Greenpeace UK

Dear Mrs Merkel, please help - I’m afraid of commitment

Elena Polisano — Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36:02 +0000

by-nc-nd. Credit: European Union

Of all the shoulders to cry on, it might seem strange to pick the German Chancellor’s. But that’s what the German car association (VDA) did this week when its president Matthias Wissman wrote to her to moan that long-term targets for cleaner cars could strangle the car industry. He asked her to take a strong position against the regulations which are currently being debated in Brussels.

What upset him so much? Over half a million Greenpeace supporters got Europe’s biggest carmaker, Volkswagen, to commit to meet those same targets. This commitment broke with the position of the rest of the German car industry and Germany’s government - and gave a new hope to people worldwide hoping for a way to cut CO2 emissions and our thirst for oil. And now Greenpeace supporters are using a major petition to call on European politicians to vote for strong regulations.

This cosy coupling of the German car association (VDA) and the German government is a huge threat to the safe passage of sensible laws that could move Europe towards cutting emissions from cars in half by 2025. But gas-guzzler manufacturers BMW and Daimler are feeling the heat, with BMW sulking that the standards would be “impossible to meet.” They’re meeting with governments across Europe right now to try to make our countries vote for weak targets.

If politicians believe car bosses’ claims, Europe’s cars would stay on a fast track to a polluting, oil-dependent future. Moreover, the car industry seems to suffer from memory loss. In 2008 when the EU adopted CO2 emission limits for cars, the car industry claimed that longer-term targets would break them. In reality most manufacturers are set to reach those targets ahead of time.

With 78,000 people having joined our petition, we can still get our governments to stop listening to the German car industry, and block the German government’s influence. Sign the petition here to make sure we get cleaner cars.

Let’s show the German car industry that crying to governments won’t work. A CO2 target for 2025 is the best way to clean up cars and use less fossil fuels. For the sake of a cleaner car future for the whole of Europe, Merkel and our government should ignore the car industry recommendations and provide certainty with clear targets.

Go to EUvsCO2.org to demand a cleaner future for our cars.

Balcombe or bullshit?

Lawrence Carter — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:54:45 +0000

by. Credit: Lawrence Carter

“I know that everything I say sounds like utter fucking bullshit,” a top Cuadrilla PR executive told me yesterday when I asked him about the risks fracking poses to the sleepy Sussex village of Balcombe.

Fortunately I was recording our exchange of views and captured this extraordinary admission on tape.

Balcombe, in West Sussex, is about to become a fracking flashpoint, which is why the Cuadrilla PR juggernaut had rolled into town. Cuadrilla executives, together with shady public affairs company Bell Pottinger and public relations consultancy PPS, descended en masse to convince the locals that having an exploration well drilled in their village is a good thing.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the villagers don’t agree.

In fact, they’re extremely upset about it and feel that they’ve been ridden roughshod over by the company and the entire planning process. A survey conducted by Balcombe Parish Council found that 82% of the village is opposed to Cuadrilla’s activities.

We put this to the same PR executive (I don’t want to name him because he seemed, aside from his job, to be quite a nice guy), who said that due process had been followed. He also told us that Cuadrilla don’t need to seek permission to drill under people’s houses and that they would be flaring during the exploration phase.

Crucially, he admitted that fracking won't bring down energy prices – contrary to the line George Osborne has been peddling.

Local opposition to Cuadrilla’s plans is strong and growing more powerful by the day. Villagers are going street to street signing up their neighbours to a declaration that Balcombe is a frack-free zone.

This is just the first step in a campaign that could very well see civil disobedience sweep through the Home Counties, as that hotbed of environmental radicalism, Conservative Home noted just the other day.

I’ll leave the final word to Jill from the Balcombe Tea Rooms. "Fracking is awful”, she said. “I don't think you should do it anywhere in this little country".

Coalition MPs must take heed of CCC report

kcumming — Thu, 23 May 2013 08:30:22 +0000

23 May, 2013

Ahead of the crucial Energy Bill vote on June 4, the Committee on Climate Change has reiterated that low carbon energy is unequivocally better for consumers and the UK economy than gas.

In response, Greenpeace Energy Campaigner Leila Deen said:

"Every MP in British politics should take heed of this report, because in two weeks’ time they’ll be making the biggest changes to the UK’s energy system in a generation when they vote on the Energy Bill.

"The CCC’s advice is clear - a clean energy system is better for business and better for consumers. George Osborne has ripped a 2030 decarbonisation target from the bill, but with hundreds of businesses and investors crying foul, it’s up to Coalition MPs to vote it back in.

Only that way can we ensure the UK is on a path to cleaner, safer, cheaper power."

IoD report fantastical and funded by Cuadrilla

kcumming — Wed, 22 May 2013 08:33:03 +0000

22 May, 2013

Responding to the Institute of Directors report “Getting shale gas working”, Leila Deen, Greenpeace Energy Campaigner, said:

“Paid for by fracking company Cuadrilla, this report’s wildly optimistic forecast for job creation depends on a level of shale development that no respected analyst believes to be economically or geologically feasible.

The IOD's forecasts are based on mind-boggling and hopelessly misleading estimates of gas extraction using technology so far not deployed at this scale anywhere on the planet. It also assumes a level of gas use that's incompatible with the recommendations of government climate advisors.

"In their best-case scenario, 17 trucks a day would pass through the UK's most picturesque villages carrying more than 5.4 million cubic metres of water and fracking fluid per year.

"Despite cheerleading for the industry, the report still avoids the issue of whether fracking will bring down bills. With experts from Deutche Bank to BP to the Energy Secretary Ed Davey agreeing UK shale gas will not reduce gas prices for consumers, fracking across England seems like a lot of pain for very little gain."

Risky business: How shareholders, pensions and councils are being exposed to the risks of Arctic oil

Charlie Kronick — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:22:38 +0000

The Arctic Sunrise and the Esperanza intercept Cairn Energy's controversial Arctic rig

Drilling for oil in the Arctic – is it literally crazy? Because it is driving some of the biggest companies in the world to exhibit what can only be described as irrational behaviour. The end of easily accessible oil from conventional sources is leading international oil companies (IOCs) to consider ever more extreme forms of oil and gas extraction – with the Arctic Ocean being among the last frontiers.

In addition to the increasing inaccessibility of conventional oil and gas reserves, IOCs face a threat from the rise of “resource sovereignty” in Latin America, the Middle East and Russia – where not surprisingly, governments are increasingly asserting control over the natural resources located in their territories. In the case of Russia, IOCs have entered a number of joint ventures with Russian national oil and gas companies, Rosneft and Gazprom. BP has also become Rosneft’s largest independent shareholder. These alliances aim to trade western capital along with technical capability and expertise for access to oil and gas concessions in the Russian Arctic and continental shelf.

In 2012, Shell made a mess of their attempts to drill in the Chukchi Sea . The multiple operational snafus and the company's failure to meet US regulatory requirements served as a warning about just how risky it is to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic.[i] Shell's experience in the Alaskan Arctic has had a knock on effect - for now at least, both ConocoPhillips and Statoil have shelved plans for drilling in the far north. However, at the same time, yet more alliances with Russian companies are being announced.

These alliances expose IOCs and their shareholders (including pension fund members and even council tax payers) to enormous risks. These include poor environmental and safety performance, questionable corporate governance, an unpredictable political, legal and economic regime and a serious lack of corporate transparency. One example leaps out: The Kolskaya rig, hired by Gazprom subsidiary Gazflot, capsized and sank on its way back from drilling in the Okhotsk Sea on 18 December 2011, killing 53 of the 67 crew.

Greenpeace, in collaboration with Platform and ShareAction, has published a report examining and exposing these risks, leaving investors with some tough questions to ask – and the companies like Shell almost certainly unable to answer them.

Read the investor briefing: Russian roulette: International oil company risk in the Russian Arctic

Read the full report: Russian roulette: International oil company risk in the Russian Arctic

[i] See FairPensions, Greenpeace, and Platform 2013 ‘Repeated Misadventures: Key questions for Shell on its Alaskan Arctic programme’.

I Love Arctic meets Arctic Council

Markus Power — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:59:38 +0000

Hand over of 'I Love Arctic' photo-books to two Permanent Participants of Arctic Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic Council.

Image caption:

Hand over of 'I Love Arctic' photo-books to two Permanent Participants of Arctic Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic Council.

The air was abuzz this morning in Kiruna. As delegates and press were mingling in the breakfast hall, Foreign Ministers were entering their policed motorcades and a group of Greenpeace volunteers was making final preparations to greet the decision makers with banners and signs along the road. But in the midst of all this, we were honoured with a quiet yet very special moment.

In a branch of the hotel lobby we gathered with four representatives of Arctic Indigenous Peoples; amongst them were Chief Michael Stickman, International Chair of the Arctic Athabaskan Council, and James Gamble, Interim Executive Director of the Aleut International Association, both Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council, who received two of the I Love Arctic photo books that we brought to Kiruna.

In support of the I Love Arctic project, Chief Bill Erasmus of the Arctic Athabaskan Council carried four books with him into the Arctic Council Ministerial meeting to distribute them on our behalf to the four remaining Permanent Participants. We waved him goodbye in the cold air, warmed by the sight of over 17,000 people’s hopes and dreams for the Arctic making their way into the exclusive meeting.

Already yesterday, as delegates and Ministers were shuttled from the airport to Kiruna's city centre, they were greeted by activists presenting I Love Arctic photos on huge banners along the road.

Inspired by the events so far, we still had one goal to fulfill: the handover of the books to the Arctic Council member states. Today's final appointment was with the outgoing Chair of the Arctic Council Gustaf Lind and the Danish Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm, who received the last eight of the I Love Arctic photo books.

Despite the weak outcome of the Arctic Council Ministerial meeting, which was full of nice words, yet failed to sufficiently address pressing issues like greenhouse gas emissions of the Arctic States, Black Carbon or the real risks of Arctic oil drilling with concrete plans of action, we leave tomorrow knowing that the call of our ever-growing global movement for the Arctic was heard loud and clear in Kiruna.

Bringing the voices of people across the globe to the Arctic Council meeting was an important milestone. The struggle to save the Arctic and the future of our planet is a marathon, not a sprint. Together we celebrate the culmination of our achievements - tomorrow it's back to work.

What does REF stand for? Not renewable energy...

Graham Thompson — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:08:44 +0000

Question: What do you think is the main reason for the increases in consumer gas and electricity prices over the last 12 months?

Image caption:

Question: What do you think is the main reason for the increases in consumer gas and electricity prices over the last 12 months?

Polling conducted for Carbon Brief shows that the public primarily blame profiteering by energy companies for recent increases in energy bills. Only 7% of those polled blamed ‘green’ taxes, despite a concerted campaign by certain newspapers to persuade them this was the culprit.

This may be connected to another result from the same poll, which found that while 69% of people trust climate scientists on climate change, only 10% trust the newspapers, and this figure only rises to 17% when they were specifically asked about the newspaper they chose to read.

Why is this? Having read today's Daily Mail and Telegraph coverage of a new report by the Renewable Energy Foundation on the government’s energy policies, I’m inclined to think it might be connected to the rather lax standards of journalism applied in this area.

The magical thinking of the anti-science crowd, where the laws of physics can be adapted to fit your political ideology, bears a strong resemblance to <cosmic ordering, which, to quote The Cosmic Ordering Site:

...harnesses the power of positive thinking and the creative energy of our thoughts to manifest whatever we desire. There are no limits, you can ask for anything, a new love or a new house, money or wealth, health or healing... whatever you desire can be yours.

It might seem like a bit of a cheap shot to liken a serious report on energy economics to a ridiculous manufactured superstition. And so I won’t. But I will liken this particular ‘report’ to a ridiculous manufactured superstition, for three reasons. One is that it is in no way serious (see here for details), and the second is that the founding chairman of the organisation which produced it is also the UK’s leading proponent of, you guessed it, cosmic ordering.

The third reason is that, while it’s vital in this sort of debate to play the ball not the man, the ball, such as it is, has been comprehensively played out of the park by Energy Desk, and Carbon Brief. That leaves me nothing to play but the man. I wish I were Pele, but I’m Vinnie Jones, and this is one long late sliding tackle.

John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, has produced these three pages of idle musings which he amusingly refers to as a ‘report’. The Renewable Energy Foundation is "a registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy", according to their website, which claims to support decarbonising the economy and meeting our renewables targets.

Here are some quotes from Margareta Stanley, REF's spokeswoman, setting the record straight:

We have never been anti wind.

It's unfair to say that we're anti-wind.

We don't lobby.

We have never criticised the renewables sector in the UK.

Confused yet? You will be.

Here are some quotes from the REF’s Director, and author of the new ‘report’, John Constable:

We have consistently argued for offshore wind, among other technologies, to be made more attractive, and for a secure role for the renewables sector. Renewables have much to offer in tackling our energy crisis.

No, sorry, not that one, these ones:

Offshore wind is still more expensive, perhaps four or five times as expensive as conventional energy.

The fact is that renewable energy is still far from competitive with fossil fuels, and nowhere near as economically productive.

Green energy, the current green economy overall, is a costly output of the fossil-fuelled economy.

We shouldn’t mistake the frenzy of deployment for healthy growth.

And finally:

Subsidies, those transfers of wealth from the fossil-fuelled economy, are providing remarkable rates of return for short-term investors, but when these transfers cease, as they will when consumers tell politicians that the prospective or actual reductions in standards of living are unacceptable, the current green growth will evaporate like dew before the rising sun.

What reductions in standards of living, you might well ask?

Constable (whose ‘report’, incidentally, does not include the word ‘climate') is not merely arguing ossil fuels are cheaper. He’s claiming a switch to green energy would propel us back into a pre-industrial age, and not in a good way.

The population would begin to step back towards the condition of ‘laborious poverty’ noted by Jevons as characteristic of the pre-coal era.

He demonstrates this by comparing the coal mining and agricultural sectors in Britain in 1851. Apparently, the coal sector produced a lot more energy per head than the agricultural sector. No, I’m not joking. Next time you hear someone accuse environmentalists of scaremongering, remember that. Renewable energy will take living standards back to the ‘pre-coal era’.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change, after dismissing REF’s figures as unrecognisable, described the ‘report’ as:

...a manifesto for locking the British economy into excessive reliance on imported gas from far-flung, unstable parts of the world.

Why would a charity dedicated to "promoting… the use of renewable energy" publish a manifesto for imported gas?

An uncharitable interpretation might be that they were turned from the path of righteousness by the funding they received from the gas industry.

But this would be wrong. The truth is that the REF are, and have always been, anti-wind lobbyists. Even at their launch back in 2004, it was abundantly clear the only issue they actually care about is blocking wind farms.

Everything else, up to and including their name, is just an attempt to construct a veneer of neutrality, in the hope that their fantastical statistics will be presented as impartial research rather than the wildly inaccurate propaganda it is. And some papers seem happy to play along.

Fortunately, their readers don’t trust them.

Arctic council fails to act on climate change warning from its own scientists

sgelmini — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:32:18 +0000

15 May, 2013

Despite strong calls for more action to address climate change from its own working groups and scientists, and many of the Ministers attending the meeting, today’s Arctic Council foreign ministers meeting has ended with no plans for binding international agreements to regulate black carbon emissions or curb the Arctic oil rush. Further, the Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic Agreement, which was signed by the foreign ministers in Kiruna, includes no specific practical minimum standards that governments must adhere to, and has no provisions to hold companies liable for the full costs and damages of a spill should one occur.

Commenting from Kiruna outside the Arctic Council meeting, Ruth Davis, Greenpeace International senior policy advisor, said:

"The Arctic Council has long been renowned for commissioning top-notch science and then ignoring its implications. There were two conferences going on here — one that warned of the dangers of climate change and rapid industrialisation in this fragile region, and another, attended by Foreign Ministers, that took almost no concrete steps to address them. Throughout this meeting, the evidence from scientists and Indigenous Peoples has highlighted the devastating impacts of our fossil fuel addiction on the Arctic. Yet the Council seems in the thrall of business interests wishing to extract more oil and gas, whatever the costs to local people, wildlife and the future health of the planet. This is tantamount to a doctor showing you the lump in your lung whilst his boss offers you a cigarette.”

“The lack of any meaningful action comes in stark contrast to the firm recommendations from its own scientists based on the Council-commissioned reports on ocean acidification and the impact of climate change on biodiversity — which synthesised its findings with first-hand evidence from Arctic Indigenous Peoples about changes they are witnessing. The reports conclude that without urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and a precautionary approach to industrialisation, the future of the Arctic and the Peoples who call it home is grim.”

“While it’s good that the Council is opening its doors to more voices by admitting more states as Observers, at the end of the day what we need is a body that listens to those most affected by climate change and not just the rich and powerful who have the most to gain from the rush to carve up the Arctic and sell off its parts. It is also imperative that the Arctic Council strengthens the participation of Indigenous Peoples by ensuring full, prior and informed consent in all Arctic Council decision making.”

Greenpeace believes that during the next two years, the Arctic Council must deliver concrete results protecting the environment and the people who rely on it by:

· Agreeing to develop new, binding common standards to apply to offshore oil and gas drilling, including a ban on oil drilling in the Arctic, as it is not possible to intervene to prevent a spill or clean up the event of a spill.

· Undertaking new, urgent action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of Arctic states, including but not restricted to action to reduce emissions of black carbon.

· Taking action on marine reserves, including supporting the establishment of a global sanctuary in the central Arctic Ocean, as part of an enhanced plan to protect Arctic biodiversity.

· Tackling the risks from unsustainable industrial fishing.

· Strengthening the participation of Indigenous Peoples by ensuring full, prior and informed consent for all Arctic Council decision making and developing a work plan to include transparency and inclusiveness that will help deliver these outcomes.

For more information, please contact:

Stefano Gelmini, Greenpeace UK, 07506 512 442

Jessica Wilson, Greenpeace International communications, +44 7896 893 118

Ruth Davis, Greenpeace International senior policy advisor, +44 7949 024 173

Notes for editors:

[1] As expected, the Council approved the cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, a disappointingly weak document that Greenpeace International leaked in February.

[2] The Council announced its decision on the 14 applicants for observer status, opening its doors to six countries: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Italy. The European Union’s application is unresolved pending resolution of a dispute with Canada over trade in some marine animal products. The Council tabled the applications of all other NGOs and organisations, including Greenpeace.

[3] A briefing on the Arctic Council can be found here.

[4] A briefing on Canada’s chairmanship can be found here.

The transport minister and the 20,000 people who demanded better

sara_a — Mon, 13 May 2013 17:41:55 +0000

Com'on, Norman. Don't block the changes we urgently need.

Image caption:

Com'on, Norman. Don't block the changes we urgently need.

When the alarm rang at 4.45am this morning, I was already awake. Nobody overslept or moaned about feeling tired. And after a quick pre-action breakfast we piled into the minibus, loaded with climbing equipment, a huge banner and our petition printed with the names of 20,000 UK campaign supporters. We were on route to Lewes, the constituency of UK Transport Minister, Norman Baker, who this Wednesday will represent the UK in a make-or-break moment for the future of pollution from cars.

On Sunday night, around 20 of us gathered in a hostel in East Sussex. And over a dinner of veggie curry and flapjacks we discussed plans for the Greenpeace action the following morning. The climbers planned how best to hang the 18 metre wide banner.

On Wednesday, Norman Baker will have responsibility for representing the UK’s views on future car emissions targets during a vote by the European Council of Ministers. European processes can be complex and multi-layered, but Wednesday is a make-or-break moment in what has been a two year battle against car companies and some of the politicians who have been heavily lobbied by them.

The vote comes at a moment when the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have just reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, and when we are becoming increasingly locked into a reliance on unconventional and environmentally catastrophic forms of oil extraction, from deep water, tar sands and potentially the Arctic. We have the chance to cut car emissions in half by 2025 and reduce oil use in Europe by around 8%. Making cars that use less oil is technically possible; it would save drivers money on fuel; and, it is low-hanging fruit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels - changes we urgently need to make.

But instead of supporting future targets for 2020 and 2025, our Lib Dem Transport Minister is supporting a loophole called ‘super credits’, which would allow car makers to over-count the electric vehicles they produce, and enable them to offset these against their gas guzzlers. This would bring the actual emissions up to levels beyond that allowed by the 2020 laws. He is also blocking attempts to set new targets for 2025. Without new targets we halt the progress that has so far been made on reducing CO2 emissions from cars, and lose this crucial chance to implement long-term change.

Today Greenpeace released a leaked briefing, detailing how the Department of Transport, led by Baker, has advised MEPs to vote against a 2025 target – which was proposed in the EU Parliament by a fellow Lib Dem MEP Fiona Hall. The briefing also revealed the government’s sympathy for ‘super credits’.

We wanted to let Norman Baker’s constituents – the people who voted for him – know, and tell him to do better and live up to the Lib Dems climate promises. So at 6am this morning, we arrived on Lewes High Street and our climbers scaled a 5 storey building. Despite the rain and high winds of the last few days, and our fears late last night that we wouldn’t be able to hang such an enormous banner; the winds dropped this morning and as we pulled into Lewes the sun miraculously began to shine. With the banner hung, another team of activists headed off to the local station to hand leaflets to people on their way to work.

Later this morning, we trooped around the corner to Norman Baker’s constituency office to hand in a printed version of our online petition – 20,000 names of people from the UK (among more than 70,000 across the EU). The petition for cleaner cars will continue to run until the laws are finally agreed between ministers and MEPs in June.

Please add your name now – this is really the moment when you can tell politicians to make a difference.

Greenpeace Reveals Environmental Policy Conflict at the Heart of Liberal Democrats

Graham Thompson — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:39:16 +0000

Activists scale building in minister’s constituency

13 May, 2013

Greenpeace has this morning released confidential internal policy documents from Transport Minister Norman Baker that shows how he is blocking new legislation to reduce carbon emissions from new cars. The proposed law could save motorists up to £400 per year, and have been proposed by leading Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall.

In the leaked briefing Baker and his officials call for ‘opposing’ a proposal by Liberal Democrat Fiona Hall, who sits on the Industry Research and Energy (ITRE) committee of the European Parliament, which called for the reduction of CO2 emissions from all new cars to 70g CO2/km for 2025. In the document the minister explains why he wants MEPs to vote against his fellow Lib Dem’s proposal.

Among the other details the internal documents show are:

Watering down legislation through introducing so-called ‘Super Credits’ – a loophole which would allow car makers to offset gas guzzling cars by over-counting the EVs they produce. This would have the effect of raising CO2 emissions above the target allowed in the law.

Blocking a car emissions target for 2025

Advising MEPs to vote against fellow Lib Dems who have proposed a 2025 target

To coincide with the release of the documents at 8am today Greenpeace activists have scaled a five story building on Lewes High Street, the shopping centre at the heart of his constituency to unfurl a huge advert demanding that Norman Baker takes decisive action to limit carbon emissions . At the same time a second team of activists are greeting commuters with leaflets that explain how the Transport Minister can improve the quality of air, reduce carbon emissions and save drivers £400 a year.

Commenting on today’s action, Sara Ayech Greenpeace campaigner said:

“These documents reveal that there is a split at the heart of the Liberal Democrats over policy to reduce carbon emissions and save motorists money. Norman Baker should follow the progressive political lead of Fiona Hall and support laws that will help the environment, whilst putting an average of £400 a year back into the pockets of hard pressed motorists. “

ENDS

For media enquiries call Niall on 07711156881