On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

• The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
• The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
• The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
• A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
• The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

• The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
• The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
• The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
• The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
• The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

• The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
• The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
• The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
• A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
• The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

• The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
• The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
• The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
• The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
• The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

• The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
• The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
• The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
• A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
• The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

• The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
• The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
• The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
• The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
• The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

• The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
• The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
• The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
• A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
• The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

• The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
• The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
• The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
• The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
• The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

The European Parliament has just passed a law allowing the cultivation of GMO crops by EU member states, by 480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions.

The proposed law allows individual member states to ban genetically modified crops, but only on very limited grounds that environmentalists fear could be subject to legal challenges.

The law also opens the door to the possibility of more varieties of GM crops being approved in the EU. Currently only one GM crop – a herbicide resistant strain of maize used for animal feed – is grown in Europe, but a further seven GM varieties are in the pipeline and may be approved early this year.

Green UK MEP Keith Taylor said: “This agreement is not all it seems. While giving EU countries new powers to ban GMOs, I believe what this will mean in reality for the UK is more GMOs not fewer. This is because our pro-GM Government are now able to give the go-ahead to more authorisations.”

Wales and Scotland have welcomed the opportunity to confirm their non-GM position, but they may find that the limited terms of any opt-out may in fact force them to allow GM crops to be grown once approved by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA.

Within the EU, Only Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic currently permit GM crop cultivation. The current UK government is committed to the introduction of GM crops after “a few years”.

Safeguards stripped out

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last November to impose strong safeguards on GM crop cultivation, as reported on The Ecologist.

However the draft law then went to the ‘Trilogue’ – comprising the European Council, the Commission and representatives from the Parliament – for amendment.

An agreement was struck on 3rd December which stripped out most of the safeguards. While the form of national opt-outs remained, any such opt out would only be allowed under highly restricted circumstances.

Responding at the time, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director said: “Environment ministers say they want to give countries the right to ban GM crop cultivation on their territory, but the text they have agreed does not give governments a legally solid right.

“It ties their hands by not allowing to use evidence of environmental harm to ban GM cultivation. This leaves those countries that want to say ‘no’ to GM crops exposed to legal attacks by the biotech industry.”

The Green French MEP José Bové, also a campaigner against GM crops, added: “in the short term, this change will allow multinationals like Monsanto to challenge national bans at the WTO or, if free trade deals like TTIP are finalised, in arbitration tribunals.”

But – with the exception of the Greens – all the main political groups in the European Parliament united today to back the GMO law.

Regulation devolved to member states

Among the problems in the new law is the absence of strict regulation at the European level. Instead it will be up to member states to impose their own safeguards and regulations.

GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill explained: “This directive offers no meaningful protection to people who want to make informed choices about what they are eating or to farmers who want to protect their fields from the superweeds and biodiversity loss associated with the kind of GM crops likely to be heading our way.

“There are no EU-wide mandatory measures to prevent contamination within an individual member state and no rules governing liability. That means it’s down to the UK Government to protect our right to grow and eat GM Free.”

GM pollen from crops permitted in one country can easily spread to another neighbouring country. Add to that the largely unrestricted cross border trade in both foodstuffs and seeds, and GM trangenes are likely to spread widely across the EU once permitted in any one country.

Furthermore single market rules that govern EU trade will make it illegal for member states to control imports of GM foods, even if they forbid their cultivation.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said the new law “fails to require countries to ensure that any GM crops grown will not contaminate GM free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GM companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution.”

UK – a regulatory void?

As far as the UK is concerned. the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election committed the Government to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability” – however this has not taken place.

A letter from farming minister Lord de Mauley recently stated that there was no problem with transgenes from GMO crops: “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

As reported on The Ecologist, the UK Government is proposing to introduce “pragmatic rules” to govern the separation of GM and non-GM plants and seeds – by implication, given the UK’s supports for GMOs, “pragmatic” for farmers and the GMO industry, rather than for organic farmers or those that wish to remain GM-free.

Peter Melchett commented: “The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GM crops, particularly in England are therefore under threat by this proposal. Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GM free foods.”

Amid the chaos the law will create, at least one thing is cerrtain: that the situation will be exploited ruthlessly by the GM corporations to establish ‘facts on the ground’ and introduce GMOs as widely as possible with a minimum of regulation.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Lord Ridley is a powerhouse of climate denial in Britain – and a leading contender for the title of Britain’s biggest individual carbon polluter.

The self-styled Rational Optimist is an advisor to Lord Lawson’s secretly funded charity, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and acts as a one-man think tank to his brother-in-law, the sacked environment secretary Owen Paterson.

At the same time, the landed aristocrat will mine more than 10 million tonnes of coal from open cast mines scattered around his expansive Blagdon Estate in Northumberland during the next five years.

Miles King, a conservationist with almost 30 years of professional experience, has used publicly available information to estimate that the coal mined from Ridley’s estate will produce 28.6 million tonnes of CO2.

The government has estimated that the UK emitted a total of 570 million tonnes of CO2 or equivalent greenhouse gasses during 2013. This means Ridley’s mines will contribute an estimated 1% of the total annual emissions of a country of 60 million people.

Massive profit, in praise of coal

“I don’t know how much profit Ridley is making from his coal but it must be massive”, King writes on A New Nature Blog. “As the modern day King Coal, one might suggest Matt Ridley has an extremely large vested interest in stoking climate denial.”

Ridley declares an interest in coal when speaking in the House of Lords. He denies being a climate denier, and denies the charge of promoting the coal industry. He claims his arguments support gas rather than coal interests.

However, as King points out, Ridley has been known to defend coal. “It’s the fashion these days to vilify coal as the root of all environmental evil, but I think that’s mistaken”, Ridley writes on his own blog.

“Coal and the technologies it spawned made it possible to double human lifespan, end famine, provide electric light and spare forests for nature.

“Because we get coal out of the ground, we do not have to cut down forests; because we use petroleum we don’t have to kill whales for their oil; because we use gas to make fertilizer we don’t have to cultivate so much land to feed the world.

“This country can compete with China on the basis of either cheap labour or cheap energy. I know which I’d prefer.”

Matt Ridley was also the chairman of the Northern Rock bank from 2004 until its collapse in 2007, after which it was nationalised. In 2013 he was elected as hereditary peer in the House of Lords as a member of the Conservative Party.

Financial benefit unknown – estimated at £13m / year

King’s investigation into Ridley’s carbon footprint was inspired by reports launched by DeSmog UK just before the New Year where we claimed that the mines around the aristocrat’s estate would yield a further £13m a year due to recent planning approvals.

Ridley has so far refused to confirm the exact amount of money he is making from the coal under his family’s land, citing commercial confidentiality. “I receive no financial benefit other than a wayleave in exchange for providing access to the land”, he told DeSmog UK.

The Ridley mines are operated by family firm Banks Mining. The coal under the ground is still owned by the British government following nationalisation in 1947, although the Coal Authority charges very little for the extraction and sale of our most valuable and dangerous resource.

Yet, soon Ridley, his miners and the government could be mandated to reveal exactly how much in profits is being made by the Blagdon mines, how much is paid in taxation, and the amount in fees going to the Coal Authority.

The controversial Infrastructure Bill currently going through Parliament will, if passed, make the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) legally binding.

According to the government, “EITI is a global standard ensuring openness and accountability in the management of revenue from natural resources including coal, oil, natural gas, quarrying and mining.”

Unburnable coal

The transparency initiative was launched by campaigners concerned about the relationship between major oil companies and corrupt governments around the world.

They believe transparency will allow citizens to fully appreciate how national resources are being sold cheaply by their political elites.

But Britain’s support for this initiative could have serious implications for Ridley, when local residents find out exactly how much is being made in profits from the coal on his estate and can test the veracity of his claim to only receive a negligible amount in fees.

A study by academics at University College London (UCL) published in Nature confirms that 80% of the world’s coal is ‘unburnable’ if there is to be any hope of keeping climate change to less than two degrees – and averting catastrophe.

Dr Christophe McGlade, from the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, said: “Policymakers must realise that their instincts to completely use the fossil fuels within their countries are wholly incompatible with their commitments to the 2C goal.”

Brendan Montague writes for DeSmogUK. Follow him on Twitter @Brendanmontague.

This article was originally published on DeSmogUK.

The greatest concentrations of the world’s soil carbon have been pinpointed by researchers – and much of it is a dangerously flammable addition to climate change concerns.

An international scientific survey of peat bogs has calculated that they contain more carbon than all the world’s forests, heaths and grasslands together – and perhaps as much as the planet’s atmosphere. Since peat can smoulder underground for years, it is another potential factor in global warming calculations.

Peat is simply leaf litter that never completely decayed. Ancient peatlands become distinctive ecosystems and, in some places, an economic resource.

Merritt Turetsky, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and colleagues report in Nature Geoscience that peatlands cover between only 2% and 3% of the planet’s land surface, but store 25% of the planet’s soil carbon.

In the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, peat bogs cover about 4 million sq km and store between 500 and 600 billion tonnes of carbon.

In the tropics – and especially in south-east Asia – they cover about 400,000 sq km and store 100 billion tonnes of carbon. The entire pool of atmospheric carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, adds up to about 850 billion tonnes.

Human disturbance creates peat fire threat

In its pristine condition, a peat bog is unlikely to burn: the peat exists because vegetation doesn’t decay normally in water. But, over thousands of years, humans have drained the peat bogs, exploited them for fuel, and even used peat as a gardening mulch.

Dry peat burns easily, and some of the largest fires on Earth are now in the drained peatlands, says Dr Turetsky:

“When people think of a forest fire, they probably think of flames licking up into treetops, and animals trying to escape. But peat fires tend to be creeping ground fires. They can burn for days or weeks, even under relatively wet conditions. They lack the drama of flames, but they produce a lot of smoke.”

The research by Canadian, British, Dutch and US scientists is part of a wider global attempt to understand the carbon cycle.

Global warming happens because more carbon goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide than plants in the oceans and on land can absorb. So it makes sense to work out in fine detail where the carbon comes from, and how it is soaked up by living things.

The world’s biggest ever fire? 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon

Peat fires are an enduring hazard, and a local threat to human health. But in a warming world, in which the human population has trebled in one lifetime, the peatlands are drying out, and could fan the flames of climate change.

Once started, peat fires are hard to stop. Fire in the treetops can race across the forest at 10 kilometres an hour, while smouldering peat can take a week to travel half a metre. But both can happen at once, the scientists report.

“The tropical peatlands of South-east Asia are a clear demonstration of how human activity can alter the natural relationships between ecosystems and fire”, said Susan Page, professor of physical geography at the University of Leicester, UK, and a co-author of the latest report.

In a Nature study in 2002, she calculated that a dramatic and sustained forest fire in Indonesia in 1997 may have sent 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere – a figure that could have added up to 40% of all the emissions from all the fossil fuel burning that year.

“Tropical peatlands are highly resistant to natural fires, but in recent decades humans have drained peatlands for plantation agriculture”, she said.

“People cause the deep layers of peat to dry out, and also greatly increase the number of fire ignitions. It’s a double threat.”

The paper: ‘Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss‘ by Merritt R. Turetsky, Brian Benscoter, Susan Page, Guillermo Rein, Guido R. van der Werf & Adam Watts, is published in Nature Geoscience.

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network.

The greatest concentrations of the world’s soil carbon have been pinpointed by researchers – and much of it is a dangerously flammable addition to climate change concerns.

An international scientific survey of peat bogs has calculated that they contain more carbon than all the world’s forests, heaths and grasslands together – and perhaps as much as the planet’s atmosphere. Since peat can smoulder underground for years, it is another potential factor in global warming calculations.

Peat is simply leaf litter that never completely decayed. Ancient peatlands become distinctive ecosystems and, in some places, an economic resource.

Merritt Turetsky, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and colleagues report in Nature Geoscience that peatlands cover between only 2% and 3% of the planet’s land surface, but store 25% of the planet’s soil carbon.

In the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, peat bogs cover about 4 million sq km and store between 500 and 600 billion tonnes of carbon.

In the tropics – and especially in south-east Asia – they cover about 400,000 sq km and store 100 billion tonnes of carbon. The entire pool of atmospheric carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, adds up to about 850 billion tonnes.

Human disturbance creates peat fire threat

In its pristine condition, a peat bog is unlikely to burn: the peat exists because vegetation doesn’t decay normally in water. But, over thousands of years, humans have drained the peat bogs, exploited them for fuel, and even used peat as a gardening mulch.

Dry peat burns easily, and some of the largest fires on Earth are now in the drained peatlands, says Dr Turetsky:

“When people think of a forest fire, they probably think of flames licking up into treetops, and animals trying to escape. But peat fires tend to be creeping ground fires. They can burn for days or weeks, even under relatively wet conditions. They lack the drama of flames, but they produce a lot of smoke.”

The research by Canadian, British, Dutch and US scientists is part of a wider global attempt to understand the carbon cycle.

Global warming happens because more carbon goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide than plants in the oceans and on land can absorb. So it makes sense to work out in fine detail where the carbon comes from, and how it is soaked up by living things.

The world’s biggest ever fire? 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon

Peat fires are an enduring hazard, and a local threat to human health. But in a warming world, in which the human population has trebled in one lifetime, the peatlands are drying out, and could fan the flames of climate change.

Once started, peat fires are hard to stop. Fire in the treetops can race across the forest at 10 kilometres an hour, while smouldering peat can take a week to travel half a metre. But both can happen at once, the scientists report.

“The tropical peatlands of South-east Asia are a clear demonstration of how human activity can alter the natural relationships between ecosystems and fire”, said Susan Page, professor of physical geography at the University of Leicester, UK, and a co-author of the latest report.

In a Nature study in 2002, she calculated that a dramatic and sustained forest fire in Indonesia in 1997 may have sent 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere – a figure that could have added up to 40% of all the emissions from all the fossil fuel burning that year.

“Tropical peatlands are highly resistant to natural fires, but in recent decades humans have drained peatlands for plantation agriculture”, she said.

“People cause the deep layers of peat to dry out, and also greatly increase the number of fire ignitions. It’s a double threat.”

The paper: ‘Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss‘ by Merritt R. Turetsky, Brian Benscoter, Susan Page, Guillermo Rein, Guido R. van der Werf & Adam Watts, is published in Nature Geoscience.

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network.

The greatest concentrations of the world’s soil carbon have been pinpointed by researchers – and much of it is a dangerously flammable addition to climate change concerns.

An international scientific survey of peat bogs has calculated that they contain more carbon than all the world’s forests, heaths and grasslands together – and perhaps as much as the planet’s atmosphere. Since peat can smoulder underground for years, it is another potential factor in global warming calculations.

Peat is simply leaf litter that never completely decayed. Ancient peatlands become distinctive ecosystems and, in some places, an economic resource.

Merritt Turetsky, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and colleagues report in Nature Geoscience that peatlands cover between only 2% and 3% of the planet’s land surface, but store 25% of the planet’s soil carbon.

In the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, peat bogs cover about 4 million sq km and store between 500 and 600 billion tonnes of carbon.

In the tropics – and especially in south-east Asia – they cover about 400,000 sq km and store 100 billion tonnes of carbon. The entire pool of atmospheric carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, adds up to about 850 billion tonnes.

Human disturbance creates peat fire threat

In its pristine condition, a peat bog is unlikely to burn: the peat exists because vegetation doesn’t decay normally in water. But, over thousands of years, humans have drained the peat bogs, exploited them for fuel, and even used peat as a gardening mulch.

Dry peat burns easily, and some of the largest fires on Earth are now in the drained peatlands, says Dr Turetsky:

“When people think of a forest fire, they probably think of flames licking up into treetops, and animals trying to escape. But peat fires tend to be creeping ground fires. They can burn for days or weeks, even under relatively wet conditions. They lack the drama of flames, but they produce a lot of smoke.”

The research by Canadian, British, Dutch and US scientists is part of a wider global attempt to understand the carbon cycle.

Global warming happens because more carbon goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide than plants in the oceans and on land can absorb. So it makes sense to work out in fine detail where the carbon comes from, and how it is soaked up by living things.

The world’s biggest ever fire? 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon

Peat fires are an enduring hazard, and a local threat to human health. But in a warming world, in which the human population has trebled in one lifetime, the peatlands are drying out, and could fan the flames of climate change.

Once started, peat fires are hard to stop. Fire in the treetops can race across the forest at 10 kilometres an hour, while smouldering peat can take a week to travel half a metre. But both can happen at once, the scientists report.

“The tropical peatlands of South-east Asia are a clear demonstration of how human activity can alter the natural relationships between ecosystems and fire”, said Susan Page, professor of physical geography at the University of Leicester, UK, and a co-author of the latest report.

In a Nature study in 2002, she calculated that a dramatic and sustained forest fire in Indonesia in 1997 may have sent 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere – a figure that could have added up to 40% of all the emissions from all the fossil fuel burning that year.

“Tropical peatlands are highly resistant to natural fires, but in recent decades humans have drained peatlands for plantation agriculture”, she said.

“People cause the deep layers of peat to dry out, and also greatly increase the number of fire ignitions. It’s a double threat.”

The paper: ‘Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss‘ by Merritt R. Turetsky, Brian Benscoter, Susan Page, Guillermo Rein, Guido R. van der Werf & Adam Watts, is published in Nature Geoscience.

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network.