...... I have been involved in ongoing dialogue with Blue NG (on behalf of the eco-activist group I am with - which is grass roots and predominantly anarchist)vand have been able to find remarkably little worth campaigning against them on at the moment. Many of the 'facts' contained within critical research documents surrounding BlueNG are easy to contradict.
Now, I'm NOT NOT NOT standing up for blueNG. I think biofeuls are fundementally bad, but Blue NG have, amongst other things comitted to using 100% UK grown crops, many of which would come from 'break crop' fields, where the land would not be used for growing otherwise.
I personally suspect that this is bollocks, and that their claims are based on greenwash or naivete, but they have signed legally binding contracts about UK grown crops and have taken a strong public stance against importing biofeul crops including palm oil and have erred on the critical side of jatophra. This means - for the time being - we have to take them at their word. We can't really do too much until we catch them out importing crops.

Once again - I feel that there will be a time for a strong campaign against Blue NG, but as at the moment, they appear to be the best of a bad bunch.

W4B however are proud users or biofuels, and a company with a strong track record of easily unspinnable greenwash and a callous disregard for people, animals and planet. Their head offices are fairly near Bath at -

W4B (UK) Ltd reg no is 06989949
Reg Office The Old Bakery
High Street
Pitton
Salisbury
Wilts SP5 1DQ


While I wouldn't totally condemn this action, It is to me a bit like smashing up the LibDem HQ, but leaving the BNP HQ next door untouched (e.g - I think the LibDems are full of shit, but would you really call them worse than the BNP?). Why go for the company with the least amount of dirt when there are loads out there that barely even try to conceal their planet trashing ways?

I know that Blue NG may have a new powerplant on the way, but if we attack in haste, we risk missing out some critical facts before we attack. Like the old army saying goes - 'first to go, last to know'!

See for example  http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/MonoculturesLeaflet.pdf

Land in the UK is scarce, so adding to demand for UK rapeseed mostly means that more palm and soya oils have to be imported to replace the rapeseed taken away from other applications.

Look how expensive vegetable oil is in your supermarket compared with 4 years ago. Farmers have plenty of incentive to use rapeseed already as a break crop. There was a famous surge in land prices and arable farmers' fortunes 3-4 years ago with the then food shock and since, vegetable oil prices have fallen slightly but not to track the price of diesel at all. Even to the small extent adding to demand for rapeseed oil leads to more intensive farming at home, that also means worse total ghg emissions than petroleum - see Crutzen et al.'s work published online, as well as less refuge for wildlife and more (non-renewable) fertilizer use. But mostly the added demand translates into more imports of soya and palm oil, some readjustment so there are more imports of other crop commodities, and more hungry bellies in the 3rd world. I.e. total effect much worse than the equivalent petroleum.

(1) Where is your evidence that BNG have "signed legally binding contracts about UK grown crops"? That is an ambiguous statement anyway. See www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/blue_ng_factsheet130409.pdf (paragraph 5)

(2) Who cares if they are only using UK grown crops? Increase UK agriculture is bad for UK wildlife. It also means food companies have to source more from the tropics.

(3) BNG also show a "callous disregard for people": by building power stations in some of the worst polluted parts of the UK where incidence of pollution-related health problems is high and where there is strong local objection to the plans.

1) Where is your evidence that BNG have "signed legally binding contracts about UK grown crops"? That is an ambiguous statement anyway. See www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/blue_ng_factsheet130409.pdf (paragraph 5)

Yes - that is the same biofuelwatch document that we relied on for a press release about blueng to our local rag - a press release we had to retract about half of because the claims we easily refuted by BlueNG (and I have since cross checked those claims, and while much of the biofuelswatch report is good, there are some glaring errors including stating that Blue NG refused to rule out palm oil - something they have done. Part of the planning aplications for their powerplants contains the stipulation about UK grown crops.


(2) Who cares if they are only using UK grown crops? Increase UK agriculture is bad for UK wildlife. It also means food companies have to source more from the tropics.

No it doesn't - they say they are only using break crop land - land which is tradidionally left empty inbetween seasons of typically profitable crops, so it would mean no extra food import.

(3) BNG also show a "callous disregard for people": by building power stations in some of the worst polluted parts of the UK where incidence of pollution-related health problems is high and where there is strong local objection to the plans.

Yeah - this is a fair point. I'm not in this to stand up for blueng - quite the opposite, but I just think while they at the moment appear to have facts on their side on several of the key points contained in the attackers comminique which can be refuted by the company. When they have not publicly slipped up yet, and we have no proof of what we suspect their business will be like, we just come across like conspiracy theorists. We are already regarded with scepticism by much of the populace - I think we need hard facts and evidence before we attack. Something we do not have for BlueNG - yet.

And while they are far from ethical, I still don't get why we are attacking the company with the strongest environmental record amongst hundreds of similar companies that make no secret of their massive palm oil use etc.