Greenpeace UK - Climate
Climate RSS Feed
 |
New report sets tar sands in a global context
March 1, 2010
A new report from Friends of the Earth and oil finance experts Platform places a clear financial analysis of the Canadian tar sands alongside testimonies of those affected by the race to extract oil from the Albertan wilderness. I was struck by the argument it makes that the Canadian tar sands are the 'test case' for an oil industry that wants to move into extracting dirtier unconventional oil in other parts of the world. The report points out other areas of tar sands around the world which are being eyed up by the big oil companies. As the authors point out: Canada is the international oil industry’s test site – if it becomes acceptable to finance the tar sands of Alberta, then the global finance sector will have ‘normalised’ a disastrously high-carbon development path. ... As investment in technology in Alberta brings down the price of producing synthetic crude and as oil prices fluctuate in higher ranges, companies are re-assessing the potential of operations in other countries. If extraction can be undertaken on the scale envisaged in Alberta then it opens the floodgates for unconventional oil extraction around the world. In other words, if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the environmental destruction and soaring carbon emissions that come with the tar sands in Canada is acceptable, we're basically saying that trashing the planet is just business as usual. Get the report, 'Cashing in on tar sands' (pdf).
Heroes and villains as historic rebellion in Parliament fails to secure a blo...
February 26, 2010
An emissions performance standard would mean no more unabated power stations. We almost did it. Thousands of you emailed your MP via our website, WWF's, and with online campaigners 38 degrees. And they listened, and turned out to vote, and we almost secured an emissions performance standard - a legal limit to pollution which would have stopped dead any future plans to build dirty, unabated coal power stations. The problem was this: Despite Ed Miliband's clear concerns about coal emissions, the government have been firmly resisting setting a legal limit on power sector pollution. Even though it's been a step forward, government coal policy still risks handing piles of cash to power companies to research carbon capture and storage with no regulatory guarantee that power plants will actually be cleaned up. It's a high stakes gamble - because if CCS doesn't work, then we're back to square one. An emissions performance standard would provide a legally binding insurance policy to help ensure future emissions are curbed, no matter what. Ed Miliband really should have just adopted the standard - but since he refused, it came to a vote in Parliament on Wednesday night. And the result was massively, massively close. 27 Labour MPs rebelled against the government, and in the end, the amendment to the energy bill that would have delivered an emissions standard was only defeated by 8 votes. So, who were the heroes of the night? Alan Simpson, for tabling the amendment calling for an emissions performance standard in the first place. His suggestion would have effectively ruled out any future plans for unabated coal plants. It was a good idea, and it would have provided some strong signals to the energy industry about the future of energy provision in Britain. It's a shame that Mr Simpson is standing down at the next election - he's been a great advocate for the climate - but at least he'll get to spend more time in his eco-house. It was great that 27 Labour MPs rebelled against the government and supported the amendment. That's a big rebellion, especially close to the election, and shows how important the issue is to progressives. The Tories deserve some praise as well. David Cameron and lots of his MPs came out to bat for the amendment, even including the self-declared climate skeptic John Redwood. (You see, a low-carbon economy is a good idea whatever your other beliefs.) Great stuff from the Conservatives, and it provides some reassurance that even with the grumbling about green issues from some parts of his party, David Cameron was able to get most of his team to vote the right way. Most but not quite all - the positive effort was tempered by the 39 Tory MPs who didn't turn up. And the villains? Well, villains might be a bit strong. But weirdly, it looks like the Liberal Democrats have really dropped the ball on this one. They've had a very progressive policy on coal, including supporting an emissions standard. But the hard truth is that when it came to a vote 13 liberal democrats, including 9 of their front bench, didn't bother to turn up. That's about a quarter of their MP's. So what happened? Our campaigners spoke with their advisers, and we know they feel they made a mess of this one. We're sure that with the benefit of hindsight they'd have done thing differently, but lest we forget, the amendment was only defeated by 8 votes. Although the proportion of Lib Dem MPs not voting was the same as the Tories, we usually expect more of them. If I was a Liberal Democrat MP with a passion for environmental issues - and they do exist, in significant numbers - I'd be feeling pretty embarrassed today. As a response to getting it wrong this time, it'd be good to see the Lib Dems giving some serious profile to their environmental commitments - pushing the other parties on issues like tar sands, and having senior people like Vince Cable making the economic and competitiveness case for clean energy investment in the UK. In conclusion... THANKS! Thousands of you emailed your MP telling them to support the amendment - and at very short notice. I also get that ‘emissions performance standard' is a bit of a dry issue, so that so many of you put pressure on policymakers is really immense. We were up against powerful special interests - the CBI and E.ON for example, who were lobbying hard - but we gave them a good run for their money. The close result and Tory support for the amendment means there's now more space to pursue emissions standards post-election. And the breadth of support for the issue is a strong signal that whichever party forms the next government the future for highly polluting power stations in this country is very, very uncertain. We're definitely coming back to this one.
Greenpeace's submission to the Consultation on the draft National Policy Stat...
February 25, 2010
Greenpeace's submission to the Consultation on the draft National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure.
Aviation lobbyist admits Heathrow could be a white elephant
February 24, 2010
We always thought that the government's economic case for the third runway at Heathrow was flawed. Particularly so given their plan to only allow use of half of the runway's capacity if environmental targets weren't met. And it turns out we're not alone in our belief. Yesterday this line of argument received some unlikely support from Lord Clive Soley, the campaign director of aviation lobbyists Future Heathrow. He said on the Today programme: "... if the airport doesn't meet the pollution restrictions including noise, then they have to reduce the use of the runway until they come within that level... my conviction is that they will actually reach it anyway because of all the technical and other developments that are taking place but really even if they didn't, think the worst possible case, then in that case the runway cannot be used to it's full extent - in those circumstances you might say that it wouldn't make economic sense, but I'm convinced that they will meet it..." So... He's agreeing that the economic case for the third runway doesn't stack up if the runway doesn't run at full capacity. This is significant. (Even though we reckon the economic case barely stacks up even with full-capacity operation.) Lord Soley has faith in what he calls, intriguingly, ‘technological developments and indeed, other developments', which will cut emissions from planes, squaring the circle of how to have more flights at Heathrow with reduced overall emissions. The government predict that these hypothetical emissions reductions will emerge over the next ten years, and allow an expanded Heathrow to pass their emissions tests. 'Technological and other developments'.We can only speculate what Lord Soley means when he talks about ‘other developments' - what development would mean more flights but less emissions? Possibly Future Heathrow have a plan to breed some sort of Avatar-style flying bird lizard as an alternative to short-haul flights, we'll let you know if we see any. Anyway, at least the technological developments argument is well-trodden. The idea is that having more flights doesn't increase emissions because the planes are more efficient - so each flight produces less carbon. The aviation industry, who generously pay for Lord Soley's interventions on the Today programme, reckon they can reduce emissions from planes by 2% a year. The government reckon that 1.5% per year is more reasonable. The Committee on Climate Change, the independent experts who were specifically tasked to look into this issue by the government, reported back after about a year of work saying they thought that 0.8% per year was a likely bet. And herein lies the problem. The government say that planes are going to get more efficient about twice as fast as the CCC's assessment. And the industry (quelle surprise) is predicting even faster than that. (Although the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said they were being ‘clearly aspirational', which is kind of a polite way of saying it's never going to happen.) The issue for Lord Soley is that the experts don't seem to agree with him that an era of massively increased capacity at Heathrow with lower emissions is just around the corner. It's unlikely a third runway at Heathrow would pass the environmental tests the government claims it's going to enforce. That means that a third runway at Heathrow would, if you believe the government would enforce these tests, never be run at full capacity. And according to Lord Soley, (and us) that means that the economics of Heathrow will never make sense. Update: Tim at FullFact points out that Lord Soley's claims about the majority of people in west London supporting a third runway are a bit suspect.
Heathrow Judicial Review - Wrap up, updated
February 23, 2010
UPDATE: Thursday - Day 3
The third and final day in the high
court turned out to be the best one so far.
The government's barristers
continued to try to defend the statistics that the Department for Transport had
used to support the case for a third runway, and it turned out to be a bit of a
minefield for them. (Perhaps because the statistics were basically pretty
shoddy.)
At one point a somewhat annoyed
judge asked whether the government accepted that their figures of how many
passengers they could fit on the tube were wrong. (He was referring to the creative
accounting that had suggested you could fit 4 people plus luggage into every
tube carriage square-metre.)
The government's lawyer, squirming
slightly, replied that he couldn't say either way, which didn't go down too
well.
On the climate part of the argument,
the judge noted that the climate bill changed the policy context in which
government decisions, like the one to build a runway, were made. This is great -
a key part of the argument we've been making is that the decision to build a
third runway just can't be squared with a commitment to cut carbon emissions and
deliver a low-carbon economy, and the judge said that the Climate Change Act 'seemed... to be a very significant part of the context of the Heathrow decision'. A good sign.
We're hoping to get the ruling by
mid-March, but it could be before then, so we'll keep you
posted...
UPDATE: Wednesday - Day 2
This morning, our lawyers wrapped up
presenting our side of the case.
Most of the climate change arguments
were covered yesterday, and today we moved onto the ‘surface access' part of the
case.
This part of the case follows a
theme you'll all be familiar with - how the government conjured up some slightly
suspect figures in an attempt to prove that you could cram the millions of extra
passengers generated by a third runway onto the tube, roads and trains. Well,
that's my understanding of it anyway - the lawyers said it a lot more
eloquently.
Highlights included our barristers
unraveling the Department of Transport's assumptions about how many people you
can (in theory) fit in a tube carriage. According to the government you can fit
four people per square meter, including their luggage.
The judge didn't look
convinced.
This afternoon, it was the turn of
the government's lawyers to try and convince the judge. According to a text I've
just received from Anna they're having a hard time.
DAY 1:
Today we (along with local councils, other NGOs and residents threatened
by Heathrow expansion) took the government to court for a Judicial
Review of the planned third runway at Heathrow.
In a judicial review, two teams of lawyers argue the toss over a
complicated issue of importance - in this case, whether the government
had conducted the consultation over Heathrow expansion properly, and
whether their plans to balance environmental impact with aviation
expansion stacked up.
First up, there was a good piece on the Today programme this morning
about the Judicial review.
Then, when I got to the court, the front of the building was thronged
with local Heathrow residents, environmental campaigners, local
councillors and Alistair McGowan holding a 'No third runway sign'.
Pretty impressive, considering the driving cold which drove me inside
pretty quickly. The sole campaigner who had turned up early to cheer for
Simon Singh looked a bit mystified.
Unfortunately, given that I was looking for some warmth and comfort the
court had been designed a) to accommodate significantly less people than
turned up and b) in 1875 - the cramped public gallery was massively
uncomfortable.
During the course of the day our lawyers outlined the issues in
meticulous detail. We heard our lawyers running through how the
understanding of climate change as an issue of importance had improved
massively since the publication of the 2003 aviation white paper, how
the Committee on Climate Change's advice to the government in December
2009 had undermined the government's own case for the runway, rather
than strengthening it, how the public consultation process had precluded
a proper appraisal of the final plans for controlling environmental
damage from a third runway, and a run-through of the flawed economic
case for the runway.
The Times has probably the best summary:
Nigel Pleming, QC, told the High Court in London: "There was a
consultation process here, but the decision that was made was
fundamentally different from the subject matter of the consultation.
"That decision was such that it was conspicuously unfair to make the
decision without giving the claimants the opportunity to make further
representations."
He said that if congestion and the environmental impact of expansion had
been properly accounted for, the economic benefit of expansion would
fall from £5.5 billion, as set out by Government, to just £0.9 billion.
There's more reporting of the day's events here - the wire service, and here with commentary from Susan Kramer, the
Lib Dem MP, who remarks that you've got to take the government to court
to even find out what their environmental policy is.
The trial continues tomorrow.
Court bid to block third runway
February 23, 2010
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 mee...
Heathrow judicial review gets underway tomorrow
February 22, 2010
This time we're making arguments in court, rather than on top of a plane. Just over a year ago, at the start of 2009, transport secretary Geoff Hoon gave the government's approval for a third runway at Heathrow airport. It would be accompanied, he said, by "the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world". Cleaner planes, tougher regulation, green slots for takeoff and landing - the secretary of state was keen to broadcast the runway's green credentials. But it didn't make a lot of sense to me then - and it still doesn't. Anyway, I'll get to spend a whole lot more time thinking about it this week, because tomorrow I'm off to court to report on a legal challenge to the controversial third runway decision. Greenpeace is part of a coalition mounting a legal challenge to the government's Heathrow decision. Twelve other groups are also backing the challenge, including local councils, other NGOs, residents' groups - altogether, millions of people are represented. In front of Lord Justice Carnwath, our lawyers will claim that the consultation the government held over the plans for Heathrow expansion was fundamentally flawed. They'll argue that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets, and they'll also contend that the government hasn't made good enough plans to ensure there's enough public transport to serve an expanded airport. It's a trio of challenges to the way the decision was made - and if the ruling goes in our favour on any one of the three points, the government's decision to proceed with the runway will be overturned, which is obviously going to lead to a pretty major rethink in transport policy. We'll see what happens, but it's sure to be a comprehensive thrashing-through for the issues around the third runway, and I'm lucky enough to get to sit through the whole thing, in order to report back to you all. Wish me luck... (And look out for updates from the court, or just outside the court, through the week.)
BP ditches support for climate bill
February 17, 2010
We called for strong climate action from the US. But support for the proposed climate bill is being undermined by BP. It's not perhaps the most surprising of news, but it is worth noting. BP USA has quit a leading business coalition that's been lobbying for a climate bill to cut carbon emissions in the states. You can be sure that what goes on in the States will have been approved from the London office, where over the past few years BP have been working hard to create the impression of a company that has moved away from fossil fuels. So does this move mark an admission of oily business-as-usual from the company that claims it is "beyond petroleum"? BP's statement argues they're dropping out because they believe they "could be more effective [at securing low-carbon legislation, presumably] acting alone," and because the legislation doesn't do enough to encourage relatively-low emissions natural gas over more polluting fossil fuels like coal. But those are pretty mystifying arguments. First up, the climate bill covers a whole lot more than adjudicating between different fuels, and withdrawing support is a pretty blunt move. Secondly, it seems unlikely that BP will be unilaterally pushing for emissions cuts at the same time as investing in tar sands, an oil source that produces at least three times more emissions than regular oil. More likely, they're just chasing the dollar signs and concentrating on lobbying for legislation that benefits their commercial operations directly, rather than wider measures to cut emissions. Interestingly, we seem to be seeing a bit of an about-face in public relations strategy from the company. Over the past decade they've morphed from British Petroleum to just BP, adopted a green flower as a logo, and massively publicised a relatively tiny renewable power division (which led to my favourite Onion article of all time - "We're investing so much in alternative fuels, sometimes we almost forget to pump oil!"). But maybe they're just giving up on trying to green-tint their business. Certainly, by pulling out of supporting the US climate bill, while chatting up as many Canadian tar sands operators as they can get their hands on, they're sending a pretty clear signal that in 2010 'beyond petroleum' doesn't carry much weight.
What would you build on the Airplot?
February 17, 2010
What would you build on our piece of land to stop the third runway? Lordy. When we launched the Airplot fortress competition a few weeks ago, I don't think we were prepared for the sheer range of ideas we'd receive. We've had plenty of suggestions for forts of some kind, while others have trod an underground pathway with tunnels and bunkers, and others have gone fully 'outside the box', proposing bold and outlandish new design concepts. While I'd like to share some of them in detail, that wouldn't be fair on people who've already entered. But here are a few pointers. Reshaping the land to make it harder for the bulldozers to move in has been popular, as has placing something there which would be difficult to remove. I can see where one person was going when the suggested using nuclear waste as a deterent, but I reckon the Sipson residents may have some objections to that. There'll still be more ideas out there. The competition is open until Friday 23 April, so there's still plenty of time to get your entry in for a chance to win a trip to the exhibition we're going to hold in London. And for the architects out there, our other competition for fully realised plans runs until the same date. There's one more site visit available in March, and all the resources you'll need are available online.
Clouds on the horizon for tar sands?
February 15, 2010
Canada before and after tar sands extraction. Producing tar sands oil is also at least three time more carbon intensive than making normal crude. Some dirty oil news bubbled up over the weekend, as big oil companies including Shell and BP mobilise to try and stop tar sands oil being banned from the sixth largest economy in the world. That would be California, personal fiefdom of 'surprisingly green governor' Arnie Schwarznegger. In an effort to cut vehicle emissions 10 per cent by 2020, he has brought in laws that require a cut in the carbon content of fuels sold in the state. "Our cars have been running on dirty fuel for too long," intoned Arnie, in his rich Austrian accent. Not only did the legislation require cleaner fuel, it also required carbon costs for fuels to be calculated over the full life-cycle of fuel production. This means counting the carbon emissions from the beginning of production right through to the end use. This accounting method - because it's more accurate - hits tar sands particularly hard. Tar sands oil has extra carbon costs associated with getting the difficult-to-process bitumen out of the ground (one popular method for extraction involves pumping not-entirely-carbon-free natural gas into the ground to squeeze the bitumen out), and then refining the thick, molasses-like bitumen down to the equivalent of crude oil produces more emissions still. Producing a barrel of oil from tar sands creates at least three times more carbon emissions than getting a barrel from conventional sources. Because tar sands oil is so dirty, the Californian legislation would basically block it from the Golden State. That would be bad news for companies like BP, who are dipping their investment toes into the chemical-soused waters of tar sands, and Shell, who have about a third of their oil reserves - future production capacity - in tar sands. So entirely predictably, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association - which includes Shell and BP - is now trying to get the legislation scrapped, arguing that it's 'unconstitutional'. Why unconstitutional? Because apparently not being able to burn tar sands oil threatens the US 'energy security'. The chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, is pretty unimpressed: "Their actions are shameful. This [legislation] is a critical tool to help us break our dependence on fossil fuels. It will protect us from volatile oil prices and provide consumers with cleaner fuels and provide the nation with greater energy security. "Our analysis shows that producing alternative fuels under this standard can save consumers as much as $11 billion over the next decade, and that's in California alone. Instead of fighting us in court, they should be working with us to provide consumers in California and the rest of the nation with the next generation of cleaner fuels." Opting for tar sands, the dirtiest form of oil production, is reinforcing the link between energy production and fossil fuels - and then some. Maybe that's why BP is under fire from its own investors over the issue - with organizations like the Co-op and UNISON, who are invested in the company through their pension funds, asking pointed questions about how their money is being spent. We know that decarbonising our economy would create jobs, fuel investment, and deliver actual energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. But if a clean energy future is a step forward, it's pretty clear that tar sands is a step back - and one that the biggest oil companies seem hell-bent on pursuing.
