Joss Garman | ukwatch.net

The truth is, we're fighting for survival

JamieSW — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:47:26 +0000

Up to 4 billion people left without water. Up to 5 billion at risk of flooding. Half a billion left hungry as agricultural yields decline by 15-35% in Africa with entire swaths of the world ceasing food production altogether. More than 80 million exposed to malaria in Africa. The Amazon collapses and 50% of species go extinct. It’s basically the end of the world. And it’s reported in this morning’s Guardian.

There is such a gaping chasm between the matter-of-fact reporting of this nightmarish 4C scenario that government scientists now say we should be planning for, and the total failure of apparently rational people to understand what is happening on the Hoo peninsula this week.

Reports from Kingsnorth, the site of this year’s climate camp, completely fail to scrutinise the pin-striped criminals who are pushing the planet towards the brink. Instead, the Press Association runs stories on apparent conspiracies to attack police with knives without even phoning the accused activists for a reaction to these smears. What other set of people could be accused of conspiracy to commit cop killings without being asked for any reaction? This is a victory for the police and the rightwing media they leak to.

Equally, E.ON UK’s greenwashing PR campaign is run without any question. Every report repeats the myth that the proposed new power station would be a “cleaner coal” plant. No one reports that in fact, this coal plant will pollute as much as more than 30 developing countries combined, that there will be no use of carbon capture and storage (CSS) technology, and that the plant will be so inefficient as to waste half of all the energy it creates. No mention of the fact that Chris Davies, the Lib Dem MEP, who is notoriously pro-CCS coal, has pledged to attend the camp precisely because Kingsnorth won’t be a “cleaner coal” plant.

E.ON UK keeps pumping out the spin that “we need coal to keep the lights on”, even following reports in the Financial Times that independent energy experts, Pöyry, have proven (pdf) that if the UK hit its existing renewables and efficiency targets, no new coal would be required. Even when emails expose close contact between E.ON UK and the business department, they are only reported in the Guardian.

As the prime minister has a last look at a bit of beautiful coastline already succumbing to the sea, the media frenzy focuses on the same old soap opera personality politics. Is so-and-so too remote/young/jaded/damaged to be the next majorette marching us over the cliff? Whoever it is, we know it’ll be one of the same crew who got us into this mess and can’t get us out because the solutions don’t fit the electoral cycle. There is an echo here too of the US media’s response to Iraq. Even now, anyone who opposed the war is on some sort of “radical fringe”, and having supported the war, at least at the time of its inception, is a necessary qualification to be seen as “serious”. With climate change, in order to be “serious” you need to acknowledge that the end of the world is an interesting detail in the broader pattern of economic “progress”, but never succumb to the incredible naivety of the protesters, who fail to realise that the survival of life on earth is a bourgeois luxury which we can ill afford in these times of economic constraint.

The harsh reality is that there is no way we could plan for a 4C rise. No amount of adaptation is going to make that liveable for most of the world’s population, and it’s going to be pretty damn nasty for those lucky few of us living in the north as well. Despite this, we end up with two possible stories – the front page banner “dangerous anarchists threaten chaos”, or, tucked away at the back of the paper, “peaceful protest passes without incident”. And all the time, not even the liberal press is concerned that, even if every single person at the camp arrived with a heavy machine gun, they couldn’t kill half the number of people who will die as a result of the effects of climate change.

Climate Camp Is Back

Tim Holmes — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:12:30 +0000

It provoked an absolute storm. CNN’s ticker screamed that Britain was ‘under siege’ from environmental activists. Sky News dubbed it ‘the world’s most organised protest’ and the New Statesman ‘the most important protest of our time’

A band of pioneering environmental activists landed outside Heathrow airport last summer and injected energy and urgency into the climate change debate. The Climate Camp showed there are people sufficiently fed up with waiting for the Government to act that they are willing to put themselves where they can no longer be ignored – and they weren’t.

BAA went to the High Court to stop the camp – they stopped me, unfortunately – and The Evening Standard ran a smear campaign. The attempted crackdown shows Climate Camp was the green movement at its most effective. If grassroots movements are the engines of social change, this is it: something special to counter the fear and sense of powerlessness that has gripped the debate on climate change.

The first Climate Camp was outside Britain’s single biggest emitter, Drax coal plant, in 2006. Among its successes came the formation of Plane Stupid. The second, at Heathrow, emboldened and empowered the local resident’s third runway campaign, whose profile has since rocketed. It also inspired a number of similar camps around the world. Next month, Climate Camp will be back – but will it be bigger?

From 3 to 11 August we’ll be pitching tents near Kingsnorth in Kent, where plans are afoot for Britain’s first new coal plant in three decades. The climate change imperative says we need a green army to derail E.ON’s plans before they gather steam, yet Climate Camp has involved less than 2,000 people. I work for Greenpeace, an organisation with some 175,000 members in the UK. At least 174,000 of them didn’t show up. As an Ecologist reader, by definition you’re one of tens of thousands environmentally aware people who didn’t either. In London, 70,000 people voted for the Green Party mayoral candidate and live within an hour of Heathrow, yet at least 69,000 of them didn’t come. Why not?

With toilets, showers, wind-powered computers and a cinema, it’s hardly trench warfare, and is timed to allow families to make it along in the summer. I’ve been trying to think why so few got involved. Perhaps you think our elected representatives will sort things out for us. Are you prepared to wait much longer? Maybe you think we’re all scary, smelly eccentrics. This is a stereotype perpetuated by the media, which will ignore the group of normal-looking folk and slap a picture of the dreadlocked girl with fairy wings on the front page. Perhaps you’re scared a wall of riot police will bash you and you’ll end up in prison. Those yellow jackets are only there to intimidate you, so don’t let them. Finally, maybe you just don’t think direct action works – in which case you’ve perversely been proved wrong by a bunch of disgruntled hauliers who recently blocked roads and overturned government policy so they could pollute even more.

Britain supposedly has the most sophisticated debate on climate change in the developed world. Let’s make Climate Camp 2008 show it.

See http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/ for information.

Protest Taking Off

Ellie Keen — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:59:35 +0000

In 1971, the United States government proposed testing its nuclear arsenal near the tiny island of Amchitka – a wildlife paradise off the west coast of Alaska. A number of protest groups sprang up. One particular group of people came together with the idea to charter a boat – the Phyllis Cormack – and sail it into the nuclear testing site. Through placing themselves in the area of the bomb blast, they wanted to draw a line in the sand, and to make sure that the whole world would bear witness to what their government was doing. Later, the US government called off its tests. Greenpeace was born.

Today, some 30 years later, Greenpeace activists have today once more drawn a line in the sand. By climbing on top of an A320 aircraft at Heathrow airport to bear witness to the threat to the climate from Brown’s plan for a third runway, they’ve taken the climate campaign to a new level. Climate change is the greatest danger to the world today. The crossroads where we stand now is similar in some ways to the threat from a nuclear winter during the cold war. In years to come, like the early nuclear campaigners, I’m sure people will look back to understand the sense of dread these inspirational activists hold. Runway 3 is a litmus test of the government’s commitment to truly tackling climate change.

It isn’t difficult to understand why. Aviation already accounts for 13% of the UK’s climate impacts and we fly more than any other country in the world. Greenpeace carefully chose to demonstrate on top of a plane that had flown from Manchester to illustrate that so many of these destinations are reachable more quickly and in greater comfort by train – which is over ten times less polluting. But the government’s aviation policy follows no logic. It follows the profit-led whims of BAA.

While Greenpeace is far from alone in opposing Runway 3, today’s action signifies a serious ratcheting-up of the direct action campaign. Even the protesters at last summer’s Climate Camp didn’t cross the perimeter fence at Heathrow, but this was an inevitable next step and is indicative of people’s frustration at the failure of democratic processes.

The proposed runway is hated by Londoners, contested by climate scientists and would destroy the communities our politicians are meant to serve. The fact that these plans have come this far is testament to the government’s undemocratic, cosy relationship with BAA. On Wednesday, the government’s consultation will end but it has been a fix from the start. Freedom of Information documents reveal that BAA actually wrote some of the consultation papers and helped the government draw up a “risk register” of threats to its construction.

In the past fortnight, all of London’s mayoral candidates have come out against the third runway, as have over 100 local west London politicians representing some two million people. Tonight Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, will add his name, when he speaks at a major rally at Westminster Central Hall. Today’s Greenpeace action adds the voice of people committed to taking direct action to stop climate change.

It’s time Gordon Brown got beyond rhetorical support and started believing his own hype. Brown could be the first prime minister to take climate change seriously. Or the last prime minister not to.

E.ON Should Be Turned Off

Tim Holmes — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:35:32 +0000

Just before Christmas one of the world’s leading climate scientists wrote to Gordon Brown. Jim Hansen, who heads up the NASA Goddard institute in New York, is best known both for his research in the field of climatology and for his congressional testimony on climate change that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue.

In the letter (pdf), he makes a plea to our prime minister. “Your leadership is needed”, Hansen states, “on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants in your country, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today’s children, and especially the world’s poor, hinge upon our success in stabilizing climate.” Hansen goes on to remind Brown that coal has caused “fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon dioxide in the air today”.

Last night the Conservative controlled Medway council in Kent, which unlike the Queen was not cc’d in to Hansen’s letter, approved plans for Britain’s first coal-fired power station in over 30 years. The plant will emit more than eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide every single year – more than the 30 least polluting nations of the planet combined. Its developer, the power company E.ON, is the single largest polluter in Britain.

E.ON and the other power giants are trying to blur the edges of what should be a simple black and white argument by talking about “clean coal” technology. This myth needs to be addressed. Clean coal, carbon storage, sequestration – all these terms are jargon, mythologising an untested, expensive and potentially unviable future process. No clean coal plants are operational anywhere in the world today, all the technologies have serious question marks hanging over them, and even the chancellor admits the techniques “may never work”. Meanwhile, those eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide are pumped into the atmosphere each year, every year. And if E.ON get their way, there will be many more coal plants to follow.

But there is an alternative. John Hutton announced last month that Britain could generate around half of Britain’s electricity from offshore wind farms by 2020 – easily negating the need for new coal. With efficiency, renewables and a radical new decentralised energy system we could slash our emissions within just a few years. Instead it seems that this government, in thrall to an outdated civil service, is convinced that large centralised plants are the only grown-up way of keeping the lights on, regardless of the consequences for our climate.

Hansen’s letter continues. “You have the potential to influence the future of the planet. Prime Minister Brown, we cannot avert our eyes from he basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points.” Coming from a top scientist, this kind of stark language is remarkable. Let’s listen to the scientists, not the industry spinners. Kingsnorth may be the most important climate change decision that Gordon Brown will have to make, but it should not be a difficult one.

Greenwash Exposed - BAA

Alex Doherty — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:08:47 +0000

Aviation is the fastest growing cause of climate change. By 2050 it will account for more than 15% of world wide CO2 levels. To make things much worse, every tonne of emissions from aircraft has the effect of 2.7 tonnes due to its radiative force. As a result, aviation is one of the single largest threats to climate stability, and consequently to life on earth. Despite this, in 2003, under fierce lobbying from BAA (BAA PLC formerly the British Airports Authority), the government granted approval for the biggest airport expansion programme this country has ever seen, planning the equivalent of a new Heathrow every five years.

Despite their sophisticated Corporate Social Responsibility greenwash campaign, I believe it would be fair to place BAA in the premier league of climate change criminals. They are behind the decision by the government for expansion and now plan to expand all of their seven major airports in the UK and to increase capacity at existing airports. The government expect the numbers of air travel passengers will triple nationally by 2030 and that it must provide for them. This is based on the same flawed predict and provide model that the government hid behind in their plans for road building in the 1990s. In reality they are creating the conditions for demand by means of subsidies and new runways under pressure from intense lobbying by BAA.

Former aviation minister, Chris Mullins, said, I learnt two things. First, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable. Second, that successive governments have usually given way to them. Although nowadays the industry pays lip-service to the notion of sustainability, its demands are essentially unchanged. It wants more of everything – airports, runways, terminals.

BAA has led a sustained campaign on behalf of practices that cause climate change. In advance of the governments 2003 aviation white paper which paved the way for the expansion programme, BAA was the main supporter of lobby group, Freedom to fly. This group is thought to be the brain child of Steve Hardwick, Director of Public Affairs at BAA who took time out to work on the Labour election campaigns of 1997 and 2001. Freedom to fly was directed by John Prescotts former personal political advisor from 1999-2001, Joe Irwin. The group was chaired by Labour peer, Brenda Dean. When, after a year, Joe Irwin resigned, he was replaced by Dan Hodges. Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson MP, who happens to have been Labours first aviation minister.

The revolving door doesnt seem to have stopped spinning between Labour and BAA. The government appointed AviaSolutions to assess the responses to its consultation on expansion. AviaSolutions is run by former high-flyers from BAA, Seamus Healey, Paul Eden and his wife, Liz. Also on the companys board was Lyne Meredith, who previously worked as BAAs director of planning and environment. Even now, BAA hosts from its West London offices, Future Heathrow, an industry lobby group chaired by Labour peer, Lord Soley. Launched personally by then-transport secretary, Alistair Darling, it was established to ensure that the third runway and sixth terminal is built.

Just as BAA and the government have not been clear about their murky, close-knit relationship, nor have they been transparent with the public about any of their plans. This is illustrated through the history of Heathrow airport.

In 1979, the planning inspector for the Terminal 4 enquiry approved the plans on the basis it would be the last major expansion at Heathrow and that flight numbers would be capped to 260,000 a year. The government agreed and ruled out further construction, but never enforced a cap, and there were over 300,000 flights a year by the time T4 opened. In 2000, the planning inspector for Terminal 5 ruled that it should be approved on the basis it would be the last major expansion and that flight numbers should be capped at 480,000. T5 is due to open in 2008, and within 9 months of T5s approval, the government were consulting with plans for a third runway which will bring flight numbers to over 650,000 flights per year.

It wasnt just the government who have deceived the public. BAA was right there at their side. Des Wilson, Head of Corporate and Public Affairs, during the T5 enquiry assured local residents whose homes are at risk, BAA called on the inspector at the public enquiry, and through the inspector, the government, to rule out a third runway.

BAA is still lobbying to make certain nothing stops its new plans for expansion, not even the mounting evidence of flying-induced climate change or the fact that they will lead to the biggest forced dispersal of communities in the UK since the highland clearances.

When the bailiffs turn up to evict the residents of Sipson (an entire village near Heathrow that will be wiped of the map) it will be BAA who has paid their wages. If concrete is poured over the stunning countryside near Stansted it will be BAA who foots the bill. Responsibility for airport expansion lies firmly at the door of BAA.

www.planestupid.com

References:

(1)The two faces of BAA: A report from AirportWatch; Heathrow: 60 Years of Deception. A report from John Stewart and HACAN Clearskies; the reports of the cross-parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee.