… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Category: Greenpeace

  • Oceana UK files legal challenge, calling recent oil & gas licences ‘unlawful’

    Spread the love

    Oceana UK has moved forward with its legal challenge over fossil fuel exploration licences in UK waters, filing its case at the High Court. In response to the initial threat to take the government to court over the harm to UK seas, ahead of the election, the previous government stated that it would defend the decision.

    Oceana and other members of the Ocean Alliance Against Offshore Drilling have now written to Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, urging the new government to accelerate the UK’s move away from fossil fuels and concede Oceana’s case.

    Oceana UK, who is represented by law firm Leigh Day, say the previous government’s decision to issue 31 new oil and gas licences in May 2024 was unlawful because it failed to consider the extreme impact of oil spills on marine life, as well as on several other grounds.

    The letter – signed by Greenpeace UK, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Rewilding Britain, Oceana and others – highlights Oceana UK’s legal challenge to the new oil and gas licences, and asks that the Secretary of State ‘brings an end’ to the licences which overlap with several areas designated for wildlife.

    It invites the government to concede the claim, which has now been lodged with the High Court, and signal a ‘clear departure’ from the reliance on fossil fuels, which it argues had been the case under the previous government.

    Naomi Tilley, Campaign Lead at Oceana UK, said:

    “These licences were issued with a shocking disregard for expert advice, as well as our seas, climate and future. With its commitment to end oil and gas licences, the new government has started down a world-leading path, and now it has a crucial opportunity to honour the spirit of that ambition, by calling time once and for all on these licences and the destruction and degradation caused by Big Oil running roughshod over our ocean.” 

    Leigh Day’s Rowan Smith, who represents Oceana UK along with Carol Day, said:

    “Our client is legitimately frustrated that advice from expert bodies set up to conserve the marine environment was effectively ignored; advice which condemns the plans for further licensing due to the damage drilling would cause to marine wildlife and the knock-on climate effects from the greenhouse gases generated when the extracted fossil fuels are used. We are prepared to argue, on behalf of Oceana UK, that the assessments on protected sites failed to properly acknowledge these issues. However, our client hopes that its letter to the Secretary of State, drawing attention to this case, will ultimately persuade the government to revoke these licences.”

    Richard Benwell, Chief Executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, who signed the letter, said: 

    “New oil and gas licensing in and around Marine Protected Areas poses serious and even irreversible risks to marine wildlife and habitats and is utterly at odds with any common sense understanding of a protected area. It also means directly ignoring warnings from government scientific advisors who have strongly advised against fossil fuel developments in these sensitive sites. The government should withdraw licensing areas that overlap with Marine Protected Areas and regulate to end all damaging industrial activities in these critical areas for wildlife, including overfishing and fossil fuel industries.”

    The claim will challenge the ‘Appropriate Assessments’ made by the former Secretary of State under the Conservative administration, arguing they largely ignored advice from independent government experts about the potential effects on sensitive Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).  

    These bodies – the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England – advised that they could not conclude that the drilling will have no adverse effect on the designated sites. More than a third of the licences overlap with MPAs, which were established to protect habitats and species that are essential for ocean health.

    Oceana UK also argues that the assessments were flawed in several other ways, such as ignoring the impact of potential oil spills and overlooking the significant impact of the climate crisis on both the marine wildlife and the wider climate.

    The grounds of the claim argue that the then Secretary of State:

    • Failed to consider the impact of oil and gas industry accidents (including oil spills and discharges) on MPAs and their conservation features. 
    • Failed to consider the ongoing impact of the climate crisis on the marine environments set to be impacted by these licenses, and failed to consider the full climate impact of the licensed activity, including scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions, such as from the use of the extracted oil and gas).
    • Relied on a flawed assumption that only 50% of licensed drilling will actually take place.
    • Failed adequately to assess the cumulative impacts of the licensed activity on the relevant sites.
    • Failed to pay due regard to the advice of the JNCC and Natural England in relation to the matters raised by several of the grounds above.

  • UK’s methane hotspots include landfills and last coalmine

    Spread the love

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/03/uk-methane-hotspots-landfills-last-coalmine

    The Drax power station in Selby, England. The site was one of the UK’s worst methane hotposts. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    Greenpeace urges Labour to ‘fulfil international obligations’ as critics question accuracy of official data

    …

    The Guardian and Watershed Investigations analysed official methane emissions data from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) along with information on the Watershed pollution map to identify Britain’s methane hotspots.

    Top of the list was a site near Glynneath in Wales, home to the Aberpergwm colliery, the UK’s last coalmine. Next was Selby, the location of industry including Drax power station, as well as a number of old landfills and farmland. The top 10 also includes power stations, oilwells and Slough trading estate, home to a wide range of industry.

    …

    Greenpeace’s chief scientist and policy director, Dr Doug Parr, said: “These alarming findings highlight that, despite the UK joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by nearly a third by 2030, a proper British action plan has yet to materialise.

    “Given its potency, and the fact that it is in fact a short-lived greenhouse gas, reducing methane emissions could help rapidly slow the warming that is creating the climate crisis.

    “The new government must fulfil the UK’s international promises, and has the opportunity to come up with an exemplary, internationally leading plan for tackling methane from both the energy and farming sectors.”

    …

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/03/uk-methane-hotspots-landfills-last-coalmine

  • ‘Big Win’: UK Won’t Defend Fossil Fuel Projects in North Sea

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

    Activists hold a white sign reading “Rosebank will kill us” on September, 27, 2023 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

    Oceana U.K.’s leader called the decision “a massive win for campaigners and another step towards… a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate.”

    Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the United Kingdom’s new Labour government announced it will not legally defend decisions to allow controversial offshore drilling in a pair of areas in the North Sea.

    The two sites are Shell’s Jackdaw gas field and the Rosebank oil field, owned by Equinor and Ithaca Energy. Both projects have been loudly criticized by international green groups as well as U.K. opponents.

    “This is amazing news and a BIG WIN for the climate. The government must now properly support affected workers and prioritize investment in green jobs,” declared Greenpeace U.K., which along with the group Uplift had demanded judicial reviews.

    The approvals for both North Sea sites occurred under Conservative rule—in 2022 for Jackdaw and last year for Rosebank, the country’s biggest untapped oil field. Voters handed control of the government back to the Labour Party in May.

    Then, as The Guardian detailed, “in June, the cases against the oil and gas fields received a boost when the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that ‘scope 3’ emissions—that is, the burning of fossil fuels rather than just the building of the infrastructure to do so—should be taken into account when approving projects.”

    “Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!”

    The U.K. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, led by Secretary Ed Miliband, cited the “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in a Thursday statement that highlighted the government’s decision not to defend the approvals “will save the taxpayer money” and “this litigation does not mean the licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank have been withdrawn.”

    “Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be a key component of the U.K. energy landscape for decades to come as it transitions to our clean energy future in a way that protects jobs,” the department claimed, while also pledging to “consult later this year on the implementation of its manifesto position not to issue new oil and gas licenses to explore new fields.”

    Welcoming the U.K. government’s acceptance of the recent high court ruling, Uplift founder and executive director Tessa Khan said on social media that “the immediate consequence… is that the Scottish Court of Session is very likely to quash the decision approving Rosebank, although we’re likely to have to wait a while before that’s confirmed.”

    “If Equinor and Ithaca Energy decide they still want to press ahead with developing the field,” Khan explained, “then the next step will be for them to submit a new environmental statement to the [government] and regulator… that includes the scope 3 emissions from the field.”

    “If you need reminding, those emissions are massive: the same as 56 coal-fired power plants running for a year or the annual emissions of the world’s 28 poorest countries,” she added. “If Equinor and Ithaca try to push Rosebank through again, the U.K. [government] must reject it.”

    Greenpeace similarly stressed that “Rosebank and Jackdaw would generate a vast amount of emissions while doing nothing to lower energy bills,” and “the only real winners from giving them the greenlight would be greedy oil giants Shell and Equinor.”

    “To lower bills, improve people’s health, upgrade our economy,” the group argued, the government must: increase renewable energy; better insulate homes; and boost support for green jobs.

    Celebrations over the government’s decision and calls for further action weren’t limited to the groups behind the legal challenges.

    Oceana U.K. executive director praised the “incredible work” by Greenpeace and Uplift, and called the government dropping its defense “a massive win for campaigners and another step towards… a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate.”

    Oil Change International also applauded the government’s “incredibly important and correct decision.”

    “There is no defending more fossil fuel extraction,” the organization said. “Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!”

    Global Witness similarly celebrated the government’s move, declaring on social media that “this is brilliant news!”

    “New oilfields are an act of climate vandalism,” the group added. “Governments must prioritize people, not polluters’ profit.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

  • Outrage Brewing Over Starbucks CEO’s Private Jet ‘Supercommute’

    Spread the love

    Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

    Brian Niccol, seen here in a 2015 photo, is Starbucks’ new CEO. (Photo: Robin Marchant/Getty Images)

    “These jets are a stark symbol of social and climate injustice, where a privileged few indulge in the most environmentally damaging form of travel for mere convenience,” said one Greenpeace campaigner.

    Green groups’ anger percolated this week after it was revealed that Brian Niccol, Starbucks’ new CEO, will “supercommute” approximately 1,000 miles between one of his homes in California and the coffee giant’s Seattle headquarters three times a week.

    A Starbucks spokesperson said earlier this week that “while Brian will have an office in Southern California, his primary office and a majority of his time will be spent in our Seattle Support Center.”

    “When he is not traveling for work, he will be in our Seattle office at least three days a week, in alignment with our hybrid work policies,” the spokesperson added. “He will also have a home in Seattle.”

    “A private jet flight causes about 10 times more CO2 emissions than a regular flight per flight per person.”

    Greenpeace—which for years has been running a campaign to ban private jets and regularly stages protests against them at airports around the world—led condemnation of Niccol’s harmful commute.

    “As the world faces unprecedented heatwaves, droughts, floods, and other dire consequences of an accelerating climate crisis, it is unjustifiable for companies to offer company aircraft as employee perks,” Greenpeace campaigner Clara Thompson told The Washington Post on Thursday.

    “These jets are a stark symbol of social and climate injustice, where a privileged few indulge in the most environmentally damaging form of travel for mere convenience,” Thompson added.

    As Greenpeace notes:

    A private jet flight causes about 10 times more CO2 emissions than a regular flight per flight per person, and 50 times more than the average train ride. Eighty percent of the world’s population have never flown, yet they’re the ones most impacted by the climate crisis. In just one hour, a single private jet can emit two tons of CO2. The global average energy-related carbon footprint is around 4.7 tons of CO2 per person per year.

    While private jets account for a tiny fraction of global greenhouse emissions, the world’s richest 1% produce more than double the emissions of the poorest 50%, and a single billionaire produces a million times more emissions than an average person, according to a 2022 Oxfam study.

    Some critics accused Starbucks—which in 2020 set a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% this decade—of hypocrisy, with one social media user contrasting Niccol’s private jet commute with the company’s introduction of widely despised and environmentally dubious paper straws. Another eagle-eyed observer spotted a book titled How to Avoid a Climate Disaster on display in Niccol’s office in a Wall Street Journal article photo.

    “I’m sure that private jet will use sustainable aviation fuel,” climate scientist David Ho quipped on social media.

    Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

  • Greenpeace supporters raise £1 million to fight Shell lawsuit

    Spread the love

    https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/greenpeace-supporters-raise-ps1million-fight-shell-lawsuit

    A Shell logo at a petrol station

    GREENPEACE has said that a legal case launched by Shell intended to intimidate it and drain its resources has instead had the opposite effect, with members of the public donating over £1 million to support the NGO.

    The group launched the fundraiser last November after Shell announced that it was suing over a peaceful climate protest in the North Sea, in which activists occupied a moving oil platform to protest against the damage caused by the oil giant.

    Although Shell, which reported a record £22.3 billion in profits last year, acknowledges no damage was caused to its equipment, it is still demanding extensive damages.

    Donations are being used to fight the case and to campaign for oil giants to “stop drilling and start paying” for the environmental damage they have caused.

    Almost 25,000 donations were received in just nine months, and the funds raised now exceed the amount Shell is seeking in damages ($1m, or £789,000), although it is likely legal costs will run into the millions.

    Greenpeace UK campaigner Philip Evans said: “Shell’s attempt to intimidate us is only making us stronger.

    …

    https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/greenpeace-supporters-raise-ps1million-fight-shell-lawsuit