Skip to content or view screen version

greenpeace target climate changer Blair at Downing Street

Hugh Warwick | 14.11.2005 14:53

At 0715 this morning (14th november) around 50 greenpeace activists delivered tonnes of coal to Downing Street - blocking 3 of the 4 entrances. A 4th lorry was stopped by police.

Tony's not leaving by this door
Tony's not leaving by this door

activists reveal climate crime scene
activists reveal climate crime scene


This is the text of the greenpeace press release - details from:
 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

This morning we sent a reminder to Tony Blair of his commitment to tackle climate change - several tonnes of coal.

Greenpeace volunteers blockaded three entrances to Downing Street as Tony Blair rows back on his commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. In a series of statements in recent weeks the Prime Minister has cast doubt on his long-term support for the global agreement, while British emissions of carbon-dioxide have risen since he came to power.

At 7.30am a truck emblazoned with the slogan 'Blair - Climate Failure' arrived at the Horse Guard's Road entrance to Mr Blair's residence. Greenpeace representatives informed police officers what they were about to do before the vehicle tipped several tonnes of coal in front of the gates. Simultaneously 50 Greenpeace volunteers emptied sacks of the polluting fuel across the King Charles Street entrance and the access point on Horse Guards parade. A tipper truck with 14 tonnes of coal, emblazoned with the slogan 'Things Can Only Get Wetter' which was destined for the Whitehall entrance was stopped by police.

One of the volunteers, Stephen Tindale, a former environment advisor to New Labour and now the executive director of Greenpeace, said:

"We've blockaded Downing Street with coal because Tony Blair has failed on climate change. We hope he clears his diary and spends the day in his office working to strengthen Kyoto and cut British emissions, because so far all he's done is make speeches. They told us things can only get better, but Blair's burning more coal than ever, our CO2 emissions have gone up, he's set to miss his own global warming targets and now it seems he's trying to kill off the Kyoto Protocol."

Tony Blair's climate crimes include:

* Failed to reduce CO2 emissions - carbon-dioxide emissions have gone up since Blair became PM in 1997
* Sacrificed the climate in the face of industry lobbying - Blair is taking the EU to court after it prevented him from increasing the amount of CO2 British industry is allowed to emit
* Subsidised and supported coal, the most polluting of all fuels - Britain burns 7.5% more coal now than it did in 1997, simply because it is cheaper than (less polluting) gas
* Failed to stem the flow of wasted energy haemorrhaging from UK buildings
* Failed to end the scandalous waste of energy from the UK electricity generation and distribution system
* Instructed airports to expand despite the facts that aviation is a major contributor to climate change
* Failed to halt the growth in greenhouse gas emissions from traffic and embarked on a new road building program - while Ken Livingstone tackles emissions from transport the PM encourages car use
* Weakened international policies to tackle climate change - opponents of tough global emissions targets have welcomed Blair's recent statements

Negotiations for the second phase of Kyoto are set to begin in Montreal this month, but the Prime Minister has indicated he doesn't support the tough new climate change targets the agreement is designed to eventually deliver. In a speech this month Blair said: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge." Lord May, President of the Royal Society, responded last week by saying: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that countries are not doing enough to adapt their economies so that they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

The United Kingdom is one of those countries. Greenpeace's Stephen Tindale said:

"Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year, hundreds of species are threatened with extinction and entire island states could disappear under water. We're facing a climate catastrophe, but Blair's back-tracking. He needs to act, and soon. He could cut emissions by burning less coal, getting right behind renewable energy schemes, dropping airport expansion plans, making cars use less fuel and making Britain's buildings more energy efficient."

Hugh Warwick
- e-mail: hedgehoghugh@hotmail.com

Comments

Hide the following 18 comments

Is that so?

14.11.2005 17:26

There have always been dramatic climate changes.
Greenpeace most often present things which scientists deem to be nothing else than loose theories and hypothetical scenarios as solid facts.
What a disdain of scientific research and rational thought Greenpeace are displaying!

Greenpeace have always been doing this.
Let's take the example of the whales. The only reason the Greenpeace so energetically have been shouting "Save the whales" for decades is that the whales are viewed as beautiful, majestic creatures by ordinary people and because of this are suitable attention magnets for fund raising.
The kinds of whales that men hunt are not among the endangered species of the earth. Nor are any seals, but just like we are fascinated by the whales, few people can emotionally resist the image of a puppy seal staring back at us with big, appealing eyes.
In several cities in the West, men are threatening to make city dwelling rats extinct. Will Greenpeace soon launch a "Save the rats" campaign in consequence of this?
I bet not.

Speaking about whales, I was amused to found out that in Norway, a country highly repected in the field of international struggle for peace, enviromental protection and human rights (like all scandinavian countries), decided to start serving whale meat in the lunch canteen of the norwegian parliament as a protest to Greenpeace "save the whales" campaign. As I remeber things, also, the head of norwegian Greenpeace resiged in protest of the unscientific propaganda of Greenpeace.

I'm not saying there is no risk of global warming, cfc connected ozone depletion or other possible threats. My quest here on Indymedia is only that of restoring the respect for scientific research and debate and of the scientific process in general. Greenpeace, just like many journalists simplify exessively just because of their interest of causing sensation and fear. In the case of the whale hype, they even serve us plain lies.
Intellectual honesty is very rare among journalists, astrologists, new age healers, gaians and enviromental activists. Don't let THEM tell you what is scientifically proven or not. Instead, check out the scientific sources and rely on your own ability of rational thinking instead of trusting these putative authorities.

Futhermore, If we really wish to do everything possible to do in order to limit alleged global heating caused by man, one thing we should investigate is the possibility of replacing fossile energy sources with nuclear power.
There are today more reliable ways of reducing the hazards involved with atomic energy than there ever has been. However, an aspect often overlooked is that of LOCATION.
Today most nuclear power plants are located close to major urban areas.
There are by all means alternatives to this. For instance, Europe and Russia could together finance the construction of several, ultra modern nuclear power plants in the northern, uninhabitated parts of Russia. If anything, despite the reliability of today's nuclear technology, would go wrong, we wouldn't have another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl at our hands. The distance would be much greater. Of course, there's not a lot of people that wish to live and work in that part of the world, but if the pay and the amount of spare time are generous, it would be just as easy getting necessary manpower for such a project as it is getting people to work on offshore oil rigs.
Of course a nuclear catastrophe in a place like northern Siberia would cause damage to the LOCAL enviroment. But you never can avoid such problems completely. Every day, hundreds of birds die when flying straight into wind power stations...

Intellectual


greenpeace buy use fossil fuels to complain about fossil fuels

14.11.2005 18:19

Well what a show, bet what you did was spectacular to see.

Coal though means dirt and is dirty fuel, as you are protesting
the use of fossil fuels what would you have dumped differently which could
have highlighted the more useful options that need hjighlighting
instead of the less useful fuel options?

Blocades are ineffective in getting your point across, do not ask others
to behave, show them how it can be - how about planting trees at Whitehall?
Look forward to seeing what happens next time.

Peace
(PS: Upgrading is a wonderful thing)

waywdladuntrak


nuclear lies - life cycles and carbon emissions

14.11.2005 20:37

hey, "intellectual"...

I'm sure some loyal Greenpeace member will post something defending the organisation's use of science - suffice it to say that you seem starngely silent on the issue of whether anyone else makes misleading use of scientific data!

Since you like science, though, make sure you take a proper look at the claims of the nuclear industry to be our saviour on climate change. Try this for starters (yes OK it's from the Guardian, October 20th, but you can as I did look up the original report they cite and check it for yourself)...




"... Production of nuclear electricity is not carbon free, because the production of nuclear fuel for these reactors is significantly energy intensive. While it is true that most nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 at the point of generation, reactors are a small part of the nuclear fuel cycle, which emits large amounts of CO2. These arise from the so-called front end of the fuel cycle - uranium mining, ore milling, uranium hexafluoride conversion, fuel enrichment and, finally, fabrication of the fuel rods. Moreover, nuclear waste management at the "back end" is already energy hungry in treatment, conditioning, transportation and final disposal in some future repository (if ministers ever give the green light).

Thus life-cycle analyses are essential to assess the true impact of the entire processes. A number of such studies have examined CO2 emissions - commonly expressed as CO2 equivalents per kWh - for different methods of producing electricity. The most comprehensive model has been created by the Öko Institut, which advises the German environment ministry, and by Professors Smith and Van Leeuwen at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands.

Both studies conclude that the nuclear fuel cycle can emit relatively large amounts of CO2. The lower the uranium concentration in ore, the more CO2 generated; and as a means of enrichment, gas diffusion was much more energy intensive - and thus CO2 emitting - than centrifuge separation.

Using sensible assumptions, Professors Smith and Van Leeuwen determined that nuclear generation produced about a third as much CO2 per kWh as conventional mid-sized gas-fired electricity generation.

As several papers made clear when presented to the World Nuclear Association's annual symposium last month, the industry will increasingly have to rely on poorer-quality uranium ores, and thus CO2 emissions from the nuclear cycle will increase. Öko's analysis shows that nuclear CO2 emissions are up to four or five times greater than those from renewables. ..."

another intellectual


well done

14.11.2005 21:20

Now, as one knows I'm no big fan of BINGOs such as Greenpap, but this time I have to give them a clap for showing initiative and bravery. Just like the brave men who died in the Falklands so I could get re-elected, the boys and girls in this action have shown admirable courage and commitment to take on something this big at the gates of Downing Street itself. Especially considering all the terror laws my faithful heirs have put in place to clamp down on all sorts of protest.

So a resounding applause for these people having taken on such a important stand and taking it directly to the people standing in their way in an excellent and inspiring action. Climate chaos is coming and there is no Red Peril to whip up the masses into ignoring the reality of the situation so we must confront it straight on. Mr Bliar has already mislead us in Gleneagles, he is doing the same when he mouths pleasantries on climate change while the greasy fingers of BP, Shell and co stick up his arse and manipulate his mouth.

Keep it up. We are well pleased.

Yours
Thaggy Matcher

Matcher Thaggy


From one intellectual to another..

14.11.2005 22:45

I see no reason to doubt the information you've presented.
There sure exists energy sources that are even more ecological and enviromentally safe, even i terms of CO2 emissions, than a perfectly functioning nuclear power plant located in northern Siberia would be. Solar power for instance.
However, if one ought to take the whole production process into account in the case of nuclear power, wouldn't it be correct to do so also in, especially, the case of oil or coal? Just think of the distrubution process of oil products to households, which is diesel consuming etc, etc

My opinion is that many enviromental groups are refusing to even take nuclear power into consideration as a way of reducing global CO2 emissions, mainly because many of the leaders of these organisations are veterans from the good old 70's and 80's when nuclear technology in general was seen as the prime threat to man as well as his enviroment. Tradition seems to be of more importance than the need for sensible risk analysis.



Intellectual


Intellectual?

14.11.2005 23:46

.

Gobshite!


Coal?

15.11.2005 01:10

Coal? Isn't that the stuff dug out of the ground by our brave and valiant miners who were so rudely interfered with by that nasty Mrs Thatcher? Did not the left bitterly oppose the closing of mines? Doesn't that nice Mr Scargill want to keep mining going in Britain? And did I not hear that awfully nice chap Mr Galloway on Question Time recently saying that we should have more coal fired power stations? And getting a round of applause for it? Or have I got it all wrong?

sceptic


?

15.11.2005 01:26

?

?


Yeah...and stop farting

15.11.2005 02:51

Let's plug Blair's arsehole.

Me, Thane


analysis

15.11.2005 11:03

Yes, the left supported the miners, in those 'good old days' when resisting the nationalisation of the police and the crushing of the unionised working class was stage one in halting globalisation. As an eco-worrier, I've taken part in anti-open-cast mining protests even though it meant working with Mrs Scargill and thus in theory supporting deep mines as opposed to their much more environmentally destructive alternatives.

Interesting, that Greenpeace UK (as you point out, a well funded money-raising organisation with some eco-warrior vanguardism for spectacular disempowerment of the ordinary citizen on the side) were not all arrested for breaching SOCA. Presumably the future of 'legitimate protest' is thus revealed: uniformed, embedded and spectacular photo-opportunities for the purpose of raising money for multi-million pound organisations. Way to go.

Got the issue in the news though, as did Bono-Geldof plc in their Oxfam-Brown-MPH public relations campaign.

Let's occupy the media, for fuck's sake, unless we want the only way to get a message to the public to be engaging with embedded protest in an expensive PR exercise.

someone


I hadn't realised the police had been privatised.

15.11.2005 13:33

And the relevance of the miners' strike to globalisation does seem a little remote.

I suspect globalisation was not an issue in 1982.

sceptic


analysis?

15.11.2005 22:20

Your challenge is as follows. You have to stop catastrophic climate change now. You are probably already too late, but you might as well try. You could work with Greenpeace, who in halting the production lines at Land Rover, has had at least an effect in reducing CO2 emissions, because increasing Land Rover's costs and damaging the image of 4x4s has a measurable impact. Or you could work in some other way to prevent ecological suicide. I don't care. But before criticising Greenpeace I'd like to hear how you personally are going to stop the shit from hitting the fan. If you don't like working with NGOs, and you have no good excuse for doubting the scientific consensus on the scale of the threat from climate change, you really need to have a good alternative plan B.

GPer


Greanpeace.

16.11.2005 17:06

Greenpeace activists dumping coal on Blairs doorstep…wonderful news, well apart from the fact that Greenpeace had 4 trucks dumping the coal.

Think of the pollution from the four trucks dumping the coal. Or were these trucks modified for the day by using bio-degradable chip pan fat for the sake of this stunt and are to be turned back into raging polluting machines at the end of the day to go back to wherever they came from?

Bit of a contradiction in joined up thinking is it not? So now Greenpeace are fighting pollution whilst polluting the world themselves!

You just couldn't make it up!

Danny Bhoy


Yeah GreenPiss will save the world

16.11.2005 23:59


The feel good factor for the radical chic gaurdian readers will be hitting the top of the dial after this little
PR stunt and with only 38 shopping days till christmas Greenpiss will be hoping to flog loads of crap to the average punters, look out for dodgy anarcho types selling hard core rainbow wankers T shirts

World Wildlife Fraud


hi-lairy-ous

17.11.2005 08:41

It's great you have so much time both to 'subvertise' the logos of those nasty NGOs and to criticise them. I've no problem with that, because if you have that much time to spent pushing pixels in Photoshop you must have a much better plan than Greenpeace for preventing catastrophic climate change. What are you doing about it? Please do share it with us.

ps gnashing teeth and wailing does not count. Neither does saying what other people should do about it. Neither does ignoring the scientific evidence, unless you've got a great theory about why that's all made up too.

GPer


Wanna buy a T shirt ?

17.11.2005 10:46


Nope no solutions no deals and plenty of time to waste slagging off the likes of greenpiss.
T shirts are 7 Colour and come in S.M.L. XL on Yellow Hanes 185 gram cost 15 euro .
Not exactly the sort of thing that your radical chic gaurdian reader is in for, some what
anti feel good factor, but I can assure you that squatty punk types are well made up.
Can't tell you where to buy them as that would be advertising and IMC aint up 4 it.

The only good thing that I can say about greenpeace is that they, unlike the WWF weren't founded by arch arse holeprins bernard of NL, ex Nazi, ex I G farben and president of Bilderberg from 1954 till 1976 and his tiger
hunting buddy Phil the Greek (HRH!) so at least your not the worst of a bad bunch and i am being polite by
not mentionning your links to M15 and thhe like whoooops now there I go .....

World Wildlife Fraud


Info on climate change and a reply to 'intelectual'

17.11.2005 11:28

Dear 'intellectual',

You are almost entirely incorrect: the magnitude and rate of change of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is outside anything over the past 400,000 years on Earth. This century climate change will rival the major events in earths history, reaching levels not seen for 20 million or even 60 million years (without major societal changes). Yes the climate has always changed, but almost certainly never this fast.

I suspect you are not clear about the science of climate change, nor the speed at which new information is being generated. There is now broad scientific concensus that humans are causing climatic changes, broadly what they are (rising temperatures, more instense 'extreme weather events', rising sea levels, biodiversity shifts). Moreover, it is the uncertainties that are terrifying. Cutting-edge scientific studies suggest a 10 degrees C rise in average air temperatures this century is possible, as is the 'turning off' of the 'gulf stream (technically the Thermo-Haline Circulation), the die-back of the Amazon rainforest, and more.

Unfortunately, the scientific information is so alarming that there really is no need for greenpeace to exagerrate and make it up. They, like other NGOs are probably undertating the threats and changes required. More radical groups like Rising Tide have more 'realistic' undertandings of the issues (scientific, social and ecological in a holistic fashion).

There is simple clear information on climate change,

Try,

IPCC 2001. Climate Change: the scientific basis. and the accompanying 'sysnthesis' report.

downloadable from: www.ipcc.ch/

More worrying and up-to-date information is at:

Schellnhuber, J. 2005 Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.

much of the info is at www.stabilisation2005.com

Then the debate need not be about the science, as the basics are understood.

One the case of nuclear power. This is a non-starter, as apart from anything else there is not enough uranium on earth to use as the raw material to globally switch to nuclear power. The famous James Lovelock case, was only talking about bringing UK emissions down, and the same solution could not apply globally, despite global solutions being necessary.

One the case of Whales. 'Intellectual' posts: "The kinds of whales that men hunt are not among the endangered species of the earth.". This is incorrect if one considers the appropriate timescale. Humans hunted whales to either extinction or near-extinction for economic gain, so they went for the biggest first, moving species over time, to smaller and smaller ones. But this all started a long time ago, so only the smaller commoner things are left now. So the near-extinction of most big species and the current ban on hunting, means that those who still hunt Whales have to go for smaller commoner species, but it is a product of human historical exploitation not current benevolence.

I'm all for more solid thoughtful informartion on indymedia. Intelectuals post, unfortunately, was the usual indymedia 'rant'.

scientist


GO GREENPISS!

17.11.2005 23:24

FORZA FORZA FORZA FORZA FORZA!

Matthew Edwards
mail e-mail: matthewedwards999@yahoo.co.uk