Despite the freak gales that battered parts of the country last week, climate experts are warning that many of Britain’s wind farms may soon run out of puff.
By Tim Ross
7:30PM BST 29 May 2011
According to government figures, 13 of the past 16 months have been calmer than normal - while 2010 was the “stillest” year of the past decade.
Meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of winds over the next 40 years and leave much of the nation’s growing army of power-generating turbines becalmed.
The Coalition has drawn up plans to open more wind farms in an effort to meet Britain’s European Union target of providing 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.More than 3,600 turbines are expected to be installed in offshore wind farms over the next nine years.
But statistics suggest that the winds that sweep across the British Isles may be weakening. Last year, wind speeds over the UK averaged 7.8 knots (8.9mph), a fall of 20 per cent on 2008, and well below the mean for this century, which stands at 9.1 knots (10.5mph).
Usually Britain has warm, wet and windy winters, thanks to Caribbean air carried here by the Atlantic jet stream, a fast-flowing current of air.
But the last two winters have featured exceptionally low temperatures and were remarkably still when they should have been the windiest seasons of all, as high pressure diverted the jet stream from its normal position.
Meteorologists have found that the position of the jet stream has been influenced by the lower levels of activity on the Sun. This decline in sun-spot activity is expected to continue for the next 40 years, with potentially serious consequences for the viability of wind farms.
Professor Mike Lockwood, from Reading University, said: “Changes in the jet stream will change the pattern of winds that we get in the UK. That, of course, is a problem for wind power.
“You have to site your wind farms in the right place and if you site your wind farm in the wrong place then that will be a problem.”
Dr David Brayshaw, also from Reading’s Department of Meteorology, added: “If wind speed lowers, we can expect to generate less electricity from turbines - that's a no-brainer.”
The gales that swept Scotland last week, with gusts of over 80mph, were the worst in the month of May for almost 50 years. The power to almost 30,000 homes was temporarily cut and two people died.
Prof Lockwood said the recent spell of exceptionally dry weather in the south and wet conditions in the northern half of the UK was influenced by the position of the jet stream.
“The jet stream is sitting over the north of England so we are getting very dry weather to the south of the jet stream,” he said.
The Atlantic jet stream brings warm, wet weather to the UK and Europe from the south-west. If it is “blocked” as a result of changes in solar activity, cold air flows across Britain from the east.
One such period of prolonged blocking of the jet stream is thought to have occurred between 1645 and 1715, when Britain experienced a mini ice age, yet also spells of hot, dry summer weather.
Prof Lockwood said solar activity was especially low during this period, adding that current levels of sun-spot activity were continuing to decline. “We reached a high point of solar activity in 1985,” he said.
“Since then, it has been declining. We are now halfway back to the levels seen during the Maunder Minimum. The probability is that that decline will continue for the next 40 years.”
Friday, 3 June 2011
Brazil: £10bn Amazonian dam approved
Reuters
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Brazil's environment agency gave definitive approval yesterday for construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, a controversial $17bn (£10.3bn) project in the Amazon that has been criticised by native Indians and conservationists.
The regulator, Ibama, issued licences to the consortium in charge of Belo Monte to build the dam on the Xingu River, an Amazon tributary. The government saysthe 11,200-megawatt project, due to start producing electricity in 2015, is crucial to provide power to Brazil's economy.
It will be the world's third-biggest hydroelectric dam, after China's Three Gorges and Itaipu on the border of Brazil and Paraguay. In January, Ibama issued a preliminary licence allowing the construction site to be set up. Since then the project has been halted and resumed several times due to court injunctions obtained by environmentalists and native Indians opposing the dam.
Conceived 30 years ago, progress on Belo Monte has been slowed over the years by protests, including a 2009 incident when Kayapo Indians attacked a state electricity official.
Critics of the dam include singer Sting, Hollywood director James Cameron and environmental group Greenpeace. The 3.75-mile dam will displace 30,000 river dwellers, partially dry up a 62-mile stretch of the Xingu river, and flood large areas of forest and grass land.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Brazil's environment agency gave definitive approval yesterday for construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, a controversial $17bn (£10.3bn) project in the Amazon that has been criticised by native Indians and conservationists.
The regulator, Ibama, issued licences to the consortium in charge of Belo Monte to build the dam on the Xingu River, an Amazon tributary. The government saysthe 11,200-megawatt project, due to start producing electricity in 2015, is crucial to provide power to Brazil's economy.
It will be the world's third-biggest hydroelectric dam, after China's Three Gorges and Itaipu on the border of Brazil and Paraguay. In January, Ibama issued a preliminary licence allowing the construction site to be set up. Since then the project has been halted and resumed several times due to court injunctions obtained by environmentalists and native Indians opposing the dam.
Conceived 30 years ago, progress on Belo Monte has been slowed over the years by protests, including a 2009 incident when Kayapo Indians attacked a state electricity official.
Critics of the dam include singer Sting, Hollywood director James Cameron and environmental group Greenpeace. The 3.75-mile dam will displace 30,000 river dwellers, partially dry up a 62-mile stretch of the Xingu river, and flood large areas of forest and grass land.
Why must UK have to choose between nuclear and renewable energy?
The environment movement is needlessly polarised over nuclear power, with Jonathon Porritt only encouraging this tribalism. Can he explain why he thinks nuclear and renewables can't co-exist?
I know that others don't share my puzzlement, but I don't understand why the nuclear question needs to divide the environment movement. Our underlying aim is the same: we all want to reduce human impacts on the biosphere. We all agree that our consumption of resources must be reduced, as sharply as possible. We all question the model of endless economic growth.
Almost everyone in this movement also recognises that – even with the maximum possible conservation of resources and efficiency in the way they are used – we will not be able to bring our consumption down to zero. This is especially the case with electricity. Those who have been following the issue closely know that even with massive reductions in energy demand, electricity use will have to rise in order to remove fossil fuels from both transport and heating.
The idea, on which there's also wide agreement within the movement, is that the petrol and diesel used to power cars, buses and trains, and the gas and oil used to heat our houses, should be partly or mostly replaced by low-carbon electricity. That means an increase in electricity supply, even as, with sweeping efficiency measures in all sectors, our total energy consumption falls.
So the only question that divides us is how this low-carbon electricity should be produced. I don't much care about which technology is used, as long as the other impacts are as small as possible, and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced quickly and efficiently. None of our options is easy and painless.
Windfarms are running into massive public opposition, not least because of the new power lines required to connect them to the grid. The costs of other kinds of renewables are high, and their potential to supply much of our electricity is low.
The capture and storage of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has yet to be demonstrated at the scale required to show that it's a viable option. It is also expensive, and still involves mining coal and drilling for gas. That means continued environmental impacts, which are likely to escalate as shale gas is extracted and coal is increasingly mined through open casting.
Nuclear power remains an object of deep public suspicion. The advantage it has over renewables is that production takes place on a compact site, rather than being spread over the countryside, and that new power lines are not required in places where they haven't been built before. The disadvantage it shares with coal and gas is that it depends upon the extraction of uranium, which, like mining fossil fuels, imposes a high environmental cost. In principle this could be overcome by moving to fourth-generation nuclear technologies. Not only do they not require fresh supplies of uranium, but some of the proposed technologies consume existing nuclear waste. None of them has yet been demonstrated at scale, however.
The large-scale deployment of any of these three options – renewables, carbon capture and storage or nuclear – will take between 10 and 20 years.
These are hard physical and political constraints. There is no point in tearing each other apart over issues we can do little about. We can agree to disagree over what the mix should be, and we can keep debating all the issues it involves, hopefully in a friendly manner. The likely scenario is that, because of the problems faced by all three technologies, we'll probably need some of each. But is this possible?
According to Jonathon Porritt, it isn't. In a recent blog post discussing renewables and nuclear power, he asserts that:
"It's becoming clearer and clearer that we're now into a strict fight in terms of those two options. The days when people talked about "co-existence" are long gone; this is now either/or, not both/and."
That statement would require an explanation at any time, and unfortunately Porritt doesn't provide one. But coming just after the Committee on Climate Change published its renewable energy review, it needs even more unpacking.
The committee is the body that recommends the government's carbon targets, and offers advice on how they might best be met. Of all the agencies involved in these questions, it has the most influence over government policy, as we saw during the bust-up within the cabinet this month over whether or not its target should be adopted (the committee won after David Cameron intervened). What the committee recommends is what is most likely to happen. It advises that:
"The optimal policy is to pursue a portfolio approach, with each of the different technologies playing a role."
It suggests the following, illustrative scenario for decarbonising electricity by 2030:
• 40% renewables
• 40% nuclear
• 15% carbon capture and storage
• Up to 10% gas without carbon capture and storage
It raised no difficulties about co-existence between nuclear and renewables. And why should there be? Why can't nuclear provide the baseload power, and renewables and carbon capture and storage most of the rest? Why can't it be both/and, rather than either/or?
Here are some of the other things the report said:
"Nuclear power currently appears to be the most cost-effective of the low-carbon technologies".
This will come as a surprise to many greens. Applying a 10% discount rate, the committee suggests that by 2030 nuclear power will cost between 5 and 10p/kWh. I rang the committee to check: yes, this does take into account the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal.
Onshore wind will cost between 7 and 8.5p, and the other renewables are more expensive, in some cases much more expensive. The Severn barrage, which Porritt favours, comes out worst of all, at a staggering 21-31p.
If you apply a 7.5% discount rate, nuclear does even better against renewables (because of the higher up-front capital costs).
It also says:
"Although there is a finite supply of uranium available, this will not be a limiting factor for investment in nuclear capacity for the next 50 years."
And it reminds us that France added 48GW of nuclear capacity – equivalent to more than half of our entire electricity system – in just 10 years.
So my questions to Porritt are as follows:
• What has the Committee on Climate Change got wrong?
• Could you explain your contention that nuclear power and renewables can't co-exist?
• Do you believe that renewables are a better option than nuclear power in all circumstances? Or would you agree that beyond a certain level of difficulty, of cost, of visual intrusion and other environmental impacts (damming estuaries and rivers, building power lines across rare and beautiful landscapes for example), nuclear becomes a more attractive option?
• If you are to exclude nuclear entirely, what should the mix of electricity generation in this country be?
I would like to hear his answers to these questions. In the spirit of both debate and reconciliation, I've secured space for him to reply on this site. Over to you, Porritt.
www.monbiot.com
• Jonathon Porritt will be posting a response comment to this blogpost shortly on environmentguardian.co.uk
I know that others don't share my puzzlement, but I don't understand why the nuclear question needs to divide the environment movement. Our underlying aim is the same: we all want to reduce human impacts on the biosphere. We all agree that our consumption of resources must be reduced, as sharply as possible. We all question the model of endless economic growth.
Almost everyone in this movement also recognises that – even with the maximum possible conservation of resources and efficiency in the way they are used – we will not be able to bring our consumption down to zero. This is especially the case with electricity. Those who have been following the issue closely know that even with massive reductions in energy demand, electricity use will have to rise in order to remove fossil fuels from both transport and heating.
The idea, on which there's also wide agreement within the movement, is that the petrol and diesel used to power cars, buses and trains, and the gas and oil used to heat our houses, should be partly or mostly replaced by low-carbon electricity. That means an increase in electricity supply, even as, with sweeping efficiency measures in all sectors, our total energy consumption falls.
So the only question that divides us is how this low-carbon electricity should be produced. I don't much care about which technology is used, as long as the other impacts are as small as possible, and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced quickly and efficiently. None of our options is easy and painless.
Windfarms are running into massive public opposition, not least because of the new power lines required to connect them to the grid. The costs of other kinds of renewables are high, and their potential to supply much of our electricity is low.
The capture and storage of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has yet to be demonstrated at the scale required to show that it's a viable option. It is also expensive, and still involves mining coal and drilling for gas. That means continued environmental impacts, which are likely to escalate as shale gas is extracted and coal is increasingly mined through open casting.
Nuclear power remains an object of deep public suspicion. The advantage it has over renewables is that production takes place on a compact site, rather than being spread over the countryside, and that new power lines are not required in places where they haven't been built before. The disadvantage it shares with coal and gas is that it depends upon the extraction of uranium, which, like mining fossil fuels, imposes a high environmental cost. In principle this could be overcome by moving to fourth-generation nuclear technologies. Not only do they not require fresh supplies of uranium, but some of the proposed technologies consume existing nuclear waste. None of them has yet been demonstrated at scale, however.
The large-scale deployment of any of these three options – renewables, carbon capture and storage or nuclear – will take between 10 and 20 years.
These are hard physical and political constraints. There is no point in tearing each other apart over issues we can do little about. We can agree to disagree over what the mix should be, and we can keep debating all the issues it involves, hopefully in a friendly manner. The likely scenario is that, because of the problems faced by all three technologies, we'll probably need some of each. But is this possible?
According to Jonathon Porritt, it isn't. In a recent blog post discussing renewables and nuclear power, he asserts that:
"It's becoming clearer and clearer that we're now into a strict fight in terms of those two options. The days when people talked about "co-existence" are long gone; this is now either/or, not both/and."
That statement would require an explanation at any time, and unfortunately Porritt doesn't provide one. But coming just after the Committee on Climate Change published its renewable energy review, it needs even more unpacking.
The committee is the body that recommends the government's carbon targets, and offers advice on how they might best be met. Of all the agencies involved in these questions, it has the most influence over government policy, as we saw during the bust-up within the cabinet this month over whether or not its target should be adopted (the committee won after David Cameron intervened). What the committee recommends is what is most likely to happen. It advises that:
"The optimal policy is to pursue a portfolio approach, with each of the different technologies playing a role."
It suggests the following, illustrative scenario for decarbonising electricity by 2030:
• 40% renewables
• 40% nuclear
• 15% carbon capture and storage
• Up to 10% gas without carbon capture and storage
It raised no difficulties about co-existence between nuclear and renewables. And why should there be? Why can't nuclear provide the baseload power, and renewables and carbon capture and storage most of the rest? Why can't it be both/and, rather than either/or?
Here are some of the other things the report said:
"Nuclear power currently appears to be the most cost-effective of the low-carbon technologies".
This will come as a surprise to many greens. Applying a 10% discount rate, the committee suggests that by 2030 nuclear power will cost between 5 and 10p/kWh. I rang the committee to check: yes, this does take into account the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal.
Onshore wind will cost between 7 and 8.5p, and the other renewables are more expensive, in some cases much more expensive. The Severn barrage, which Porritt favours, comes out worst of all, at a staggering 21-31p.
If you apply a 7.5% discount rate, nuclear does even better against renewables (because of the higher up-front capital costs).
It also says:
"Although there is a finite supply of uranium available, this will not be a limiting factor for investment in nuclear capacity for the next 50 years."
And it reminds us that France added 48GW of nuclear capacity – equivalent to more than half of our entire electricity system – in just 10 years.
So my questions to Porritt are as follows:
• What has the Committee on Climate Change got wrong?
• Could you explain your contention that nuclear power and renewables can't co-exist?
• Do you believe that renewables are a better option than nuclear power in all circumstances? Or would you agree that beyond a certain level of difficulty, of cost, of visual intrusion and other environmental impacts (damming estuaries and rivers, building power lines across rare and beautiful landscapes for example), nuclear becomes a more attractive option?
• If you are to exclude nuclear entirely, what should the mix of electricity generation in this country be?
I would like to hear his answers to these questions. In the spirit of both debate and reconciliation, I've secured space for him to reply on this site. Over to you, Porritt.
www.monbiot.com
• Jonathon Porritt will be posting a response comment to this blogpost shortly on environmentguardian.co.uk
'Green deal' may cover cost of solar panels for homes
Small-scale energy generation may be eligible for the government-backed loan scheme for householders
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 June 2011 07.00 BST
Solar panels and other forms of small-scale energy generation may be eligible for a government-backed loan scheme to householders, according to the UK's minister of state for climate change. The potential inclusion of renewable energy in the coalition's flagship "green deal" comes as a surprise, as the development of the scheme has so far focused on energy efficiency measures such as lagging lofts.
Papers published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) on Thursday show that the 14 million householders expected to qualify for a complete energy-saving overhaul in the next 10 years may be able to choose from 23 different technologies, including cavity wall insulation and draught proofing but also covering solar water heating, wood burning stoves and biomass boilers.
"We are leaving the window open for micro generation technologies. It could happen in the future," said Greg Barker.
Under the scheme, which it is hoped will be rolled out from next year, all 25m homes in Britain will ultimately be assessed and owners will be offered loans by high street companies for energy-saving measures. Repayments will theoretically be offset for consumers by savings on energy bills, and the debts will be attached to properties rather than individuals.
But Barker said it would not be like a conventional bank loan. "It will not be a loan. It will not count against people's credit rating. This is a revolution that will ricochet around the world. This is the most ambitious energy-saving programme anywhere since the second world war. It will do for environmental efficiency what privatisation did for industrial efficiency. The fact is you should be better off from day one. You will have a better property that is easier to heat. Your fuel bill should be less. This is about unleashing new technologies. We have got to do 14m homes by the early 2020s and 25m by 2030." .
Barker said that companies including John Lewis, B&Q, Marks & Spencer, Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury's are now set to offer the packages to consumers, with installation work to be done by certified assessors and contractors bound by law to work to meet agreed standards.
Critics of the scheme have said that few people will be attracted because the money borrowed is expected to be at expensive commercial rates of interest. But Barker hinted that more incentives would be offered. "I am sure I am sure there will be more incentives to come. We are in discussions with the Treasury," he said.
According to the papers published today there will be different options for householders on the length of repayments, defined standards of service for assessors and installers will need to be members of a green deal accredited certification body. Providers will need to hold a consumer credit licence to provide consumers protection against mis-selling.
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 June 2011 07.00 BST
Solar panels and other forms of small-scale energy generation may be eligible for a government-backed loan scheme to householders, according to the UK's minister of state for climate change. The potential inclusion of renewable energy in the coalition's flagship "green deal" comes as a surprise, as the development of the scheme has so far focused on energy efficiency measures such as lagging lofts.
Papers published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) on Thursday show that the 14 million householders expected to qualify for a complete energy-saving overhaul in the next 10 years may be able to choose from 23 different technologies, including cavity wall insulation and draught proofing but also covering solar water heating, wood burning stoves and biomass boilers.
"We are leaving the window open for micro generation technologies. It could happen in the future," said Greg Barker.
Under the scheme, which it is hoped will be rolled out from next year, all 25m homes in Britain will ultimately be assessed and owners will be offered loans by high street companies for energy-saving measures. Repayments will theoretically be offset for consumers by savings on energy bills, and the debts will be attached to properties rather than individuals.
But Barker said it would not be like a conventional bank loan. "It will not be a loan. It will not count against people's credit rating. This is a revolution that will ricochet around the world. This is the most ambitious energy-saving programme anywhere since the second world war. It will do for environmental efficiency what privatisation did for industrial efficiency. The fact is you should be better off from day one. You will have a better property that is easier to heat. Your fuel bill should be less. This is about unleashing new technologies. We have got to do 14m homes by the early 2020s and 25m by 2030." .
Barker said that companies including John Lewis, B&Q, Marks & Spencer, Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury's are now set to offer the packages to consumers, with installation work to be done by certified assessors and contractors bound by law to work to meet agreed standards.
Critics of the scheme have said that few people will be attracted because the money borrowed is expected to be at expensive commercial rates of interest. But Barker hinted that more incentives would be offered. "I am sure I am sure there will be more incentives to come. We are in discussions with the Treasury," he said.
According to the papers published today there will be different options for householders on the length of repayments, defined standards of service for assessors and installers will need to be members of a green deal accredited certification body. Providers will need to hold a consumer credit licence to provide consumers protection against mis-selling.
How palm oil jeopardises global efforts to reduce emissions
While governments commit to biofuels as a solution to reduce emissions, they are contributing to a destructive palm oil trade
In my mail bag at the end of last week was a letter from the minister for agriculture and food, Jim Paice, responding to queries I made recently about the UK's policy on palm oil. I had written to urge the government to back an amendment – originally tabled by Greens in the European parliament – to the EU directive on the provision of food information to consumers, which would enforce mandatory labelling of products containing palm oil. Unfortunately, it appears that even this moderate step isn't something our government is willing to support.
Environmentalists and social activists have long expressed grave concerns about the negative impact of palm oil on communities and habitats around the world. High-profile campaigns from WWF and Greenpeace in recent years have exposed the extent to which palm oil production often comes at the expense of tropical forests and carbon-rich peat lands. Unsustainable practices have disastrous consequences on critically endangered species, harm local people and lead to massive deforestation – thereby setting back the global effort to reduce carbon emissions.
A lack of transparency in the food industry means it isn't often visible – but palm oil is everywhere. During the industrial revolution, it was a highly sought-after commodity for British traders, used as an industrial lubricant for machinery. Now, palm oil is the world's cheapest and most common vegetable oil, found in close to half of all top-selling grocery brands across Europe. Research from 2008 showed that 43 out of the 100 best-selling branded products in UK supermarkets contained the oil.
Primarily produced in Indonesia and Malaysia, and increasingly in Africa, around 70% of palm oil is thought to end up in food and other common products – with multinational companies accounting for the lion's share.
Given the scale of the problem, you would imagine that the government would want to do all it can to address this crucial issue. An EU-wide mandatory labelling policy is one common sense solution – reducing palm oil's invisibility and allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy, increasing pressure on companies to commit only to certified sustainable palm oil. Such a policy would also be in line with the government's Food 2030 strategy, which highlights the need to support the development of sustainable supply chains.
Yet in his response, Paice argues that a requirement for separate labelling of palm oil in foods would be "burdensome for businesses", although helpfully he states that there is "nothing to prevent manufacturers providing information on a voluntary basis".
As my Green colleagues in the European parliament, Keith Taylor and Jean Lambert, have argued, voluntary labelling schemes will fail to provide the much-needed impetus on companies to act. Only a compulsory scheme would adequately encourage more sustainable production, by driving demand for certified sustainable palm oil from European food retailers and manufacturers.
Consumer pressure has already pushed many leading European supermarkets and food manufacturers into joining the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). But while it's a start, little so far has been seen in the way of impact. Many RSPO members are reportedly failing to alter the most damaging industry practices, like large-scale forest clearance and the exploitation of local communities in conflicts over land rights.
Without serious commitment and binding obligations, bodies such as the RSPO risk being little more than fig leaves for industry – promoting an image of sustainability without companies having to actually change their ways.
And there is no underestimating the lobbying efforts of this hugely profitable industry. As the Guardian reported recently, Malaysia and Indonesia have launched a joint PR offensive to defend the industry's environmental record in Europe. The new European palm oil council (EPOC) will be in place by the end of this year, explicitly designed to counter the "anti-palm oil campaign". Ministers from both countries are also visiting US officials in Washington DC to discuss obstacles to the palm oil trade.
In the face of such pressure from an expanding industry, governments need to encourage far more vigilance and transparency along the full length of the palm oil supply chain to ensure that only sustainable producers can supply the companies which make our groceries. The industry knows that, given the choice, consumers will demand change.
Transparency is also part of what's needed to tackle the role played by biofuel production in increasing demand for palm oil. Just last week, we learned that environmental groups are suing the European commission over a failure to meet its legal obligations to make available information about Europe's biofuels policy – and how decisions are made about sustainability.
The irony is that, while governments are committing wholeheartedly to biofuels as a solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are contributing to a destructive palm oil trade which may do more harm than good to the world's people and habitats.
And surely anything that involves land being taken away from communities and used to grow crops for export at the expense of local food production is inherently unsustainable? Since the EU's biofuel legislation allows for sustainability criteria to be developed over next few years and for a review to take place, measures to tackle palm oil ought at the very least to be consistent with that process.
Meanwhile, the labelling of palm oil is still under discussion in the European institutions. It's certainly not the only form of action we need, but the Greens in the European parliament will do all they can to push it through as an important first step. It's a pity that the UK government won't support them.
In my mail bag at the end of last week was a letter from the minister for agriculture and food, Jim Paice, responding to queries I made recently about the UK's policy on palm oil. I had written to urge the government to back an amendment – originally tabled by Greens in the European parliament – to the EU directive on the provision of food information to consumers, which would enforce mandatory labelling of products containing palm oil. Unfortunately, it appears that even this moderate step isn't something our government is willing to support.
Environmentalists and social activists have long expressed grave concerns about the negative impact of palm oil on communities and habitats around the world. High-profile campaigns from WWF and Greenpeace in recent years have exposed the extent to which palm oil production often comes at the expense of tropical forests and carbon-rich peat lands. Unsustainable practices have disastrous consequences on critically endangered species, harm local people and lead to massive deforestation – thereby setting back the global effort to reduce carbon emissions.
A lack of transparency in the food industry means it isn't often visible – but palm oil is everywhere. During the industrial revolution, it was a highly sought-after commodity for British traders, used as an industrial lubricant for machinery. Now, palm oil is the world's cheapest and most common vegetable oil, found in close to half of all top-selling grocery brands across Europe. Research from 2008 showed that 43 out of the 100 best-selling branded products in UK supermarkets contained the oil.
Primarily produced in Indonesia and Malaysia, and increasingly in Africa, around 70% of palm oil is thought to end up in food and other common products – with multinational companies accounting for the lion's share.
Given the scale of the problem, you would imagine that the government would want to do all it can to address this crucial issue. An EU-wide mandatory labelling policy is one common sense solution – reducing palm oil's invisibility and allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy, increasing pressure on companies to commit only to certified sustainable palm oil. Such a policy would also be in line with the government's Food 2030 strategy, which highlights the need to support the development of sustainable supply chains.
Yet in his response, Paice argues that a requirement for separate labelling of palm oil in foods would be "burdensome for businesses", although helpfully he states that there is "nothing to prevent manufacturers providing information on a voluntary basis".
As my Green colleagues in the European parliament, Keith Taylor and Jean Lambert, have argued, voluntary labelling schemes will fail to provide the much-needed impetus on companies to act. Only a compulsory scheme would adequately encourage more sustainable production, by driving demand for certified sustainable palm oil from European food retailers and manufacturers.
Consumer pressure has already pushed many leading European supermarkets and food manufacturers into joining the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). But while it's a start, little so far has been seen in the way of impact. Many RSPO members are reportedly failing to alter the most damaging industry practices, like large-scale forest clearance and the exploitation of local communities in conflicts over land rights.
Without serious commitment and binding obligations, bodies such as the RSPO risk being little more than fig leaves for industry – promoting an image of sustainability without companies having to actually change their ways.
And there is no underestimating the lobbying efforts of this hugely profitable industry. As the Guardian reported recently, Malaysia and Indonesia have launched a joint PR offensive to defend the industry's environmental record in Europe. The new European palm oil council (EPOC) will be in place by the end of this year, explicitly designed to counter the "anti-palm oil campaign". Ministers from both countries are also visiting US officials in Washington DC to discuss obstacles to the palm oil trade.
In the face of such pressure from an expanding industry, governments need to encourage far more vigilance and transparency along the full length of the palm oil supply chain to ensure that only sustainable producers can supply the companies which make our groceries. The industry knows that, given the choice, consumers will demand change.
Transparency is also part of what's needed to tackle the role played by biofuel production in increasing demand for palm oil. Just last week, we learned that environmental groups are suing the European commission over a failure to meet its legal obligations to make available information about Europe's biofuels policy – and how decisions are made about sustainability.
The irony is that, while governments are committing wholeheartedly to biofuels as a solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are contributing to a destructive palm oil trade which may do more harm than good to the world's people and habitats.
And surely anything that involves land being taken away from communities and used to grow crops for export at the expense of local food production is inherently unsustainable? Since the EU's biofuel legislation allows for sustainability criteria to be developed over next few years and for a review to take place, measures to tackle palm oil ought at the very least to be consistent with that process.
Meanwhile, the labelling of palm oil is still under discussion in the European institutions. It's certainly not the only form of action we need, but the Greens in the European parliament will do all they can to push it through as an important first step. It's a pity that the UK government won't support them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
