Greenpeace NZ Weblog

Busting the Oil and Gas industry’s Alternative Facts about Jacinda’s offshore oil exploration ban

Andrew Tobert — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:09:00 Z

After Jacinda’s historic announcement that brought an end to new offshore oil and gas exploration, we’ve been hearing a lot from the industry about how the sky is about to fall in. Fun fact: it isn’t. In fact, stopping offshore oil and gas exploration is just the sort of thing the world needs to do more of if we’re going to stop the sky from ‘falling in’ thanks to extreme weather events caused by climate change. But just in case you find yourself having a heated debate with someone around the dinner table, we’ve put together some points to help you.

Alt Fact: Stopping oil and gas exploration will lead to more climate emissions.

Truth: Climate change is a global problem so any oil and gas that we keep in the ground is oil and gas that can't be burnt and can't increase global emissions.

Science tells us that we have to keep most of the known reserves of fossil fuels in the ground, let alone search for more oil, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. By putting around 4 million square kilometers of our waters out of bounds to new exploration New Zealand is ensuring that the oil industry can’t get their mitts on it which means there is less oil and gas available for them to exploit and burn.

Saying that fossil fuels effectively have no future in NZ, also creates certainty for investors to put their money behind clean energy solutions like solar, wind, geothermal and battery storage.

Alt Fact: If we stop producing oil here we’ll just have to import more oil from overseas.

Truth: New Zealand’s vehicles already run almost entirely on imported oil.

Virtually all of our relatively small oil production is exported. The fuel we use to fill our cars at the petrol pump is imported from overseas, so won’t be affected by this decision.

The real alternative to importing oil is more electric trains, buses, cars, trucks, and bikes powered by renewable electricity and biofuels - not more oil drilling. By using more clean, locally-produced energy, we can also reduce our current multi-billion dollar oil deficit because we won't be importing as much oil.

Alt Fact: When the gas runs out, industry will burn more coal.

Truth: Clean energy is both technologically available and cost-effective, so we don’t need to replace one fossil fuel with another.

Smarter combinations of renewables, demand management, battery storage and electric transport are transforming the way we use energy. It means we don’t actually need outdated, dirty fuels like oil, gas, and coal anymore. Professor Ralph Sims at Massey University has recently shown that there is no point exploring for more gas, because efficiency improvements and the switch to renewables mean we can cover most of our energy needs without fossil fuels. Using the gas we already have more efficiently also means we’ve got enough left over to power the things that take a bit more time to transition.

Alt Fact: Exporting New Zealand gas to developing countries will lower global emissions.

Truth: We’re far better off investing in clean energy and exporting our expertise in renewables.

The idea that New Zealand can export gas to developing countries to replace their use of coal really doesn’t have legs.New Zealand isn’t currently set up to process gas into LNG so that it can be exported. Doing that would require a several billion dollar investment in new gas-processing infrastructure, which will take years. Why spend all that money supporting outdated, carbon-intensive technology when we could be using it to deploy modern, carbon-free energy instead?

Alt Fact: Oil and gas is one of the backbones of our economy and employs 11,000 people, whose jobs are destroyed by the move to stop new offshore exploration.

Truth: Economies thrive with long term stability. Starting the clean energy transition now means no 80s-style economic shock, and long-term security for the clean energy industry.

Oil and gas employs around 4,300 people directly and it’s really important that these workers and the communities that depend on this industry are supported to find sustainable livelihoods in other industries. The people with the best gauge of whether a decision is good or bad for workers are the trade unions that represent them. Importantly, the NZ Council of Trade Unions has welcomed the Government’s decision, which provides a long-term signal to the oil industry that they must now wind down and prioritise a transition plan for their workers. They say:

“The whole point of a just transition is that actually, we know change is coming, it’s inevitable, and we are going to create high-paying sustainable jobs that match people’s skills. You’d almost think from the reaction from the oil and gas industry that the rug was being pulled out from under working people overnight. The Government and the union movement have been very clear that a transition plan, particularly for affected regions is the right way to go.”

Let’s not forget that the energy transition is also an enormous economic and job opportunity. Clean energy produces four times more jobs than the oil industry. In the US, solar jobs are growing as much as 12 times faster than the rest of the economy. In New Zealand, clean energy could provide 25,000 new jobs. A recent Westpac report found that taking steps to address climate change now will save the New Zealand economy $30 billion dollars, compared to delaying our response.

Alt Fact: The lights will go out and energy will cost more.

Truth: Oil and gas cost money - but sunshine and wind are free! Renewable energy is already cheap and has the potential to be much much cheaper.

Solar and wind power have dropped so dramatically in cost that they are already competing with fossil fuels and are poised to undercut new fossil energy in a couple of years.There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. This means that, while we need to buy the gas for a gas-fired power plant to generate electricity, the inputs for renewable energy - sunlight and wind - are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, lowering wholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but, unsurprisingly, upsets the producers of dirty energy like gas.

In fact one of the biggest threats to energy security is climate change itself. Extreme weather destroys infrastructure and leads to power outages, such as the recent storms that have knocked out power for thousands of households across the country.

Alt Fact: We shouldn't wind down oil and gas until we have clean energy to replace it.

Truth: Saying no to future gas is vital to getting more clean energy into the system.

The opportunities, technology, and supply of renewable energy already exist for New Zealand to start a direct transition away from all fossil fuels now. Studies from the U.S. show that increasing the availability of gas actually has the perverse effect of delaying renewable energy deployment. That’s because, new gas capacity directly competes with renewables. If there’s a chance that the market will be flooded with cheap gas, it makes building renewables a risky investment. Better to create certainty for investors that renewables are the way to go, by making new gas off-limits.

Alt Fact: Restricting oil and gas supply is a waste of time - we need to tackle at the demand side.

Truth: We need to address both supply and demand if we’re going to achieve the necessary cut in carbon emissions.

Market forces are driven by scarcity, which means that when there is an abundance of gas available, the price goes down, incentivising industry and the public to use more gas. When there is less gas available the price goes up, so industry and people use less gas and instead seek out alternatives. Supply does affect demand - and the oil and gas industry know this very well. They’re simply pointing the finger at people like you and me, in order to go on denying their role in reducing harmful climate emissions. As above, the promise of abundant gas supplies discourages investment in other forms of energy, like renewables. But, by signalling an end to new oil and gas exploration, we increase the need for clean energy replacements and stimulate development of those industries. Tackling climate change pollution at both the supply and demand side of energy is vital to success.

Strange things lurk in the icy depths of the Antarctic Ocean

Willie Mackenzie — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:27:00 Z

Cute penguins might get all the press, whales certainly give the wows, and big-eyed seals bring the feels – but there’s a lot more to the Antarctic Ocean if you’re prepared to dive a little deeper.

Some very strange things lurk in the icy depths of the Antarctic. Extreme conditions produce extreme animals, and these are worthy of starring roles in science fiction movies, their own X File, and perhaps a few nightmares too.

Whilst we at Greenpeace obviously believe that all critters, however creepy, are worthy of their own special place on the planet, we wanted to give you a quick peek at some of the beasties from the deep that you probably have never heard of. All of them play their own essential roles in the Antarctic Ocean, although many of them lurk in less savoury or glamorous parts of the web of life.

Without further ado, let’s meet the weird and wonderful things that go bump in the depths:

Giant sea spider

Sea spiders can be found around the world, and are normally quite insignificant in size. But in the icy Antarctic they take things to extremes – and grow to a startling size. It’s part of a recurring phenomenon where animals that live in deeper and colder waters tend to grow slower and grow much, much bigger. At a dinner-plate 25cm across these sinister spindly hunters stalk the seafloor on impossibly long thin legs. As well as having a freakish nose-like proboscis, they have such tiny bodies that some of their internal organs have to be stored in their legs.

©NOAA Photo library

Giant Antarctic isopod

Looking like a giant woodlouse or pill bug with an armour upgrade, giant isopods are a feature of deep sea floors the world over, and can grow to as much as 45cm in length. Thankfully the Antarctic giant isopods are a bit smaller, probably only about the size of your fist, but what they lack in length they make up for in crusty, monstrous, post-apocalyptic good looks. Despite looking like massive insects, they are actually crustaceans, like crabs, shrimp and krill. They’re able to roll up into a protective ball when they feel threatened, and, just when you thought it might be safe to get into the water, they can swim – which they often do upside down in full-on ‘Alien’ movie face-hugger horror.

©Doug Allen/naturepl.com

Sea pig

Sea pigs are distant cousins of starfish and sea urchins, and they look like someone filled a pair of pink rubber gloves with snot. They have a face only a mother sea pig could find, never mind love. These gelatinous grazers trundle across the sea floor, snuffling through the mud to find delicious decaying scraps to eat. Those appendages are filled with fluid, and can be either legs or antenna, depending which is most useful.

©OceanNetworksCanada

Antarctic feather star

A feather star is basically a specially adapted cousin of the starfish which looks like a cross between an animated palm tree and a feather duster. Their body design is quite simple – a glorified mouth surrounded by feathery arms. Most of the time they stay rooted to the seafloor, catching passing morsels of food falling from above – but when they need to move they swim in a mesmerising, ethereal way that has to be one of the most amazing forms of locomotion in the natural world.

Basket star

Another relative of the humble starfish is the lusciously-tendrilled Chilean basket star. Intricate, otherworldly and alien, this is an animal that has evolved coiled, many-fingered branches along each of its five arms. They like to perch on top of a rock or handy sponge to spread their interwoven basket of waiting arms armed with tiny hooks as wide as they can to catch passing and falling food. The branch-like appendages then curl around the tasty morsels and transfer them to the basket star’s mouth, which it is sitting on (which is handy, because it’s also its bottom!).

Icefish

Semi-transparent bodies and oversized heads give the Antarctic icefish a ghostly appearance. It’s able to extend its jaws to catch food, and despite having no red blood cells is one of the only fish able to withstand freezing Antarctic waters by having an inbuilt ‘antifreeze’ in its transparent blood.

©UweKillsCC BY3.0

Crabeater seal

On the face of it, these blubbery furballs might not seem the weirdest thing swimming in the Antarctic ocean – but wait until they give you a grin. With a mouth full of specially adapted teeth more fitting for a comic book villain, they are able to catch and filter out mouthfuls of tiny Antarctic krill as their staple diet.

Bristle worm

Okay, you might need some moral support for this one. Antarctic bristle worms are like demonic tinsel. Undulating bodies flanked by glittering gold hairs in no way make up for a monstrous bulbous head full of fearsome jaws. Luckily these shimmering horrors only grow to about 20cm long and they’re not likely to turn up on any Christmas tree near you. Unless you’re on the *really naughty* list.

©Siobhan Leachman

Hoff Crab

Confusingly, the Hoff ‘crab’ is a type of lobster, and relatively new to science. This pale ghostly crustacean is found hanging around deep sea superheated volcanic vents, which are some of the most extreme environments on the planet – so they’re pretty badass. These pasty fellas are named after 80’s heartthrob David Hasselhoff, because they, like him, have an exceptionally hairy chest. However the Hoff crab’s chest hair is covered in bacteria, which it picks out and eats. Yum!

©David Shale/ naturepl.com

Colossal Squid

The biggest invertebrate on the planet possibly lurks in the depths of the Antarctic ocean. They have the biggest eyes in the animal kingdom, roughly the size of a dinner plate (or a giant sea spider with its legs stretched out!) – all the better for seeing in the inky depths. Despite its enormous size, with a body of at least 2.5 metres before you add tentacles, we know surprisingly little about these deep sea dwellers. They have eight arms and two tentacles which are extra long and have rotating hooks with which to ensnare their prey. Colossal squid are tough fighters, and engage in deep sea battles with ravenous sperm whales which have never been witnessed, but we know about from the beaks of squid in sperm whale stomachs, and the sucker scars left on their body.

Four female environmental activists inspiring us in 2018

Greenpeace New Zealand — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:23:00 Z

New Zealand has a strong tradition of female activism. From Kate Sheppard and her campaign that won New Zealand women the right to vote in 1893, to women at the forefront of social and environmental movements today, Aotearoa is brimming with inspirational women taking action to create change.

In the environmental movement, there are dozens of women fighting for a better future. Here are profiles of just four of those women--we hope you find them as inspiring as we do.

Rosemary Penwarden became an activist as a grandma

Dunedin local Rosemary became an activist in her 50s, after witnessing the birth of her first grandchild, and being galvanised to create a better future for his generation.

Rosemary (right) taking action to Save Our Rivers in 2017

“The same year [as he was born] I heard Jeanette Fitzsimons, ex Green Party co-leader, speak about plans to fight a massive new coal mine in Southland. At the end of her talk she said ‘This is what I'll be doing for the rest of my life.’ Her words hit me in my guts. I knew then it was going to be my future too.”

Rosemary says taking direct action, as she has done for numerous causes including against Big Irrigation last year, reminds her that she’s not fighting to change the world alone.

“It feels like taking control back. Learning how to organise, what works, what doesn't, how to plan and work with others, knowing our action is a small part of the biggest and most important movement ever - it's empowering and humbling and makes me feel alive and strong.”

As for people power, Rosemary feels strongly that direct action is the best way to use it.

“Direct action is people calling the shots. Rather than trying to work within a structure stacked against us, direct action is a way to rattle that structure, undermine the pillars that hold it up, open up a new way for positive change.”

Rosemary works with several groups including Oil Free Otago, Coal Action Network Aotearoa, and 350 Dunedin. In addition, she’s part of the Valley Community Workspace, Seniors Climate Action, Save Our Water Otago Southland, a community garden group, and other projects.

“I am in awe of the fearless young women I work with in the climate movement. Having spent years without the confidence to step forward, I am learning to be brave from them. Reticence is a luxury we can't really afford now. This is how we take back our power.”

Gina Mitchell became an activist when the fight came to her backyard

Gina was compelled to take action after Watercare announced their plans to destroy native bush in her community, making way for a new water treatment plant.

A long time environmental supporter, the fight coming to her backyard took Gina from behind the scenes to the front lines..

“I’ve always loved nature and care deeply about environmental issues. I grew up with a Greenpeace whale poster on my wall and was always a supporter from the sidelines,” she says.

Gina Mitchell taking action on the Mermair Searcher in January

“But in May last year, I read that a protected forest in my area was proposed to be destroyed to build a new water treatment plant. I just had to do something. I realised that because of a historic designation the laws designed to protect the environment were effectively being overwritten. It’s such an injustice. I joined the Facebook group who were already fighting it.

“From then on it snowballed. I helped organise a protest of more than 300 people at short notice which received national media attention. It made me understand the ability I have to effect change by working with others and taking action.”

And it didn’t stop there. Gina was so moved by taking part she began to get involved in other environmental campaigns too.

“In January I went a step further and was part of the action on the Mermaid Searcher, an oil exploration ship Amazon Warrior’s supply ship.”

“Taking action makes me feel empowered. It reminds me that as an individual I can make a difference. It’s so easy to read the news and feel helpless, but taking action helps me to feel that we can make positive changes in this world. Taking action enables me to walk the talk.”

Gina is on the committee of the Titirangi Protection Group, who are fighting to stop Watercare building a new water treatment plant in the Waitakeres. The group are currently fundraising for a High Court appeal against the company due to be heard on 2 May 2018.

Sarah Thomson is a law student who took the NZ Govt to court over climate change

In June 2017, 26-year old Hamilton law student, Sarah Thomson, spent five days in court challenging the Government over climate change targets she called “unambitious and irrational”. The case was the first of its kind in New Zealand.

Thomson decided to launch the lawsuit after being inspired by global climate change litigation, including the 900 Dutch citizens who filed a case against the Dutch government, and a US case where 21 kids are taking on the Federal government and fossil fuel companies.

“I’m young and I’m terrified of a time when I might have to look my kids in the eye and explain to them how we let this happen.”

Sarah Thomson took the Govt. to court over climate change

"A lot of people want to see change", Thomson says. And she was right--the community was on her side. Sarah’s ‘givealittle’ page raised over $10,000 to help with the high court filing fee and other legal costs relating to the court action.

Sarah said "it is the young people who will pay the true cost of today's inaction. Our government has a duty to its people, to ensure a safe place for us and our children to live. But, if they are not fulfilling that duty, it is up to us to demand action."

This first time, one of a kind powerful act of courage shows how one brave individual stepping up to take action can still have an impact.

Bunny McDiarmid has been an activist for over three decades

Bunny started off her activism career during the nuclear free movement in the 80s. Just 28 years old when she joined the Rainbow Warrior as a deckhand, Bunny was part of the crew when the ship was bombed in Auckland Harbour in 1985, killing her colleague photographer Fernando Pereira. Since then, she’s taken action on pretty much every environmental issue there is, from Antarctica and forestry to fisheries, oceans and deep sea oil.

But if there’s one issue she thinks everyone needs to get up and take action on, it’s the existential threat of climate change, saying that it should get “everyone out of their silos and trenches” to figure it out together.

Bunny says the feeling of belonging to something bigger than the self is key when it comes to being a successful activist, and that activism is a vital component to a healthy world.

Bunny on board the Rainbow Warrior in the 80s

“[Activism] helps keep our society healthy. Our right to express ourselves, to stand up, to say yes or no. Our right to protest. Our right to act."

After the Rainbow Warrior bombing, Bunny spent months in the Marshall Islands protesting and working to advocate for the Rongelap community, who were relocated from their homes due to radioactive contamination from nuclear testing. She helped to establish the Greenpeace Pacific campaign in 1987 and a Greenpeace regional office in Fiji in 1994, and went on to serve as the Executive Director of Greenpeace New Zealand from 2006-2015. She now works as one of two female Executive Directors of Greenpeace International.

Bunny has worked tirelessly for the environment and vulnerable communities the world over. In her own words: “When we matter is when we make a difference”.

The palm oil industry promises reform, but there’s still no sign of change

Bagus Kusuma — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:16:00 Z

It was ten years ago that Greenpeace first published an investigation into Indonesia’s palm oil industry. We showed that the world’s biggest brands got their palm oil from companies destroying Indonesia’s rainforests - threatening local people as well as tigers and orangutans.

Children play without wearing any protection at the playground while the air is engulfed with thick haze from the forest fires in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.

As people learned the truth about their shampoo, cosmetics and chocolate bars, brands and their suppliers started to feel the pressure. In 2013, Wilmar became the first palm oil trader to adopt a No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation (NDPE) policy. Others followed suit, and by the end of 2014, most household brands and big palm oil companies had sworn to protect Indonesia’s rainforests.

Greenpeace doesn’t take companies at their word – we watch them closely to make sure they’re keeping their promises. A couple of years ago, we investigated household brands and weren’t that impressed with what we found. So this year, we took a look at the biggest palm oil traders - the companies that brands get their palm oil from.

A Greenpeace investigator documents the devastation of a company-identified 'No Go' area of peatland in the PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (IOI) oil palm concession in Ketapang, West Kalimantan (2016).

The results are alarming. Not one of the traders could prove it wasn’t buying from palm oil companies that destroyed rainforests. Most could not even say when there would be no deforestation in their supply chains. Instead of cutting out dirty palm oil, traders have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy - they pretend everything is under control while Indonesia’s forests go up in smoke.

Indonesia’s people and environment are paying for the industry’s failure. The country has lost 31 million hectares of forest – an area almost the size of Germany – since 1990. A recent study on Borneo and Sumatra orangutans showed that the population has significantly declined, with destruction of their habitat a leading cause of the crisis. Forest destruction has also contributed to the annual fires and haze crisis that threatens the health of people across Southeast Asia. One study estimated that the 2015 fires crisis contributed to over 100,000 premature deaths. NGOs have also uncovered widespread human rights abuses in palm oil plantations, including child labour and worker exploitation.

This should be a wake-up call for brands like PepsiCo, Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Mondelez. These brands promised their customers they would cut ties with forest destruction. For too long, brands have passed the buck to their suppliers - the traders whose progress we assessed and found wanting.

An excavator constructs a canal in recently cleared land in an oil palm concession owned by PT Andalan Sukses Makmur (PT ASMR) concession, a subsidiary of Bumitama Agro Ltd. (2013)

It’s time brands took responsibility for the palm oil they’re using. The first step is to tell us where their palm oil really comes from. Then brands need to clean up their supply chains and cut out anyone still destroying forests. That’s the only way we’ll get this destructive industry to change.

Thankfully it’s not all bad news. Just a few weeks ago, scientists discovered a whole new species of orangutan in Sumatra! This is an amazing discovery - but like the rest of the orangutan popular, there’s a big risk that their habitat gets destroyed. It’s up to us to make sure that these amazing creatures have healthy branches to swing on in the future.

Bagus Kusuma is a forest campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia

Great news for the Arctic AND the Antarctic!

Louisa Casson — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:13:00 Z

Today is a great day for oceans at both ends of the earth.

Last night, governments from around the world agreed to protect a huge part of the Arctic Ocean against all commercial fishing. Thanks to the millions of you who supported our Save the Arctic campaign, an area roughly the size of the Mediterranean Sea will be safe from industrial fishing for at least the next 16 years.

Polar Bear on Sea Ice in Baffin Bay

This means we have an even stronger platform to push countries to commit to more long-term protection for this vulnerable ocean and remove the threats of destructive fishing and fossil fuels for good.

Humpback whale in Antarctica

On the other side of the planet, a massive ocean sanctuary in the Antarctic’s Ross Sea comes into force today. An area of ocean twice the size of Spain is now protected from all kinds of extractive industries and can remain one of the most exceptional shallow oceans left on Earth.

This is amazing news for polar bears AND penguins - as well as all of us who depend on healthy oceans across the world.

Adeli Penguins in the Southern Ocean

These two victories are proof that people power works. When we work together, incredible things can happen. So if anyone tells you it’s impossible to save the Arctic or create the biggest protected area in the Antarctic, show them this blog. It always seems impossible until it’s done.

But we’re not stopping here. Back in the 1980s, millions of people persuaded their governments to ditch plans to open up the continent of Antarctica for mining and protect it forever. Now we have an opportunity to make history by creating the largest protected area on the planet, in the Antarctic ocean.

An Antarctic Ocean Sanctuary would not only be a safe haven for penguins, whales and seals, but it would keep those waters off-limits to huge industrial fishing vessels sucking up the tiny shrimp-like krill, on which all Antarctic sea life relies.

This historic day for the protection of polar oceans is a reminder that together we can succeed. So celebrate these decisions, keep going and help us restore our blue planet - all the way from the Arctic to the Antarctic!

Louisa Casson is an Oceans camapigner at Greenpeace U.K.

Samsung: fuelling climate change

Insung Lee — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:01:00 Z

As extreme weather increases, the world is being forced to wake up to the realities of climate change.

The good news is that every day more and more people are coming together, taking action to ensure a greener future for us all.

Unfortunately, there are still a handful of outspoken people and backward-looking companies who either outright deny climate change is real or are just sticking their heads in the sand, or should we say coal?

One of those is Samsung Electronics. Yes, that’s right. One of the biggest companies in the world is still using dirty, polluting energy sources like coal to make the millions and millions of gadgets many of us use every day. 19th century coal to make 21st century gadgets.

In fact, Samsung even admits the company uses only 1% renewable energy in its production!

Yulin, located in Shenfu coalfield, together with Ordos and Shuozhou (Shanxi), is called the “Golden Triangle of Coal” in China.

Thanks to the tireless work of people like you, hundreds of companies, including its arch-rival Apple, have woken up and are going 100% renewable.

We are all doing our part, now it’s Samsung's turn.

A company like Samsung is just too big to ignore. In 2016 alone it produced about 400 million smartphones, provided parts for other companies like Apple, Huawei and even Tesla and turned in a profit of 10 billion USD! This is a company whose adverts tell us to “do what you can’t” and “do bigger things”. We think it is about time Samsung took a look in the mirror and started to walk the talk.

The trouble is, we are running out of time.

The more time spent talking instead of acting, following instead of leading or stepping instead of leaping, the more uncertain our future, and their future becomes. Samsung Electronic’s leadership faces a choice to decide which side are they on: the progressive, responsible companies looking to the future or those who history will judge for their inaction and for holding us back.

Together we can create a movement companies like Samsung can’t ignore.

Add your voice to convince Samsung to #DoBiggerThings: stop fueling climate change and choose renewable energy.

Insung Lee is an IT campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, Seoul office.

Can we create healthy oceans and tackle climate change at the same time?

Louisa Casson — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:35:00 Z

“We woke up to the fact that there’s ocean change just like climate change. We need ocean action like there’s climate action.”

These words rang out at international climate talks last week, spoken by Peter Thompson, the UN’s special envoy for the ocean. This is just one sign that protecting the ocean is fast becoming recognised as indivisible from tackling climate change.

Healthy oceans play a crucial role in helping us to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The oceans and the creatures that live under the waves soak up carbon from the air, and store the excess heat in our atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels.

The Antarctic Ocean, the focus of a new Greenpeace campaign, plays a key role in regulating our global climate, while new science is showing that Antarctic sea creatures, from massive whales to tiny krill, play an important role in the carbon cycle.

Fossil fuels: bad for the ocean

But the continued burning fossil fuels on land is putting our oceans under extreme stress. As Blue Planet 2’s shocking footage of coral reefs has already made clear, the oceans are on the front lines for changes as a result of carbon pollution in the air, with waters heating up and becoming more acidic. These impacts are fundamentally changing our oceans and putting the creatures that live in them under growing pressure. The resulting sea level rise and disruptions to ocean food chains are also threatening the livelihoods of coastal and island communities.

As one of the most extreme environments on the planet, Antarctic wildlife that has specifically adapted to survive in these cold conditions is vulnerable to the impacts climate change has on ocean temperatures, sea ice coverage and the other creatures in the food web. Parts of the Antarctic are experiencing changes faster than almost anywhere else on the planet.

Ocean sanctuaries: good for the climate

But if we take action to sustain healthy oceans, our oceans can continue to be a key ally in helping us to avoid the worst effects of climate change. All of us can protect our oceans, by joining the movement to end the era of fossil fuels and calling on our governments to work together to create ocean sanctuaries across more than a third of our shared oceans.

Ocean sanctuaries are like ‘national parks at sea’. While ocean sanctuaries don’t lessen the urgent need to end the fossil fuel era, these protected havens allow the oceans and sea creatures to keep protecting us against climate disasters. They provide refuge for sea creatures to adapt to a changing environment without additional pressures from industrial activity. Ocean sanctuaries can protect coastlines from climate disasters and keep waters liveable and breathable for the many animals and plants that call the ocean home.

Ocean sanctuaries are a powerful tool available for ensuring we have healthy oceans for this and future generations. They can greatly benefit communities, and wildlife, by prohibiting overfishing – removing the pressure of industrial activity on an environment that is already threatened by a changing climate. We only need to look at the devastating breeding season for penguins in the Antarctic this year, where out of a colony of nearly 40,000 Adélie penguins just two chicks survived. This tragedy was caused by a complex set of events from climate change to local sea-ice factors – but it’s clear that marine life doesn’t need additional strain on food supplies.

In the next 12 months, we have a historic opportunity to create the largest ocean sanctuary in the world in the Antarctic. An Antarctic Ocean Sanctuary would not only protect the home and food source of penguins, whales and other marine creatures – we and our shared climate will all benefit from more ocean protection. As the prime minister of Fiji, the host of this year’s UN climate conference (COP23) put it: “We are all in the same canoe.”

Join the call for an Antarctic Ocean Sanctuary now – for its amazing wildlife, for our shared climate, and for healthy oceans.

Plastic is Everyone’s Problem, So Why Are We Focusing on Coke?

John Hocevar — Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:51:00 Z

Coke is one of the most recognizable brands in the world and says it is committed to environmental sustainability. As the world’s largest soft drink company, Coca-Cola has a special responsibility to drastically reduce its plastic footprint and stop its bottles from choking our oceans.
Maybe you’ve seen our video remake of Coke’s classic holiday commercial and you’re wondering why we decided to single out the company. It’s a good question. Plastic pollution is a massive problem worldwide. The equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic enters our seas every minute, every day, all year long. Plastics are filling up our landfills, choking our rivers, contaminating our oceans, harming marine life, breaking down into microplastics, and entering the food chain—even ending up in the seafood on our plates and in our tap water. But surely this is everyone’s problem, so why are we focusing on Coke now?
Plastic bottles and caps are consistently one of the largest sources of ocean plastic pollution found in global beach cleanups.
One million plastic bottles are sold around the world every minute.
More than half of the 500 billion plastic bottles manufactured each year are thrown away after a single use.
Coca-Cola produces over 110 billion of these single-use plastic bottles each year. That’s over 3,400 bottles a second.
But What About Recycling?
For decades we’ve been told that we should all stop littering and recycle away the billions of tons of plastics corporations produce, and that will make the difference needed to sustain our planet. Coke is happy to remind us that its bottles are recyclable. But just because something is recyclable doesn’t mean it will be recycled.
In fact, over 90% of plastics are not recycled. PET, the plastic resin most commonly used in beverage bottles, has a higher recycling rate than other types of plastic, but close to half of PET is not collected for recycling, and only 7% is recycled bottle-to-bottle.
In the meantime, corporations keep ramping up production of single-use plastics, and recycling rates just can’t keep up, even though we are all recycling more. In the U.S., the amount of PET bottles and jars recovered for recycling increased from 140,000 tons in 1990 to 860,000 tons in 2012. But, because the amount of PET bottles and jars generated in the U.S. also increased dramatically—from 430,000 tons to 2,790,000 tons —the net amount of PET bottles and jars that were discarded instead of recycled increased by a factor of 6—from 290,000 tons to 1,930,000 tons.
Rather than reducing the number of single-use plastic bottles it produces, Coke is investing in even more throwaway plastic. Coke has increased its number of single-use plastic bottles by nearly a third (31%) since 2008. Single-use plastic bottles now account for 68% of its packaging globally.
Despite telling customers it’s their responsibility to recycle the bottles, 93% of the plastic Coke uses globally is brand new virgin plastic.
Coke’s latest EU policy says the company will commit to increasing the amount of recycled content in their bottles up to 50% by 2020. This is not ambitious enough, and it doesn’t solve the problem. It still won’t prevent bottles that are not recycled from ending up in the environment.
Global plastic production is set to double in the next 20 years and quadruple to 318 million metric tons by 2050. By then, some researchers estimate there could be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans if we do not change our course.
Recycling alone is simply never going to solve this problem. The scale of the problem corporations have created must be met with a fundamental shift in how they bring products to people. We need to take drastic action to end the era of throwaway plastic. A material that takes centuries to break down should never be used in products intended for just a few minutes of use. Our oceans depend on the actions we take now.
So Again, Why Coke?
Coke is one of the most recognizable brands in the world and says it is committed to environmental sustainability. As the world’s largest soft drink company, Coca-Cola has a special responsibility to drastically reduce its plastic footprint and stop its bottles from choking our oceans.
Coke is planning to release a global strategy on plastics very soon. We are watching closely to make sure Coke’s new policy sets out clear commitments to dramatically reduce their use of single-use plastic bottles, embrace reusable packaging, and invest in developing innovative new delivery systems. Coke has an opportunity to emerge as a true leader in helping to solve the plastic pollution crisis by changing how the industry operates.
What’s Next?
Finally, despite our pressure on them now, this clearly isn’t all about Coke. This is the beginning of a much larger global campaign by Greenpeace to demand that corporations dramatically reduce the amount of throwaway plastic they produce. Coke is the start, but we are calling on other big corporate polluters to take action as well, including Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, Starbucks, McDonalds, Unilever, and Pepsi. And there will be more. Any company selling or producing single-use plastic plays a role in plastic pollution and has a responsibility to innovate new ways of delivering products.
So, no, Coke is not the only corporation contributing to the plastic pollution crisis. But as one of the biggest culprits, they have a responsibility to act now.

Fire and Rain

Rex Weyler — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:03:00 Z

The year 2017 may become a historic milestone where the visceral effects of global heating - extreme storms and wildfires - finally reach public consciousness.
Homeowners Access Hurricane Irma Damage - 12 Sep, 2017
Humans have known about the effects of carbon in the atmosphere for two centuries, since the work of Joseph Fourier at the French Academy of Science. A century ago, Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, calculated that doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase Earth's average temperature by 5-6°C, which now appears accurate. In 1981, Dr. James Hansen wrote the first NASA global temperature analysis, and in 1991, the UN convened the first climate conference in Berlin. As of today, none of this has significantly altered the actions of human society enough to actually reduce carbon emissions.
In the last few years, we have witnessed more wildfires and violent storms that are directly linked to global heating. This year, communities around the world have experienced a dramatic increase in climate-related natural disasters, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and leaving behind devastation.
Year of the fire
I've lived on the west coast of Canada for 45 years, and during that time, I've witnessed a few days of smoke from wildfires in the interior fir and cedar forests. For the past two summers, however, the entire coast has been blanketed in thick smoke through July and August, the summer sun barely piercing the haze. Citizens experience respiratory problems, tourism is disrupted, and firefighting teams from the northern and southern hemispheres now routinely trade support teams in alternate seasons.
In February, the North Pole experienced a staggering +30°C temperature anomaly, unprecedented in modern record-keeping. The melting permafrost releases methane gas, a greenhouse-gas far more powerful than CO2. The Arctic contains about 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, stored as methane, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has not yet accounted for this significant positive feedback of global heating. The 2017 data so far shows that over the last decade, Earth is heating about twice as fast as IPCC scientists had predicted.
Grass Fire in the Astrakhan Nature Reserve, Russia - 13 Mar, 2015
This extra heat means drier grasslands and forests, resulting in more frequent, more intense fires. Warmer temperatures add moisture to the atmosphere, which we might assume would dampen fires, but it has the opposite effect. Increased precipitation during the winter means that grasslands grow more. Then, during the drier summers, this extra growth becomes added fuel to the fires. Even a fraction of a degree increase to winter temperatures allows insects like pine beetles to move toward the poles, into boreal forests, killing more trees that also add fuel to fires.
During the summer of 2017, fires raged across Europe, killing hundreds, devastating communities, and leading the European Union to declare a state of emergency. Portugal suffered the worst fire season ever recorded, scorching almost 520,000 hectares of forest. It was six times the annual average for recent years, and killed over 100 people. The Interior Minister, Constanca Urbano de Sousa, remarked that she had wanted to quit after 64 people were killed in June wildfires and after investigators had chastised the official response. When October fires killed 42 more citizens, de Sousa resigned.
Meanwhile, four people died from fires in the Galicia region of northwest Spain. Fires in Croatia destroyed homes and other buildings in the village of Podstrana, and the historic town of Split. Along the Dalmatian coastline of the Adriatic Sea, grasslands and woods burned, along with homes, cars, and public buildings. On the southern Adriatic coast, in Montenegro, fires burned through the historic Lustica Peninsula town of Tivat, which had to be evacuated. Montenegro, unprepared for the scale of fires, asked NATO for firefighters, aircraft, and assistance with evacuations.
In Italy this year, some 900 wildfires burned over 130,000 hectares. Residents and tourists were forced to evacuate parts of Rome and Naples, including Mount Vesuvius national park and the Castelfusano coastal pine forest, south of Rome. A beach resort on the island of Sicily had to be evacuated. This is a typical impact of global heating. Italy experienced 30% less rain and 30% more wildfires. In July, fires burned near Castagniers and Nice, in southeast France and on the French island of Corsica. In southwest Turkey, fires destroyed 40 homes as communities evacuated.
July was the hottest month in 130 years of Moscow's recorded climate history, and smoke from fires blanketed the region. Within a few days in July, fires burned some 150,000 hectares during an historic heat wave and drought.
In May, under record high temperatures and dry conditions, China and Mongolia grew even hotter and drier, leading to some of the largest fires on Earth in recent history. Fires burned through the Greater Hinggan Mountains, threatening the Hanma Nature Reserve and the city of Hulun Buir. In early July, Mongolia's National Emergency Management Agency fought 11 major forest fires across northern Mongolia, exhausting their supply of fire extinguishing equipment. President Khaltmaa Battulga and Prime Minister Jargaltulga Erdenebat prohibited people from entering the forest areas, called an emergency meeting, and instructed their engineers to attempt creating artificial rainfall. Legions of Mongolian citizens, communicating through social media, joined the fire brigades, but by the end of July, they faced more than 20 major fires, some threatening the capital at Ulan Bator.
Fires in western North America, broke records in Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and California. The Seattle region experienced a +10°C temperature anomaly in August as fires burned through Washington state forests. Wildfires ravaged Oregon and killed 30 people in northern California, destroying some 3,500 homes and businesses in California's wine region, obliterating neighborhoods. Throughout the western United States, over a million hectares burned this summer.
Santa Rosa, California, fire devastation - 13 Oct, 2017
"Climate change is turning up the dial on everything," said LeRoy Westerling at the University of California. "Dry periods become more extreme, wet periods become more extreme, and fires are increasing. The ecosystem is changing."
Extreme Storms
Global heating has increased ocean temperatures, adding energy to storms. By October, the year 2017 already approached the all-time record for both total measured storm energy and accumulated damage. This summer, hurricanes Nate, Harvey, Irma, and Maria pounded the Caribbean and Southeastern US. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US has experienced 15 weather disasters this year that cost more than $1 billion, an all-time record. A study from 13 US federal agencies concluded that "extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980."
Hurricane Harvey Flooding Rescue in Texas - 27 Aug, 2017
Storms have been getting stronger since the mid-1980s. An analysis of 167 years of data by the Associated Press found that no 30-year period in history had seen this many major storms. Typically, North Atlantic ocean temperatures remain too cool to support hurricane-level storms. This year, warmer than normal North Atlantic temperatures fueled tropical storm Ophelia to hurricane status on October 14, as it moved toward Ireland. Hurricane-force gusts of 192 km/hour hit Ireland, flooding coastal towns, and causing structural damage, vast power outages, and two deaths.
The Atlantic coasts of Ireland, England, France, Spain, and Portugal now face, for the first time, the sustained threat of hurricanes. Four years ago, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute predicted that by 2100, global warming would increase the frequency of hurricane winds in western Europe.
The extreme fires and storms of 2017 signify more than just a 'new normal'. With each fraction of a degree that Earth's average temperature increases, these fires and storms will increase in intensity. The effects of climate change are not linear. A one-degree increase in temperature will yield about four-times the intensity of fires and storms. Some evidence suggests that by mid-century, fires and storms could double in their destructive power.
A study published in Nature suggests that limiting global heating to the Paris goal of 2°C is now "unlikely". The UN now estimates that the median projected global temperature increase is 3.2°C with a likely range up to 4.9°C and a high end of 8°C. The "new normal" will be constant change; a growing intensity of storms, fires, and other extreme weather, for as long as human carbon emissions continue.
Even if it sounds hopeless, it’s not. We have the chance to act decisively to change our present. All we need to fix this massive challenge is at our disposal. We just need the courage to come together and make it happen.
Rex Weyler is an author, journalist and co-founder of Greenpeace International.
Sources and Links:
How climate change is "turning up the dial" on wildfires: CBS News
"The Uninhabitable Earth,' David Wallace Wells: New York Magazine, June 2017
"Spain, Portugal Wildfires Kill at Least 39": weather.com
"Wildfires Roar Across Southern Europe": New York Times
Fires in Russia: the Telegraph
Forest fires in N. Mongolia: Xinhua news
Huge forest fire in northern China: South China Morning Post
Video, Fires in Mongolia / China: China People's Daily
Maps of 2017 global fires: Popular Science
Wildfires, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, October 2017: Countercurrents
Storms: weather and global warming: MPR News
Historic Storm: Ophelia Strikes Ireland with Hurricane Force: Robert Scribbler
Hurricane Ophelia Batters Ireland: Weather Underground
"Less than 2°C warming by 2100 unlikely": Nature, July 2017
"C02 Levels 50 Million Years Ago Tell Us About Climate Change Today": Clean Technica
Tropical forests no longer carbon sinks: Washington Post

Big oil is destructive in more ways than one

Bunny McDiarmid — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:06:00 Z

This September I took my first trip to Russia to join the celebration of Greenpeace Russia’s 25 Year Anniversary.
In big cities like Moscow, oil powered transport is a major source of pollution and greenhouse gases emissions. This is why four major cities - Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens - have moved to ban diesel vehicles by 2025.
In Moscow for the 25th Anniversary of Greenpeace Russia - 23 Sep, 2017
Energy based on oil can never be clean, whatever carmakers say. In Russia, I saw one of the darkest sides of the oil industry, hidden far away from the capital, deep in the forests of the north...
We travelled 1500km north, to the Komi region, one of the oldest oil producing regions in Russia. At first sight, I was amazed by the beauty of the country. We travelled on the great Pechora River in a small boat and watched endless white beaches and beautiful boreal forests bathed in the bright yellow colours of Autumn.
But when I looked closer, I saw a different picture: dead trees, black swamps, toxic water glistening with oil.
Dead forest in Komi Republic - 20 Aug, 2014
We found a huge oil spill which had happened the previous spring. It looked like it could be up to 10 hectares wide. Little had been done to clean it up. We only saw a few tired workers trying to dig out oil with shovels. Russia is infamous for having thousands of oil spills, big and small, around the country.
In 1994, one of the biggest man-made oil catastrophes hit Komi. More than 100,000 tonnes of oil spilled into rivers and forests when an old pipeline broke. The traces are still visible as pieces of stone-hard oil in the soil.
We met activists from the Save the Pechora Committee, a local NGO that unites people determined to protect their native land. Many of them are indigenous Komi people whose ancestors lived in this northern region for centuries.
As recently as April there was another accident in the region. A huge fire broke out at an oil well dangerously close to Pechora river. Hundreds of firefighters were unable to stop it and the fire burned for an entire month. The inhabitants of the two small villages nearby had to breathe toxic stink damp air (polluted with hydrogen sulphide) and the snow was covered with black soot.
One of the local families warmly invited us to their house. They live in a village with just 10 homes and love their native land and its closeness with nature.
But Lukoil (“one of the largest publicly traded oil and gas companies in the world accounting for more than 2% of the world's oil production,” according to their website) is closing its circle of oil wells surrounding the village.
Nina Volotovskaya, one of the residents described a sunset; “I saw that the sky above the river became bright red. I called the local council and they said everything was fine. The authorities only visited us once, reassuring us that there was no threat. All that time we smelled rotten eggs. Accidents often happen here. From our house, I can see ten oil wells, and there are more and more each year. Lukoil never informs us or warns us – why would they bother about the opinion of a few families?”
A message from the banks of the Pechora river
Nina and thousands of other people like her all across the world have to pay with their health for so-called oil prosperity.
But these brave people give me hope. After 20 years of fighting against big oil, they haven’t given up. They’ve learnt how to map oil spills, how to measure water pollution and assess if the land was reclaimed in a proper way.
But they can’t stand alone against one of the most powerful industries in the world. They need our united efforts to ensure a future with clean air and clean water.
Lukoil, the company that has been poisoning Komi for years, is now heading to the Arctic. It is one of several fossil fuel companies that received licences from the Norwegian government to drill in the far north. These are areas that had never been exploited before. And we need to stop them. Click here to join us in suing the Norwegian government.
It’s up to all of us to remember that the oil we consume is destroying the planet and the lives of so many people across the globe.

Antarctic krill – not just whale food

Willie Mackenzie — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 20:08:00 Z

Krill is whale food. In fact, it’s a commonly held misbelief that ‘krill’ in Norwegian literally means ‘whale food’. It doesn’t, but it’s still true. Massive swarms of krill, a tiny micro-shrimp in the Antarctic Ocean, provide the principal food for blue whales – the largest animal that ever lived.
But krill is so much more than just whale food.
Antarctic Krill
Copyright: Uwe Kils/NOAA
There are lots of species of krill, and they exist in seas all over the world, but it’s in the Southern Ocean that they are most essential and where the marine life depends so directly on them. Krill are tiny crustaceans that look like a scaled-down shrimp and live in massive swarms of individual animals. They have some amazing talents, like the ability to produce glowing light (known as bioluminescence) and a neat trick of spontaneously moulting their shell to try and escape from predators.
In Antarctic seas, the largest species of krill is found – Antarctic krill. Colder waters are often home to bigger varieties of animal species, and at up to a whopping 6 centimetres long Antarctic krill weighs in as the biggest of the world’s 85 krill species. It also has the longest lifespan, growing to the ripe old age of 6 or 7 years, if it doesn’t get eaten first. Depending on the ice edge for food and shelter, krill munch on tiny plant plankton and inadvertently turn it into delicious food for pretty much everything else that can swim or dive in the icy southern seas.
Being eaten is an ever-present threat for krill. Not only do blue whales gulp down massive mouthfuls of millions of krill, but humpback, fin and minke whales travel to the Antarctic every year to gorge on them too. Antarctic penguins like Adélies and Gentoos also eat krill directly (something that is very evident when it makes their poo pink!) and regurgitate it for their fluffy chicks, as do other seabirds. Small fish eat krill, and there’s even an Antarctic seal (confusingly called a ‘crabeater’) which has evolved krill-catching dentistry to allow it to feast on these tiny crustaceans too.
Blue whale feeding on krill. Original video by Todd Chandler, Oregon State University/YouTube: https://youtu.be/YARe1etnNZE
Krill is the living lifeblood of the Antarctic Ocean. Anything that doesn’t eat krill tends to eat something that just did, so the toothfish, leopard seals, albatross and orcas all depend on it too.
These tiny critters have a lot of ecological responsibility, yet very slim shoulders – so it’s lucky that there are plenty of them. It’s thought that Antarctic krill might number in the trillions and, by weight, be one of the most abundant animals on the planet. But we know their numbers fluctuate widely from year to year, and with their dependence on sea ice, it’s believed that climate change is having a hugely adverse effect too. So in truth, we simply don’t know how many krill there are or how dependable their populations will be in years to come.
There’s also the growing threat of the krill fishing industry to contend with, which is intent on expanding in the Antarctic and is lobbying governments hard to block any ocean sanctuary that would make waters off-limits to industrial fishing.
That’s bad news if you’re a hungry penguin, or a migrating whale that has travelled thousands of miles to feed. And it’s a massive worry for all of us who care about the penguins, seals, whales and seabirds of the Antarctic too.
After all, krill isn’t just whale food, it’s so much more important than that.
The Antarctic needs krill, and krill needs a break too. Please add your voice to our call to create a new massive Antarctic Ocean Sanctuary, and protect the amazing marine life living there.
Sign here to protect it.

3 reasons this small country’s court decision will have a big impact on global climate action

Kristin Casper and Kate Simcock — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 18:26:00 Z

Two years ago, a courageous law student, Sarah Thomson, sued the New Zealand Government over its weak climate targets. Now she’s made history.
On 2 November, 2017, the High Court of New Zealand issued a game-changing ruling. It found that climate change presents significant risks and government actions on climate change are subject to judicial scrutiny. The court also found that the former Minister for Climate Change acted unlawfully by failing to review the country’s climate change targets after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published an updated report on climate science.
The court didn’t issue an order against the recently elected government because the new Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has committed the country to zero carbon by 2050. While Sarah is excited about the new 2050 target, she believes there needs to be a concrete plan to achieve it. Sarah hasn’t ruled out an appeal.
This ruling is a big deal.
It demonstrates that countries must review climate decisions in line with updated science and courts will weigh in on inadequate efforts to respond to climate change.
Here’s why this ruling from a small South Pacific country court will have a big impact on global climate action.
1. People are securing big wins for the climate in court.
First there was the case brought by the Urgenda Foundation and 900 co-plaintiffs. They argued that the Netherlands committed a tort of negligence against its citizens by contributing to climate change. The court agreed and ordered the government to increase its emission reduction targets.
Then in Pakistan a farmer sued the Federal government, arguing that inaction on climate change violated the constitutional rights to life and dignity. Again, the court agreed and ordered the government to act and placed it under judicial supervision.

Members of the Senior Women for Climate Protection deliver their legal complaint against Swiss authorities to the court in May, 2017.
And the wins continue. In the USA, 21 young people and a climate scientist, as guardians for future generations, sued the government for violating their rights by committing the US to a fossil fuel based energy system. In rejecting government and industry efforts to have the case dismissed, the court ruled that their case could proceed to trial and identified a new right to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
Like the landmark decisions that came before it, the New Zealand High Court’s ruling will inspire more people to sue. It provides strong legal arguments in favor of government accountability for weak climate policies in other pending cases, such as the climate lawsuit brought by over 700 Swiss senior women.
2. The stage is set for the climate trial in Norway and human rights investigation in the Philippines.
Another epic court battle is set to begin on 14 November, and a Norwegian court could be the next to hold a government accountable in a climate case.
Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth filed a lawsuit against the Norwegian Government for opening up new areas in the Arctic for drilling for oil and gas, further north than ever before. They allege that the licenses infringe the Constitutional right to a healthy environment, explicitly safeguarded for future generations, as well as contravening the Paris Agreement.

Plaintiffs and supporters stand outside the Norwegian courthouse in Oslo with the lawsuit against the Norwegian government in October, 2016.
On the other side of the world, the people of Tacloban are marking the 4th anniversary of super typhoon Haiyan, which hit the Philippines in November 2013. At least 6,300 lives were lost and millions of others were affected and have yet to recover. Like Sarah and the youth in Norway, disaster survivors and other Filipinos are using the power of the law to accelerate action on climate change.
In September 2015, they filed a legal petition, triggering a powerful human rights body to launch a serious investigation into the responsibility big fossil fuel companies have for fuelling climate impacts that contribute to human rights harms. On December 11th, the Commission will be holding a preliminary conference with the aim of finding a speedy resolution, which the people hope will work to prevent climate-related human rights harms.
3. Climate litigation creates a strong mandate for global climate action.
The Paris Climate Agreement set down a bold ambition to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We’re in a race against time to increase climate action to meet this target.
Right now, governments are gathering in Bonn, Germany at the 23rd annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This should also be the moment where countries prepare to speed up their global climate action efforts.
The New Zealand ruling is a warning to all governments. If countries fail to get their act together to make sure deadly climate impacts are averted, they too will be hauled into court.
Take action! You can hold the big polluters accountable. Add your name and support communities seeking climate justice through legal actions.
Kristin Casper is Litigation Counsel for the global Climate Justice and Liability Project with Greenpeace Canada and Kate Simcock is a Campaigner at Greenpeace New Zealand.

5 peaceful protests that prove you can still change the world

India Thorogood — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:35:00 Z

NBA players kneeling against white supremacy. Catalonians marching for independence. Quakers disarming Saudi-bound jets. In turbulent times, it’s inspiring to see protest happening — but when change doesn’t come, even the most ardent of campaigners can feel disheartened. What’s worse is that many who’ve never taken a stand can wonder whether they should bother getting involved at all.
Yet once your feet stop being sore, once the toxic tweets and critical column inches die down — quite often, we protesters win. Here are five times that peaceful acts of disobedience have transformed our world. Maybe they’ll inspire you — or someone you know — to get active.
1. Gandhi’s Salt March
Long before you could invite thousands to protests with the click of a Facebook button, Mahatma Gandhi led a march of tens of thousands of people to defy British rule in India.
Under colonial rules, as Brits cashed in on salt, Indians were forbidden from producing it. So in 1930, Gandhi set out in search of salt and as word spread of his brave plan, he gathered a crowd. After months of walking and despite resistance from the police, Gandhi picked up the salt and in that one moment inspired civil disobedience across the country. He became a leader of the movement for independence and though it took 17 years from the Salt March, India eventually threw off the chains of British rule.
2. The Tree Sitters of Pureora
In 1978 logging companies planned to destroy a rainforest in New Zealand. Conservation activists built platforms in the treetops and stayed there to prevent the trees from being cut down. In response to the protests the government was forced to stop the logging and officially protect the area.
Using your body to stop something bad from happening is a well-established and effective strategy — right now, anti-fracking protesters have delayed fracking at the UK’s first ever fracking site by blocking trucks and vans in all types of creative ways. We should do well to remember the victory brought about by the Tree Sitters of Pureora when watching, or taking part, in those protests.
3. The Singing Revolution
In the 1980s most in the Baltic States had grown sick of the Soviet regime and many began taking peaceful action to gain independence. Across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, groups began to spontaneously sing patriotic songs that had been banned by the Soviet regime in a sign of defiance. In 1989 two million people across the three countries’ capital cities joined hands in a ‘Baltic chain.’ Within months, Lithuania declared independence and other countries followed.

4. Civil rights sit-ins
Pelted with American fast food, covered in ketchup, beaten and arrested. That was often the fate of those who took part in peaceful sit-ins in 1960s USA. The peaceful movement for an end to segregation had already become strong but these young students knew what they would face when they sat on the cold restaurant seats merely asking to be served. Over just one summer, 1500 students taking part in the sit-ins had been arrested but soon their sacrifice paid off — many restaurants started to ditch segregation for good.
5. The Kingsnorth Six
Exactly ten years ago, Ben, Tim, Kevin, Huw, Will & Emily climbed the chimney of a UK coal plant that was producing as much carbon dioxide as 30 countries combined. Aiming to persuade the Labour government to abandon plans for new coal plants, the Greenpeace activists attempted to paint “Gordon, bin it” on the Kingsnorth coal chimney.
When they descended, the six volunteers were arrested and feared being sent to prison. But after 8 days in court, evidence from NASA’s climate change expert among others, convinced the jury that they should be exonerated. The precedent this decision set was huge — it justified further direct action against fossil fuel companies — and that night on BBC News it was reported that government plans for new coal plants now hung in the balance. Later the coal plants were cancelled for good and the UK is in the process of phasing out coal by 2025.
Of course there are countless acts like these that have made our world a fairer, more peaceful, and more green world. But these 5 protests show that all kinds of peaceful tactics, in all kinds of situations can create change. While some had immediate success, for other campaigns it took years.
Since a ship full of chequered shirt wearing Canadian activists set off to stop nuclear tests, Greenpeace hasn’t stopped believing in the power of peaceful direct action. We hope you never stop believing either.

We have one year to create the largest ever protected area on Earth

Greenpeace — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:31:00 Z

In the words of David Attenborough, “Our planet is a blue planet”. With over 70% of our world covered by water, our oceans can be seen from across the solar system.

It wasn’t long ago that the oceans were still believed to be too vast for human activity to be able to cause them significant, lasting damage. But study after study is demonstrating how the effects of overfishing, oil drilling, deep sea mining, pollution & climate change prove that humans are more than up to the task of causing major harm to the oceans and the animals that live there.

It’s not just wildlife that’s under threat: it’s us too. The health of our oceans supports the livelihoods of billions of people, and sustains our planet by tackling climate change. Our fate and the fate of our oceans are intimately connected.

What kind of action can be taken to prevent this damage from becoming irreversible?

The majority of this water falls outside of national borders. These vast areas of ocean technically belong to no one – which actually means that they belong to us all. We are their shared guardians, and what happens to them is our collective responsibility.

The science is clear: we need to create Ocean Sanctuaries.

Ocean Sanctuaries are large-scale protected areas of the ocean that are off-limits to exploitative human activities. They provide relief for wildlife and ecosystems to recover. The benefits are global. Recovering fish populations spread around the world, ensuring food security for the billions of people that rely on our oceans. And scientists are becoming increasingly clear: healthy oceans play a critical role in soaking up carbon dioxide and helping us to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Here’s the good news. The tide of history is turning, and our blue planet is finally looking at protecting the blue bits. Just a few months ago, in a stuffy room far from the ocean, governments from around the world agreed to start a process to protect them: an Ocean Treaty.

This Ocean Treaty won’t be agreed until at least 2020, but in the meantime momentum is already building towards proper ocean protection. Just last year a huge 1.5 million sq km area was protected in the Ross Sea in the Antarctic. In a turbulent political climate, it was a momentous demonstration of how international cooperation to protect our shared home can - and does - work.

Sitting at the bottom of the world, the Antarctic is home to a great diversity of life: huge colonies of Emperor and Adélie penguins, the incredible Colossal squid with eyes the size of basketballs that allow it to see in the depths, and the largest animal on the planet, the blue whale, which has veins large enough for a person to swim down.

But in the Antarctic, the creeping expansion of industrial fishing is targeting the one species on which practically every animal there relies: krill. These are tiny shrimp-like creatures which penguins, whales, seals and other wildlife depend on for survival. The awful news that all but two penguin chicks have starved to death out of a colony of almost 40,000 is a grim illustration of the enormous pressures already facing Antarctic wildlife populations. An expanding krill industry is just more bad news for the health of the Antarctic Ocean. Even worse, the krill industry is blocking attempts at environmental protection in the Antarctic.

Right now, the governments responsible for the Antarctic are meeting to discuss the future of the continent and its waters. While limited proposals are on the table this year, when they meet again in 12 months’ time they have an historic opportunity to create the largest ever protected area on Earth: an Antarctic Ocean Sanctuary. Covering the Weddell Sea next to the Antarctic Peninsula, it would be five times the size of Germany, the country proposing it.

Creating the world’s largest ever protected area in the Antarctic Ocean would show that corporate lobbying and national interests are no match for a united global call for our political leaders to protect what belongs to us all.

The movement to protect over half our planet begins now, and it begins in the Antarctic.

The Ocean Plastic Crisis

Rex Weyler — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:29:00 Z

"Plastics!" This became one of the most famous film lines from the 1960s era. In the film The Graduate, young university graduate, Ben (Dustin Hoffman) appears annoyed and distracted when his wealthy American parents stage an elaborate party to show him off to their peers. A family friend approaches him and says, "Ben I have one word for you: Plastics." Ben nods and stares into space, oblivious to the career advice.
This short scene foreshadowed the age that followed. Plastics were about to explode upon the world. Commercial organic polymers were first synthesized a century ago, used by armies in World War II. They first entered consumer production in the 1950s. Plastic packaging created a global shift from reusable containers to single-use, throw-away containers.
According to a 2016 plastic industry report, the world’s plastic production has grown by 8.6% per year since 1950: from 1.5 million tonnes annually to over 330 million tonnes annually. As of today, some 9 billion metric tons of plastics have been produced and spread around the world. To the plastics industry, this is a "global success story." For Earth's beleaguered ecosystems, for all non-human species, and for anyone paying attention, plastics have been a deadly disaster.
According to a report  published in Science Advances - from researchers at the University of California, University of Georgia, and Woods Hole Institute in Massachusetts - only about 9% of plastic has been recycled, 12 % has been incinerated (polluting the air with toxic gases), and the remaining 79 %, remains in the environment. If current production and waste management trends continue, by 2050, there will be 12 billion tonnes of plastic in natural environments. That's the weight of 100 million blue whales - 5,000 times the actual blue whale population left on Earth.
Whale Art Installation in the Philippines, May 2017. © Greenpeace
Plastics are closely correlated with economic growth. Multinational corporations often impose plastic packaging on poor nations that may lack recycling systems to deal with them. Because of the fundamental chemistry of most commonly used plastics, they are not biodegradable, so they accumulate as virtually permanent contamination in Earth's ecosystems.
Choking the oceans
Plastic debris appears in every ocean of the world. Every year, we’re adding millions of tons more plastic to marine environments. Some researchers estimate that we may be adding up to 12 million tonnes annually.
The Guardian has reported that marine scientists documented 38 million pieces of plastic on the remote, uninhabited Henderson Island in the South Pacific. The human garbage the found originated from all over the world. They found samples from Germany, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere, amounting to about 18 tonnes. A lot of this plastic is not even visible. In a single square-metre of sand, digging down 10 cm the researchers found over 4,000 tiny bits of plastic.
In the open ocean, plastic collects in eddies or gyres, relative calm regions surrounded by stronger ocean currents. There are five major ocean gyres; two in the Atlantic, north and south, two in the Pacific, and one in the Indian Ocean, plus dozens of smaller gyres. The gyres accumulate plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic containers, plastic drums, polystyrene packing, foam pieces, polypropylene fishing net, plastic rope, plastic traffic cones, disposable lighters, plastic toys, rubber tires, plastic toothbrushes, and other unidentifiable bits and pieces.
The North Pacific gyre creates the largest garbage site in the world: 700,000 to a million square kilometers of floating plastic. The gyre contains six kilograms of plastic for every kilogram of plankton. In Hawaii, south of this gyre, a dead turtle was found with over a thousand pieces of plastic in its stomach.
Turtle and Plastic in the Ocean. © Troy Mayne / Oceanic Imagery Publications
Pieces of plastic are sharp, brittle, toxic, and routinely found in the stomachs of dead fish, turtles, and marine mammals. Plastics can come with a range of hazardous additives and can act as a chemical sponge, soaking up and concentrating other pollutants. Marine species, including fish, seabirds and even marine mammals, can end up eating pieces of plastic, and at the same time get an additional dose of toxic chemicals.
Researchers have found plastic in the stomachs of 44% of all seabird species, 22% of cetacean species, and in all sea turtle species. Among seabirds, the Procellariiformes (albatross, petrels, shearwaters) are most vulnerable due to their small gizzard and inability to regurgitate the plastics. Plankton eaters - birds, fish, and mammals - often confuse plastic pellets with their food; copepods, euphausiids, and cephalopods.
The plastics obstruct the animals' intestines, block gastric enzyme secretion and there are growing fears that they might also disrupt hormone levels or cause other biological effects as a result of the chemical burden they carry. It is estimated that up to about one million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year from ingesting plastic or by getting tangled in nylon fishing line, nets, six-pack plastic can holders, and plastic rope.
Plastic Waste on Manila Bay Beach, 3 May, 2017. © Daniel Müller / Greenpeace
Solutions: obvious but inconvenient
Without large-scale action, global plastic production continues to rise. According to the 2015 Global Ocean Commission it’s estimated to reach 500 million tonnes a year by 2020.
Solutions to the plastic waste crisis exist, but they require us to change our lifestyles and for corporations to take responsibility for the products they make. We can fight for total bans on plastic materials (bags, bottles, etc.), but we also need governments to enforce requirements that corporations who manufacture or distribute plastic, take responsibility for recycling 100% of their production and distribution.
Plastic bag bans already exist in some cities and countries around the world: San Francisco and Portland in the US; Modbury in the UK; Mexico City; Delhi, Mumbai, Karwar, Rajasthan in India; Oyster Bay and other communities in Australia; and throughout Rwanda, Kenya, Morocco and many other African countries. Some nations are imposing recycling taxes on plastic bags.
Locally, in some environments, these bans have reduced plastic waste. But the flow of plastics into the environment continues on a global scale. Banning plastic bags is a good start, but we need large-scale global bans on throw-away plastic containers, including water bottles, juice and drink bottles, and other packing materials.
Common Species of the Inner Hebrides (artwork). © Mandy Barker / Greenpeace
I've attended allegedly "green" events, where organizers distribute hundreds, perhaps thousands of plastic water bottles. In mainstream society, this behaviour appears normal. Corporations have lobbied to decrease drinking fountains in certain markets. We need to reverse this trend by increasing public investment in water fountains, water filling stations, water hook-ups for public events, and bans on plastic drink bottles.
In June this year, Greenpeace Germany activists protested at the G20 conference in Bremen and demanded that wealthy nations take concrete steps to reduce the use of plastics by banning key sources of plastic pollution and phasing out single-use plastic items.
They also called for pressure on companies that produce plastic items - packaging, containers, and so forth - to hold these companies accountable with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws that would require them to create recycling systems for their products.
“As the world’s most developed nations," said Thilo Maack of Greenpeace Germany, "the G20 countries have a responsibility to adopt legally-binding solutions. We cannot recycle our way out of the plastic litter problem. Governments should prioritise prevention at source."
Protest at the G20 Conference in Bremen, 1 June 2017. © Daniel Müller / Greenpeace
Citizens can put pressure on their governments to require glass bottles for drinks, substitute packing materials with materials that are reusable. "Mandatory phase out timelines" said Maack, "would motivateinnovation [and] G20 competition to identify and implement the most innovative solutions, contributing far more than continued talks.”
Economic "success" without ecological consciousness can end in disaster. The flood of plastic in our environment is a typical example. Plastics helped create a throwaway culture. Several generations have now grown up believing that tossing out a drink container is completely normal, reasonable behaviour. Ecology teaches us, however, that there is no “away." Everything that passes through our hands ends up somewhere.
Rex Weyler is an author, journalist and co-founder of Greenpeace International.
============
Sources and links:
"Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made," Roland Geyer, Jenna R. Jambeck, and Kara Lavender Law, Science Advances, 19 July 2017.
"Marine birds and plastic pollution," Marie Y. Azzarello & Edward S. Van Vleet, Marine Ecology, 1987
"Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds,” P.G.Ryan, et. al. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1988.
World Plastic production 1950 - 2015: Plastic Industry report, 2016
"38 million pieces of plastic waste on uninhabited island": Guardian, 2017
Plastic pellets on all UK beaches: Guardian
Pollution in 10 km deep Mariana Trench: Guardian
Plastic statistics, stats: Eco Watch , 2014
The Trash Vortex, Greenpeace, March 2014
Greenpeace calls on G20 to act for plastic-free oceans. Greenpeace, June, 2017
“How You Can Help the Ocean”: Smithsonian
"Seven actions for healthy oceans": David Suzuki Foundation
Phaseout of lightweight plastic bags - Wikipedia

Capitalism's moral maze

atobert — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:18:00 Z

Life as a consumer is very different to what we’re told.

We’re told it’s easy, it’s effortless. That life flows better with Visa.

We’re sold an image of smash avo on toast; of beautiful, thin, white women laughing at salads; of right-angled, rugged heroes cruising on highways in their brand-new Holdens.

It looks so good, so inviting, so perfect.

But we know that there’s another picture too. Of turtles dying after ingesting plastic. Of marine life being deafened by oil drilling. Of climate change.

No one wants this. It doesn’t look good on Instagram. So the same people who sell you solutions for your ageing skin also sell you the solution to all sorts of environmental crises.

If you want clean air, then stop buying the affordable petrol car we sell you and how about this snazzy, marked-up electric one instead? (Just, whatever you do, don’t take the bus!) Want clean beaches, then why on earth accept all this plastic we shove in your face every time you visit the supermarket? What, you want the beaches to die?

This moral maze is exhausting. But it’s a false choice. It’s not up to you, on your weekly trip to the supermarket, to save the world. It’s not your fault that you need to buy food. It’s not your fault that you need to use a supermarket, and it’s not your fault that you’re presented with plastic-wrapped veg or plastic-wrapped veg, with more plastic to carry them home in.

While you tie yourself in knots about your environmental impact, as you’re umming and ahhing about the choices you’re railroaded into making, the people selling you the plastic are just making money.

They literally make trash. It gets used once, then it goes into the ocean or landfill. They make the money. The environment pays the price.

But it’s worse than that.

Former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, the High Priestess of neoliberal economics, once said of her agenda, “Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul”.

What she meant by this was that by attacking the collective institutions on which the UK was built - the unions, the railways, the utilities - in the name of economics, she can change fundamentally how we see ourselves. Less as a collective citizenry, more as individuals, as consumers. “There’s no such thing as society” - another of her zingers.

Her ideology matched the US President’s, Ronald Reagan. Together, they shaped the global consensus on economics, which reached a small island at the bottom of the world, with which you might be familiar.

Here’s the T, when we individualise environmental crisis, when we make it all about our behaviour, we lose sight of the bigger picture. We lose sight of the systemic problems that sees companies make huge profits at the expense of the living world. And we think that our own “failings” - our lack of money, beautiful products or six-pack abs - are our own fault. We don’t see the system around us that lets some people feast while the rest of us fight for the crumbs. (Or perhaps more accurately, those feasting are doing so on the backs off those of us fighting for crumbs.)

But it doesn’t have to be this way. If we start viewing ourselves as a collective again, as citizens, we empower ourselves like never before.

We can re-write the rules on this horrible system that binds us into these destructive choices. Together, we can force companies to clean up the pollution they create. Together, we can design a system that works for people and planet, and not just Big Business and the tiny fraction of people who own them.

We could create a world where all of us - animals, plants and people - can thrive like never before. This isn’t utopian fantasy. This is real. We have the know-how, we just need the will.

But to do that, we need to start punching upwards. Judging others for what they do and don’t buy divides and alienates us. It’s time for a new narrative, where we work together for the world we all want.

This is already happening. The world is getting better because people are coming together to make it so.

When we stand together, we always win.

Activists around Europe #RiseUp for a cleaner future

Cristiana De Lia — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:50:00 Z

It was only two years ago when, during the Paris Climate Conference, we displayed our first giant Sun in Paris to demand that our world leaders tackle climate change by replacing dirty fossil fuels with clean renewable energy.
COP21: Arc de Triomphe Sun Action in Paris. 11 December, 2015
With world leaders finally agreeing on historic steps to protect the climate, the sun became a symbol of those promises and the symbol of our battle for a healthy, renewable future.
Last June, we marked the beginning of Summer with a sun in Barcelona to remind our leaders of their Paris promises. Another Sun also rose in Croatia to make sure the world remembered the potential of solar energy.
Sun Action in Barcelona. 21 June 2017.
Last week, peaceful activists turned iconic public spaces in europe into giants suns. They appeared in Hungary and Romania, from Bulgaria to Slovenia, and all the way to Brussels.
Sunrise Action in Budapest, Hungary. 4 October, 2017
This week, 65 activists from five countries unfolded a giant banner just outside the headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels. It said, "Go solar!". This was the latest sun to shine in Europe and call upon EU leaders to throw their weight behind renewable energy and to abandon dirty fuels, like coal.
Our leaders in the EU are currently deciding the future of our energy system by reviewing a wide range of legislation on renewable energy policy, fossil fuel subsidies and the design of the electricity market.
Sunrise Action in Pernik, Bulgaria. 6 October, 2017
This means they could decide to stick to the old, dangerous and outdated energy system by pouring billions of euros of our money into dirty fossil fuels. Or they can invest in clean, sustainable, healthy renewable energy.
With so much renewable energy at our disposal, it is important we remind our leaders to make the right choice and commit to a cleaner future for our planet and our health.
Sunrise Action in the Center of Ljubljana, Slovenia. 5 October, 2017.
Ordinary people, cooperatives and small businesses are ready to take part in the energy revolution, by producing energy from wind, water and sunlight.
We met some of these people and only few weeks ago we took their message to the members of the European Parliament.
Sunrise Action in Brussels, Belgium. 9 October 2017.
But right now, we need your help to really make sure our voices are heard and that Europe becomes the symbol of a new energy era in the fight against climate change.
#RiseUp with us and sign our call to Europe here and don’t forget to share this Facebook video with your friends and family!

Cristiana De Lia is an Engagment Strategist with Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe

How pioneering brands are slowing down fast fashion

Gabriele Salari — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:36:00 Z

The fashion industry is considered to be one of the most polluting in the world. Its material-intensive business model relies heavily on our addiction to overconsumption and feeds the destruction of the planet.
There is one way to solve the problem: slowing down fashion. We need a model that doesn’t compromise on ethical, social and environmental values and involves customers, rather than encouraging them to binge buy ever-changing trends.
At Milan Fashion Week this year, Greenpeace Italy decided to give the podium to the pioneers of sustainable fashion, who are changing the way we wear our clothes. These are the companies behind some of the examples from the Greenpeace Germany report “Fashion at the Crossroads”.
We chose to highlight the three most important ways to create clothes that don’t harm the planet: Make it last, Make it right, Make it different.
Make it last
Hilke Patzwall from Vaude
"One of our key problems is too much consumption. It's important to inform consumers about all the consequences of fast fashion, but it is even more important that the industry takes on their responsibility. As a brand, we need to make products with a physical and emotional durability, and provide the infrastructure so that consumers can live up to slowing the loop."
Eliina Brinkberg and Hilke Patzwall at the event in Milan
Eliina Brinkberg from Nudie Jeans
"At Nudie Jeans, we encourage our customers to wear their jeans longer by offering free repairs. We’re so happy to be brought up as an example of being on the right track and we share Greenpeace's belief that prolonging the life of our clothes is one of the most important ways of sloing down the flow of materials in the fashion industry."
"By appreciating true craftsmanship, learning to love and care for our clothes and by buying less and wearing longer, we can create a more sustainable textile industry."
Make it right
Andrea Cavicchi, part of the Italian Detox Consortium
"In the Prato area of Tuscany, we've been making sustainable fabric since the 12th century. We use production techniques where wool fibres are reused to produce new fabrics, allowing the recovery of fibres and textile waste materials. Used clothes that would normally be thrown away are reintroduced into the production cycle as raw materials. The first manufacturing companies to sign up to Greenpeace’s Detox Commitment were in the Prato textile district."
"Now the Italian Detox Consortium is applying the Detox approach to the virtuous process of recycling textile fibres by promoting an investigation of the chemical contamination of regenerated articles and finding out what we can do to solve it. We ensure the traceability of the recycled textile material with their certification and by working with an international authority."
Enrica Arena from Orange Fiber

"We believe that a sustainable and ethical business model - one which considers the environmental and human costs of manufacture to be as crucial as profit - together with a circular approach to material sourcing and design, are the keys to closing the loop in the fashion industry and taking our world beyond the next season."
"We’re faithful to our motto, “the future is not a place we’re going to, but a place we create”, and continue to research new raw materials and develop ways to improve our manufacturing process. People who wear a dress made out of our fabrics are not just consumers, but contributors to a more sustainable future. This is the contemporary way to construct an ethical and sustainable lifestyle; one that looks further than status and considers the future of our world.”
Make it different
Pola Fendel from Kleiderei

“Society is definitely shifting. Consumers are starting to question more. The amount of people who want to buy less and choose quality over quantity is growing. The projects and companies represented on Greenpeace's Fashion at the Crossroads panel all feed into this change in society whilst shaping and broadening it. We are increasing attention to this topic and providing much needed alternatives to fast fashion and over-consumption.”
Arielle Lévy from L’Herbe Rouge
"Sustainability is a state of mind. The stakes are high for fashion. I believe that we have to inspire the economy by showing the success of new business models, especially post carbon initiatives. This is the only way our highly polluting industry can protect people, consumers and the planet."
"As far as the L'Herbe Rouge business model is concerned, our four pillars have proved that une autre mode est possible (another fashion is possible):
Coherence of chain of value: eco design, eco production, eco distribution.
Eco frugality: minimise resources and maximise added value (product and service).
Innovation: in order to find new answers and create local jobs and autonomy for companies.
Affordable quality: fair and accessible prices, direct selling, no intermediary, democratisation through slow wear.
Shifting mindsets
How do we thank the marvellous people working so tirelessly to change fashion for the better? We chose to give the final word to a Greenpeace ally:
Orsola de Castro from the Fashion Revolution
"Before technology and the advancement of the Circular Economy will save us, we have to slow down mass production and accelerated consumption."
"Now that consumers are asking questions, and an increasing number of brands are beginning to understand that tomorrow’s loyalty will demand sustainable innovation, we need to encourage a culture where people are encouraged to challenge brands to be more ethical."
"If we increase the visibility of smaller slow-fashion brands we can make the fashion industry much more biodiverse. Small really is beautiful!"
Our next challenge is changing people’s minds.
Gabriele Salari is the Communications Specialist for the Detox My Fashion campaign in Greenpeace Italy

The superhero two year old who represents thousands affected by the air pollution crisis

India Thorogood — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:06:00 Z

“It was really distressing to see her working so hard to breathe. She’s so small.”

It’s a parents’ worst nightmare to see their child being rushed in and out of hospital. Yet Sephie’s parents - Bo and Amii - have all too often seen their daughter confined to a hospital ward, breathing through a toddler-sized breathing machine.

Her body would become limp, she would become unable to eat or get up and was exhausted simply from trying to breathe in and out. Her parents would take her to hospital, go home-then it would happen again. They were terrified.

What’s worse is that, as Bo and Amii waited in the hospital’s emergency department, they noticed it wasn’t just Sephie being rushed into hospital with chest problems – there were lots more children too. Doctors said they thought chest problems were becoming more common in children.

We asked the UK’s leading pediatrician, Dr Jonathan Grigg , what he thought of Sephie and other children being rushed into London hospitals with breathing problems.

“Given the scale of the air pollution problem here in London, it’s sadly predictable that we’re seeing so many children across the capital, like Sephie, suffering from respiratory problems”, Dr Grigg explained.

“We know that air pollution and diesel emissions can greatly impact on children, from childhood lung development to asthma. Drastically reducing diesel emissions would immediately reduce children’s exposure and improve their long – term health.”

Air pollution across the UK is now so bad it’s being called a public health emergency, and has been breaking legal safety limits every year since 2010. A Greenpeace investigation showed that over 1000 nurseries across the UK are in areas close to illegal levels of air pollution. This means thousands of toddlers could be exposed to potentially irreversible impacts of air pollution on their health.

This isn’t just about London, or about Sephie though. Globally, air pollution is ranked as a greater threat to health than ebola and HIV, with it having the biggest impact on vulnerable members of our society – the elderly and children.

We know how to stop this crisis. Diesel vehicles produce at least 80% of the air pollution coming from our streets – that’s why Sephie and her parents have joined Greenpeace’s campaign calling on VW to ditch diesel and go electric.

Amii and Bo worry if Sephie will be able to lead a normal life when she is older. Already she cannot go outside and play with her friends or family as many children would. They want to make things better for Sephie, without leaving the only home the family has ever known.

Take action: Join Greenpeace’s campaign for Clean Air Now.

By India Thorogood, digital campaigner, Greenpeace UK

The beginning of the end for nuclear weapons

Jen Maman — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:20:00 Z

"I have been waiting for this day for seven decades and I am overjoyed that it has finally arrived,” said Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow in July, when a new treaty banning nuclear weapons was agreed at the United Nations in New York. “This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.”
However agreeing on a new treaty is only the first step towards a treaty becoming valid international law. As of Wednesday 20th September, governments can take the next step and officially sign the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Once a country signs, it needs to have it adopted as national law to ratify it. And 50 countries need to do this before this treaty becomes agreed international law. (New Zealand is amongst the first to sign).
Governments that sign and ratify the treaty have real obligations. They commit to: “never under any circumstances … develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices … (or) use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.”
The treaty also prohibits states from allowing any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons in their territory. (You can read the full text here.)
There is already overwhelming support for this treaty.
122 countries supported it back in July. Many of these countries are expected to sign and ratify it in the coming weeks and months.
This is a good start. But it is not enough.
Sadly, the world of nuclear weapons is an extremely unequal one. Just nine states in the world own nuclear weapons: the USA, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel.
There are five more states that host U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. These countries and all the other NATO countries, with the exception of the Netherlands, boycotted the negotiations of the new treaty. The Netherlands attended the negotiations but voted against it.
They all remain adamant that they will not sign the treaty. The US has also been using its considerable influence to pressure other countries not to support it.
This is significant; unless a country ratifies the treaty, it is not bound by it.
Nuclear Security Summit Protest in Washington D.C, April 2016.
Although this is a reality, it is certainly no reason to despair, quite the contrary. September 20th marks a new era and, indeed, the beginning of the end for nuclear weapons.
Each state that does sign and ratify this treaty will contribute to strengthening its impact in global politics, and help delegitimize the role of weapons of mass destruction in security policies.
It may even influence military practices in states that do not initially sign the treaty. It will make it harder for their proponents to describe nuclear weapons as a legitimate and useful means to provide security. It creates a -- long overdue -- global norm against nuclear weapons.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win,” Gandhi allegedly said.
Even a year ago, the idea of a treaty banning nuclear weapons supported by a majority of countries in the world, negotiated in a record time of only four weeks, would have seemed like a dream -- laughable to many.
But it was achieved. Countries that are often sidelined when global security is discussed have stuck together, and, supported by civil society, made this a reality.
The many states that have supported this treaty so far, and those that will sign up to it in the coming weeks and months, make a clear point on behalf of their citizens and on behalf of millions around the world.
We do not allow the few to define security for all. Nuclear weapons are not a path towards peace and security. In the year where nuclear war has once again became thinkable to some, there is no better time to denounce these evil weapons.
September 21st marks the International Day of Peace. There can be no better commitment to peace than to join this treaty. We must all call on our governments to do so.

Jen Maman is the Senior Peace Adviser at Greenpeace International

Chevron's Amazon Chernobyl Case moves to Canada

Rex Weyler — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:43:00 Z

After perpetrating what is probably the worst oil-related catastrophe on Earth - a 20,000 hectare death zone in Ecuador, known as the “Amazon Chernobyl” - the Chevron Corporation has spent two decades and over a billion dollars trying to avoid responsibility. In 2011, Indigenous and peasant villagers won an $9.5-billion compensation judgment in Ecuador. Chevron, despite accepting jurisdiction in Ecuador to avoid a US jury trial, refused to pay.

Image courtesy of Amazon Watch
The company sold its assets in Ecuador to avoid seizure, left the country, and threatened the victims with a "lifetime of litigation" if they pursued compensation. The 30,000 plaintiffs, however, have not given up. The case now moves to Canada, where Chevron holds assets, and where the victims hope, at last, to gain justice.
This tragic story reveals almost unthinkable corporate irresponsibility, intimidation, and arrogance, not just by Chevron executives, but by their 60 law firms, 2,000 lawyers and paralegals, six public relations firms, squads of private investigators, thugs and bribed witnesses, and at least one severely compromised US judge. Chevron has probably spent more money trying to weasel out of this case than any corporation in world history.
If we sometimes wonder why significant ecological progress appears so monumentally difficult, this blood-curdling case will give us some clues.
Crimes in the oil patch
In 1964, Texaco (now Chevron) discovered oil in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest where the Indigenous Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Quichua, and Huaorani people lived traditional lives, untouched by industrial civilization. Over the next 28 years, the oil producers perpetrated some of the most horrendous ecological crimes in history.
Texaco/Chevron dumped some 16 billion gallons of wastewater laced with carcinogens into rivers and streams. The company abandoned hundreds of toxic waste pits in the rainforest -- containing toxic oil sludge, in violation of basic industry standards. The Indigenous inhabitants were left with poisoned land, food supply, and drinking water. The region's river sediment remains contaminated with heavy metals and chemical toxins.
Chevron's own environmental audits (by Fugro-McClelland) confirm these crimes and show that the company never conducted basic monitoring of its pipelines and never developed a plan to clean up its routine oil spills. Records reveal that 38 pipelines ruptured in a single month - September 1978 - in just one of the oil fields.
In 1972, to hide the crimes, a Texaco/Chevron executive in Ecuador ordered that “only major [environmental] events . . . are to be reported," and defined a "major event" as one that might "attract the attention of the press and/or regulatory authorities." The policy stated that “no reports are to be kept ... and all previous reports are to be removed ... and destroyed.” Evidence showed that Chevron never approved a budget for environmental clean-up in Ecuador.
Each of 54 judicial site inspections during the trial in Ecuador found that Chevron left oil contamination in violation of national legal standards that are ten times more lax than typical U.S. standards. Some Chevron pits showed contamination 900-times higher than the Ecuadorian standard, and the average pit contained 20-times the allowable Ecuadorean contamination (200-times the US standard).
Rainforest inhabitants testified that Chevron's waste pits overflowed into streams, that local drinking water became noxious, that family members became ill, and that some died from exposure to the toxins. The contamination contained human carcinogens and other toxins including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and benz[a]anthracene. Samples revealed illegal levels of barium, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and other metals that can damage the immune, nervous and reproductive systems and cause cancer.
Chevron's own documents reveal that the company adopted these practices to save money. By conducting its Ecuador operation in ways that were illegal in the US, and around the world, Texaco saved an estimated $3 per barrel of oil - approximately $5 billion over 20 years. During that time, the company made profits of about $25 billion.
Avoiding liability
In 1993, lawyers for 30,000 local inhabitants filed a lawsuit asking a New York Federal court to order a cleanup and payment of damages. In response, Texaco/Chevron staged a phony "clean-up," proven by later court evidence to be a sham. Evidence from Chevron's environmental auditor, two court-nominated Chevron experts, and third-party investigators showed that 83% of Chevron’s allegedly “remediated” pits contained illegal levels of petroleum contamination.
Image courtesy of Amazon Watch
In 2001, Chevron bought Texaco and succeeded in shifting the case to Ecuador where the company accepted jurisdiction and probably believed it could influence the court with a politically-engineered dismissal of the case. When the trial finally commenced in 2003, Chevron’s top executive in Ecuador met with the Ecuadorean Justice Minister and asked him to pressure the trial judge to dismiss the case. That effort failed.
The evidence clearly stood against Chevron: the open toxic pits, the 16 billion gallons of contaminated waste water, poisoned rivers, the company's own records, and reports from Chevron’s own environmental consultants.
Witnesses testified about a culture of disdain for the Indigenous inhabitants and how the company remained unresponsive and openly hostile to grievances from the local people. The court heard how Texaco oil workers committed acts of sexual violence, ridiculed Indigenous people for customs and dress, and told inhabitants that oil run-off was full of vitamins, similar to milk.
Secoya leader Ricardo Piaguaje, testified how Texaco "drilled wells and set off dynamite next to our people's houses" and how "oil spills and petroleum waste products" contaminated their home. The court heard how contamination had reduced fish and game stocks, such that subsistence hunting communities could not survive. Those who did endure experienced a catastrophic public health crisis, loss of food sources, and poverty.
Corporate rescue squad
In 2009, facing a landslide loss on the evidence, Chevron hired notorious New York law firm, Gibson Dunn, the self-described “rescue squad” for scandal-plagued clients. The firm possesses an historic track record of being sanctioned by courts for unethical dirty tricks. Chevron appears to have hired the firm precisely because of its willingness to cross the ethical line.
In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court assessed a $9.9 million fine against Gibson Dunn for "maliciously trying to intimidate" its adversary with "legal thuggery." A New York federal judge sanctioned the firm for making "deceptive" statements, hiding documents, and for other "unacceptable shenanigans."
In 2005, a California federal court sanctioned Gibson Dunn for tampering with a witness, noting that the firm's "culture promoted obstruction, gamesmanship, and flagrant disregard of this Court's orders." A California state court ordered Gibson Dunn’s clients to compensate a documentary filmmaker and a human rights lawyer for illegitimate SLAPP lawsuits designed to silence criticism.
In Ecuador, lawyers from another firm representing Chevron threatened judges with jail if they ruled against Chevron, but the dirty tricks campaign failed. Ecuadorean judges rebuked Chevron's lawyers for their tactics, and in 2011 issued the $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron for two decades of ecological and civil rights abuses. Eight appellate judges, including Ecuador's highest court, unanimously upheld the verdict. Chevron refused to pay and removed its assets from Ecuador to avoid collection by its victims.
US and Canadian courts
Meanwhile, the Gibson Dunn "rescue squad" filed "racketeering" charges in the US against the Ecuadorean villagers and their lawyers, claiming they used "fraud" to gain victory in Ecuador, clearly a SLAPP lawsuit designed to suppress legitimate advocacy and obstruct the villagers from collecting payment in the US.
Chevron's claim relied heavily on the testimony of a disgraced former Ecuadorean judge, Alberto Guerra, who admitted openly under oath in a subsequent case that he had accepted bribes as a judge before being removed from the bench. Chevron helped Guerra flee to the US and has paid him roughly $2 million for his cooperation.
After spending weeks rehearsing his testimony with a Gibson Dunn legal team headed by lawyer Randy Mastro, Guerra claimed in US federal court that lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote the Ecuador judgment and gave it to the trial judge on a flash drive. This ruse appeared similar to a 2015 case, in which the High Court of England sanctioned Gibson Dunn for fabricating evidence to frame the political opponent of a client, the President of Djibouti.
In the US, however, the Chevron scheme worked. U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, a notorious pro-business judge, displayed relentless bias against the Ecuadorean victims and their lawyers, refused to sit a jury, insisted on ruling by himself, accepted the testimony of Guerra - even after his deceits had been exposed - and ruled in favor of Chevron's claim.
Guerra later admitted under oath to lying about having been offered a $300,000 bribe by the lawyers of the Ecuadorian victims. A forensic analysis by one of the world’s leading computer experts debunked Guerra’s story by showing that the Ecuador trial judge had written the judgment, without interference, on his office computer over several months.
Judge Kaplan's decision almost certainly violates US law and the international comity principle that require the courts of one country to respect the judgments of foreign courts. An earlier attempt by Kaplan to block the Ecuador judgment was overturned for violating this principle. The U.S. appellate court that supervises Kaplan shockingly refused to review his acceptance of Guerra’s lies, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review.
Chevron, however, cannot use a U.S. court to block enforcement of a foreign judgment in Canada or in any other country. The victims are now moving the case to Canada for collection. Enforcing foreign judgments against those who refuse to pay is considered routine internationally, and Canada has domestic laws governing this practice. Canada's Supreme Court – unlike the U.S. court – already has backed universal legal principles by unanimously rejecting another Chevron attempt to deny jurisdiction to the Ecuadorians. An Ontario trial court will soon commence a trial to enforce the judgment.
Chevron has already begun a campaign of intimidation against Canadian politicians and judges, mocking Canadian courts for accepting the case, and calling it a “crock” and a “waste of time and money.” Chevron claims the Ecuadorians cannot collect in Canada because its assets are held by a wholly-owned Chevron subsidiary – a subterfuge that, if accepted, would offer corporations impunity for environmental crimes the world over.
Chevron holds some $15 billion in Canadian assets and takes about $3 billion in annual profits from Canadian operations in the Beaufort Sea, Newfoundland, and the Alberta Tar Sands. The company, however, has started dumping Canadian assets. In April 2017, Chevron sold a refineryin British Columbia, and has sold 213 Canadian fuel stations. The plaintiffs may find it necessary to ask Canadian courts to freeze Chevron assets, before they dump them all to avoid payment, as they did in Ecuador.
Image courtesy of Amazon Watch
The International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law has filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the villagers' rights to pursue Chevron’s assets in Canada. Lawyers for the indigenous and peasant villagers of Ecuador have not been intimidated by 24 years of attacks and dirty tricks by Chevron and its agents. They vow to endure until they collect compensation for the victims and the cost of restoring the Amazon rainforest.
Human rights advocates the world over need to carefully study Chevron’s playbook of spending massively to buy witnesses against its adversaries to evade paying compensation to the people it harmed. If U.S. courts refuse to provide the Ecuadorians a fair hearing, then Canada’s courts must do so for the sake of corporate accountability, universal principles of justice, and Indigenous rights.
Rex Weyler is an author, journalist and co-founder of Greenpeace International.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sources and Links:
Ecuador Indigenous communities affected: ChevronToxico
Ecuador's Supreme Court unanimous judgement vs. Chevron.
Summary of evidence against Chevron found by Ecuador's courts: evidence
Environmental Impacts of Chevron in Ecuador: ChevronToxico
A Rainforest Chernobyl: ChevronToxico
Chevron's health impacts on indigenous groups: independent health studies cited by the court.
Chevron's Gibson Dunn lawyers threatened Ecuador's judges with jail
Video, Chevron in Ecuador: video on the case
Video: 60 Minutes segment
Shareholders rebuke Chevron, June 2017, Amazon Defense Coalition
How the US courts got it wrong: rebuttal, Chevron RICO case. Steven Donziger
Chevron falsification of Guerra's testimony: background and legal motion
Chevron's bribery and fabrication of evidence in U.S. courts to evade Ecuador judgment
"Chevron Law Firm Gibson Dunn Blasted by High Court of England For Falsifying Evidence": Chevron Pit, 2015
Gibson Dunn's Ecuador narrative crumbling; the firm's unethical tactics: The Chevron Pit
"Plaintiffs cannot collect $9.5-billion judgment in the U.S. against Chevron": LA Times, 2016
Gibson Dunn firm frequently criticized and sanctioned by courts for crossing the ethical line.
Chevron selling assets in Canada: Business in Vancouver, April, 2017.
A letter signed by over 40 US environmental and civil rights organizations (including Greenpeace, Amazon Watch, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth) stating that Chevron's tactics "targeted nonprofit environmental and indigenous rights groups ... designed to cripple their effectiveness and chill their speech."

5 reasons the car industry needs to change its ways now

Richard Casson — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:57:00 Z

Today the world’s biggest motor show gets underway in Germany. The Frankfurt Motorshow is the moment many of the world’s best known car manufacturers get together for a grand display of vehicles that have been polished so hard it’s a miracle there’s any paint left on them.

But while the firms exhibiting at the event will be keen to tell you how fast their cars get from zero to 100 kilometers an hour, what you’re unlikely to hear is how the car industry is looking increasingly irrelevant as consumer choices, technology, and government policies are rapidly forcing the industry to change.
Here are five reasons why.
1. Climate change
While some car firms are keen to brag about how efficient their petrol and diesel models have become, the reality is the vehicles they produce now contribute more than 20% of the total CO2 emissions in many countries.
In many countries around the world the electricity generation sector has started to reduce its carbon footprint, yet road transport has failed to get its total emissions down. With the need to tackle climate change becoming more and more urgent, car firms can only stay stuck in their old ways for so long.
2. Air pollution
In Europe, nearly half a million people die prematurely each year due to air pollution. But in other areas of the world, the situation is even worse.
With public concern about air pollution on the rise, car firms that remain fixated on making petrol and diesel vehicles look out of step with what people want.
3. Petrol and diesel bans
The Frankfurt motor show is taking place while some governments are unveiling plans to ban petrol and diesel vehicles. A number of car firms have switched on to this, like Volvo who recently declared that all its new cars will be electric or hybrid from 2019.
Meanwhile, most of the big car firms at the Frankfurt motor show are still so focused on the internal combustion engine. It really begs the question - what planet are they on?
4. Dieselgate
It’s been almost two years since Volkswagen was caught cheating emissions tests and the truth was uncovered about how some diesel cars were emitting “up to 40 times more pollution" than allowed.
While other car companies, like Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover, have committed to phasing out diesel and petrol vehicles, VW still has a long way to go to clean up their act. And now, on the back of the Dieselgate scandal, even more of Germany’s biggest car firms, like BMW and Daimler, are under pressure to change.
5. Car sharing
In many European cities, younger generations are already shifting away from owning cars and choosing bicycles and public transport instead.
With more and more of the world’s population moving to cities - a trend that is set continue in years to come - this could mean an increasing number of people begin to see the idea of owning their own car as an expensive and cumbersome option in comparison to car sharing.
This blog is based on a new Greenpeace report: “Why the Automobile Has No Future. A Global Impact Analysis” – download it here.
Richard Casson is a campaigner for Greenpeace UK

FAQ for September 14th Peaceful Disobedience

Andrew Tobert — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:53:00 Z

If you’ve got loads of burning questions and want to know more then come along to the briefing on Wednesday, September 13th at Halo, 66B Wharenui Road. Make sure you’re registered to get updates.
How long do I have to stay?
We’re asking people to join us for the whole day on Thursday, Sept. the 14th and you’ll need to be prepared to meet us in Chch at 7:45am in the morning in Chch. If you can only come for part of the day we’d still love to have you come along.
What am I actually going to have to do?
There will be lots of different ways people can participate and you don’t need to come with specific or specialist skills to be involved. If you can make it along to the briefing on September 13th in Chch we can talk to you more about the plans. Make sure you’re registered - we’ll email you the information.
Is there a meet up beforehand where I can find out more?
We’ll be holding two public briefing sessions beforehand for those that want to find out more and participate in some Non Violence Training/ Principles. Both will be held in central Chch, one on the afternoon of Sept. 3rd and the other on the evening of Sept. 13th. We strongly encourage you to make it to one of these if you can. If not, there will be a quick briefing when we gather on Thursday morning. Make sure you’re registered to receive details of these briefings and we’ll be in touch shortly.
Where should I meet you? Where will we be going?
The meeting point will be in Christchurch at 7.45am on Thursday, 14th. We will be meeting on the corner of Colombo Street and Lichfield Road outside the Bus exchange. We also encourage you to come to the briefing on Sept. 13th in Chch. If you are coming out of town or can’t make it to these briefings then we will also have a short briefing starting at 7:45am just before we leave on Thursday the 14th.
What should I bring?
Bring lunch, snacks and your own water, and maybe something to sit on – we plan to be there a while! Additionally, please bring any personal medication that you need to take regularly with you. Bring warm clothes and water proof clothing as well. We will have some snacks available.
Where are we going?
We will let you know once we meet you in the morning!
If we’re going on a bus - How will I get back to my car when I want to leave?
We will get you to and from the location. But please make sure you don’t have any commitments on the Thursday. We’d prefer it if you came with us as there will be limited parking but if you really need your car then park it nearby to the bus interchange on Thursday morning.
Will I be arrested?
While arrests are certainly not the objective of this activity, we can’t predict how the authorities will respond to our peaceful non-violent demonstration. Some roles may carry risk of arrest, but there will also be ways you can participate without any risk of arrest, it depends entirely on what you are comfortable with. Come along to the briefing to find out more.
Can I come if I have limited mobility?
Yes. There will be options for those with limited ability, including wheelchairs.
Can I bring my kids? / What if I am under 18?
You can bring your kids. Anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a legal guardian.
What shouldn’t I bring?
The event is strictly drug and alcohol free so please do not bring either with you. We won’t take responsibility for anyone’s personal belongings. Also don’t bring anything you really couldn’t do without, if you are planning to take a riskier role, if you were arrested it could be confiscated for a period of time. Additionally please leave your pets at home.

Save Our Rivers: Peaceful Civil Disobedience

Andrew Tobert — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:25:00 Z

Construction has started on huge irrigation schemes in Canterbury. When they start working, it’s going to be disastrous for our rivers - most of which are already struggling.
More irrigation means more cows and that means more pollution.
A few weeks ago, the completion of these schemes would have been inevitable. But not any more. The movement against irrigation schemes is getting stronger and stronger, and you can join in. Click here to take part in a peaceful civil disobedience to Save Our Rivers.
A few weeks ago, we blocked pipes in the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme. It was all over the papers and TV. Then a few days later, Labour came out and announced they’d ditch the $480 million irrigation fund. It was a huge moment, birthed from the courage of a few people.
Imagine what we could all do together, with hundreds of us?
NZ politics is in chaos. Leaders have resigned and we’re seeing huge political shifts. The election is just weeks away. Imagine the power we’d have if we all took peaceful civil disobedience ato Save Our Rivers? It could change everything.
The plans are pretty ambitious. Hundreds of us, in Canterbury, on the 14th of September standing up for our rivers by taking part in peaceful protest. The more of us who are there, the more powerful our message will be there. Will you be there?
Click here to RSVP
We know that when we stand together, we always win. Here’s our shot to create a tonne of political pressure that could change the story of New Zealand’s rivers forever. Let’s make 14th September the day everything changed.
If you can’t make, please share this blog post with your friends. Let’s get as many people out there as possible!

Thursday, September 7: Occupying Central Plains Water

Andrew Tobert — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:30:00 Z

The day started early, or late, depending on your perspective.

We met the night before in Christchurch. People had travelled from across New Zealand at a moment’s notice - one group had even driven from Dunedin. The energy was high. Everyone was here because they cared about Saving Our Rivers.

We talked about the day ahead, nonviolence and safety. We ate vegan pizza. Then the real work started...

Activists survey the CPW site, September 7
We shopped, we packed, we cooked, we planned. Then by about 2am it was time to crash out and get ready for a busy day of action ahead.

At 4am the alarm went off, and to be honest, I’ve felt better. There’s nothing quite like two hours of sleep to make you aware of your own mortality. You also definitely know you’ve hit the wrong side of 30 when a bit of missing sleep is enough to make you feel like you've been hit by a bus.

A quick coffee, a bit of breakfast later and we all met at a car park in Christchurch central. It was exciting. Adrenaline was flowing. We were thinking of the task at hand.

We travelled in convoy to a Central Plains Water’s construction site outside Darfield.

Light was still missing from the sky when we arrived at around 6am. It was well before the workers were due on site, but we had much to do.

One team stayed on the public road and set up a support camp. Others went down into the dam itself. They would be the ones who occupied the dam - putting their bodies in the way of this huge irrigation scheme.

After a while, we were joined by a few locals - who inspired us with their passion for the rivers they know so well. These people have watched as irrigation schemes have spread in Canterbury, and with them, more cows. They’ve watched as rivers that were once crystal clear have turned, polluted by industrial agriculture. These people have had enough of Big Irrigation - and I was proud to stand beside them.

We’d hardly been on site for long when police arrived and blocked the road - they saw that people were coming, and they wanted to stop them in their tracks.

Then they came to arrest us.

By late that afternoon, several of our team were in police custody, while those of us who were in the outside camp waited patiently for news from our friends.

When we were eventually reunited - emotions ran high. Many of those who had attended the occupation had never been involved in something like it before.

For them, what had started out as a daunting, yet necessary task to send a message to Big Irrigation, had by nightfall become a source of immense pride and empowerment.
If you haven't already, sign the petition to Stop Industrial Dairy Expansion. And ask your election candidate whether they will continue to subsidise Big Irrigation if elected using our tips here.