Dec 29, 2022bamboo, bamboo-based plastic, plant-based plastic, tableware
We’ve all heard reports about
how billions and billions of pieces of plastic are choking the world’s
oceans. If you’re worried, you’re not alone; surveys show that oceanic plastic pollution is a top consumer concern. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of bamboo and other plant-based additives in plastics. Can these products help protect oceans and marine life?
It may seem like bamboo and other plant-based additives in plastics
are a good idea. However, research shows that they can be unsafe in
materials that come into contact with food. Using unapproved ingredients
in tableware for sale in the European Union is illegal. So now, the
European Commission and the EU Food Fraud Network are joining forces to stop the illicit import, trade, and advertising of these products.
Why are bamboo and other unapproved plant-based plastic additives banned in Europe?
Most plant-based additives, including bamboo, have not been
adequately assessed for safety in tableware. The concern is that these
additives can cause accelerated degradation of certain plastics. As a
result, substances used in the manufacture of plastic can migrate into
food. Bamboo plastic products have reportedly released large amounts of melamine and formaldehyde in some tests, exceeding what is considered safe levels.
Melamine can be toxic to the kidneys, and formaldehyde is carcinogenic. Leaching is more likely when the product comes into contact with heat or slightly acidic liquids including soda.
Although the European Commission has approved more than 900 substances
as monomers, additives, and polymer production aids in food contact
materials, plastics are being sold that contain bamboo and other
unapproved plant-based additives. Most of these products come from
China, and producers, distributors, and importers must remove these
products from the European market immediately. To date, the U.S. has
implemented no regulation of bamboo plastics, but research does expose
potential safety risks when such composite plastics are used in items intended for food contact.
Leaching of harmful chemicals is more likely when the bamboo-fiber plastic comes into contact with heat.
Are producers misleading consumers with greenwashing?
Greenwashing
involves making unsubstantiated claims that a product is more
environmentally friendly than it is. For example, there are cases where
the labels on plastic tableware containing bamboo additives indicate it
is “biodegradable,” “eco-friendly,” and “organic,” or misrepresent it as
“100% bamboo.” These claims can trick environmentally motivated
consumers into making uninformed purchases. Just because a plastic
product contains bamboo fillers doesn’t mean it is biodegradable or organic.
Although some bamboo products are inherently more sustainable, not
all products containing bamboo are green. While bamboo is fast-growing
and durable, manufacturers sometimes process it with harmful chemicals
or solvents. These products can leach into food or off-gas into the air,
creating health concerns for factory workers and consumers.
What can shoppers do to protect themselves?
Avoid plastic with bamboo and other unapproved plant-based additives
that may come into contact with food or beverages until they are
certified as safe for food or beverage use. Beware of greenwashing
when products that make claims such as “eco-friendly” or “plant-based”
yet aren’t verified as safe by a reliable third-party certification. For
example, if you want to purchase bamboo products from
sustainably-managed forests, look for Forest Stewardship Council-certified bamboo.
To reduce plastic pollution in oceans, avoid consuming single-use plastics whenever possible. When you do dispose of plastics, recycle them whenever possible. Also, participate in beach cleanup efforts, support legislation that reduces plastic production and waste, and avoid products that contain plastic microbeads.
So on the face of it (if you don't look too deeply) these other options seem great. However, I'm going to stick to"the plan" and buy less and less products that are in plastic. I am still amazed at the amount of plastic that our family has cut down on simply by a few lifestyle changes. I think that all these new alternatives, in the long run will have more disadvantages than good, and maybe we will also discover that the producers behind it are the same culprits resposible for the monster that plastic has turned out to be. We as consumers have more power than we realise. It is time to start using it.
By the way, the latest greenwashing by Coca cola is really something else, the lids to the plastic bottles are now attached with a piece of plastic to the bottle, so that the whole thing can now be disposed of responsibly. Now all they have to do is get the people to recycle it. Good luck with that, because most of us have been trying to get people to do it for years.
My advice, if you are going to change the packaging when you go shopping, stick to glass, tins and paper. The newest options have not been tried and remember what everyone thought about plastic when it appeared on the supermarket shelves (does anyone remember when that actually happened?) and look at the mess we are in now.
The blog song for today is: "Lucky You" by The Lightning Seeds
Errores: montes sucios, incendios se apagan en invierno, etc
Los montes
están sucios, los incendios se apagan en invierno o los bosques no hay
que tocarlos: respuesta de Greenpeace a algunos errores en el debate
sobre incendios.
La situación tan dramática de
incendios que estamos viviendo son resultado de muchos factores.
Nuestros montes sufren temperaturas extremas, olas de calor y del
agravamiento de los períodos de sequía fruto del cambio climático, que
tienen como resultado la sequedad de la vegetación. Aumenta la
inflamabilidad, es decir: arden más fácilmente. Estamos ante
un territorio más caliente, más seco, más inflamable y más abandonado
que sufre incendios más frecuentes y devastadores. Por tanto, es urgente
que se invierta en nuestros montes y en las actividades rurales para
conseguir paisajes más resilientes. Porque si no se gestionan lo
gestionarán las llamas de forma dramática y lo que perdemos es incalculable. Y más en un país con ¾ partes de su territorio en riesgo de desertificación (que no desierto, importante).
En estos días, se habla mucho de la importancia de limpiar
nuestros montes, de cómo ciertas posturas ecologistas no dejan tocar los
bosques y de que los incendios se apagan en invierno o de que somos
contrarios a las quemas. En este post me gustaría aclarar algunos de estos puntos:
“Hay que limpiar nuestros montes”
Se ha popularizado mucho esta
expresión pero recordemos que los bosques no son parques ni jardines y,
por lo tanto, no “están sucios”. Los ecosistemas forestales no solo
están formados por árboles sino que son ecosistemas complejos donde
también habitan especies herbáceas, matorral, arbustos, árboles muertos
en pié y ramas y troncos caídos en el suelo. Cuanta mayor es
esta diversidad biológica y estructural, más biodiversidad alberga,
mejor es el estado de conservación y mayor es su resiliencia.
Pero mientras que algunos bosques y
espacios protegidos deben ser gestionados para mantener esta complejidad
y diversidad, gran parte de nuestro paisaje forestal es producto de
muchas intervenciones humanas cuando no de su abandono. El resultado son
masas forestales poco naturales, muy alejadas de la madurez y muy
vulnerables ante plagas e incendios. Por eso, y ante el riesgo de
grandes incendios forestales, es importante establecer estrategias de
reducción de la densidad del arbolado, el matorral o el pasto en
determinados lugares para evitar el exceso y la continuidad del
combustible, de esta manera el incendio puede frenar porque no dispone
de alimento. Por eso, cuando se habla de “limpiezas”, en realidad se
habla de gestión e iniciativas como franjas de seguridad en
urbanizaciones y espacios habitados, de cortafuegos, iniciativas para
fomento de ganadería extensiva y pastoreo para reducir la carga de
combustible, del aprovechamiento de la biomasa con fines energéticos, de
la posibilidad de realizar quemas prescritas (controladas) que imiten
los incendios de baja intensidad, etc.
Greenpeace y una gran parte del
movimiento ecologista entiende la necesaria gestión forestal de gran
parte de nuestros ecosistemas forestales.
Sobre el uso del fuego
Una parte considerable de los
incendios forestales que se han declarado durante las últimas semanas
han tenido un origen natural, el rayo. Nuestros ecosistemas forestales
conocen el paso del fuego y están adaptados a un determinado régimen de
incendios naturales. Así, las especies vegetales mediterráneas han
evolucionado adoptando estrategias rebrotadoras o de germinación
post-incendio. El fuego es, pues, un modelador de nuestros paisajes. Y las comunidades rurales han
utilizado durante milenios el fuego como herramienta de gestión. Pero
hay que buscar alternativas al uso del fuego porque no se puede quemar
como se quemaba antes, ahora hay más peligro, por eso se autorizan menos
quemas.
También, el uso del fuego con
carácter preventivo (quemas prescritas) o durante el incendio (fuego
técnico), son herramientas y técnicas para reducir la biomasa y evitar
un comportamiento más virulento del fuego. En este sentido, esta técnica
solo puede ser ejecutada por personal experto formado para reducir
carga combustible generando estructuras de vegetación y poder predecir
el comportamiento de los incendios forestales (modelos de combustible
forestal). También se usa el fuego para extinguir el incendio
(contrafuego).
“Los incendios se apagan en invierno”
“Los incendios se apagan en invierno”
es una expresión que se ha utilizado para incidir en que no basta solo
los esfuerzos en la extinción de incendios, sino que hay que abundar en
políticas de prevención de incendios durante todo el año y la necesidad
de tener profesionales trabajando durante todo el año en los montes. Si
quisiéramos hablar de ausencia de prevención, sería más apropiado decir
que la falta gestión del monte español es un problema estructural que se
ha producido tras el abandono del medio rural durante la mitad del
siglo XX.
Los incendios se apagan cuando se producen, es decir, durante todo el año.
Cada vez más, los incendios forestales son un problema que afecta
durante gran parte del año y en todos los territorios. No solo en
verano, hay incendios en otoño, invierno y primavera;
en invierno y primavera en la montaña cantábrica y zona noroeste,
aunque no son tan mediáticos; y hay incendios en verano en gran parte
del territorio ibérico, incendios que debido a las condiciones
ambientales y meteorológicas adversas suelen derivar en grandes
incendios forestales que producen mucha mayor alarma social e interés
mediático.
“La única solución es repoblar”
Nuestro paisaje ha sufrido con los
cambios demográficos: el abandono del medio rural, de cultivos, falta
del aprovechamiento de recursos forestales, falta de gestión forestal,
etc que ha supuesto un aumento de la superficie forestal en España en casi 4 millones de hectáreas (1962 a 2019).
Estas hectáreas no suman como bosque sino que contribuyen a una masa
vulnerable, continuada, no gestionada, más inflamable que favorece la
propagación de grandes incendios forestales.
Como resultado, España es el tercer país de la UE en superficie forestal después de Suecia y Finlandia).
A pesar de que es cierto que los
bosques y los árboles son un elemento necesario para combatir el cambio
climático y mitigar sus peores impactos, la solución no es plantar
árboles ni sembrar semillas de manera masiva sin criterios claros (como
muchas iniciativas que surgen y que así justifican actividades muy
contaminantes) . Es necesario focalizar nuestras actuaciones en la
importancia de una gestión forestal de masas existentes, una
planificación de actuaciones, criterios definidos de selección de
especie (climáticos, edafológicos, orientación, etc.), de otra manera
contribuirán más al problema al sumar combustible para el fuego.
Entonces, ¿cuáles son las medidas urgentes cuando se extingue el incendio?
Tras el drama de un incendio forestal, nos surge la necesidad de restablecer la masa forestal lo antes posible, con muchas peticiones de replantar la zona quemada, sin embargo no es la primera medida que tenemos que tomar. Las primeras actuaciones de emergencia serán frenar los procesos erosivos actuales,
controlar las posibles avenidas y favorecer la regeneración natural de
la cubierta vegetal. También realizar construcciones provisionales en
arroyos, ríos, lagunas para evitar que los sedimentos. Otra actuación de
emergencia es la saca de la madera quemada
para evitar riesgo de propagación de plagas y enfermedades en
plantaciones forestales, teniendo en cuenta que la extracción no sea por
arrastre de troncos para evitar erosionar el suelo yno dañar la
regeneración natural. Posteriormente, se observará la capacidad
regeneradora de la zona afectada y se establecerán las actuaciones
precisas para recuperar la masa forestal (repoblación, siembras,
seguimiento de la regeneración natural, acotado de ganado). Recordemos
que el fuego es un elemento natural que forma parte de los fenómenos que
modelan el paisaje, especialmente en el área mediterránea. Por ello,
gran parte de las especies vegetales del área mediterránea tienen algún
tipo de adaptación al fuego Conociendo las adaptaciones de la vegetación
es importante esperar a repoblar para ver cómo evoluciona la superficie
quemada. Dar tiempo para ver cómo se abre paso la regeneración natural
de las especies con las estrategias que comentábamos antes.
Por otro lado, importante, si no se pide voluntariado tras un
incendio, no promover ni apoyar la salida de voluntariado a zonas
recientemente quemadas, porque se interferirá en las medidas urgentes de
protección de suelo y en las investigaciones en terreno sobre las
causas del incendio.
Entonces, ¿Qué propone Greenpeace?
Sí, el cambio climático agrava los
incendios forestales y es urgente reducir las emisiones para no superar
1,5 ºC, ya estamos viendo sus impactos. Impactos que sufren nuestros
bosques por lo que hay que gestionarlos de forma prioritaria.
En el escenario donde transcurre el
fuego, no podemos cambiar topografía, ni meteorología pero sí hacer
actuaciones en el paisaje para evitar estos días dramáticos. Incendios
va a ver pero no pueden llegar a este nivel. Por tanto, los incendios forestales se previenen y apagan cuando se negocian los presupuestos,
momento en el que se ve el interés real por implantar políticas de
gestión forestal y dinamización del medio rural que vayan más allá de
las políticas de extinción del fuego. Urge priorizar recursos
económicos para incentivar la economía rural de los pueblos, fomentando
actividades que generen paisajes fragmentados (mosaico) que ayuden a reducir el riesgo de propagación de grandes incendios forestales.
Los mundos rurales, nuestros pueblos y su actividad productiva
sostenible, son clave para nuestra supervivencia y la de nuestros
bosques. Apoyar los productos
rurales sostenibles de cercanía se traduce en el fortalecimiento del
medio rural, la fijación de población y, por tanto, en la mitigación de
la emergencia climática y la pérdida de biodiversidad que estos días
asolan nuestros bosques.
En este informe Informe Proteger el medio rural es protegernos del fuego. Hacia paisajes y población resilientes frente a la crisis climática» puedes ver las demandas.
Relativo a la España vaciada (despoblación rural)
Relacionadas con el sector primario
Relacionadas con la prevención de incendios forestales.
Relacionadas con el fomento del consumo de productos rurales.
Ingeniera
Técnica Forestal por la Universidad de Valladolid. Máster en Gestión de
Residuos (Instituto de Investigaciones Ecológicas). Diploma
universitario como Experta en Igualdad por la UNED. Responsable de
campañas del Área de Biodiversidad de Greenpeace España Twitter:
@MonicaParrill
Muy bueno este info.
El cancion de hoy este: " Have a cigar" de Pink Floyd
Ali
Hussein Juloud lives with his family in a town about 30 miles west of
Basra, inside the boundaries of one of the world’s largest oil fields.
Ali,
who spoke to BBC reporters in Iraq, is 19. He is thin and delicately
built. He wears a face mask most of the time when out and about, both to
protect his weakened immune system from the ongoing pandemic and to
give him some kind of shield from the pollution that surrounds him.
Ali Hussein Juloud in his living room in Rumaila. Photo: Jess Kelly / BBC
He
has recovered from leukaemia, which he and his family attribute to the
pollution from the oil industry they live alongside. The BBC filmed him
with friends in Basra, as he showed them photos from his time in
hospital.
“That's in Iran, look. This is after the chemo - I lost my eyebrows.”
“Even your eyebrows fell out?” a friend asked.
“Yes.” He flicked to the next picture, then another.
“This was when I played football for Zubair before I got sick. Here I was sick. I was so weak.”
“Look how much you've changed.”
Ali’s
home town of Rumaila shares a name with one of the world’s largest oil
fields. His neighbourhood is filled with speedily constructed
single-storey homes and businesses. Half the area is known locally as
“shadow town”, due to the intermittent supply of electricity. The air is
often thick with a blend of desert sand and fumes from the nearby oil
wells.
Rumaila, the oil field, produces the equivalent of
1.45 million barrels of oil a day (boe/d) — about a third of Iraq’s
total oil production — and holds estimated reserves of 17 billion
barrels. Driving from one end of the field to the other takes about
three hours, excluding time spent waiting at checkpoints guarded by
armed militias.
BP became the lead contractor at Rumaila
field in 2009. Some oil contracts entitle companies to a percentage of
all the money generated by a field. This is not the case in Iraq, where
BP is instead paid a fee by the government each year, which BP takes as
allocations of oil. BP still makes hundreds of millions of dollars from
Rumaila — in 2020 its post-tax profit from the field was $358m.
It
boasts on its website of its long history in Iraq and talks of “helping
to lay the foundations for long-term success” in the country. What it
does not mention is that gas flaring at Rumaila is staggeringly high,
despite repeated promises to fix the issue.
What is gas flaring?
In
much of the world, gas produced during oil production would be
processed and then used for power generation, or reinjected to force
more oil out of the ground. But in some places, a lack of infrastructure
means this gas has nowhere to go and so is set alight or vented into
the atmosphere. In Iraq, a country impoverished by conflict, the vast
majority of gas produced during oil production is flared.
On
a global scale, flaring is a major source of methane, a superheating
greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first
20 years in the atmosphere. Cutting methane emissions is seen as an
effective way to prevent runaway global warming.
President Biden has described stopping methane leaks and flaring as a way of “addressing two problems at once”
— hitting global warming and easing the current global energy crisis.
Methane is the main component of natural gas, a key energy source.
There
is no official, publicly available record of gas flaring at Rumaila.
That’s also true for the rest of Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
The
World Bank, as part of an effort to track worldwide flaring, uses data
from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has
heat-detecting satellites that measure fires from lit flare stacks. Unearthed analysed the World Bank's figures and cross-checked them with independent organisations.
Rumaila flared 3.39 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas last year, emitting 9.5 million tonnes of CO2e, according to our analysis of World Bank data.
BP’s
share of flaring emissions from Rumaila — based on its participating
interest in the field’s operating company of 47.6% — stood at 4.52m
tonnes CO2e in 2021. That’s close to double the emissions caused by
flaring from the entire UK oil industry the same year. It’s also
comparable to the annual emissions of over 970,000 petrol cars.
BP
claims to be making progress reducing flaring and has pledged to stop
the practice for everything but emergencies by 2030. But Unearthed
has learned that the company does not include Rumaila in its annual
flaring emissions figures because it classifies Rumaila as a
non-operated asset.
While
the field is owned by the state-owned Basra Oil Company, until June
2022 the field’s official operator was the Rumaila Operating
Organisation (ROO). ROO and BP were closely connected: BP held a 47.6%
participating interest in the company and the company counted several
current and former BP staffers among its senior team. This summer, a
company established and owned by BP and PetroChina, the Basra Energy Company, began to manage the field. Unearthed understands
that BP is the primary contact point with the Iraqi state about matters
related to the field, and workers at the field told the BBC that BP
called the shots at the project.
BP argues that as it is not
technically the operator of Rumaila, it does not have to include
Rumaila’s emissions in its annual climate impact reports. The company
pointed out to Unearthed that this stance is “in line with
standard practice across the oil and gas industry” and follows emissions
reporting guidelines drawn up by Ipieca, an industry trade body. If it
did count Rumaila, BP’s worldwide flaring emissions for 2021 would be
doubled.
A BP spokesperson said: “BP does not have any
ownership interest in the Rumaila field, or any right to the oil it
produces, and has never been its operator. Its flaring and operational
data are therefore not included in our reporting.”
Some
industry observers argue that the current rules on reporting emissions
leave investors with an incomplete picture of a company’s climate
impact.
Dominic Watson from the Environmental Defense Fund told Unearthed:
“The outdated industry practice of reporting revenue — but not climate
pollution — from joint venture assets is no longer acceptable. It’s time
that all companies extend their emissions reduction targets,
strategies, and reporting to 100% of their production volumes.”
Flaring expert and founder of Capterio Mark Davis
said: “Today’s reporting convention — which excludes flaring from
‘non-operated’ assets — limits the visibility into the actual emissions
associated with companies, meaning that investors are partly blindsided
about the full scale of greenhouse gas impact of their activities.”
BP’s global flaring emission figures for 2021 would double if they included Rumaila
BP’s declared emissions from flaring across its operated assets
4.04 million CO2e
What BP’s emissions would be if they included flaring emissions from Rumaila, based on its stake in the field’s operator
8.56 million CO2e
This
investigation also learned, via internal documents and leaked
materials, that flaring remains high at Rumaila despite BP signing
commitments to limit it.
A leaked internal ROO document
obtained by the BBC, signed by a senior BP official, stated that the
company would “take account of the need to design an efficient flare
system”.
The same document, dated 2013, pledged the firm
would take action to minimise flaring and venting and committed to
limiting emissions from flaring to less than 10,000 tonnes CO2e a year —
many times lower than actual flaring emissions from the field.
Iraq’s
oil minister Ihsan Abdul-Jabbar Ismail told the BBC: “We instructed all
the contracted companies operating in the oil fields to uphold
international standards and reduce methane emissions. The Western
companies should respect these standards more than most.”
In
a statement, BP said: “Flaring of the gas that is produced alongside
oil at Rumaila is a significant challenge that ROO is taking steps to
address. Progress has been made in recent years.”
This issue
is bigger than BP. There are other fields where, owing to this
“non-operated” loophole, international oil companies can earn hundreds
of millions of dollars without declaring the related emissions to their
shareholders or the wider public.
‘Poisonous gases’
Flaring
has been a feature of the Iraqi oil industry for decades but ramped up
when foreign companies re-entered the country after the 2003 invasion
and began increasing production.
Despite the country's
abundant fossil fuel reserves, most Iraqis struggle with power cuts and
the country is heavily dependent on neighbouring Iran for electricity
generation.
While
in southern Iraq, the BBC saw flare stacks at multiple oilfields
emitting black smoke. Experts said this indicates inefficient and highly
polluting flaring.
With the help of open-source specialists McKenzie Intelligence Services, Unearthed was
able to confirm that the facility shown in the video is a gas
compression station in north Rumaila. Active flares emitting thick
plumes of black smoke can be seen in satellite images at the site on
several days in 2022, meaning the scene in the video is by no means a
one-off event.
“Instead
of burning this gas it could be captured and used to power our homes,
like in other countries,” argued Dr Shukri Al-Hassen, an Iraqi
environmental scientist.
“Investing in this gas could be
worth billions a year to Iraq and would put an end to endless power cuts
we experience here, especially in summer when temperatures in Basra
exceed 50C.”
International organisations such as the World Bank have invested millions
in trying to help Iraq make better use of its gas. The government has
committed on several occasions to end “routine flaring” — or flaring in
non-emergency circumstances — and has signed up to a World Bank plan to
stop the practice, alongside several oil companies, including BP. No
progress has been made and today Iraq is the second highest flarer in
the world, behind Russia.
For people living near oil fields,
flaring creates intense levels of pollution, which locals link to
serious health problems, including cancer.
Iraqi
law states that oil and gas infrastructure, including flare stacks, can
only be established at least 10km from residential areas.
But satellite imagery shows many flare stacks dotted around the town within a 5km range of residential areas.
The
proximity of the flares to where people live becomes even more obvious
when you look at the area at night and focus on heat sources.
‘Nobody speaks out'
Flaring
gas produces dangerous chemicals known as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including benzene, a carcinogen also found in cigarettes.
It’s
partly for public health reasons that flaring is restricted in richer
parts of the world. Just five days of unplanned flaring at an
ExxonMobil-owned chemical plant in Scotland in April 2019 triggered national news coverage and a report by the local NHS health board.
Luay Al-Khateeb, Iraq’s former oil minister, told Unearthed that there is a belief that flaring is linked to health problems in southern Iraq.
“There's
a link, definitely. As for the awareness, there's very little. The link
is clear. You're talking about poisonous gases being flared in the
air,” he said.
“These particles and so on are penetrating
our lungs and our bodies… quite frequently when I monitor the local
news, it's clear the number of cancer cases in the south are on the
rise. The reason for that, I think, is because of the unregulated oil
operations.”
Ali, the teenage leukaemia survivor in Rumaila,
told the BBC: “We have many leukaemia cases in the area, and deaths.
But here in Rumaila, nobody speaks out.”
Dr Shukri
al-Hassen, the environmental scientist, said that in Basra and
surrounding communities, cancer is so common that it is “like the flu”.
There
is a lack of public information on cancer cases in southern Iraq and a
near-complete absence of environmental data. Poor diet, high smoking
rates, traffic, and even depleted uranium
left from munitions from both Gulf wars have all been suggested as
possible causes for high cancer rates in southern Iraq, though there is a
lack of clear evidence to support these connections. The Iraqi
government is understood to be sensitive to any suggestion that
pollution caused by flaring could be linked to health problems.
The
BBC obtained a confidential report from the Iraqi health ministry that
blames pollution from the oil industry, as well as other sources, for a
20% rise in cancer in Basra between 2015 and 2018. The report has never
been made public. A second leaked document, seen by the BBC, from the
local government in Basra shows that cancer cases in the region are
three times higher than figures published in the official nationwide
cancer registry.
Fatima
Fatima’s life became dominated by hospital visits as her condition worsened. Photo: Jess Kelly / BBC
Fatima Falah Najem and her family live close to Rumaila on another of Iraq’s large oil fields, Zubair.
Fatima's
home is surrounded by flare stacks — some less than 3km away, despite a
provision in Iraqi law stating that flare stacks should be a minimum of
10km from residential areas.
Italian oil giant Eni holds a
41% interest in Zubair, according to oil industry analysts. Eni argues
that it is technically a contractor for the Iraqi government, rather
than a joint owner or operator of the field. The company states that it
has no responsibility for flaring at Zubair, which falls on the field’s
owner, state oil firm the Basra Oil Company.
The
BBC met Fatima in the Basra Cancer Children’s Hospital in the summer of
2021. From her bed, the 13-year-old explained that she had been
diagnosed with leukaemia in 2020 and later lost the use of her legs.
Since
her diagnosis, her life had been dominated by trips to the hospital. By
summer 2021, her condition had deteriorated to the extent that she
needed to travel abroad for further care. Many cancer treatments are not
available in Iraq, meaning patients have to go to countries like India,
Turkey, or Iran.
“Fatima Falah is a star,” her doctor
Hossam Mahmood Salih told the BBC. “Right now chemo is no longer enough.
She needs a bone marrow transplant. Without this operation, it will be
difficult for her to get better. She needs to find a donor and they need
to be a 100% match.” He hoped that one of her brothers or sisters would
be a suitable match.
Sat on the edge of her bed, Fatima was
calm, stoic even, but became quiet as her doctor explained the next
phase of her treatment. “You’re responding well, don’t worry. Your news
is good,” he reassured her as she fought back tears, then buried her
face in his side as he patted her shoulder.
Later, propped
up in bed, a sketch pad in front of her, she painted a picture of her
family’s home. “These are the fiery flares, we can see them from our
farm. Smoke comes off them,” she said.
“I've drawn a bit of
the flare. I like to see them. This isn’t too bad. Let me just finish
and I'll show you,” she held up her painting, a house complete with
bright orange flames in the background.
Fatima shows a painting of her home surrounded by gas flares. Photo: BBC
Pollution monitoring
Frustrated
by the lack of publicly available data and determined to get an insight
into how ordinary people might be being affected by flaring pollution,
the BBC carried out its own pollution monitoring in communities near oil
fields in southern Iraq, with advice from independent scientists and
the Greenpeace Science Unit. Samples were analysed by independent labs
in the UK and Europe.
In January 2022, the BBC placed
passive diffusion tubes in 13 locations around Basra in areas between
100 metres and 6km from the nearest gas flare, to sample for VOCs,
including benzene, for a period of two weeks. This sampling followed a
method approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The
monitoring found high levels of benzene in all 13 locations, ranging
from 2.7 micrograms per metre cubed of air (µg/m3) to 9.7µg/m3. The
World Health Organisation states there is no safe level of benzene
exposure, while the Iraqi government sets a legal limit of an annual
average of 3µg/m3 benzene.
This limit was reached or
exceeded by monitoring in four sites near oil fields, including Rumaila,
Qurna, and two locations in Nahran Omar.
Urine samples were
also taken from 52 Iraqi children living near gas flares at different
oil fields in southern Iraq. The decision was made to monitor children
because they are less likely than adults to be exposed to other sources
of pollution such as smoking or industrial work.
The samples
were analysed at a toxicology lab in Belgium for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs). This analysis measured the levels of the chemical
2-Naphthol (2-NAP), which is a metabolite of naphthalene. Naphthalene is
released during the burning of fossil fuels.
2-NAP is
associated with damaging health effects and is classed as a possible
carcinogen. Peer reviewed research — including a study published by Columbia University
— suggests that high levels of 2-NAP may lead to health problems
including chromosomal aberrations, indicating an increased risk of
cancer. In the Columbia paper, high levels were deemed to be those above
5.8µg/m3.
High
levels of benzene were found from air pollution across southern Iraq.
While urine sampling revealed that many children had high levels of
2-NAP in their bodies.
These
sampling efforts represent a snapshot: the air pollution monitoring
results are from two weeks of sampling in January, and the figures
represent an average of that period. There may have been days where
pollution was higher or lower, and pollution levels often change with
weather conditions and seasons.
It’s also possible that the
sampling picked up benzene from other sources, such as cigarette smoke
or passing cars. However, most of the locations chosen were rural and
far from busy roads, while the highest levels of benzene were found
closest to a flare stack.
It’s likely that at certain times
and in certain places around the oil fields, concentrations of benzene
are even higher than these results. These measurements were taken in
residential areas, ranging from 150m (in Nahran Omar) to 10km, or six
miles, away from the nearest flare. Monitoring by regulators in
countries like the US usually takes place at the fenceline of the oil
and gas facility.
Frank Kelly, an air pollution expert and
professor at Imperial College London, told the BBC: “I just look at the
benzene data and we're seeing values from 1.3 up to 9.6µg/m³ and
immediately that causes some worry to me. The World Health Organisation
has said that there is no safe level of benzene, no safe level at all.”
Kelly
noted that “longer term exposure has been linked to the development of
certain cancers, such as acute myeloid leukaemia”. He warned that
long-term exposure to pollution at this level would be extremely
damaging to children’s health and called for more monitoring, describing
the BBC’s work as “strong pilot data”.
Manuela
Orjuela-Grimm, assistant professor of epidemiology and paediatrics at
Columbia University in New York, who led the research on the previously
mentioned study, also said the urine sampling should be used as a
starting point for more monitoring.
“The children have
strikingly high levels of metabolites of PAHs in their urine. That’s
certainly concerning for their own health and suggests that they should
be monitored.”
When questioned over these findings by the
BBC, Iraq’s oil minister, Ihsan Abdul-Jabbar Ismail, claimed levels of
benzene were high “because of the types of engines in cars” in southern
Iraq.
He added: "Yes, the use of hydrocarbons is part of the
problem, because we have more than seven million cars but it does not
constitute the largest part.”
The minister also said that in
2017, Basra’s health department was commissioned by an unidentified
Iraqi oil company to look at the reasons for the increase in cancer in
some areas in Basra. This report “concluded that oil extraction has
nothing to do with the increase in cancer rates”, he said. The oil
ministry refused the BBC’s request to see the report.
Asked
about benzene levels at Rumaila specifically, Ismail said: “BP is
responsible for all environmental and health measures in this field. We
will request a report on this subject to confirm the percentage of
benzene.
“If this really poses a risk, then BP, the British
oil company, is responsible for managing this issue, and I will
investigate the matter.”
In
response to these findings, a spokesperson for BP said: “We are
extremely concerned by the issues raised by the BBC — we will
immediately review those concerns and work with our partners on any
necessary interventions. We are fully committed to supporting further
improvements at this vitally important field for Iraq.”
A
spokesperson for Eni said: “Eni monitors its activities in line with
best practices, and continues to be a major investor in wider healthcare
system improvement across Iraq. Eni strongly rejects the links that you
are making between its responsibilities as a contractor in the work you
are doing to assess the impact of flaring on human health.”
The
spokesperson added that Eni conducts its own air testing “related to
its strict area of operations”; its most recent survey, in November
2021, recorded levels “within acceptable ranges”.
Hidden emissions
At
Zubair, where Fatima and her family live, last year, 2.61 billion cubic
metres of gas was flared, according to our analysis, leading to
emissions of 7.31m tonnes CO2e, a significant rise on the previous year.
If
you took Eni’s 41% interest in Zubair to mean it is accountable for 41%
of the field’s emissions, its share of flaring emissions from the field
would stand at 3m tonnes CO2e in 2021.
Like BP, Eni counts
its Iraqi asset as non-operated, meaning it is excluded from the
company’s annual climate reports showing flaring emissions.
Eni’s
self-declared flaring emissions for 2021 for all its operations
worldwide stood at 7.14m tonnes CO2e. That means that if Eni had
included Zubair in its final flaring figures, the company’s annual
emissions from flaring would have increased by over 40%, according to
our analysis.
Eni has boasted in the past about its efforts to “improve the use of associate gas” at its project in Iraq.
In
response to this story, Eni stated that as it is not the operator of
Zubair and has no responsibility for the high levels of flaring at the
field. A company spokesperson said: “Eni’s declared flaring figure does
not include emissions from Zubair, according with international
accounting rules and in line with technical service agreement.
Responsibility for flaring is assigned to BOC (Basra Oil Company).”
Eni, BP and the Iraqi government are all signed up to an initiative by the World Bank
to eliminate routine flaring by 2030, an effort to address climate
change and “advance the sustainable development of producing countries”.
In BP's latest submission
to the initiative, the company stated that just 3% of its flaring in
2020 was routine, a number that would be blown out of the water if
Rumaila — where virtually all flaring is routine — was included.
A
spokesperson from the World Bank acknowledged that its Zero Routine
Flaring commitment does not include non-operated gas flaring. A
statement from the organisation read: “All parties involved in oil
production are encouraged to use their expertise and resources to
eliminate routine flaring at all sites, whether or not they operate
those sites”. The organisation also acknowledged that contractual
arrangements may mean that companies do not have direct control or
rights over associated gas at some fields.
BP has committed
to reach net zero emissions by 2050. As part of that it has pledged to
eliminate routine flaring by 2030 and install methane monitoring “at all
existing major oil and gas processing sites by 2023, publish the data
and then drive a 50% reduction in methane intensity of our operations”.
The company’s work in Iraq is not included in these commitments.
Mark
Davis from Capterio said: “Investors are increasingly realising that
companies should be striving for the same reporting and operational
standards across all their assets, and should be promoting greater
transparency.”
Companies signed up to the UN-backed Oil and
Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), which includes BP, will have to report
non-operated flaring by 2025. Unearthed has learned that Rumaila will not be included in this disclosure.
Shell in Oman
It
is not uncommon for major oil companies to partner with firms owned by
national governments. Shell has a 34% stake in Petroleum Development
Oman (PDO), which is owned by the Omani government. Last year, PDO
fields in Oman flared 1.15bcm of gas, leading to 3.22m tonnes CO2e.
Shell’s
flaring across all its operated assets worldwide led to emissions of
4.5m tonnes CO2e last year. If a share of PDO’s flaring equivalent to
Shell’s stake were included in its numbers, its flaring numbers would
increase by 24%.
Unlike some of its rivals, Shell does record emissions from non-operated assets in its climate reporting, Unearthed understands,
but only as a total figure showing scope 1 and 2 emissions from for all
its non-operated assets worldwide. It provides no detail on which
emissions come from flaring or from other types of activities, and
offers no information about where in the world the emissions were
released.
Dominic Watson from the Environmental Defense Fund, an organisation that has published research
on emissions reporting, said: “Methane emissions and flaring from
non-operated joint ventures are an enormous climate shortcoming across
the global oil and gas industry, as over half of supermajor oil and gas
production stems from non-operated assets, many of which are run by
state-owned enterprises.”
He added that oil majors had
“largely failed in both convincing many of their joint venture partners
that methane and flaring are critical climate and business issues to be
addressed, and equipping them with the technical and financial resources
to address this challenge.”
A giant methane plume
In
2011, Shell struck a deal with the Iraqi government to collect gas from
Rumaila, Zubair, and West Qurna 1. The company formed a joint venture —
alongside Japanese firm Mitsubishi and an Iraqi company — called the
Basra Gas Company (BGC). BGC was supposed to revolutionise the Iraqi oil
industry, but the firm has struggled and flaring has remained high.
On
27 and 28 October 2020, a giant plume of methane measuring 120 tonnes
an hour was detected emanating from a gas compression facility run by
BGC.
To put that in context, if that level of emission
continued for a year, the methane coming from that single facility would
be equivalent to about half of all anthropogenic methane emissions from
the UK.
The discovery was made by scientists at the SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, using cutting-edge satellite technology, and shared with Unearthed and the BBC.
The
plume was not the only one SRON spotted, though it was the largest. In
2020 and 2021, the scientists spotted eight further “super-emissions”,
measuring at least five tonnes per hour — even though efforts to detect
emissions were hampered by the thick black smoke from flaring that coats
much of southern Iraq.
“The methane is just pouring out and
that’s incredible,” said Ilse Aben, a senior scientist at SRON,
discussing the October emission. “Particularly because these emissions
are avoidable.”
A spokesperson for Shell, referring to the major plume in October 2020, said the company “believesthat
the operator, BGC, is aware of the issue with its venting flare system
and is deploying operating controls to reduce methane emissions… Its
business plans include other projects focused on flare system upgrades
and repairs to further reduce venting and fugitive emissions.”
They
argued that the emission in October 2020 was exceptional and that new
technology, such as infrared cameras to alert the company of methane
leaks, was being installed to prevent such incidents in future.
‘What is the solution? What can we do?’
Hasan,
Fatima’s father, seen here with one his daughters, has seen the area
around his farm become ever more dominated by the oil industry. Photo:
BBC
Fatima died on 8 November 2021.
“Whenever
we asked her what she wanted, she said she just wanted to get better,”
her mother, Iman, told the BBC. “Every time I look at her pictures I
cry.
“She spent her last moments in the ICU. That’s where
she died. They took her there in the evening and I was the only one who
stayed with her in the room.”
Iman continued: “I was hugging her and then I saw that her heart monitor had stopped. It dropped off and her heart stopped.
“She
told the doctor she had pain in her heart, he comforted her and told
her not to worry. I wanted to turn her on her side but she said her
heart hurt and she could only lie on her back. Somebody came and helped
her pray to ease the pain."
Fatima’s mother and father,
Hasan, looked drained by grief; her siblings forlorn and prematurely
aged. Their home is filled with her belongings: her toys, drawings, and
clothes, including those that she was wearing when she died.
Later
the family learned from monitoring carried out by the BBC that high
levels of 2-NAP were found in the urine of children living in Zubair.
Again,
the results are a snapshot. Levels may change day by day. The only way
to know more is to do more monitoring. High levels of 2-NAP in childhood
means an increased risk of health problems — such as forms of cancer —
later in life, but such outcomes are not certain.
“What is
the solution?” asked Hasan, when he saw the results. “What can we do? We
are aware, we all know that the smoke and oil is harmful but what is
the solution?”
‘What have the Iraqi people got out of oil?’
Iraq is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change.
Temperatures
in Basra and other cities now regularly approach 50C in the summer.
Water scarcity and the loss of farmland to desertification are real
concerns. Diversifying the economy is another challenge — 99% of the
country’s export revenue came from oil in the last decade.
Azzam
Alwash is the climate and environment adviser to Barham Salih, Iraq's
president. He claims that he is one of just a handful of people in
government who understand the risks of climate change.
“The
flaring has increased because we don't have the capacity to capture the
associated gas. I've been told that we're burning something like $100m
worth of gas every day,” he said.
“What have the Iraqi
people got out of oil? They've got a war with Iran, years of sanctions,
more war, instability... we haven’t got shit from oil. In 1960, our
economy was the same size as South Korea. Look at South Korea today and
look at Iraq, and South Korea does not have a drop of oil.”
Iraqi
law suggests that those affected by pollution from flaring could be
entitled to compensation. Air quality legislation passed in 2012 states:
“the owner of a source of emissions causing pollution to ambient air
conditions shall bear the cost of damages to the environment and health
or costs of removing the pollution source and compensating the
aggrieved, if it was proved that pollution emitted from the source
exceeded specifications.”
People the BBC spoke with in
Rumaila and Zubair said they had never received an offer of compensation
from oil companies for the health problems they believe are due to the
oil operations they live alongside.
“After I recovered I
tried many times to get the companies to compensate me due to the fact I
got sick because of the oil,” Ali told the BBC. “My father went to BP,
but unfortunately I never got a response.”
Responding to this, BP informed Unearthed that
the Rumaila Operating Organisation has long-standing procedures in
place to receive and manage concerns or complaints from communities. BP
also highlighted ROO’s work with the local community, which includes
road building and the funding of community health clinics.
Eni
rejected the suggestion that it might be liable to pay compensation to
people who feel they have been affected by gas flaring from Zubair. A
spokesperson said the terms of the company’s contract in Iraq
“explicitly state that we do not have control of the strategy for the
field, or the responsibility for flaring, flaring reduction projects or
community compensation, all of which sit with BOC.”
The
company is aiming to improve Iraq’s health system, the spokesperson
added, including investing $32m in cancer diagnostics in Basra and
separate support for the Basra Cancer Children’s Hospital.
Back
in Rumaila, Ali likes to spend his free time gardening. He’s been able
to grow a palm tree in his backyard. He hopes to grow a white mulberry
tree too.
He runs his own shop in town, which has become a
hang-out spot for local kids. He’s made a life for himself, even if he
feels stuck in Rumaila. His illness interrupted his education at a
crucial stage.
His younger nephew Abbas follows him everywhere, accompanying him when he travels around his hometown on his moped.
“I’ve
parked here to look at this view that we’ve got so used to,” he pointed
out the flare stacks as he filmed on his phone. “These are the houses
of Rumaila. Look at all the smoke and the gases. It’s all coming towards
our neighbourhood.”
“I hope in the future that these companies go away,” he said later. “That the emissions stop, so children can live in peace.
Thought provoking report wouldn't you say? There is always more than meets the eye to any of these wars and problems that are happening in the middle east. Unfortunately,money seems to be always at the bottom of it. Those people are being shafted by their own government and the big oil companies, but then again that could be said for the rest of the world too.
The blog song for today is: "Tell all the people" by the Doors
La pérdida de biodiversidad en el mundo es un riesgo sistémico como
resultado de la desordenada actividad humana a lo largo de las eras,
acentuada a partir de la Revolución Industrial, pero, de unas décadas
para acá, se ha acelerado de manera alarmante.
El que la vida de múltiples especies vaya muriendo significa un riesgo para las sociedades humanas.
Pero, ¿qué es pérdida de biodiversidad? La literatura especializada
la describe como la disminución de la diversidad genética o el colapso
de ecosistemas enteros.
Se calcula que un millón, de los ocho millones de especies animales,
fúngicas y vegetales que existen en el planeta está en peligro de
extinción; además, tres cuartas partes de la superficie terrestre y 66%
de los océanos se han alterado significativamente, de acuerdo con el
informe sobre el estado de la biodiversidad publicado en 2019 por la
Plataforma Intergubernamental Científico-Normativa sobre Diversidad
Biológica y Servicios de los Ecosistemas (IBPES, por sus siglas en
inglés). Eso no es todo, cada diez minutos desaparece una especie.
Otro estudio que da cuenta del acelerado declive de las especies
silvestres es el Informe Planeta Vivo 2022 del Fondo del Fondo Mundial
para la Naturaleza (WWF, por sus siglas en inglés), presentado en
octubre pasado, el cual alertó que las poblaciones estudiadas de
mamíferos, aves, anfibios, reptiles y peces han disminuido, en promedio,
69% desde 1970.
Por desgracia, América Latina es la región del mundo que ha
experimentado la mayor disminución regional en la abundancia promedio de
la población de vida silvestre con 94%, mientras que las poblaciones de
especies de agua dulce han sufrido la mayor disminución global, ésta de
83 por ciento.
Las cifras son frías e incontrovertibles.
Un
dato que no debe minimizarse es que los polinizadores, como insectos,
llámense abejas, mariposas, escarabajos, avispas y hormigas, entre
otros, son responsables de más de dos tercios de todos los cultivos del
mundo. Es decir, el suministro de alimentos depende de ellos, pero las
poblaciones de estos polinizadores están cayendo y algunas especies
están en peligro de extinción, por lo tanto, la seguridad alimentaria
está en la cuerda floja.
Los científicos alertan que la pérdida de especies de todos los
reinos y ecosistemas completos es potenciadora de problemas complejos,
como migraciones, hambrunas, aumento de la injusticia social,
enfermedades zoonóticas y pandemias, violación de los derechos humanos,
condiciones de trabajo precarias, consumo irresponsable y escasez de
medicamentos, entre otros.
Otro dato: el Foro Económico Mundial indica que más de la mitad del
PIB global está en riesgo por la pérdida de la naturaleza y una mayor
devastación de los ecosistemas aumenta el peligro de futuras crisis
socioeconómicas, como pandemias. Además, 25% de los medicamentos
utilizados en la medicina proceden de las plantas de la selva tropical.
La crisis profunda de pérdida de biodiversidad galopa de la mano de
la crisis climática, también ocasionada por las actividades humanas y la
quema de combustibles fósiles.
¿Por qué? Porque el cambio climático está colapsando ecosistemas como
el Ártico, donde el deshielo ha puesto al oso polar en peligro de
extinción o la muerte de arrecifes de coral por el calentamiento de los
océanos, que son ecosistemas importantísimos para la vida marina, pues
ahí viven e interactúan diversas especies de peces, caracoles, erizos,
estrellas de mar, langostas, algas y pastos marinos.
Recordemos que los océanos son, en sí mismos, enormes ecosistemas y
de ellos depende la subsistencia de millones de personas, pero el cambio
climático, la pesca ilegal, la sobrepesca y la basura plástica son sus
principales enemigos.
Naciones Unidas y organizaciones enfocadas en el cuidado del ambiente
han advertido sobre la importancia de conservar la biodiversidad,
porque es fundamental para la humanidad por su estrecho vínculo con el
desarrollo social y económico, la salud y el bienestar, además de ser un
“componente clave” para lograr los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo
Sostenible.
Mañana inicia en Montreal, Canadá, la Conferencia sobre Diversidad
Biológica de la ONU conocida como la COP15, cuya meta es detener y
revertir la pérdida de biodiversidad hacia 2030; para lograrlo se
reunirán los representantes de los gobiernos de los países para acordar
un nuevo conjunto de objetivos durante la próxima década a través del
proceso marco posterior a 2020 del Convenio sobre la Diversidad
Biológica.
Asimismo, la expectativa es restaurar bosques y manglares, entre
otros ecosistemas, pues almacenan enormes cantidades de carbono y son
fundamentales para equilibrar el clima global.
De esta COP15 deben surgir soluciones realistas que involucren a
todos para proteger mejor la naturaleza, porque aún no se ha logrado
cumplir las metas establecidas en reuniones anteriores.
Al momento de escribir este artículo, la población global era de ocho
mil tres millones 800 mil 909 personas (y contando), así que lo que
hagan o dejen de hacer los gobiernos definirá el destino de la
diversidad de vida de la Tierra, y el de la humanidad también.
Estamos gritando al resto del mundo, HACER ALGO POR FAVOR, pero nada.
Que lastima para nosotros y nuestra nietos.
El canción del blog esta: "My way" de los Sex Pistols
First UK coal mine in decades approved despite climate concerns
Image source, West Cumbria Mining Company
Image caption,
The mine would be near Whitehaven in Cumbria
By Christina McSorley, Joshua Nevett & Justin Rowlatt
BBC News
Michael
Gove has approved the first new UK coal mine in 30 years despite
concern about its climate impacts among Conservative MPs and experts.
The proposed mine in Cumbria would dig up coking coal for steel production in the UK and across the world.
Critics say the mine would undermine climate targets and demand for coking coal is declining.
But supporters claim the mine, near Whitehaven, will create jobs and reduce the need to import coal.
The
fate of the West Cumbria Mining project had been hanging in the balance
for two years after the local county council initially approved the
mine in 2020.
The project's approval was suspended in early 2021, ahead of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, after the government's climate change adviser said it would increase carbon emissions.
The
government's advisory Climate Change Committee (UKCCC) pointed out that
85% of the coal produced by the mine would be exported.
'European market'
Lord
Deben, chairman of the CCC, described the proposal as "absolutely
indefensible" and said its approval would damage the UK's leadership on
climate change.
Whitehaven - an almighty row only just beginning
Would a new coal mine threaten the UK's climate goals?
Coal mine plan indefensible, UK climate chief says
The environmental case for buying a coal mine
Planning
authorities reviewed the original decision and sent a report to the
secretary of state of communities to review and make a final judgement.
A letter outlining the decision
said Mr Gove - the communities and levelling-up secretary - agreed with
the planning inspector's recommendation to approve the mine.
The letter says Mr Gove was "satisfied that there is currently a UK and European market for the coal".
The
secretary of state agrees with the assessment that the effects of the
development on carbon emissions "would be relatively neutral and not
significant", the letter says.
The
department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said the decision
was consistent with the government's policies on curbing carbon
emissions.
But
opposition parties and environmental groups condemned the decision as
harmful for the climate and the UK's transition to a greener economy.
Friends of the Earth said the decision was a "misguided and deeply damaging mistake that flies in the face of all the evidence".
"The
mine isn't needed, will add to global climate emissions, and won't
replace Russian coal," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Tony
Bosworth.
Low carbon steel
Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, producing almost twice the emissions of natural gas.
West Cumbria Mining says the coking coal it produces will be used for steelmaking in the UK and Europe.
The local council had granted permission to dig for coking coal until 2049, with the mine expected to create about 500 jobs.
But
the two companies that still make steel using coal in the UK - British
Steel and Tata - say they plan to move to lower carbon production
methods.
Steel
industry expert Chris McDonald estimates that, at best, they will use
less than 10% of the output of the mine and, by the mid-2030s, none at
all.
That means the new mine will export virtually all the coal it produces.
Image source, Getty Images
Image caption,
The former Marchon chemical works on the outskirts of Whitehaven is the site of the proposed mine
Shadow
climate secretary Ed Miliband said the mine was "no solution to the
energy crisis" and "does not offer secure, long-term jobs".
The
Green Party suggested the decision had been "cynically delayed" until
after the UK's presidency of COP ended and had left the government's
environmental credentials "in tatters".
The decision could expose divisions within the Conservative Party, whose greener MPs have spoken out against the plans.
Senior
Conservatives - including the former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and COP
President Alok Sharma - had argued the mine would conflict with the UK's
climate targets.
But some Northern Tory MPs had campaigned for the mine on the basis it would provide jobs and investment.
In a tweet, former Conservative Party chairman Jake Berry said the decision was "good news for the North and for common sense".
Where does this leave Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's green credentials?
Only earlier this week he caved to pressure from his own Tory MPs to relax planning rules for new onshore wind farms in England, having previously wanted to keep the de facto ban on them.
Critics argue burning more coal is the antithesis of such plans to boost green energy sources.
Supporters of the mine say it would support the government's pledge to level up and reduce regional inequality.
But
Labour say that doesn't have to conflict with net zero commitments -
arguing the government should invest in jobs in renewable energy,
insulation and nuclear power instead.
The
mine has also divided opinion in Cumbria, with some in favour of the
jobs it would bring, but others warning of the risks of climate change.
Chris
Whiteside, a local Conservative councillor, welcomed the decision,
saying that UK coking coal was "less damaging to the planet than
importing coal from USA or Russia".
But
ahead of the decision, South Lakes Action on Climate Change - a Cumbria
campaign group that opposes the mine - suggested the project epitomised
the UK's "lack of meaningful action on the climate and ecological
emergency".
This is a huge blow to someone like me, we have been trying for years to get governments to stop using fossil fuels, and what does the UK lot go and do? It looks like because they have left the EU they are sticking two fingers up at the rest of Europe and the world. I find this decision awful and worrying. I am at a loss to understand the logic behind this.
The blog song for today is "F**k You"by Lily Allen
In the 20-teens, the plastic-free lifestyle was getting almost as much attention as the Whip Nae Nae.
But blogs and articles featuring smiling urbanites with tiny jars
containing a year’s worth of plastic waste seem to have disappeared. Was
plastic-free just another pop culture fad? Did plastic win? Whatever
happened to plastic-free?
This article contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase
through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps
fund our Recycling Directory.
Plastic Pollution
Unlike many trends from the decade that left no lasting impression,
plastic-free living was an attempt to do something important. Plastic
is a key player in two of the biggest environmental crises facing the
world today: climate change and global pollution. Plastic is responsible
for between 4% and 8% of global oil consumption. Plastics production in the U.S. generates 232 million metric tons of greenhouse gases every year. Plastic products are often used only once and then discarded. Plastics incineration in the U.S. accounts for 5.9 million metric tons of CO2-eq,
primarily in areas near impoverished communities and communities of
color. Outside of the U.S., plastic is often burned in the open, where
it releases poisonous chemicals with a global warming potential 5,000 times higher than carbon.
Eight million tons of plastic makes its way to marine ecosystems each year, where it forms massive garbage gyres and wreaks environmental havoc. Plastic does not biodegrade, but sunlight and heat do cause it to release greenhouse gases as it breaks down into microscopic particles that enter the food chain and bioaccumulate. The average person ingests about 5 grams of microplastics
per week (about as much plastic as a credit card) through food, water,
and even the air we breathe. No one knows what the long-term impacts on
human health will be from ingesting so much plastic.
Plastic-Free
Clearly, we need to work towards a post-plastic world.
And in the teens, it seemed like people were starting to do it. Beth
Terry is credited with starting the Plastic-Free movement. Inspired by a
photo of a sea bird killed by eating plastic, Terry set out to
eliminate her personal plastic use. She documented her progress on the
blog, My Plastic Free Life. In 2012, she published the book Plastic-Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and How You Can Too and updated it in 2015 – the same year she gave an interview to Earth911.
Unlike the fairly simple switch of sorting recycling, going
plastic-free requires lifestyle changes both big and small. Even so,
many serious environmentalists were inspired by Terry’s project and took
on the challenge themselves. Earth911 profiled people living plastic-free in 2016; The New York Times published a story
featuring several more in 2019. Like Terry, many of them kept blogs.
But a search for “plastic free life” today brings up Terry’s website
(which was last updated in 2019) and not much else. What happened?
Plastic-Free July
It may not be surprising that the movement didn’t gain widespread popularity. Despite some gains in plastic-free packaging, and even retailers specializing in plastic-free products, for many people, plastic-free living simply isn’t realistic. If you need to take medicine, your prescription will come in plastic; if you have children, you will inevitably accumulate some plastic toys.
But that doesn’t mean that people have given in to the ever-growing wave of plastic. Founded in 2011, the Plastic Free Foundation in Australia created the Plastic Free July challenge. As a month-long challenge that focuses on single-use plastics, Plastic Free July is more achievable than a total lifestyle change. Encouraging a good, better, best approach, the point of the challenge is not perfection but improvement. Because changes made for a month are likely to stick, completing a Plastic Free challenge is a good way to reduce your overall plastic waste year-round. Plastic Free: The Inspiring Story of a Global Environmental Movement and Why It Matters relates the history of the challenge and shares lessons from its success.
Zero Waste
But for environmentalists who are serious about eliminating plastic,
there are still some resources. Plastic waste – especially the waste
that ends up polluting waterways – is predominantly packaging waste. So efforts to eliminate plastic waste overlap almost perfectly with the Zero Waste
movement. Zero Waste doesn’t necessarily mean “zero garbage.” But it
does seek to eliminate the wastefulness that leads to large amounts of
garbage – especially plastic waste.
Today there are many websites like Zero Waste Memoirs and books like Shia Su’s Zero Waste: Simple Life Hacks to Drastically Reduce Your Trash
that provide the same kind of personal journey stories combined with
practical tips that plastic-free websites once did. Many of them refer
to Kathryn Kellogg’s website Going Zero Waste and book 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste as their own inspiration.
Whether you frame your goal as plastic-free or zero waste in the ‘20s
really isn’t very important. What does matter is reducing your plastic
consumption wherever you can. Start with simple changes like finding alternatives for the single-use plastics that you use the most.
As always a great report. I really like this website because it gives out good ideas and advice.
