|
|
 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Energy
|
![]() |
|
CONTENTS:
(1)Fears as biofuel plant gets go-ahead
(2)Oil giant slammed by watchdog
(3)Doubts about renewable energy targets
(4)Launch of new FoE wind farm guide
(5)Shell ordered to withdraw misleading eco ad
(6)Wind farm plan given a stormy reception
(7)Energy review declared legally flawed
(8)Green row as Govt backs Nuclear Power
(9)Nuclear back on the agenda - here's how
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hull Friends of the Earth Home Page
Fears as biofuel plant gets go-ahead
Article courtesy of Hull & East Riding Mail
ENVIRONMENT campaigners today expressed fears about the future of a green fuel plant – before it is built.
East Riding Council has given the go-ahead to the £200m biofuel development at the BP Chemicals site in Saltend, near Hull.
The plant will turn about a million tons of wheat a year into bioethanol, which can be blended with existing vehicle fuels, and create about 80 jobs.
But Friends of the Earth (FoE) says the plant will take a vast amount of wheat out of the human food chain at a time of growing food shortages.
Hull FoE co-ordinator Sue Jolliffe said: “Wheat prices are sky high, pushing up the price of food staples, such as bread.
“The plant will compete for wheat destined for export markets, so a knock-on effect will be a hole in the food chain in other parts of the world.
“There is also not enough scientific evidence to prove that ethanol reduces CO2 emissions and helps combat global warming.”
Mrs Jolliffe, of Kingsway, Cottingham, said the Government was under pressure to postpone the bioethanol programme.
“It is not economically viable to build the plant when wheat prices are so high, and it is likely to become a huge white elephant,” she said.
The plant is being developed by Vivergo Fuels Limited, a venture between BP, British Sugar owner Associated British Foods, and chemicals firm DuPont.
It will help BP meet its commitments under Government regulations to produce five per cent of its fuels from green sources by 2010.
Goole farmer Ian Backhouse, chairman of the National Farmers' Union's national combinable crops board, said the plant would give them another outlet for wheat.
“It will not only step up green fuel production, but the by-product from the wheat is a high-protein animal feed,” he said.
Nobody from Vivergo was available for comment.
END
So it seems that any response to the latest comment would be in breach of T&Cs. However, I don't think it should be left unchecked. Nowhere in this article does it mention 'giving' wheat away for free, nor anywhere does it mention the issue of over-population, dense demographics, heightened health care, world-aid, food-aid or any other form of global welfare. As it would appear the last commenter missed the point of the article entirely, maybe he would care to re-read? Little Lady, Hull commented on 08-May-2008 10:04
Sorry,
Could hemp be used as an alternative? Sean, hull commented on 07-May-2008 20:33
Could hemo be used as an alternative? Sean, Hull, UK commented on 07-May-2008 20:32
I couldn't really care less about the starving in the rest of the world. For too long we have been artificially keeping people alive. The world is overcrowded as it is without constantly sending aid and food to starving people to prolong the situation. If we need our wheat for fuel we should keep it not send it abroad. Ian, Hull commented on 07-May-2008 11:19
Article dated
May 2008
Sorry, no Nukes please
Article courtesy of Hardnews
By Mehru Jaffer
According to anti-nuclear Europeans, nuclear power is the most dirty and dangerous form of energy. It is an expensive technology that poses a problem and is not the solution to climate change. At 'Science or fiction: Is there a future for nuclear?' an international conference on fusion energy and new nuclear reactor models hosted in Vienna by Global 2000 and Friends of the Earth — Austria, participants focused on climate change and the fair distribution of resources and energy.
Indeed, once again, the conclusion is that Europe must stop wasting the taxpayer's money to pursue a dangerous and expensive technology like nuclear power. The anti-nuclear groups feel that Europe does not need nuclear power. Instead, it needs investment in renewable energies as well as in cutting back energy waste.
Energy policy stands at a crossroad today waiting for the world to decide whether going nuclear is a sustainable option. Since global warming is already upon the world, it is said that there is no time to test costly and time-consuming technologies. The Friends of the Earth suggest safer technologies that are cheaper and need refinement to improve efficiency.
Antony Frogatt, an independent consultant on nuclear issues who held a workshop on the impact of public spending and political support for nuclear energy on energy saving, efficiency and renewable energies, feels that minimising the energy demand is a condition for a sustainable energy supply by renewables. Instead of importing oil, gas or biomass, a sustainable energy system has to rely on regional energy resources.
Nuclear power remains the least desired energy option within the European Union (EU). Yet, the EU funding for fission and fusion energy research for the period 2007 to 2011is 2.75 billion euros, a huge increase from 1.35 billion euros for the previous seven years.
In Austria, a campaign was launched in January 2007 to leave the 'Euratom' and save 40 million euros annually for investment in alternative sources of energy. The widespread consensus is that nuclear power is too risky a technology and its use will burden future generations with nuclear waste. Austria remains one of the staunchest anti-nuclear members of the EU with public opinion as low as five per cent in favour of nuclear energy.
The EU supports the expensive nuclear industry through the Euratom Treaty signed in 1957. All EU member states are automatically members of Euratom, including nations like Austria that do not have nuclear power. An opinion poll in March 2007 showed that 63 per cent of Austrians favour withdrawal from Euratom.
Thomas Lackner, Project Coordinator, Friends of the Earth, regretted that none of the pro-nuclear experts who were invited made it to the conference that ended with an open discussion with the public on nuclear fusion. “What we would like to see are more debates on the nuclear issue so that the public can decide for itself,” Lackner told Hardnews.
The perception here is that the public is often excluded from essential political decisions like the use of nuclear energy. Technocratic paternalism and political preferences often overlook elements that are essentially social. The demand is to identify the social in the technical, to allow discussions on technical issues and social consequences in a culture of transparency and openness. “Technical aspects have to be discussed and understood before social choices are made by ordinary people who don't know enough about nuclear issues,” Lackner said.
Seven countries including China, India, Japan, the US, Korea, Russia, the European Union and Switzerland agreed in November 2006 to contribute to the financing of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) located in the south of France on an existing nuclear site near Cadarache. A colossal project like ITER is lucrative for a wide range of companies from the construction industry to nuclear suppliers.
It is the big players in the electricity business who love big nuclear power plants that assure their monopoly over the electricity market. Since electricity is traded at the stock exchange, high prices are maintained by shutting down plants to create shortages. The big players are not interested in modernising and improving power grids. They are not interested in giving municipalities control over regional grids. “Many small grids with regional input from renewable sources could give control to consumers and could be part of a bigger national grid where surplus can be exchanged when needed,” recommend David Reinberger from the Viennese Office for Environment Protection. His views were shared by Antonia Wenisch and Richard Kromp from the Austrian Institute of Ecology in Science or Fiction in a booklet distributed at the conference.
Foratom, the European trade agency for the nuclear industry, talks of a nuclear renaissance that will minimise CO2 emissions. Forecasts indicate a slow growth of nuclear power by 2030. Besides, nuclear energy is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. The advantage of nuclear power plants from a climate perspective is that they do not emit CO2 directly. However, the complex process dealing with highly dangerous radioactive material and the use of fossil fuels is what causes greenhouse gas emissions.
With numerous studies behind her, Professor Helga Kromp-Kolb, Meteorology Department, Vienna University, said that the earth's uranium is limited, making the technology unsustainable in the long run. Uranium is the sole source of nuclear power and within a few years these reserves of highly enriched uranium will run out and all uranium will have to be mined.
Experts say that uranium mining destroys the landscape and contaminates soil, air and water in the mining regions. A dangerous legacy is nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel at the so called back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. This can devastate the environment and humans for millions of years.
Uranium maybe the buzz word today but as high grade uranium stocks decrease, the CO2 related to mining uranium will increase. After 2070, uranium will fall from the energy cliff and the nuclear system will consume more energy than it is able to produce. According to the latest report of the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board, nuclear installations can only be marginally protected against terrorist attacks. The Friends of the Earth point to the real possibility of radioactive material being used to build nuclear weapons with global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear material posing serious security threats to nuclear power stations.
In 1995, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established an illicit trafficking database to facilitate the exchange of authoritative information related to trafficking in radioactive materials. In a 2006 report, 85 incidents of theft or loss of nuclear and other radioactive materials were mentioned. In about 75 per cent of the cases, the material lost or stolen is never recovered.
Frogatt adds that reactors cannot be sufficiently protected against terrorist threats, including the crash of an airliner into reactor buildings. Talking to the press at 'Global Development: Science and Policies for the Future' — another conference held here on the 35th anniversary of the Austria based- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) — Professor Kirit S Parikh, member of the Planning Commission of India in-charge of energy, water and perspective planning said that the nuclear option is real for the country. India's nuclear industry is largely without IAEA safeguards. However, thus far, it is seen as scrupulous in ensuring
Article dated
December 2007
Nuclear back on the agenda - here's how
Article courtesy of BBC News
By Nick Assinder
Tony Blair may have changed his mind over nuclear power during the past three years but many more minds will have to be changed if his vision is ever to become a reality.
The prime minister has little hope of winning over the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the Green Party who are vehemently opposed to nuclear and are pressing the government to invest more in renewable energy.
But powerful opposition is also coming from the Liberal Democrats, whose policy is to oppose nuclear power, specifically on the grounds it would crowd out investment in alternatives.
And many Labour backbenchers remain fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy, with around 60 having signed a Commons motion opposing the move.
And the prime minister is not the only senior Labour figure who once expressed opposition to nuclear power.
When the government published its energy White Paper in 2003, it called for massive reductions in CO2 emissions, a huge boost to renewables like solar, wind and tidal power, and energy efficiency programmes.
Death knell
But it also ruled out building new nuclear power stations to replace existing ones coming to the end of their lives, stating nuclear was an "unattractive option".
It did leave the door ajar for future atomic plants, but the then Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt warned any new nuclear investment would undermine the drive for energy efficiency and renewables.
Although she added: "We are not absolutely ruling out new nuclear build forever".
At the time, Friends of the Earth welcomed the policy as "the death knell for nuclear power in Britain".
A group of ministers, including Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett and Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, are said to retain doubts over the policy although, crucially, Chancellor Gordon Brown supports the prime minister's view.
Meanwhile former environment ministers Michael Meacher and Elliot Morley are leading Labour opposition from the backbenches.
The Tories are so far hedging their bets, claiming only that, while there "might be some more nuclear" in future, it should be seen as a last resort.
Hard message
And they greeted the review by claiming the government had failed to show exactly how it would go about building new stations, and how many.
But, perhaps most dangerous of all, if recent polls are correct there is little support amongst voters for a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The prime minister answers all this by saying things have changed since 2003 and led him to reassess the position.
While he is still giving a big push to renewables and efficiency, he no longer sees an alternative to including nuclear in the mix because, by 2020, Britain will have gone from being self-sufficient in energy to 90% dependent on imports.
The latest buzz phrase from Downing Street is: "wishful thinking won't keep the lights on".
That is the hard message the prime minister - and, presumably, Gordon Brown - now have to sell to the country.
Article dated
July 2006
Green row as Govt backs Nuclear Power
Article courtesy of The Times Online
By Jenny Booth
The Government has made it clear today that some at least of Britain's ageing nuclear power stations will be replaced, sparking a huge row with "green" campaigners and some scientists.
Alistair Darling said that nuclear energy had always been part of the country’s energy mix and "should remain so". The Trade and Industry Secretary is due to publish the Government’s Energy Review later today, heralding the building of a new generation of up to six nuclear power stations.
Mr Darling said that the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power would fall from the current 20 per cent to 6 per cent in the next 20 years.
If measures were not taken now to fill the gap left by the closure of ageing nuclear power stations, Britain would become dependent on costly overseas gas imports, often from unstable parts of the world.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party and other anti-nuclear groups say that there is no public support for nuclear power, and are pressing the Government to invest more in renewable energy such as wind farms.
But Mr Darling told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning: "I don’t think renewables can fill the whole gap."
In parts of the country, particularly Scotland, applications to build wind farms had faced planning delays, he warned. The Government now intends to change the planning regime to cut such delays.
"I think we can streamline the process so there is a greater deal of certainty."
The minister stressed that the Government had to take action now because one-third of the country’s power generation will be decommissioned within the next few decades.
Mr Darling said that he did not accept warnings from some experts that building new nuclear power stations would divert investment from renewables. "The changes I hope we can make on planning will help renewables as much as anyone else.
"We do need to make decisions. We have to face up to the fact that even if we reduce demand for electricity, we still need to take a decision in relation to the replacement of a lot of our electricity generation. We have got to face up to that now."
But green activists said there was no need to replace ageing nuclear power stations.
"We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting energy waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels more efficiently," said Tony Juniper, the director of Friends of the Earth.
"And we can do this without wasting more money on dirty and dangerous nuclear power. The world is already a dangerous place. Encouraging countries around the world to build nuclear power stations will make it even more so."
Article dated
July 2006
Energy review declared legally flawed
Article courtesy of Greenpeace UK
The Government's recent energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power plants, was 'legally flawed', according to documents given to the High Court by Greenpeace at the start of a legal battle today.
Lodging legal papers at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Greenpeace is arguing that the Government did not carry out the 'full public consultation' it had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations.
Greenpeace has filed the papers as the first step of the legal challenge, which is expected to culminate in judicial review of the Government's energy review.
Should Greenpeace's case prove successful, the Government will be forced to ditch the conclusions of the energy review and instead carry out a much fuller consultation and provide comprehensive information on the full range of issues relating to building new nuclear reactors in the UK.
The energy review, according to Greenpeace, failed as a 'full public consultation' because it did not resolve key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste, financial costs and the design of the reactors.
Greenpeace's concerns are shared by a range of key parties including the Environment Agency, UNISON, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and former Cabinet ministers.
Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The Government promised a full public consultation before giving the green light to a dangerous new set of nuclear power stations, yet they have absolutely failed to do this. This is why Greenpeace is launching this legal challenge.
"Given that there are much more sophisticated, effective and safer ways than nuclear power to meet our energy demands and cut our climate change emissions, Greenpeace feels compelled to challenge the Government on its irrational and unsubstantiated pro-nuclear policy."
ENDS
For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.
Notes:
The 2003 Energy White Paper which concluded the last Energy Review stated that: "Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper setting out the Government's proposals." It described nuclear power as an unattractive option on the basis of its current economics and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste.
In the Environment Agency's submission (pdf) to the 2006 Energy Review they stated that: "The current consultation poses only very broad questions on energy policy and does not set out specific policy proposals at this stage. We advise that once the Energy Review team reports in the summer Government should carry out further consultation on more detailed proposals for the way forward."
In the Sustainable Development Commission's response to the 2006 Energy Review they stated that: "Our Energy Challenge offers no information whatsoever on what any new nuclear programme might look like, presumably on the grounds that this would be premature. Unfortunately, people are being asked to comment on the potential contribution of a new nuclear programme without any of the key aspects (regarding reactor design, cost, waste management, liability issues, and so on) having been addressed."
The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee issued a report ("New Nuclear? Examining the issues") on 10 July 2006 which stated: "& we are concerned about the manner in which this Energy Review has been conducted. Throughout the process, the Government has hinted strongly that it has already made its mind up on nuclear power. The last review took three years to complete, yet this one has been conducted in the space of six months. & What is more, it is clear to us that the outcome of the Energy Review has largely been determined before adequate consideration could possibly have been taken of important evidence that should inform the Government's policy decision. & ".
On 18 April 2006, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee commented as follows: "The nature of the current Energy Review is unclear - whether it is specifically fulfilling the Prime Minister's desire to make a decision on nuclear, whether it is a review of electricity generating policy, whether it is a wider review of progress against the Energy White Paper, or whether it is reopening the broad policy debate which the White Paper itself encompassed. We are also concerned that it does not appear to have resulted from a due process of monitoring and accountability, and that the process by which it is being conducted appears far less structured and transparent than the process by which the White Paper itself was reached".
Elliot Morley MP has been reported as saying that, although he was then the minister for climate change at the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs he had been excluded from key technical details on which the energy review was based. He told the Guardian Newspaper on May 17 2006 that: "if the review was open, transparent and fair looking at the options on economic grounds across a whole life cost assessment of nuclear stations, the solution may well point to renewables. We at Defra were not getting the involvement in the energy review at the technical level we should have."
The former home secretary, Charles Clarke, said in a recent article for the New Statesman (subscription required) that: "Major policy issues, such as the place of nuclear energy in the drive to energy sustainability& need serious consideration. They cannot simply be dealt with as an aside at the CBI's annual dinner or a half-sentence at the Guildhall. The country as a whole needs to understand the context and the options before such commitments are made that can otherwise seem to be delivered from on high without proper engagement by parliament and the country."
Article dated
October 2006
Wind farm plan given a stormy reception
Article courtesy of The Independent Online
By Cahal Milmo and Jonathan Brown
Bill Boggia remembers well the last time Graveney was gripped by fears of invasion having arrived in this village of saltmarsh and sunken lanes in north-east Kent in 1940.
Then it was the Nazis who threatened to emerge from the shallow waters of Whitstable Bay. Now Mr Boggia, 77, and some 200 local residents are digging in for what they consider to be another struggle against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent.
Cleve Hill, a gentle slope of arable land above the village, has been chosen by the consortium building the London Array wind farm for the construction of the electricity sub-station which will "land" undersea cables carrying 1,000 megawatts of power generated by its 341 turbines.
It is a vital part of what will be the world's biggest offshore wind farm, generating along with a second scheme off nearby Thanet, enough electricity to power nearly a million homes.
The £2bn project announced yesterday by Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alistair Darling and the Environment Secretary David Miliband, has been hailed as a landmark in Britain's battle to reduce CO2 and combat global warming.
"We expect this will be the first of a number of large-scale offshore windfarms in the UK ," said Mr Miliband. "We are reinforcing the UK's commitment to renewable energy and combating climate change and ocean acidification," he added.
The news received the blessing of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which dropped its opposition to the Thames Estuary schemes after assurances over breeding birds.
But Mr Boggia, whose family owns and runs several caravan parks around Graveney, is unconvinced. Pointing to the patchwork of medieval fields that stretches out from his living room on the side of the hill, he said: "I'm more worried about what these plans will do to this landscape and our way of life than I ever was about a Nazi invasion on the beach. We have spent 50 years since the Second World War battling to ensure that this unique habitat is not changed or scarred by big developments. We're not going to be beaten by this one either."
London Array, led by Shell and the German power conglomerate E.ON, argues that Cleve Hill, situated 800 metres from the shore, is the only suitable site for its £3m sub-station after producing an exhaustive study which considered factors from cost and accessibility to the impact on shipping lanes and bird life.
This summer, the local Swale Borough Council's planning committee threw out an application to build the sub-station, housing eight massive transformers, despite a recommendation from its officers to approve the development. The matter will be resolved by an independent planning inspector at a public inquiry scheduled to take place next March.
Much is at stake for the Government, which is committed to meeting 20 per cent of Britain's energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. To do so, it must massively expand the number of windfarms. The Thames Estuary schemes - six times bigger than anything else in the world - will supply 1,300 megawatts of energy - nearly doubling the existing supply of wind power.
Offshore wind farms offer the greatest potential for renewable energy. Invisible from land, they have not faced the noisy opposition encountered by onshore schemes, which critics say destroy the splendour of the natural landscape. While it is estimated a third of the UK's electricity could one day be generated offshore, take up has been slow, partly because of the increased costs.
"So far development offshore has been disappointing and hasn't lived up to the Government's aspirations," said Rob Gross, head of policy at the UK Energy Research Centre and a co-author of the 2002 Energy Review. "The premier reason is because the Government underestimated the amount of support it would have to give to get a new technology off the ground," he said.
In Graveney, however, feelings are running high. Tim Baldwin, a teacher and chairman of the campaign group Graveney Rural Environmental Action Team, (Great) said: "At the end of the day there is tremendous political will in Westminster for the windfarm project to go ahead. We are all for green energy, which is why we don't accept the need to damage our environment to make this project work."
Blot on the landscape or future of energy?
* Are they efficient?
The big problem with wind power is the energy generated depends on weather. Turbines start operating at wind speeds of 10mph, reaching maximum output at 33mph. At 55mph they must be shut down. Opponents say there is no guarantee the wind will blow within this range at peak need. It is impractical to store energy so non-wind back up power stations must be operated in tandem. But supporters say wind farms operate for up to 80 per cent of the time - similar to coal, gas or nuclear plants.
* Are they a blot on the landscape?
Vocal pressure groups, such as Country Guardian, say they can damage tourism and divide communities. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the National Trust have opposed applications in beautiful areas. Local authorities have also proved hard to convince. Opponents claim turbines are noisy although the British Wind Energy Association says they are inaudible at distances of 1km.
* Is wind energy too expensive?
The Government looks like it will fail to meet its targets for generating off-shore wind power. Work has yet to start on 10 of the 17 offshore schemes given the go-ahead compared to the 160 on-shore farms already built or under construction. The Energy White Paper looks set to raise the financial reward for offshore power which is 50 per cent more expensive. On-shore wind energy also remains more expensive than gas-fired power stations. Supporters say expanding wind power is the only way the Government will reach its target of supplying 20 per cent of Britain's energy by 2020 from renewable sources.
* Are wind farms bad for the environment?
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace welcome them because 99 per cent of energy is carbon-free. The RSPB dropped its objection to the Thames Estuary plans after it was assured that a wintering colony of birds would not be harmed. But it continues to oppose the massive on-shore scheme in Lewis where 181 turbines are planned because it threatens important species, including golden eagles. Supporters say it safeguards traditional farming.
Article dated
December 2006
Shell ordered to withdraw misleading eco ad
Article courtesy of International Herald Tribune
Royal Dutch Shell has been ordered to withdraw an advertisement in the Netherlands that sought to portray the oil giant as environmentally friendly, and British authorities said Thursday they had opened a formal investigation in the case.
The advertisement, part of a global campaign by Shell, shows smokestacks emitting flowers. It states that Shell recycles its emissions of carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming, by piping them into greenhouses. It also states that its emissions of sulfur dioxide, another pollutant, are used to make concrete.
"What they said in the advertisement was too strong," said Simone Wesseling, a spokeswoman for the Dutch Advertising Code Authority. "Shell suggests that all of these gases are recycled and that is not the case, so our committee found a misleading environmental claim."
Wesseling said the image of flowers was acceptable because readers would clearly identify it as imaginary.
Eurwen Thomas, a spokeswoman for Shell, said the company was studying the Dutch decision, which was issued on June 31 but publicized Thursday, and considering whether to bring an appeal.
She said the advertisement was not scheduled to run in any Dutch newspapers or magazines but continues to appear in magazines and newspapers in other European countries, including Britain.
Friends of the Earth, an environmental campaign group that brought the complaint, said that the decision was a significant victory at a time when consumers and regulators were struggling to work out which companies were genuinely adapting their businesses to a low-carbon economy.
"Instead of 'greenwashing' its environmental behavior, Shell should tackle its real problems," said Anne van Schaik, a campaign leader for Friends of the Earth Netherlands. "For instance, in Nigeria, gas flaring by Shell causes 60 times more greenhouse gas emissions than the carbon dioxide that is reused by Dutch farmers to grow flowers."
The British Advertising Standards Authority initially rejected the group's complaint at the end of May, but this week reopened the case after Friends of the Earth made further arguments, said Donna Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the British authority.
Friends of the Earth had made further arguments that required a formal investigation, she said.
Such investigations usually take six weeks, but the case involving Shell is complicated and could take longer, she said.
The Belgian authority also rejected the complaint, but officials at Friends of the Earth said they were campaigning to reopen that investigation, too.
Mitchell said the agency could soon issue stricter guidance to companies to discourage exaggerated claims.
"It's a vogue, but we expect advertisers to act as responsibly in this area as in any other area," she said, referring to "green" advertising.
Industry experts, however, foresee a long battle ahead.
"Many people in sustainability can't even agree on what constitutes an environmentally beneficial effect," said Mike Longhurst, a senior vice president in London for the advertising agency McCann Erickson.
Article dated
July 2007
Launch of new FoE wind farm guide
Article courtesy of Newconsumer.com
By Gemma Taylor
West Cumbria Friends of the Earth has launched a new guide to the wind farms seen from the Cumbria Coastal railway.
The guide presents the turbines as striking additions to the landscape as well as making Cumbria the green power house of the UK.
The 10 wind farms along the railway include the Lowca windfarm which stands on a cliff above the railway and supplied clean electricty to 2,500 homes.
The line goes by Workington, which is one of the greenest greenest towns in the country in terms of electricity generation, with turbines generating enough electricity for 10,000 households - equivalent to every house in the town, and the turbines are set to also provide for surrounding villages.
Jill Perry, campaigner with the group and co-author of the guide, said: ‘There is a great variety of turbines to be seen - ranging from a small domestic one to two huge 2MW turbines at a Workington factory. It’s a fantastic journey by rail to see them all turning in the wind. It’s even possible to take a bike on the train and visit the turbines close up.’
Article dated
July 2007
Doubts about renewable energy targets
Article courtesy of Financial Times
By Fiona Harvey
Renewable power is set to grow far more slowly than the government has predicted, according to a new analysis of the UK’s energy mix and greenhouse gas emissions.
It will represent only 5 per cent of the country’s electricity in 2010, up just 1 percentage point from the 4 per cent recorded last year, says a study by consultancy Cambridge Econometrics.
The government’s long-held target envisages 10 per cent of electricity coming from renewables by 2010.
However, the study found that with new policies in place, the UK could produce 12 per cent of its electricity from renewables by 2015.
Next month the government is expected to publish the outcome of a consultation on producing more renewable energy by targeting subsidies where they are most needed, rather than focusing on onshore wind farms as at present.
But Paul Ekins, senior consultant to Cambridge Econometrics, said that the proposed changes to the “renewable obligation” subsidy regime could not be introduced until April 2009 at the earliest.
The government will also miss its target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010. However, the UK will meet its targets to reduce emissions under the Kyoto protocol.
Professor Ekins expected emissions to be 15 per cent lower by 2020. Carbon emissions in the UK have not fallen in any year since 2002.
He said: “Our projections have consistently identified the main barriers to a low-carbon economy to be higher emissions from the transport and household sectors, which are expected to rise to just under a half of the UK’s CO2 emissions by 2010.”
Mary Taylor, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “We need a fundamental shift in the attitude of ministers and government departments, and the introduction of concrete policies such as rules for renewable energy in new developments. These already have widespread support and should be grasped. The current lack of effective policies is unacceptable.”
Article dated
August 2007
Oil giant slammed by watchdog
Article courtesy of Guardian Unlimited
By Chris Tryhorn
Oil giant Shell has been censured by the advertising watchdog over a press ad that showed refinery chimneys emitting flowers.
Environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth was among those who complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the press ad, which ran with the slogan, "Don't throw anything anyway. There is no away."
Friends of the Earth said the ad's central image - of refinery chimneys spewing out flowers - misrepresented the environmental impact of Shell's activities.
It also disputed Shell's claims that it used waste carbon dioxide to grow flowers and waste sulphur to make super-strong concrete.
The ASA said the image itself could not be regarded as misleading as it was "conceptual and fanciful".
"We considered that most readers were unlikely to interpret it as a depiction of reality," the watchdog said.
However, the ASA ruled against Shell on the factual points, arguing that the wording of the ad implied that a significant amount of the company's emissions were recycled.
"In the absence of qualification, most readers were likely to interpret the claim, 'We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers'... to mean that Shell used all, or at least the majority, of their waste CO2 to grow flowers, whereas the actual amount was a very small proportion, when compared to the global activities of Shell," said the ASA ruling.
Similarly, the watchdog noted that the amount of waste sulphur used in Shell's initiative was only a small proportion of its global activities, and that this claim was also misleading.
In its defence, Shell argued that trying to quantify the significance of its project by comparing its benefits to their global business could "serve no recognisable benefit".
Shell said the ad was the first phase of its "Throw Away" campaign aimed at business decision-makers and well-educated readers, and that it did not intend to use the ad again in future.
Article dated
November 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
