Greenpeace UK

Why Shell’s spill response plan is a dog's breakfast

Security Breach at National Gallery for Arctic Oil Protest

February 21, 2012

21 February, 2012

Environmental campaigners have evaded security and scaled the National Gallery in London’s Trafalgar Square.

The gallery, home to thousands of paintings including masterpieces by Georges Seurat, Paul Cezanne, Vincent van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci, is this evening hosting an event for energy giant Shell, who is planning to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer.

The campaigners, from Greenpeace, are preparing to drop a 40 metre square banner, which has a picture of an oil rig and the words ’It’s No Oil Painting’, down the front of the gallery.

Hannah Davey from Greenpeace, who is currently on the roof of the National Gallery, said:

“Shell is using the National Gallery this evening to try and impress people they’ve invited along. But, at the same time, they’re planning to drill for oil in the freezing Arctic, our planet’s last wild ocean. The Arctic’s coastlines are home to indigenous people, and its waters nurture polar bears, beluga whales and walruses.

“We’re here to tell Shell, and their guests, that oil companies have to keep out of the Arctic. The region is too fragile to risk an oil spill that experts say would be almost impossible to clean up.”

Shell is the first major international oil company to make exploitation of the Arctic a key focus. If the company strikes oil this summer, it is feared that other global oil giants will join them in drilling in the Arctic wilderness.

The total estimated Arctic oil reserves would satisfy just three years of current global oil demand, but would contribute significantly to carbon emissions and pose a grave risk to the local eco-system (1).

ENDS
Note:
1. According to the US Geological Survey the Arctic contains a maximum of 90 billion barrels of oil. Global demand is currently roughly 90 million barrels per day (mb/d); the IEA’s world energy outlook 2011 anticipates that oil demand (excluding biofuels) will rise from 87 mb/d in 2010 to 99 mb/d in 2035. By calculation, this amounts to at most three years of global oil consumption in the Arctic.

Tweeting from the rooftops: Shell, keep out of the Arctic

February 21, 2012

It’s official. On Friday, Shell got a step closer to drilling for oil in our planet’s last wild ocean - the Arctic. 

The company’s oil spill response plan for the Chukchi Sea off Alaska was given the all clear by US authorities, even though it’s a work of almost complete fantasy.

While Shell prepares to start trashing this stunning wilderness, putting it at risk of catastrophic oil spills and more melting as a result of more climate change, its PR people are getting busy. This evening, they’ve invited influential guests to an event at the National Gallery in London, in the hope that those guests will lend the Shell brand a veneer of respectability.

We’ve decided to tell their guests the truth: this year Shell is planning to drill for oil in the pristine waters of the Arctic, and its plans will change this fragile wilderness forever. 

So our climbers have made sure that guests at the National Gallery are met with an unexpected picture when they arrive; a short while ago, they evaded security and are preparing to unfurl a huge banner with the words “It’s no oil painting”. Our climber Hannah is tweeting from the rooftop using the hashtag #SaveTheArctic. 

Meanwhile, Paula Bear has emerged from her wintry den to mingle with the crowds in Trafalgar Square, where dozens of Greenpeace volunteers are talking to curious passers-by. 

Shell sees the Arctic as a resource to be exploited for profit. We think it should be protected. What do you think? Join the discussion on our blog and on Twitter: #SaveTheArctic.

Polar bears – like other Arctic species including beluga whales, narwhals and walruses – are already under severe pressure in the Arctic from climate change. In just 30 years, the Arctic has lost 75% of its sea ice, and temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than anywhere else on Earth. 

While more and more people recognise the changing face of the Arctic as a stark warning about climate change (earlier today, several scientists gave evidence to this effect to the parliamentary inquiry, Protecting the Arctic), Shell sees the melting ice as a business opportunity – a chance to drill in newly accessible areas to find more of the oil that caused the melt in the first place. 

And Shell's plans pose a new threat to the Arctic’s stunning – and ecologically fragile – coastlines and oceans: the threat of a catastrophic oil spill, which would be impossible to clean up. 

Shell is just first of the so-called ‘supermajors’ - the big oil companies - to make exploitation of the Arctic a key part of their strategy. But if it strikes oil this summer, other global oil giants may follow. 

Shell sees the Arctic as a resource to be exploited for profit. We think it should be protected. What do you think? Join the discussion on our blog and on Twitter: #SaveTheArctic.

Big six CEOs: Failing customers, failing the climate

February 17, 2012

Millions of us are feeling the economic squeeze just now - not least because of the astronomical rise in our energy bills. The average household energy bill rose from £605 in 2004 to £1060 by 2010 and since then it’s risen even further. Secratary of Sate Ed Davey needs to stand up to the energy bosses and put people and the climate before profits.

Click image to enlarge

By far the biggest single cause of this staggering burden on families and businesses across the country is the hikes in the cost of gas. Gas cost about 40% more this winter than last winter, and as the energy regulator OFGEM put it, "This has contributed significantly to the recent increase in customers’ bills."

This is an especially big problem because we've become ever more reliant upon burning gas both to heat our homes and to keep the lights on because the biggest energy companies are fixing it to be this way. And now they are lobbying for us to be even more reliant on gas than we are already.

It’s convenient for the bosses of the big six utilities because gas-fired power stations are relatively cheap for them to build and then they simply pass on the costs of the expensive fuel to those of us left to pay the bills and live with rising global temperatures.

So it's frankly insulting that the bosses of the giant energy companies who took decisions that have left us consumers vulnerable to expensive - and highly polluting - gas fossil fuels, are now rewarding themselves for failure.

This week the boss of Britain's biggest energy company is expected to get a fat cat bonus. Last year this totalled over £1million taking his yearly earnings to over £2 million. He also took £600,000 in shares. In ten years the top director of this company, Centrica, has seen their pay rise by a staggering 140%. He is not alone. All of the big six energy companies will reward their bosses for damaging the environment and leaving millions in fuel poverty.

As Dot Gibson of the National Pensioners Convention put it in The Mirror, "There is no justification for their whopping pay packets when their price rises mean that many older people can't afford to heat their homes. They should hand back their bonuses."

Too right they should - except they're not known for taking responsibility. The new Energy Minister needs to intervene. Just for starters, these massive bonuses could pay to bring down bills for several thousand of the poorest people in society by insulating their homes.

Secretary of State Ed Davey needs to stand up to the energy bosses and force the energy giants to use their profits to take responsibility for the mess they've left us in. Not pay themselves massive bonuses when more people are living in fuel poverty than ever before. Email Ed Davey now.

For more on this story check out this article in The Mirror.

Infographic sources.

Exposed: Heartland's climate disinformation campaign

February 15, 2012

Leaked documents from inside one of America’s most powerful thinktanks have revealed a multi-million dollar systematic disinformation campaign to cast doubt on the science of climate change.

The explosive documents posted on Desmogblog – a website dedicated to monitoring groups that peddle false claims about climate science – show that some of the wealthiest and most polluting corporations in the world, including General Motors, Bayer, Pfizer, GSK and Microsoft, are helping to fund the Heartland Institute.

One of the leaked memos shows one “anonymous donor” paid the group more than $8.6m between 2007 and 2011 to promote climate change denial. The billionaire oil barons the Koch brothers are also implicated.

One of the revelations is that the best read climate blog in the world, Watts Up With That, is set to receive $90,000 in 2012 as part of their campaign. The man who runs the blog, Anthony Watts, is frequently quoted in major British media outlets including The Times. Two years ago, Left Foot Forward revealed how Watts was tweeting links to the British National Party.

Similarly, ‘scientists’ receiving platforms on some of the biggest broadcasters in the world – including the BBC – are being paid monthly retainers to peddle a climate sceptic line. One document says:

“At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

A particularly sinister objective of their campaign is "dissuading teachers from teaching science" – part of their "global warming curriculum project". For this a coal industry insider has been hired, at the expense of $100,000 a year, to develop a plan to teach children that climate change is a hoax.

Another document says that Heartland has not yet tried:

“To raise funds from businesses with a financial interest in (shale gas) fracking. In 2012 we intend to correct that oversight.“

The leak will raise new questions about who is funding Lord Lawson’s influential lobby group in the UK, Global Warming Policy Foundation. Lord Lawson has consistently refused to reveal who is funding their campaign.

David Henderson is both a fellow of the Heartland Institute and chair of the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The director of this group, Benny Peiser, as well as Telegraph columnist James Delingpole, have spoken at a major conference of climate deniers organised by the Heartland Institute.

You can read all the leaked documents on DeSmogBlog.

This blog first appeared on Left Foot Forward.

Rex Weyler on tar sands and Keystone XL

February 15, 2012

All rights reserved. Credit: RW

A discussion between Anders Lorenzen, from SW London Greenpeace, and Rex Weyler one of the early Greenpeace pioneers, who's still active today.

When Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, it was heralded as a victory by people the world over including myself. But as I looked more into the issues, I found they were more complex than I initially expected. Several important questions still remain, especially on the issue of what happens next? One thing is certain Trans Canada is not going to give up their agenda and will continue to push for the Keystone XL pipeline, both in terms of the existing proposed US route and other alternatives.

An informed individual on this issue is Greenpeace International co-founder Rex Weyler who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes on this campaign alongside Greenpeace Canada. I took the opportunity to contact him to gain some insider knowledge on what I feel the most pressing questions and challenges facing us now are.

Anders Lorenzen: What would you advise we do now, what's the most powerful thing we can do from here?

Rex Weyler: In the Tar Sands, climate battle, we have to keep pressure on Canada to close the Tar Sands, keep pressure on all the pipelines and tanker routes. But simultaneously, we'll need to address the globalized industrialized nations -- US, EU, Russia, China -- who are still trying to burn more hydrocarbons and build giant industrial infrastructure. We need to choke off the demand for hydrocarbons by resisting and replacing the systems of consumption, with lower-consumption communities.

Consume less, and encourage others to consume less

Localize sustainability, build resilient, local community strength; food security, energy security, low-technology systems that can be managed locally; prepare for large-scale (globalized) system breakdown.

Resist the conventional perception of society and nature: the high-consumption, capitalist, industrialized, globalized market-based system is inherently unsustainable and is severely corrupted. Avoid systems that rely on global industrialism. Help develop systems that rely on and support and empower local community-scale sustainability.

Defend every last vestige of wildness, wilderness, non-human nature;

Help link ecology to social justice; simultaneously build equality and low-impact social structures.

AL: What do you think will happen next with the pipeline?

RW: The hydrocarbon industry is desperate for oil production because every major oil field in the world is in decline. Oil production has been flat since 2005. This is a crisis in the industry. They are desperate for the Tar Sands so this battle will not go away. We will be fighting this battle for decades, or at least until the power of the oil companies collapses. They will not give up attempting to control the US and Canada governments

However, the hydrocarbon-based industrial, global system is in a process of collapse. That collapse appears slow now, but it is inevitable, and well under way. Industrial giant nations are fighting wars over the last resources, burning up valuable resources to fight over what is left. Their costs of maintaining the complex systems that enable their giant military power and infrastructure exceed their return on investment. The giant industrial nations -- US, UK, Russia, China, India -- etc. are already experiencing diminishing returns on investments in complexity (See J. Tainter). This is prelude to collapse.

We are now at peak oil production, and therefore at peak energy production on a world scale. We will have to build alternatives, but we must be aware that energy sources -- solar, wind, biomass, etc. -- have much lower Net Energy than hydrocarbons, and will be limited in scale by supply chain and replacement issues. Energy drives all economy, so as global energy supplies decline -- and materials also decline, copper, phosphorous, etc. -- economies will be restrained. Without growing energy supplies, continued economic growth is not possible on a global scale. Growth in economies will be local and severely limited. Peak energy per capita occurred in 1979, over thirty years ago.

In any case, on a finite planet, with finite material and energy resources, endless economic growth is not possible. Continued population growth is not possible. Ideas of "decoupling" economics from natural materials and energy are delusional. Particularly, economic growth needs energy growth.

So we are now in the age of resource limits, scarcity. The future will be in robust steady-state economies (if we're smart and lucky), otherwise it will be collapse and chaos. This is why we need to put our resources into localized, community-scale resilience and sustainability, food & energy security, etc.

In the hydrocarbon era, the western world eats 1:15 Negative Net Energy food. I.e. our food costs more calories than the food contains. In any natural system, this is not remotely sustainable. We are doing this by burning up a billion years worth of stored solar energy (hydrocarbons). Most of the human world today is eating negative net energy food because of the use of hydrocarbons in agriculture. This is not sustainable, not with solar, wind, or any "alternative." So we must learn to consume less and localize food production.

What this means in the Tar Sands battle is that while we are attempting to close the pipeline routes and shut down the Tar Sands, we need to be building resilient local communities that can learn to exist and create healthy lifestyles on much less energy and materials.

AL: Do you think Obama turned down pipeline to please environmentalists in advance of the forthcoming US election? And will the rejection of the pipeline alter the relationship between the Canadian and the US government, will the Harper administration now further ally themselves with the US Republicans who have been in favor of the pipeline?

RW: The Oil companies are controlling both the US Republicans and the Canadian Conservatives. Those alliances will continue because they are based in the power of petroleum producers -- Shell, Sinopec, BP, etc.

AL: Is this just a delay of the inevitable or can Tar Sands be stopped or even halted?

RW: Obama's action is just a delay until after the election. It means nothing for the long term.

Nevertheless, Yes, we can stop the Tar Sands by stopping the pipelines: Keystone, Kinder-Morgan TMX, and Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. By stopping the pipelines, we help to choke off the tar sands. Yes, if the world rises up, we can force Canada to reduce and eventually close the Tar Sands project. This may take a long time, but global economic collapse will likely contribute to the decline of tar sands projects.

AL: What is the mood is within Canada about the rejection of the pipeline?

Most people in Canada oppose the Tar Sands -- 60-70% opposed -- but we are under the dictatorship of a government that got in with 36% of the vote and are financed and controlled by the oil companies. I have a lot about this in my article: "Canada: climate criminal."

AL: Related to that, can you give us a geographical picture of the opponents and supporters of the pipelines and the Tar Sands project? Which areas are experiencing the biggest opposition versus support and why?

RW: The support is in the oil companies and a few people who benefit. The oil companies are the known, usual suspects: Shell, Imperial, PetroChina, Sinopec, and so forth. They have outright bought the Alberta and Canada governments and they control the US Congress, and they control much of the UK and EU govts. They're everywhere.

The opposition to the Tar Sands is everyone else who is paying attention; internationally, the Tar Sands opposition are the people and nations who want to halt global w...

What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic?

February 13, 2012

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace / Nick Cobbing Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man recreated on Arctic sea ice by John Quigley Image caption:  Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man recreated on Arctic sea ice by John Quigley

As I write, major oil companies like Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron are planning their moves into the Arctic to exploit its vast mineral resources. The five Arctic states are beginning the process of carving up the high north. Meanwhile, the ice keeps melting – we’ve now lost 75 per cent of Arctic sea ice in just 30 years. The global battle to protect the Arctic - from oil exploration, from industrialisation and from climate change – needs to be ambitious, bold and successful. So we’re asking you: what do you think we should we be doing to save the Arctic? 

Last year, you helped to make sure that Cairn’s oil spill response plan was published – and exposed as deeply flawed. You challenged VW’s stance on climate change laws, dividing the car industry around this critical issue. You pushed to get the Arctic onto the UK’s political agenda by asking David Cameron what his plans were to protect the Arctic. 

All of this has brought us a step closer to saving the Arctic. But as the high north grows more vulnerable to industrialisation, as the ice melts, as the oil companies move in and the geopolitical battles over its resources heat up, we need to step up our efforts to protect it – and quickly.

In the coming months and years we need to campaign boldly - and successfully - to save the Arctic. This is going to need a lot of help from you. So we want to know:

What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic? 

Comment on our blog, share your ideas on Facebook or Tweet with the hashtag #SaveTheArctic. 

If you’re in need of inspiration, have a look at our Antarctica campaign, which eventually resulted in the signing of The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the establishment of 'World Park Antarctica'.

Update: Scroll down to the bottom of the comments and click on the last page to view the latest comments.

Zombies sneak under the wire

February 10, 2012

Thursday we issued a zombie warning – we had concerns that armies of undead arguments were likely to crawl from their graves onto ITV’s ‘Tonight: the real cost of going green’. Did you spot any?

Well, perhaps not entire armies - ITV were a bit more sensible than we expected. And they were a lot more sensible than the Panorama crew who based a whole documentary on a KPMG report on the costs of renewables, which they never actually saw, and which KPMG have now decided not to release. Overall, Tonight was relatively even-handed. Perhaps the KPMG fiasco has taught the media to be a bit less trusting of dubious pronouncements on green energy. 

Nevertheless, a few zombies did manage to sneak under the wire.

Most obviously, the claim that ‘some analysts have calculated that the full cost of the government’s going green policies will add up to £400 on household bills’ lurched into view near the end of the programme. Which analysts? Well, they didn’t say, but that figure corresponds to claims made by Policy Exchange’s report ‘The Full Cost to Households of Renewable Energy Policies’, and there’s the same sleight of hand used here as in previous reporting of those claims. Their £400 figure, which is based partly on unsupported guesswork, doesn’t really refer to an increase in your energy bill, but is instead  their estimate of the total costs to the entire economy - which they claim will eventually be passed to the householder through various routes.

‘Tonight’s website also recommends the Taxpayers’ Alliance book, Let Them Eat Carbon, so that’s two walking corpses making it onto the show.

And finally, one zombie that we didn’t mention yesterday, but will be on the look-out for in future. Ambitious Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan complained that wind farm operators are paid huge amounts of money when their turbines are turned off because the grid is over-supplied. That’s not incorrect, strictly speaking, but this applies to all power sources, not just wind farms.  And wind only receives about 3.5 per cent of the money given out to off-line power sources through the Balancing Mechanism, whereas much greater amounts are given to off-line fossil fuel plants.

That’s in line with the general situation on energy funding. Globally, fossil fuels get 500 per cent more subsidies than renewables. Perhaps this explains why the zombie hordes tend to demand an end to wind power, rather than an end to subsidies.

Thank you!

February 10, 2012

Thanks for giving us feedback about how you'd like to be involved. It will help us to send you the stuff you're most interested in, and it will help make the campaign to save the Arctic the best it can possibly be. 

If you'd like to tell us more, you can leave a comment here.

If you'd prefer to keep in touch with us in another way, you can:

Keep track of our campaigns and other environmental news on Facebook. You'll also be one of the first to hear about breaking news from our actions and what you can do to help our campaigns to protect the planet.

Follow us on Twitter to get short and snappy updates about our campaigns and help us spread about the culprits responsible for environmental destruction.

Sign up for text alerts and we'll send you updates, breaking news and details of how you can help us. Text GREENPEACE to 60777 or fill in the form. You'll get around two texts per month, at no cost to you.

In 30 years we've lost 75% of the Arctic sea ice

February 10, 2012

All rights reserved. Credit: Nick Cobbing / Greenpeace In 30 years we've lost 75 percent of the Arctic sea ice

If there's one fact to remember which underlines the urgency in protecting the Arctic it's this: in 30 years we've lost 75 per cent of the Arctic sea ice.

That ice is not only a pristine environment supporting threatened species like the polar bear - it also supports us. By reflecting the sun's rays back into space, the Arctic ice acts as the world's air conditioner, cooling our planet down. This in turn underpins our agricultural systems which when shaken, push millions over into hunger and worse.

The Arctic ice is a life supporter, but we're destroying it. 

Our obsession with dirty energy has melted three quarters of that ice in a little over three decades.

Here's BBC Newsnight explaining the 75% figure:

Some people compare Arctic sea ice amount by looking at the surface area of the ice and calculating how much it contracts by. But if you want to know how much of the ice is actually left, you’ve got to look at the volume - which is both the area and the thickness of the ice. That’s when you get these jaw-dropping figures of how much we’ve already lost.

In 1979, at its lowest point, there were 16,855 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice. In 2011 that had dropped to 4,017 - a little over a quarter of that original figure.

But the real shocker is this: rather than sit up and slap ourselves into rapid action to protect the Arctic, the world is allowing oil companies to rush in and exploit the newly melted waters.

Companies like Shell and others are desperate to extract the "vast oil reserves" under that melting ice - even though all the oil in the Arctic will only fuel the world for three years. Three years.

It's an insanity that we have to stop and we will stop.

Let's make sure 2012 is remembered as the year we drew a line in the ice.

What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic? Share your thoughts in the comments below or on Twitter with the hashtag #SaveTheArctic.