WWF urges EU to ban all energy wasting light bulbs

Brussels, Belgium - WWF welcomes the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, coming into effect in the EU from 1 September, but it says that equally energy wasting light bulbs like standard halogens should also be removed from the market.

The phase-out ban voted by Member States in December 2008 will remove all conventional incandescent bulbs from the shelves by 2012 and save 15 million tons of CO2 annually by 2020, equivalent to the entire current electricity consumption of Romania per year.

“Getting rid of incandescents is a no-brainer, but halogens are nearly as wasteful: we need to see the EU push innovative solutions into the market.” says Mariangiola Fabbri, Senior Energy Policy Officer at WWF’s European Policy Office.

The traditional incandescent bulb is one of the least efficient ways of producing light, along with the standard halogen. It disperses 95% of the energy it uses. The alternatives to energy wasting bulbs are most efficient halogen bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and LED (light emitting diodes) bulbs.

WWF together with other organisations has launched a web portal to inform consumers about the most energy-efficient appliances and lighting equipment across Europe (www.topten.info).

“Consumers need to receive correct and simple information about the many alternatives already available in the market”, says Fabbri. “Simple information on packaging and recycling collection systems at points of sale are crucial to achieving real savings and changing consumers’ habits”, says Fabbri.

Showdown looms for tuna in Brussels

Brussels, Belgium / Rome, Italy - - European Union member states and the European Commission will decide in the next week whether to support bluefin tuna conservation – or to encourage the continued wilful overexploitation of an endangered marine resource.

Today, the European Commission’s Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, DG MARE, will consider DG Environment’s support for a listing of the severely overfished Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to temporarily ban all international trade – the same day that EU member states are asked to give their own feedback on the proposal.

“It would be scandalous if the European Commission were to allow the region’s most emblematic marine species associated with a thousand-year-old fishing tradition to go extinct on its watch,” said Tony Long, Director of WWF’s European Policy Office in Brussels. “This would be a shameful legacy for the Barroso Commission.

They must back the proposal to temporarily ban international trade.”

Following an initial proposal tabled in July by the Principality of Monaco, several EU countries – France, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Austria – quickly expressed support to list Atlantic bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I, which would give the overexploited species a chance of recovery.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was first to express his country’s support for an international trade ban through CITES, saying: “It is against this great responsibility that we will be judged by our children and the generations to come.”

In addition, the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment has since recommended in a draft report – excerpted in a recent Financial Times story – that “from a scientific and technical point of view, the criteria for the listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna appear to be met. (...) There is no doubt about the link between international trade and overexploitation of the species.”

If the EU Commission and member states cannot reach consensus today, the decision risks instead running to a showdown of all 27 European Commissioners, as early as next Wednesday.

“It would be extraordinary if DG MARE, the very department tasked with protecting this iconic species, sought to block a CITES listing to ban trade in this endangered animal,” said Tony Long. “How could any of us have faith that the Commission is serious in wanting to end the catastrophic policy failures in the existing Common Fisheries Policy?”

Listing Atlantic bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I would be a real chance for the species to recover from decades of massive overfishing and overexploitation, plagued by illegal takes and disregard for scientific advice.

Once bluefin tuna shows signs of recovery, WWF hopes to see a sustainably managed, thriving fishery in the EU and around the Mediterranean again in the years to come.

New measures not enough for central Pacific tuna

PORT VILA, VANUATU: Tuna conservation and management measures for the western and central Pacific approved just last December are “highly unlikely” to restore bigeye and yellowfin tuna fishing to sustainable levels, according to a recently completed assessment.

The Assessment of the Potential Implications of Application of CMM-2008-01, a technical evaluation by Pacific Commission scientists charged with providing advice to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) says that the newly introduced Conservation and Management Measure (CMM-2008-01) won’t meet its objectives of maintaining bigeye tuna stocks and spawning biomass at sustainable levels by simply reducing the fishing mortality of bigeye tuna by 30 per cent over three years.

The measure, which includes setting effort and catch limits in longline and purse seine fishing, closing fishing of high-seas pockets, and implementing a seasonal ban on Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), are just not enough to maintain bigeye tuna stocks at sustainable fishing levels over the next 10 years as planned.

The measure also is unlikely to achieve planned targets of holding yellowfin tuna fishing mortality to 2001-2004 average values.

“The value of this assessment is that it shows the likely result on high value tuna stocks of barely adequate fishing controls that are then further weakened with loads of exemptions,” said Dr. Jose Ingles, WWF fisheries expert.

The CMM-2008-1, adopted by the WCPFC in December 2008, was designed to ensure that bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks are maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield through the implementation of compatible measures for high seas and Exclusive Economic Zones.

According to the assessment, reductions in longline catch won’t be sufficient for meeting the required reduction in fishing mortality on adult bigeye tuna while the exclusion of archipelagic waters from the measure—which encompasses most of the fishing activities of the Indonesian and Philippine domestic fleets and significant amounts of purse seine effort in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands—leaves out an important source of fishing mortality for juvenile bigeye tuna.

Also, Fish Aggregation Device (FAD) and high-seas pockets closures cannot sufficiently offset the increase in purse seine effort allowed under the measure and cannot reduce purse seine fishing mortality below 2001-2004 average levels.

The effect, according to this assessment, will be little if any reduction in the overfishing of bigeye tuna from current high levels of 50-100% above sustainable yield levels.

The spawning biomass of bigeye tuna is also predicted to worsen by 2018 between 40-60% below sustainable levels.

“The fishing industry is scrambling to supply growing international demand for tuna, which puts tremendous pressure on the already heavily fished tuna stocks in the Coral Triangle” said Dr. Ingles.

“The Scientific Committee of the WCPFC should immediately address the shortcomings of the measure and recommend appropriate steps to meet the objectives it set forth.”

“The exemptions outlined in the CMM-2008-01 have watered down its effectiveness. Closing or banning fishing in high seas for example will simply shift fishing effort to the Central Pacific, which scientist believe are more vulnerable areas for bigeye tuna.”

The Coral Triangle contains spawning and nursery grounds and migratory routes for commercially-valuable tuna species such as bigeye, yellowfin, skipjack and albacore, producing more than 40% of the total catch for the Western Central Pacific region, and representing more than 20% of the total global catch.

Bigeye tuna accounts for 10% of the global tuna catch and is eaten as steaks or as sushi and sashimi.

Catches in 2006, estimated at over 2.3 million tones, were the highest recorded; but two of the most valuable species, bigeye and yellowfin tuna, are at serious risk of overfishing.

“If we are to see an effective reduction in the overfishing of tuna in the Coral Triangle, we need to make sure that the measures put in place are sufficient and strong enough to create drastic results” says Dr. Ingles. “Maintaining profitable and sustainable tuna stocks means ensuring the bounty of this shared resource for future generations.”

Water footprint of beer more on the farm than in the brewery

Stockholm, Sweden: The total water involved in producing beer is overwhelmingly used on the farm rather than in the brewery, according to a report presented to World Water Week by major brewer SAB Miller and leading global environment organization WWF.

Water footprinting: Identifying and addressing water risks in the value chain evaluated the water footprints – a way of understanding water use through the whole value chain – of SAB Miller beers produced in South Africa and the Czech Republic.

Better understanding the quantity, efficiency and geography of water use is enabling the two organizations to understand the impacts of water use, improve water management and work with communities and governments to protect watersheds.

The new report reveals that in South Africa, the total water footprint is equivalent to 155 litres of water for every 1 litre of beer such as Castle lager and Carling Black Label, with the vast majority of water use (98.3%) associated with crop cultivation, both local and imported.

For Plzensky Prazdroj, SABMiller’s Czech operation which produces Pilsner Urquell – the original pilsener beer which provided the blueprint for the majority of the world’s commercial beers - agriculture is again the most significant component; accounting for over 90% of the total water footprint.

However, the overall water footprint of Czech beer production is significantly smaller at 45 litres of water to every 1 litre of beer, with the differences due mainly to a greater reliance on irrigation in South Africa and the proportion and origin of imported crops.

In comparison with other beverages, beer’s water footprint is relatively small, with a recent Pacific Institute study finding that coffee, wine and apple juice all have water footprints more than three times that of beer.

However, the water footprint figure itself does not give the whole picture. More important is the context - where the water is used, what proportion of the area’s total water resource it represents, and whether water scarcity creates risks to the environment, communities and businesses now or in the future..

“The water footprints of SABMiller’s beers in South Africa and the Czech Republic are the first detailed corporate water footprints to be published and are progressive in the way they examine the impact of water use within these countries,” said Stuart Orr, WWF’s freshwater footprint manager.

“Most important is that this information is now used to ensure that their business partners – particularly farmers – are encouraged to use water more efficiently.”

In South Africa, SAB Ltd is working with barley farmers to improve irrigation and yields, and with WWF the company is now considering how to develop this further to protect the watersheds within which it operates.

“Water footprinting enables SABMiller to understand which parts of our supply chain might face water scarcity, or poor water quality, in the future, and means that we can plan now to deal with these future challenges,” said SABMiller head of sustainable development, Andy Wales.

“We will build on our existing partnerships with WWF in South Africa, Colombia, and Honduras to create further local watershed protection projects to reduce risk whilst protecting the environment”

RENEWABLES CAN POWER SCOTLAND’S ENERGY REVOLUTION

£150 MILLION FUEL LEVY COULD BOOST INVESTMENT

NO NEED FOR NUCLEAR

A major report has confirmed that renewable energy can power Scotland’s energy revolution.

The report, which has been welcomed by SNP MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Climate Change Committee confirms that Scotland can meet domestic energy needs from renewable sources and has the potential to produce surplus green energy for export.

“The Power of Scotland Renewed” compiled by energy analyst Garard Hassan on behalf of NGO’s including Friends of the Earth Scotland, RSPB Scotland, World Development movement and WWF Scotland says Scotland could meet nearly 70% of domestic electricity use by 2030 from renewables and has the potential to meet over 140% of domestic demand, allowing export of surplus resources.

The report confirms that there is no need for new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Commenting on the report Lothians MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville also called for the UK Government to release the £150 million fossil fuel levy for investment in Scotland’s green future;

“This is an encouraging report and further demonstrates Scotland’s ability to lead the renewables revolution.

“There is welcome confirmation in this report both of Scotland’s green energy potential and our ability to generate electricity for both domestic consumption and export without costly and unwanted nuclear power stations.

“While we are on target to surpass our ambitious renewable energy targets of 31% of electricity from renewables by 2011 to build a bright and green future we must ensure we invest properly.

“It is unfortunate that £150 million of potential investment in Scotland’s renewables and energy industry is currently sat in a UK Government bank account through a quirk of Treasury accounting. It is time that money was released and invested in Scotland’s energy future.

“With the £10 million Saltire Prize attracting international interest in Scotland’s renewables potential and Scotland’s role in the development of a North Sea Super Grid Scotland is well places to capitalise on the jobs, investment and environmental benefit our renewable resources offer - with the release of £150 million of Scotland's money that investment could receive a major boost.”

Green groups launch legal battle against Heathrow expansion

Leading green groups, together with local councils and residents' groups, today launched a legal challenge against the government's controversial decision to expand Heathrow airport.

The thirteen organisations backing the challenge - representing millions of people - will argue that the consultation process was flawed and that the decision was irrational.

Lawyers representing the coalition argue that a third runway means that the UK risks breaching legal limits on noise and air pollution, that it will seriously undermine our climate change targets and that the costs of the project have not been properly assessed and will not benefit the economy.

Greenpeace, WWF-UK, RSPB and CPRE will claim that expanding Heathrow will massively increase carbon emissions and that this is completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle climate change.

Lodging the documents at the High Court is the first step in a process which is expected to lead to a Judicial Review of the government's decision on Heathrow.

If the challenge is successful, the decision would be quashed and the government would have to re-run the consultation. If the Court agrees that the decision was irrational then the government may also be forced to review its entire aviation policy, which supports expanding nearly thirty airports across the country.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

"The government's decision to expand Heathrow is completely at odds with the urgent need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change. This is why we are launching a legal challenge.

"Brown and Hoon know that the sums on Heathrow don't add up. That's why, at the last minute, they knocked together a handful of half-baked proposals in an attempt to 'green' the runway.

"But however much the government try to dress this decision up, the simple fact is that this runway can not be built if it is serious about tackling climate change."

David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK said:

"The decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow blows the chances of setting the UK onto a low carbon pathway completely out of the water. If the targets set in the Climate Change Act are to be meaningful, the government must stop adopting policies that undermine them.

"Nor does it make sense financially - why expand a carbon intensive industry such as aviation, which will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for the UK to meet the government's carbon targets - when there are green alternatives such as video conferencing and high speed rail available instead? Every other part of the economy will have to cover the carbon costs created by a third runway."

Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's Director of Conservation, said:

"The RSPB believes climate change to be the biggest threat to life on Earth. We are already starting to see its impacts on wildlife here in the UK, including catastrophic declines among seabirds in parts of the North Sea.

"Against this backdrop, the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is perverse. We are not opposed to flying, and indeed recognise that for many people international travel is a vital part of their life and work. But encouraging a massive increase in flights, just at the time when we need to reduce our emissions dramatically, shows a reckless disregard for the well-being of our planet, and our future."

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said:

"Britain's aviation policy is badly out of date and lacks democratic legitimacy. It takes very little account of the urgency of climate change or the impact on people's quality of life of ever more noisy flights and car journeys to airports.

"The decision on the third runway was stitched up behind closed doors, and the Government seems less and less prepared to subject its decisions on aviation to proper public scrutiny. Aviation policy has become so democratically challenged that a legal challenge is the only way for groups like us to influence it."