also the same week that documents from an IPCC report suggested climate change could cause deaths from heatwaves in Sydney to triple over next 70 years.

October is generally not a good month for news on climate change.

Two years ago, another IPCC report in October suggested we had just 12 years to keep global warming to just 2C above the pre-industrial level - and that was if we started straight away.
IMF warns emissions policies 'grossly insufficient' and urges green recovery
It barely rated a mention in the federal election held seven months later.

This week has also delivered bad news: Nasa announced that September was the hottest September on record, and a new study found the Great Barrier Reef has more than halved in size over the past 25 years.

It feels like we have reached the point where such things wash over us now without care or concern. Another temperature record, another bushfire season, another US supreme court justice nominee not willing to say if she agrees with the science.

And it is easy to ignore climate change in the midst of a pandemic and economic recession.
Graph not appearing? View here
But acting remains imperative and this week, in its latest world economic outlook, the IMF revealed that acting on climate change will actually help us deal with the recession.

Acting on climate change boosts growth in the short term and massively prevents economic destruction later.

The outlook noted that at the current rate, global temperatures will increase "well above the safe levels agreed to in the Paris agreement, raising the risk of catastrophic damage for the planet."
Amy Coney Barrett refuses to tell Kamala Harris if she thinks climate change is happening
It estimated that on a business-as-usual approach, temperatures are likely to reach 5C above the pre-industrial average by 2095 - in 75 years' time.

Given the aim is to limit warming to just 2C, 5C is something you don't want to have to contemplate.

It means frequent year-long droughts, southern Europe looking like the Sahara desert, and billions of people migrating closer to the poles to find hospitable areas.

Catastrophic.

But that is far off in time, so let's make it more manageable and personal.

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, can note that by the time his youngest child reaches Dad's current age of 52, the IMF estimates temperatures will be more than 3.2C above pre-industrial averages.

Oh well, at least they'll always have memories of that time he made a chicken coop for the cameras.

But the IMF report is not all doom and gloom - it actually proposes a way out.

And would you believe it, it is the very thing Australia already had in place before the Abbott government committed its act of economic and environmental vandalism.

Yes, a price on carbon.

The IMF proposes a price that starts at between US$6 and US$20 a ton of CO2 and reaches between US$40 and US$150 in 2050.

For reference, the last year of the carbon price here was $24.15.

The IMF estimates it will knock back annual GDP growth by a touch over 2% by the end of the decade. But here's the thing, the IMF also suggests environmental measures that will boost economic growth.

It proposes an "80% subsidy rate on renewables production and a 10-year green public investment program" of 1% of GDP - so roughly $20bn a year for Australia.

Combined with transfers to lower income households to counteract the impact of the carbon price, the IMF estimates this package will actually increase annual economic growth over the next 15 years by about 0.7% of global GDP and decrease emissions to net zero by 2050.

Yes, increase growth and decrease emissions.

And it will also keep temperatures below 3C, and in a best case below 2C.

No, it is not easy or "cheap". Those political parties arguing that some rinky-dink policy such as Direct Action, which cost $2.3bn over three years, will be enough are just charlatans.

We need a price on carbon, and we need massive investment. Together they can prevent catastrophic climate change while also getting us out of a recession.

Win-win. And no political party has any excuse not to act.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
australia at the cop21 climate conference in paris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acting on climate change can get us out of recession. There are no excuses left | Greg Jericho

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven years ago this week the Abbott government released the exposure draft of legislation to "repeal the carbon tax". It was also the same week that documents from an IPCC report suggested climate change could cause deaths from heatwaves in Sydney to triple over next 70 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H&M brings 'garment-to-garment' recycling machines in-store

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
H&M has installed a machine which disassembles old clothing and re-assembles the material into new textiles in one of its stores, in what it claims is a first for the fashion industry. The machine is called Looop and will open to the public on Monday (12 October) at the retailer's store in Drottninggatan, Stockholm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Britain's banks are not ready for negative interest rates, according to the chairman of NatWest.

"We're not completely ready for it," Howard Davies said. "There would be technical issues and many contractual issues."

The Bank of England said last week it had written to all banks and building societies to check whether they could pass on negative interest rates if the central bank cut the cost of borrowing below the current base rate of 0.1%.

Q&A
What would negative interest rates mean for UK consumers?

What would happen to my mortgage?
If it's a fixed-rate mortgage, a cut in interest rates would mean no change. Most households are on this type of deal - in recent years about nine in 10 new mortgages have been taken on a fixed rate.

If it is a variable-rate mortgage - a tracker, or a mortgage on or linked to a lender's standard variable rate - the rate could fall a little if the base rate is cut. But the drop is likely to be limited by terms and conditions.

Older mortgages often have a minimum rate specified in the small print. Nationwide building society, for example, will never reduce the rate it tracks below 0% on mortgages arranged since 2009 - so if your mortgage is at base rate plus 1 percentage point, it will never fall below 1%. Santander specifies in some mortgages that the lowest rate it will ever charge is 0.0001%.

You will need to dig out your paperwork to see how low your mortgage rate could go.
Will new mortgages be free?
In Denmark, borrowers have been offered mortgages with negative interest rate s. Mortgage customers with Jyske Bank were lent money at a rate of -0.5%, which meant the sum they owed fell each month by more than the sum they had repaid. There is no reason why UK lenders could not follow suit.
What happens to my savings?
UK savings rates have already been affected by the two base rate cuts in March and many easy-access accounts from high street banks pay just 0.o1% in interest.

Some banks already charge for current accounts, but it is unlikely that you will soon be forced to pay to keep small sums on deposit - despite the low base rate it is possible to earn 1% or more on a fixed-term savings account.

Wealthy savers are likely to be the first who would face a charge. In 2019, UBS started charging its ultra-rich clients a fee for cash savings of more than €500,000 (£449,000), starting at 0.6% a year and rising to 0.75% on larger deposits. And at Jyske Bank, similar charges apply.
What about my pension savings?
Negative interest rates are bad news for pension funds. If you have a defined contribution scheme you may find the predicted value on retirement falls, and you need to put more in if you have a target finishing date in mind. It is also a bad time to buy an annuity to provide a retirement income, as the returns on these fall when rates are negative.

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

Since the summer, members of the Bank's rate-setting monetary policy committee have investigated how negative rates would affect banks' profits and whether they would be passed on to customers.

The Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, speaking during an evidence session in the House of Lords last week, said he did not know whether high street bank computer systems could cope with minus figures.

Davies said on Thursday he was against the introduction of sub-zero rates, arguing there was little evidence it had encouraged investment in other countries.

"We are really assuming interest rates are pretty well zero for any reasonable planning horizon. It could be worse than that."

Speaking to Bloomberg, Davies also warned that the finance industry would emerge diminished from the ongoing Brexit talks.

He said British banks were prepared for a no-deal Brexit, but whichever outcome was likely to be a "suboptimal solution", and that some business would "drift away" from London from next year.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK banks not ready for negative interest rates, says NatWest chairman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britain's banks are not ready for negative interest rates, according to the chairman of NatWest. "We're not completely ready for it," Howard Davies said. "There would be technical issues and many contractual issues."