As regular readers will know, we’re always on the lookout for the latest emerging scarcity trend – so, in keeping with the seasonal mood, here’s why your Christmas tree seemed so pricey this year:
The price of trees has risen sharply for the second consecutive year because of the combination of a Europe-wide shortage and the weak pound. A 7ft Nordmann fir – the most popular variety – could now set you back between £40 and £50, up from £30-£40 in 2007.
“It’s very much a seller’s market,” says Ian Millward, managing director of Trees for Christmas, which sells about 8,000 trees wholesale each year. This year Mr Millward sold his entire stock before December 1, two weeks earlier than usual. “It’s certainly the worst shortage I’ve known. I’ve only been able to buy a finite supply of trees,” he says.
Thrillingly, it seems that falling prices a year or two ago led to a precipitous decline in investment, setting the stage for a supply crunch… just like oil!
The supply of Nordmanns from Denmark, the largest exporter of Christmas trees within the European Union, has fallen sharply since 2005 following a steep decline in prices, which caused growers to stop planting.
Peak oil, peak water, peak food… peak Christmas?
Happily not, dear readers: in fact, there’s a silver lining in here for Britain. You may think that we don’t export much these days other than Collateralised Debt Obligations and The X Factor. But you’d be wrong:
Not only does the weak pound raise the price of imported trees, it also makes exporting a more attractive prospect for UK growers.
Britain to the rescue! The feelgood factor returns! Unfortunately, of course, in what’s probably a taste of what’s to come on the economic front in 2010, that means fewer trees available for those of us at home.
“We used to buy a lot of trees from Scotland but we just couldn’t get any from suppliers there this year,” says Richard Doubleday, owner of Sandon Garden Centre in Chelmsford. “It seems some growers sold out their stock to European buyers because they could get a better price due to the difference in the euro and the pound.”
So, it seems you can add Christmas tree growers to the National Shit List, along with bankers and MPs. Happy Christmas!
Mark Lynas in today’s Guardian:
The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Meanwhile, the FT observes, cracks are starting to appear among the emerging economies:
Cracks emerged on Tuesday in the alliance on climate change formed at the Copenhagen conference last week, with leading developing countries criticising the resulting accord.The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.
But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient. South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting. “We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.
Today, the Brookings Institution publishes Hitting Reboot – a new paper from Alex and I reviewing climate policy in the aftermath of Copenhagen.
The picture is a bleak one – there’s no point pretending otherwise. Copenhagen took us only a little further than Bali, despite two years of negotiations. In some crucial aspects, we actually seem further away from a robust and comprehensive climate deal than we were in 2007.
Rather than hitting the brakes, however, we argue that deal-makers need to steer into the skid – upping the level of ambition. Climate isn’t a problem that can simply be put on pause.
Believe the science (and most still do), and you have little choice but to find new ways of bringing countries into some kind of binding agreement to control emissions.
That means finally getting countries to lay all their cards out on the table. Copenhagen failed, in part, because governments were far too slow to level with each other about what they really wanted. They spent two years pussy-footing around – and were then surprised when it proved difficult to engage in Copenhagen’s frenetic last few days.
How can we ever get to a deal when it’s considered perfectly acceptable to talk about rigorous (and often unachievable) targets for 2050 – but a faux pas to talk about the tough decisions and painful trade offs that need to be taken over the next few years if the climate is to be pushed onto any stabilisation trajectory?
That’s why much of our report is about getting back to the basics – taking 2ºC as a starting point, and then building up the blocks that are needed to seize the increasingly slim chance of making that aspiration a reality. Continue reading
A tragic tale from the Khaleej Times of the UAE:
At long last there is a foreign minister on the international scene with ice-cold blood in his veins and an uncomplicated, unemotional comprehension of national interest. His name is Kieren Keke. He carries the flag for Nauru, an eight-square-mile island-nation of 11,000 inhabitants in the South Pacific famous on two counts.
It is the smallest republic in the world, and its principal source of revenue was through the export of phosphates formed by bird droppings [guano]. That was undoubtedly the most valuable bird waste in history, but the republic killed the local version of the golden egg by selling more phosphate than the birds could drop.
When the money ran out, Nauru’s imagination blossomed. It invested millions of dollars from its national saving in a London musical. The musical flopped, wrecking the country’s bank balance. It then tried to solve Australia’s troublesome problem by providing a base for immigrants en route to the Pacific El Dorado, in return for suitable compensation. Regrettably, the refugees wanted refuge in Australia rather than amidst lost bird droppings.
But Nauru’s imagination remained fertile. In 2002 Nauru took $130 million from China to break relations with Taiwan. In 2006, presumably after this sweetener was exhausted, it reopened links with Taiwan. It is not known whether there was a financial angle to this decision, but the track record tells its own story. This year Nauru recognised Abkhazia [population: 215,000], one of two “nations” that Russia “liberated” from Georgia in 2008. The price: $50 million. Mr Keke has also paid a visit to the second region, South Ossetia, possibly with an accountant as travelling companion. The message has gone to every chancery: if the price is right, Nauru, a full member of the United Nations, will oblige.
“This agreement is a vital step forward for the whole world,” Gordon Brown after the Bali climate summit in December 2007.
“This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world,” Gordon Brown after the Copenhagen climate summit in December 2009.
“A pivotal first step toward an agreement that can address the threat of climate change,” Ban Ki-Moon after the Bali climate summit in December 2007.
“It is a step in the right direction,” Ban Ki-Moon after the Copenhagen climate summit in December 2009.