Greenpeace UK - Press Releases

Court bid to block third runway

jamie — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:49:52 +0000

Today sees the start of court proceedings challenging the government's controversial decision to give the go ahead to a third runway at Heathrow.

A coalition of thirteen organisations is backing the legal challenge. It is made up of local councils, leading green groups and residents' groups, representing millions of people. The coalition's lawyers will be claiming in court that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets. If they win, the government's decision to proceed with the runway will be overturned.

The organisations also argue, supported by Transport for London, that there is no evidence to support the government's claim that there will be enough public transport to serve the new runway.

The decision to proceed with a third runway was made by the then Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon in a statement to Parliament in January 2009. He tried to win Parliament over by proposing a number of additional environmental measures. The coalition is alleging that these measures mean the expansion is fundamentally different to the proposals on which the government consulted the public in 2007. Worse still, the government's lawyers are now backpedalling by claiming the new measures were not part of the decision to expand Heathrow.

One of the measures announced was a new target to bring carbon emissions from aviation back to 2005 levels by 2050. The government asked the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) how it could meet this target. The CCC responded by telling the government it would have to severely curtail its plans for airport expansion throughout the UK. The coalition argues that the expansion of Heathrow cannot now proceed, since the policy of which it is a part has been discredited.

Another of the measures would see the runway only being used at half its capacity until a review in 2020 could check to see if noise and air pollution as well as carbon targets could be met. But imposing this limit destroys the economic case for a third runway and will be no comfort to the residents of the Sipson, since their village would be destroyed either way.

Alistair McGowan, who is one of the owners of the 'Airplot' in Sipson, said:

"I'm here today because, like the residents of Sipson, I'm enraged about the government's seemingly unquenchable passion to tarmac over my land - land which I now own with over 65,000 people from around the world. I hope that the ministers who wouldn't listen to already suffering west Londoners, highly respected climate scientists or battling local councils will listen to the courts. I don't want to end up having to fend off BAA with a pitchfork and a large bull."

Speaking on behalf of the local councils Hillingdon leader Ray Puddifoot said:

"We've had no choice but to go to court to sort out the mess left behind by a decision that was little more than a quick fix. From the moment Geoff Hoon announced his decision to the House it has steadily unravelled. We now have the government's lawyers telling us that what the Secretary of State told MPs was not what he really meant.

"So while Hoon was saying that expansion would be limited to a half-used runway because of climate change concerns, the civil servants now say that it is not dependent on reductions in carbon emissions and or so-called greener planes. If it's only half a runway then that demolishes the economic case. But if the conditions which were meant to limit environmental damage are worthless and we are going to get a full capacity runway anyway, then we have all been duped.

"The history of Heathrow expansion is littered with broken promises, that's why it's so important we get the courts to sort out the deliberate ambiguity of the government's decisions."

Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:

"A third runway would destroy our community. Homes, schools, shops, pubs would all be demolished. That is destruction on a massive scale. What rubs even more salt into our wounds is our firm belief that the consultation process was seriously flawed."

Martin Harper, RSPB, Head of Sustainable Development said:

"We have said before that the government's decision to allow a third runway when we desperately need to reduce carbon emissions was fundamentally flawed.

Climate change threatens many species with extinction and we are already seeing its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North Sea. It is right that a bad decision such as this should be challenged"

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:

"Although it is clear that a third runway may well be scrapped after the General Election, we can't take anything for granted. If we lose this legal challenge, it will not be the end of the world, but, if we win, it will make it ever more difficult for any government to build the third runway."

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), said:

"Proceeding with the third runway would destroy not just a village and a large swathe of Green Belt but also tranquillity over a much wider area. Countryside, parks and gardens in and beyond north and west London would fall under the shadow of new flight paths and the din of thousands of extra flights."

Pete Lockley, Head of Transport Policy for WWF-UK said:

"The government's decision to allow expansion at Heathrow flies in the face of common sense, which is why we are asking the High Court to consider the case. A third runway will make it much more difficult to achieve our carbon reduction targets and doesn't justify its cost, in economic or environmental terms. The Committee on Climate Change has just advised that aviation growth must be severely curtailed by 2050. This should prompt a complete rethink of government aviation policy."

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace said:

"It's been clear from the start, that there has been huge opposition to this runway. Nearly 90% of the people who responded to the consultation opposed the expansion of Heathrow. Yet mysteriously the government gave the go ahead.

This gives a clear demonstration of how little they value the views of the public. Now we've got the chance to submit this process to legal scrutiny. We don't expect the courts to be any more impressed with it than we were."

Notes to Editors:

Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, alongside the local residents group (NoTRAG) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the government's energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.
If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible to meet this target.
Aviation emissions do more damage to the climate because they are released at altitude - known as global warming impact. Scientists multiply aviation emissions (which include other gases not just CO2) by 2 to 3 times to calculate their increased climate impact
Historically small increases in the efficiency of planes have been overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case in the future if action is not taken to constrain expansion. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that the industry's targets are ‘clearly aspirations rather than projections'.
The decision on Heathrow is underpinned by the government's aviation policy, set out in the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper, which promotes a policy of airport expansion across the UK. The climate science has changed significantly since 2003, as has the law and the policy context - notably the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change's 2009 aviation report which says that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper.
All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

Celebs and architects launch competition to design Heathrow fortress

jamie — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:03:11 +0000

Britain's leading architects are being invited to enter a competition to design an impenetrable fortress to be built on the land earmarked for a third runway at Heathrow.

The fortress will be constructed at the centre of the site in west London where airport operator BAA hopes to construct a £7bn runway and sixth terminal. An illustrious panel of celebrities and leading architects has been assembled to judge the entrants and select a winner. Construction will begin as soon as possible after the winning design is announced, unless the runway plans are dropped.

The plot of land where the stronghold will be built - in the village of Sipson to the north of the airport - was bought last year by Greenpeace, which then distributed ownership of it to people across the world. There are now over 60,000 beneficial owners of the runway land with more people signing up every day on the Greenpeace website, creating a legal headache for any government trying to push ahead with Heathrow expansion.

Now the one acre plot will see the construction of a fortress intended to defend the land from bulldozers and bailiffs. The structure will support owners of the land, local residents, seasoned campaigners and anybody else who wants to peacefully block the construction of a third runway. As well as leading architects, the panel of judges includes the comedian Alistair McGowan and the sculptor Rachel Whiteread CBE, who designed the official memorial to victims of the holocaust in central Vienna. Once the winning Heathrow design is chosen Greenpeace will raise the funds to build it. Previous Greenpeace appeals have raised seven-figure sums for specific projects.

The Open Ideas Architectural Competition will be launched at 11am today (Thursday) at St Pancras International champagne bar. Competition judges and leading figures from the architecture industry will join campaigners at the reception, where the competition brief will be revealed. The contest is open to architects, architectural students and architect-led mixed disciplinary teams. Given the nature of the brief, the judges are actively encouraging engineers, artists, landscape designers, sculptors and other professionals aligned with associated bodies to collaborate and submit designs. Greenpeace is also inviting the public to submit ideas via its website on how to defend the land in a ‘mass brainstorm' to come up with the best concepts.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

"This is a competition to design what could become the next frontline in the fight against climate change. Whoever wins the next election they will come under enormous pressure from the all-powerful aviation industry to push ahead with a third runway. But if the bulldozers roll they'll face a fortress occupied by a massive movement of ordinary people who oppose Heathrow expansion."

He continued:

"We can raise the funds to build it, now we need the right design. We're looking for a structure that is immovable and allows local residents and seasoned environmental campaigners to peacefully block the diggers. It might be underground, it might be overground, it might be both, that's up to the panel of experienced judges from the worlds of architecture and activism to decide. This is a battle of the architects. The other side has a budget of billions but in the end only one structure will be left, and it won't be a new runway."

One of the judges is Professor Neil Thomas, the founder of renowned structural engineering consultancy Atelier One. He said:

"This has to be one of the most fascinating design briefs ever put out to competition. Architects are being asked to design a structure that will become iconic the moment it's finished. Then, very soon after completion, it could face the possible threat of bulldozers and bailiffs trying to tear it down. We think they'll fail. British design is in a very exciting period at the moment, so it's with some relish that we judges await the entrants."

Also on the judging panel is experienced environmental activist Oli Rodker, a veteran of the 90s road protests, when campaigners built ingenious structures to block the construction of roads and bypasses across the country and eventually forced the abandonment of a multi-billion pound government road building programme.

The deadline for submissions is April 23rd, with the winning design announced soon afterwards. An exhibition of the entrants will be held in a central London gallery at the beginning of June.

Another judge is leading architect Peter Clegg, Senior Partner at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios. He said:

"As architects we know what can be achieved in terms of carbon reductions through the design and engineering of our buildings. But we are painfully aware of the fact that there are bigger issues to do with major infrastructure projects where we also need to make a stand. Just as more and wider roads mean more cars, more runways will lead to more planes. We have to take a stand against freedom to fly anywhere, anytime and at any cost, and put an end to the absurd lifestyle changes that we are indulging in, that are increasing our carbon footprints and negating the savings we are managing to make in other areas."

Ends

For more contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255 / 07801 212967

Competition brief, autocad drawings and plans of the site can be downloaded at:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/heathrowcontest

Notes:

Design Aims

The winning design will offer -

Ability for dozens of activists to occupy the Airplot for extended periods of time.
Ability to withstand attempts by private security to evict activists.
Ability to withstand attempts to seize the land using vehicles or heavy machinery.

Judging Criteria

It must be as close to zero-carbon as possible - both in terms of its embodied energy and the energy it will use when "occupied".
It must respect the natural environment.

How applicants respond to site constraints, aims, basic needs, guiding design principles, requirements, constraints and considerations.
Potential to aid resistance to eviction.
Potential to communicate the cultural and moral significance of the campaign to stop the runway.
Potential to inspire, galvanise support and communicate the gravity of the campaign to stop climate change.
Potential to be a practical structure that whilst drawing upon the heritage of the site, would be truly sustainable in environmental, social and financial terms.

William Hague speech on climate change and foreign policy - Greenpeace response

jamie — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:22:58 +0000

Reacting to Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague's speech on climate change and foreign policy today, Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said:

"The fact that William Hague has recognised climate change as one of the top issues affecting British foreign policy is significant, especially in the run up to a general election.

"Global warming carries dangerous consequences not only for foreign governments but for British interests at home and abroad. The Conservative party must now show that it is prepared to put the issue at the heart of its decision making, and show the determination and boldness to tackle the problem head on."

Quotes on specific areas of the speech:

EU emissions cuts

John Sauven said:

"William Hague concedes that the EU needs a more ambitious target to reduce emissions, but then claims we need to wait for a global deal before announcing it. Given the urgency of the problem and the diplomatic stalemate we face it's vitally important that he backs a 30% target right now, to show the rest of the world that the EU is serious about tackling climate change".

Note:

Hague commits to "moving to a 30% emissions reduction target by 2020 on 1990 levels when a legally binding treaty is agreed". This would simply echo the current EU position. To show real leadership the Conservative party should back calls to increase the target now.

Reform of the EU budget

John Sauven said:

"Making climate change a priority within the EU budget makes sense, because at the moment the high rhetoric of European politicians is rarely reflected in their spending commitments. But this process could take years, and Hague needs to recognise that Britain must commit funding right now to tackle urgent problems like deforestation and climate adaptation."

Note:

The shadow foreign secretary suggests that "There are strong arguments for the EU to make a single global offer channelling such funding through the EU budget, as the best and most constructive way forward."

Set against Hague's criticism of the EU should be the fact that it has been instrumental in encouraging countries including the UK to commit to emission reductions, and has played a significant role in promoting the renewable energy industry across the continent. However, politicians have failed to put their money where their mouths are, especially considering the number of speeches devoted to climate change by European leaders.

Funding for forest protection

John Sauven said:

"William Hague is right to recognise that the market will not deliver cash to protect forests before 2020, and that public funding is needed now. The UK must commit a substantial level of money immediately, because without this there may be no forest left to protect in the future."

Notes:

A report from an international group, co-chaired by the UK government and called 'The Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation' recently estimated that if financing of €15-25 billion were made available between 2010-15, global deforestation rates could be cut by 25%, or 7Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent. (1)

Illegal Timber

John Sauven said:

"The EU has moved too slowly to ban the importation of illegal timber into the UK, so the Conservative proposal to introduce UK legislation is welcome news. We must now make sure that any new law requires companies to prove the origin of the wood they use and is tough enough to take meaningful action against those that break the rules."

Notes:

Illegal timber remains a significant problem in the European and UK markets. New EU regulations will improve the situation but the timetable for their introduction is proving to be slower and overall strength weaker than had been hoped. A complete solution to the problem of illegal timber requires effective Europe-wide laws. In the absence of a complete European response and subject to the detail, the proposals announced by William Hague signal a step in the right direction.

Greenpeace background document: www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/destructive-and-illegal-logging

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE GREENPEACE PRESS OFFICE ON 0207 865 8255

FOOTNOTES

(1) www.rainforestsos.org/page/-/pages/pdfs/IWG-IFR-Summary_final_ENGLISH.pdf

Conservatives call for green investment bank - Greenpeace response

jamie — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:14:01 +0000

Reacting to Shadow Chancellor George Osborne's Speech at Imperial College today, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"A new bank to drive money into green investment is a good proposal. We now need clarity on how the Conservatives would make this sufficiently ambitious to provide the tens of billions needed to create a low carbon economy and develop new green industries.

"We need to encourage long term investment from pension funds and savings schemes to fund clean energy projects.

"What's missing from the debate is a green strategy for taxation that will reward companies and individuals that reduce their carbon emissions and save resources, and penalise those that needlessly pollute."

Prince's rainforest fund gets US backing - Greenpeace response

jamie — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:12:21 +0000

Reacting to the news that the US has become the first country to pledge money to a short term fund to protect tropical rainforests which has been backed by the Prince of Wales, Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said:

"We all rely on the world's tropical rainforests for food and rainfall, and to store vast amounts of our carbon emissions each year. Paying a relatively small amount to protect them is an absolute bargain, because without them the very basis for our economy could collapse and the climate would become increasingly hostile.

"The US Government has today promised a substantial amount of money for forest protection, and now there is real pressure on the British government to do the same. The longer we delay the more our international reputation for environmental leadership is put at risk."

At a ceremony at Clarence House in London this morning, US Ambassador Louis Susman read out a letter from chair of the US Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, Senator Patrick Leahy, in which he pledged to contribute $275m to a forest protection fund in 2010.

UK energy and environment secretary Ed Miliband failed to put a figure on any UK government contribution, but hinted that the Government may make an announcement at or around the UN Copenhagen conference in December.

For more information please contact the Greenpeace Press Office on 0207 865 8255

NOTES TO EDITORS

In April 2009 Prince Charles (as head of the Prince's Rainforest Project) convened a meeting of world leaders at Clarence House who were in London for the G20. This group included David and Ed Miliband, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Ban Ki-Moon, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and President of Indonesia Dr H Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The purpose of the meeting was to create a working group to look into the potential for the global community to raise immediate, short term funds to address the problem of tropical deforestation. The group was named The Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.
The IWG-IFR was established to consider how to generate funds before any UN deal on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of forests (REDD) comes into effect. The period they were looking at covered 2010 to 2015.
After several rounds of meetings, this group has published a plan to create an Emergency Package to protect the world's rainforests. The report has had the active co-operation of nearly 40 countries, including most of the world's rainforest nations.
The report estimates that if financing of €15-25 billion were made available between 2010-15, global deforestation rates could be cut by 25%, or 7Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The IWG IFR report does not contain exact figures for each country's contribution. Dividing the amount depending on per capita emissions among leading economies - a logical methodology - would mean the UK would contribute around €700m over the five year period, if the global community was aiming for a €20bn fund overall.
€700m over five years represents just €140m per year.

Celebs to plant orchard on runway site to oppose expansion at Heathrow

jamie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:22:39 +0000

Actors, political party leaders, local residents and the Poet Laureate are planting an apple orchard on the site of Heathrow's proposed third runway to show their opposition to expansion at the airport.

Gavin and Stacey actress Alison Steadman, Richard Briers from the Good Life, Nick Clegg and poet CarolAnn Duffy will be on the runway site today (Friday) at noon to dig the orchard, while Heathrow writer-in-residence Alain de Botton - who was famously recruited by BAA to spend a week at the airport and write about his experiences - is adopting a Cox apple tree in the orchard. Conservative leader David Cameron is also adopting a tree.

The planting of the orchard represents the re-introduction of the Cox apple breed into the area and is designed to act as a potent symbol of the determination by politicians and the local community to stop the runway, save Sipson's homes and school and fight climate change. The Cox apple was first bred in the borough in the 1850s by Richard Cox, who is buried on the site earmarked for a new runway and whose body might still be exhumed if the development goes ahead.

The high-profile orchard planters are being joined by the Woodland Trust, RSPB, WWF, the World Development Movement and other groups representing millions of members and supporters. The orchard is being planted on the third runway site on land purchased by Greenpeace from under the noses of BAA and the Government earlier this year. The plot was then offered to members of the public. 60,000 people from across the world now co-own the land targeted by BAA's bulldozers.

Commenting on the ‘orchard of resistance', Heathrow writer-in-residence Alain de Botton said:

"I'm sponsoring a tree in the orchard because I love airports and air travel, and recognise that if our society is to tolerate them, we are all going to have to learn to fly a lot less. Also, apple trees, through their slow gestation and their Biblical associations, subliminally carry fascinating associations of both paradise and danger."

A tree has been adopted by Labour MPs, by David Cameron and Conservative MPs and another by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his MPs. A tree has been adopted by leading climate scientists, and by Government advisors - including the former head of the Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathan Porritt.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

"The Government is absolutely wrong to stubbornly push ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. How can Gordon Brown go to Copenhagen and credibly call for big reductions in carbon when he has such a dire environmental track record at home? A third runway at Heathrow would be a disaster for the local area as well as a disaster for the whole country."

Alison Steadman said:

"We're re-introducing Cox apple trees to this village and building a bridge between the past and the future, because this community will have a future. BAA and the Government now know that if they try to build this new runway they will have to dig up trees owned by and on behalf of millions of people from every area of British society. Some of those people will be there to stand in front of the bulldozers if they ever roll into the new orchard. The third runway cannot and will not be built. Richard Cox may face the prospect of his body being dug up to build the new runway, but his famous apple is now standing in the way of BAA and the Government."

An expanded Heathrow would become the single biggest source of CO2 in Britain and threaten what chance the UK has of slashing its emissions and playing its part in beating climate change.

Over the next few months Cox apple trees are going to be planted in communities across the country and twinned with the orchard in Sipson. MPs of all shades will be invited to join planting ceremonies.

Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy's poem Mrs Scrooge - which is published in book form on November 24th - predicts the demise of the third runway as the Ghost of Christmas Past visits the orchards of Sipson:

"Scrooge sends a message from the grave -
keep going! You shall overcome!"
"No Runway Three!" cried Mrs Scrooge

The orchard plot is behind the William IV pub in Sipson, on the junction of Harmondsworth Lane and Sipson Road. Greenpeace will be on hand to welcome the media from with coffee and pastries from 11.30am.

ENDS

Video and stills available

Greenpeace press office - 0207 865 8255 / 07801 212967

Nikki Williams, Head of Campaigning at the Woodland Trust:

"The Woodland Trust supports Greenpeace in choosing a more sensitive use of this land than the fate it will face if BAA expand. What with important and ancient trees at Heathrow, entire ancient woods at Stansted, plus acres of woodland at risk through other regional expansion plans, Government's support for unremitting aviation expansion not only threatens ancient woodland all across the UK overall, but also negates our climate change commitments - increasing the potential for more long-term risk to already vulnerable habitats."

Speaking on behalf of the 2M Group of London councils, Cllr Peter Thompson, leader of Hounslow Council, said:

"Gardeners know that pleasure comes not from the final results of sowing and planting, but from the joy of watching a seed or sapling grow into something in perfect harmony with its surroundings. Heathrow has become the intrusive shrub from a neighbour's garden - acceptable when properly maintained, but if left to its own devices a damaging nuisance that needs cutting back. This orchard shows that millions of people have had enough and think it's time to reach for the secateurs."

Miliband energy announcements - Greenpeace responce

jamie — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:47:12 +0000

Commenting on energy minister Ed Miliband's announcements on more nuclear power stations today, Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said:

"Miliband can name as many sites as he likes for new nuclear power stations, but the fact remains that the figures simply don't add up.

"Even the Thatcher government realised this. It was exactly 20 years ago to the day that they pulled nuclear plants from the energy privatisation scheme when they realised that nuclear power was not an attractive investment for private companies. And it still isn't.

"Our lawyers will be examining this announcement very closely. You can't justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs."

Commenting on the announcement of a new coal policy and Ed Miliband's acceptance of the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee that the power sector has to be zero carbon by 2030, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"Ed Miliband's recognition that we have to decarbonise the power sector is a step in the right direction, but his delivery plan doesn't go far enough. He's left it up to the Environment Agency to ensure Britain isn't lumbered with emissions from a new generation of highly-polluting coal plants long into the future, but he hasn't given the Agency the necessary powers. The Environment Agency should have been given the authority now to force new coal plants to close if their operators can't eliminate all the emissions by the early 2020s, and to guarantee that the whole power sector goes zero carbon by 2030."

He continued:

"What we really need to see is a legally enforceable emissions performance standard for power stations, like the kind already applied to cars. That would mean severely limiting the amount of CO2 they could emit for every unit of electricity they generate."

ENDS

Greenpeace - 0207 865 8255

On 9 November 1989, then Secretary of State for Energy, John Wakeham, speaking about the financing of new nuclear power stations, said "unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way." (1)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-11-09/Debate-1.html

New government map of climate impacts: Greenpeace response

jamie — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:01:55 +0000

Reacting to the release of a new Government map showing the potential impacts of a 4 degrees global rise in temperature due to climate change, Greenpeace head of climate and energy Robin Oakley said:

"It's up to our politicians to make sure this projection doesn't become an atlas in the future. Four degrees of warming could happen within our lifetimes, but we can avoid this by changing a political system that currently sees tackling climate change as less important than fighting the next election.

"This issue should be the top priority of every government department, from Health to Defence to the Treasury. The bunker mentality of our political elite must come to an end."

For more contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255

NOTES

The map can be viewed at http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final

Europe falls behind Japan and Norway on emission reduction commitments

jamie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:34:17 +0000

European environment ministers, including Ed Miliband, today agreed Europe's position going into December's global climate summit in Copenhagen when they met in Brussels.

By failing to bring commitments on emission cuts in line with scientific requirements, Europe has now fallen behind Japan and Norway, and Europe's position is not strong enough to unlock the stalled international climate negotiations.

Gordon Brown's meeting with European leaders in Brussels next week will be the last chance the EU has of giving the global climate negotiations a much-needed boost before Copenhagen.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said:

"As it stands, Europe's lack of ambition in terms of cuts in carbon, and its non-existent commitment to providing money for developing countries to adapt to climate change, means we're further than ever from a real breakthrough in Copenhagen. With Japan and Norway taking the international leadership position away from Europe, its clear there's a real need for a step change from European leaders when they meet next week."

Environment ministers have only reiterated a conditional commitment to a 30 per cent cut under a global agreement in Copenhagen. But countries such as Japan and Norway have already committed to strong cuts that are more in line with recommendations from the world's leading scientists. [1]

Ministers also agreed today they would propose targets for reductions in global emissions from shipping and aviation (by 20 per cent and 10 per cent respectively, compared to 2005 levels). This is actually an increase in emissions from these sectors by more than a third from 1990 levels.

John Sauven added:

"Once again European governments are proposing to give special treatment to the aviation and shipping industries. Whilst all other European industries are legally bound to make significant cuts, under Europe's proposals these two industries would be permitted to grow their emissions by more than a third. It just doesn't make sense. In practice this is bad news for the European economy, as other industries will inevitably have to make deeper cuts so ships and planes can have a bigger slice of the pie."

Notes to editors:

[1] Japan has committed to 25 per cent emission reductions, compared to 1990 levels. Based on the European Commission's indicators of national emission levels, efficiency levels, wealth (GDP per capita) and population development, Japan's commitment is comparable to a 30 per cent EU reduction target. Norway is committed to a unilateral 40 per cent emission cut.

E.ON reveals Kingsnorth kicked into long grass

jamie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:32:15 +0000

The controversial proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent has been thrown into doubt tonight. An email from German utility giant E.ON to Greenpeace reveals the company no longer thinks construction is currently economic. The email reveals the company is shelving the project for 2-3 years at least.

Kingsnorth attracted huge controversy, with protests over several years including a high-profile Climate Camp. Six Greenpeace protesters who climbed the smokestack at the plant were later acquitted in a high-profile case after the jury accepted the plant posed a greater threat than the activities of the activists.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"This development is extremely good news for the climate and in a stroke significantly reduces the chances of an unabated Kingsnorth plant ever being built. The case for new coal is crumbling, with even E.ON now accepting it's not currently economic to build new plants. The huge diverse coalition of people who have campaigned against Kingsnorth because of the threat it posed to the climate should take heart that emissions from new coal are now even less likely in Britain."

He added:

"Ed Miliband now has a golden opportunity to rule out all emissions from new coal as a sign of Britain's leadership before the key Copenhagen climate meeting. With E.ON's announcement he's now got an open goal."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office - 07801 212967