Guardian energy

Severe weather forces campaigners to give up their perilous position on British-owned rig off the coast of Greenland

• Greenpeace 'shuts down' Arctic oil rig

Four Greenpeace activists who halted drilling by a British-owned oil exploration rig off Greenland have been arrested after they abandoned their occupation because of severe weather.

Greenlandic police arrested the four after high winds buffeted the Stena Don drilling rig overnight, forcing them to abandon mountaineering-style platforms they had suspended by ropes underneath the platform less than 48 hours earlier.

Morten Nielsen, deputy head of Greenland police, said the four men were rescued between 8pm and midnight local time last night using baskets and ropes lowered from the Stena Don's deck after severe winds and waves up to 6m (18ft) battered the platform.

He said it took about four hours to retrieve the protesters, who have now been arrested under Greenlandic regulations for breaching the 500m safety zone around the rig and under Danish criminal law for trespass.

"Basically we were readying ourselves for any eventuality but it worked out, what needed to be done was a rescue operation," said Nielsen.

He also revealed that the police seized Greenpeace's helicopter, which had flown from its protest ship the Esperanza to photograph the rig and Cairn's operations to stop nearby icebergs, yesterday in the town of Qertarsuaq.

He said the helicopter had been impounded as evidence, and also to ensure Greenpeace paid any fines or liabilities for its protests in Baffin Bay, which began 11 days ago. The four protesters will make their first court appearance in about 24 hours, after being transferred from the rig to the town of Aasiaat. The four could also be deported, instead of being prosecuted.

The activists' retreat is a setback for Greenpeace, which believed a longer-term occupation of the rig would be a serious blow to attempts by the Edinburgh-based exploration firm Cairn Energy to strike oil or gas before the intense Arctic winter sets in.

However, sources in the region had predicted when the four protesters clambered on to the platform at dawn on Tuesday that severe weather forecast for early this morning would cut short their occupation.

Greenpeace has warned that if Cairn strikes oil or gas, it will provoke an "oil rush" in the vulnerable and unspoilt waters of the Arctic as the world's largest oil firms exploit one of the world's largest untapped reserves.

Cairn Energy said drilling had resumed as soon as the four were arrested. Industry experts had denied the campaigners' claims that a delay of four or five days would have seriously damaged the drilling operation; the company had built delays and unscheduled stoppages into its schedule.

The four are now expected to be prosecuted by Greenlandic police, but Greenpeace said said it would now widen its campaign against deep sea drilling by taking the British government to court.

The group has sent the government a "letter before action", accusing ministers of issuing new licenses for deep sea drilling in British waters before they had found out exactly what caused the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

John Sauven, Greenpeace UK's executive director, said: "Our climbers have stopped this rig from drilling in the fragile Arctic for two days, and this is just the start of a long campaign. The world needs to go beyond oil, but here in the UK the government is waving through applications for new drilling as if the Deepwater Horizon explosion never happened.

"The Gulf of Mexico disaster was a game changer, so ministers should suspend new deep water licences and companies like Cairn Energy must stop dangerous drilling in the Arctic and start investing in clean alternatives instead."

• Greenpeace
• Greenland
• Activism
• Oil
• Commodities
• Scotland
• Fossil fuels
• Energy

Social networking site under fire over intention to run giant new data centre mainly on coal-powered electricity

Social networking website Facebook is coming under unprecedented pressure from its users to switch to renewable energy. In one of the web's fastest-growing environmental campaigns, Greenpeace international says at least 500,000 people have now protested at the organisation's intention to run its giant new data centre mainly on electricity produced by burning coal power.

Facebook will not say how much electricity it uses to stream video, store information and connect its 500m users but industry estimates suggest that at their present rate of growth all the data centres and telecommunication networks in the world will consume about 1,963bn kilowatt hours of electricity by 2020. That is more than triple their current consumption and more electricity than is used by France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined.

Facebook announced in February that it planned to build what is expected to be the world's largest centralised data storage centres in Portland, Oregon. Although it will include some of the world's most energy-efficient computers, the sheer scale of the Facebook operation will almost certainly use more electricity than many developing countries.

The company has said it will source its electricity from Pacific Power. It uses coal power – the dirtiest form of power generation – for 67% of its electricity, and produces less than 12% of its electricity from renewable sources. The company has said it plans to generate more electricity from renewables in future but has given no detailed information.

In a statement Facebook said: "It is true that the local utility for the region we chose, Pacific Power, has an energy mix that is weighted slightly more toward coal than the national average. However, the efficiency we are able to achieve because of the climate of the region and the reduced energy usage that results minimises our overall carbon footprint.

"Said differently, if we located the data centre most other places, we would need mechanical chillers, use more energy, and be responsible for more overall carbon in the air – even if that location was fuelled by more renewable energy."

Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International, urged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to commit his company to a plan to phase out the use of dirty coal-fired electricity. In a letter to Facebook, Naidoo said: "Facebook is uniquely positioned to be a truly visible and influential leader to drive the deployment of clean energy."

Earlier this year Greenpeace admitted that many of its own web hosting operations are also housed in data centres powered primarily by coal and nuclear power. The environmental group said it offset all the energy used to power its main website in Amsterdam and used renewable energy where it could. Many of its servers in Washington also used wind power.

• Greenpeace
• Facebook
• Activism
• Internet
• Social networking
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Energy monitoring
• Energy

Instead of spending taxpayers' money propping up factory farms, UK government should support planet-friendly farming

• Guardian campaign Biodiversity 100
• Tell us how governments should halt biodiversity loss

Mankind has a problem. We're heating the Earth and destroying its ecosystems so fast that we're killing off life as we know it. The fragile world around us, from rainforest canopies to marine life in our oceans, is the life support system we all depend on – for food, for shelter, for clean air. But we're trashing it, quickly, many habitats at a time, and putting ourselves in grave danger within our lifetimes.

The overriding challenge of our generation is to protect the world around us – there is no planet B. We must halt biodiversity loss before it is too late and precious species go for good. Reducing our ecological footprint goes hand in hand with tackling climate change. It means putting the breaks on our damaging consumption habits and living fairly within our environmental limits – making wiser use of resources and clean energy.

The Guardian's Biodiversity 100 campaign is one way of saying enough's enough. Taking collective action to ask governments to protect ecosystems is the best way of getting our voices heard. National targets for protecting biodiversity have been missed year after year, but the meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan this October is a chance to put that right – and it's up to all of us to hold world leaders to account.

Yes it's an international problem and yes every nation can help solve it, but it's only fair that rich countries take the lead. We can't criticise others until our own house is in order – and the UK has a lot to put right. Friends of the Earth's 2008 report What's feeding our food? revealed an unsavoury truth: rainforests and wildlife in South America are being destroyed to make way for vast soy plantations to grow animal feed for Britain's factory farms. The very sausage on your barbecue or burger in your bun is costing forest habitats – it's enough to leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Many unique ecosystems like the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado grasslands in South America are being decimated by soy farming and cattle ranching. The Atlantic Forest, which runs along the eastern coast of Brazil and inland to Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay, is one of the world's biodiversity hotspots. It is home to around 8,000 unique plant species and more than 20 critically endangered species including the white-collared kite, and black-faced lion tamarin. 92 per cent of its amphibians are unique to the area. It's shocking that agricultural activity here has shrunk the forest to less than a tenth of its original size, as trees have been cleared to make way for ranches and soy plantations, and small farmers pushed deeper into the forests. Worrying too, that in 2010, the region of Brazil containing the remaining Atlantic Forest showed the biggest increase in soy plantations in the whole country.

Rainforest and wildlife in South East Asia are also being lost – this time in the EU's drive for biofuels. But biofuels are far from the green energy solution big business says they are. The habitats of the orangutan and Sumatran tiger are being trashed in Malaysia and Indonesia to make way for biofuel crop, and in 2008 the UN estimated that if logging rates continue, virtually all rainforest there will be destroyed by 2013. Worse still, Friends of the Earth research in 2009 revealed that biofuels could even be contributing more carbon emissions than the fossil fuels they replace, equivalent to putting half a million extra cars on the roads.

To stop this habitat destruction – and the additional atmospheric carbon that is exacerbating climate change – there needs to be some urgent rethinking. The good news is we know the solutions – but now we must use them. Instead of spending taxpayers' money propping up factory farms, the UK government should be backing planet-friendly farming. Friends of the Earth's recent Pastures New report shows that half of the animal feed imported to the UK could be replaced with home-grown alternatives – saving an area of forest the size of the Yorkshire Dales every year. More than 40,000 people have backed our campaign so far – and we've got a Sustainable Livestock Bill in parliament as a result. If successful it will overhaul UK farming, benefiting both farmers in Britain and biodiversity here and abroad – so we're urging MPs to back it.

Similarly the EU's target to fuel 10% of road transport with biofuels by 2020 is impossible to reach sustainably – the expansion of plantations for biofuel crops such as palm oil is the main driver of deforestation in south-east Asia. The UK should drop its share and promote greener alternatives to driving instead. More than half of UK car journeys are less than five miles long and many of these could be completed by other means. The government should fund local schemes that get people walking, cycling and using the bus, and make rail a cheaper and more convenient option for longer trips.

2010 is the UN year of biodiversity, but the world's species and habitats are millennia old. If we fail to take bold action to protect the colourful diversity of life on Earth, for the sake of the world's people and future generations, the world will not only be greyer, but life-threatening for us and future generations.

• Biodiversity
• Climate change
• Conservation
• Wildlife
• Biofuels
• Energy
• Renewable energy

Greenpeace's occupation of an Arctic rig carries a simple message: stop drilling for fossil fuels

Ten days ago I received a letter from Cairn Energy, the British company at the centre of Greenpeace's current direct action in the Arctic. I was told that its drilling operation is "relatively straightforward" and that the blue whales, polar bears and kittiwakes in Baffin Bay are safe, because, according to Cairn, "our programme is conventional".

This industry has lost its grip on reality. Anyone who has seen the remarkable images coming from the Arctic over the last few days will know how unusual, dangerous and extreme this business has become. While icebergs the size of football stadiums are towed out of a rig's path, ships equipped with high-pressure water cannons blast smaller chunks into submission. And all the while the clock is ticking. As the winter freeze edges nearer, this frantic exploration company rushes to finish the job before sheet-ice cuts off the region completely.

One hundred and fifty years since the first oil well was drilled in the US, this industry has reached the end of the line. The Arctic is said to contain about 90bn barrels of recoverable oil, which is enough to keep the thirsty world going for oh, three or four years. As climate change warms the icy seas, more areas become accessible to drilling. As this oil is extracted and burned, the warming accelerates and more companies pile in. A neat circle, but one that risks engulfing us all.

Climate change is a clear and present danger, and a series of brutal "weather events" this year should serve as the final warning. We are careful to point out that no single flood, storm or drought can be blamed on climate change, but the trend is getting hard to ignore. We are faced with a choice: act with real urgency to move away from fossil fuels and develop the clean tools that will help us completely rebuild our economic system, or carry on squeezing out the last drops and hope for the best.

Cairn Energy is betting on the status quo. Its letter informs me that the company is basing its plans on an International Energy Agency report which suggests that, by 2030, fossil fuels will still supply about 80% of the world's energy. What it doesn't say is that this "scenario" – the most pessimistic of several the IEA has produced – could lead to six degrees of warming by the end of the century.

Six degrees sounds manageable. It is not. These companies are relying on us to keep quiet while they take humanity to the brink. Our climbers are on that rig with a simple message: Go beyond oil.

• Greenpeace
• Activism
• Oil
• Oil
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Climate change

Kuupik Kleist claims environmental campaigners are damaging country's economy by occupy drilling platform

The prime minister of Greenland has accused Greenpeace of threatening the safety of oil workers and the environment after four activists forced a controversial deep-sea exploration rig in the Arctic to shut down today.

Just before dawn, the four campaigners used three high-speed inflatable boats to evade the Danish navy before clambering on to the British-owned rig and slinging mountaineering-type platforms beneath it about 15 metres above the sea. The raid forced the Edinburgh-based oil exploration firm Cairn Energy to suspend drilling, escalating tensions between the Greenlandic government and Greenpeace.

Kuupik Kleist, the government's socialist prime minister, denounced the campaigners' actions, claiming they were damaging the economy of the country, now largely independent from Denmark, and ignoring the strict environmental and safety regulations Greenland had imposed on oil companies. "This is clearly an illegal act, ignoring the rules of democracy," he said in a statement.

"The cabinet regards Greenpeace's action as very serious and an illegal attack on the country's constitutional rights. It is worrying that Greenpeace, in their hunt for media exposure, violate security rules made to protect human lives and the environment."

The Greenpeace action follows a standoff between the campaigners' ship, Esperanza, and an armed Danish frigate and Greenland police vessels in Baffin Bay, west of Greenland, where Cairn Energy is hoping to uncover major new reserves of oil or gas.

For the last nine days, the Esperanza has been closely shadowed by the frigate and Danish commandos while it circled a 500-metre exclusion zone around the rig, waiting for the chance to launch its direct action.

Cairn, which is drilling in an area known as "iceberg alley", announced last week it had detected gas in shallow sands, prompting alarm among environmentalists.

Campaigners warn this will lead to a dangerous rush to exploit one of the world's last major untapped oil and gas fields in one of the planet's most fragile locations. Greenpeace has described the site as an important battleground in the campaign against climate change.

The US Geological Survey estimated last year that there could be 90bn barrels of oil and 50tn cubic metres of gas across the Arctic. Several multinational oil companies, including Exxon, Chevron and Shell, are waiting for permission from Greenland to begin deep sea drilling around its coast.

Sim McKenna, a US Greenpeace campaigner and one of the four activists occupying the platform, said Greenland and Cairn were being "reckless" with a fragile and pristine environment.

"We intend to stay here for as long as possible and as long as necessary to stop this reckless drilling," he said. "The BP Gulf oil disaster showed us it's time to go beyond oil. The drilling rig we're hanging off could spark an Arctic oil rush, one that would pose a huge threat to the climate and put this fragile environment at risk."

Greenpeace hopes it will be able to occupy the platform until the end of the week, seriously disrupting Cairn's drilling timetable. It hopes a long delay before drilling resumes will prevent Cairn from striking oil or gas before the intense Arctic winter sets in, forcing a halt to the exploration effort. The activists have food for several days and are wearing Arctic survival suits against the freezing temperatures, but are precariously tied to the underside of the rig.

Sources in the area said winds of up to 50mph were forecast for Thursday.

Morten Neilsen, deputy police chief for Greenland, said rescue vessels were standing by in case any of the climbers fell. He said all four would be arrested and prosecuted, but refused to say whether they would be forcibly removed. "What we intend to do, how and when, is an operational detail it wouldn't be smart to advise Greenpeace about," he said.

Cairn Energy argues that Greenpeace has exaggerated the significance of its exploration and its risks. There are two major oil and gas fields already in the Arctic, at Sakhalin in eastern Russia and Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, providing 10% of the world's oil.

Greenpeace argues that deep-sea Arctic drilling is extremely perilous because of the sea ice and intense weather conditions in the region. It believes the risks posed by this operation go "far beyond" the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the Arctic an oil spill would destroy vulnerable and as yet untouched habitats, while the cold water would prevent the oil from breaking down quickly.

Any emergency operation to tackle a disaster would encounter huge technical and logistical problems in such a remote area.

• Greenpeace
• Greenland
• Arctic
• Oil
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Activism
• Protest
• Oil
• Commodities

Environmental campaigners slip through security boats to scale Cairn Energy oil rig in dawn raid

Greenpeace claims to have shut down offshore drilling by a British oil company at a controversial site in the Arctic after four climbers began an occupation of the rig just after dawn.

The environment campaigners said the four protesters evaded a small flotilla of armed Danish navy and police boats which have been guarding the rigs in Baffin Bay off Greenland since the Greenpeace protest ship Esperanza arrived last week.

The rigs are operated by the Edinburgh-based oil exploration company Cairn Energy, which last week prompted world-wide alarm among environmentalists after disclosing it had found the first evidence of oil or gas deposits under the Arctic.

Several multinational oil companies, including Exxon. Chevron and Shell, are waiting for permission from Greenland to begin deep sea drilling in the Arctic's pristine waters.

Campaigners claim this led to a dangerous rush to exploit one of the world's last major untapped reserves in one of its most fragile locations. The US Geological Survey last year estimated there may be 90bn barrels of oil and 50tn cubic metres of gas across the Arctic.

The campaign group said: "At dawn this morning our expert climbers in inflatable speed boats dodged Danish Navy commandos before climbing up the inside of the rig and hanging from it in tents suspended from ropes, halting its drilling operation.

"The climbers have enough supplies to occupy the hanging tents for several days. If they succeed in stopping drilling for just a short time then the operators, Britain's Cairn Energy, will struggle to meet a tight deadline to complete the exploration before winter ice conditions force it to abandon the search for oil off Greenland until next year."

The occupation comes after a nine-day stand-off between Greenpeace and the Danish navy, which has sent its frigate Vaedderen to the area, deploying elite Danish commandos on high-speed boats to patrol a 500m exclusion zone around the rigs.

Last week the Danes warned the Esperanza it would be forcibly boarded and its captain arrested if it breached the security zone. After Greenpeace launched its helicopter to take photographs, the security area was extended to include a 1,800m high air exclusion zone.

Greenpeace argues that the Arctic drilling programme is extremely perilous because of the sea ice and intense weather conditions in the region, and claims it is one of the 10 most dangerous drilling sites in the world. The Baffin Bay area is known as "iceberg alley". Last week, it filmed a support vessel trying to break up an iceberg using high pressure hoses.

It says the risks posed by this operation go "far beyond" the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; in the Arctic an oil spill would destroy the region's vulnerable and untouched habitats, while the cold water would prevent any oil from quickly breaking up. Any emergency operation to tackle a disaster would encounter huge technical and logistical problems in such a remote area.

Cairn Energy was targeted by climate protesters who occupied the grounds of the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters near Edinburgh last week. Cairn's offices in the city centre were smeared with molasses to symbolise oil.

The company argues it is there at Greenland's invitation, to help bolster and strengthen the island's economy. It also insisted its drilling operations obeyed some of the world's strictest environmental and safety regulations. "We've put procedures in place to give the highest possible priority to safety and environmental protection," it said.

It emerged last week that BP had withdrawn from applying to join in the Greenland oil exploration programme, a direct consequence of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Sim McKenna, one of the Greenpeace climbers on board the Cairn rig, said: "We've got to keep the energy companies out of the Arctic and kick our addiction to oil, that's why we're going to stop this rig from drilling for as long as we can.

"The BP Gulf oil disaster showed us it's time to go beyond oil. The drilling rig we're hanging off could spark an Arctic oil rush, one that would pose a huge threat to the climate and put this fragile environment at risk."

Morten Nielsen, deputy head of Greenland police, said the four protesters would be arrested and prosecuted. "The position of the Greenlandic police is that this is a clear violation of the law, the penal code of Greenland. The perpetrators will be prosecuted by the Greenlandic authorities," he said.

"But what we intend to do, how and when, is an operational detail it wouldn't be smart to advise Greenpeace about."

Speaking from the island's capital, Nuuk, Nielsen confirmed that the police had rescue vessels close by the protesters in case any fell into the water, which was only a few degrees above freezing. He denied the police and navy had been outwitted by the protesters setting off at dawn.

"We have to evaluate the downside of any interception," he said. "The highest value we have to preserve is life and if the result of intercepting the Greenpeace activists would bring the police or for that matter the activists' lives in jeopardy, we are not going to intercept right now."

In a separate development, two protesters on trial in Copenhagen for terrorism-related offences during the UN climate summit last December have been cleared. Of the nearly 2,000 people arrested, a small number which includes 13 Greenpeace activists, are still awaiting trial.

The original charges facing Natasha Verco and Noah Weiss included organising violence and significant damage to property and carried a maximum 12-and-a-half-year sentence. Those charges were subsequently reduced to less serious offences, but today a court in Copenhagen cleared the pair entirely.

Verco, who was arrested while riding her bike near the Copenhagen lakes and held in prison for three weeks, said: "I'm so happy, it's so wonderful... The whole experience has been appalling, terrifying, something I never expected. To be imprisoned for three weeks on the most ridiculous accusations, and then to have to wait for nine months to be acquitted, it's made me see Denmark very differently."

• Greenpeace
• Arctic
• Oil
• Activism
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Oil
• Commodities
• Greenland
• Protest

The world is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, say scientists. From SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

The world is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, and developing countries may also benefit, according to researchers.

In a study published in Science this month (12 August) British researchers outlined a vision for flexible and more user-friendly nuclear technologies, as worries over the climate change, energy supply security, and depletion of fossil fuels, are overturning decades of hesitancy over the safety of nuclear power plants.

Robin Grimes, materials researchers at Imperial College London and William Nuttall, senior lecturer in technology policy at the University of Cambridge, believe nuclear power will become viable for energy production in developing countries post-2030. "Outside currently established nuclear countries, flexible nuclear technologies will be especially attractive, reducing the need for grid infrastructure," Grimes told SciDev.Net.

The authors envisage ship-borne power plants providing energy to big cities, requiring less grid infrastructure and making it easier to invest in cost-effective nuclear energy from scratch.

Grimes also suggested 'fuelled-for-life core reactors' — fully sealed modular reactors that could last 40 years and remove fuel handling from the energy production process. These would also reduce workers' exposure to radiation, reducing the need for expensive monitoring.

Another idea is to develop reactors with replaceable parts to extend their 40–50 year life span, so that investment in reactors was more cost effective.

Technologies now under development could mean 'fast reactors' using uranium 15 times more efficiently than at present. They could become available by 2030, reducing the cost of raw materials.

But any country, developing or not, must show both an "economic need for nuclear energy" and "a clearly independent nuclear regulatory body that has access to the necessary facilities and the people to carry out its work," Grimes told SciDev.Net.

Safety and nuclear proliferation criteria as laid down by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty would need to be met, as well as compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, standards.

If these criteria are met, reducing reliance on grid infrastructure is a key point for developing countries wishing to join the predicted renaissance, as it keeps costs low, Grimes said.

But some experts are doubtful. Referring to solar energy, John Finney, chair of the British Pugwash Group but speaking in a personal capacity, said that other options such as solar power might also suit developing countries.

Bob van der Zwaan, senior scientist at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands said that nuclear energy was not a silver bullet, but could address climate change, pollution, and energy dependency problems "along with other options such as renewable".

• Nuclear power
• Energy

German chancellor adds 15 years to scheduled phase-out of country's nuclear power plants

German chancellor Angela Merkel has announced an extension to the nation's nuclear power plant operations for up to 15 years beyond a scheduled phase-out, in a move critics fear might signal that atomic power is here to stay.

The decision comes after a panel of experts advised that keeping the plants open was the only way of ensuring climate protection and economic goals were met and that electricity prices did not soar out of control.

Merkel, who spent last week touring some of the country's 17 plants, said phasing them out by 2021 – as had been planned – was unrealistic if the country wanted to meet certain environmental goals.

"Nuclear power is desirable as a bridging technology," she said.

Renewable energies will supply half the country's energy needs by 2050, according to the centre-right government's goals. Nuclear and coal power should continue to be central to the country's energy policy until all power supplies could be replaced by clean energy, the experts advised.

Merkel's announcement, which has the backing of her coalition partner, the Free Democrats, is a heavy blow for the left. The nuclear phase-out was secured under the government of her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder of the Social Democrats (SPD), and was considered one its most significant achievements.

Sigmar Gabriel, the leader of the SPD, said his party was ready to launch a constitutional challenge to the extension and accused Merkel of being a pawn of the nuclear lobby.

Gabriel said: "The chancellor is selling off public safety by allowing ailing and ageing nuclear power plants to stay online longer and by taking money for it." He added that her plan showed her goal was clearly "not to achieve a sustainable energy plan".

The Green party, which was part of the Schröder government when it struck the deal, announced an anti-nuclear demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday.

Some politicians in favour of a nuclear extension, such as Norbert Röttgen of Merkel's Christian Democrats, said they nevertheless feared it might reduce the pressure on the energy industry to research into and develop renewable technologies.

Merkel's decision is also likely to prove highly unpopular amongst the electorate. According to a recent poll, 56% of Germans are against extending the lives of nuclear power plants, citing fears of accidents and terrorism.

• Angela Merkel
• Germany
• Nuclear power
• Energy
• Renewable energy

Charity predicts more food shortages in Africa because of EU target to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020

European Union countries must drop their biofuels targets or else risk plunging more Africans into hunger and raising carbon emissions, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE).

In a campaign launching today, the charity accuses European companies of land-grabbing throughout Africa to grow biofuel crops that directly compete with food crops. Biofuel companies counter that they consult with local governments, bring investment and jobs, and often produce fuels for the local market.

FoE has added its voice to an NGO lobby that claims local communities are not properly consulted and that forests are being cleared in a pattern that echoes decades of exploitation of other natural resources in Africa.

In its report "Africa: Up for Grabs", the group says that the key to halting the land-grab is for EU countries to drop a goal to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020.

"The amount of land being taken in Africa to meet Europe's increasing demand for biofuels is underestimated and out of control," Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for FoE in the UK, said. "Especially in Africa, as long as there's massive demand for biofuels from the European market, it will be hard to control. If we implement the biofuels targets it will only get worse. This is just a small taste of what's to come."

A number of European companies have planted biofuel crops such as jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil in Africa and elsewhere to tap into rising demand. But the trend has coincided with soaring food prices and ignited a debate over the dangers of using agricultural land for fuel.

Producers argue they typically farm land not destined, or suitable for, food crops. But campaigners reject those claims, with FoE saying that biofuel crops, including non-edible ones such as jatropha, "are competing directly with food crops for fertile land".

ActionAid claimed this year that European biofuel targets could result in up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.

Natural disasters including floods in Pakistan and a heatwave in Russia have wiped out crops in recent weeks and intensified fears of widespread food shortages.

The United Nations has singled out biofuel demand as a factor in what it estimates will be as much as a 40% jump in food prices over the coming decade.

Estimates of how much land in Africa is being farmed by foreign companies and governments, either for food or fuel crops, vary significantly. The FoE report focuses on 11 African countries in what it sees as a rush by foreign companies to farm there. In Tanzania, for example, it says that about 40 foreign-owned companies, including some from the UK, have invested in agrofuel developments. It argues that such activities are actually raising carbon emissions in many cases because virgin forests are being cut down.

The report concludes: "While foreign companies pay lip service to the need for 'sustainable development', agrofuel production and demand for land is resulting in the loss of pasture and forests, destroying natural habitat and probably causing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions."

Sun Biofuels, a British company farming land in Mozambique and Tanzania and named in the report, criticised the charity's research as "emotional and anecdotal" and said that its time would be better spent looking into ways to develop equitable farming models in Africa.

Sun's chief executive, Richard Morgan, said his company's leasing of land in Tanzania had taken three years, during which 11 communities, comprising about 11,000 people, were consulted.

"I find it insulting from Friends of the Earth. Somehow it's indirect criticism of Mozambiquan and Tanzanian governments that they would allow this dispossession to take place," he said.

Morgan conceded that such a protracted process could raise expectations among local people of jobs and investment that could not be met, and said that it was often those negative testimonies that were collected by newspapers and NGOs. But he insisted that Sun was creating jobs where possible and that much of the biofuel production was destined for domestic markets in Africa rather than Europe.

"There's an opportunity here to get investment into local communities in an ethical way," he said.

In many cases, biofuel production was replacing or reducing illegal tree felling, Morgan added. "Tanzania has a large landless community felling forest land. If you give employment to those people as an alternative, there is a chance you can intervene commercially there in a good way."

Biofuel crops were being grown on land that was not intended for food production, he said: "Often we are growing trees on land already cut down for charcoal or in some cases tobacco. We haven't displaced anyone."

But FoE argues that "most of the foreign companies are developing agrofuels to sell on the international market". Its campaigners in Africa are demanding that African states should immediately suspend further land acquisitions and investments in agrofuels. Instead, they want to see fundamental changes in consumption habits in developed countries – be it making more use of public transport or adopting different diets.

Chandrasekaran said: "Biofuels is just a small part of what is happening. What needs to change are consumption patterns in the west. That means [eating less] meat and dairy, given more than a third of the world's agricultural land goes to feeding meat and dairy production. It also means [reducing] consumption of fuel."

• Biofuels
• Energy
• Renewable energy
• Farming
• Land rights
• Deforestation
• Forests
• Energy industry
• Tanzania
• Mozambique

Concerted action to tackle climate change will happen only if the public demands it for the sake of future generations

"How did you become an activist?" I was surprised by the question. I never considered myself an activist. I am a slow-paced taciturn scientist from the Midwest US. Most of my relatives are pretty conservative. I can imagine attitudes at home toward "activists".

I was about to protest the characterisation – but I had been arrested, more than once. And I had testified in defence of others who had broken the law. Sure, we only meant to draw attention to problems of continued fossil fuel addiction. But weren't there other ways to do that in a democracy? How had I been sucked into being an "activist?"

My grandchildren had a lot to do with it. It happened step by step. First, in 2004, I broke a 15-year self-imposed effort to stay out of the media. I gave a public lecture, backed by scientific papers, showing the need to slow greenhouse gas emissions – and I criticised the Bush administration for its lack of appropriate policies. My grandchildren came into the talk only as props – holding 1-watt Christmas tree bulbs to help explain climate forcings.

Fourteen months later I gave another public talk – connecting the dots from global warming to policy implications to criticisms of the fossil fuel industry for promoting misinformation. This time my grandchildren provided rationalisation for a talk likely to draw ire from the administration. I explained that I did not want my children to look back and say: "Opa understood what was happening, but he never made it clear."

What had become clear was that our planet is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will cause sea levels to rise and species to become extinct beyond our control. Increasing atmospheric water vapour is already magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing greater floods and stronger storms.

Stabilising climate requires restoring our planet's energy balance. The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide on Earth's energy imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put, there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1) phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3) not go after the last drops of oil.

Actions needed for the world to move on to clean energies of the future are feasible. The actions could restore clean air and water globally. But the actions are not happening.

At first I thought it was poor communication. Scientists must not have made the story clear enough to world leaders.

So I wrote letters to national leaders and visited more than half a dozen nations, as described in my book, Storms of My Grandchildren. What I found in each case was greenwash – a pretence of concern about climate but policies dictated by fossil fuel special interests.

The situation is epitomised by my recent trip to Norway. I hoped that Norway, because of its history of environmentalism, might be able to take real action to address climate change, drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the words and pseudo-actions of other nations.

So I wrote a letter to the prime minister suggesting that Norway, as majority owner of Statoil, should intervene in its plans to develop the tar sands of Canada. I received a polite response, by letter, from the deputy minister of petroleum and energy. The government position is that the tar sands investment is "a commercial decision", that the government should not interfere, and that a "vast majority in the Norwegian parliament" agree that this constitutes "good corporate governance". The deputy minister concluded his letter: "I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad."

A Norwegian grandfather, upon reading the deputy minister's letter, quoted Saint Augustine: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."

The Norwegian position is a staggering reaffirmation of the global situation: even the greenest governments find it too inconvenient to address the implication of scientific facts.

It becomes clear that concerted action will happen only if the public, somehow, becomes forcefully involved. One way citizens can help is by blocking coal plants, tar sands, and the mining of the last drops of fossil fuels.

However, fossil fuel addiction can be solved only when we recognise an economic law as certain as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy they will be used. Solution therefore requires a rising fee on oil, gas and coal – a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. All funds collected should be distributed to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations. As the fee rises, fossil fuels will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and efficiency.

A carbon fee is the only realistic path to global action. China and India will not accept caps, but they need a carbon fee to spur clean energy and avoid fossil fuel addiction.

Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

Because the executive and legislative branches of our governments turn a deaf ear to the science, the judicial branch may provide the best opportunity to redress the situation. Our governments have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the rights of young people and future generations.

I look forward to standing with young people and their supporters, helping them develop their case, as they demand their proper due and fight for nature and their future. I guess that makes me an activist.

• The full version of this essay, entitled "Activist", will appear in the book The Day After Tomorrow; Images of Our Earth in Crisis by J Henry Fair, to be published in November by PowerHouse Books. Dr James Hansen's latest book is called Storms of my Grandchildren.

• Climate change
• Carbon emissions
• Activism
• Fossil fuels
• Sea level
• Energy