TL: GREENPEACE BUSINESS Number 5 SO: Greenpeace UK (GP) DT: February 1992 Keywords: greenpeace periodicals business digests gp uk europe toxics multinationals shell phosphates / Number 5 CONTENTS Ozone depletion Cars blamed for UK pollution alert Greenpeace pressure forces Albright & Wilson to end phosphate processing at Whitehaven plant How Greenpeace lobbying efforts helped make Antarctica safe for the next 50 years Greenpeace court action forces NRA to step up their attacks on industrial polluters SHELL--Schizophrenic environment policy shows signs of cracking Environmental Law Foundation will support local environment objectors News Briefs The Greenpeace Business Plan for 1992 FOR 1992, Greenpeace will be focusing its attention on four major campaigning areas: ù Eliminating the production and use of ozone depleting chemicals. ù Halting the increase in global warming. ù Reducing industrial effluent into rivers and seas and focusing on new methods of clean production. ù Combatting existing and proposed waste incinerator sites. In addition to traditional campaigning activities, we shall be utilising a number of our newly proven methods of operation. Our growing legal strength has already paid dividends. Albright & Wilson have altered their environmental policy much more quickly than would otherwise have been the case (see page 4), the National Rivers Authority (NRA) are claiming to be moving more actively against polluters (page 6) and now there is the Environmental Law Foundation to assist those who are suffering from the effects of industrial pollution (page 7). We will also be concentrating on our lobbying and scientific efforts. Greenpeace's Scientific Director Jeremy Leggett was one of the delegates at the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in China which confirmed the increasingly worrying global warming trends. Our lobbying efforts helped win the battle to keep Antarctica free from development (see page 5) and we will be fielding a strong team at the UNCED meeting in Brazil in June and the next session of the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen in the autumn. New reports of the health problems caused by the increased thinning of the ozone layer confirms the importance of our campaign against ozone chemical producers and end users (page 3). As the election battle heats up in the UK and the recession continues to deepen, the environment may have slipped from the front pages of your daily paper. But make no mistake, governmental and EC regulators are steadily increasing their power. EC Environment Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana is planning an active 1992. In a video speech to the Green Magazine award dinner he promised: to move forcibly to establish the long awaited Environment Protection Agency; to introduce a new directive on Civil Liability for Environmental Abuse; and to pursue EC carbon tax proposals at the UNCED meeting in Brazil. On the domestic front, the NRA and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) are under increased scrutiny as Greenpeace and other pressure groups force them to carry out their statutory duties. 1992 will be a grim year for companies who refuse to take environmental issues seriously--or who speak out of both sides of their mouth as Shell appears to be doing (page 6). Ozone depletion worsens ...in Chile, on the edge of the Antarctic Ozone Hole, scientists are concerned about reports of fishermen catching salmon that are blind, wild rabbits with bulging eyes and impaired vision and sheep going blind. GREENPEACE is focusing on ozone depletion as its major campaign issue in 1992. Latest figures show a disturbing increase in ozone loss, particularly over the northern hemisphere. More scientific data is being published linking health problems with the thinning ozone layer. It is imperative that Governments, manufacturers and end users agree to halt the continuing production and use of ozone-depleting substances--including HCFCs. Up to 1.75 million extra cases of eye cataracts and 'considerably in excess of' 300,000 extra cases of skin cancer will occur throughout the world every year, if a sustained 10% decrease in ozone occurs. This is not a Greenpeace prediction on the consequences of continued production and use of ozone-depleting chemicals. It is the sober assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) included in their latest report on 'Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1991 Update'. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BEGINNING TO SHOW The Financial Times recently stated that in Chile, on the edge of the Antarctic Ozone Hole, scientists are concerned about reports of fishermen catching salmon that are blind, wild rabbits with bulging eyes and impaired vision and sheep going blind. Some tree buds are showing deformed growth, while marine algae are secreting a red pigment never seen before. Doctors are being besieged by patients with allergies, eye irritations and skin complaints. At present, Chile is receiving increased levels of ultraviolet radiation (UV) during the spring--at a time when newly seeded crops are most vulnerable. Research already shows that the yield and quality of some major agricultural crops are affected by increased UV. In our last issue, Greenpeace Business reported that the UK Government's Stratospheric Ozone Review Group (SORG) highlighted NASA's findings that the ozone layer over the UK is disappearing at a rate of more than 8& per decade (in late winter and spring) and will further deteriorate despite current international controls of ozone-depleting chemicals. According to Joe Farman, the British scientist who discovered the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer, depletion over the UK could reach up to 30% by the year 2000. NEW METHOD OF MEASUREMENT The SORG group of respected scientists and academic researchers have also concluded that 'chlorine loading potential' (CLP), a new method of measuring the damage caused by ozone depleting chemicals, is the most relevant parameter for examining the effects of controls on emissions. According to the scientists' analysis some ozone depleters at present not under international control are more damaging than previously thought. HCFC 22, for example, has a CLP rating of 0.14, higher than methyl chloroform, which it is agreed will be phased out. Although this rating is less than the CFC-11 rating of 1.0, it does indicate that HCFC 22 significantly contributes to ozone depletion and cannot be seen as even a short term answer to the problem. FOCUS ON UK PRODUCERS ICI is the major producer of ozone-depleting chemicals in the UK. In 1991, ICI told Greenpeace that they had produced the following amounts the previous year (in tonnes per annum). CFCs 44,000 Halons 5,000 Methyl chloroform 80,000 Carbon Tetrachloride 56,000 HCFC 22 25-30,000 (production capacity) According to a December statement on CFCs, Rhone Poulenc, the other large UK producer, 'fully expect the reduction and phase- out targets for CFCs and other halogenated materials to be advanced significantly' at the next meeting of the Montreal Protocol. However, Rhone Poulenc has recently expanded its investment in producing HCFC 22. According to Rhone Poulenc's Brian Paul, the HCFC 22 plant in the UK, has recently been expanded by 100% and now has a capacity of 8,000 tonnes. Capital costs of at least œ2.5 million has been spent on the new plant and demand is increasing on a worldwide basis. But does this investment make commercial sense? Greenpeace scientists and campaigners believe that governments will agree to phase-out HCFC 22 and other HCFCs at the Montreal Protocol meeting this autumn in Copenhagen-- which would force producers and users to retool yet again. Already some countries such as Germany and Switzerland laws restricting the use of HCFC 22. HCFC 22 is predominantly found in non-domestic refrigeration. Its users include: refrigeration contractors, supermarkets, companies who use refrigeration in trucks and those who use refrigerated sea containers. Rhone Poulenc are also working with Sainsburys on an alternative refrigerant called Isceon 69-S which is being evaluated in supermarket freeze cabinets. Iceland is also testing 69-S in a store in Scotland. However, this 'replacement' still contains HCFC 22. Looking to the longer term, Mr. Paul told Greenpeace Business 'Rhone-Poulenc were evaluating replacements for HCFC 22. However, these products have not yet commenced toxicity testing and are many years away from commercialisation'. THE WAY FORWARD Greenpeace research, however, indicates that producers and users are not seriously looking at true alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals. Are CFC producers and those companies who insist that they must use these products investing sufficient time, money or energy in finding appropriate alternatives ? Greenpeace will continue to campaign for an immediate end to the production of ozone depleting chemicals and for the creation of new scientific R & D initiatives to develop the environmentally safe alternatives. Alternatives are already in existence, but there is no political or industrial will to implement them. Greenpeace will also be targeting ozone depleting manufacturers and users in the build-up to the Montreal Protocol meeting in Denmark in November, 1992. # Greenpeace has produced a report 'Danger Overhead ' which is enclosed with this issue. For further details, contact: Tracy Heslop or Corin Millais on 071-354 5100. LAST October, Athens was forced to close its streets to cars and buses due to excessive pollution levels. At the time, it was dismissed as an unique event in a very hot climate--which could never happen in the UK. On December 14th, London was blanketed with a foul smelling pea- soup fog unprecedented since the early 1950's. Government officials gave similar warnings to the Athens government: ù Don't drive unless you have to--this was the first time that the Department of Environment had called for voluntary restraint in using cars. ù Stay indoors unless it is absolutely necessary to go out--this was especially relevant for asthmatics and people with chest complaints. ù Joggers and exercisers were advised to stop. So, who was to blame for air pollution reaching its highest levels in the UK since records began in 1976? For once, government officials, doctors and scientists were united in their believe that excessive use of cars were the problem. Of course, the technical definition of what happened, known as 'thermal inversion' was explained as a layer of warm air holding down cold air which remained stagnant because there was no wind and it was unable to mix with warmer air. However, the essential point is that health problems occurred specifically because there was an accumulation of air pollutants caused by an excessive use of cars. In very still weather, pollutants just accumulate at levels close to the ground. A number of doctors also blamed the car: Dr. Stewart Clarke, consultant chest physician at the Royal Free Hospital concluded: 'There is no doubt that the main culprit is the car'. And Peter Barnes, Director of Thoracic Medicine at the Royal Brompton Hospital stated: 'This insidious increase in air pollution does raise questions about how we are going to control the number of cars brought into our cities'. THE GREENPEACE POSITION For the past year, Greenpeace has been campaigning about the damaging effects of excessive automobile traffic on global warming and personal health. ù In April, Greenpeace launched 'Mad Car Disease', a report on the environmental impact of the car and rapidly increasing traffic levels. ù In August, campaigners produced a report showing clear links between children's health and excessive traffic. ù For the past three years, Greenpeace has been campaigning against the company car. According to the UK Government's own research, 50% of the morning peak traffic is composed of company cars. It has also been documented that company cars are larger and less efficient than privately purchased cars and are driven more non-business miles. Greenpeace will continue to campaign against the company car, and further work on the health impacts of road transport through air quality monitoring. The campaign will also continue work on quantifying the real cost of road transport. Greenpeace pressure forces Albright & Wilson to end phosphate processing at Whitehaven plant 'We must devote a lot more effort to dialogue with the local community and environmental groups in the future.' Dr J. Adsetts, A&W Director CONTINUOUS Greenpeace campaigning and legal pressure against the Albright & Wilson plant at Whitehaven, Cumbria culminated in a legal victory at the Whitehaven Magistrates Court last August (see Greenpeace Business No.3). They have acknowledged it as a major factor in influencing the company to radically revise their production methods, reduce discharges and update their global environmental policy worldwide. Greenpeace Business talked to A&W Director, John Adsetts about these changes. Last December, A&W announced that they will stop processing phosphate rock in Whitehaven to make phosphoric acid. Phosphate rock will now be processed in a factory in Morocco and phosphoric acid shipped to the Whitehaven factory. According to Dr. Adsetts, almost all the heavy metal and other impurities present in phosphate rock will no longer be discharged into the sea in either the UK or Morocco, but will be extracted, concentrated and immobilised in solid form for landfill disposal within the Whitehaven factory. Greenpeace recognises this is a step forward, but believe A&W has yet to grasp the concept of clean production, whereby the production process through to the final product results in no damage to the environment. Adsetts also reported that A&W scientists at Whitehaven, have developed a patented process which is based on a recreation of the phosphate rock type of matrix which can act as a 'molecular prison' for the toxic heavy metals. Just as they have remained locked up in the rock over the last 20-million years of geological time, it is anticipated they will remain in an equally non-leachable form into the future. It is the resistance to leaching which lead A&W to claim their process to be superior to those developed by Leigh Environmental and others over the last ten years. However, Greenpeace believes that cleaner production processes, involving recycling of metals, could be devised that would eliminate the need for any landfill operation. These new operating methods at Whitehaven are being presented by A&W as a strategic business decision based on economic considerations. According to Dr. Adsetts, it has taken three years to research the technology, conduct trials, obtain planning consents and confirm new commercial ties with Moroccan suppliers and shippers. There will also be a substantial reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions as a consequence of no longer producing large quantities of sulphuric acid in the old A&W sulphuric plants. Whether these announced changes will ensure A&W's Whitehaven phosphate operations' survival remains to be seen. There is still a growing movement among green consumers against phosphate based detergents. A&W are one of the few major detergent phosphate producers in Europe and supply most grocery chains, such as Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda with both phosphate containing and phosphate free own label detergents. Dr. Adsetts also told Greenpeace Business that on 1 January 1992 A&W would be revising their environmental policy to set identical and much higher standards for all their factories across the world irrespective of local requirements. The new standard is 'Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost' (BATNEEC) and A&W will require plans to be prepared, published and implemented to meet the standard or closure arrangements will be made. Greenpeace is highly critical of the UK government BATNEEC standards because it still puts short term economics above the environment. Adsetts acknowledged that continuing pressure from groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth would be instrumental in ensuring that there would be no backsliding or faltering in the boardroom. He further admitted that over the last three years environmental groups have been breathing down their necks while A&W concentrated most of their attentions on the traditional regulatory authorities. 'We must devote a lot more effort to dialogue with the local community and environmental groups in the future,' he concluded. Many of A & W's plans and promises will be implemented during 1992. Greenpeace will continue to monitor their performance. Historically, the company have promised more than they have delivered. As a general statement of policy, Greenpeace will never accept the fact that industry has the right to discharge toxic wastes into seas and rivers under the consent system run by the National Rivers Authority, or discharge chemicals into the atmosphere or chemical waste into landfill--and will continue to pursue all polluting companies. How Greenpeace lobbying efforts helped make Antarctica safe for the next 50 years. Greenpeace political lobbying techniques were successfully used along with traditional direct actions to help ensure victory in this international battle to protect the Antarctic from corporate exploitation. GREENPEACE has always been known for its 'direct action ' method of focusing the worlds' attention on environmental abuses. Last issue, we focused on our growing use of 'legal action' to move the Greenpeace environmental agenda forward. Political 'lobbying action' is also part of our arsenal and is an important new way of altering governmental, business and public opinion on crucial environmental issues. The following case study gives you an insight into how we went about developing a unique alliance with World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Woman's Institute (WI) to help save the Antarctic. BACKGROUND Antarctica is the largest and last virtually untouched wilderness on earth, covering about 10% of the world's surface. As a first step in a campaign to ensure its protection, Greenpeace set up the first non-governmental base in Antarctica. Its purpose was to monitor the activities of European and North American government institutions, their plans for mineral and oil exploitation and highlight any environmental damage caused by the bases. The Greenpeace environmental message was simple--establish the Antarctic as a World Park in which no exploitation would occur. Essentially a hands-off policy towards one of the last unspoilt areas of the world. MOVING THE CAMPAIGN FORWARD Our research had shown that Antarctica was not a major concern of UK citizens and was not an issue that they readily understood. UK policy had not switched since World War II and was based on territorial claims and the right of controlled exploitation of the oil and minerals there. Greenpeace developed a campaign strategy to alert the public to the need for an Antarctic World Park. In order to move the issue up the political agenda, we forged an alliance with the WWF and the WI--a large group (including a preponderance of Conservative voters) that could not be dismissed by ministers. ANTARCTIC CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 1989- 1991 ù In the first 3 months of 1989 Greenpeace carried out a number of direct actions in the Antarctic to protest about the construction of a French airstrip on a penguin colony,Japanese whaling in the area and the disposal of toxic waste in Antarctica by the US at the McMurdo Antarctic base.The dramatic footage obtained was used in 'Antarctic Warriors', one of Channel 4's Fragile Earth series in January 1990. ù Two months later Greenpeace local groups wrote to constituent MPs to clarify who was sympathetic and at the same time launched the "Against Mining' petition. ù In May 1990 the WWF joined with Greenpeace and launched the 'World Park Antarctica' campaign . A month later the National Federation of WI's AGM supported a resolution for a 'wilderness park', where minerals activities are not permitted. ù In October Greenpeace, WWF and the WI hosted a joint fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference. ù In the same month Greenpeace's 200 local groups held 'Antarctic World Park Week' consisting of petition signing days, writing letters to local papers and presenting the petitions to their local MPs. ù In November Greenpeace published 'Black Ice--the oil threat to Antarctica' and 125 MPs signed an Early Day Motion calling on the government to support the international efforts to ban mining. ù In March 1991 Greenpeace, WWF and the WI met Foreign Office Minister Tristan Garel Jones. ù In April Greenpeace published 'Scientists case for a world park' . At it's launch 200 Antarctic scientists called for a mining ban. ù Shortly after Greenpeace met the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine to urge him to intervene on the Antarctic minerals issue and successfully elevated the problem to the Secretary of State level. ù In May John Major announced that the government supported the designation of Antarctica as a nature reserve where mining is banned for at least 50 years. ù In Madrid in October 1991, Michael Heseltine signed the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty which bans mining activities in the Antarctic for 50 years. LESSONS LEARNED Greenpeace, WWF and the WI all felt that the Antarctic Treaty was signed, in part, due to their lobbying activities over the last two years. Greenpeace had been campaigning for a number of years for a World Park in Antarctica. Although our base camp-- and the resulting photographic footage--may have helped to draw attention to the Antarctic's beauty and desecration, the final victory could not have been accomplished on our own. Political lobbying is no longer the sole province of well healed corporate special interest groups. Greenpeace and other environmental groups are utilising the power of effective political lobbying to further our own environmental objectives. Using our Antarctic experience, Greenpeace will continue to create unpredictable alliances which may seem odd on the surface, but prove strategically effective for the purpose intended. Greenpeace court action forces NRA to step up their attacks on industrial polluters Greenpeace will be monitoring future NRA actions on industrial polluters. If the NRA continues to treat them with 'kid gloves, Greenpeace will return to the courts to exert further pressure on the NRA and other regulatory authorities. GREENPEACE'S initial victory in the courts against the National Rivers Authority--obtaining the right of Judicial Review to examine their prosecuting activities--has forced the NRA to significantly strengthen their stance against industrial polluters. The High Court's ruling that Greenpeace had standing to question the method of operation of environmental regulatory bodies was also seen as a legal first. It can now be argued that environment pressure groups have the right to ensure that government bodies carry out their statutory duties against polluters. Greenpeace campaigners, however, believe NRA actions and policies are still far too lenient and are considering pursuing the Judicial Review in the High Court. The NRA's insistence on giving companies consents to pollute is totally at odds with the claim that they are the statutory guardians of the water environment. Soon after Greenpeace obtained leave to seek the Judicial Review on 24 October (see Greenpeace Issue No.4), a number of actions were taken by the NRA: ù The NRA announced a cleanup plan which would force water companies, industrialists and farmers to improve the quality of rivers, canals and estuaries. For the first time, the NRA would impose legally binding standards for water quality on all rivers, canals, lakes, estuaries, underground and coastal waters. It would also allow the NRA to manage river catchments so as to protect waters from all sources of pollution. Greenpeace strongly opposes this plan because it is based on the assumption that industry has a legal right to pollute. Therefore, according to the NRA, some waters will always be allowed to remain more heavily polluted than others. ù The plan was announced at the same time the NRA released an already widely leaked report showing that overall water standards has been dropping for the past ten years. ù The NRA also reports that it is now reviewing the consents for thousands of effluent pipelines throughout Britain. The Greenpeace court action prompted a secret internal discussion within the NRA on how to react to the High Court hearing. Friends of the Earth were sent a leaked NRA memo which outlined its PR strategy. Written by Ron Page, NRA's Head of Public Relations, the memo says: 'Its (the NRA) public image could be seriously damaged by this case. There is a need to take immediate steps to prepare our own campaign of promotional activity on measures being taken by the NRA to control pollution, and actions that have been taken against polluters.' The NRA is also locked in a territorial battle with HMIP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAFF) over who has ultimate authority over river pollution. The NRA doesn't want to lose their control over land drainage and flood protection. However, groups such as the RSPB are concerned that these vital areas might fall back into the hands of MAFF, who are fighting to reassert control over this area. Historically, they have been unsympathetic to conservation interests. Greenpeace will be monitoring future NRA actions on industrial polluters. If the NRA continues to treat industrial polluters with 'kid gloves', Greenpeace will return to the courts to exert further pressure on the NRA and other regulatory authorities. SHELL -- Schizophrenic environment policy shows signs of cracking Shell is presenting itself as an environmentally concerned company. Yet there are a number of inconsistencies between their espoused environmental awareness and their corporate activities. ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL is one of the largest oil companies in the world. The company reported worldwide net income of $6.53 billion, and is involved in a wide range of ventures including: upstream and downstream oil and gas activities, chemicals, coal, minerals and energy transportation. As the world's largest marketer of oil products, Shell is also presenting itself as an environmentally concerned company. Yet there are a number of inconsistencies between their espoused environmental awareness and their corporate activities. Here are just a few of their schizophrenic moves. GLOBAL WARMING ù On 1st February 199O, Royal Dutch/Shell group's Norwegian unit A/S Norske put out the following statement: It would add a meter to the height of might melt polar ice and raise sea levels. Norske Shell is due to come on stream in 1996. ù In the USA, Shell is a member of the anti-global warming lobby group, The Global Climate Coalition, which is an influential industry grouping pressuring President Bush to take no action on global warming. ENERGY EFFICIENCY LAPSES ù Last September, seven top industrialists, including Shell, wrote to the Dutch government threatening to transfer their companies investments abroad if the cabinet continued with its plan to double a levy on fossil fuel consumption . The 'group of 7' called on the Dutch government to suspend its plan to adopt the levy and to open consultations on the 'economic effects of the levy with the sectors and companies involved'. In the UK where Shell runs its widely publicized 'Better Britain Competition', its public and private policies on energy conservation appear to be totally contradictory. ù John Collins, Chairman of Shell UK, is the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment set up by Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine last May. In its first report (see Greenpeace Business No. 4), the committee recommended higher petrol taxes and a national target for energy efficiency improvements, a change in company car tax policy and tighter environmental legislation on transport. The Committee pointedly recommended that specific programmes should be developed to encourage householders to invest in for example insulation and draught proofing. And yet, on 31st October, it was announced that Thermocomfort Limited, a leading cavity wall insulation company, owned by Shell, was selling its business to Tebway Limited in Scunthorpe. John Hancock, Thermocomfort's Managing Director, wrote to his staff: 'In view of the lack of growth and the continued trading difficulties in the domestic cavity wall insulation market, it has been decided that Thermocomfort Ltd. will terminate its marketing activities in this sector.' 'There are no signs that this difficult market position will improve in the foreseeable future', he added. ù In November, Shell also sold off its contract heating management company, Emstar, to the French heating company, Compagnie Generale de Chauffe. Emstar was one of the few Shell subsidiaries involved in the growing energy efficiency area--and at one stage was a market leader. The company provided energy management services, finance and advice on installation to ensure more efficient use of heating in buildings and processes. It also focused on the introduction of CHP heating units for industry. So, Mr. John Collins, Chairman of Shell-- where do you really stand? Environmental Law Foundation will support local environment objectors Many local groups have, in the past, received support and information from Greenpeace campaigners. Now, the ELF network will be able to provide additional legal and scientific muscle to ensure their views are forcibly heard. CORPORATE polluters will face stronger opposition on a wide range of environmental issues now that the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) has been established. The new organisation has been formed to provide professional legal and scientific advice to local groups and communities who have been unable to make their environmental protests heard. Spearheaded by City lawyer, Martin Polden, ELF has already created a network of over 100 solicitors, barristers, scientists and environmentalists who can be called on to provide professional advice and assistance. Greenpeace welcomes the establishment of ELF, which has promised to give local community groups a preliminary view on a problem at no cost and to take on cases in which legal aid would be available. Deserving cases may also be taken on board even without legal aid backing. Obvious candidates for ELF support include: ù groups who are being subjected to excessive environment pollution ù those communities fighting the establishment of incinerator plants and new landfill sites . those affected by the ravages of industrial effluent. Many local groups have, in the past, received support and information from Greenpeace campaigners. Now, the ELF network will be able to provide additional legal and scientific muscle to ensure their views are forcibly heard. Some of the cases already being taken up by ELF include: ù The Docklands Case--A case brought on behalf of 1,500 residents of Wapping and Poplar complaining against excessive noise and dust interference during the building of Docklands. So far, The London Docklands Development Corporation and two of the contractors have been found guilty in the Wells Street Magistrates Court of 17 statutory of fences of public nuisance. The case is being handled by Sally Moore of Leigh Day & Co. ù Monkton Coke Works--ELF is supporting actions to reduce the emissions from the coke works which allegedly causes significant levels of airborne pollution. The works are operated by National Smokeless Fuels Limited. ELF is also helping to accumulate data on personal health damage claims on behalf of a number of residents in the downwind housing estate. The case is being coordinated by Andrew Tucker of Pannone Napier in Sheffield. For details contact Environmental Law Foundation on 071-333 4100 NEWS BRIEFS STOP WORLD OIL EXPLORATION Dr. Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace's International Scientific Director, was invited to speak on the environmental view on oil and gas exploration to the Society of Petroleum Engineers conference in the Netherlands last November. To a packed house of 800 international oil industry executives, Dr. Leggett proposed the following. The only environmentally acceptable thing to do was to stop further worldwide oil exploration. The $1,000 billion that the global oil industry plans to invest in finding more oil in the next ten years should be invested in solar power and other greenhouse-safe technologies. Interestingly, few questioned the shocking premise. More were interested in the ways of implementing such a U-turn. Half of the delegates wanted the industry transformed beyond recognition. The other half doubted it could be done since the entire world economy is built on oil and cars. But a Conoco man held out some hope, adding that 'there was an environmental consciousness revolution going on in the industry as it is'. US ECONOMIST WARNS ON GLOBAL WARMING The US has seriously underestimated the economic costs of global warming according to William Cline, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, a Washington DC think tank. In a speech at the Institute of International Economics in early January, he stated that the US should support an international carbon tax with mild initial rates. In the long term, the risk from global warming are great enough to justify international carbon quotas, backed if necessary by trade sanctions. INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY SAVINGS PROPOSED The Office of Electricity Regulation (Offer) has, at last recognised the importance of providing incentives for energy efficiency. Offer's consultation paper published in December suggests a new price formula, similar to the gas industry. According to Offer's Director General Stephen Littlechild, Offer is considering alternative ways of saving energy including the 'least-cost planning' method used in the US. EC ENERGY TAX WELCOMED The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) recently published an assessment of EC proposals concluding that the proposed energy taxes are the most cost-effective way to achieve lower consumption of fossil fuel energy. The IFS believes that market based instruments such as the energy/carbon tax will be likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at lower cost to the economy than alternatives. For details, contact: IFS-071-6363784. Another firm of economic forecasters, Cambridge Econometrics, are even more bullish on the controversial tax plans. They believe VAT rates would be reduced and inflation would fall if a 'carbon tax' was introduced. However, the tax would not be sufficient on its own to stabilise Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide by 2005. If the tax were introduced across the EC, the UK government could reduce VAT by 2% or take three pence off income tax rates by 2000. For details contact: David Taylor on: 0223 460760. PUT THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE CARS The Greenpeace campaign against the company car was boosted by the cover story in the December issue of Fleet Facts, a monthly trade publication circulated to more than 20,000 in the car fleet industry. Commenting on Greenpeace's two year campaign, 'Fleet Facts' lead editorial called for more research on the subject and concluded: '...while fleet is important to all of our livelihoods, the environment is surely much more important' . For details call: 0733 -63100. MP CUNNINGHAM WINS GREEN MAG BOOBY PRIZE Labour MP Jack Cunningham won the environmental booby prize at the first annual Green Magazine awards ceremony for political contributions to the environment. Mr. Cunningham is a paid consultant for Albright & Wilson and has strong links with the nuclear industry at Sellafield, which is in his constituency. Other Green House winners included: Special Award--Carlo Ripa Di Meana; House of Commons--Simon Hughes; House of Lords--Baroness Nicol and Lord Houghton; European Parliament-- Caroline Jackson. CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SURVEY Sustain Ability has produced a new report* on trends in corporate environmentalism. Some of the conclusions on corporate attitudes to environmental issues include: ù Most companies admitted they still had major environmental problems to address and expected that standards would rise continuously, but 44% felt they had moved to a more proactive stance and 26% said they were actively involved in bridge- building with environmental organisations. ù Environmental expenditure is expected to rise by more than 50% over the next ten years (from the current 2.1% of revenue to 3.3% of corporate revenue). ù 80% of UK managers agreed that business should take primary responsibility or an active role in responding to environmental issues. ù However, most of 500 respected global environmentalist respondents felt industry was still only paying lip service to the environment--doing positive things only if they are forced to by government or the marketplace; fighting tough pollution standards and still trying to exploit public lands. *The Corporate Environmentalists' also contains an extensive reference directory of green business networks worldwide. For details, call: 071-243 1277. Cost L30 plus p&p. GREENPEACE BUSINESS is published bi-monthly by Greenpeace Ltd. Editor: Steve Warshal Subscription: 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: 071-359 4062 ISSN 0962-9467 Printed on chlorine free paper,