flux radiono cookies


Greenpeace dismisses ‘baseless, biased, and bonkers’ fracking ruling

Last edited 5 May 2015 at 9:26pm
6 May, 2015

Greenpeace UK has dismissed as ‘baseless, biased, and bonkers’ a decision by the advertising watchdog to ban an anti-fracking ad on the basis that David Cameron would disagree with it.

Ruling on a complaint by pro-fracking peer Lord Lipsey, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has told Greenpeace UK to withdraw a newspaper ad stating: ‘Experts agree - [fracking] won’t cut our energy bills’.

To back up its statement Greenpeace UK submitted to the ASA opinions from 22 energy experts including the energy secretary, leading academics, and even three separate spokespersons from fracking firm Cuadrilla. The authority ruled the ad was misleading in suggesting there is a consensus among pundits - but was only able to quote the Prime Minister’s opinion as evidence.

Challenged by Greenpeace to provide any evidence, besides Cameron’s views, to justify its ruling, the ASA refused to do it, claiming the onus of proving or disproving the statement is on Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has also questioned the impartiality of the ASA council, the body deciding whether ads have breached advertising rules. Its chair, Chris Smith, has a second job as head of the Shale Task Force, a lobby group funded by fracking firms including Cuadrilla, Centrica and Total. [1]

The complainant, Lord Lipsey, is not only a former member of the ASA council but also sits on the House of Lords economic affairs committee, which published a report last year calling for fracking to be made a national priority. [2]

Commenting on the ruling, Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Louise Hutchins said:

“An authority led by a fracking advocate has ruled in favour of a pro-fracking Lord merely on the basis of the opinion of an avowedly pro-fracking prime minister. This decision is baseless, biased, and frankly bonkers. We quoted 22 different expert opinions to back up our statement that fracking won’t bring down bills. The ASA could only find shale enthusiast David Cameron to defend the opposite view.

“This ruling also sets a very dangerous precedent. The same perverse logic could be used to ban statements about evolution or climate change on the basis that someone somewhere disagrees with the mainstream view. We can’t allow the ASA to be used as a kangaroo court to muzzle dissenting voices on controversial issues like fracking.”

A plethora of energy experts have dismissed the idea that fracking in the UK will bring down energy prices. The two main arguments are that  extraction costs in the UK are likely to be much higher than in the US, meaning that the industry requires higher gas prices to be able to make a profit. And unlike the US, the UK is part of a wider European market which means that shale gas, like North Sea gas, will be sold to the highest bidder - something even former Cuadrilla chair Lord Brown was forced to acknowledge. [3]


Estate agents warn fracking will hit house values

Last edited 1 May 2015 at 10:36am
1 May, 2015

Estate agents operating close to potential fracking sites are warning the controversial technique is likely to wipe tens of thousands of pounds off the values of nearby properties and make homes harder to sell, according to a major survey of the industry.

Property dealers in areas already targeted by fracking companies are also reporting concerns from prospective buyers over looming shale developments, with some sales already falling through as a result.


The findings published today come from a survey of 60 estate agents conducted by leading marketing research agency Redshift and commissioned by Greenpeace UK. The respondents are evenly distributed across three key areas where energy firms are planning to carry out fracking: West Sussex, Manchester, and Lancashire.


Two thirds (67%) of the estate agents interviewed say fracking operations could bring down house prices. A majority of them estimate the loss in value to be more than 8-11%, with two agents putting it as high as 41-70%. With the price of the average house in the UK estimated at £272,000, even just a 10% drop in value could translate into a loss of tens of thousands of pounds [1].


A majority of the estate agents surveyed (54%) also say they are concerned fracking could reduce property sales near potential fracking sites. Most of those who say they’re concerned believe more than one in ten purchases could be affected, with nine dealers putting the estimate as high as 25-50% of all sales.


One in four respondents also say home buyers have expressed concerns about the prospect of fracking in the area, with four estate agents reporting some customers have pulled out as a result.


The Department for Energy and Climate Change is expected to auction off licence blocks to fracking firms over an area covering more than half of Britain just after the general election [2].


The government has previously stated there’s no evidence that fracking will affect house prices. Yet ministers has so far refused to publish in full a heavily redacted report believed to contain evidence of the shale industry’s impact on the housing market. [3]


Three quarters of the estate agents interviewed said fracking should not be permitted until more research is done. All but two (97%) also said the government should publish the redacted report in full.


James Nisbet, who lives a few hundred metres from one of the Lancashire sites where energy firm Cuadrilla is seeking to frack, says a few potential buyers have pulled out of purchasing his £375,000 house after learning about the looming energy development.


“We have had six viewings so far, all with very positive feedback, but no one wants to commit to buying with the fracking shadow hanging over us,” said Nisbet. “And we’re not alone. I’ve been hearing the same story from quite a few people in the area. We have lived here for 15 years. I really like this place and I don’t want to move, but I also don’t particularly wish to stick around to see what fracking will do to this community.”


Commenting on the findings, Paula Higgins, chief executive of HomeOwners Alliance, said:


“It's worrying that homeowners who happen to live in fracking zones are being kept in the dark on how fracking will affect them. Some are already starting to bear the brunt through aborted sales and their homes being devalued.


“The Government needs to lead an honest and open debate on fracking and its impact on the local community. Our homes are our most valuable asset and ministers shouldn't be allowed to ride roughshod over people without any discussion or consultation  and only a whiff of compensation.”


And Greenpeace UK energy campaigner Louise Hutchins added:


“It looks like the mortgage ministers have bet on fracking is someone else’s. Why would people believe their promise that shale extraction won’t hit house prices when estate agents disagree and the government is still refusing to publish key evidence?


“With a highly uncertain election just days away, candidates will have a tough job persuading their constituents that fracking is worth all this pain for so little gain. No wonder over a thousand candidates from all parties have already promised to oppose this risky industry in their constituencies.”


Fracking protest vote could shake up Lancashire election, poll shows

Last edited 30 April 2015 at 10:15am
30 April, 2015

Thousands of Lancashire voters could turn their backs on pro-fracking candidates in a protest vote which would influence the outcome of the general election across some of the county’s key marginal seats, new research shows.

More than one in three (39%) local people say they would be less inclined - and one in five (21%) much less inclined - to vote for candidates backing fracking in their constituencies, according to a major survey of over 2,000 Lancashire residents. This compares with just 24% who say they would be more inclined to do so. 

Nearly one in four Tory (24%) and over one in three Lib Dem voters (39%) also say they would be less likely to vote for a pro-fracking candidate despite their party’s support for shale, according to a Redshift survey for Greenpeace UK.  

With just a week to go before the election, 1,100 candidates from all the main parties have made a public promise to oppose fracking in their constituencies. They include about a quarter of all Lib Dem and Labour prospective MPs. In two Lancashire seats - Fylde and Lancaster and Fleetwood - half of the candidates or more have already made the Frack Free Promise, including Tory incumbent Eric Ollerenshaw. 


Greenpeace has also identified the eight seats in Lancashire where the incumbents could face a ballot box backlash over fracking. These are the top marginal seats in the county where the majority candidates have neither publicly opposed fracking in their constituencies nor voted for a fracking moratorium.   

Across all eight seats - four held by the Tories, three by Labour, and one by the Lib Dem - the number of voters who say they would be less likely to vote for a pro-fracking candidate exceeds the narrow majorities defended by the incumbents (see table here).  

A ‘fracking swing’ in Lancashire could end up influencing the balance of power emerging from the closest election in memory. 

The Redshift survey also shows a strong majority of Lancashire residents would prefer to see political support going to clean energy (57%) rather than fracking (17%). The constituency with the strongest support for renewables as opposed to fracking (62% vs 11%) is Morecambe & Lunesdale, where the Conservative incumbent David Morris once described wind farms as ‘green vandalism driven by greed’ and has openly called for more shale gas exploration [1,2]. 

Conservatives, Lib Dems, and Ukip have all confirmed their support for fracking in their election manifesto, whilst Labour’s backing remains conditional on tougher regulations being introduced. The Green Party is completely opposed to fracking. 

Nearly half of all those interviewed (48%) - including a relative majority of Tory and Lib Dem voters - think pro-fracking MPs could lose their seats because of their support for the controversial industry. 

Commenting on the findings, Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Louise Hutchins said: 

“Fracking is proving to be a massive turn-off for Lancashire voters, and candidates backing it could end up paying a significant price at the ballot box. Three times more Lancashire people want their politicians to support safe, clean energy instead of the risky gamble that is fracking. Candidates should listen to their local communities and promise to oppose this dangerous industry in their constituencies.” 


Osborne’s wink to green energy is too little too late - Greenpeace

Last edited 18 March 2015 at 2:50pm

Greenpeace reply to the 2015 budget

18 March, 2015

Commenting on today’s Budget announcement, Greenpeace UK Executive Director John Sauven said:

“Announcing some progress on a new clean technology like tidal power is a welcome move, but the UK’s renewable industry needs a long-term strategy not just a belated wink to green voters. This eleventh-hour move hardly makes up for six budgets of business bungs for fracking, tax breaks for oil giants, and neglect for the green technologies of the future. Osborne’s tenure at No 11 has weakened Britain’s appeal to green investors, and we’re now lagging behind every other EU country on delivering renewable energy targets. It’s a disappointing legacy for the man who once promised to turn the Treasury into a ‘green ally’ for the fight against climate change.”

On the support package for the North Sea oil and gas industry

“The move towards a low-carbon economy has to be handled carefully so that workers in obsolete industries are not abandoned to the mercy of the markets. But there’s no point fooling ourselves that North Sea oil has a long-term future. Ministers should make sure subsidies given to declining industries are smoothing the shift to a greener and more energy efficient economy, and not wasting taxpayers’ money in a futile attempt to turn back the clock.”

On the compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries

“The UK’s energy intensive industries need to increase their carbon efficiency to ensure themselves a long term future. The government can play a role in easing this transition, but need to ensure expensive taxpayer support being given to these industries is genuinely needed, and that in exchange our industries chart a course to being the most energy and carbon efficient in the world.”


Top five green policies that should have been in the Budget but weren't:



- Britain is last in Europe on progress against renewable energy targets


- Britain has fallen to eighth place in E&Y league of the countries most attractive for green energy investments


Contact: Stefano Gelmini, Greenpeace UK press office, m 07506 512442


UK emissions drop - Greenpeace response

Last edited 26 March 2015 at 12:48pm

UK GHG emissions dropped by 8.4% 2013 - 2014

26 March, 2015

In response to the UK's GHG emissions dropping by 8.4% (and CO2 emissions dropping by 9.7%) Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist at Greenpeace UK, said :

"Last year UK carbon emissions fell dramatically whilst the economy grew faster than it has in any year since 2007. This is further evidence, if it was needed, that efforts to cut carbon pollution and boost our economy can go hand in hand. And since a reduction in coal use was a crucial factor in bringing down CO2 emissions,  these figures give us a taste of what could be achieved if our political leaders got serious about phasing out the dirtiest of all fossil fuels and gave proper backing to clean energy. This should be a key learning for ministers as they prepare to set out their carbon reduction plans ahead of a crucial climate summit later in the year. "



The new IPCC report, main conclusions and the story left untold
Press release - 2 November, 2014
Copenhagen, 2 November 2014 – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has today released the final part of the 5th Assessment report. For the first time scientists are clearly stating to decision-makers that they should aim for zero emissions.

The fastest way to do this is to speed up the adoption of renewable energy, a process which is already happening around the world.

Greenpeace Head of International Climate Politics, Martin Kaiser said:

"For scientists, there is nothing vague about how to deal with climate change. Governments need to pay attention and phase out coal and oil now or end up doing it later at a much higher cost. However, those who seize the potential of renewable energy will leap ahead to a sustainable future."

Greenpeace Nordic Climate Policy Advisor, Kaisa Kosonen said:

"Renewables and the smart use of energy are the quickest and cleanest ways to cut emissions. Using any technology which 'handles' emissions rather than replaces fossil fuels is like smoking crack to solve an alcohol addiction."

Greenpeace Denmark Executive Director, Mads Flarup Christensen said:

"Other countries need to show Denmark's courage; we have committed to 100 per cent renewable energy and now we aim to speed up the process of saying good-bye to coal. This is not a bluff, this is the move of a progressive country with a very good hand of cards."

Greenpeace Denmark Energy, Climate and Policy Advisor, Tarjei Haaland said:

"Investors who don't see the writing on the wall and continue to recklessly throw their money into the fossil fuel industry's pit won't just be hurting themselves, but the economy of the countries in which they live. Any investment into coal and oil is dangerous both economically and environmentally."



Martin Kaiser, +49 171 878 0817 (lead climate policy advisor, UNFCCC)

Kaisa Kosonen, +358 50 368 8488 (climate science, UNFCCC, EU policy)

Mads Flarup Christensen, +45 28 10 90 (Executive Director, Greenpeace Denmark)

Tarjei Haaland, +45 2810 9053 (Denmark & EU climate & energy policy)

Kat Skeie, +45 2636 1005 (Nordic media), 

Isis Wiedmann, +49 170 418 5306 (UNFCCC media),

Arin de Hoog, +31 646 197 329 (international media),

For more information please see: http://www.greenpeace.org/ipcc/


The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Greenpeace team up over NSA spying and there are extra press releases from Greenpeace below.

Illegal Spying Below

EFF teamed up with Greenpeace and the Tenth Amendment Center to launch an airship over the NSA's sprawling Utah data center earlier this summer. Now acclaimed filmmaker Brian Knappenberger has documented our campaign in a short, powerful video. Check out the video and share it with your friends.

Eff and greeenpeace

Please see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/

For far more press releases.

Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise departs Russian port after ten months in custody
Press release | 1 August, 2014 at 11:00

Amsterdam, 1 August 2014 - More than 300 days after it was illegally boarded following a high profile peaceful protest against Arctic oil drilling, the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise has finally departed Murmansk, Russia en route for its home...
Emma Thompson and daughter join Greenpeace ship on voyage to protect the Arctic
Press release | 1 August, 2014 at 9:00

London, 1 August 2014 - Actor Emma Thompson and her 15-year-old daughter Gaia Wise will sail aboard a Greenpeace ship in August to raise awareness of the melting Arctic environment. The Harry Potter and Nanny McPhee star will join a Greenpeace...
­­­­Greenpeace supports solar power energy independence for village in India
Press release | 20 July, 2014 at 9:00

Dharnai/Jehanabad, 20 July 2014 - Today, at a ceremony attended by thousands in a small village in Bihar, India, Greenpeace India and partners BASIX and CEED launched a solar-powered micro-grid that could be a game-changing model for bringing...
Europe Risks Losing Momentum on Climate Protection
Press release | 14 July, 2014 at 13:30

Berlin, 14 July 2014 – In view of the worldwide boom in renewable energies, Greenpeace today calls on Chancellor Merkel at the Petersberger Climate Dialogue in Berlin to take a more committed stance in matters of climate protection and the...
CITES failing to adequately protect endangered Afrormosia tree
Press release | 11 July, 2014 at 20:30

Geneva, 11 July 2014 - International trade in Afrormosia wood should be suspended and a drastic improvement in enforcement is required if the species is not to remain at great risk of extinction in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) according...
Greenpeace's LEGO viral blocked by YouTube
Press release | 11 July, 2014 at 13:45

London, 11 July 2014 - Greenpeace's viral video 'LEGO: everything is NOT awesome' has been suspended by YouTube, following a copyright claim from Warner Brothers. The environmental organisation quickly transferred the film to Vimeo and strongly...
Greenwash alert as palm oil companies sign onto continued deforestation
Press release | 11 July, 2014 at 10:15

Jakarta, 11 July 2014 – Major palm oil producers including Sime Darby, KLK and Asian Agri announced this week a "sustainability initiative" which Greenpeace warns will undermine consumer companies' recent commitments to remove deforestation from...
Greenpeace campaign for LEGO to ditch Shell intensifies with new video
Press release | 8 July, 2014 at 15:00

London, 8 July 2014
 - Greenpeace released a film online today, aiming to highlight LEGO’s collusion in the threat to the Arctic by promoting the controversial Shell brand on its toys. Shell is under pressure from regulators and NGOs over its...


Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise to be released by Russian authorities in surprise move

Press release - June 6, 2014
Amsterdam, 6 June 2014 - Russia's investigative committee (IC) this morning informed Greenpeace International that it has annulled the arrest of the ship Arctic Sunrise, which has remained in custody in Murmansk since a high profile protest against Arctic oil drilling last September.

Greenpeace reacted positively to the news but reaffirmed its belief that the arrest of the ship was illegal under international law.

Reacting to the news, Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said:

"Millions of people spoke out against the illegal imprisonment of the Arctic 30, and today the final member of the group is free to come home. Our ship was arrested during an entirely peaceful protest against Arctic drilling in international waters. There was absolutely no justification either for boarding the ship or keeping her for eight months.

"This whole affair was a brazen attempt to intimidate those who believe that drilling for oil in the melting Arctic is reckless and unsafe. After months without proper maintenance our ship will need careful repairs, but like our campaign to protect the Arctic she will emerge better, fitter and stronger from this."

The investigative committee recently extended its investigation into the protest at the Prirazlomnaya platform by two months, until July 24th. However, lawyers acting for Greenpeace International were informed of the ship's release unexpectedly during a meeting in the port city of Murmansk this morning. The ship should now be able to leave Russia in the coming days.

Greenpeace lawyers were also informed that the investigation will continue in order to examine equipment found on the ship.

"Our main priority now is to get the ship checked by independent surveyors to assess the level of damage since it was seized by Russian agents on September 19th. We will also be asking the Russian authorities to continue guarding the vessel until our crew arrives to take custody of it", said Daniel Simons, Greenpeace International Legal Counsel.

In the eight months since the action took place Greenpeace has continued to campaign against Arctic oil drilling across the world, most recently in Norway last week where activists occupied a Statoil contracted oil rig in the Barents sea for over 48 hours. Meanwhile Dutch activists blocked a second Gazprom rig, the GSP Saturn, as it left the Dutch port of IJmuiden to drill in the Russian Arctic.

Kumi Naidoo, who himself protested at the Prirazlomnaya rig in 2012 continued:

"We will continue to oppose any oil company that attempts to drill in the Arctic ocean. As the world warms and the ice melts this is fast becoming an era defining battle, and we are determined to win it."


For more information please contact:

James Turner: james.turner@greenpeace.org, +44 7415 515368
Maria Favorskaya in Moscow: mfavorsk@greenpeace.org, +79 687358947


The Arctic Sunrise was used as a support vessel during a protest at Gazprom's Prirazlomnaya platform on September 18th 2013. Two climbers attempted to hang a small "Save The Arctic" banner on the platform's side before Russian commandos fired warning shots into the water beneath them and forced them to descend their ropes. The next day, the Arctic Sunrise was boarded by helicopter and towed to Murmansk. All 28 activists along with two freelance journalists were arrested and charged with piracy and then hooliganism. The Arctic 30 were released on December 27th 2013 following the adoption of an amnesty law in the Russian Duma.

On 22 November 2013, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ordered Russia to 'immediately' release the vessel upon the posting of a €3.6 million bond by the Netherlands. The bond was posted by 2 December.

For a full timeline of the Arctic 30 story please see: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/arctic-timeline.


Norway creates impromptu safety zone around drilling site as Greenpeace cries foul

Press release - May 30, 2014
Barents Sea, 30 May 2014 - Late last night Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum informed the Greenpeace ship Esperanza of the creation of 'safety zone' around a drilling site in the Barents sea. Esperanza is currently occupying the site preventing Statoil-contracted rig Transocean Spitsbergen from drilling the worlds northernmost well.

Greenpeace International immediately rejected the move and lodged an appeal, claiming the Ministry had failed to provide a notice period required by international and Norwegian law. The full text of Greenpeace's appeal can be read here.

"There is no reason why the Esperanza should have to make way for oil companies to drill here because of the abrupt and irregular declaration of a safety zone. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, foreign vessels enjoy freedom of navigation through the Exclusive Economic Zone," explained Greenpeace International legal counsel Daniel Simons. "We certainly have as much right to be here as companies drilling for Arctic oil."

The Esperanza has been occupying Statoil's proposed drill site since 1300 CET on Thursday, and received notice from the Ministry at 2030. Statoil plans to drill world's northernmost oil well at the site which is just 175 km from the Arctic nature reserve Bear Island.

Sune Scheller, Arctic campaigner onboard the Esperanza said: "We are conducting a peaceful protest against the madness of Arctic Oil. It goes against everything we know from climate science, is extremely risky and an oil spill here would be close to impossible to clean up so close to Bear Island." 

Greenpeace maintains that the zone cannot be applied as Statoil has failed to follow rules of notification. Under international law, "due notice" must be given for the establishment of a safety zone (1). Norwegian law similarly states that the operator - in this case Statoil - must ensure a "public announcement well in advance of the establishment of a safety zone", which is specified to be at least 30 days ahead of time (2). Neither the notification nor the public announcement has taken place.

A total of 15 Greenpeace activists occupied the Statoil contracted oil rig on Tuesday at 5 AM CET. When the police removed the activists some 48 hours later, the Esperanza headed directly for the drill site and continued the occupation, preventing the rig from moving into position. All activists were released without charge.

Over 100,000 people have now signed a petition to Norwegian Environment minister Tine Sundtoft asking her to reconsider the decision to allow drilling near Bear Island, a protected nature reserve. Statoil cannot drill into oil-bearing layers of rock until Minister Sundtoft properly considers a Greenpeace appeal against the decision.


Pictures & video from the activity available at:


Birgitte Lesanner, Greenpeace communications officer (Danish/English), +45 2395 1214, birgitte.lesanner@greenpeace.org

1) Article 60, paragraph 5 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states, in relevant part: "Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones."

2) Section 61 of the Norwegian Regulations Relating To Health, Safety and the Environment in the Petroleum Activities and at Certain Onshore Facilities state, in relevant part: "The operator shall ensure necessary public announcement well in advance of the establishment of a safety zone." The explanatory guidelines add: "Official publication of a safety zone shall, as a rule, be submitted to the Norwegian Hydrographic Service at least 30 days before the zone is established."

3) The drilling site is 74° North within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Spitsbergen, which extends 200 miles from the coastline. Under Article 58, paragraph 1,of the International Law of the Sea, foreign vessels like the Esperanza enjoy freedom of navigation through the Exclusive Economic Zone.

4) See the Letter from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy to Statoil establishing the safety zone here, (only in Norwegian).

5) See the Greenpeace complaint to Ministry of Petroleum and Energy here.

There are 26 crew onboard MY Esperanza from 18 nationalities: NOR, GBR, DK, DEU, CYP, SE, NZL, BEL, US, SLB, THA, AUS, IND, BGR, NL, AUT, HRV, ESP.


Executives facing climate denial-related claims could be personally liable - NGOs

Press release - May 28, 2014
Amsterdam, 28 May 2014 – Corporate executives of major fossil fuel companies could face personal liability for funding climate denialism and opposing policies to fight climate change, say NGOs.

Greenpeace International, WWF International and the Center for International Environmental Law have written to the executives of large insurance corporations as well as fossil fuel and other carbon major companies [1], seeking clarity on who will pay the bill if such a lawsuit is brought against their directors or officers [2].

Generally, liability policies provide coverage for claims that put individual directors' and officers’ assets at risk. These liability policies protect individuals who are conducting their business in good faith but are at risk of being held liable for undesirable business occurrences, which may be beyond their control.  However, a serious question is whether these policies would cover a director facing a climate-related claim [3].

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International's Climate and Energy Campaigner, says the cost of climate change is personal. "It's personal to the victims of super typhoon Haiyan who lost family members and homes in the Philippines. It's personal to farmers in California and Australia whose land is now too dry for farming. It should also be personal for any oil, gas and coal company directors who mislead the public by funding climate denialism and stopping action on climate change. The responsibility – not just the devastating effects – should be personal."

Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law, says from "asbestos to tobacco to oil spills, history shows that those who mislead the public, the market or the government about the risks of their products, or the availability of safer alternatives, can face substantial legal liability, both as companies and as individuals. As the impacts of climate denialism and regulatory obstruction become clear, we want to understand how corporations, insurers, and officers and directors are allocating those risks among themselves.  Just as importantly, we ask what steps they're taking to prevent the misconduct that creates those risks in the first place."

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF International's Global Climate and Energy Initiative, says fossil fuel companies owe it to their shareholders and the public to tell us the truth about the devastating impacts of their activities on our shared climate. "Sooner or later, those who hide the facts and oppose policies to fight climate change will be held to account by the courts. By signing this letter, we hope to bring attention to the importance of truthful, transparent and responsible corporate reporting and policy engagement on climate change."

The responses from the fossil fuel companies and insurers and will be published on the Greenpeace International website.


Notes for Editors:
[1] Research identifies 90 entities – referred to as "carbon majors" – as the largest historic contributors of cumulative worldwide emissions of industrial CO2 and methane between 1854 and 2010.

Richard Heede. 2014. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010, CLIMATIC CHANGE, Vol. 122, Issue 1-2, pp 229-241, January 2014.

[2] Read the letters on the Greenpeace International website:

Letter to Companies

Letter To Insurers

The list of recipients can be viewed here

[3] For more information on climate change litigation, please see: D. Zegart. 2014. Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court, The Nation, 21 April 2014. Last visited on 23 April 2014.

For more information please contact:

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace: +31 461 620 25, leanne.minshull@greenpeace.org

Mandy Jean Woods, WWF: +27 72 393 0027, mwoods@wwf.org.za

Amanda Kistler, Center for International Environmental Law: +1 339 225 1623, akistler@ciel.org


New evidence shows Haze Wave solution far from reality – Greenpeace

Press release - May 28, 2014
Jakarta, 28 May 2014 – Protecting Indonesia’s carbon rich peatlands is key to reducing the chance of fires responsible for the Haze Wave, but there is still no legal protection of all peatland and forests. New mapping analysis from Greenpeace shows that fires are five times more likely to occur on peatland, while 75% percent of peat fires are located in Riau province alone, close to urban centres such as Singapore.

“How President SBY deals with this emerging global threat and public health emergency will define his green legacy. Industrial plantation companies are turning parts of Sumatra into a giant tinderbox. Will he take urgent action to strengthen laws that protect all forest and peatland before his term is up, or will he see his legacy go up in smoke?” said Yuyun Indradi, forest campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

Peatlands are perhaps the world’s most critical carbon stores and are typically saturated with water, but become prone to fire when cleared and drained for industrial scale plantations for palm oil and pulp and paper.

Modelling from researchers in 2012 attributes an average of 110,000 deaths a year in the region to peat and forest fires, primarily associated with long-term seasonal exposure to smoke particles. This increases to nearly 300,000 deaths during an El Niño year (such as the one in 1997/98). The fires are also responsible for destroying people’s livelihoods.

“Before when the forest was still intact, the soil could conserve water and protect the peat. Now the fires burn much deeper, and much faster. When the fire came, my three children and I tried to extinguish it [but] we lost everything,” said Laskar Harianja, a villager whose farm burnt down, in Greenpeace’s short documentary released today called ‘Forest Fire Families’.

Greenpeace’s analysis shows that fire hotspots in 2013 were 3.5 times more frequent on deforested peat as of 2011 than on peat that remained forested. The province of Riau, home to a significant portion of Indonesia’s plantation sector, accounts for just 5% of Indonesia's land area, but 40% of all fires hotspots and nearly three-quarters of all fire hotspots on peat.

Even President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) moratorium on clearing primary forests and peatlands, where 30% of fire hotspots occurred, has not prevented the fires.

“SBY is keen to tout a “green” economic transition, and the moratorium was a step in the right direction, but little has been done since. We urge SBY to issue a strong regulation that protects all peatlands before his term is up, and help diffuse what is quickly becoming a carbon time bomb,” said Yuyun.

Companies including Colgate-Palmolive, Nestle, plantation companies GAR and APP, Wilmar International and more recently P&G have pledged to eliminate forest destruction from their supply chains following global pressure and campaigning from Greenpeace.  Greenpeace urges other companies like IOI, KLK, Musim Mas and APRIL/RGE Group to commit to No Deforestation.

Note to editor:

  1. Media briefing, Sumatra: Going up in smoke
  2. Greenpeace Southeast Asia’s action page
  3. Video documentary, Forest Fire Families

Photo request: Photo Desk Greenpeace Southeast Asia, email: photo.sea@greenpeace.org

Video request :Godi Utama, Video Producer Greenpeace Indonesia, email godi.utama@greenpeace.org

Media contact:

Tristan Tremschnig, Communications Coordinator Indonesia Forests, Greenpeace International, mob: +31 6 43 78 7393 (Netherlands), tristan.tremschnig@greenpeace.org

Yuyun Indradi, Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, mob: +62 812 261 61759 (Indonesia), yuyun.indradi@greenpeace.org


Greenpeace investigation reveals toxic scandal with World Cup merchandise

Full report “A Red Card for sportswear brands”: http://bit.ly/1hR7tba Other resources linked at bottom of email.

19 May, 2014

Hamburg, 19 May 2015 – Football merchandise produced by adidas, Nike and Puma ahead of the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil has been found to contain hazardous chemicals according to a new investigation by Greenpeace Germany.

33 items including boots, goalkeeper gloves and the official ‘Brazuca’ ball were tested for a range of substances. adidas’ iconic ‘Predator’ football boots were found to contain very high levels of toxic PFC at 14 times the company’s own restriction limits [1].

"Brands like adidas may equip some of the world’s greatest players and claim to be championing the beautiful game but our investigations have revealed they are playing dirty. With their profits set to soar during the World Cup, we demand that these brands stop fouling football and clean up their game,” says Manfred Santen, Detox Campaigner at Greenpeace Germany.

Independent laboratories found chemicals like perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), nonylphenolethoxylates (NPEs), phthalates and dimethylformamide (DMF) in products from all three companies and purchased across three continents. These hazardous substances can leach from the products into the environment or get into the food chain. Some of them potentially cause cancer, disrupt the hormonal system or can be toxic to reproduction.

17 out of 21 football boots and half of the goalkeeper’s gloves tested were found to contain ionic PFCs such as the particularly dangerous PFOA [2]. After the adidas’ "Predator" boot, Nike’s "Tiempo" boot contained the highest levels of PFOA at 5,93 micrograms per m2. A pair of adidas ‘Predator’ gloves also contained levels of the substance in excess of the brand’s own limits. The ‘Brazuca’ official World Cup ball was found to contain NPEs, a substance that, when released into the environment, degrades to nonylphenol known to be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. NPEs were also found in over two thirds of boots and half of the gloves, indicating the widespread use of this chemical.

Phthalates and dimethylformamide (DMF) were detected in all 21 boots. DMF - used as a solvent in boots manufacturing - is classed as toxic to reproduction and can be harmful when in contact with skin.

“Despite their Detox commitments, Nike and adidas are failing to tackle their toxic addiction. On behalf of the players, the fans and the local communities affected by toxic-water pollution we urge them to come clean by publicly disclosing the release of all hazardous chemicals and publishing a precise PFC phase-out plan,” says Santen.

Manfred Santen, Detox Campaigner, Greenpeace Germany
Email: manfred.santen@greenpeace.de
Tel +49 151-18053387 or

Patric Salize, Press Officer, Greenpeace Germany
Email: patric.salize@greenpeace.de
Tel +49 171-8780828

Greenpeace UK Press Office - +44 (0) 20 7865 8255

Since its launch in 2011, Greenpeace’s people powered Detox campaign has convinced 20 brands, from luxury over fast fashion to sportswear to commit to eliminate hazardous chemicals from their products and supply chain by 2020. While some companies are meeting the urgency of the situation by acting on their commitments, others such as adidas and Nike are hiding behind a veil of paper promises and greenwashing actions. For more information on progress see the Detox Catwalk: http://bit.ly/KXdKc0

[1] The adidas "Predator" boot tested for the highest concentration of the ionic Polyfluorinated chemical (PFC), PFOA at 14,5 microgram per square meter – 14 times the brand’s own PFOA limits of 1 microgram per square meter.

[2] PFOA can damage the immune or the reproductive system

[1] Report “A Red Card for sportswear brands”: http://bit.ly/1hR7tba 

[2] Photo set: http://bit.ly/QWV8uN 

[3] Clipreel: http://bit.ly/1sHXeLb (for preview) and http://bit.ly/1vpx0Bt (for download)

[4] Petition: http://www.detoxfootball.org/ 


Beekeepers, environmental NGOs and civil right groups demand that Syngenta, Bayer and BASF stop killing bees

By Alec Finch - courtesy of Greenpeace 1st May 2014 02:11


Brussels/Zurich, April 29, 2014 – A Europe-wide Alliance to Save the Bees and Agriculture today made themselves heard at the annual general meetings (AGMs) of Syngenta and Bayer to demand the agrochemical companies acknowledge their role in global bee-decline and step away from threatening EU-imposed legislation against neonicotinoid pesticides which harm bees.

While beekeepers and Greenpeace together with ecological farming activists of other organizations as part of the Alliance to Save the Bees and Agriculture [1] greet shareholders to their AGM with flyers and brochures which highlight the ongoing pollinator and agriculture crisis, representatives of the Alliance to Save the Bees and Agriculture are openly challenging the presidents of the companies within the meetings themselves. Mr. Michel Demaré (Syngenta), Mr. Dr. Marijn Dekkers (Bayer) are being confronted with their role regarding bee-decline and are asked to stop the marketing of bee-harming pesticides. Rather than promoting destructive, chemical-intensive industrial agriculture methods they should enable ecological farming [2].
Speaking at the Syngenta AGM, Francesco Panella, head of delegation and president of BeeLife European Beekeeping Coordination, said: “It is insulting how Syngenta, Bayer and BASF try to persuade beekeepers like ourselves that bee decline is caused by the Varroa mite or malnutrition or any other factor outside of their own responsibility. At the same time, they continue to sell bee-killing pesticides and attack EU provisions aimed at protecting bees. This is hypocritical, self-serving and short-sighted. It is time to switch from the current chemical-intensive agriculture paradigm to one which is compatible with biodiversity and beekeeping.”
At the Bayer AGM Roger Damme, a beekeeper from Luxembourg and representative of BeeLife European Beekeeping Coordination, said: "Why use synthetic pesticides when it is not even known if the target pest is likely to occur in the field? Prophylactic – so called preventive treatments, for example, are nonsense in agriculture. All it does is lead to more pesticide use. The best way to protect bees and plants will always be to avoid the use of wide spectrum, systemic and persistent pesticides and look for solutions within the agro-ecosystem itself. "
Matthias Wüthrich, Ecological farming campaigner and European bees project leader at Greenpeace Switzerland, said: “The agrochemical companies - producers of the worst beekilling-pesticides -- are desperately fighting against the EU-wide temporary ban of their best-selling pesticides. They represent a failing system of chemical-intensive, monoculture-style agriculture that leads to a loss of biodiversity and essential eco-functions like bee-pollination. But more and more people are standing up against this chemical-intensive agricultural model and demanding a shift towards ecological practices which produce healthy food for future generations. Greenpeace and the Alliance to save the Bees and agriculture are here today in their behalf. We demand Bayer, Syngenta and BASF to withdraw their legal attack against the neonicotinoid-bans imposed by European authorities and re-think their chemical-intensive agri-business model causing unacceptable damages to bees, people and the planet.”
In order to expose the toxic PR of the agrochemical companies aimed at defending their bee-killing agribusiness with exaggerated figures and scaremongering scenarios about the consequences of the neonicotinoid ban (including extreme yield-drops and unbearable job-losses in Europe), Greenpeace released the report “Corporate Science Fiction”, a critical assessment of Bayer and Syngenta’s way to influence the scientific, political and public debate on neonicotinoid pesticides. [3]
Francesco Panella - Beekeeper and president of BeeLife European Beekeeping Coordination (italian/french): +39 335 627 94 01

Matthias Wüthrich - Ecological farming campaigner and European bees project leader at Greenpeace Switzerland (german/english): +41 44 447 41 31, matthias.wuethrich@greenpeace.org
Christine Gebeneter - European bees project comms officer at Greenpeace CEE (german/english): +43 664 8574 598, christine.gebeneter@greenpeace.org

Notes to editors:

[1] The Alliance to Save the Bees and Agriculture consists of more than 50 European beekeeping and farmer associations, environmental and human rights organisations, consumers and slow food groups as well as independent research institutes (see http://publiceye.ch/en/about-the-public-eye-awards/nominating-organisations/#syngenta).
It was founded for the nomination of Bayer, Syngenta, BASF for the public eye awards 2014 (see and beekiller-case on http://publiceye.ch/en/case/syngenta-bayer-basf).
[2] Ecological farming ensures healthy farming and healthy food for today and tomorrow, by protecting soil, water and climate, promotes biodiversity, and does not contaminate the environment with chemical inputs or genetically engineered organisms.

[3] Greenpeace Germany 2014: “Corporate science fiction - A critical assessment of a Bayer and Syngenta funded HFFA report on neonicotinoid pesticides” published on http://sos-bees.org/reports/


Greenpeace - Buyer of Russia’s first Arctic offshore oil shipment revealed as tanker nears Europe

By Alec Finch 29th April 2014 00:12 courtesy of Greenpeace

Amsterdam, April 27th 2014 - Greenpeace today revealed that the French oil company Total has purchased the first ever shipment of offshore Arctic oil from the Russian energy giant Gazprom. The environmental group accused Total of hypocrisy, citing a previous pledge by the firm’s CEO to avoid Arctic oil drilling due to the consequences of a major spill.

The shipment has attracted controversy since last week, when President Vladimir Putin used a live interview with Gazprom’s CEO to hail the departure of the vessel from Russia’s Pechora sea. Putin claimed Arctic oil would boost ‘Russia’s future presence on global energy markets’. (1)

Commenting on the news, Greenpeace International oil campaigner Ben Ayliffe said:

“As this tanker nears Europe the controversy surrounding it increases by the day. Buying the first shipment of offshore Arctic oil increases our dependence on Russian energy firms and only serves to strengthen President Putin's hand in the geopolitical game he's playing.

“We must urgently shift away from fossil fuels towards more efficient, clean technologies. This is no longer a purely environmental imperative. It is increasingly crucial to our national security.”

In September 2012 Total’s chief executive Christophe de Margerie, told the Financial Times the risk of an oil spill in the Arctic had led him to rule out drilling in the fragile region. “Oil on Greenland would be a disaster,” he said. “A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company”. (2)

Ayliffe continued: “Total’s decision to buy this oil smacks of real hypocrisy. Its CEO has already pledged not to drill in the icy waters of the far north, and yet he is apparently happy to buy the stuff if Gazprom takes on the risk. Mr. De Margerie cannot have his cake and eat it.”

Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya platform, where this oil originated, was the subject of a high profile environmental protest in September last year, after which 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists known as the “Arctic 30” were imprisoned for over two months on charges of piracy and hooliganism. They were freed following a global outcry.

For more information contact the Greenpeace Pressdesk: +31 20 718 2470
For images contact: +49 179 115 3393
For video footage contacts: +49 175 589 1718

Recent photographs of the Mikhail Ulyanov on its way to Europe are available from the Greenpeace photo desk, and at www.photo.greenpeace.org  

A full briefing on the shipment and the Prirazlomnaya platform is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/polar/2014/GazpromFirstArctic

The progress of the tanker can be tracked in real time at http://www.thinglink.com/scene/494889148432252929


Welcome to Greenpeace on fluxradio.

By Alec Finch - 27th April 2014 courtesy of Greenpeace

Here we have some of the latest press releases and information, covering topical issues, but as a kick starter, if you can donate then please do https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/contribute/greenpeace-generic/donate/

Frack-Free UK

Sign the petition! https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s/frack-free-uk

Save the Arctic

Details are here http://www.savethearctic.org


Let's make the Internet green

Every day, we use the Internet to stay connected to our friends and the things we care about.

As the Internet spreads around the world, it needs huge amounts of electricity, and we get to decide if that electricity should come from clean energy, like the wind turbines and solar panels we are seeing more every day.

The smartest companies in the world have made a decision to embrace the future: Google and Facebook are plugging their Internet infrastructure into the wind and sun, and now Apple is doing the same thanks to people like you who asked them to embrace clean power!

If other companies follow them, then the growing Internet help clean energy grow faster too, creating a brighter future for everyone.

Unfortunately, other Internet companies are still stuck in the past: Microsoft and Amazon still get their power from coal power, a 19th-century fuel that causes climate change. All the companies behind the Internet can get their power from clean sources, but they won’t until they hear from you.

Send a quick note to the CEOs of Amazon and Microsoft asking them to make the Internet green, and commit to clean energy today.

Sign up here http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cleanourcloud/petition/


New renewable funding - Greenpeace response

23 April, 2014

In response to the government announcing contracts for funding eight new renewable energy projects, Greenpeace UK energy campaigner Jimmy Aldridge said:

"We welcome the commitment to improving UK energy security by getting off imports and backing clean, home-grown energy. But all this needs to happen much faster and on a bigger scale if we are to guarantee a safe supply of clean power to Britain's homes.

There were 57 applications for renewable projects with a fixed-price guarantee, yet DECC only granted 8 – all of which are for more expensive projects. Just yesterday David Cameron announced he wants to limit onshore wind farms, despite these being the cheapest source of clean, home-grown energy we have.

If ministers are serious about shaking off our chronic addiction to volatile, dangerous fossil fuels, they should drop their good cop, bad cop routine on clean energy and get on with the job of making Britain's energy cleaner and safer."



Greenpeace UK Press Office - 020 7865 8255


Take nonviolent direct action



Greenpeace Environmental Trust

The Greenpeace Environmental Trust was founded in 1982 with the objective of furthering public understanding in world ecology and the natural environment. This includes:

  • looking at the effects of human activity on the natural environment
  • conducting research and making the results available to the public and
  • relieving sickness or suffering of people and animals as a result of changes in their natural environment.

The Trust achieves its aims by grant-funding a variety of investigations, scientific research and educational projects, such as work associated with the protection of Amazon and Indonesian rain forests, and, education, research into and solutions on climate change.

The Greenpeace Environmental Trust is a registered charity (Registration No. 284934) and its income sources include legacies, Give as you Earn and various donations from Trusts and Foundations. Managed by an unpaid Board of Trustees, the day to day work is done by one member of staff, the Trust's administrator.

Find out more about leaving a gift in your will to Greenpeace.


Tesco backs down and Oriental & Pacific cleans up

This is one of my favorites after covering Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall's fish fight. Well done Greenpeace!



Lucas MP's acquittal a victory for ordinary people opposing fracking

17 April, 2014

Commenting on Caroline Lucas MP being cleared of all charges following a high-profile anti-fracking protest at Balcombe last year, Greenpeace UK Executive Director John Sauven said:

“This verdict is a victory for the right to peaceful protest but more importantly for Britain’s growing movement of ordinary people opposing fracking.

“Caroline Lucas had the guts to stand up for what she believes in. In the age of expense scandals and ‘cab for hire’ politicians, an MP ready to put her neck on the line is a refreshing sight.

“We need to massively cut our emissions and invest in clean energy if we are to stop catastrophic climate change. The Prime Minister’s cheer-leading for fracking and promising a cap on wind farms is clearly out of touch with what people are demanding.

“Caroline has used her right of peaceful protest to represent the real wishes of people in this country. It’s time our politicians took notice.”


The Bees´Burden New Greenpeace report reveals pollen collected by bees contaminated with a cocktail of toxic pesticides

17 April, 2014

European Press release
Zurich – Over two third of the pollen that honeybees collected from European fields and brought to their hives to feed their larvae is contaminated with a cocktail of up to 17 different toxic pesticides. This is the shocking result of a new study Greenpeace International released today as a part of its Europe-wide campaign to save the bees and agriculture. The chemicals detected in European's pollen range from insecticides, acaricides, fungicides and herbicides, likely produced by agrochemical-companies like Bayer, Syngenta and BASF, the former exposed by Greenpeace-activists via a spectacular climbing-action at its headquarters in Germany.

more on this;


For more Press Releases please visit;