Commenting on energy minister Ed Miliband's announcements on more nuclear power stations today, Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said:

"Miliband can name as many sites as he likes for new nuclear power stations, but the fact remains that the figures simply don't add up.

"Even the Thatcher government realised this. It was exactly 20 years ago to the day that they pulled nuclear plants from the energy privatisation scheme when they realised that nuclear power was not an attractive investment for private companies. And it still isn't.

"Our lawyers will be examining this announcement very closely. You can't justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs."

Commenting on the announcement of a new coal policy and Ed Miliband's acceptance of the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee that the power sector has to be zero carbon by 2030, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"Ed Miliband's recognition that we have to decarbonise the power sector is a step in the right direction, but his delivery plan doesn't go far enough. He's left it up to the Environment Agency to ensure Britain isn't lumbered with emissions from a new generation of highly-polluting coal plants long into the future, but he hasn't given the Agency the necessary powers. The Environment Agency should have been given the authority now to force new coal plants to close if their operators can't eliminate all the emissions by the early 2020s, and to guarantee that the whole power sector goes zero carbon by 2030."

He continued:

"What we really need to see is a legally enforceable emissions performance standard for power stations, like the kind already applied to cars. That would mean severely limiting the amount of CO2 they could emit for every unit of electricity they generate."

ENDS

Greenpeace - 0207 865 8255

On 9 November 1989, then Secretary of State for Energy, John Wakeham, speaking about the financing of new nuclear power stations, said "unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way." (1)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-11-09/Debate-1.html

Overview

Responding to today's government energy announcements, John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said:

"If this plan becomes a reality, it will create hundreds of thousands of green jobs and make Britain a safer and more prosperous country. This will be good for the British economy and, in the long-run, save householders money as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas.

"Ed Miliband appears to be winning important battles in Whitehall. But it's crucial that these plans now get full cross-party support and more backing from the Chancellor. The renewable energy industry is too important to become a political football and this strategy for green jobs deserves more than the current paltry sums being offered by the Treasury."

Renewable energy

Jim Footner, senior energy campaigner for Greenpeace, said:

"Britain's renewable industry needs to form the cornerstone of our response to the climate crisis. So Ed Miliband should be congratulated for standing up to giant utilities like Eon and EdF and providing this boost to the British renewable sector.

"Now we need cross-party consensus, because this isn't just about hitting vital climate targets. It's also about securing our energy supply, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating a much needed boost for the British economy."

• The UK has one of the best renewable energy resources in Europe. Yet we languish near the bottom of the European league table in terms of our ability to exploit it. The UK currently generates just 5% of our electricity from renewable sources, compared to 12% in Germany, and 27% in Spain.
• It is good news that the Climate Change Secretary has chosen to implement powers introduced last year to set the grid access regime and speed up access to the grid for renewable energy capacity. Renewable energy must get priority access to the grid.
• Ed Miliband has also heeded that calls from across the energy debate to amend the remit of the regulator OFGEM, which has for too long represented a barrier to the development of renewables. OFGEM will now have to include decarbonisation in the face of climate change within its primary duties - an important change.
• The UK's status as a world leader in marine energy technologies is recognised with the allocation of money for further research and development as well as the identification of a ‘Low Carbon Economic Area' in the South West of England, announced in the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy. The budget of just £60 million fails to give this emerging industry the full support it deserves.
• On planning, the strategy proposes measures enable renewable energy applications that currently face years of delay in the planning system to gain quicker approval. It is crucial for the successful implementation of the strategy that these planning reforms (particularly for onshore wind farms) are taken seriously by local authorities considering applications. It is therefore necessary that strategy as a whole, but particularly the strategy on planning gains cross party support.

Low Carbon Industrial Strategy

Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy team, said:

"If Miliband's vision was to become a reality it would create hundreds of thousands of green jobs and make Britain a safer and more prosperous country. But that won't happen with the paltry budgets being offered by the Treasury. It is scandalous that Miliband's low carbon ambitions, which have potential to create whole new green industries, are met with a budget that is only about half the amount the Chancellor allocated for bonuses for a bunch of failed RBS bankers.

"For years the UK has lagged behind the rest of Europe on renewables. If Britain is to catch up, and to benefit from the economic boost, job creation and security of energy supply that our clean energy resources offer, it will require the Chancellor to get behind Ed Miliband's efforts."

• The Carbon Trust estimates that up to a quarter of a million jobs could be created in the UK through the delivery of the efficiency and renewable energy targets.
• The focus on offshore wind, wave and tidal is right and the recognition that regional development for new clean technologies, with research and supply chain to support then, is sound.
• Britain leads the world in the research on wave and tidal power with some of the pioneering companies sited here. But the only wave project in operation in a commercial environment - designed in the UK - is located in Portugal, because UK support was lacking. Government should follow up this welcome expression of support for marine renewables in the Southwest with more development clusters for renewables and more money to help accelerate the commercialization of the leading designs in these technologies here in the UK.
• More could be done to support the training and development of the construction industry to help deliver a national refit improving British homes, making them warmer, cheaper to run and low carbon. Energy efficiency measures offer nationwide job creation opportunities and long term skilled jobs, especially in the construction sector which has been badly effected by the recession.
• According to reports in February 2009 bonuses at RBS reached £775 million http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/18/rbs-bonuses this highlights the paucity of the total budget of £405 for low carbon industrial development and the spending announced today from that budget that includes only £180 million of direct funding for renewable energy development.

Carbon Budgets

Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said:

"It's a step towards a much more coherent climate policy that each government department will now have its own carbon budget. And it's also good news that Miliband reaffirmed the government's commitment to a 34% cut in emissions by 2020. However, the latest climate science suggests he needs to be much more ambitious in this area and it's vital that the reductions are all genuinely made here in the UK and not replaced with offsets in other countries."

• Following new legislation last year (the Climate Change Act), the Government will have to operate within a ‘carbon budget' in the same way it has to operate in a financial budget. If they go over the carbon budget, they'll have to do something about it.
• There is a new adviser to Government on what these carbon budgets should be - the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
• The UK has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.
• The CCC recommended, and the government agreed, to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020. Although if there is a decent agreement in Copenhagen later this year, this will be increased to around a 42% cut, which is more in line with what we need to avoid dangerous climate change.

Transport

Anita Goldsmith, head of Greenpeace's transport campaign, said:

"After Ed Miliband made such positive statements on renewable energy today, it is a shame to see that the Department for Transport has let the side down yet again.

"It is hard to see how such weak policies will deliver the kinds of emissions cuts we need, and any real progress will be wiped out by the department's ongoing obsession with unrestrained aviation growth."

"It is important not to let the DfT fool anyone into believing that they are driving forward increased vehicle efficiency when in fact they lobbied against this in the EU, leading to weaker targets and slower progress.

"Overall this package tinkers at the edges, whilst letting the real problems embedded within road and air transport go unchallenged. We're hoping that Adonis will soon get his department under control and align it with the wider priorities of the government."

• If plans to expand Heathrow go ahead, it will become the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in the UK and will wreck the Government's chances of meeting climate change targets.
• The Government's own figures show that aviation currently accounts for 13% of Britain's total climate change impact and threatens to undermine all other efforts to cut emissions in other sectors.
• The global warming impact of emissions from aviation are predicted to double from 2006 to 2030.
• By 2050, on this trajectory, the aviation sector alone could use up the UK's entire carbon budget, making it almost impossible for the UK to meet its targets and damaging other parts of the economy forced to make up the difference.
• Small increases in the efficiency of planes will be overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights and including aviation in the ETS will not solve the problem.
• According to a report from Ernst and Young, even in the toughest Emissions Trading Scheme scenario, emissions from the aviation sector would grow by 83% by 2020. T&E background briefing (2007) Including Aviation in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) page 6.
• Electrifying our road transport network could be a vital step in the fight against climate change. But this must be done alongside radical improvements in vehicle efficiency standards and be accompanied by investment in additional renewable sources of energy generation.
• The DfT lobbied on the recently agreed EU regulations to reduce emissions from new cars to an of average 130gCO₂/km by 2012.  The proposed target was originally for 120gCO2/km. There are already cars on the market that can deliver 99gCO2/km or less, such as the VW Polo Blue Motion, as well as petrol-hybrid vehicles that are even lower.
• The electrification of rail and move towards low emissions buses are good initiatives but remain a small part of the overall transport problem. According to the DfT's own figures, rail accounts for 1.7% of total UK domestic transport emissions with buses accounting for 2.3%. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/energyenvironment/climatechangefactsheets.pdf
• Road transport and aviation remain the biggest problems, with road transport accounting for 92.3% of domestic transport emissions.
• The focus on greener driving techniques also puts the onus on individuals rather than the delivery of the big infrastructure changes that urgently need to take place in the transport sector. Essentially, this is a transparent attempt to pass the buck on to drivers - the very opposite of the sort of leadership we need.

Biofuels

Reacting to new figures on the source of the UK's biofuels, Greenpeace chief scientist Dr. Doug Parr said:

"It is a scandal that 27 million litres of Indonesian palm oil were pumped into our tanks last year, of which not a single drop met the Government's own environmental standard. Companies like Tesco are selling their customers biofuel from unknown sources which could be wrecking the climate and destroying rainforests. It's time for Lord Adonis to abandon this misguided policy and start again".

Key findings of the Renewable fuel agency fourth quarter report, 2008/9:http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/RFA_quarterly_report_Apr_2008_Apr_2009.pdf.

• A tenth of the UK's biofuel - 123 million litres - was produced from palm oil over the past year.
• 27 million litres of Indonesian palm oil were pumped into our tanks this year, of which not a single drop met the Government's own environmental standard (the RTFO meta standard). This is a scandal, because palm oil is one of the main causes of rainforest destruction and its production is actually speeding up climate change. A tenth of all the biofuel we used was palm oil
• Several companies (Chevron, Murco, and Topaz) have not reported any biofuels meeting the qualifying environmental standard, and Esso have reported less than 2% of their biofuels meeting a qualifying environmental standard.
• Less than a quarter of the biofuel (24%) we're using has met the Government's own sustainability standard.

ENDS

Commenting on the launch today of a new government consultation on the future of coal in Britain, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:

"The fact that there is even a consultation on coal is welcome, given that this time last year policy was being decided by myopic ministers in thrall to regressive civil servants, but Ed Miliband needs to go further. His proposed policy leaves us with the threat of a massive new coal plant at Kingsnorth that would only capture and bury a quarter of its emissions and pump out six million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, making it the dirtiest new power station built in Britain for decades."

He continued:

"Britain could and should be a global leader on climate change and Ed Miliband has the power to make that happen, but first he has to rule out emissions from new coal-fired power stations, like Kingsnorth, and set a deadline for closing the existing coal plants like Drax."

He added:

"If Ed Miliband rules out emissions from new coal plants he'll be able to go to the vital Copenhagen climate conference with the credibility to demand a strong global deal to succeed Kyoto."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office - 0207 864 8255

Notes:

On Thursday 23rd April Ed Miliband told Parliament "the era of new unabated coal is over." Given that E.ON still planned to pour the concrete for a completely unabated station at Kingsnorth last summer, this was a significant U-turn in government policy.

However, whilst it marks a break from all of the previous Energy Secretaries who consistently failed to lay down the gauntlet to the utilities over their climate change emissions, even Miliband's own officials admitted on the day that large parts of his policy remain "unclear."

This is an understatement. It is not clear how Britain could hit its legally binding carbon budget for a 34% reduction in CO2 by 2020 were new coal stations to go ahead under the current proposals. Furthermore, huge questions remain about what the new coal policy will look like, and with significant loopholes presenting a real threat.

As things stand, the controversial new plant at Kingsnorth in Kent will only capture and bury a quarter of its massive emissions under Miliband's policy. It will still pump 6 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year - on it's own causing double
the total annual CO2 emissions of the country of Nepal with its population of 30 million people.

The world's pre-eminent climate scientist, Professor James Hansen, who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is so concerned about plans for new coal plants in Britain that he has campaigned to stop Kingsnorth. He argued that with the Kingsnorth decision Ministers have the potential to influence "the future of the planet" (1).

He has called coal stations "death factories" (2) and said, "The only practical way to prevent CO2 levels from going far into the dangerous range, with disastrous effects for humanity and other inhabitants of the planet, is to phase out use of coal except at power plants where the CO2 is captured and sequestered" (3).

Equally, Sir Martin Rees, President of the prestigious Royal Society, wrote to the Energy Minister saying, "I (therefore) suggest that the government only gives consent to any new coal- fired power station, such as Kingsnorth, on condition that the operating permits are withdrawn if the plant fails to capture 90% of its carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. This would send a clear policy signal to industry of the need to develop and deploy CCS as quickly as possible" (4).

Sir David King - the government's former chief scientist - said, "There's little doubt that if we burn all of the coal that sits below the earth's surface, we can return the planet to the condition it was in 50 million years ago when the Antarctic was a tropical forest and much of the rest of the planet would be pretty difficult for human beings to live on...We've got to see that coal is not a useful resource to burn unless we can recapture the carbon that is produced by burning it."

He added of CCS, "This is still unproven technology and I think until it's proven, it's dangerous to assume that we can continue to use coal" (5).

Lord Stern of Brentford, the world's foremost climate change economist and author of the ground breaking Stern Review, in interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, supported the view that coal stations like the one proposed for Kingsnorth should not be approved without CCS (6).

The single greatest threat to the climate comes from burning coal. Coal-fired generation is historically responsible for most of the fossil-fuel CO2 in the air today, about half of all fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions globally (7).

Coal-fired power generation is the most environmentally damaging means of generating electricity yet devised. In fact, in carbon terms, coal is the dirtiest fuel known to man (8).

As we close old coal-fired and nuclear power stations in the next decade we will lose capacity currently providing around a quarter of our electricity output. But Gordon Brown committed to legally binding European targets which require us to generate up to 40% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. The UK also has fairly ambitious energy efficiency targets that would if implemented reduce energy demand (9).

According to Europe's leading independent energy experts, Pöyry, if the UK was to hit these existing renewables and efficiency targets in 2020, there would be no need for additional new conventional power stations in that time. They could close the ‘energy gap' with clean renewable energy, while also creating jobs, boosting the economy and reducing gas use. In other words, we can keep the lights on, cut emissions, and in the long run bring down fuel bills too - all without any new coal-fired plants (10).

¹ Dr. James E. Hansen, open letter to Gordon Brown, December 2007 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/letter-to-the-prime-minister-20071219

² http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

³ Dr. Jim Hansen, Testimony to the State of Iowa, 2007 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf

⁴ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/03/fossilfuels.energy

⁵ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/01/eapower101.xml

⁶ BBC Radio 4, Today programme, 6th October 2008

⁷ Dr. James E. Hansen, open letter to Gordon Brown, December 2007 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/letter-to-the-prime-minister-20071219

⁸ IPCC Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report chapter 4 table 4.9

Supercritical coal plants emit 710gCO₂/Kwh compared to 404gCO₂/Kwh for CCGT (gas), for example.

⁹ The UK efficiency target is to achieve an 18% reduction in end-use energy demand against current rates of increase.

¹⁰ http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto073120082322523374&page=2