Since the Big If pledge launched in March, when Age of Stupid actor Pete Postletwaite promised the UK Energy and Climate Change minister Ed Miliband that he would return his OBE if the government gave the go-ahead for a new coal power station Kingsnorth, thousands of people have joined him in making pledges of their own.

Greenpeace UK has been a core member of the Big If coalition from the start, together with a wide range of other organisations including the RSPB, World Development Movement, Oxfam and the Women’s Institute. Because if Kingsnorth and the other 10 plants planned to follow it get built, then we’ll have next to no chance of meeting our CO2 reduction targets and reining in runaway climate change.

The first major coalition event was the Mili-band – a symbolic surrounding of the Kingsnorth site in July, and others are planned in the near future. Each organisation has asked its supporters to pledge what they are prepared to do if Ed Miliband does give the go-ahead to new coal. The actual pledges vary depending on the nature of the organisation.

Greenpeace have already signed up nearly 6,000 people, who’ve variously agreed to either:

• vote at the next election for political candidates who oppose new coal;
• join a protest at the Department of Energy and Climate Change;
• take non-violent direct action to prevent the new plant being built;

…or make some other useful protest of their own devising.

From Greenpeace UK.

Not every barrel of oil has the same carbon footprint – some extraction processes radically increase the amount of greenhouse gases which are released.

Greenpeace have been collaborating on research to identify the worst offenders, and the report (released to coincide with the company’s AGM) singles out Shell as the most carbon intensive oil company in the world, based on its total resources.

Shell tops the list for three reasons:

• Its reliance on Nigerian crude oil, which is associated with huge levels of wasteful gas flaring
• Its investments in highly energy intensive liquefied natural gas
• Its massive gamble on Canada’s oil-bearing tar sands, for which the extraction process is so energy intensive that it produces up to five times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil

The bad news for Shell shareholders is that 30% of its total resources are now in tar sands. As the US moves to introduce carbon control legislation, and the world looks towards December’s Copenhagen summit for action to limit climate change, Shell is fighting a determined rearguard action – taking a lead in industry lobbying against similar measures being proposed by the Eurpean Union.

Investors are voicing their concerns

To be fair, tar sands are not just a problem for Shell. Investors around the world are voicing their concerns over tar sands investment.

30% of ConocoPhillips shareholders recently voted for a resolution demanding an assessment of the environmental impact of the company’s tar sands projects, and at the AGM of Norway’s Statoil’s annual meeting, significant support is expected for a motion calling for the company to end its tar sands investment altogether.

Shell’s tar sands liability and carbon exposure is currently greater than any other company, making a mockery of its claims to be leader on ‘responsible energy’.

It urgently needs to rethink its position. A strategy based on tar sands won’t just damage the climate, but will also increase risks to the company’s future and threaten the value of shareholders’ investments.

Download the report: Irresponsible Energy.

From Greenpeace UK

The final section of Europe’s largest onshore wind farm is officially switched on today. The Whitelee development on Eaglesham Moor, just outside Glasgow in Scotland, is made up of 140 massive turbines and can produce enough clean green energy to power over 117,000 homes.

Director of ScottishPower Renewables Keith Anderson said Whitelee was a landmark for the country because of its size and scale.

“This is now the first over 300 MW wind farm in the UK and we believe others will follow” Keith Anderson, ScottishPower Renewables

But he said more work was needed on infrastructure to develop the industry, particularly to improve power grid connections and capacity to handle even larger offshore wind farms and wave and tidal projects.

More turbines to be added

And, in an announcement today, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said ScottishPower Renewables had been given permission to add a further 36 turbines to the site.

That will allow the £300m wind farm to power 250,000 homes and could create up to 300 jobs.

Mr Salmond was speaking as he officially switched on the 140-turbine Whitelee wind farm.

Which “essential” of modern living – excluding real essentials such as clean water, sanitation, hospitals, food, clothing etc – would you be least willing to do without? The car? The dishwasher? The mobile phone? The cheap flight? The internet?

I think many of us would be left abject and bereft if the internet was somehow taken from us. So, we should have a genuine sense of dread and fear today that some internet bigwigs are being quoted as saying a “perfect storm” is now threatening the very future of the internet.

Outstripping available energy supplies

The problem, it seems, is that the internet is so successful that, like some kind of Malthusian vision of hell, it could soon implode in on itself, having outstripped all available energy supplies.

“In an energy-constrained world, we cannot continue to grow the footprint of the internet … we need to rein in the energy consumption.” Subodh Bapat, Sun Microsystems

The carbon footprint of the internet is growing exponentially. A report says that the internet is now “leapfrogging other sectors like the airline industry that are more widely known for their negative environmental impact”.

One study by Rich Brown, an energy analyst at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California, commissioned by the US environmental protection agency, suggested that US data centres used 61bn kilowatt hours of energy in 2006 – 1.5% of the entire electricity usage of the US.

Carbon footprint of a Google search

Earlier this year, Google caused quite a stir when it revealed that the carbon footprint of the average Google search was 0.2 grams of carbon dioxide. The amount sounds trivial until you learn that more than 200m Google searches are made every day globally.

Google is now even considering floating its energy-hungry data centres out at sea so that it can use wave and tidal power to provide the electricity needed to run the servers and sea water to help keep them cool. But can such innovations keep up with growing demand?

Might we now have to ration our use of the internet to ensure its very survival? If so, what would be considering a fair share of the internet? Thirty minutes of browsing a day per person? Fifty megs of download a day?

Paying for the privilege

Just as we are being asked to “do our bit” for the environment by flying less, using public transport more, eating less meat and the like, might we now be asked to download fewer bulging multimedia files? Or pay more for the privilege once we pass our rationed threshold?

So, if you want the internet – and humanity itself no less – to survive, you can do your bit by not posting a comment below. If, however, you want to see the flames of environmental fury tear across the surface of our planet, then post away. But on your head be it.

From The Guardian

It’s about much more than unplugging your phone-charger! In a thought-provoking video, Cambridge University physicist, David Mackay, makes a passionate and personal analysis of the energy crisis.

The choices are clear, if we’re to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuel, and avoid further – and potentially catastrophic – climate change, we need to reduce our energy consumption significantly (by as much as 90%).

We simply cannot generate enough electricity to feed our habit – it’s just not sustainable. No amount of so-called green or eco-friendly gadgets will make a difference. We need to re-evaluate what we use and how much of it we really need.

Renewable energy is, of course, essential to meeting our future energy needs but we’d have to cover half the country with wind turbines to produce enough electricity for our current demands.

The alternative is to build more nuclear power plants – hundreds more, in the UK alone – with all the associated risks that go with it. That’s a scary prospect!

It’s not a matter of IF, but WHEN. Either we start reducing our energy consumption today or our children and grandchildren will pay the price for our excesses. It’s not rocket science, it’s common sense.

David Mackay’s book, Sustainable energy – without the hot air (which might be more inclined to rocket science!), is available FREE online or in your local book store (where you’ll have to pay, of course) and local library.

To passionate advocates of nuclear power and renewable energy alike, this says it all. One of Britain’s pioneering wind farms is threatened with demolition to make way for one of the Government’s planned new generation of nuclear power stations.

The tall turbines of Haverigg wind farm, only the second commercial one to be built in Britain, have been turning for 17 years between the hills of the Lake District and the waters of the Duddon estuary on the Cumbrian coast. But they also happen to be right on one of 11 potential sites for new nuclear reactors announced by ministers 10 days ago.

Turbines would be dismantled

Six of Haverigg’s eight turbines actually fall within the proposed footprint of the Kirksanton nuclear power station, where RWE wants to build up to three reactors. The German energy giant confirms that they would have to be dismantled if the power station were built.

“It beggars belief that, at a time when windpower has never been more vital to the UK, a viable wind farm is to be sacrificed on the altar of nuclear power.” Martin Forwood, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment

But RWE countered that “The wind farm currently produces 3.5 megawatts of energy while a nuclear power station would produce 3,600 megawatts, enough to power five million homes. So, from a climate change point of view, if the wind farm had to go it would not be such a bad thing.”

Villagers, concerned about the prospect of the power station – one of only two in the country planned for greenfield sites, rather than being built next to existing reactors – appear on balance to favour the wind farm.

Locals oppose the plans

People in the tiny village of Kirksanton, just 150 yards from the power station’s boundary, have formed a local action group that claims to represent the views of the majority of residents.

“[A nuclear power station] is completely unsuitable due to its proximity to the village and we totally oppose it,” Michael Wills, the group’s spokesman, said last night. “We are concerned about the health risks and it will destroy a blossoming tourist industry.”

Tim Kendall, representing another action group in nearby Whicham, added: “The wind farm has been here a long time. It’s not aesthetically pleasing but we’re happy to live with renewable energy.”

Power station would ‘dominate landscape’

“The nuclear power station will completely wipe it out because it will be difficult to make it work with large buildings surrounding it. Any development on that kind of scale would be totally inappropriate. It would dominate the surrounding landscape.”

Baywind Energy, which operates the wind farm, appears to be resigned to its fate. “We don’t want the turbines taken down but we’re not sure there is an option to refuse,” a spokesman said.

The county council said that it saw the West Cumbrian coast as a future hub of the emerging low-carbon economy but was awaiting the results of consultations with residents before deciding whether to back the Kirksanton plan.

From The Independent

Earth Hour is a global climate change initiative from WWF, one of the world’s largest and most respected independent conservation organisations, with almost five million supporters.

Individuals, businesses, governments and communities are invited to turn out their lights for one hour on Saturday, 28th March 2009 at 8.30pm to show their support for action on climate change.

The event began in Sydney in 2007, when 2 million people switched off their lights. In 2008, more than 50 million people around the globe participated. In 2009, Earth Hour aims to reach out to 1 billion people in 1,000 cities.

Two weeks to go

With over two weeks still to go before the globe switches off for Earth Hour, the number of cities and towns signing up to switch their lights off has already exceeded the ambitious target of 1,000 set by Earth Hour organisers.

Currently 1,189 cities and towns across 80 countries are committed, with more coming on board every day.

The historic event will see millions of people gathered in parks, streets, town squares and homes around the world to witness the lights going out on iconic landmarks and city skylines, while taking in the atmosphere of some truly unique Earth Hour events.

Around the world

In Sydney, where Earth Hour began in 2007, every ferry in the city’s famous harbour will sound its horn at precisely 8.30pm to herald the beginning of Earth Hour in Australia, while in Melbourne a people-pedal-powered concert will be underway at Federation Square.

On the other side of the world, arrangements will be underway for a host of concerts and parties in cities across Europe, including a ‘circle of percussion’ in Athens, where people will be given percussion instruments to play, led by a conductor, as the lights go out on the Acropolis.

In Oslo’s city centre, members of the public will take up the challenge of peddle-powered light bulbs, while residents in the city of Lisbon will sit down to an evening of outdoor candle-lit dining as they watch their city skyline go dark.

More than just a call to action

Earth Hour Executive Director, Mr Andy Ridley, says Earth Hour is more than just a call to action on climate change.

“Earth Hour is an opportunity for the global community to speak in one voice on the issue of climate change, while at the same time coming together in celebration of the one thing every single person on the planet has in common – the planet.” Andy Ridley, Earth Hour Executive Director

With participation levels now exceeding all expectations, and with more cities and towns signing up every day to be a part of this historic event, the success of Earth Hour 2009 is limited only by the will of the global community to want a say in the future of their planet.

More information

Find out how you can get involved on the Earth Hour website. And share your views or tell us what you’ll be doing to mark the occasion, by leaving a comment for others to read.

Today sees what’s likely to be the largest act of environmental civil disobedience in US history, at the coal-fired Capitol Power Plant in Washington, DC.

The Capitol Power Plant, which is owned by Congress and sits just blocks from the American seat of power, burns coal to heat and cool numerous buildings on Capitol Hill.

Powerful symbol

The facility no longer generates electricity but its reliance on coal – the country’s biggest source of global warming pollution and a documented health hazard – has made it the focus of political controversy and a powerful symbol of coal’s impact on the environment and public health.

“This demonstration marks the beginning of a sustained effort to draw a line in the sand against this dirty and dangerous fuel. Our leaders cannot promise us a healthy and prosperous future as long as coal is polluting our soil, water and atmosphere.” Matt Leonard, Greenpeace

More than 90 advocacy groups across the nation have endorsed the action. In attendance, and willing to risk arrest, will be former coal miners, ministers, mothers, students, and climate activists from Arizona to Appalachia who have united to demand bold and far-reaching action on the climate and energy crises.

Critical year

This is a critical year for strong US leadership on climate and energy, with a major domestic policy debate around the corner and a deadline for international action set for the Copenhagen UN climate talks in December.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cautioned that the United States and other industrialised countries need to reduce their global warming pollution by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Leading climate scientist Dr James Hansen, who will join the protest, has testified before Congress that the world must begin phasing out coal immediately to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, including severe economic impacts.

Safer alternatives

Coal is the country’s biggest source of global warming pollution. In addition, burning coal cuts short at least 24,000 lives in the US annually and inflicts severe damage to the landscape and water supplies.

There are clean and safe alternatives to coal, like wind and solar power, which will create at least 5 million jobs and help curb global warming. A recent study found investing in clean energy projects creates three-to-four times more jobs than the same expenditure on the coal industry.

More information

For more information about the protest (including videos about the event) see the Capitol Climate Action website. You can also get updates from the event via @climateaction on Twitter. Green Pepper supports the protest and sends best wishes to all those attending.

It’s time for an energy [r]evolution!

With the inauguration of President Barack Obama today, and the dawn of a new era in American politics, the hard work begins to save the environment and rebuild the economy.

President Obama has already made a number of pledges in relation to the environment and has spoken passionately about his plans for greening the White House. But, with many other pressing issues to deal with, can he really deliver the goods?

The change we need

Back in November, last year, we reported on Barack Obama’s support for the New Apollo Program. In The change we really do need we highlighted the 5-point program to implement a strategy to bring new jobs and energy security to the US through an alternative energy economy.

“A new energy economy is going to be part of what creates the millions of new jobs that we need” Barack Obama

A new energy economy is at the heart of President Obama’s policy on the environment and economic recovery. Putting it into practice however is likely to prove difficult in the face of vested interests and entenched values. Pulling it off will be nothing short of a miracle!

Cap-and-trade legislation

One of his first steps at home is likely be the adoption of cap-and-trade legislation. This would set the foundation for carbon trading: as in the European Union, the amount of greenhouse gases that industries can lawfully emit would be limited (the “cap”), and companies would have to either buy emission permits or find ways of reducing their emissions. [1]

After slamming the door of the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration refused any timetable for obligatory reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. As an alternative, it argued in favour of voluntary commitments and a policy of support for technological innovation. The least that can be said is that this orientation has not produced the effects that were anticipated: between 1993 and 2005, the CO2 emissions of the US energy sector increased by more than 15 per cent. Obama is adopting a radically different approach, promising a law whose objective would be to reduce emissions by 80 per cent in 2050, compared to 1990. [2]

Clean energy

Clean energy projects are the foundation of the $550 billion that Congress and the new administration want to spend to stimulate the economy to put 3 million people back to work. The balance of the proposed $825 billion stimulus is $275 billion in tax cuts. The magnitude of the proposed clean energy investment clearly indicates that President Obama plans to launch his presidency with one of the most transcendent ideas in the history of the republic. He wants to anchor the American economy with energy sources other than those produced from fossil fuels. [3]

Renewables, including hydroelectricity from dams, generate 8% of US electricity now and Obama has said he wants 10% of electricity to come from them by 2012 and 25% by 2025. This still falls short of Europe where the plan is for renewables to generate 20% of all energy, including electricity, by 2020. However, the global financial crisis could undermine many of his plans, some analysts have warned, with many clean technology companies expected to go out of business in the next 18 months. [4]

International responsibilities

European environment groups have welcomed what they hope will be a radical new direction for US environmental policy.

“Obama’s victory will give crucial climate negotiations a much greater chance of success – the United States must face up to its international responsibilities and show positive global leadership in low-carbon economic development” Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth

With strong leadership from the US it is hoped that the next round of talks on climate change, in Copenhagen later this year, will result in a more positive outcome and agreement.

Whether he can make a difference and deliver the goods remains to be seen but here at Green Pepper we welcome the change and send our warmest good wishes to President Obama and the new adminstration.

Tell us what you think

We’d love to hear your views of President Barack Obama. Can he really make a difference and deliver the goods on climate change and the environment? Read what others have said and join the debate by leaving your comments below.

Sources:
1. How fast can Obama fix US environment policy? New Scientist
2. The energy climate plan of Barack Obama International Viewpoint
3. Clean Energy Is Foundation of Proposed Stimulus Apollo Alliance
4. Obama victory signals rebirth of US environmental policy The Guardian

Coal industry bosses and major coal users meeting in Poland yesterday, ahead of the UN Climate Negotiations in Poznan, got a gift of 5 tonnes of coal from Greenpeace activists. Check out the video…

Find out how you can give coal the boot and keep up-to-date with the latest news on the Climate Rescue blog, reporting on actions happening around the UN Climate Negotiations in Poznan, Poland.