Greenpeace UK blogs

London Sushi Awards ban endangered bluefin

sarah — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:06:39 +0000

Working at Greenpeace often means that I find myself in some unusual places - inside a nuclear power station, atop an aeroplane or in a palm oil factory. But I certainly never expected to find myself at an international sushi awards ceremony.

Last year at the annual London Sushi Awards, 7 sushi samurai battled it out to earn the prestigious accolade of creating the ‘sushi of the year'. One of these top sushi chefs was later exposed as having used endangered bluefin tuna in their sushi creation. Whilst they didn't actually win the competition (a vegetarian sushi piece was awarded top marks), it didn't reflect well on event organisers Eat Japan.

This year we wrote to Eat Japan in advance of the Awards and were pleasantly surprised when they confirmed that no bluefin tuna would be used this time around. So, when I and two other Greenpeace staffers found ourselves attending the Awards, we came armed not with banners as we expected, but only with only our best clothes and some business cards.

Despite the image that you might have of long-bearded hippies in hairshirts discussing the latest innovations in tofu, Greenpeace isn't a vegetarian organisation. Yes cutting down on meat consumption is a good way to reduce your carbon footprint and eating less fish will help conserve dwindling fish stocks but for those of us that don't want to give up fish altogether there are more sustainable alternatives.

One of the sushi chefs - Silla Pernille Bjerrum (head chef and director of the popular sushi restaurant Feng Sushi) - created a sushi dish that I didn't feel guilty about eating. She used line caught mackerel from Cornwall, showing that being green doesn't need to mean compromising on taste. She didn't win but the ‘sushi of the year' award went to a creation that didn't even use fish - yes the veggies won again.

Not only has Silla never used bluefin tuna in her own restaurant but she's doing all she can to ensure that she only uses sustainable seafood in all the sushi on her menu. Feng Sushi also looks set to be the latest sign up to our Seafood See Life campaign.

All in all it was a good night's work but it doesn't end here. We'll be campaigning to make sure that the London Sushi Awards keep bluefin tuna off the menu at least until stocks recover and effective management has been introduced. We are also working internationally to get permanent protection for the endangered bluefin - by turning their spawning grounds into marine reserves which will be off-limits to fishing. It's certainly in the interest of sushi-lovers everywhere, and after lat night's event I suppose I can count myself as a sushi-lover now as well as an environmentalist.

Petrol stations are pumping out bad biofuels

tracy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:12:03 +0000

We knew the government's plans on biofuels were a bit of a mess, but figures released today by the Renewable Fuel Agency show just how bad the situation is.

First off, the agency reports that 80 per cent of biofuels used in the UK don't meet government sustainability targets. In fact several companies, including BP and Esso, admitted that they didn't produce a single litre of biofuel that met the government's qualifying environmental standard.

Secondly it reveals that 12 per cent of all biodiesel sold in the UK is made from palm oil. Demand for palm oil has grown in recent times (partly in response to skyrocketing oil prices), driving rainforest destruction across South East Asia as forests and peatland is cleared for new plantations. This destruction is releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, helping to make Indonesia the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. In February Science magazine reported that using palm oil grown in Indonesia to fuel vehicles is up to 420 times as damaging to the climate as the fossil fuels they replace.

So by putting cheaper crops like palm oil into our fuel tanks companies are actually contributing to climate change. The truth is that most biofuels do more harm than good for the climate than the fossil fuels they replace. Without safeguards in placfe, setting a compulsory minimum target for the percentage of biofuel in every litre of diesel (currently 2.5 per cent) iS quite clearly a disaster for the world’s forests and a major obstacle in the fight against climate change.

And all the petrol stations tested were well over the 2.5 per cent government target with biodiesel already accounting for almost five per cent of diesel used.

By putting cheaper crops like palm oil into our fuel tanks companies are actually contributing to climate change while driving the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests and peatland. This destruction is releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, helping to make Indonesia the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

In February Science magazine reported that using palm oils grown in Indonesia to fuel vehicles is up to 420 times as damaging to the climate as the fossil fuels they replace.

So what seems like a good idea is actually causing more harm than good. It's about time the Prime Minister stepped in and scrapped the biofuel target, because without safeguards in place they are quite clearly a disaster for the world's forests and a major obstacle in the fight against climate change.

When we conducted our own tests around the country recently to see what cars and trucks are filling up on, we found that all the petrol stations were already selling well over the 2.5 per cent biofuel mix that the government demands - overall biodiesel accounted for almost 5 per cent of diesel used . Results from a BP station in Northampton, for example, showed that it was selling diesel "consistent with a biofuel mix" of 4.8 per cent, of which 30 per cent was palm oil.

What can be done? Well, it's about time the Prime Minister stepped in and scrapped the biofuel targets, because without sustainability safeguards in place they are having exactly the opposite effect to that which was originally intended. And big players like BP need to urgently recognise the damage that is being done, and rather than exploiting confused biofuels laws to boost their profits, they should instead support a complete halt to the destruction of Indonesia's forests for palm oil.

Kingsnorth, Heathrow and the 80% target

bex — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:12:54 +0000

The Independent Climate Change Commission has warned the government that it should cut all greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 to tackle climate change.

In itself, this isn't particularly surprising; scientists have been recommending this for some time. More interesting - and very welcome - is that the commission wants to include aviation and shipping in the target. That means, for once, that 'all greenhouse gas emissions' pretty much means 'all greenhouse gas emissions'.

We've yet to see whether or not the government will accept the target, which would be the most ambitious legally binding commitment that any country's committed to until now. But Brown has mentioned the 80 per cent figure recently, and Ed Miliband - who heads the new energy and climate change department - has promised to "respond to the recommendations swiftly".

If the government accepts the commission's advice, the implications are enormous. To meet this target, the government will need to stop aviation growth and the new coal rush in the UK. If they allow either the third runway at Heathrow or the new coal plant at Kingsnorth to go ahead, they'll be making a mockery of the target before we've even started.

Here's the maths:

Under this target, Britain would be allowed to emit no more than 118 million tones of CO2 per year after 2050.

The Tyndall Centre has found that, if aviation keeps expanding at expected levels, emissions from aviation alone would wipe out our entire 'carbon budget' in 2050. The only way to meet this target is for the government to stop the growth of aviation - by capping flights at current levels and stopping airport expansion.

A new generation of coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage would emit around 56 million tonnes of CO2 per year, ie it would account for 48 per cent of our emissions quota in 2050. To meet the target the government needs to stop the new coal rush, beginning with the proposed new plant at Kingsnorth. That's why it's good news that decisions on energy policy are now being taken by the same department that deals with climate change.

The key to meeting this target lies with the energy sector - which needs to make a very quick transition to being low carbon. ("We have to almost totally decarbonise the power sector by 2030, well before 2050," said Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, the committee chairman.)

Ed Miliband needs to fix the UK's very broken renewables strategy. I explored this in depth on Friday but, to summarise, our energy system - from physical infrastructure to regulatory standards - is designed to deliver bulk quantities of energy or fuel across the country and is actively hostile to low-carbon technologies.

If we want a coherent, low carbon energy system, Miliband needs to end the government's love affair with nuclear and coal and take a bolder, more sophisticated approach.

This approach should include giving low carbon projects priority access to the grid (at the moment, fully working wind farms are sometimes turned off because a fossil fuel plant has priority access to the grid). It should include reassessing the role of Ofgem, which often condemns new technologies to failure. And it should include concrete, legally binding measures to reduce demand / increase efficiency - not just voluntary schemes for which no one volunteers.

Over two thousand of you have emailed Ed Miliband to congratulate him on his new post and ask him to take the steps needed. And he seems to be listening. Since you started emailing him, he's changed his email auto-reply to include the pledge that "We will do all we can to... put Britain at the forefront of creating green jobs and play our part in ensuring every country meets the climate change challenge."

Time will tell if he delivers on this. And not much time, as it happens; within months the government is due to make decisions on the proposed third runway at Heathrow and the new coal plant at Kingsnorth. Giving the go ahead to either will mean our chances of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 just got a whole lot harder.

UK nuclear capacity in meltdown

jossc — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:59:10 +0000

Hartlepool nuclear plant - completely out of action

Should you happen to find yourself debating with a passionate supporter of nuclear power about how to supply our country's future energy needs, the odds are that pretty early in the debate they'll play their trump card - namely that only nuclear can supply the 'base load' necessary to ensure that the lights stay on throughout the long, dark British winter. Hang the dangers of radioactivity, forget the ruinous expense, they'll say - we can't do without nuclear power.

Except that we can, and indeed regularly have to, do without nuclear power, as an investigation by the Independent on Sunday revealed this weekend. Out of our 10 supposedly operational nuclear plants, over half are in dire trouble, limping along at greatly reduced capacity. As reporters Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen explain:

"Two of the 10 have been idle for almost a year, with both reactors out of action due to corrosion. Another two have had one of their reactors closed down for months. And yet another two are having to run both their reactors at less than three-quarters of their normal power for safety reasons."

Find out about real solutions to the UK's energy needs:
Renewable energy
CHP and local energy
Energy efficiency

And it gets worse. Of the remaining four, only two are currently operating at full capacity, one of which is scheduled for closure in two years time. A third is partially closed for routine maintenance, and the fourth is under a safety investigation following the discovery of cracks in Japanese reactors of similar design.

While the National Grid remains officially confident that there should be a power surplus even if we do have a harsh winter, it also admits to "a lot of uncertainty" in its projections. But independent analysts such as the internationally respected John Large are warning that shortages are a serious possibility, and laying the blame squarely on the rapidly deteriorating condition of our nuclear stock; "It's all in a pretty sad state. The reactors are starting to break up; they are becoming knackered. There comes a point when you simply have to turn the things off."

Of course, nuclear supporters will use the decrepit state of our existing nuclear stock as a justification for their urgent replacement. But given the inherent unreliability of the technology, and the problems, delays and cost overruns being experienced at the new nuclear plants being built in France and Finland, it's hard to see why we should waste a fortune on nuclear when there are cheaper, safer and more immediate options available to us.

Chief among these is industrial CHP (combined heat and power), which can not only match the 16GW energy output of the proposed generation of new nuclear stations for a fraction of the initial cost (£1 billion per CHP plant as opposed to £3 billion per nuclear plant), but will also operate at a massively higher efficiency level (over 80 per cent, as opposed to under 40 per cent) - making an important saving on fuel costs. When you combine this with our enormous renewable energy potential (the UK has the best renewable resources in Europe, but they are woefully under exploited), localised energy, and the huge savings we could make in energy efficiency if we were incentivised to do so, the case against new nuclear (and also dirty coal-fired) power stations becomes overwhelming.

It should be a no-brainer, and if the 'nuclear' buzz-word wasn't still such a turn-on for so many politicians it would be. Let's see if they are still so positive about it if and when the collapsing capacity of our current crop of nuclear plants causes the lights to go off this winter, effectively undermining the nuke-supporters' strongest argument - that nuclear is the most effective way to meet the base load of UK electricity demand.

Miliband's new department - what does it mean for the climate?

bex — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:15:18 +0000

Ed Miliband (image by Christian Guthier, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0)

Big news from this morning's Cabinet reshuffle: Gordon Brown has created a new department for climate change and energy, and Ed Miliband has been appointed its head.

This is, potentially, fantastic stuff. Until now, one department has been dealing with climate change and another - the department for business (DBERR) - with energy. This entirely nonsensical division hamstrung any chances of a coherent, low carbon energy policy and kept business and environmental interests at perpetual loggerheads. No prizes for guessing who usually won.

This move, at last, could extract our energy policy from the interests of big business and mean we have hope for real, decisive action on climate change.

I say hope because a lot remains to be seen about the structure of the new department. Will the DBERR civil servants who’ve spent their careers to date blocking renewables and promoting big energy move over to the new department? Will the department be able to make its presence felt throughout government, keeping the departments for transport, business and international development in line on, say, airport expansion?

And, of course, a lot depends on Miliband himself. He certainly has the potential to bring fresh thinking to the substantial task of fixing the UK's renewables strategy. (Far more than Prince of Darkness Peter Mandelson, who we thought - for a terrible moment - had been given the job of deciding whether to build a new plant at Kingsnorth. His appointment to the Department for Business has spawned brilliant commentary from across the spectrum, by the way. My favourite so far: "Was Darth Vader busy?" from Chicken Yoghurt. Although "this shock return is no surprise to us" from The Federation of Small Businesses has its own unwitting brilliance.)

But the pivotal question for Miliband is coal. Specifically, to build or not to build at Kingsnorth. And, hailing from a former mining constituency, Miliband obviously has an interest in the future of coal.

On the other hand, he genuinely seems to get the need to overhaul the energy system instead of carrying on with business as usual. In 2005, he said: "it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot leave energy policy simply to the market. Without a proper government framework, the market cannot deliver for the simple reason that market failures do not take adequate account of environmental issues..."

Last month, he told the Labour Party Conference that climate change was the biggest challenge. The Manchester Evening News reported:

"It can't be an add-on any more," he said, but had to be at the heart of all policies - economic, transport and social.

Mr Miliband said he was 'crystal clear' on the direction the party must take. "Giving equal life chances for all. Every family having the time they need with their kids, a dignified old age for all and a country safe from climate change."

So there is hope for the UK’s energy system and our ability to tackle climate change – certainly more hope than there’s been for a while. But to me, Miliband seems like a man in need of persuasion if he is to end the government’s love affair with nuclear and coal and take the bold and decisive steps needed for genuinely low carbon decentralised energy system.

Send a letter to Miliband now, congratulating him on his new appointment and encouraging him to begin a green energy revolution.

Google going green?

saunvedan — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:29:43 +0000

Image by tuexperto_com5, licensed under Creative Commons

Google rules the virtual world but if it ruled the real one, would things be a bit different? Google.org which is the philanthropic arm of Google blogged that it wants to see America weaned off fossil fuels by 2030 for its electricity. Also, Google's own energy efficiency initiatives will be equivalent to shutting down 10-20 coal-fired power stations by 2010 if they are successful.

The company proposes to green up in three steps. First, to make computer technology and physical infrastructure more energy efficient. They say that half the power consumed by a PC is wasted. Second, to invest in green startups creating jobs in the renewable energy sector and building whole new industries in the same oil and coal producing states. Third, by going electric on transport with plug-in cars that mainstream car manufacturers have seriously started thinking about in recent years.

I'm glad to see that behind the search engine and all the advertisement revenue it generates, Google is using its philanthropic arm to bring environmental issues to the forefront. How about turning the Google logo green? Comments most welcome!

Where cattle herds go, deforestation follows

tracy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:08:31 +0000

This week the Brazilian National Institute of Space Research published their latest figures on Amazon rainforest deforestation and the trees are falling as fast as the FTSE.

According to the institute, deforestation in August was three times higher than the same period last year. Using satellite imagery they have reported that 756 km2 were destroyed – that’s twice the rate of deforestation in July.

The Brazilian Environment Minister Carlos Minc said that the upcoming national elections were partly to blame with mayors in the Amazon taking a soft stance on illegal logging in hopes of gaining more votes. It’s true that there is a lack of governance in the region which permits further destruction and we want to see financing policies in place that invest in responsible forest activities rather than funding destructive practices.

Our team on the ground in the Amazon documented forests being burned to the ground for cattle ranching with a live webcast last month. And cattle ranching is the main activity in the municipalities where there are higher deforestation rates. With food prices rising and an election on the horizon, the appetite of authorities to enforce laws has been reduced. But the federal government has to step in and do its job.

And it appears Minister Minc is confronting those responsible. The environment minister released a list of the top 100 worst forest destroyers on Monday, and oddly, or perhaps unsurprisingly given Brazilian politics, a government agency was listed as one of the leading forces of forest destruction.

The government’s land and agrarian reform agency Incra is responsible for the government's land reform programme. Greenpeace campaigners have collected evidence that shows Incra has worked with logging companies to place new settlements where loggers can get access to sough-after timber and Minister Minc Minc says Incra is responsible for destroying 544,000 acres of the Amazon in the past three years.

Minc says the environment ministry will bring criminal charges against all of the 100.

How to fix the UK's renewables strategy

bex — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:18:22 +0000

Given that we have the best renewable resources in the European Union, the fact that Britain languishes near the bottom of the European renewables league table is pretty humiliating.

On Monday though, the International Energy Agency added insult to injury. Britain's renewables strategy, it said, is 'ineffective' and 'very expensive'. The agency's new report (published here, but you have to pay) ranks Britain 31st out of 35 countries - "including all the major industrial nations such as the US, Germany and China" - in its green energy cost league. And our 'renewables effectiveness', it says, is a paltry three per cent.

If the Labour government's renewables policy is such an incoherent, self-contradictory mess, what can be done to fix it?

Well, I am not a policy wonk, but I know a few people who are. They've put together a submission to the government's renewable energy strategy consultation which outlines exactly how Greenpeace thinks the government can transform its policy - and the UK's energy sector - into the visionary, world-leading entity it should be.

The nub of the argument is this: the government is fiddling around at the edges, and we need a total energy revolution.

At the moment, policy makers tend to take a piecemeal, simplistic and, frankly, visionless approach to energy. Need security of supply? Build more generating plants, and make sure we secure more fossil fuels. The National Grid completely unfit for purpose? Hope market mechanisms will sort it out. Need to meet some renewables obligation? Slap some renewables projects on top of an energy system that is fundamentally hostile to renewables.

It doesn't take a genius to realise it's not working. Energy emissions and prices are rising. The low-carbon technologies (like renewables and combined heat and power) that can reduce emissions and enhance security of supply just aren't being deployed in any significant way.

If we want to turn the occasional good news renewables story - like this week's news that the world's largest tidal-powered energy farm could be built in British waters - into a coherent, low carbon energy system, the government needs to end its love affair with nuclear and coal, take a more sophisticated approach, and then take some pretty big and decisive steps.

Our energy system is designed to deliver bulk quantities of energy or fuel across the country. And I'm not just talking about the physical part of the system, the infrustructure. Regulatory standards, market mechanisms, technical standards and several other factors have all evolved to support a large scale, fossil fuel-based system. (A system that's so inefficient, by the way, that by the time you're watching TV, nearly 80 per cent of the usable energy inside the fossil fuels powering your TV has been lost.)

The low-carbon technologies out there don't tend to fit these characteristics. Some of them are small-scale, some don't use fuel, others may operate intermittently. These technologies - and the companies pioneering them - have to operate in a system which is actively hostile to their use.

The government itself recognises this - but it seems completely unable to work out what policy changes are needed, or how to make them effective. So here are our suggestions:

Give low carbon projects priority access to the grid. Several European countries already do this but the UK has a crazy system where, at times, fully working wind farms are turned off because a fossil fuel plant has priority access to the grid.
Reassess the role of Ofgem. At the moment, Ofgem can build whatever market and regulatory arrangements (with however little strategic vision) it likes, condemning new technologies to failure. Whoever regulates the energy sector needs to have a specific remit to create a shift to a sustainable energy system.
Give investors a degree of certainty and confidence about their investments in new low carbon technologies through the necessary framework.
Make sure we consume less. Do far more to reduce demand than just create voluntary schemes for which no one volunteers. Introduce legal minimum efficiency standards on energy consuming products (including buildings and cars) as Japan has done.
Use UK companies to manufacture the parts and technologies. This would mean we could get parts more quickly, more easily and with more benefit to the UK economy. Then, like Germany, we could export our industry expertise.
Promote a viable and sustainable biomass industry using combined heat and power.
Above all, engender an intellectual shift among policy makers to take a broader, longer-term, more integrated approach to energy systems.

If you're a closet policy wonk, have a read of the document. If you're more interested in how the energy system would work, check out EfficienCity. And then find out what you can do to change our government's energy policy.

Links for 2008-10-02 [del.icio.us]

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Half of Europe's frogs face extinction
More than half of all amphibian species in Europe could become extinct by 2050 because of a combination of habitat loss, infectious diseases and the effects of climate change, scientists have found
Nuclear accidents and fatalities: the numbers
In an article for EnergyBiz magazine, Benjamin K. Sovacool has some figures on the number of accidents and casualties caused by the nuclear industry.

Flashmob to stop London City Airport expansion

saunvedan — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:36:56 +0000

First it was Heathrow, then Manchester and now it's time to flashmob London City Airport. Looks like the government still doesn't understand the danger posed to the climate from the plans to expand airports across the country. So join the next flash mob on October 8 at 5.45pm outside Newham Town Hall, East Ham wearing your red t-shirts to tell Newham Council to scrap airport expansion plans.

The flashmob will overlap with the planning meeting that will decide on increasing flights to and from London City Airport by up to 50 per cent. Pressure is mounting on Gordon Brown after the Conservatives boldly called for Heathrow's third runway plans to be scrapped. Come along and show your support for local group Fight the Flights.

End of a short-haul era?

bex — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:10:42 +0000

Greenpeace volunteers at Newquay airport in March 2007

You might remember that, 18 months ago, we set up ticket exchanges at airports across the country, and called on British Airways to show genuine leadership instead of launching new, unnecessary short haul routes that just add to the huge threat to our climate caused by runaway aviation growth.

One of the routes we targeted was British Airways' inaugural flight from Newquay to Gatwick. Apparently, while BA and the government have yet to wake up and smell the carbon, the recession and high oil prices have begun to turn the short-haul flying culture sour. In less than a month's time, the Newquay to Gatwick route will be closed down. The Indy reports:

Plenty of interested parties think the world's busiest two-runway airport should become the world's busiest three-runway airport, with a new landing strip and a sixth terminal north of the existing perimeter.

Yet the force of their arguments is dwindling with the downturn in aviation. Over at Gatwick, the cuts have already started. Four weeks from today, the final BA flight departs Newquay for Gatwick. As the airline winds down its link between Cornwall and Sussex, it has cancelled a number of departures on Tuesdays and Wednesdays next month (and on other days is offering lots of cheap £44 fares).

When the route was launched 18 months ago, it sparked protests from Greenpeace, who insisted the link was not needed. They have not had to wait long to be proved right.

Links for 2008-09-30 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Brazilian government faces criminal charges over Amazon deforestation
Illegal logging increases sharply as rising food prices push soy farmers and cattle ranchers to clear more land
India’s nuclear industry: life imitates The Simpsons once more
There’s a scene in The Simpsons Movie where Homer, on his way to empty the silo full of his pet pig’s poo, gets a call from his friend Lennie telling him that the local doughnut store is giving away free doughnuts. Weak, weak Homer, unable to wait in the queue for the town dump, drops the silo in the lake instead and heads off for free doughnuts.

Links for 2008-09-29 [del.icio.us]

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0500

new software for mobile phones that can measure transport carbon footprint
An interesting mobile app that uses GPS to determine what kind of transport you're using and calculates your emissions.
Cracks appear in the French nuclear consensus
The Financial Times: Hopes of new markets have been threatened by a series of low-level incidents at the nearby nuclear installation - Europe's largest.

Links for 2008-09-26 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0500

UK opposes green aviation target
The UK government is trying to sabotage the EU renewables target. Again.
Inspecting Britain's nuclear ‘renaissance’
Britain is launching its nuclear ‘renaissance’ with a shortage of safety inspectors.

Links for 2008-09-24 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0500

White House Edits Another Memo to Minimize Global Warming
Again.
Green idealists most likely to take long-haul flights, says study
People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming, says a team of researchers.
Quiz the climate change minister

Links for 2008-09-23 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Where's My Orangutan?

Links for 2008-09-11 [del.icio.us]

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Coal Protest Hits the Cardiff Hilton
Three campaigners scaled the main entrance of the luxury hotel and hung a banner reading “Coal = Climate Disaster”, while others inside the conference challenged coal industry delegates on their industry’s record of environmental damage.