December 2019 – Employment, Energy and Environment

Phasing Out Oil and Gas

One of the workshop streams at the Scot.E3 conference in November focused on Oil and Gas and Just Transition for workers involved with the North Sea. Stephen McMurray summarises the discussion that took place.

The oil and gas group included Simon Pirani, author of Burning Up: a global history of fossil fuel consumption, and a retired oil worker now campaigning with XR and ScotE3. The initial discussions included how we start to phase out oil and gas extraction. The main policy suggestions included ending subsidies to the oil and gas industries and ending licences for oil and gas exploration.

There was an interesting debate about whether the government should set a date to end oil and gas, for example in 2030. On a positive note, it may stop companies exploring for oil and gas well before 2030. On a more negative note, it may encourage companies to seek to maximise output and increase carbon emissions before 2030.

Earlier in the conference, we had watched a series of short films by REEL News. One of the films illustrated that companies were increasingly turning to automation and subsequently reducing their workforce. This led to a discussion considering that research should be undertaken into the impact of automation into the oil and gas industries. Furthermore, it would be useful for REEL News to make a film of the North Sea and show their films on the impacts of oil and gas to oil workers.

There was a general feeling that there was a lack of information for oil and gas workers in relation to training for new industries, and that a just transition conference should be held in Aberdeen for oil and gas workers. There was also a discussion on how we engage with suppliers to the oil and gas industries so they are included in a just transition. Additionally, it was not clear that the Scottish Government had produced a post-oil industrial strategy, and there was a need to give presentations at universities for the need to move to careers post carbon.

Finally, there was an agreement that we need to bring the rebellion to the oil and gas industries and that we need a massive confrontation with big oil in Aberdeen during COP26 when it comes to Glasgow next year.

2018-07-19 08.57.05

Housing and climate action

One of the workshop streams at the Scot.E3 conference in November was devoted to housing. This report is from Mike Downham who was one of the facilitators of the discussion.

Housing in Scotland is a disgrace – from the Muirhead tower blocks to new-build. A participant from Hungary, who has been in Glasgow for a year or so and has had extreme difficulties in finding somewhere to live and which is affordable to heat, said that Scotland’s housing compares very badly with Hungary’s, which at least has thick walls. “You’ve got to do something about it”.
Student housing. The Universities are supplying student housing which is unaffordable except for wealthy students, mostly from the Far East, and make it difficult for most students to find less expensive accommodation. There has been a lot of public criticism about students having such high quality housing, while many citizens are homeless. But the reality is that the majority of students have huge difficulties in finding housing they can afford to rent and heat. It’s not unusual for them to end up on someone else’s sofa.
Commodification of housing since 1980 is at the root of the housing crisis in Scotland. Housing policy has been primarily aimed at growing the national economy, instead of housing being recognised as a human right.
What we can do together towards a just transition in Scotland’s Housing:

Demand that Councils bring building standards up to passive-house specifications and replace building control jobs lost in the name of austerity, without which new housing can’t be adequately inspected. These changes are perfectly feasible for Councils.
Put pressure on the Scottish Government to ensure that the new Scottish Investment Bank will direct enough funding to build the new houses needed (this is urgent – the Scottish Investment Bank Bill is going through parliament now).
Put pressure on Pension Funds to invest in housing.
Support grass-roots protest as demonstrated by Living Rent’s support for Muirhouse tenants, which started with door-knocking to get all tenants’ views.
Suggest to XR that they target some of their direct action on grass-roots projects such as Muirhouse
Suggest that grass-roots projects such as Muirhouse deliver their demands to the COP 26 – to both the formal and the alternative meetings.
Keep in our sites the eventual objective of a National Housing Company through which communities will choose the type of housing, local facilities and green species they need

Climate is just one part of the wider argument – so the challenge for the Climate Movement is to build links with all other movements concerned with social injustice.
“We need to close this down” – just as we would have no hesitation in doing if there was a proposal to build an asbestos factory at the end of our street. Though this was said in respect of the climate polluters, the fact that it was said in a discussion on Housing, Health and Fuel Poverty suggests that it should be our approach to all forms of social and planetary injustice.

Image (Construction of the Passive House) CC BY SA 2.0 from Sustainable Sanitation Alliance

Energy from Waste

On of the issues that came up in discussion at the recent Scot.E3 conference was ‘Energy from Waste’. There is large-scale investment in this technology taking place across the UK. We agreed to produce a briefing on the topic. What follows is the text of the first draft of the briefing. We are also developing further resources that will be added to the Resources page on this site. We’d welcome comments on the text and ideas for useful resources that we could link to.

There are a large number of Energy from Waste (EFW) projects planned across the UK. By the end of 2017 there were nearly 120 EFW proposals at various planning stages. Sixteen of these are in Scotland. In this briefing we take a critical look at Energy from Waste and ask whether it has a place in a strategy for a zero carbon Scotland.

Energy from Waste Projects

At first sight, the term ‘Energy from Waste’ appears to be all things green. It suggests a new and rational way of ‘treating’ the ever-growing mountains of waste that are an inevitable by-product of our throwaway society. It invites the idea of a ‘green energy’ that has been derived from what would otherwise be a possibly harmful and long-term environmental problem. When the alternatives proposed are either a long-term toxic and smelly and unsightly landfill problem or a health-threatening incineration route, then EFW appears to be a sensible choice.

Behind the EFW hype, which many UK local authorities have accepted, there is a fog of confusion regarding the most optimal waste management solutions; whether they be recycling or minimising the production of waste at source – both options are ruled out by market driven/low cost and value-for-money economics.

Landfill

Since 1945 the volume of disposable waste per household in the UK has multiplied threefold. Over the years, the local authorities have traditionally chosen landfill disposal as the preferred waste ‘treatment’ route. However, landfill, demands considerable land acreage and depth and entails significant public health risks as well as potentially long-term hazards for the environment. Aside from smell and vermin nuisance, landfill sites- even the best managed ones- constitute over time- a high risk of biological and toxin leaching into surface soils and ground-waters. Methane from decomposition also adds to greenhouse gas emissions.

For all of these reasons, waste management authorities have either been incentivised away from landfill by grants for recycling- or more often – ‘disincentivised’ in the way of increasingly punitive landfill taxes. First introduced in the 1970’s, landfill taxes have been subsequently reinforced by EU directive-and as alternative waste ‘treatment’ technologies have fallen in capital cost, so landfill taxes have risen.

Landfill tax per tonne

2010 £63.00

2018 £88.95

2019-20 £94.15

Tax policies make EFW-type waste treatment strategies appear attractive- particularly because in exchange for a penalty for handling waste, there is an income from generating electricity.

EFW technologies

There are a number of EFW technologies on offer but all share the same objective of converting solid (or in some cases, liquid/sludge) waste into energy for the production of electricity.

Typically, an EFW plant is based on an incinerator chamber into which is fed solid waste. The upper walls of the chamber comprise water-filled tubes in which super-heated steam is produced for a steam turbine that in turn produces electricity.

Steam is also captured from the waste feed system. If the plant is fitted with what is called a ‘back-pressure’ steam turbine, then high-pressure hot water can be distributed to local industrial and residential heating networks in what is called a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system.

However, as such plant is typically fed unsorted, or semi-sorted waste with a low calorific value, the combustion process will be ‘boosted’ with an additional combustion element in the form of natural gas or diesel oil. Less typical EFW technologies with little application to date, are the various gasification processed that involve the digestion of biological waste- usually food or agricultural wastes which are then converted into a ‘bio-gas’ which via a gas turbine is converted into a higher electricity output. In some processes, the waste is heat-treated anaerobically – i.e. in low oxygen conditions- (pyrolysis) to produce a synthetic ‘natural’ gas.

All EFW systems discharge exhaust gases. The principal emission is carbon dioxide but there are also emissions of nitrogen dioxide. Quenching water can contain uncombusted toxins and solid wastes in the form of light ash or clinker have to be disposed of safely.

Image M J Richardson, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5668478

Renewable energy?

EFW systems add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through the process itself and also through large-scale transport of waste to the incinerators (mostly by road). They are a response to the perceived problem of landfill rather than tackling systems that produce unrecyclable waste. To operate efficiently EFW plants require a continuing supply of waste at or around current levels. Scotland produces around 1.6 million tonnes of combustible municipal waste per year, if current plans come to fruition this means and awful lot of capacity chasing a very finite amount of waste. Local authorities could be tied in to contracts to supply waste for the next thirty or forty years. This could pose a real threat to the commitment to recycle plastics and other recoverable materials out of the waste treatment stream. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency notes that EFW is not a renewable energy source but claims that because it can be substituted for fossil fuel electricity production it forms an important part of the Scottish Strategy for sustainable energy!

Alternative Strategy needed

Energy from Waste is not green and not sustainable. It undermines attempts to reuse and recycle and it has a significant carbon footprint through transport of waste to centralised sites and through the greenhouse emissions from the burning of waste.

Investment in Energy from waste should be reallocated to genuinely sustainable technologies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which also provide opportunities for jobs in construction and better opportunities for long-term employment.

Further reading

For further information on Energy from Waste go to www.scote3.wordpress.com and click on the Resources tab in the menu. This briefing is one in a series produced by Scot.E3.

Disaster Environmentalism

The People and Nature blog has just published three really thought proving articles.

The first ‘Disaster environmentalism looking the future in the face’ takes a critical look at recent writing by Rupert Read, Jem Bendell and others that argues that civilisational collapse as a result of climate change is inevitable and for approaches to dealing with collapse that require ‘deep adaptation’.

The second ‘Disaster environmentalism: roads to a post-growth economy’ is a contribution to the debate on Degrowth. It argues that ‘“Economic growth”, as manifested by global capitalism, is completely unsustainable. “Green growth”, or “socialist growth”, are no substitutes. Our challenge to the economic system must open the way for a society based on human happiness and fulfillment, values completely at odds with – and distorted and defaced by – the rich-country consumerist ideology that helps to justify ever-expanding material production’.

The final post ‘Disaster environmentalism: what to do’ explores the political implications of the positions outlined in the first two posts and takes a sharp look at the politics and practice of social change.

Taken together the three posts are an important contribution to debate in the climate movement and recommended reading for climate activists.

Typhoon Ondoy Aftermath CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

COP25, social movements and climate justice

Latin American social movements have been organising in opposition to COP 25 from well before the upsurge of popular protest in Chile and the transfer of the UN Climate talks to Madrid. The ‘Regional Gathering: Climate crisis, energy transition and mining extractivism in Latin America’ was held from September 26 to 28 in Santiago, Chile. We reproduce the declaration issued by the gathering:

Declaration

Faced with the undeniable climate crisis and the false solutions proposed by multilateral spaces that have been co-opted by the transnational business sector and supported by governments, the meeting was organised by the Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts (OLCA), the Observatory of Mining Conflicts of Latin America (OCMAL) together with War on Want and Mining Watch Canada.
We consider:
That national and transnational companies and governments, mainly of the industrialised North, are those truly responsible for environmental breakdown due to their extractive activities in search of capitalist accumulation and the promotion of consumerism.
That the current discourse around the climate crisis places the blame on individual responsibility, thereby distracting the attention from those most responsible.
That the peoples, communities and organisations that resist these extractive activities – in defence of life, water and territories – are stigmatised, repressed, criminalised and murdered.
That companies and extractivist governments are the ones who commit true criminal acts against all forms of life, violating Human Rights and the Rights of Nature.
That mining extractivism in all its phases causes ecocide and ethnocide in the different territories where it operates.
That hidden behind the discourse of the ‘energy transition’ is a program of economic growth for the Global North which threatens to exponentially increase sacrifice zones under the auspices of guaranteeing the supply of minerals for so-called ‘green’ technologies. This will come at the cost of the exploitation of our territories and communities, all while intensifying the ecological crisis.
That the recent panic surrounding the climate crisis in the Global North can only ever be understood in the context of the struggles present in our urban and rural communities of the Global South, who have been resisting the intersecting social and ecological crises since the inception of colonialism. This panic cannot impose false solutions or reproduce extractivism.
That the climate crisis, as part of an ecological crisis, is a condition of the capitalist world development model.
We denounce:
Any attempt by mining companies to benefit from the climate crisis using deceptive initiatives such as: “inclusive tailings”, and the ‘adoption’ of environmental liabilities, Responsible Mining, Green Mining, Sustainable Mining, Ecological Mining, Clean Mining, Climate Smart Mining, Future Smart Mining, offsetting mechanisms for social and environmental damages, Green Economy and any other concept that seeks to wash its image or perpetuate impunity.
The actions of governments and corporations that dismember, divide, privatise, auction-off and commercialise nature and our territories to turn them into resources, merchandise or environmental services.
Visions of a transition which reproduce extractivist capitalism, including those focused on the nationalisation of minerals and oil and do not guarantee structural changes.
Any appropriation of local knowledge, expertise and wisdom by mining companies and governments to encourage extractive activities.
That extractivist companies, in addition to exploiting the environment, also engage in widespread corruption, eliminating trust in public institutions and the functioning of the judicial system.
That to date, the COPs have failed to provide real solutions to address climate injustice and inequality caused by predatory extractivism. Instead they have, under the pressure of Northern countries, made decisions in the interests of the economic model which is responsible for the ecological and climate crisis.
We recognise:
That the strength to face this crisis lies with young people, women, communities and organisations, movements and territories.
That our anti-capitalist struggle is also a decolonial, anti-patriarchal and anti-racist struggle.
That the true knowledge-keepers of territories are those who have historically inhabited them.
That nature is a subject of rights and recognition of this is a global necessity.
The self-determination of peoples to resist and say “no” to the invasion of mining companies in their territories.
We will fight
So that ecological justice emerges from the territories where the processes to protect life, water, ecosystems and Mother Earth are increasingly threatened and impacted by predatory extractivist capitalism.
To strengthen and respect the autonomy of communities and their organisations to define solutions in the framework of justice and equity based on nature, the planet and humanity.
For the respect of the Indigenous peoples, peasants and other communities, who are the guardians of their territories.
To cease the auctioning of mining and oil concessions in our territories.
Alongside frontline resistance to mega-mining and processes which seek mining-bans.
To ensure that mining companies which have benefited from the looting of nature are fully liable for mine-closure processes, and that integral repair of the territory arises from collective and participatory processes led by affected communities.
So that environmental catastrophes, pollution, murders and any other violation in territories affected by mining companies are recognised for what they are: crimes. It is urgent to develop binding policies and mechanisms to confront the generalised impunity enjoyed by companies, their owners, their executives and their financial centres.
To strengthen organisations and movements that fight in defence of the territories.
To develop regional solidarity and agreements to ensure food, energy and economic sovereignty.
To defend water in all its states as a source of life.
To sow, celebrate and strengthen territories free of mining.

Signatories:
Asamblea por la Defensa del Elki (Chile/Elqui)
Acción Ecológica (Ecuador/Quito)
Asamblea por el Agua del Guasco Alto (Chile/Huasco)
Belén dice NO a la minería (Chile/Arica)
CENSAT Agua Viva (Colombia/Bogotá)
Centro de Documentación e Información Bolivia (CEDIB) (Bolivia/Cochabamba)
Centro de Investigación sobre Inversión y Comercio (CEICOM) (El Salvador/ San Salvador)
Codemaa (Chile/Atacama)
Comunidad Indígena Diaguita Patay Co (Chile/Huasco)
Coordinadora Ambiental Valles en Movimiento Limarí – Monte Patria (Chile/Limarí–Monte Patria)
Coordinadora Penco-Lirquén (Chile/Penco-Lirquén)
Coordinadora por la Defensa del Río Loa y la Madre Tierra (Chile/Calama)
London Mining Network (Reino Unido/Londres)
Movimiento por las Sierras y Aguas de Minas Gerais (Brasil/ Minas Gerais)
Mesa Comunal de Turismo Monte Patria y Limarí (Chile/Monte Patria – Limarí)
Mining Watch Canada (Canadá/Ottawa)
Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros en América Latina (OCMAL) (Chile/Santiago)
Observatorio Conflictos Mineros de Zacatecas (OCMZAC) (México/Zacatecas)
Observatorio de Ecología Política de Venezuela (OEPV) (Venezuela/Caracas)
Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales (OLCA) (Chile/Santiago)
Observatorio Plurinacional de Salares Andinos (OPSA) (Chile/Atacama)
Putaendo Resiste (Chile/Putaendo)
Red de Afectados por la Vale (Brasil/Minas Gerais, Brumadinho)
Red de Mujeres El Loa (Chile/Calama)
War on Want (Reino Unido/Londres)

Solidarity with Chile! System change not climate change

The COP 25 talks began in Madrid on Monday this week. Originally scheduled for Chile the conference was transferred to Spain as millions took to the streets in Chile to protest against the high cost of living, privatisation and inequality.

These United Nations meetings (COP = conference of the parties) have taken place annually since the first summit in 1995. On a number of occasions the COP meetings have set specific targets for reducing green house gas emissions. None of these targets have been met; on the contrary there has been a huge rise. The two most common greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. In the 25 years since the Berlin summit atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by 67 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is a bigger increase than took place in the previous 200 years. Methane levels have tripled since the Berlin summit.

There are two solidarity events taking place this Friday evening (6^th December):

In Edinburgh a human chain in Princes Street – assembling at the Usher Hall in Lothian Road at 5.30pm. More details on Facebook

and Glasgow 17:30-18:30 Buchanan Street Steps, Facebook for more details

31842085623_dfd424712b_c

Image by Pete Cannell, Flickr COP 22 Paris, 2015

Zero Carbon Britain

The Centre for Alternative Technology has just published the latest version of its’ Zero Carbon Britain report. The report is a must read for climate campaigners and picked full with facts, figures and arguments. It makes a rigorous case that we can reach zero carbon through the implementation of existing technologies. “Powering down” energy use through increased efficiency and behaviour change, “powering up” clean energy supplies, and transforming land use.

Download the report here.

zero carbon