Enviromental News

I spent yesterday in the company of around 100 Greenpeace supporters discussing plans and ideas for the next 12 months or so. It was the annual get-together of the key volunteers who keep our nationwide network of supporters motivated and informed about our campaign work. These are the people who donate their time and skills, and as always I came away amazed (not to say reinvigorated) by their commitment and enthusiasm for what Greenpeace does.

We're always looking for new recruits to join the active supporter network and help fight the forces of darkness because the list of tasks is long and varied - everything from writing letters to local MPs to talking about our campaigns with people on the high street. Would you be interested?

To get a flavour of an active supporter's life, watch the short video above in which some old hands explain what drives them to be involved with Greenpeace. Then find the group closest to you and see what they're up to. The good news is that most groups tend to hold their meetings in the pub.

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).

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 Submission to the Proposed Regulatory Justification decisions on new nuclear power stations: Consultation Document.

Greenpeace Submission to the Proposed Regulatory Justification decisions on new nuclear power
stations: Consultation Document.

Greenpeace's submission to the Consultation on the draft National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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'.
6. 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.
7. 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.

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.

Tuna, halibut and eels are as happy as this stingray following this week's developments © Clicksy

It’s been a busy week, for the fish.

There was the news that the UK’s biggest seafood suppliers have decided to stop supplying European eel and North Atlantic halibut. Both of these species are already listed on the IUCN’s redlist, but the fact that suppliers and retailers are increasingly delisting such species is testament to ongoing campaigning by the likes of Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society, and Fish2Fork – making sure that they know that serving up endangered fish species is simply no longer acceptable.

Then the European Parliament voted to support the listing of Atlantic bluefin on CITES, effectively backing a full international trade ban on the species. The growing support for this trade ban makes it look increasingly likely that the EU will put its full weight behind the proposal, and it has an increasing chance of delivering the protection Atlantic bluefin so desperately needs at the CITES meeting in Doha.

This morning we also received a rather detailed letter from the UK’s fisheries minister, Huw Irranca-Davies. Huw was specifically responding to my blog questioning why the UK had gone quiet on the issue of bluefin, and to the thousands of Greenpeace supporters who wrote to him to demand that he backed a full trade ban on the species. The good news of course is that the UK has now publicy reaffirmed its unconditional support for the CITES Appendix 1 listing of Atlantic bluefin.

In it he explicitly acknowledges that the fisheries management body responsible for Atlantic bluefin has not taken effective measure to protect the species, so:

“ … it remains our view that the CITES Appendix I listing is not only fully justified but also necessary.”

He goes on to assure us that “… the UK will work very hard to see that the proposal gets adopted in Doha.”

It’s not often we at Greenpeace get to congratulate a minister. So, well done Huw!

… and thanks to you, too, if you helped make this happen by writing to the minister.

You can read Huw’s letter in its entirety here.

The humble aubergine has been the staple of Indian cuisine since antiquity. I can tell you that as I’ve grown up trying to avoid it but eventually it just makes its way on your dinner plate if you spend time in India. The Americans, who like to call the aubergine as ‘eggplant’ are trying to sell Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacterium Brinjal to Indians citing increased yields and the usual propaganda associated with genetically modified crops. Honestly though, anything injected with any kind of ‘bacterium’ doesn’t really sound safe, does it?

Greenpeace India raised the alarm and legally challenged the American biotechnology firm Monsanto over the claimed safety of BT Brinjal. Monsanto was then forced to allow tests to be carried out which were conducted by Gilles-Eric Serlaini of the University of Caen. The tests on rats showed that those given the genetically modified food had signs of liver and kidney damage. The toxic food also affected female rats by raising their blood sugar levels and also levels of triglycerides which are fatty substances in the body.

So, in a laudable move, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh has shown some resolve and courage by imposing an indefinite moratorium on the release of BT brinjal. He cited dangers to human health and the environment were responsible for his decision after a consensus with a number of Indian states to test public opinion. Nobody wants to eat a genetically modified crop when nature has provided us with plenty and without any toxins. For millennia, human civilization has subsisted perfectly well without any genetic modifications, so why now?

What gives us more energy security? Deploying troops to secure gas pipelines, or building a renewable economy?

Since before their conference in October the Conservative party have been raising fears of energy blackouts in Britain. Greg Clark, Shadow energy minister, even claimed in his party conference speech that 'there must be immediate action to keep the lights on' - a speech which, for dramatic effect, began in a darkened room. The same language was trotted out at a debate about gas security in Westminster we helped organise, when Charles Hendry, Conservative Shadow Minister for Energy, raised the spectre of energy blackouts. He claimed that during the recent cold spell Britain had been ‘down to three days of gas storage' and had ‘reached the situation where we were at risk.'

What's going on here? Well, the thinly veiled subtext behind the Tory line goes like this: Britain is at the mercy of foreign powers - in particular the Russians - who supply us with our gas. It's a pretty strong challenge. But is it right?

At the event, the experts who actually run our energy systems were pretty dismissive of the ‘energy blackout' rhetoric. Chris Train, Network Operations Director at the National Grid, said that gas had not been in short supply during the cold spell, despite seven of the twenty coldest days on record in the UK. Where gas had cut out, it was a result of the ‘Grid balancing supply and demand - reducing supply to some industrial customers on cheaper tariffs, who get lower bills in return for less predictability. Sussex University energy expert Dr Jim Watson outlined new research showing that most challenges to energy security come from ropy domestic infrastructure (I'm paraphrasing) or limited gas storage capacity, but not from uncertainties in foreign supplies.

Undaunted, in the ensuing debate Mr Hendry stuck to his story of global gas shortages and a growing British dependency on foreign gas. But hang on. We only get about 2% of our gas from Russia and that's not going to change any time soon. In fact, assuming we meet our energy efficiency and renewables commitments, gas imports are actually set to fall, not rise. The whole ‘at the mercy of Russia' meme, however catchy, is basically wrong. Indeed BP's chief executive Tony Hayward, who ought to know about these things, has dismissed such speculation as 'unreasonable paranoia', pointing out that "there's a lot of gas in the world available from many diverse sources" and that gas is a 'sensible bridge' to a low-carbon future.

Rather than worrying about Russia, Chris Train and Dr Watson both emphasised that it was demand management and reducing overall gas demand through energy efficiency that were the affordable ways to maintain a steady supply of gas. But apparently that's exactly what Mr Hendry doesn't want to talk about. During the discussion he distanced his party from Britain's energy efficiency and renewables commitments, claiming that there are ‘very few people in the real world that think [these are] likely to happen' and emphasising that reaching renewable targets would be ‘an enormous challenge'.

Is that true? Well, the independent advisory body the Committee on Climate Change reckon meeting our renewables targets means building clean energy infrastructure at the same speed as Germany over the last ten years, or slower than Spain have managed - in other words: we can do it if we choose to. Meanwhile, big energy companies like EDF, NPower or Scottish and Southern are busy competing to build enough offshore wind to supply a quarter of Britain's electricity. I'm not sure what Mr Hendry's version of the real world is, but again it doesn't seem to agree with expert opinion.

There's an energy 'green' paper forthcoming from the Tories, and we've just had a package of front bench ‘green speeches' from the Conservative shadow cabinet. I've blogged before about the conflicted feelings Conservatives seem to have about the environment - this confusion just seems to be the latest example.

We will, of course, be seeking public assurances that Mr Hendry's trashing of renewables targets does not reflect the views of the Conservative front bench, but grumblings about the green agenda, whether from the tory grassroots or the shadow energy minister, doesn't inspire confidence - not in this office, not in the energy industry, and not in an investment community that needs strong signals that Conservative policies could deliver the scale of change needed.

Indeed, prior to the 'green' paper there are already a few red flags going up -  the recent Tory National Security Green Paper talked about tasking the Armed Forces with securing ‘fuel imports from volatile regions like the Middle East, where political instability, terrorism and piracy pose real risks'.

It would be pretty weird if the Tories were preparing to commit Britain's armed forces to "securing energy supplies abroad", but not willing to commit to achieving energy security by making our homes warmer and cheaper to run, and investing in new British jobs and British industries that will make our economy more competitive.

Perplexing. So will the Tories sort it out? We'll reserve further judgment until the policy paper.

Find more photos from the twinning on Flickr.

At the end of last year, Manchester Council approved proposals to expand Manchester airport's freight terminal, more proof that despite the rhetoric on climate change, it's still full steam ahead for the government's airport expansion programme across the country.

Yet, this Sunday there was more evidence that resistance to airport expansion is alive and well, and getting stronger by the day.

The proposed freight terminal at Manchester would demolish homes and destroy a large section of the historic Hasty Lane and acres of green belt. So Hasty Lane residents have teamed up with Sipson villagers - who are also threatened with losing their homes under the proposed third runway at Heathrow - and through a live video-link-up they were twinned!

Hasty Lane resident Peter Johnson said: "Together with Sipson residents, we are going to fight these irresponsible and unnecessary plans. Our local councilors all opposed the plans, but they were overruled. The council has let us down, but we're not going to give up that easily."

Hasty Lane residents were also adopted by environmental activists from Manchester and the surrounding area who have vowed to help residents resist the expansion plans if they are pushed through. Last year Plane Stupid launched an adopt-a-resident scheme for the villagers of Sipson.

Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport spokesperson Sian Jones said: "The residents aren't alone in this - climate justice campaigners from across Manchester and the country are backing them all the way."

You might remember that last year, Greenpeace groups around the country twinned apple trees with the Airplot Orchard, and MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates) dug in to show that airport expansion proposals must be reversed.

Determined not to let the government's policy bulldoze homes and undermine our climate change responsibilities, people across the country are standing up, joining together and making their voices heard. As John McDonnell has said (MP for the area around Heathrow) - "If politicians refuse to listen, direct action becomes inevitable."

We hope it doesn't have to get to that stage, but to be on the safe side, we've just launched a competition to help us find a design that can protect the Airplot. If you haven't done so already, find out more here.

When two of our activists were detained after exposing major corruption in the Japanese whaling industry - we knew the Japanese authorities breached internationally guaranteed human rights. Now, as these two activists prepare to take the stand and have their day, or more in court, the violation of their human rights has been confirmed by a UN working group.

Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, known as the “Tokyo Two”, are due to stand trial on February 15th - charged for theft and trespass. But over the past two years it has become clear that much more is now under the legal spotlight. Corrupt government practices, censoring public information, Japan’s adherence to international law, freedom of speech and the right of individual protest together with the commercial killing of thousands of whales are all under the spotlight. And before the verdict has even been rendered, a working group of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has already ruled that, in the defendants' attempts to expose a scandal in the public interest, their human rights have been breached by the Japanese justice system. 

More from our international site »

Take Action

Support Junichi and Toru: join the whale trial pledge » 

It’s like déjà vu, but hopefully this time it will be for real.

Several months ago the UK jumped eagerly on France ’s coat-tails by announcing it’s support for a trade ban on bluefin. Amidst the ups and downs since then our friends at Defra have been noticeably unforthcoming of late. Getting any straight answer out of them on bluefin was like setting up a black pudding factory on Mount Everest. That’s why we encouraged supporters to make sure Defra did the right thing and publicly supported a trade ban.

And guess what? They just did. Hot on the stacked heels of Mr Sarkozy’s government, our own fisheries minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, issued a statement supporting a full trade ban for Atlantic bluefin at the end of last week. Notable highlights were:

“…As such, we maintain our long held position that Bluefin be given the highest protection available by listing it under CITES Appendix 1.” [that means a full international trade ban, not just restrictions on trade]

and

“…The UK will work tirelessly to secure the adoption of the Appendix I listing in Doha.”

Well, good on you Huw, and good on you, too, if you helped us by sending a message to Defra in the past few weeks. Thank you!

However, not wishing to rain on Huw’s parade, but there has since been an even more significant announcement since – by CITES themselves. Or, rather their secretariat and scientific advisory group. They have said that Atlantic bluefin qualifies for Appendix 1 (a full trade ban) and that they hope that it should be listed.

There seems now no credible doubt that the species meets the criteria, and should be subject to an international trade ban. (CITES say so, Governments say so, hey – even ICCAT say so!) … the only doubt is what will drive the politicians when it comes to the CITES meeting in Doha, where there will be all manner of horse-trading on everything from corals to polar bears.

Will they listen to the clear and impartial advice from the scientists? Will they heed public opinion? Will they listen to the growing band of famous names backing bluefin? Will they listen to the chefs eager to drop the species?

We still have to make sure that they do.

At last, France has officially announced support for an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin. This is great news. It means that 23 out of the 27 EU countries now support the species being protected by CITES (the organisation which regulates trade in endangered species). It also means there is no longer any effective block to stop the EU reaching a common position (at a previous vote, it had been blocked by the Mediterranean countries).

Two of the main fishing nations, Italy and France are supporting the trade ban, and Italy has already declared it is suspending its own fishery. That is pretty momentous. It's as if the proverbial turkeys have just voted for Christmas by a landslide.

Wind back just a year, and this might all seem unthinkable. Yet President Sarkozy stood up on a podium last July and announced France was going to protect bluefin. The position in France has not exactly been as clear as consommé in the intervening months, and the political position seems to have flip-flopped more than a floundering fish on a foredeck. This does France no favours. Whatever internal difficulties there are between ministries, whatever worries there are of backlash from the fishing industry, to the rest of us it is reprehensible that those directly responsible for the collapse of bluefin can then prevent the rest of Europe addressing the problem.

Ironically, even French chefs have decided to take matters into their own menus by dropping bluefin. Greenpeace recently conducted a poll that showed the public in France was in favour of protecting the species too. The French government is playing catch-up on public opinion.

So it is with some alarm that France’s announcement seems to be qualified with a condition to delay the trade ban. The rationale here doesn’t seem to be very clear, or in any way justifiable. It’s just putting off the inevitable and seems designed to give ICCAT, the feeble, failed management body which has presided over the collapse of Atlantic bluefin yet another last chance.

All of this is adding insult to injury. The EU has already been delayed enough in coming to a common position on this, it’s a Euroscpetic’s dream. Twenty-one out of 27 countries already voted for a trade ban back in September 2009,  Italy now support that too – which means there should be a qualified majority, even without France. So, frankly, there’s no need to even discuss a compromise and a delay that would just do even more damage to the depleted bluefin stock.

We are now only five weeks away from the CITES meeting in Doha. Now is not the time for more chin-scratching, shrugging and delay. The EU needs to do the right thing, the only credible thing, and immediately throw its full and unqualified support behind an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin.

Take action

Make a difference: pledge to boycott bluefin tuna and those who sell it »

An octopus adds its support to our Marine Reserves campaign

12 Feb update: consultaion extended until 5 March. Click this link to add your voice in support of the new Marine Reserve

The chances are you’ve never heard of the Chagos Islands, let alone ever been for a visit, but over the next few days we all have an opportunity to help protect the amazing life in the seas around them.

The Chagos archipelago is a group of 55 small islands in the Indian Ocean, that makes up Britain’s Indian Ocean Territory. The UK government is currently consulting on whether to establish a Marine Reserve in the waters around the Chagos – which, if created, would be the largest Marine Reserve in the world, covering around 210,000 square miles. Crucially that area includes half of the Indian Ocean’s pristine coral reefs, the world’s largest coral atoll, as well as charismatic critters like turtles, sharks, coconut crabs and seabirds. Not to mention well over 200 species of coral, and a thousand species of fish!

Email Foreign Secretary David Miliband and let him know you support the creation of a no-take Marine Reserve in the Chagos »

However, as with so many parts of the world, the Chagos is an area with sad skeletons of a colonial past. The issue, and the impassioned involvement of long-standing Greenpeace activists over the years, have been well documented here by Rex Weyler - much better than I could hope to explain.

The bottom line is - Greenpeace acknowledges and supports the Chagossians in their struggle, and hopes that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. At the simplest level the tuna fishing that is happening in their waters can be seen as the theft of Chagossian fish, and creating a no-take Marine Reserve is a way of reclaiming and protecting those fish for the islanders. Of course the tuna fishing interests are busy lobbying against this outcome.

If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders. Protecting the waters now is putting them off limits to further exploitation, and putting them in trust for the Chagossian people. Greenpeace looks forward to the happy day when we can discuss with the returning Chagossians how to develop selective, small-scale sustainable fishing operations in their waters. But for the moment, we think setting the area off-limits and creating the world's largest Marine Reserve is a fantastic idea.

Just to put that into context, at 210,000 square miles the Chagos Marine Reserve would be around 26 times the size of Wales. It would also signal that the UK was starting to get serious about the creation of no-take Marine Reserves, given that our only previous effort to date is a miniscule reserve off the island of Lundy, not much larger in size than the proverbial postage stamp.

The government is now requesting your views on whether to protect this area as a Marine Reserve. But the window for comments is only open for a very limited time - in fact it closes next week on 12th February.

So, please take a minute to help.  Email Foreign Secretary David Miliband and call on him to create a no-take Marine Reserve to protect the colourful coral reef life around the Chagos. And please ask your friends to add their voices as well - this definitely is one of these times where a few short words from a lot of us really can make a big difference.

Take Action

Email David Miliband and let him know you support the creation of a no-take Marine Reserve in the Chagos »

Here’s a bit of hot gossip, that I am typing from Paris , where I’m with a gaggle of Greenpeace campaigners at a summit on sustainable seafood.

It seems that something is stirring in the Mediterranean . Bluefin followers will be familiar with the ‘will-they/won’t-they?’ saga that surrounds the EU countries and supporting and international ban on Atlantic bluefin.

But, just to be sure – I’ll summarise:

• Atlantic bluefin stocks have crashed and some predictions show the species becoming commercially extinct in just a few years.
• Monaco proposed that the species should be protected by an international trade ban under CITES (which also protects similarly endangered animals like gorillas and tigers).
• In July 2009, President Sarkozy announced France would support Monaco and the trade ban.
• The UK , Germany , Netherlands , Austria and Poland followed suit, declaring their support for a ban. As did the European Commission.
• Then, in September 2009, the EU Member States voted formally on whether to support the trade ban, but were blocked by the six Mediterranean nations (Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece, Cyprus and France – who it seemed had had a change of heart).
• So, the decision was postponed…

Fast forward to today, and here we are again still waiting for an agreement.

And the news is sounding rather positive. It’s been widely reported that Italy has taken a decision to support the trade ban. This is great news, and has been backed up with news today that Italy is officially seeking to suspend its own bluefin fishery.

That, in itself, should mean there is now no effective blocking minority amongst Mediterranean countries. But there are other rumours too that France may be changing its position (again) and will imminently announce its support for listing under CITES (here it is in French media).

So, prepare yourself for a shock this week. Europe might just step up to defend Atlantic bluefin after all. There’s a long way to go of course, and ultimately it will need the support of two thirds of the countries attending the CITES meeting in March. But the EU represents a bloc of 27 votes, and also represents many of the key fishing nations for the species – so the backing of the EU will be a huge step toward making a ban a reality.

If you want to help make sure that does happen – and give bluefin the protection it so desperately needs - then why not encourage the UK Fisheries Minister to make a public stance too.

Meanwhile, I’ll be keeping my ear to the ground in Paris for any seismic shifts.

Take action

Bluefin tuna are endangered and need your help »