By Steve Horn and Curtis Waltman,...
As tensions continue to rise between Cuadrilla, police, and anti-fracking campaigners in Lancashire, Cuadrilla continues looking for ways to buy local people’s support.
One of its main targets for advertising? Young children.
Throughout Lancashire, shale gas company Cuadrilla is promoting its brand and putting its logo in front of hundreds of children through the sponsorship of sports clubs and school competitions.
Cuadrilla-sponsored sports teams pose a unique ethical dilemma as fracking has been linked to air pollution. A 2016 study found that young children and infants’ lungs, hearts and immune systems especially were at risk if they lived near a fracking site.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was in touch with climate science denier Myron Ebell during his time as head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team, DeSmog UK can confirm.
According to a Freedom of Information Request, the FCO corresponded with Ebell in his role under President Trump prior to Ebell's visit to London in January.
However, the content of their discussions remains unknown. The FCO Climate Diplomacy Team refused to release any details after several requests for clarification and further information about their discussions.
The Brexit climate science deniers have over the weekend launched a coordinated attempt to persuade the UK to cut green regulations ahead of Theresa May revealing the Conservative Party’s 2017 general election manifesto.
In op-ed columns and letters to the editor in both The Times and The Telegraph members of climate science denying and neoliberal think tanks have criticised the UK Climate Change Act for increasing energy prices and called for looser regulations once we leave the European Union.
The streets of London were awash with a jumble of giant red letters today, as they made their way to Westminster Bridge to send a very important message to two of the world’s most powerful leaders.
As hundreds of people weaved their way carefully through crowds of tourists, onlookers could only attempt to work out what the letters might possibly mean. After a spontaneous eruption of chanting – which made the bunch seem like a group several times its size – the letters soon assembled in their rightful order so that even those far down the Southbank could not mistake their message.
Raised defiantly in the air, the letters read: “TRUMP AND MAY CLIMATE DISASTER.”
The government is getting good at putting a spin on its air pollution plans (or lack of them) ahead of the June 2017 general election.
On Thursday, it told the high court it wanted to delay the publication of a new air quality strategy to “comply with pre-election propriety rules”. The court had previously ordered the government to release the report by Monday, after an earlier plan was judged to have been insufficiently ambitious.
The request for the delay comes shortly after the transport minister, John Hayes, tried to persuade parliament that the UK was at the forefront of European efforts to improve air quality from diesel emissions — when in fact the opposite appears to be true.
With global oil prices in decline and the UK’s oil reserves in the North Sea dwindling, tensions over pay for those working in the industry are inevitable. Throw in the UK’s existing commitments to decarbonise the economy and you’ve got a conflicting tripartite between boss, worker and the climate - all three kicking in different directions.
Who takes the financial hit of a sector in decline is as much in question as the long-term viability of the industry itself.
The fossil fuel industry is beginning to feel the impact of climate change action, and will become increasingly vulnerable, according to academics.
Two articles published in the latest issue of MRS Energy and Sustainability, a journal from Cambridge University Press and the Materials Research Society, suggest there are a number of new or intensified threats currently facing the industry, including heavier regulation by governments and financial instability of the market.
Op-Ed By Tom Baxter, a senior lecturer in chemical engineering at the University of Aberdeen.
The principle is simple – if oil and gas companies are going to put lots of steel and concrete in the ocean to extract fossil fuels from the seabed, they should return it to its initial state once they are done.
So it’s understandable and entirely predictable that Scotland’s environmental NGOs including WWF and Greenpeace disagreed with Shell’s current plans to decommission its Brent oilfield. Those plans include leaving large sections of the concrete bases of its platforms in place, instead of removing all the drilling equipment from the sea bed.
The comparative societal, environment and economic assessments undertaken by oil and gas companies to justify their decommissioning address options from full removal to leave in place. The requirements of the associated marine legislations are also a vital element of the analysis; particularly the OSPAR Directives.