The Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA 12 November 1996
|
|
I am now replying more fully to your letter of 26 September, having taken time to consult with colleagues, as I mentioned in mine of 30 September. We found the numerous substantive points you made both interesting and thought-provoking.
Greenpeace remains deeply concerned that five years after Rio and the initiation of the Climate Convention, there will be a failure of political leadership in addressing the most significant global environmental issues, most notably global warming.
Greenpeace welcomes the active interest which your Government has shown in the issues of climate and oceans, and the need to take further international action to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, and to protect the ocean environment.
It is clear to us that in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which as you note, is stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions at a level which would prevent dangerous man-made interference with the climate system, it is necessary to limit the extraction and use of fossil fuels.
As the world approaches the start of the twenty-first century, Greenpeace believes it is politically, morally and rationally essential that leaders such as yourself give a clear signal that the world is heading for an end to the use of fossil fuels.
For our part, we want it to be clear that we are not calling on you to "jump ... to banning fossil fuels" as you suggest. An immediate end to the use of fossil fuels would clearly be impractical. We are calling for you and other leaders to declare responsibly that an end must come, and to begin that by putting an end to any further expansion of oil development.
We are also disappointed that you do not seem to consider climate part of the environmental equation at the Atlantic Frontier. This, you say, is being developed for oil in an "environmentally responsible manner". As this is a new fossil fuel development which also uses new combinations of technology that may open the deep oceans to oil development, we do not accept that this can be "environmentally responsible". Indeed, it seems to us to be the reverse.
Similarly, we believe that the most basic ecological analysis shows that "sustainable" development of the abyssal or ultra-deep sea marine community is not practicable. Very many marine scientists around the world share this view. It is not credible to suggest that a fishery can be "sustainable" where, in a single haul of a fish such as orange roughy, it can take young, parents and grandparents from a species which may not breed until it is 25 - 35 years old and may live to 120.
Your Government has shown some initiative in proposing "indicators" of "sustainable development". Yet your energy policy is to develop fossil fuels while your environment policy is to reduce them. Your fiscal policy is to encourage increasing taxation of their use, while you have also significantly reduced the tax burden on extraction of oil, hence encouraging new oil fields in the Atlantic. A Sheffield University study notes that the "government's share of North Sea profits" has fallen "from 58.6% in 1986-7 to 16.5% in 1994-5", leading to "very rapid depletion" of Britain's oil reserves.
I hope you will, with leaders of other governments if necessary, be able to resolve these inconsistencies. Again, Greenpeace urges you to put a halt to both the oil and fishery developments on the Atlantic Frontier. Moreover, we understand that parts of the areas involved are disputed by Denmark, Iceland, the UK and Eire. Many similar areas are disputed for similar reasons around the world. Here then is an opportunity to resolve and defuse international conflict by showing real environmental leadership and agreeing not on development but to forgo it.
Greenpeace is glad to see, from your Government's contribution to the recent debate on the Select Committee Report on disposal of offshore oil installations, that your policy has now developed rather significantly, and that it encompasses consideration of public opinion and the cumulative impact of any dumping. We are also encouraged, in the context of the forthcoming Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPARCOM) Ministerial Conference (June 1997), that you will now seek an international consensus on this matter.
Your representatives at the OSPAR Commission are aware that Greenpeace International has made a proposal within the framework of that Commission, which also seeks an international consensus on this matter. We have proposed that the decision to be adopted at the forthcoming OSPAR Ministerial Conference diferentiates large concrete gravity bases from the rest of the offshore installations.
While the rest should be removed to land, we believe that large concrete gravity bases could be left in situ. I am sure that you will be able to support this compromise proposal.
You may know that Greenpeace has been able to support 21 of 29 options put forward in Shell's recent "long list" for the future of the Brent Spar, and we only opposed one outright, as that was the only one that clearly involved ocean dumping. We have sought clarification of seven, and look forward to further convergence of the policy of governments and the industry in ending any possibility of using the oceans as a dumping ground. Instead, we urge you to develop, with other states and the oil and engineering industry, the integrated removal scheme foreshadowed in your response to the Select Committee's Report.
Whereas current practice is of course crucial, it is the setting of direction which we believe is all important. Greenpeace welcomes several recent developments in your Government's policies but remains deeply concerned that your policies on climate and energy (oil), and on abyssal fisheries and ocean protection, as well as relative support for renewables and oil, all remain at odds and out of balance with any notion of "sustainable development". They are not yet a vision of a future in which industry develops without environmental despoliation.
Such matters will no doubt be raised at a number of international fora over the next year or so, and given your Rio responsibilities we look forward to hearing more about how your policy will develop.
We will be writing separately to Ministers concerned, on some of the more detailed points arising from our previous correspondence.
Yours sincerely
 |
Executive Director
Greenpeace UK