TL: GREENPEACE BUSINESS (GP) SO: Greenpeace International DT: June 1992 Keywords: digests greenpeace groups gp / CONTENTS CFC production and Greenpeace presence dominate ICI AGM Greenpeace commissions CFC-free fridge Campaign against ICI paints and pharmaceuticals begins to bite Wood worm specialist pioneers the zero chemical approach Campaigners halt toxic waste trade in Germany, UK and the Ukraine Lukewarm European interest in Waste Management International Body Shop goes fossil free--Major wind park investment announced Campaigners address OPEC meeting The energy pollution tax - A missed opportunity? News Briefs A false sense of environmental security THE UK and European business community may be heaving sighs of relief on the environmental front. A superficial analysis of recent events gives a distinct impression that the "green heat" is off. To ensure President Bush's attendance at the Earth Summit, currently taking place in Rio, the climate convention has been reduced to an almost empty shell. Prime Minister Major's legislative agenda for the next 18 months does not include a Green Bill and the long awaited UK Environmental Protection Agency has been put on hold. But the reality is more complicated. A recent survey of companies in Northern England (see page 8) clearly shows that many firms who have been pressed by environmental groups are feeling the discomfort of unrelenting legislative and regulatory initiatives. Another company representative lamented that the environmental industry was now moving down a tougher regulatory/legislative path - and he mourned the fact that it was not heading toward the more congenial, consultative Health & Safety Executive approach. The Department of Environment (see page 8) is coming out with suggested methods of behaviour which would be helpful in solving our air pollution problems - and could also be extremely costly for the car/oil industry as well as DIY product manufacturers. As the scientific evidence from a wide body of respected sources continues to accumulate, these "suggestions" will turn to legislation and regulation - from the UK and the European Community. The threat of a depleting ozone layer has now become widely accepted as an unwelcome fact of life. Peoples desire to get a sun tan has already led to increases in skin cancer from Scotland to Australia. Ozone depletion will add to this problem. Australians and New Zealanders have totally altered their sun tanning habits, and the Montreal Protocol meeting in the autumn may well tighten deadlines for the elimination of CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals. During a recession, companies may cry "lower profits" as a means to lobby for "NO CHANGE". However, the accumulated abuse of the land, air and sea cannot be ignored. As the incidence of environmentally induced health problems mount, those companies who continue to hide behind their short term bottom line profit requirements will soon find their own corporate health in peril. CFC production and Greenpeace presence dominate ICI AGM Sir Denys Henderson, ICI's Chairman, spent 40% of his AGM speech defending ICI's environmental record and CFC production in particular. GREENPEACE attended ICI's AGM on May 1st at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London. The following is a report of what happened - and the reaction from shareholders, directors and the press. If an alien visitor to the UK had attended last month's Annual General Meeting of ICI, they could have easily reached the conclusion that this was a gathering of over 400 shareholders of a company preoccupied with the environmental effects of CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs). If this same alien had read the following day's newspaper reports, their "distorted" views would have been confirmed. The four paragraph report in The Times led with a picture of Greenpeace demonstrators and included only one sentence on ICI's general business outlook. The rest was entirely devoted to Greenpeace campaigning activities and views on CFC production and ICI's response. The pattern was similar in the FT, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph. Of course, as we all know, ICI is the largest chemical company in the UK, with a 1991 turnover of œ12.48bn and before tax profits of œ843m. They operate in over 140 countries and are considered the most important industrial company in Great Britain. And yet, Sir Denys Henderson, ICI's Chairman, spent 40% of his AGM speech defending ICI's environmental record and CFC production in particular. The AGM showed that while ICI remains responsible for extensive environmental damage, no amount of corporate PR will protect it from criticism or attack. GREENPEACE AT THE AGM Why focus on ICI? Green peace campaigns to save the ozone layer. It is now scientifically acknowledged by US, UK and European scientific groups (see Greenpeace Business No. 6) that CFCs and other ODCs are the major cause of the thinning of the ozone layer. ICI is a major producer of ODCs and has been targeted by Greenpeace as a major damaging influence on the environment. As shareholders arrived at the Royal Lancaster, they were handed information leaflets on ICI's CFC production history and attitudes. Eighty Greenpeace supporters wearing white suits, sun bloc cream and sunglasses, and holding signs stating "ICI Still Destroying the Ozone Layer", sat in front of the hotel. They acted as a powerful reminder to shareholders and directors of the health damage which can be caused by ozone layer depletion - and their responsibility for the potential increase in cancer, eye cataracts and other illnesses. During the meeting, Greenpeace representatives played tape recorded messages on ozone damage, health effects and ICI's ODC production. These messages were played on three separate occasions. During the meeting, one shareholder commented on Greenpeace supporters outside the hotel as "white rubbish sacks". It was interesting to note that three ICI directors (Mr WG Kiep, Sir Jeremy Morse and Mr RC Hampel) smiled smugly at this remark. But another shareholder complained that peaceful protestors making a serious statement about the environment should not be belittled. Sir Denys Henderson himself acknowledged the gravity of the Greenpeace message. During his speech, Sir Denys made one significant departure from previous entrenched ICI attitudes on the protection of their CFC profit base. For the first time, ICI called on the UK government "to quantify the use of CFCs in the UK and the extent to which this demand can be met by recycling rather than from existing production". Until now, ICI has been quite happy to work hand in glove with the UK government who have not pushed for earlier phase outs of CFCs. It now appears that continuous Greenpeace pressure on this issue has led ICI to ask for support on the issue. DISRUPTION OR ENLIGHTENMENT? The take home lesson for ICI and any other company who continues to act in ways which are environmentally damaging is clear. "Greenpeace will be unrelenting in pursuit of what is right for the environment and will continue to expose the activities of ICI to their management, their shareholders, their customers and the general public." said Tracy Heslop, Greenpeace ozone campaigner. Greenpeace's presence at the AGM forced ICI directors and managers to focus once again on their CFC production activities and the damaging consequences. They must realise that attempts to create a public image of being "environmentally sound" are not acceptable. Business as usual is simply not possible on this issue. And that goes for CFC users as well as other producers. Any company involved in CFC production or use, marine pollution activities or contributors to global warming must be put on alert. Companies cannot run annual meetings without discussing environmental issues and acknowledging their responsibilities in these areas. Attendance at AGMs can be habit forming. Greenpeace has now drawn up a list of companies whose shareholders, directors, managers (and the press, of course) might also benefit from their presence at their next annual meeting. IN A MAJOR "solutions-oriented" breakthrough, Greenpeace has successfully commissioned the production of the first CFC-free domestic refrigerator from scientists at the South Bank Polytechnic in London. The new fridge uses propane as the refrigerant and insulation foam blown with carbon dioxide instead of CFCs. Preliminary tests show an improvement in energy efficiency which could be further improved with design changes. The production of the Greenpeace fridge is a significant technology achievement. Most of the research and testing now being undertaken by CFC producers and refrigeration manufacturers requires the use of HCFCs and HFCs. However, the scientific evidence from US, UK and European organisations has shown that these "alternatives" to CFCs will continue to act as ozone depleters and powerful global warming gases. The Greenpeace fridge has the distinct advantage of using ingredients which are neither powerful global warming gases nor ozone depleters. In addition, propane is about 50 times cheaper than HFC 134a. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES Refrigeration and air conditioning is now the largest sector of CFC use in the UK. In 1989, 9,700 tonnes of CFCs were used in refrigeration and air conditioning, accounting for 31% of CFC use in the UK. As part of the Greenpeace search for "positive solutions" to the growing ozone hole, a report has been compiled on Alternative Technologies to Refrigeration and Air Conditioning*. The report looks at a number of alternatives to CFCs in refrigeration. POSITIVE SOLUTIONS Greenpeace continues to campaign against the manufacture and use of CFCs and related ozone destroying chemicals. It is now taking further steps by providing practical alternatives for those companies who feel that their specific business - i.e. refrigeration and air conditioning - require continuing CFC and HCFC use. This notion has been perpetrated by CFC and HCFC producers such as ICI as a way of maintaining their profitable lock on the refrigeration industry. There are alternatives to CFCs and they can be produced on a mass scale. It only takes one manufacturer to take the initiative, obtain a competitive advantage against their business competitors - and to reap the financial and economic rewards. Environmental kudos will follow. In its continuing dialogue with Prime Minister Major and his cabinet, Greenpeace has written to Michael Heseltine, President of the Board of Trade, seeking a meeting to discuss the CFC-free fridge findings and other alternatives to ozone depleting substances. *"Alternative Technologies to Refrigeration and Air Conditioning", a 14 page Greenpeace Briefing, is available from Mary Morrison at Greenpeace. For details on the Greenpeace Fridge, contact John Missenden at the South Bank Polytechnic on 071 928 8989. GREENPEACE has expanded its campaign against ICI - one of Europe's largest producers of ozone destroying chemicals - by focusing on some of their successful products including Dulux paint and pharmaceuticals. Greenpeace supporters throughout the UK staged protest meetings in over 200 high streets during April-asking the general public to sign a petition and to stop buying Dulux brand paint until ICI stop their production of CFCs. The high street displays included giant posters of the famous Dulux Dog and information leaflets on the threat of European ozone depletion - and ICI's contribution as a major European manufacturer of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. The response of the general public was very positive - showing a high level of awareness of the problem and a real desire to join in the campaign. Many asked what other ICI products were on the market. There was a massive demand for the 40,000 information leaflets produced and supplies soon ran out. The local supporter group actions received extensive coverage in local newspapers throughout the country and produced petitions with thousands of signatures. Those who signed felt our objectives were sensible and vowed not to buy Dulux paints until ICI took on a more responsible attitude. Throughout April, Greenpeace supporters sent postcards to Mr HM Scopes, Chief Executive Officer, ICI Paints, stating that they would not buy Dulux paints until ICI stopped destroying the ozone layer. Mr Scopes responded by writing a letter stating that "CFCs were not used in the production of Dulux paint" (not something that Greenpeace had suggested!). Anonymous sources within ICI reported that the Dulux protest was causing panic in the corridors of ICI Paints in Slough. At the same time, Greenpeace has been writing to doctors asking them to stop prescribing ICI pharmaceuticals and to purchase generic or other comparable drugs where appropriate. So far 432 doctors have agreed to prescribe alternative drugs and hundreds more doctors have written letters to David Friend, Head of Pharmaceuticals Division, expressing their concern at ICI's role in the production of ozone destroying chemicals. Greenpeace commissions CFC-free fridge There are alternatives to CFCs and they can be produced on a mass scale. It only takes one manufacturer to take the initiative, obtain a competitive advantage against their business competitors and to reap the financial and economic rewards. Campaign against ICI paints and pharmaceuticals begins to bite The local supporter group actions received extensive coverage in local newspapers throughout the country and produced petitions with thousands of signatures. Woodworm specialist pioneers the zero chemical approach Renlon has been pioneering a "Zero Chemical Approach" to their house inspection and treatment policy. These moves have put them on a collision course with the rest of their industry. *NB The Renlon article has been written to show the potential for clean production activities which can have a positive financial impact on a company. Green peace does not endorse or promote the products or processes of any company. A SUBSCRIBER recently wrote to Greenpeace Business complimenting the newsletter on some articles, but pointing out that we rarely praised companies who were taking positive steps to clean up their operations. In fact, Greenpeace campaigners are working with UNEP and the EC on clean production initiatives and have compiled case studies which demonstrate that clean production is economically viable. The following is a UK example of how moves toward "clean production" - against the entrenched interests of the wood worm treatment industry - can make profits and turn companies into market leaders. The Renlon Group, a privately owned building service company involved in the timber preservation field, may not be totally "pure". But, it is taking courageous, innovative steps in an industry notorious for its indifference to environmental and health problems. Renlon is thinking and acting along the lines of "clean production" in trying to develop a zero chemical approach to their operation to minimise the use of hazardous and toxic chemicals in its specialist products. The wood worm treatment industry is well-known for its use of hazardous chemicals such as dieldrin (now banned), lindane, PCP and TBTO and their heavy use of solvents. Employees have suffered terrible health problems. The 37-strong council of the industries trade association - "The British Wood Preserving and Damp-Proofing Association"- includes 18 representatives from chemical manufacturers and major chemical distributors. Initiatives which attempt to do away completely with chemicals, directly threaten their profitable grip on the industry. The London Hazards Centre (LHC) confirms that the chemical manufacturing industry is extremely powerful. They also have a number of representatives on Health and Safety Advisory Committees, which ensure that new non-chemical standards are not adopted. It is not in their business interests to explore alternatives to extensive chemical use in wood preservatives. LHC have also published a book "Toxic Treatments" on the subject of timber preservation, which includes the names of the major manufacturers involved in the wood treatment business: Rentokil and Hickson Timber. Last March, The Sunday Times reported that Rentokil, a household name in pest control, had paid a family œ20,000 after their 16 year old boy had become ill and died allegedly as a result of the chemicals, including lindane, used in the wood worm treatment of their home. THE RENLON APPROACH According to Renlon Managing Director, Adam Clutterbuck, the company has implemented a number of initiatives that have had beneficial effects on the environment - and saved money for the firm. These include: ù Not using aromatic solvents at all in their wood worm treatment product ù Reusing and recycling their plastic containers, which are not made of pvc ù Using wood worm treatment liquids with a very low risk to health and which currently do not require a classification from the Health and Safety Executive. More importantly, Renlon has been pioneering a "Zero Chemical Approach" to their house inspection and treatment policy. These moves have put them on a collision course with the rest of their industry who are more interested in fighting legislative moves which threaten to reduce the quantities of toxic chemicals and solvents used in the wood worm treatment business. * Together with research organisations and professional scientific bodies, an agreement has been signed with Oxford University to develop a "wood worm trapping" system which would monitor the existence of insects, thus eliminating requirements for spraying at all in many cases. This concept has worked previously in pest control, but would be revolutionary in the building maintenance industry. Instead of treating an entire house, Renlon will advise and implement spot usage of wood worm treatment with the minimum use of chemicals. However, Renlon is the first to admit that it is not completely green. It commissioned a Lloyds Register environmental audit which was completed in November 1991 - and still have more to do. But Renlon is open about its actions and committed to looking at their business operation from a completely new angle moving toward clean production and a Zero Chemical Approach. For details, contact: Adam Clutterbuck, Renlon Group on 081-542 9875. WHILE the EC Commission continues to dither on whether to approve a more stringent regulation limiting the transnational shipments of toxic waste, Greenpeace have notched up a number of recent successes. Toxic shipments from Germany to Egypt, and from Australia to the UK have been identified and thwarted - thanks, in part, to local outcries and government tipoffs and support. In March, a ship (Cito) carrying shredded car parts and car batteries from Germany was turned away by Egyptian authorities after a tip off from Green peace and The Dutch Ministry of Environment. One month later, the Cito was initially refused re- entry into the German port of Emden. The German company who had organised the transfer of waste to Egypt was Taurus Umwelteknik. Green peace campaigners also discovered a potato storage facility in Germany where Taurus had stockpiled 4,500 canisters and bags of old pesticides intended for shipment to Africa. Taurus had informed international clients that they had transport and disposal capacity for 20,000 tonnes of waste in Egypt in 1992. Responding to the Greenpeace "potato storage" discovery, German Minister of the Environment, Klaus Topfer urged tougher action against illegal waste exports and tougher penalties. He also stated that because of the dilatory action of the EC, Germany would now strive to implement the more stringent waste export controls agreed in the Basel Convention in 1989. Greenpeace Germany also discovered hundreds of barrels of outdated paints and solvents in a warehouse near Kassel, Germany which were destined to be used as fuel in Rumania for an incinerator which did not exist. Closer to home, a proposal to ship toxic waste from Australia earmarked for one of three UK sites has been postponed pending a decision by the Federal Government of Australia, after local people in the UK sent their protests to the Australian authorities. The 1,200 tonnes of stockpiled PCBs and pesticides was destined for either Cleanaway's facilities at Ellesmere Port, or the Rechem incinerators in Pontypool or Southampton. Two attempts to dump hazardous waste from Bavaria in the Ukraine were halted by Polish authorities. Another scheme involving German toxic metal residues to pave roads and airstrips in the Ukraine was also stopped. "Poland has now banned the import of hazardous waste even for recycling processes" stated Polish Environment Inspectorate official Mr. Wojciech Swiatek. But we need the introduction of both import and export bans from the European Community to enforce such a ban, he concluded. The message to industrial users should be clear by now. Start thinking about ways you can alter your manufacturing processes to use less toxic materials and produce less toxic waste. (See story on Renlon, page 4). Not only will it save you money, but it will also save you the time and energy of looking for a way to dispose of these hazardous chemicals - or the public embarrassment of having Greenpeace reveal that your company ships waste abroad. Regardless of whether the EC tightens its regulations on the transnational shipment of toxic waste, Greenpeace will continue to campaign against these activities and will use its international network of campaigners, supporters and government contacts to ensure any movement of toxic waste is publicly identified and stopped. TWO MONTHS ago, Greenpeace warned City investors about the activities of Waste Management Inc (WM). Although the subsequent offer for sale of shares in its subsidiary, Waste Management International (WMI), on April 9th was publicised as a major success, sources in "the square mile" tell a different story. Apparently, the Greenpeace Report on WM, combined with the recession and the election uncertainty, cost WMI 20p on their share price. More interestingly, the shares were not taken up by as many European and UK funds as had been anticipated. In the end, US investors took up the slack. Greenpeace has heard that WMI is now looking throughout Europe for incineration sites - especially in areas with little or no environmental opposition. It is thought that they are less keen on UK sites given the active network of local organisations opposed to new incineration sites, and the strong feeling throughout Britain about the dumping and incineration of wastes. Two toxic waste incinerator applications have recently been refused planning permission in the UK (Leigh Environmental at Trafford Park and Doncaster) and Dupont has voluntarily agreed to withdraw its plans for a mass incinerator in Derry, Northern Ireland. But ITC and Cory Environmental are awaiting decisions on three other applications in Teesside and Tyneside. Newly elected Labour MP Peter Mandelson has come out against any form of toxic waste industry in the Cleveland area. Meanwhile, Caird is still awaiting a decision on its planned incinerator site in Renfrew, near Glasgow. Whether WMI will try and buy an existing company, such as Shanks & McEwan, remains to be seen. Campaigners halt toxic waste trade Toxic shipments from Germany to Egypt, and from Australia to the UK have been identified and thwarted thanks, in part, to local outcries and government tipoffs and support. Lukewarm City interest in WMI Apparently, the Greenpeace Report on WM, combined with the recession and the election uncertainty, cost WMI 20p on their share price. Body Shop invests in wind park The Body Shop investment is a statement that fossil free energy is already a reality. ON MAY 26th Anita Roddick, head of The Body Shop, surprised the British media by announcing a substantial investment in wind power. In an exclusive interview with Greenpeace Business she said "We are looking forward to a time when we will no longer be dependent on polluting fossil fuels or nuclear power. We want to play our part right now in stabilising and reducing carbon dioxide emissions". The aim is to become self-sufficient in non-polluting sources of energy, and the first step will be a joint venture with National Wind Power (NWP). NWP is 50% owned by National Power, 25% by British Aerospace, and 25% by Taylor Woodrow. The Body Shop will invest in a wind park which will generate the equivalent amount of non-polluting electricity as it currently consumes. The investment is estimated to be worth several million pounds over the next 6 years. A 1991 energy audit by March Consultants estimated that the company is responsible for 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year in its shops, vehicles and head office. Various energy efficiency investments to reduce energy demand have followed. Environmental Affairs Manager, David Wheeler, formerly of the Robens Institute, was thought to have been influential in selling the idea of a major investment in renewable energy to the Body Shop board. Greenpeace calculations suggest a wind park of 20 to 25 medium sized 300 kilowatt machines will be required. Why a joint venture with the country's largest utility, and one hardly renowned for environmentally friendly activity in the past? Roddick stresses that they talked to a number of companies before making their decision. Most were "unable to match our immediate requirements. National Wind Power are already committed to significant amounts of wind capacity however; and despite their past record, they have a strong commitment to improving their environmental performance". Insiders believe that Body Shop hope to encourage pro-renewable forces within National Power, and by making wind power a success, they will help other companies indirectly. A site for the wind park was yet to be announced. Anita Roddick emphasised that the wind power investment is not green tokenism. "Our investment is a statement that fossil free energy is already a reality" she told Greenpeace Business. "It is both a personal commitment to put our own house in order and, yes, a political statement - the Government and the British business community needs to do the same". The Body Shop's announcement comes at a critical time for Britain's fledgling renewable energy industry. With the European Commission likely to grant renewable energy projects ten year rolling contracts under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), it gives the industry a much needed boost. One City investment analyst said "where the Body Shop go, others tend to follow in a few years". By that reckoning, the next ten years could see a rapid increase in companies going 'fossil free' through direct investments in renewable energy. Campaigners address OPEC meeting - stop producing oil The Greenpeace message to oil producers focused on the need to reduce CO2 emissions by taking energy saving measures and reducing the use of private vehicles. FOR THE first time ever, a Greenpeace speaker was invited to address the main session of an Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting in Vienna in April. The invitation was offered after Greenpeace campaigners had hung a "map of the world polluted by oil" banner over the OPEC headquarters stating "OPEC - Stop Global Warming". Pictures and film footage of the direct action were shown worldwide (including in The Financial Times) and resulted in OPEC's offer for Greenpeace to address OPEC officials and delegates at their first conference on the environment. The Greenpeace message to oil producers focused on the need to halt global warming by increasing our worldwide focus on energy saving measures, reduction of CO2 emissions and a substantial reduction in the use of private vehicles. The response from OPEC members and delegates was quite negative - insular, and bunker-like, seeking and giving each other reassurance in spite of mounting scientific evidence to the contrary. Many felt that global warming was only a theory and that it was human nature to drive cars. The official papers presented were selected to satisfy the view that global warming was not a threat and that no debate on the subject was necessary. The intertwined relationship between the oil and transport industries was exemplified by the comments from John Shiller of Ford who stated that traffic congestion was a measure of advancing civilisation and should be encouraged. "The public don't want small cars, so we won't give them," he concluded. John Mitchell, a special advisor to the MD of BP UK stated that the major strategic objective was the protection of the oil industry. Those countries with gas resources see opportunities in this area, but will be combatting countries such as Saudi Arabia who have no gas production capabilities. Green peace representatives from a number of European offices were involved in the OPEC action. Campaigners will continue to focus on the oil industry, its relationship to the transport question and the need to change and decrease our energy consumption. For details, contact: Paul Horsman on 071-354 5100 THE environment, the Earth Summit and the UK economy will all suffer as a result of the failure to secure agreement on practical measures to tackle carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of the greenhouse effect which threatens to destabilise the global climate. The problem started with the failure of May's climate convention negotiations in New York. The convention that was signed does not bind the parties to any action by any date, and merely expresses the desirability of "limiting emissions" and the "aim" of stabilisation. As the leader of the US delegation, reporting his 'success' in a letter to the House of Representatives, describes it, "...there are two key paragraphs and neither binds the United States to specific commitments of any kind." Lobbyists from US and multinational businesses sustained extraordinary pressure on the US delegation throughout the talks. Since 1988, when climate change first reached the political agenda, the White House has consistently championed the view that the US economy should not be subjected to any controls on its voracious appetite for fossil fuels. The failure in New York led to an immediate weakening of the EC policy on dealing with carbon emissions. An energy pollution tax (see Greenpeace Business 4) was to be an integral component of the Community's strategy to achieve its modest target of returning CO2 emissions to the 1990 level by 2000. Implementation of the tax will now be conditional on the US and Japan also implementing a tax - something that is so far from actually happening that the EC plan may be effectively derailed. UK industry vociferously opposed the tax. A recent House of Lords inquiry into the energy pollution tax proposal took evidence from a number of UK businesses as well as the CBI and Institute of Directors. Though the extent and basis of opposition to the tax varied, a number of themes emerged in the evidence: UNCERTAINTIES OVER THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. These were dealt with authoritatively by Sir John Houghton of the UK Met Office and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science working group. Commenting on the strengthening of the scientific consensus, while acknowledging the uncertainties, he says "activity since the first Scientific Assessment in 1990 has served, in general, to give added confidence to the findings of the first report". In 1990, the IPCC said a world-wide 60% cut in carbon emissions would be needed to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2. This statement of what is actually required contrasts markedly with the political failure to agree merely to stabilise emissions at the 1990 level. THE EFFECT ON COMPETITIVENESS WOULD BE TOO SEVERE. This fails to recognise the positive potential for the tax. The tax would have created a revenue of up to œ8 billion in the UK - depending on the extent of exemptions. The tax is consistent with the concept that the polluter should pay and the inclusion of environmental pollution costs in business accounting costs (via the tax in this case) will lead to a more efficient allocation of resources in the economy. What was missing from the evidence was recognition that the tax revenues would be spent elsewhere in the economy. Many less polluting businesses would have gained from this and, had the money been carefully directed, the UK economy may have been able to enhance its competitiveness in the projected œ140 billion 'environmental products' market. There was virtually no debate over what could have been achieved with the tax revenues and the businesses likely to benefit did not have the voice and influence that the big polluters could muster. A study for the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (1) showed that, if the tax revenue were recirculated in to the economy, an energy pollution tax could have a net positive effect on GNP. TOO SMALL TO ALTER ENERGY DEMAND. This fails to recognise that Government policy can influence the response of energy demand to price changes, for instance by setting mandatory product and building standards, energy labelling, information provision and use of mass media. The energy pollution tax was to have been backed up by a series of EC directives on energy standards - the SAVE programme. As a result of pressure from some member states during the discussions over the energy pollution tax, a major component of the SAVE program me has also been severely weakened. Seven specific directives on efficiency will now be diluted into a 'framework directive' which will merely suggest goals for member states, but will not set standards, time limits or reporting requirements. The attitude of the UK Government to SAVE was already apparent when it was responsible for weakening an earlier directive on boiler manufacturers. Ironically, it is thought that Germany has also opposed the SAVE initiative, but for quite different reasons. The German government sees an opportunity for competitive advantage from energy efficiency and environmental products and does not wish to see its industrial competitors in the UK and elsewhere compelled to modernise by EC-led harmonisation. The energy pollution tax - A missed opportunity? Many less polluting businesses would have gained from the tax and, had the money been carefully directed, the UK economy may have been able to enhance its competitiveness... News Briefs SUNCARE PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS CASH IN ON HEALTH SCARES The depletion of the ozone layer due to continuing use of ozone depletion chemicals and the increase in incidence of skin cancers due to prolonged exposure to the sun have given sun cream manufacturers an opportunity to alter their product and marketing focus - and increase sales as a result. According to an article in Marketing Week (15 May), sun care product manufacturers are now emphasising protection rather than the opportunity to achieve a deep mahogany tan - and are pushing the sun protection factors (SPF) of their products. The words "sun tan cream" are out and products are now called sun care and sun protection products. As more information linking ozone depletion, continued use of CFCs and skin cancer becomes available, the major sun care manufacturers - including L'Oreal (Ambre Solaire), Boots, Avon, Smith & Nephew (Nivea), Chfaro (Bergasol), International Laboratories (Hawaiian Tropic), Scholl (Copper tone), Ciba (Piz Buin) and Coty (Sun shimmer) - are positioning themselves to be early beneficiaries of the new "ozone hole" reality. But, the safest way to protect yourself in the sun is to wear a hat and long-sleeved, loose clothing. SUCCESSFUL POLLUTION TEST CASE AGAINST WATER COMPANY The owner of fishing rights on the River Exe and Creedy in Devon has become the first individual to successfully sue a privatised water company for damages caused by their pollution. Ian Cook sued South West Water for polluting his 3/4 mile stretch of fishing with discharges from sewage works in the summer of 1990. The Plymouth County Court Judge held that SW Water was allowed to discharge effluent, but its legal discharge consent made no mention of phosphates or surfactants, the detergents which cause foaming. SW Water was ordered to pay œ2,500 damages and œ1,500 costs. The result now opens the doors for other riparian owners to sue a wide range of water polluters. DOE ENVIRONMENT CAMPAIGN PUTS DIY PRODUCT SALES AT RISK House painters, car wax enthusiasts and motorists are being asked to curtail some of their traditional summer activities by scientists at the Dept. of Environment. If successful, the DOE campaign will reduce the estimated 50,000 tonnes of volatile chemicals and organic compounds released into the air each year. As part of the new campaign, DIY stores will distribute 100,000 government leaflets warning about the dangers to the environment of the products they sell. This is the first time that the UK government has asked individual citizens to stop doing a "normal" activity for the good of the environment. If successful, the campaign could have a dramatic effect on the future sales and profits of house paint and car wax manufacturers as well as the car and oil industry. GOVERNMENT STUDY BLAMES CARS FOR AIR POLLUTION INCREASE A recent study carried out by the government's Warren Springs Laboratory, a world leader in air pollution monitoring, has confirmed that air pollution has increased by 35% since 1986. The study measured oxides of nitrogen (NOx) levels at 363 sites throughout the UK and compared them to EC guidelines. NOx can damage and irritate lung linings, increase people's susceptibility to viruses and is a prime suspect in the increase in asthma among children. Traffic accounts for more than half of UK NOx emissions, while power stations are the next main source. Greenpeace has warned against the increase of NOx emissions and the potential health effects on children. This study now confirms those views. NORTHERN COMPANIES FEEL THREATENED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION A recent survey of manufacturers in Northern England, prepared by Price Waterhouse and the Northern Development Company, shows companies are worried that their future economic prospects are being threatened by the cost of compliance with over-hasty environmental legislation. Companies in sectors under pressure from environmentalists such as plastics and chemicals, food and drink, pharmaceuticals and energy, were frustrated at the complexity of UK and EC environmental regulation, felt DTI ministers lacked understanding of the support manufacturers needed and had failed to shape European Community legislation to the advantage of UK companies. Contact: Northern Development Co. on 091-261 0026 (cost œ10). THE GREENPEACE SHOPPING LIST - 57 WAYS TO ASSESS BRITAIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT. Last month, in the build up to the UN Earth Summit in Rio, Greenpeace sent each Member of Parliament a booklet incorporating a list of current campaign demands over a range of environmental issues including: Atmosphere, Energy, Toxic Pollution, Wildlife and Civil and Military Nuclear Infrastructure. The booklet "The Bottom Line" called on the Government to prove its own environmental credibility in advance of the Prime Minister's attendance at the Rio conference. For a copy of "The Bottom Line" contact Mary Morrison at Greenpeace 071 354 5100 GREENPEACE BUSINESS is published bi-monthly by Greenpeace Ltd. Editor: Steve Warshal Subscripton: Greenpeace Business is available on subscription for œ90 a year. Please make cheques payable to 'Greenpeace Ltd and send to Mary Morrison at the address listed below. Reproduction: Material published in Greenpeace Business may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without prior permission. However, full acknowledgement must be made to the original source and a copy sent to the editor. Information queries: If you have any questions or comments on articles in Greenpeace Business please write to the editor or contact: Mary Morrison Greenpeace Canonbury Villas London N1 2PN Tel: 071-354 5100 Fax: 071-696 0012 ISSN 0962-9467 Printed on chlorine free paper.