A GROUP of Oxford academics has condemned the Government’s energy policy and warned of serious consequences for the environment unless urgent changes are made.

Their criticisms were outlined in a report entitled ‘Energy, Politics and Poverty’, which questioned the government’s failure to meet targets on carbon dioxide emissions and described the current policy as "a hotch-potch of measures unlikely to deliver the government’s vision."

The taskforce, chaired by the Chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Patten, was composed of experts in various environmental issues and was set up by Ngaire Woods, Director of Oxford’s Global Economic Governance Programme and Christopher Allsopp, Director of Oxford’s Institute of Energy Studies.

Dr Woods emphasised the importance of the report as a non-governmental initiative. "This is a chance to take an outsider’s view of what’s happening in government. The report is completely independent and was not part of a Westminster initiative," she said.

The report also provides recommendations for avoiding what it calls the "serious risks" of not altering the government’s approach to energy.

Chris Turner, a spokesperson for the Department of Trade and Industry, said that the claims made by the report were "disingenuous".

He defended government policy, saying "Work is being done on these matters. The government’s White Paper on energy published last month sets out specific targets and plans for the future regarding reductions in CO2 emissions and the expansion of nuclear resources."

The White Paper pledges to cut CO2 emissions by 50 per cent by around 2050. It also aims to secure the UK’s energy supplies and ensure that homes are heated adequately.

Turner continued, "The report claims investment is needed in carbon-capture technology, but the White Paper has set out explicit measures by which this should be accomplished. Regarding the gas-storage infrastructure, the White Paper makes clear the possibility of using old coal and salt caverns to store gas while new terminals are already being built to store liquid and natural gas."

The Oxford report stressed attention to Africa and other developing countries that are put at risk by climate change.

University students and staff have slammed an Oxford City Council decision to issue £100 penalties for breaking new rubbish collection rules.

Seven fines have been issued for "side littering", where household rubbish encroaches on the pavement in front of a house. The new scheme affects the properties of many staff and students who live in houses across Oxford, but has been criticised for failing to inform residents of the consequences of breaking its new regulations.

A senior member of University staff, who wished to remain anonymous, said the system was fundamentally unfair. "It’s a draconian and aggressive attitude that the Council have adopted. Of course I’m against the fines. Oxford County Council has failed to educate the public, and now they’re punishing them for it. It’s privative government," she said.

She called for the University to take action on behalf of students affected by the scheme. "There’s no protection for the students. As soon as you step out of the colleges you’re in a cesspit of political manipulation," she said. "The students’ parents can’t help them, and the moment that they put a foot wrong, the Council come down on them."

Tom Smith, a second-year student who lives in Jericho, criticised the conflict between the new scheme and the recently introduced fortnightly bin collections. "With the ridiculous bi-weekly collections, in a house which contains six male students, we naturally generated a lot of rubbish which we had put in front of our house as usual," he said.

"We then got a letter threatening us with legal action if we didn’t comply, and a photograph of our house with the rubbish in front of it. We keep our rubbish at the back of our house, but now it’s taking up our garden space."

City Councillor Jean Fooks claimed that the ‘three strikes’ scheme had been effective in deterring offenders. "After the first inspection, the officers sent out 1,200 letters, then the second time only 200 letters were sent out, but just seven fines were issued in the end, which shows that the warning system worked and made people a little more diligent," she said.

Female students rejected proposals to abolish the position of OUSU Vice-President (Women) and replace it with a student advisor by a three to one majority last Thursday.

Over 2,000 students also voted in referendums to approve OUSU becoming a registered charity and to replace the Vice-President (Finance) with a professional finance manager.

A number of criticisms have been levelled at campaign groups for failing to obey electoral rules that may have undermined the fairness of polling.

The campaign against abolishing the Vice-President (Women), led by Labour Club members Olivia Bailey, Rachel Cummings and Joel Mullan, was penalised for allowing activists to send messages to a National Union of Students (NUS) mailing list.

NUS Women’s officer Kat Stark and NUS Committee member Sofie Buckland sent emails to the ‘Education Not for Sale’ mailing list, encouraging unregistered activists from around the country to come to Oxford on polling day.

OUSU President Alan Strickland wrote in his complaint, "The arrival in Oxford of unregistered activists, from other universities, secured through illegal electoral publicity on a national scale, clearly significantly undermines the chances of a free and fair election."

After the vote, Strickland said that activists from outside Oxford were detrimental to the entire process. "Many of the outside campaigners were canvassing men, as they had no idea men couldn’t vote, they were unaware of the financial issues, unaware of the real arguments on either side. It was a waste of everyone’s time and not contributing to the informed debate the referendum was designed to encourage," he said.

Stark apologised after the campaign’s publicity limit was reduced as a penalty, calling it a "mistake", but saying that Strickland’s version of events was "highly inaccurate." She added, "There were five campaigners from outside the University, only one of whom was male. All activists were fully briefed on the situation and were also briefed in detail on the rules of the referenda."

Olivia Bailey, JCR President of St Hilda’s and also one of the campaign’s agents, said that the five activists from outside the University were irrelevant to the overall result. "The women of Oxford spoke in their hundreds on Thursday and I think those who are claiming that the five external, concerned activists who came to Oxford on the day in some way changed people’s minds are being disrespectful to every woman who voted for their own representation, and for thoughtful, considered reform."

The ‘yes’ campaign for abolishing the Vice-President (Women) was repeatedly attacked for breaching electoral rules.

In his report, OUSU Returning Officer Peter Wright described the campaign as "disorganised and shambolic," and detailed five separate complaints regarding the content of the campaign’s posters. "The number of false and misleading statements on the campaign’s posters was staggering and suggests a lack of careful thought or preparation by the campaign’s agents. Although they at no point acted maliciously, they did act without due organisation or forethought and came close to forfeiting their deposit," he said.

Current VP (Women), Jenny Hoogewerf-McComb, complained that the campaign’s posters were false and misleading for stating that "This year we have no Safety Bus because two successive years’ VP (Women) failed to find a single penny of funding for it." An investigation by the Returning Officer revealed that it was the responsibility of the OUSU Business Manager to find funding and that consequently all posters were to be removed.

Other complaints about posters criticised statements made by Ben Harris, the Imperial College SU Welfare Officer and Katie Chevis, the Warwick SU Welfare Officer, neither of whom were registered activists. Another poster featuring a statement made by Maria Burgess, OUSU’s General Manager, was ruled as illegal for using a member of the permanent staff to support a campaign.

Bailey said that the campaign’s actions were trying to change the referendum’s result unfairly. "The yes campaign broke the rules on a number of occasions, having posters that were defamatory, breaking the rules on endorsements and failing to apply election barcodes. I think it’s sad that yes activists are trying to distort the result of this referendum with unfounded claims," she said.