Major companies – Energa and Grupa Azoty (Poland), ČEZ (Czech Republic), Elektroprivreda Srbije (Serbia), and Bulgarian Energy Holding (Bulgaria) – rely heavily on fossil fuels, primarily coal, for energy generation.

Despite governments’ pledges to address the climate crisis, these major energy companies have shown no commitment to reduce their reliance on oil, gas and coal. Some of them are even developing additional coal capacity.

And yet, over the past years, they have been receiving hefty financial support from both the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB).

Perpetuating dependence 

A new Bankwatch report reveals that, while virtually halting their direct investments in coal in the last five years, the EIB and EBRD have provided corporate level financing and extended loans for distribution and renewable energy projects to the same fossil-fuel dependent companies.

Therefore, by allowing these investments without a long term decarbonisation plan, the two European public banks have effectively turned a blind eye to the companies’ fossil fuels dependence, and ultimately helped perpetuate it.

Since 2012, the Polish state-owned energy company Energa has received generous financial support from the EBRD, the EIB and the Nordic Investment Bank. Most recently, in 2017, Energa and the EIB issued EUR 250 million in hybrid bonds with the aim of financing the upgrade and expansion of distribution system during the following two years.

Nevertheless, earlier this month, Energa approved the construction of the controversial 1GW Ostrołęka C coal-fired power plant, a joint project with Enea, another state-owned energy utility.

Over the past decade, Serbia’s national power utility Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS) has received a series of loans from the EBRD. A loan of 200 million euros approved in 2015 and meant for restructuring not only legitimises EPS’s continued reliance on lignite, but effectively frees up resources that helped perpetuate it.

In 2011, EPS received a loan of 80 million euros from the EBRD for what had been termed “environmental improvements”. In practice, the coal energy company has increased its emissions, and it continues to expand its coal mines.

Urgent decarbonisation 

The report’s authors stress that, in addition, fossil fuels are fast becoming a financial liability, thus creating a tangible investment risk.

The EBRD’s ongoing review of its energy strategy is a prime opportunity to ensure the bank’s investments help bring about the urgently needed transition towards sustainable energy, rather than hamper it.

The draft of the new EBRD Energy Sector Strategy acknowledges the urgent need for decarbonisation through increased support for renewables and energy efficiency, but at the same time it keeps the door wide open for fossil fuels investments.

The bank also commits to encourage greenhouse gas emissions reporting and decarbonisation plans by clients with significant carbon assets, however, it lacks explicit commitment to divestment from companies that are building new coal capacities

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, EBRD Policy Officer with Bankwatch, said: “The EBRD needs to send a strong signal to the market that the low-carbon transition for fossil fuel dependent companies and carbon intensive economies needs to start now.

“It is a joke to ‘encourage’ a state owned energy utility to develop a decarbonisation plan when it is building a new coal power plant that will be in operation for decades in the future. You cannot eat your cake and have it all.”

Energy sources

The report underlines the need for EBRD investments in fossil fuel dependent companies to facilitate absolute emissions reductions in both the short and the long term.

Europe’s development banks must also condition any further financing for companies whose electricity or heating capacity relies on fossil fuels on emissions reductions measurable within the lifetime of projects they support.

And lastly, companies planning new coal power capacity should not benefit from any financial support.

Anna Roggenbuck, EIB Policy Officer with CEE Bankwatch Network, said: “The review of the EIB’s energy strategy expected later this year is a great opportunity for the bank to reconsider its business model for the sector.

“As a financial institution, the EIB should be avoid getting involved with companies facing losses due to a major carbon exposure, and as an EU institution it ought to support energy transformation. Supporting companies’ decarbonisation plans based on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources is the only way forward.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Bankwatch. The full report can be read here.

Only the remaking of the human world in a generation can now prevent serious, far reaching and once-avoidable climate change impacts, according to the global scientific community.

In a major report released on Monday, the UN’s climate science body found limiting warming to 1.5C, compared to 2C, would spare a vast sweep of people and life on earth from devastating impacts.

To hold warming to this limit, the scientists said unequivocally that carbon pollution must fall to ‘net zero’ in around three decades: a huge and immediate transformation, for which governments have shown little inclination so far.

Small island states

“The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” said Debra Roberts, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) research into the impacts of warming.

The report from the IPCC is a compilation of existing scientific knowledge, distilled into a 33-page summary presented to governments. If and how policymakers respond to it will decide the future of vulnerable communities around the world.

“I have no doubt that historians will look back at these findings as one of the defining moments in the course of human affairs,” the lead climate negotiator for small island states Amjad Abdulla said. “I urge all civilised nations to take responsibility for it by dramatically increasing our efforts to cut the emissions responsible for the crisis.”

What happens in the next few months will impact the future of the Paris Agreement and the global climate

CHN will be there keeping you informed from the inside. If you value our coverage, please consider helping us. Become a CHN patron for as little as $5 per month.We have set up a Patreon account. It’s a simple, safe and easy way for you to become part of a community that will secure and guide our future. Thank you!

Abdulla is from the Maldives. It is estimated that half a billion people in countries like his rely on coral ecosystems for food and tourism. The difference between 1.5C and 2C is the difference between losing 70-90% of coral by 2100 and reefs disappearing completely, the report found.

Small island states were part of a coalition that forced the Paris Agreement to consider both a 1.5C and 2C target. Monday’s report is a response to that dual goal. Science had not clearly defined what would happen at each mark, nor what measures would be necessary to stay at 1.5C.

Absolute alarm

As the report was finalised, the UN secretary general’s special representative on sustainable energy Rachel Kyte praised those governments. “They had the sense of urgency and moral clarity,” she said, adding that they knew “the lives that would hang in the balance between 2[C] and 1.5[C]”.

At 2C, stresses on water supplies and agricultural land, as well as increased exposure to extreme heat and floods, will increase, risking poverty for hundreds of millions, the authors said.

Thousands of plant and animal species would see their liveable habitat cut by more than half. Tropical storms will dump more rain from the Philippines to the Caribbean.

“Everybody heard of what happened to Dominica last year,” Ruenna Hayes, a delegate to the IPCC from St Kitts and Nevis, told Climate Home News. “I cannot describe the level of absolute alarm that this caused not only me personally, but everybody I know.”

Around 65 people died when Hurricane Maria hit the Caribbean island in September 2017, destroying much of it.

Food production

In laying out what needs to be done, the report described a transformed world that will have to be built before babies born today are middle aged. In that world 70-85% of electricity will be produced by renewables.

There will be more nuclear power than today. Gas, burned with carbon capture technology, will still decline steeply to supply just supply 8% of power. Coal plants will be no more. Electric cars will dominate and 35-65% of all transport will be low- or no-emissions.

To pay for this transformation, the world will have invested almost a trillion dollars a year, every year to 2050.

Our relationship to land will be transformed. To stabilise the climate, governments will have deployed vast programmes for sucking carbon from the air.

That will include protecting forests and planting new ones. It may also include growing fuel to be burned, captured and buried beneath the earth. Farms will be the new oil fields. Food production will be squeezed. Profoundly difficult choices will be made between feeding the world and fuelling it.

Net-zero

The report is clear that this world avoids risks compared to one that warms to 2C, but swerves judgement on the likelihood of bringing it into being. That will be for governments, citizens and businesses, not scientists, to decide.

During the next 12 months, two meetings will be held at which governments will be asked to confront the challenge in this report: this year’s UN climate talks in Poland and at a special summit held by UN secretary general Antonio Guterres in September 2019.

The report’s authors were non-committal about the prospects. Jim Skea, a co-chair at the IPCC, said: “Limiting warming to 1.5C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes.”

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a former lead author of the IPCC, said: “If this report doesn’t convince each and every nation that their prosperity and security requires making transformational scientific, technological, political, social and economic changes to reach this monumental goal of staving off some of the worst climate change impacts, then I don’t know what will.”

The scientist have offered a clear prescription: the only way to avoid breaching the 1.5C limit is for humanity to cut its CO2 emissions by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach ‘net-zero’ by around 2050. But global emissions are currently increasing, not falling.

Social change

The EU, one of the most climate progressive of all major economies, aims for a cut of around 30% by 2030 compared to its own 2010 pollution and 77-94% by 2050. It is currently reviewing both targets and says this report will inform the decisions.

If the EU sets a carbon neutral goal for 2050 it will join a growing group of governments seemingly in line with a mid-century end to carbon – including California (2045), Sweden (2045), UK (2050 target under consideration) and New Zealand (2050).

But a fundamental tenet of climate politics is that expectations on nations are defined by their development. If the richest, most progressive economies on earth set the bar at 2045-2050, where will China, India and Latin America end up? If the EU aims for 2050, the report concludes that Africa will need to have the same goal.

Some of the tools needed are available, they just need scaling up. Renewable deployment would need to be six times faster than it is today, said Adnan Z Amin, the director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency. That was “technically feasible and economically attractive”, he added.

Other aspects of the challenge require innovation and social change.

Made public

But just when the world needs to go faster, the political headwinds in some nations are growing. Brazil, home to the world’s largest rainforest, looks increasingly likely to elect the climate sceptic Jair Bolsonaro as president.

The world’s second-largest emitter – the US – immediately distanced itself from the report, issuing a statement that said its approval of the summary “should not be understood as US endorsement of all of the findings and key messages”. It said it still it intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

The summary was adopted by all governments at a closed-door meeting between officials and scientists in Incheon, South Korea that finished on Saturday. The US sought and was granted various changes to the text. Sources said the interventions mostly helped to refine the report. But they also tracked key US interests – for example, a mention of nuclear energy was included.

Sources told CHN that Saudi Arabia fought hard to amend a passage that said investment in fossil fuel extraction would need to fall by 60% between 2015 and 2050. The clause does not appear in the final summary.

But still, according to three sources, the country has lodged a disclaimer with the report, which will not be made public for months. One delegate said it rejected “a very long list of paragraphs in the underlying report and the [summary]”.

This Article

This article was first published at Climate Home News.

Just a week after the announcement came from George W. Bush that the US would renege on Kyoto, the then media-shy NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen (pictured) was invited to speak to Vice President Dick Cheney’s ‘Climate Task Force’.

Hansen took strength from the fact that the task force was manned by a high profile bunch: it was chaired by Cheney himself and included secretaries of state under orders to attend in person rather than send their delegates.

The NASA scientist did not expect to have any friends in the room; Bush’s chief of staff had previously attempted to fire Hanson in 1989 following the scientist alerting media to the fact that the White House had altered his conclusions on global warming – submitted to a hearing convened by the then US senator Al Gore – to make them seem less certain.

Complex science

Nonetheless, it was too good of an opportunity to forfeit for the sake of pride or pessimism. The first meeting fell on Hansen’s 60th birthday. Despite his lifetime of experience, the world’s foremost climate scientist was deeply anxious.

He and the other two scientists presenting were deeply apprehensive about the complexity of the work they had to present to this non-expert audience and spent the minutes before the meeting critiquing the more complicated aspects of their work.

Afterwards, Hansen was pleased. He thought he had gained their attention and had been invited to come to the Task Force again.

But his optimism quickly died when he was escorted from the building. He was told that at the next meeting he would be joined by none other than tobacco lobbyist and dean of climate sceptics Richard Lindzen.

Lindzen, an MIT professor whose career had been made from talking to businessmen and politicians, maintained a cool and authoritative air in the White House. His presentations more closely resembled a lawyer fighting for his client and are anathema to the scientist, whose main aim is to fairly and accurately represent the facts.

But when it comes to communicating with beginners, the former method has the upper hand.

The ‘right’ perspective

Lindzen argued that the climate hegemony kept critical voices “out in the cold” and that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) projections were no better than the Republican/sunspot analyses.

This was what they wanted to hear and, according to Hansen, the Bush–Cheney administration’s policies regarding CO2 appeared to be “based on or, at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzen’s perspective.”

It was three years before Hansen decided to give another public talk. He spent six months preparing to speak to the National Press Club in Washington. Here, he would explain why he planned to vote for Kerry rather than Bush.

But sponsors pulled the funding and, in the end, he delivered the speech to a college audience in Iowa City.

On 26 October 2004, Hansen told the audience: “In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk. 

A mass tree-planting event is being organised by the Mayor of London as part of his plan to help make the capital become a National Park City.

Sadiq has partnered with the Woodland Trust, which will provide 24,000 trees free of charge for Londoners to plant in their gardens, with a further 25,000 trees being offered to community groups and schools across the capital, in partnership with community charity The Conservation Volunteers.

The trees being given away include field maple, birch, hazel and hawthorn saplings, all attractive garden species that are great for wildlife and easy to plant and will be planted over the weekend of Saturday 1 December 2018 to help mark National Tree Week.

Urban forest

London’s trees help improve air quality by removing 2,241 tonnes of pollution from the air every year, and save an estimated 126 million pounds in costs to society associated with pollution. They remove the equivalent of 13 per cent of PM10 particulates and 14 percent of NO2 emitted by road transport, as well as storing carbon and creating habitat for wildlife.

The Mayor is working with partners across London to make the capital a National Park City and as part of this he is committed to maintaining and expanding the capital’s impressive ‘urban forest’ of eight million trees.

Today London’s Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, Shirley Rodrigues, visited the Loughborough Estate in Lambeth, the Woodland Trust to help plant trees in the estate’s new community orchard. The project is run by the estate’s management board and is bringing residents together to plant 32 trees on green spaces around the estate, part funded by the Mayor of London’s Community Tree Planting Grants.

Rodrigues said: “The Mayor is determined to make London one of the greenest cities on the planet and Londoners have the chance to roll up their sleeves and help make this happen by applying for nearly 50,000 free trees.

“Whether it’s in gardens, parks or greening our housing estates, one of the best things we can all do to help make our city greener and healthier is to plant a tree, and I hope as many people as possible will take part in London’s biggest ever tree planting National Park City weekend.”

Social benefits

The 24,000 free trees for Londoners to plant at home are being delivered in partnership with the Woodland Trust and the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, who are supported by Sainsbury’s.

The Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy is an international forest conservation initiative that marks the Queen’s lifetime of service to the Commonwealth and unites the 53 member states in saving and protecting the Earth’s forests.

Woodland Trust Chair, Baroness Young, said “We are delighted to be working with the Mayor of London to offer Londoners the opportunity to strengthen the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy. Trees are at the heart of our community. They add character to our streets, and provide a host of benefits for people, wildlife and our urban environment.

“Urban trees are important for us socially and culturally, they greatly enhance the places where we live and work, raise families, socialise and relax, and from which we draw identity and pride.

“Their stature and beauty make them the defining elements of urban spaces. They cast shade in the heat of summer, provide shelter from the rain and wind, help to keep the air clean and breathable, support wildlife, and add value to the culture and economy of our towns and cities.”

Get involved

Demand for trees is expected to be high so Londoners wanting a tree pack (of two trees to plant at home) have from now until the 5 November to apply, whilst community groups and schools with the space to plant at least 50 trees have until 22 November.

There are plenty of ways for Londoners to get involved in the Mayor’s tree planting:

– Apply by 5 November for free tree packs to plant in gardens. Tree packs will be delivered to successful applicants’ homes by the end of November.

– Organise tree planting events in local communities, by applying for a free pack of 50 trees to brighten up local green spaces and playgrounds. Community groups can apply for up to 50 free trees for their events by going to 

– Volunteering at large-scale National Park City tree planting events on 1st and 2nd December 2018. Trees for Cities will be hosting four large events in North, South, East and West London. Full details of how to register can be found here. 

– You can also access online advice on tree planting including how to plant a tree, where you can plant it and how to care for it. 

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Mayor of London. 

The UK is the hottest it has been for 100 years, average temperatures have increased by 0.8C, and rainfall is up 20 per cent compared with the 30-year period ending in 1990.

New evidence has also shown that climate change driven by humans has made the Europe-wide heatwave experienced this summer ‘twice as likely’ in future.

Scientists have most recently referred to the planet as ‘Hothouse Earth’ – while this may sound like a 1970s rock band, it is in fact a serious concept that means we could soon cross a threshold leading to more extreme temperatures and rising seas in the centuries to come. 

Sustainable development

Environmental charity, Earthwatch Europe, enables science and business to collaborate alongside the government to build resilience and limit climate-related hazards and natural disasters that impact people, the environment and the economy.

A recent report entitled ‘Measuring Up’ revealed for the first time how the UK is performing against its UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), representing the most comprehensive review of the current situation in the UK. Whilst there is a great deal to celebrate, the findings reveal that the most vulnerable people and places in our society are being left behind.

A closer look at the chapter on climate action (SDG 13), authored by Earthwatch, predicts that the UK will experience a number of significant consequences from climate change.

• By 2050, heat-related deaths are due to rise in the UK by 250 per cent, as higher average and extreme temperatures are predicted to impact the UK
• Flooding will increase in both frequency and severity; an estimated 1.8 million people currently live in areas with an annual risk of flooding higher than once in every 75 years and this figure is projected the rise to between 2.6 and 3.3 million people affected by the 2050s
• There are potential risks to food production and the resilience of UK food supply chains, although conflicting views exist on the potential impacts. The UK Food Security Assessment is urgently due for renewal

Of course, the SDGs cannot be achieved by individual organisations or government alone. ‘Measuring Up’reveals the interlinkages between the targets, highlighting the importance of working together, and is designed to help organisations identify where they are having, and could have, an impact. 

The SDGs give businesses a globally accepted and practical definition of sustainable development. Unlike their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs explicitly call on all businesses to apply their creativity and innovation to solve sustainable development challenges. 

Building resilience 

Engaging teams with issues of climate change, as well as proactively embedding sustainable practices across their operations, is key.

Companies that align their priorities with the SDGs are likely to improve trust among stakeholders, strengthen their license to operate, reduce business risks and build resilience to future costs or legislation.

Investing in the achievement of SDGs will strengthen knowledge amongst employees and foster a more skilled and engaged workforce. 

Businesses can create their own opportunities by working with like-minded partners on projects that have a direct impact.  Earthwatch works with a number of corporate partners to help minimise their impact on the natural world.

Its novel programmes use a mixture of science and engagement to connect employees with nature and inspire lasting action to improve the environment, both in and outside of work.

Earthwatch’s research on climate change addresses the need to understand how forests will respond to and take up carbon under a future UK climate. The research, involving over 1,200 participants to date, is taking place at two, unique long-term studies in Oxfordshire and Staffordshire woodlands. 

‘Carbon budget’

Oxford University is partnering with Earthwatch to investigate how carbon uptake in the ancient woodland, Wytham Woods, is responding to variations in climate over a 10-year period.

The project, which is monitoring 12,500 trees, is the only one of its kind in Europe and is investigating how carbon uptake in the woodland responds to medium-term variations in climate, delivering important, detailed information on how the carbon budget of a woodland responds over longer timescales. 

Several droughts throughout the period of the study have revealed how strongly water availability impacts tree growth – particularly that of the ash tree, which is the most common tree in the woodland.

As our summers get drier and older trees begin to succumb to a number of diseases, the likelihood is that the future rate of carbon uptake in this forest – and forests like it – may decline.  Existing global vegetation models are not sufficiently nuanced to take into account the slower growth rates of ageing forests. The study in Wytham is one of the few which has the potential to deliver evidence on this. 

Hands-on science

The hope of the research by Earthwatch in Staffordshire – a study conducted in partnership with the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR) – is to deliver a definitive answer as to whether mature forests will continue to store and take excess carbon that we are releasing into the atmosphere.

It utilises a Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) facility worth fifteen million pounds that raises the carbon dioxide concentration of entire woodland patches using a computer-controlled network of vents set vertically within the tree canopy, which stimulate the conditions predicted for 2050. 

The research within this ‘forest time machine’ in Staffordshire works by examining tree growth rates using fine-scale growth bands, together with investigating changes in rates of leaf litter breakdown on the forest floor.

In addition to undertaking hands-on science, participants learn about the issues that affect the climate and the wider environment.

There is no doubt that building resilience and limiting climate hazards and natural disasters would be strengthened by the UK government taking the opportunity, now, to set clear priorities and strategy for the future.

Collaborative approach

However, key projects like the Earthwatch-led woodland research in Oxfordshire and Staffordshire are only possible because of the collaboration between scientific research and business support.

Business supports these projects through employee participation and data gathering that allows vast quantities of data to be collected that would otherwise be impossible for a small group of researchers.

Earthwatch in turn shares knowledge, learning and experience with employees, ultimately to help business to minimise their impact on the natural world and take the action necessary for a sustainable planet.

Through these partnerships, we develop sustainability leaders, inspire employees to take action and deliver business-relevant science.

Discover how Earthwatch’s immersive learning programmes engage employees and stakeholders of its business partners and learn how your organisation can get involved with Earthwatch on its dedicated employee engagement page.

These Authors

Fiona Franklin is senior corporate development manager at Earthwatch Europe. Alan Jones is research manager at Earthwatch Europe. 

I was one among 50 demonstrators gathered at the Environment Agency (EA) offices in Bristol protesting against their approval of Fracking.

This article explains the reasons for the protest – which took place on 15 September 2018  – and the actions needed from individuals, communities, organisations and government. 

We recognise the EA as a key facilitator of the fracking industry, as it grants ‘environmental’ permits to shale gas companies. 

Severe pollution 

Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is the process of blasting water, sand and a cocktail of chemicals deep underground in order to extract natural gas.

Natural gas is approximately 80 percent methane, a greenhouse gas which is 86 to 105 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at disrupting the climate over a 20-year period.

Fracking is known to pollute the air, water systems, destroy vital wildlife habitat, and has severe socio-economic as well as health repercussions for local communities.

It is banned in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Denmark.

An evidence review published in March 2018 by Concerned Health Professionals of New York concluded that: “Emerging data from a rapidly expanding body of evidence continues to reveal a plethora of recurring problems and harms that cannot be sufficiently averted through regulatory frameworks. There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly or without imperilling climate stability upon which public health depends”. 

‘Nightmarish paradox’

The EA was established by Environment secretary Lord Debden in 1996 “to protect and improve the environment”, and lists “acting to reduce climate change” as one of its core responsibilities.

The EA is a public body sponsored by the government Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). This means that ministers have ultimate authority in setting the direction of the agency, limiting its ability to professionally apply its judgements on environmental matters such as fracking.  

In a nightmarish paradox, it is preparing the country for adapting to the impacts of climate change, whilst simultaneously dishing out permits for onshore oil and gas drilling which will exacerbate the climate crisis.  

Speaking in 2017 at the launch of a report on environmental regulation following Brexit, Debden commented: “Unfortunately, we have emasculated many of our protections. When I set up the EA, I insisted on it being independent, making independent statements and keeping the Government to account. Successive Governments have removed that. It is no longer an independent body but it’s got to become that”. 

Similarly, Lord Chris Smith, chair of the EA from 2008-14, explained the EA’s fundamental duty to provide “high quality impartial advice to the government and also, crucially, to the British public”. 

Breaching regulations

However, Smith explained: “When the coalition government came in, all of that changed. It was made very clear to us that, whilst private impartial advice was still sought and still welcome, it should not under any circumstances be put into the public domain. It was up to ministers to decide what the public should be told, not up to us”.

The independent expertise the EA can offer is desperately needed now more than ever.

Fracking is set to begin imminently at a site in Lancashire called Preston New Road. This will be the first active fracking site in the UK for seven years.

So far the Environment Agency has been called into question over its handling of a range of environmental concerns related to the site. To date, there have been at least six permit breaches in the way waste is managed.

In April this year, the EA was accused by Frack Free Lancashire of allowing Cuadrilla to “move the regulatory goalposts” when it granted changes to their permit, allowing rainwater collected on the site to be treated on site and disposed of into a nearby stream, as opposed to off site.

Cherished forests

This September, the decision was made not to renew a fracking license at Leith Hill, which is situated in historic woodland managed by the Forestry Commission.

DEFRA, acting with the Forestry Commission (a regulatory body set up similarly to the EA), went against the current general government push to increase onshore oil and gas production.

A DEFRA spokesperson said: “The nation’s woods and forests are cherished natural assets and we want to ensure they are protected now and into the future.

“Because of the potential impact on nearby ancient woodland, the Environment Secretary has decided not to extend Europa Oil and Gas’ lease to carry out activity in Forestry Commission land.”

We call on the Environment Agency and its workers to observe this case, to act with impartiality and to take a tougher stance against a reckless fracking industry which threatens our air quality, our water quality and our climate. 

Held to account

We also hold the government to account in supporting the EA to fulfil its duty to the public.

We call on the EA to stop doing everything they can to bring a new fossil fuel industry into being, whilst we experience rapidly escalating climate instability and crises on a local and global scale.

We need action now, not in five or ten year’s time, but today. We must reduce carbon emissions before it is too late (if it isn’t already), and immediately address the industrial pollution of our environment. 

This Author 

Esme North is a fracking protester. 

Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them – and against climate scientists.

Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act – even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.

Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.

But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.

A Rumoured Speech

Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.

Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith later told Newsweek: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”

Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”

The President’s Position

At this, the denial machine set in motion. Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheney in a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”

Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.

“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”

Polluter Pull-Out

Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.

By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.

Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.

Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.

Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.

A briefing note prepared for Paula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.