Home » Camp TV , Radio & Press

Discussion

This section contains a number of resources we hope you’ll find of interest. If you think something should be added here, email website@climatecamp.org.uk

Just Transition
Statement to the Unions
Climate Science
Why Kingsnorth
Biofuels
Climate Action Cafe

Just Transition

A just transition – call from climate camp 2008
The climate camp is determined to stop the human causes of climate chaos because of the devastating impacts it will have on both people and planet. Climate chaos is a social justice issue because it is already killing people now and because it will impact upon the poorest and most vulnerable first, both nationally and globally.
We are in an ecological and an energy crisis that has its roots in a capitalist system that has steadily exploited both people and resources for hundreds of years. A future with less energy consumption is inevitable; and we believe it is better to plan for that future than be overtaken by it. We must wean ourselves off fossil fuels – but we must do it in a fair and just way. That is why we endorse the idea of Just Transition.
Just transition has been an active force in USA for over 10 years and has a good tradition of generating solidarity between workers, environmentalists ands communities.
Just Transition is a principle, a process and a practice.
The principle is that a healthy economy and a clean environment can and should co-exist.
The process is that changes to employment or activities should be fair and not cost workers or communities their health, wealth or assets.
The practice is that those affected by these changes should take a leading role in creating new policies and solutions.
In addition, we recognise that as climate and energy problems bite, the rich will try and squeeze the costs from poorer and working communities. We reject this response and say that costs and taxes must not fall on the vulnerable parts of society but on those most able to shoulder them.
We recognise the principle of solidarity. Communities, workers and activists should fight together for improvements for all people and not sacrifice or marginalise another group because they are distant or different.
We recognise there has to be clear and full compensation to workers and communities for the costs of switching to a different economy, for community redevelopment and for the health and clean up costs of previous industries.
In 2008 the Camp for Climate action will be at Kingsnorth power station. Because of the impact of burning coal we are determined to stop the building of new coal fired power stations. In addition the move to a low carbon economy will mean the UK’s current stock of coal fired power stations will have to move towards early retirement.
This does not mean we are not concerned about the workers in those industries. Since 2006 the climate camp has made it clear that solving the problem of climate change also means challenging inequality and exploitation, in solidarity with other groups including workers. We want a planned transition, with the decisions of workers being central; not people thrown on the scrap heap when they are not wanted anymore, which is the usual scenario when governments make the decisions.
We are against the plans to build new coal fired power stations, but we are firmly not against those working within the industry. We are for those industry workers being given a real say in what happens. Our historic solidarity is with the miners. We recognise that the shift from coal to gas was achieved in part by an aggressive and political attack on the miners their union and their communities.. The changes in the energy sector (and within society as a whole) that we are calling for requires positive struggle based on a fight for justice and general solidarity that the miners dispute itself could have given rise to.
We want to see workers movements and unions becoming the driving force for a transition to a low carbon society that challenges inequality, poverty, and climate change. We want to work with any such movement to help make that happen.
Technical solutions are not enough; we have to address the roots of the problem. An economy that pits worker against worker in an endless search for growth and profits is never going to tackle the human and ecological crisis we currently face. The next 10 years will see massive changes across all sectors of society. We believe that this is a massive opportunity to create a society that values people for more than their ability to create profit. It is a massive opportunity to re-invest in communities and local economies and to create thriving, healthy environments. But it will not come without a struggle and it is an opportunity we will miss if we, the huge global majority who stand to lose or gain over the coming decades, do not work together.
back to top

Statement to the Unions

The following text was written by the networking group prior to Climate Camp 2008:
As you may be aware the Camp for Climate Action will be happening near Kingsnorth in Kent, august 3 -11th 2008.
The camp is an open event to which all are welcome to attend and debate issues about how we can stop climate change. We will also explore practical examples of how we can live, work and take decisions together, in truly democratic and sustainable ways.
We aim to shut down Kingsnorth power station on the 9th of August for one day. We want to clarify that this action is not against the workers at Kingsnorth, nor does it mean we think the UK coal industry should be shut down overnight. It means we want to show the seriousness of the threat both to humans and our environment, now and into the future. This crisis affects the world’s poorest people first and hardest and is a social justice issue. We feel that we must take collective, political direct action to address it.
We recognise the history of political attacks on the miners and the union movement and we firmly resist that. We recognise the need for jobs, viable communities and a strong trade union movement, and we want a decent, fair and long term deal for all, including miners, energy workers and their communities. We believe we face a common enemy of short-termism, capitalism and the exploitation of people and nature that capitalism inevitably brings.
Coal is currently the dirtiest of the fossil fuels and it is an industry that is going to have to respond to the climate crisis. We are against any proposal that would increase our carbon emissions, as a new power station at Kingsnorth would. Extremely rapid reductions in emissions are necessary if we are not to watch millions suffer and die in the most preventable disaster the world has ever known.
We know much hope surrounds ‘clean coal technology’, but we see a lot of ‘greenwash’ there too. ‘Clean coal’ means many different things and is an idea not a single technology. We know many within the coal industry are pushing carbon capture and storage – CCS – and this is proposed for one part of the new Kingsnorth plant. It may offer solutions but on the scale required it is still only theoretical and will no doubt have many costs. Like many technical proposals its impact will depend on the political context it is used in. We are concerned that it does not marginalise solutions that could have a real impact today, like energy efficiency, renewables, local production, public transport etc. All of these could provide thousands of new jobs immediately, and help make our society healthier.
We don’t have a blueprint for the future but we do have a clear sense of the values which will guide it – environmental sustainability and social justice for all. We locate the roots of climate change within the ideas and practice of capitalism. Consequently we know that we cannot ‘solve’ climate change without addressing the way our world is run for private profit rather than social gain and for endless growth rather than satisfying needs.
We have adopted the model of ‘Just Transition’, in which the needs of workers are paramount within the transition to a new economy: their views are central, there should be adequate retraining where required, there should be no loss incurred. An increasing number of trade unions are adopting this model internationally. There will be ways we can make this transition protect, and benefit, workers and communities worldwide.
Climate change poses a question about our economic and social system. It is in fact an opportunity. The theft of resources, the inequality, the destruction of nature, the abandonment of communities unwanted by big business, the injustice, the poverty, the lack of a real say in our lives – all these can be addressed when we address climate change. As prices rise and people question the reasons for the instability, we will have welcome space to talk about capitalism, social justice and real democracy. It will be an opportunity for groups who were previously unaligned to work together. It will be an opportunity for us to realise the importance and excitement of collective action. It could and should offer the opportunity for the trade union movement to re invigorate itself.
We know we should have made greater efforts to communicate with workers and unions at an earlier stage, and we apologise for that. We hope this opportunity is now here and we warmly welcome a dialogue with all sectors over how we can move forward both fairly and sustainably.
We know there is a proposal for a counter demonstration against the camp. We are concerned that this proposal could give the impression that we are on different sides and be seized upon by government and media to avoid talking about the real political issues we could be addressing. Such a division, real or not, could damage us both, whereas mutual respect and aid could help. We need to engage in a constructive dialogue about the way forward.
To that effect we warmly offer to come to your branch or group to discuss these issues, and invite you to the Camp to do the same.
In solidarity,
Networking group – Camp for Climate Action 2008
back to top

Climate Science

Basic science

The Earth’s climate is always changing. Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, alongside complex interactions between volcanic eruptions, the ecosystems on land, the oceans and the atmosphere, ensure that the Earth’s climate is always on the move. Far in the past there were Ice Ages and even further back forests in Antarctica.

What is occurring now is unusual: we are experiencing extremely rapid climate change. The air temperature at the Earth’s surface increased over the 20th century by 0.7 degrees Celsius and is now rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. The speed of change is probably faster than at any time in Earth’s history, except perhaps after rare events like impacts from large objects colliding with Earth from space. There has been an enormous scientific effort to explain this temperature rise. Researchers from many branches of science have studied possible changes in the Earth’s orbit, changes to the output of energy from the sun, the impact of volcanoes, and other natural factors. They have also looked at many factors caused by human activities such as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, changing land-use, the release of small particles called aerosols, and many other industrial pollutants. They found that many processes are contributing to the recorded rise in temperature, but the single most important cause is the increase in the amount of the gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

By burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) and forests, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to about 380 parts per million today, higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is one of a number of ‘greenhouse gases’, so- called because they allow the Sun’s rays to reach the Earth’s surface but then prevent some of that heat escaping back to space, acting a bit like a giant greenhouse around the Earth. This ‘greenhouse effect’ has been understood by scientists for over 100 years. It keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. The increase in carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel use is intensifying the greenhouse effect, heating up the Earth. Because the Earth is a connected and inter-dependent system the increase in temperature is affecting many other processes, from rainfall to which plants are able to grow where.

This scientific understanding of climate change has been the subject of incredible controversy. This is not because there is a lack of consensus among scientists. The controversy is essentially social: accepting that humans are causing rapid climate change means accepting the major predictions of serious environmental and social problems unless greenhouse gas emissions decline. For most people, accepting the scientific evidence makes not taking action indefensible.

Impacts

Rapid climate change is having substantial effects on many processes now. As well as global air temperature increases, the ocean temperature has increased to depths in excess of 3,000 metres, mountain glaciers and snow cover have decreased across the world and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are rapidly losing ice. As a result of this, sea levels rose over the 20th century, and have been rising by 3 mm per year over the past decade. There have been more intense and longer droughts, mostly in the tropics. Changes in extreme temperatures have been observed: hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent.

People worldwide are being affected; for example, the 2003 heatwave in Europe killed 30,000 people. Scientists have shown that human emissions of greenhouse gases doubled the probability of such a heatwave. Melting glaciers are increasing the size and number of glacial lakes, threatening mountain villages and towns as the lakes become increasingly likely to burst. Millions across the developing world are suffering due to droughts affecting crop yields.

Plants and animals are being affected, as species move towards the Poles or up mountains in search of the cooler conditions they are adapted to live in. The oceans are becoming more acid as carbon dioxide dissolves into the water. Of 29,000 observational data sets of plants, animals and physical changes, 90% were consistent with the change expected by a response to global warming.

What about the future? Completely precise and accurate predictions are not possible as simulations of the response of the climate, ecosystems and oceans to natural changes and those caused by humans all contain a degree of uncertainty due to the complexity of the factors involved. However, the broad predictions are that under ‘business-as-usual’, a globalised fossil-fuel intensive world, temperature rises of around 4 degrees C are expected by 2100. From this we can confidently expect reduced crop yields in the tropics, sea level rises and increases in flooding, more extreme weather events and at least a third of all species destined for extinction.

More worryingly, the rapid rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could set in motion large-scale and potentially abrupt changes in our planet’s natural systems that may be irreversible. The Amazon rainforest could die-off, the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt triggering massive sea-level rises. One key concern is that breaching one of these thresholds may increase the probability of then crossing another, which much of the global population would have extreme difficulty in adapting to.

Under business-as-usual are we heading for catastrophe? The most honest answer is ‘possibly’. It is currently impossible to make robust predictions about how future climatic changes will interact with social factors and other environmental problems in an increasingly globalised world. But there are many socially explosive scenarios that are not far-fetched. For example, a future economic recession and geopolitical tensions over resources, coupled with extreme weather events causing a key crop failure and massive human migrations, could overload political institutions across many countries simultaneously. However, in terms of tackling climate change alone, it is physically possible to avoid the worst of climate change depending upon the political choices that are made now.

Reducing Emissions

The need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is almost universally agreed. Even Rex Tillerson, the Chairman of Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, says “...we should take steps now to reduce emissions...”. The key question is how much. People increasingly want scientists to tell them what the ‘safe limit’ is for carbon dioxide emissions to avoid serious problems. This is difficult because it is essentially a social and political question as what is ‘safe’ is different for different people. Old people are more at risk from heatwaves. The poor cannot afford to move their homes if at risk of flooding, or repair them after flooding. Essentially, choosing to reduce emissions implies balancing the risks of negative climate change against the risks of imposing measures that have negative impacts on people's lives.

Many scientists say we need to limit temperature increases to a maximum of 2 degrees C to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system”, defined by the United Nations Framework on Climate Change as that which jeopardizes food security, protection of ecosystems and sustainable economic development. This is the target of the European Union and the British Government.

Recent research suggests that even greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought are necessary to achieve a 2 degree target because the capacity of the so-called carbon sinks – the overall absorption of carbon into oceans, vegetation and soils – is expected to reduce this century. To give a reasonable chance (more likely than not) of not exceeding 2 degrees, we need to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at the most stringent level assessed by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, around 400 parts per million. Often this is expressed to include all different gases and aerosols known as ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ or CO2e. Using this measure the limit should be approximately 450 parts per million CO2e.

Carbon dioxide concentrations alone are currently 380 ppm, rising by 2 ppm per year. To keep carbon dioxide concentrations from passing 400 parts per million requires global emissions to peak within the next 10 years, and globally to decline by between 50 and 80% by 2050. Allowing for equal per-person emissions for people across the world means a reduction in developed countries by about 90% by 2050 or sooner. This represents a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of about 5 % per year, every year.

Dr Simon L. Lewis, Earth & Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds. The author is a specialist on the interactions of tropical forests and climate change and a member of the Royal Society’s Climate Change Advisory Group. All the scientific information included here appears in the IPCC Fourth Assesment Reports, available at www.ipcc.ch

This is republished from the 2007 Heathrow Camp for Climate Action Welcome booklet.

back to top

Why Kingsnorth?

Given how much CO2 you get when you burn coal, building a coal fired power station in the middle of a climate crisis would be really stupid. Really, really, stupid. But incredibly, down at Kingsnorth that's exactly what power company E.ON and the Government plan to do.

Here’s our top 10 reasons for not building Kingsnorth, or burning coal or digging it up or well, doing pretty much anything with it other than leaving it in the ground. You don't have to read them all. Any one will give you reason enough to join us this summer. A new power station at Kingsnorth really is that daft.

1. Let's build a coal-fired power station!

If built, Kingsnorth will emit between 6 and 8 million tons of CO2 every year. That’s a hell of a lot of CO2, more even than the proposed third runway at Heathrow would produce. Scientists are usually a fairly reserved bunch but even they are starting to sound frantic about what’s happening with the climate. That’s not surprising given that, if we carry on treating the planet like a cheap boil in the bag dinner, we risk causing catastrophic climate change. That’s probably a bad idea. To avoid it we need to rapidly reduce emissions. So, in a world where we respect the ecology of the planet and the lives of those whose home it is, no Kingsnorth.

2. Kingsnorth is just the beginning. Six other similar power stations are planned.

How do you multiply stupid? We're not sure, but that’s what the power utilities want to do. Unless there’s a big fight over Kingsnorth these companies, with the backing of Government, want to build six more atmosphere-crunching coal fired power stations in the next few years. Collectively these power stations would emit around 50 million tons of CO2 a year. It’s hard to understand such a callous disregard for your fellow humans but if you want to, start by following the money. Power stations make lots of it and, given the amount of coal around, they're a ‘safe’ long term investment. It’s an age-old story but the ending isn’t written yet.

What happens at Kingsnorth is vitally important. When people get together determined to make the world a better place there is history-making potential. Look at the Suffragettes, the struggle for workers rights, the anti-roads movement. Kingsnorth can and will be stopped if enough of us get together to make it happen.

3. Because coal is the most polluting fossil fuel.

Coal was a really cool idea for the convenient long term storage of a load rotting prehistoric forests but burning it to make electricity is a monumentally bad one. It might have made sense at the beginning of the industrial revolution but then so did child labour, slavery and woollen swimming trunks. Now we know burning coal is wrecking the climate. Of CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity around 50% has come from the burning of coal. Mainly this is from Western nations who industrialized first.

Today burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. One of the great challenges for this generation is to find ways of living on this planet whilst leaving fossil fuels (especially coal) in the ground. We are quite literally the Power Generation. We have to change the ways we generate power and we need to find the power to make these changes happen.

4. Because coal is about as clean as an anthrax sandwich.

Proudly brandishing the phrase ‘clean coal’, the coal industry is confidently striding forth into our warming world. It’s a brilliant piece of PR greenwash. However, like ‘friendly’ fire or the ‘great’ war, it sounds kind of good but actually, when you get down to it, it really isn’t. Modern coal fired power stations are slightly more ‘efficient’ than old ones but the bottom line is: coal burning is responsible for one quarter of global emissions and those emissions are causing serious problems.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an important part of the ‘clean’ coal myth. It’s basically a method of capturing and compressing the waste CO2 from a power station and then pumping it into salt aquifiers and old oil wells for long term storage. There’s a few problems with CCS. The biggest one is that it doesn’t exist, it's science fiction. Sure there’s the odd experimental trial but at the scale of large coal fired power stations even the industry themselves say it's 10 years away at best.

E.ON are saying that the power station they plan to build will be CCS ready. But ready for what exactly. We might be ready for the second coming but that isn’t going to help solve climate change that’s happening in reality in the here and now. Given that the next few years are crucial and that other ready-to-go alternatives exist, CCS is just a distraction. E.ON want to talk about CCS because they don’t want to talk about CO2 emissions. They want to obscure the truth: Kingsnorth power station will emit at least 6 million tons of CO2 every year and damn the lot of you.

5. Oh dear we're running out of oil. Wahey there's loads of coal!

No need to worry about the coming oil crunch, there’s loads of tar sands and coal - we’ll burn that instead. If you’ve got big investments in fossil fuels or you’ve just bought a villa in Greenland then maybe this ‘solution’ to the oil crunch makes sense. To the rest of us it makes about as much sense as a petrol-filled fire extinguisher.

Most of the geological evidence suggests that there is a lot of coal left, up to 200 years at current rates of consumption. But burning it really isn’t an option if we want a planet to live on (forget Greenland, those villas have sold out and the neighbours would be horrible).

6. But if we don’t burn coal the Chinese will.

Blimey. Where do you start? Yes the Chinese are building coal fired power stations but...

1. Climate change is a global problem and nearly every country is going to have to reduce emissions - the British, the Chinese, the Americans - we all have to get our shit together and change the way our societies make and use energy. If we're going to do it fairly (which in our view is essential), that means countries like the UK will have to cut a lot more than the Chinese. If you're burning coal you're making the problem worse. We're burning it here in the UK so that’s where we’ve got to stop it.

2. Not only are average emissions for each person significantly lower in China than in Britain, a large percentage of Chinese coal is burnt so that Chinese factories can make the throwaway consumer items that fill the shopping centres and refuse dumps of the west.

3. We’ve got to start somewhere. The very ecological systems we rely on for life are in jeopardy. If someone doesn’t wake up and try to turn off the gas we'll probably fry sleeping. Arguing about who should set the alarm is as pathetic as it is suicidal.

7. Without these power stations there will be an energy gap.

The old ones are the best ones. Problem: a load of companies want to make big bucks but can only achieve it by doing the rest of us over. Answer: come up with something scary so people are distracted and don’t notice what you're up to. O’oo the energy gap. A frightener isn’t it. It’s meant to be what happens if we don’t build new coal and nuclear power stations to replace the ones that are being decommissioned. We run out of energy, the Christmas lights go out , rubbish blows in the streets and we’re all transported back into the 70s and forced to listen to crackly Val Doonican records on pedal powered stereos.

But the energy gap is a nonsense.

Check out the Government's own projections:

• The amount electricity generating capacity reduction by 2027 from closing old coal and nuclear power stations: 35%
• The amount of energy Gordon Brown has said we will generate from renewable sources by 2020: 40%

On these figures there is no energy gap. In fact we're up five percent seven years early. There are other gaps. A commitment cap, a vision gap, a take the bull by the horns and do something useful for a change gap. But no energy gap.

8. Because there is a growing movement against coal.

It’s not just about Kingsnorth. In Wales and Derbyshire people are trying to stop new open cast mines. And from Bangladesh and the Appalachians to Columbia and Ecuador people are fighting against coal and fossil fuel extraction. This summer there are five other climate camps in other countries all focused on the issue of coal.

This is an essential way of facing the energy and climate change crisis. It’s a call to get together and work for something better in solidarity with people across the globe. It might sound like an old fashioned idea but then these days so does a stable climate and hell, if flares can make a come back anything has to be possible.

9. Because we need to talk about work.

Here’s a crazy idea. Instead of employing people to burn coal how about we build install and run an energy system based on renewables. They’ve started doing it in Germany and the industry already employs 250,000 people which is a lot more than work in our entire power sector. Here’s another one. We know that we need to make a transition from one energy system to another so what about building that transition around the workers in those industries, what about making it a just transition. And one final one. How about instead of working more and being exploited more so we can compete more just to produce more and more stuff, we work less to produce what we need and want, compete less and share more so we have more time and live better. Phew.

10. They don't have to build Kingsnorth.

There are a load of brilliant alternatives that would solve the energy issue without messing with the planet. If we're serious about these other options then it's crucial we stop the building of Kingsnorth and the other five power stations.

We’ve probably already said it so sorry to go on, but if enough of us get together and say no, then Kingsnorth will never get built. Last year a new runway at Heathrow was seen as a done deal. The Climate Camp helped galvanise almost universal opposition to that stupid plan. With enough of us, we can do the same with building new coal-fired power stations. See you at Kingsnorth on August 9th.
back to top

Biofuels

Agrofuels are liquid fuels made from biomass, which consists of crops and trees grown specifically for that purpose on a large scale. This term is used to be clear that our opposition is to the growing of crops and trees including corn, oilseed rape, sugarcane, soybeans and oil palms on an industrial scale for fuel. We support individuals and companies solely involved in the re-cycling of waste oils like chip-fat into biofuel and communities using biomass sustainably and on a small-scale, as do many rural communities in the glob al South.
Most agrofuel crops are grown on large monocultures, controlled largely by a small number of large agribusiness firms, in partnership with oil companies, biotech firms, car manufacturers and venture capital companies. They rely on industrial agriculture, which is a major driver of climate change and biodiversity losses. Small farmers, forest communities, pastoralists and other communities in Asia, Africa and Latin America are being pushed off their land or forced to grow crops for cars, mostly in the North, including in the UK.
The agrofuel market is an artificial market, created by governments, including the EU and the US. Through mandatory targets for biofuel blending, tax rebates and direct subsidies, the industry has been guaranteed an ever growing market [1]. As a result of those policies, companies, banks and venture capitalists have started to invest tens of billions of dollars in refineries, new plantations and research and development for new types of agrofuel. Despite growing awareness and evidence of the serious impacts of agrofuels, there are no signs of any meaningful change in policy in Europe or the US. And the impacts of the investment being made now will be irreversible.
Agrofuels and climate change
Agrofuels mean more industrial agriculture and more monocultures. Both are major drivers of climate change, and it is not surprising therefore that scientific studies show that, far from reducing global warming, agrofuels are making it worse.
Industrial agriculture demands high fossil fuels inputs. According to the Stern Review [2], it is responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and that does not even include the fossil fuel burning for farm machinery or for producing fertilisers or pesticides. Industrial monocultures are also the main driver of deforestation and other ecosystem destruction. The Stern Review estimates that deforestation accounts for another 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Soya is the main driver of forest destruction in the Amazon and palm oil is the main cause of deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. On top of this, large amounts of carbon are released from the soil, including from drained peatlands. According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions from destroying peatlands are even greater than those from deforestation [3].
Every acre of land put into agrofuels production means, if food production is to remain the same, that an acre of land must be cleared of natural vegetation. This process of land-clearing releases 17-420 times the annual amount of carbon saved by producing the agrofuels, meaning that over a time-span of decades to centuries agrofuels are accelerating climate change, not mitigating it [4]. Forests, grasslands, wetlands and other ecosystems hold many hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon. If land is converted to agriculture, carbon stored in the vegetation and soil is released to the atmosphere. Climate change is made worse not just because of those carbon emissions: Biodiverse ecosystems are essential for regulating the global climate and this includes regulating rainfall and storm patterns on which global food production depends.
Even agrofuels produced in the UK are anything but climate-friendly: A study by nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that the total emissions linked to rapeseed biodiesel are up to 70% higher than those from ordinary diesel, because of the large amounts of nitrate fertilisers involved. At the same time, using rapeseed oil for cars means that the gap in the food and cosmetics markets is now being filled by palm oil with the same impact as using palm oil for biodiesel directly.
In the UK, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), introduced in April this year, requires first 2.5% and, from 2010, 5% of all transport fuel to come from biofuels. Given that no agrofuels can be shown to be climate-friendly, it is hardly surprising that the UK government does not require biofuels to result in greenhouse gas reductions nor to be in any way sustainable in order to qualify under the RTFO, at least until 2011.
Land for food or for fuel?
Global food prices have risen by 75% on average in the past year and UN officials have warned that 100 million more people’s lives are at risk. Even in the UK, poorer people are struggling ever more to afford a healthy diet. The Special UN Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Oliver de Schutter has called for an immediate halt to all agrofuel investment, calling European and US biofuel policies ‘irresponsible’. His predecessor, Jean Ziegler, had called agrofuels ‘a crime against humanity’ [5]. Bolivian President Evo Morales has also spoken out against Europe’s agrofuel policies, saying "This is very serious. How important is life and how important are cars? So I say life first and cars second." [6]
Agrofuels are one important reason behind the food price crisis: last year, 100 million tonnes of food were turned into agrofuels. Wheat prices are at record levels – yet in the UK six large wheat ethanol refineries expected to open in the near future, which will burn nearly 5 million tonnes of wheat per year. Tens of millions of hectares of land are being turned into agrofuel plantations, and productive, sustainable farming systems are being destroyed. Farmland which is not yet controlled by agribusiness is classed as ‘marginal’ or ‘degraded’ and earmarked for agrofuels. In India, for example, there are plans to turn 13 million hectares of so-called ‘marginal land’ into jatropha plantations for biodiesel. Yet millions of people depend on this land for their livelihoods and food. [7]
Agrofuels are handing more power and control to large agribusness and oil companies, which rake in high profits from rising food prices. As people are forced to compete with cars for land and food, ADM, Cargill, Bunge and other large corporations have seen their profits grow by as much as 67% in one year. More corporate control over food markets means more speculation, driving up prices yet higher.
Agrofuels do not just mean higher food prices, but also large-scale displacement of people, often involving violent evictions. According the Chair of the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 60 million indigenous people are likely to become ‘biofuel refugees’ [8].
Many social movements, such as Via Campesina, have declared the food crisis a ‘People’s State of Emergency’ and demand an immediate halt to agrofuel developments, as well as wider shift away from liberalised food markets and agri-business control, towards food sovereignty [9]. Food sovereignty means local, democratic community control over land and water, over food and seeds, working with, not against nature and thus protecting climate, biodiversity, water and soil, and putting people’s right to food above other economic interests.
Notes:
[1] The EU Biofuel Directive sets a a 5.75% target for biofuel use in transport fuel by 2010. A new 10% target by 2020 is currently being debated. The US Renewable Fuel Standard mandates a five-fold increase in biofuel use by 2022, to 36 billion gallons per year.
[2] www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climat...
[3] IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 3 “Summary for Policy Makers”, p.4, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf
[4] Fargione, J. et al. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, Issue 319, Pages 1235-1238.
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/7381392.stm
[6] The Guardian 22 April 2008. Biofuels starving our people, leaders tell UN,
Allegra Stratton
[7] See ‘Agrofuels in India – private unlimited’, Grain, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=543 and ‘People’s Statement on Climate Change’ Tamil Nadu Environment Council and EQUATIONS, December 2007, http://cedatrust.in/html/climate.pdf
[8] “Civil Society statement on the World Food Emergency No More “Failures-as-Usual", May 2008, http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/images/stories/pdf/22-05-2008_csofoo...
[9] http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/2007-05-15/Biofuel_crops_threaten...
back to top

Climate Action Café

A space for discussion and analysis within the global climate movement

Meeting

Next Gathering

Oxford 31st Jan-1st Feb

Download latest leaflet

march

Latest Images

From The Camp

Go here for all of the latest images of this years camp and actions.
Latest Images...

hay bales

Around the world

International
Climate Camps

world map