… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Category: Greenpeace

  • ‘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“will save the taxpayer money” and “this litigation does not mean the licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank have been withdrawn.”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

  • Allies Vow to Fight Off Big Oil Lawsuit Aimed at Ending ‘Existence’ of Greenpeace

    Spread the love

    Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Dakota Access Pipeline protesters rally at Standing Rock Indian Reservation on February 22, 2017. (Photo: Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

    “No matter who you are, no matter what your politics are, this is one of the most important issues in America right now,” one Greenpeace spokesperson said.

    Nearly 300 organizations and tens of thousands of individuals have signed an open letter supporting Greenpeace USA against a $300 million lawsuit brought against the environmental group by Energy Transfer—a company with a majority stake in the Dakota Access pipeline.

    The corporation is falsely accusing Greenpeace of being the driving force behind Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) in 2016 and 2017.

    Greenpeace USA announced its supporters on Thursday as it launched a campaign to raise awareness about the lawsuit—which it said could “functionally bankrupt” the organization, threatening its “existence.” However, Greenpeace said that the dangers posed by strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), like the one it faces, extend far beyond one organization.

    “No matter who you are, no matter what your politics are, this is one of the most important issues in America right now,” Greenpeace USA spokesperson Rolf Skar said in a statement. “Energy Transfer built the Dakota Access pipeline. But they’re suing anyway in order to send a message: If you dare to oppose us, we will financially ruin you.”

    The Dakota Access pipeline drew massive protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, more than 300 other tribal nations, and non-Indigenous allies. While former U.S. President Donald Trump forced the pipeline through shortly after taking office in early 2017, the protests rattled the fossil fuel industry and their allies in government. After 2016, 18 states passed anti-protest laws that shielded around 60% of U.S. oil and gas production and related infrastructure from peaceful protests. The industry also turned to “judicial harassment.”

    Energy Transfer (ET) initially brought suits against Standing Rock Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault and other Water Protectors, as well as a federal suit against Greenpeace in 2017.

    At the time, ET CEO Kelcy Warren told a reporter: “Could we get some monetary damages out of this thing, and probably will we? Yeah, sure. Is that my primary objective? Absolutely not. It’s to send a message—you can’t do this, this is unlawful, and it’s not going to be tolerated in the United States.”

    “Everyone who says they care about freedom—of whatever political stripe—should join together to support the Greenpeace campaign to protect people’s right to speak out against corporate abuses.”

    While the 2017 cases were all dismissed, ET immediately filed a similar case against Greenpeace in North Dakota state court in 2019. The new case, which is scheduled to go to trial in February 2025, makes what Greenpeace called a “deeply racist” case that Greenpeace, and not Indigenous leaders, coordinated the Dakota Access protests.

    “The lawsuit against Greenpeace is also an attack on the Indigenous movement in our fight for self-determination to protect Mother Earth, our waters, sacred and cultural sites, and our youth and future generations,” Morgan Brings Plenty of the Standing Rock Youth Council said in a statement. “These colonialist lawsuits are trying to send a warning to anyone who might consider speaking out and to be quiet—any of you could be next.”

    ET also makes several claims that would set a dangerous precedent if upheld, including denouncing legitimate speech as defamatory and making anyone who is present at a protest liable for things that occurred at the same protest.

    “The whole point of this type of lawsuit is to limit freedom of expression, so even if you don’t care about climate change, or you don’t care about Greenpeace, you should pay attention,” Skar said. “What’s at stake isn’t just Greenpeace or environmentalism, but the fundamental American rights to freedom of peaceful expression and advocacy for all of us.”

    Greenpeace has circulated a letter to ET that has so far been signed by more than 290 organizations—including 350.org, Public Citizen, ACLU North Dakota, SEIU, Indigenous Environmental Network, and Amnesty International USA—and tens of thousands of individuals, including prominent celebrities and activists like Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Billie Eilish, and Adam McKay.

    “This is corporate overreach that is part of a disturbing trend of attacks on advocacy and speech around the world,” the letter reads. “We will not allow lawsuits like this one to stop us from advocating for a just, green, and peaceful future. On the contrary, we will ensure they have the opposite effect, increasing the support for organizations like Greenpeace and strengthening the broader movement for justice.”

    “This legal attack on Greenpeace is an attack on us all,” the letter continues. “We will not stand idly by. We will not be bullied. We will not be divided and we will not be silenced.”

    Organizations also issued individual statements of support.

    “Everyone who says they care about freedom—of whatever political stripe—should join together to support the Greenpeace campaign to protect people’s right to speak out against corporate abuses,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. “As Greenpeace knows from its own experience, too often corporations use their political, economic, and legal power not just to run PR campaigns justifying their wrongdoing, but to threaten public interest advocates with bad-faith lawsuits (SLAPPs) and other intimidation tactics.”

    Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU, said: “Protesters and advocacy groups should never have to fear the weight of groups like ETP as a condition for expressing their First Amendment rights. The court should see this lawsuit for what it is and toss it.”

    Progressives are also calling for a national legislative solution to the problem of SLAPP suits. While most states do have laws on the books against them, North Dakota is one of the 18 that do not.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) introduced the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Protection Act during Congress’ last session, and plans to reintroduce it in September of this year.

    “The case against Greenpeace illustrates how mega-corporations can use lawsuits to silence, intimidate, and ruin their critics,” Raskin said. “America must demand, and Congress must pass, bipartisan legislation to protect First Amendment rights against ruinous litigation practices.”

    Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

  • Shell Slammed for ‘Planet-Wrecking’ Profits as Temperatures Soar to New Heights

    Spread the love

    Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Geenpeace activists set up a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters amid the company’s profits announcement on July 27, 2023 in London, England. (Photo: Handout/Chris J Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)

    “We cannot let countries and communities that have done the least to cause climate change pay the price for Shell’s greed,” one green group said.

    A little more than a week after Earth endured its four hottest days on record, fossil fuel giant Shell announced higher second-quarter profits than expected at $6.3 billion.

    The company also announced a new share buyback program worth $3.5 billion through September, CNBC reported.

    “It is shameful that Shell, as one of the world’s largest and most profitable fossil fuel companies, continues to reap billions in profits off the back of its planet-wrecking oil and gas operations,” Chiara Liguori, the senior climate justice policy adviser at Oxfam Great Britain, said in response to the news. “At a time when the company should be taking strong action to cut emissions it is instead weakening its climate targets and continues to invest in new oil and gas projects, in favor of short-term shareholder returns.”

    “That the profits of two companies alone can outweigh the GDP of six countries already being battered by the climate crisis lays bare the shameful inequity at the heart of the fossil fuel economy.”

    Shell’s announcement covers the months of April through June 2024. While the company made 19% less than it did during the first three months of the year, it made $400 million more than London Stock Exchange Group predicted for the quarter, according to CNBC.

    A Global Witness analysis concluded that Shell paid $23 billion to shareholders since June 2023. Every month in that same 13-month period saw temperatures averaging 1.5°C or more above preindustrial levels—the more ambitious temperature goal enshrined in the Paris agreement. Each month in that stretch was also the hottest of its kind on record.

    “Wildfires raging across the Arctic Circle and temperature records breaking by the day should be a wake-up call,” Greenpeace U.K. said on social media. “But Shell continues to bank billions from digging up climate-wrecking fossil fuels.”

    Shell’s announcement caps a month in which high global temperatures fueled a number of extreme weather events. July began with Hurricane Beryl forming as the earliest ever Category 4 and Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, before it devastated several Caribbean islands. Last week, a fast-moving wildfire forced more than 20,000 people to flee historic Jasper in the Canadian Rockies before it destroyed nearly a third of the town. The same week, Typhoon Gaemi dumped more than 1,000 millimeters of rain on Taiwan in less than 24 hours.

    “As people flee wildfires in Canada, floods in Taiwan, and rebuild in the wake of Storm Beryl, Shell is doubling down on fossil fuels, U-turning on renewables, and profiting to the tune of billions from an intensifying climate crisis,” Alice Harrison, head of Fossil Fuel Campaigns at Global Witness, said in a statement.

    Shell’s announcement also comes days after BP posted $2.8 billion in second-quarter profits.

    Global Witness calculated that BP and Shell’s second-quarter profits combined would be enough to pay one-tenth of the $100 billion in climate-related loss and damage money that developing nations have requested by 2030.

    At the same time, the two oil giants’ profits over the past year—£31.2 billion ($39.8 billion)—exceed the £27.7 ($35.3) billion combined gross domestic products of the six nations most impacted by Beryl: Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada, according to Global Justice Now.

    “That the profits of two companies alone can outweigh the GDP of six countries already being battered by the climate crisis lays bare the shameful inequity at the heart of the fossil fuel economy,” Izzie McIntosh, climate campaigner at Global Justice Now, said in a statement. “People in the Caribbean devastated by the impacts of Hurricane Beryl are left to pick up the pieces, while rich shareholders and fossil fuel CEOs get to rake in the profits, removed from the chaos they’ve played a leading role in creating.”

    The climate justice organizations called for governments to take action to stop fossil fuel companies before they can further destabilize Earth’s climate.

    “We need accountability and a government that isn’t afraid to stand up to them—it can start by introducing measures to make these polluting megacorporations pay up for the climate damage they’ve caused in the Global South, as well as a fossil fuel phaseout,” McIntosh continued.

    Harrison agreed: “We can’t keep letting polluters off the hook. Governments should be holding fossil fuel majors to account for the crisis they created and forcing them to pay for the damage they are inflicting on millions of families around the world.”

    Oxfam G.B. and Greenpeace U.K. recommended policies for the United Kingdom—where Shell and BP are headquartered—specifically.

    “As global temperatures and the huge costs of tackling the climate crisis continue to rise, the U.K. government has a chance to ensure those most responsible for contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions, like Shell, are held to account by taxing them more,” Liguori said. “This could help raise the vital funds needed to ensure a fair switch to clean, renewable energy in the U.K. as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities worst-hit by climate change to adapt and recover.”

    Greenpeace concluded: “We cannot let countries and communities that have done the least to cause climate change pay the price for Shell’s greed. The new Labour government must prove it is different to its predecessor by reining in the fossil fuel giants and imposing bold new taxes on polluters to force them to pay their climate debts at home and abroad.”

    Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).