The Southern African Faith Communities Environmental Institute (SAFCEI) has closely monitored government planning and decision-making on energy procurement, following a 2017 court case that halted the Zuma government’s controversial plan to purchase a fleet of nuclear reactors. 

SAFCEI specifically outlines the need for accountability in nuclear energy planning and procurement in its submission to the Zondo Commission on State Capture, arguing that major energy procurement projects need independent oversight at all stages – pre-procurement, procurement and post-procurement – to prevent further corruption and state capture. 

SAFCEI’s submission contended: “A number of steps and events surrounding the then proposed nuclear new build programme planning and procurement process bear the features of state capture, and need to be investigated.”

Unlawful and unconstitutional

The role played by state actors and individuals warrant further scrutiny and investigation. According to the multi-faith NGO, the secret and highly problematic intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Russia, entered into in 2014 – and made binding without the necessary parliamentary approval – is one crucial example.

The determinations made by the Minister of Energy in 2013 and 2016 that new nuclear energy was required and should be procured, but which were found to have been unlawful and unconstitutional, are further examples.

The 33-page submission further highlights two procurement contracts that were awarded by the Department of Energy (DoE) without following competitive tender processes. These included a R171 million contract for a nuclear build programme management system, and a 3-month contract for advisory services (that quickly escalated from about R21 million to in the region of R100 million).

The submission also makes a number of recommendations, such as the need for a legislative provision requiring affordability and economic viability in energy planning and procurement to be activated.

Transparent, cost-effective and independent systems for energy infrastructure developments are currently lacking. Such systems are critical to protect the public and taxpayers from future large-scale over-expenditure on risky, outdated and expensive technologies such as nuclear, and to limit opportunities for rent-seeking and corruption.

Energy governance

An example of good energy governance is the mechanism created to oversee the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers procurement process, which has attracted over R200 billion investment and created over 35,000 jobs. This approach should be extended across energy procurement.

According to SAFCEI, the budget presented by Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe in July of this year, suggests that the government has not yet dealt with many of the concerns related to energy governance, with nuclear, coal and fracking firmly back on the table. This is despite their cost, both in real monetary terms and to the environment and communities.

Francesca de Gasparis, SAFCEI’s Executive Director, said: “Nuclear energy is the wrong policy decision for South Africa. It fails dismally as a just energy choice, particularly since it is unable to reach the two million rural households who have no access to the centralised grid.

“The government’s National Development Plan (NDP) to electrify rural households cannot be realised through a nuclear energy future. Rather, this goal will only be achievable and affordable by providing decentralised renewable energy for rural homesteads.”

This Author

Natasha Adonis is a communications consultant working predominantly with various NGO’s and civic organisations. She was part of the team who brought much-needed publicity on the SA Government’s secret nuclear deal – through the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), Earthlife-Africa JHB and the Heinrich Boell Foundation. Natasha is now also working with the Campaign for a Just Energy Future.

Image: Vladimir Putin with Jacob Zuma, President of the South African Republic from 2009-2018. Source: President of Russia. 

This week the heads of state of the economies that comprise the Group of 7 (the ‘G7’) gather in France to discuss the critical issues of our time – with the stated focus of fighting inequality.

The group first came together in the 1970s to find a collective solution to the oil crisis that was destabilizing economies worldwide. Since their first meeting, the leaders of the G7 have met annually to confront the economic challenges that bind us.

This G7 gathering could be historic, if they take the bold and swift action required to tackle inequality, as well as the climate emergency, and to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

Critical

As we brace ourselves for another financial crisis, inequality between and amongst countries continues to grow exponentially, breeding social and political unrest worldwide.

Within many of the G7 countries, affluence is not breeding happy and healthy societies but lonely and anxious ones. The global balance of power is shifting from nation states to Multinational Corporations threatening the very democratic principles that bind the G7 countries. All while the rapid rate of biodiversity loss and climate change threaten our very existence.

These existential issues cannot be solved by any single country alone. They are a product of a global economic system that desperately needs to be reformed. The G7 countries represent over half of global economic wealth and still have the power to change this system. Tinkering with exchange rates and select tax policies will not cut it.

We need our leaders to be brave at this critical juncture in history when the world is splintering, and to realize there is far more that binds us than divides us.

History

My new paper, published today by The Wellbeing Economy Alliance, offers 7 Ideas for the G7 in the spirit of hope and a belief that a more just and sustainable economy is not only possible, but a few strategic decisions away:

1.  Adopt alternative progress indicators to GDP:

Global obsession with Gross Domestic Product as a progress indicator has resulted in widespread confusion between means and ends. The G7 should abandon the objective of GDP growth and agree to focus on achieving real economic objectives that matter most to citizens.

2. Reform international economic organizations to promote wellbeing economies:

Perhaps no one has suffered more deeply from our dubious notion of progress than the global south. The G7 should work to reform the international economic organizations to encourage locally-oriented, context-appropriate economic development practices. We must abandon the idea that development or progress is a one-way street and create space for experimentation to identify systems of production and provision that can bring wellbeing to all. 

3. Binding code of conduct for multinational corporations (MNCs):

For too long, the global economy has allowed multinational corporations to accumulate unprecedented wealth and power, leading to a “race to the bottom” amongst countries to adopt the lowest environmental, labour and tax standards to attract or appease these global giants. A binding code of conduct would create greater space for upholding democratic governance of economies, and ensure more ethical production practices worldwide.

4. Global Competition Regulation:

Every sector in the global economy is dominated a handful of corporations. MNC controlled supply chains now account for over 80% of global trade each year. This level of economic conglomeration is economically unsustainable and ethically unacceptable. We need global competition regulation to minimize risk and ensure more equitable and balanced business development worldwide.

5. Create citizens wealth funds:

The rise of new technologies has created new wealth, much of it reliant on public funding for education and research. The G7 should recognize that technological development must benefit society as a whole and not just the select few – which requires a new tax and redistribution system. Through a windfall tax on technological breakthroughs G7 countries could develop Citizen Wealth Funds at the country level to fund universal basic income, public services and infrastructure development.

6. Ban and redistribute all off-shore bank account funds:

Due to lack of global economic coordination and oversight, it is now estimated that at least 10% of the world’s GDP is held in offshore bank accounts. We need an official ban of all off-shore banking, with the G7 using their collective intelligence to extract all money currently held within these institutions and put it directly into a “global citizens wealth fund” to combat climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. 

7. Financial Transaction Tax (Tobin Tax or ‘Robin Hood’ tax):

Global financial markets now move at lightning speed, generating immense wealth and at the same time universal vulnerabilities. France and Germany have been pushing for a global financial transaction tax at the G7 but have not succeeded in gaining substantial traction. This policy agenda would tax international financial transactions, particularly speculative currency exchange transactions, reducing financial volatility and raising billions to combat the global crises of our time.

These bold ideas are fully feasible given the wealth and power of the G7 countries. During World War II, the Army Corp of Engineer’s had a motto: “the difficult we do immediately, the impossible will take a little while.”

There are moments in history when paradigms shift. We are at this moment and if the G7 promotes these policies, we would be well on our way to achieving the “impossible”:  a global economic system that ensures we all live long and healthy lives in harmony with our natural environment.

This Author

Amanda Janoo is an economic policy expert and advisor to governments and international development organisations. Her work aims to enhance the capacities of governments to craft goal-oriented economic policies for a more just and sustainable world.

A close ally of Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been criticised for failing to publicly speak out during a trip to Brazil about the damage being wreaked upon the Amazon rainforest by wildfires.

Labour’s Barry Gardiner accused Trade Minister Conor Burns of “cosying up” to pro-deforestation ministers while on government business, and said he should instead have been calling on the country’s right-wing leadership to do “everything they can to protect the rainforest”.

Brazilian federal experts reported a record number of wildfires across the country this year – up 84 percent over the same period in 2018 – and environmental agencies have pointed the finger at the country’s government.

Far-right

Mr Burns posted on social media images of him drinking champagne with Brazilian minister Marcos Troyjo, who has backed President Jair Bolsonaro’s policy of deforestation of the Amazon.

The Conservative MP for Bournemouth West called Mr Troyjo “superb” after meeting him to discuss “increasing trade and prosperity” between Britain and Brazil.

The Department for International Trade said Mr Burns, who is currently in Chile, had “raised environmental concerns in every meeting he has been in” since arriving in South America.

Shadow trade secretary Mr Gardiner said: “While Bolsonaro lets agribusinesses burn theAmazon, this week a UK Government minister has been busy cosying up to the Brazilian President’s officials.

“Instead of posing for photographs with far-right Brazilian politicians, ministers should be calling on Brazil to do everything they can to protect the rainforest.

Escalated

“The government must insist that Brazil honours environmental clauses in existing trade agreements and fulfils their commitments under the Paris Agreement.”

Amnesty International blamed the Brazilian government for the fires, which have escalated international concern over the vast rainforest that is a major absorber of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Brazil contains about 60% of the Amazon rainforest, whose degradation could have severe consequences for global climate and rainfall.

There has been a public outcry, including from politicians, environmental agencies and celebrities, about the record number of forest fires in Brazil this summer.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called the wildfires an international crisis and said the leaders of the G7 group of nations should hold urgent discussions about them during their summit in Biarritz, France, this weekend.

Support

Mr Macron tweeted: “Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire.”

The likes of singer Madonna, footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and Formula 1 champion Lewis Hamilton have spoken out about the fires raging in the rainforest.

The British racing car driver said: “More than a soccer field is being destroyed every minute everyday, the world needs to come together and help.”

A Government spokesman said: “We are deeply saddened by the increase in fires in theAmazon rainforest. The impact of the tragic loss of these precious habitats will be felt around the world.

“The UK remains committed to protecting the world’s rainforests and will continue to do so in Brazil through our International Climate Finance programmes.

“In meetings with the Brazilian government, Minister Conor Burns raised the UK’s commitment to environmental protection and offered support to Brazil in the transition to renewable energy and a lower carbon economy.”

This Author

Patrick Daly is the PA political correspondent. 

British Muslims are being urged to take action on climate change, as a study suggests that rising temperatures will make pilgrimages to Mecca hazardous to human health.

Aid agency Islamic Relief UK is urging the Muslim community in the UK to become leaders in the fight to curb dangerous global warming, and put pressure on politicians to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The call comes as a new study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and in California warned that global warming poses an increasing risk to people’s health while they are on pilgrimage to Mecca.

Extreme

The Hajj, one of the five pillars of Muslim faith, takes place outdoors in and surrounding Mecca in the Saudi Arabian desert, and all Muslims are expected to take part at least once in their life, if their health and finances allow.

The annual religious event, whose timings shift each year because it is based on the lunar calendar, involves spending around 20 to 30 hours outdoors over a period of five days.

In a study published in the journal Geophysical Review Letters, researchers warn that rising global temperatures could push up heat and humidity in the region to the extent that people face “extreme danger” from harmful health effects when the Hajj takes place in the hottest summer months.

Unfavourable

Risks could already be serious this year and next year, and worsening over the century when the Hajj takes place again in the hottest summer months from 2047 to 2052 and from 2079 to 2086, the researchers warn.

Thresholds where heat and humidity pose a danger to human health are likely to be exceeded with or without action to curb global warming, but the situation will be more severe if nothing is done, they said.

Elfatih Eltahir, the civil and environmental engineer who led the research, said: “When the Hajj happens in summer, you can imagine, with climate change and increasing heat-stress levels, conditions could be unfavourable for outdoor activity.

Evident

“Hajj is the largest gathering of Muslims in the world. We are trying to bring in the perspective of what climate change could do to such large-scale outdoor activity.”

Tufail Hussain, director of Islamic Relief UK, said the research showed it was “now or never” to take up the fight against climate change, which is already one of the greatest threats to the people the aid agency supports.

“With the threat of catastrophic global heating becoming more evident each year, Islamic Relief UK is calling on the British Muslim community to take action before it is too late.

Zero

“It is time for the Muslim community to become the leaders in the fight, with not just countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan under threat now, but increasingly the holy site of Mecca.

“If we don’t act now, not only will people suffer the impact of more frequent and intense disasters, but our children born from today will no longer be able to perform the sacred duty of Hajj.”

The charity is encouraging people to call on their MPs to urge immediate moves by the government to bring in policies to reduce climate change, and push for action for the UK to reach “net zero” emissions by 2045 or before.

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Conservationists have hailed a “big win” for threatened giraffes as countries agreed to protect the African animals from unregulated trade.

Giraffes are facing what has been described as a “silent extinction”, with numbers falling by up to 40 percent over the last 30 years, wildlife experts said.

Threats to the world’s tallest land mammal include trade in their body parts, as well as habitat loss, illegal hunting and civil war, leaving the species vulnerable to extinction and some subspecies critically endangered.

Conservation

Countries meeting for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) have now voted to regulate the trade in products from giraffes such as hides, bones and meat.

The proposal from the Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Senegal to list giraffes in Appendix II of the Convention will not stop all trade in parts of the animals.

But conservationists said it will ensure trade is not contributing to further population declines and will provide data on the trade from around the world.

Previously the only data on the trade in giraffes has come from the US, which reported almost 40,000 giraffe items traded in a decade from 2006 to 2015 – showing trade is an issue for the species, experts said.

Matt Collis, director of international policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) and head of the organisation’s delegation at Cites, said: “This is a big conservation win for giraffes.

Iconic

“It was vital that this species was listed by Cites because up to now it has been impossible to say for certain how much of the giraffe’s huge population decline is due to trade.”

He added: “Listing on Appendix II is an important step in regulating trade in giraffes, preventing any illegal and unsustainable trade and helping to safeguard this iconic species for future generations.”

Adam Peyman, Humane Society International’s wildlife programmes and operations manager, said: “Securing Cites Appendix II protection for the giraffe throws a vital lifeline to this majestic species, which has been going quietly extinct for years.

“This listing could not come soon enough. Cites listing will ensure that giraffe parts in international trade were legally acquired and not detrimental to the survival of the species.”

International environment minister Zac Goldsmith said: “I am absolutely delighted by the decision to increase protection for giraffes around the world.”

“This is a very important step towards reducing the threat faced by these noble and iconic animals. I pay tribute to our own negotiators who made the case so firmly.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

The shipping industry is integral to our daily lives, but transporting goods from one side of the planet to the other burns a lot of fossil fuels and releases a lot of greenhouse gasses.

The industry as a whole isn’t as green as it could be, but that is changing. What new technologies are emerging that are helping the shipping industry reduce their emissions?

Maritime transport alone emits more than 940 million metric tons of CO2 every year, or about 2.5% of the planet’s total emissions.

Spectroscopy

The shipping industry is also growing exponentially, and if nothing changes, those emissions could increase between 50 percent and 250 percent between now and 2050. This would effectively undermine the Paris Climate Agreement, but the solution isn’t as simple as reducing maritime shipping.

International shipping carries around 90 percent of the world’s trade, and the majority of that is shipped by sea.

Reducing shipping would jeopardise more than a million jobs in 150 countries, not to mention the cost in trade impacts. How can the shipping industry reduce their carbon footprint without cutting back on shipments?

New technology is emerging that could provide part of the answer. Marine Emissions Sensors can continually monitor the amount of NO, NO2, SO2, and NH3 in a ship’s exhaust, allowing the shipowner to make changes to comply with local and international emissions laws.

These sensors use UV absorption spectroscopy, beaming UV light into the exhaust and measuring how much the light is absorbed. From there, the ship’s computer compares the readings with a library of chemical fingerprints, allowing it to determine how much of each gas is in the ship’s exhaust.

Blame

This isn’t a foolproof solution, but it is the first technology of it’s kind. It could also pave the way for emissions scrubbers and catalytic reduction systems that could work to reduce the number of greenhouse gasses generated by these massive transport ships.

The shipping industry is an international one. There are tens of thousands of ships on the ocean at any given time, with company owners and employees from 150 countries or more. This also means that there’s a lot of blame trading going on because no one wants to take responsibility for the emissions that the industry as a whole generates.

It’s not as simple as holding a single owner or company to task for the emissions of their ship. A single ship can find itself attached to a dozen companies or more — the one that built it, the ones that own it and the ones that operate it.

They carry cargo for hundreds or thousands of different companies and has picked up crew in a dozen different countries from a dozen different staffing agencies.

How do you assign blame when the shipping industry is so wide and varied, and so many people have their fingers in the proverbial pie? The answer is that you can’t, so you start making changes by hitting them where it hurts — in the wallet.

Energy-efficient

Money is currently the world’s best motivation, and major banks are hoping that it will convince shipping companies to take steps to lower their CO2 emissions.

As of June 2019, 11 major banks have updated their borrowing criteria for shipping companies to include climate impact.

The banks are basing their new requirements on the International Maritime Organization’s climate commitment. In 2019, the IMO committed to reducing their overall CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, and each ship’s individual emissions by 40% in the same time period.

Dubbed the “Poseidon Principles” this lending framework is the first of it’s kind. Together, these 11 banks represent 20 percent of the industry’s financial portfolio, or roughly $100 billion. More banks are expected to join in this crusade in the next few months.

As the maritime shipping industry continues to grow, it will need more ships. These lending rules will hopefully serve to ensure that the new ships are created to be cleaner and more energy-efficient than those of the past.

The shipping industry isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and is expected to continue to grow into 2050 and beyond. With new borrowing polices and new emissions technology on the horizon, we might be able to turn one of the world’s biggest industries into the greenest in the next few decades.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

The shipping industry is integral to our daily lives, but transporting goods from one side of the planet to the other burns a lot of fossil fuels and releases a lot of greenhouse gasses.

The industry as a whole isn’t as green as it could be, but that is changing. What new technologies are emerging that are helping the shipping industry reduce their emissions?

Maritime transport alone emits more than 940 million metric tons of CO2 every year, or about 2.5% of the planet’s total emissions.

Spectroscopy

The shipping industry is also growing exponentially, and if nothing changes, those emissions could increase between 50 percent and 250 percent between now and 2050. This would effectively undermine the Paris Climate Agreement, but the solution isn’t as simple as reducing maritime shipping.

International shipping carries around 90 percent of the world’s trade, and the majority of that is shipped by sea.

Reducing shipping would jeopardise more than a million jobs in 150 countries, not to mention the cost in trade impacts. How can the shipping industry reduce their carbon footprint without cutting back on shipments?

New technology is emerging that could provide part of the answer. Marine Emissions Sensors can continually monitor the amount of NO, NO2, SO2, and NH3 in a ship’s exhaust, allowing the shipowner to make changes to comply with local and international emissions laws.

These sensors use UV absorption spectroscopy, beaming UV light into the exhaust and measuring how much the light is absorbed. From there, the ship’s computer compares the readings with a library of chemical fingerprints, allowing it to determine how much of each gas is in the ship’s exhaust.

Blame

This isn’t a foolproof solution, but it is the first technology of it’s kind. It could also pave the way for emissions scrubbers and catalytic reduction systems that could work to reduce the number of greenhouse gasses generated by these massive transport ships.

The shipping industry is an international one. There are tens of thousands of ships on the ocean at any given time, with company owners and employees from 150 countries or more. This also means that there’s a lot of blame trading going on because no one wants to take responsibility for the emissions that the industry as a whole generates.

It’s not as simple as holding a single owner or company to task for the emissions of their ship. A single ship can find itself attached to a dozen companies or more — the one that built it, the ones that own it and the ones that operate it.

They carry cargo for hundreds or thousands of different companies and has picked up crew in a dozen different countries from a dozen different staffing agencies.

How do you assign blame when the shipping industry is so wide and varied, and so many people have their fingers in the proverbial pie? The answer is that you can’t, so you start making changes by hitting them where it hurts — in the wallet.

Energy-efficient

Money is currently the world’s best motivation, and major banks are hoping that it will convince shipping companies to take steps to lower their CO2 emissions.

As of June 2019, 11 major banks have updated their borrowing criteria for shipping companies to include climate impact.

The banks are basing their new requirements on the International Maritime Organization’s climate commitment. In 2019, the IMO committed to reducing their overall CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, and each ship’s individual emissions by 40% in the same time period.

Dubbed the “Poseidon Principles” this lending framework is the first of it’s kind. Together, these 11 banks represent 20 percent of the industry’s financial portfolio, or roughly $100 billion. More banks are expected to join in this crusade in the next few months.

As the maritime shipping industry continues to grow, it will need more ships. These lending rules will hopefully serve to ensure that the new ships are created to be cleaner and more energy-efficient than those of the past.

The shipping industry isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and is expected to continue to grow into 2050 and beyond. With new borrowing polices and new emissions technology on the horizon, we might be able to turn one of the world’s biggest industries into the greenest in the next few decades.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

Every day heralds a news story about what we should be doing to fight climate change: we’ve got to cut down on buying new clothes. Ditch dairy. Stop flying.

This kind of ‘climate spring’ has seen Extinction Rebellion protests and scheduled school walkouts force the public to wake up to the realities of climate change at last.

But none of this goes far enough. Putting the sole responsibility for dealing with an environmental apocalypse on individuals misses the point entirely.

Social justice 

There are loads of ways to ‘go green’ that will all go some way to reducing your carbon footprint. The Guardian recently revealed that “even a short-haul return flight from London to Edinburgh [is] contributing more CO2 than the mean annual emissions of a person in Uganda or Somalia”.

If we want real, sustainable, industrial change however, we need government intervention.

Climate change disproportionately affects lower income communities and people of colour, which is why we need a Green New Deal (GND). 

The GND is a set of goals created to tackle the climate crisis by putting social justice at the centre of policy making. It will create secure, well-paid jobs as well as providing a huge amount of investment in renewable energies and energy efficiency measures.

Over in the States, Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has been whipping up momentum around a US Green New Deal – it’s set to be one of the core issues of the 2020 presidential election.

Green jobs

The American model is based on the New Deal of the 1930s, which focussed on America’s recovery after the Great Depression. Our version is inspired by that, but focussed on the current climate emergency.

On this side of the Atlantic, we can tackle climate change best by reviving Europe’s economy and addressing gender, economic and social inequalities.

A Green New Deal will kick-start the economy by ending austerity, via a commitment to the biggest investment we have ever seen in renewable energy. Employment and job creation is absolutely fundamental to fighting climate change, which is why I sit on the employment and environmental committees in Brussels.

Growing up in 80s Liverpool, I saw UK-based industries collapse with no safety net for skilled workers whose families have been working in the same areas for generations. A Green New Deal could undo some of that damage, injecting life into areas of the UK which feel abandoned and let down by their leaders.

Investing in these jobs means setting up for the future – we need more innovation, more jobs, more money going into clean and safe energy and efficient building, not less.

Poverty

By putting jobs at the forefront of the discussion around climate change, we can do things like ensure that vulnerable members of society live in properly insulated housing. Something as simple as investing in effective insulation would create more jobs and ensure that fewer people have to stay in accommodation that is too hot or cold for a good standard of living.

Successive governments have failed our communities, who have been left voiceless and ignored. Many can’t get onto the housing ladder, struggling to put food on the table and take home less than they would if they didn’t work.

In-work poverty has creates a dependence on food banks for thousands. People are left to decide whether to eat or heat their homes, as fuel and food prices increase.

It’s completely predictable that communities have turned inwards, looking for easy scapegoats to blame for the situations that they have been put in.

But by putting people and their futures at the centre of the Green New Deal, we can turn society around by injecting newfound hope and optimism into people’s lives. And, crucially, we can act on the worst impacts of the climate crisis – before it really is too late.

This Author 

Alexandra Phillips is a Green MEP for the South-East Region of the UK. 

An earthquake measuring 1.6 on the Richter scale has led to Cuadrilla halting fracking operations in Lancashire, less than a week after resuming. Earthquake regulations are in place to protect the safety of local communities.

In 60 days of fracking last year, there were 57 earthquakes in Lancashire. Green group Friends of the Earth is calling for the controversial industry to be banned.

Jamie Peters, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s obvious that fracking can’t be done without triggering earthquakes. This latest quake is a sign that Cuadrilla just can’t stick within the regulations they agreed.  Even  small vibrations  at ground level  can  be the  sign of far more damaging impacts deep underground.

Weakening regulations

Peters continued: “ Earthquake regulations must be maintained for the safety of local communities. 52 seismic events in just 6 days of fracking and now the biggest earthquake at the site clearly underlines that this is absolutely not the time to start weakening regulations. 

“Fracking just isn’t part of the future if the government is serious about avoiding climate breakdown, in fact it defies belief that the oil and gas industry think they are part of a response to climate change. It’s time to ban climate-wrecking fracking and back renewable energy and green jobs instead.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. 

Image: Marianne Van Loo, Flickr. 

Fracking has been stopped at the UK’s only shale gas exploration site after the largest-ever tremor was recorded atthe facility, according to energy firm Cuadrilla.

The Labour Party and environmental campaigners have renewed calls for fracking to be banned following what Cuadrilla called a “micro seismic event” at their site near Blackpool, which registered at 1.55 on the Richter scale.

Fracking was paused there on Wednesday evening for a minimum of 18 hours, althoughthe company have said they expect operations not to resume until Friday at the earliest.

Tremors

Most people who live near the Preston New Road facility would not have noticed the movement, which would have felt similar to someone dropping a large bag of shopping onthe floor, a Cuadrilla spokesman said.

“Minor movements of this level are to be expected and are way below anything that can cause harm or damage to anyone or their property,” he said, adding that the “integrity” of the site has been confirmed by regulators.

In response to the latest incident, shadow business secretary Rebecca Long Bailey called for the practice to be banned, saying fracking causes air and water pollution and contributes towards climate change.

Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth claimed that in 60 days of fracking last year there were 57 tremors in Lancashire.

Controversial

It is “obvious” that fracking cannot be carried out without triggering earthquakes, according to Jamie Peters, a campaigner for the organisation. He added: “Even small vibrations at ground level can be the sign of far more damaging impacts deep underground.”

The Government has argued that the extraction of shale gas through fracking could support the UK’s transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The movement, recorded at 8:46pm on Wednesday, was stronger than a 1.5-magnitude tremor which halted work at the shale site in December.

Both of these are considered “red events” under the traffic light system for monitoring seismic events during fracking, and pausing work for 18 hours is the routine response for any tremor over 0.5.

A number of tremors have been detected at the site since the controversial fracking operation began in October last year.

This Author

Tom Horton is a reporter with PA.