Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Airlines face formal complaints over contested sustainability claims

News Feed
Thursday, November 30, 2023

Virgin Atlantic and British Airways are facing a formal complaints over their sustainable flight claims after being accused of misleading potential customers about the environmental credentials of aviation.This week, a Virgin plane took off on the first transatlantic flight by a commercial airliner fully powered by “sustainable” jet fuel, largely comprising cooking oil. The flight, partly funded by the UK government, flew to great fanfare from airlines and ministers as a potentially guilt-free way to fly. However, scientists and environmental groups are more sceptical.Now, climate charity Possible and law firm Leigh Day have filed formal complaints against the two major airlines over their claims about reducing emissions from flights.The senior campaigner at Possible, Alethea Warrington, said: “The reality is that technologies for cleaner flight either don’t work, or don’t even exist yet. We think that airlines’ misleading claims about their emissions are unfair on people who want to do the right thing when they travel. It’s time for airlines to start being honest about their sky-high emissions.”The complaints, filed under the National Contact point mechanism run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), set out that both airlines are misleading consumers over their claims on reducing carbon emissions from flights as the layperson does not have the expertise to discern the limits of decarbonisation technology.Airlines claim they can use biofuels made from crops or green hydrogen made from renewable energy, but recent research from the Royal Society has found the UK would have to devote half its farmland or more than double its total renewable electricity supply to make enough aviation fuel to meet its ambitions for net zero flying.The filing highlights that BA claims to be “driving urgent action towards net-zero emissions” and said it has a “clear roadmap to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. However, analysis has found BA’s emissions from jet fuel have increased year-on-year between 2016 and 2019.Virgin Atlantic features its “mission to net zero” on its promotional materials but fails to mention it is falling short of its emissions targets, which Possible has argued is crucial information for consumers.The charity also points out scientific literature comparing the lifecycle emissions from biofuels compared to conventional jet fuel, “which is clear that these fuels may produce even more emissions and be worse for the climate than kerosene”. Both feedstocks produce fuels with similar tailpipe emissions to kerosene, and the emissions reductions are claimed to be created at a systemic level.“For fuels derived from biomass, land is not available to produce crops for biofuels in sufficient quantities to power aviation without causing hugely damaging deforestation, which increase emissions and makes biofuels just as bad for the climate as kerosene, if not worse,” the charity said.A British Airways spokesperson said: “In 2019, we committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 and, while there is no single solution to this challenge, as part of our BA Better World programme, we have a clear roadmap of initiatives to get there.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“In the short-term, this means improving our operational efficiency, investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft and progressively introducing sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) with partnerships in the UK and US, while for the medium to longer term, we’re continuing to invest in the development of SAF – a critical path to decarbonise, and looking at how we can help with the growth of zero-emissions hydrogen-powered aircraft and carbon-removal technology.“We were the first airline to report our carbon footprint more than two decades ago and were the first airline to voluntarily participate in the UK emissions trading scheme.”A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said: “At Virgin Atlantic, we are committed to achieving Net Zero 2050 and have set interim targets on our pathway to get there, including 10% sustainable aviation fuel by 2030.“There are two levers for delivering in-sector carbon reductions in the short to medium term: the fleet we operate and fuel we burn. We already fly one of the youngest and most efficient fleets across the Atlantic.“Beyond fleet renewals, SAF presents an immediate opportunity to deliver lifecycle carbon reductions of up to 70% and is something we have been pioneering for over 15 years.”

Virgin Atlantic and British Airways are accused of misleading customers about claims on carbon emissions from ‘sustainable’ jet fuelVirgin Atlantic and British Airways are facing formal complaints over their sustainable flight claims after being accused of misleading potential customers about the environmental credentials of aviation.This week, a Virgin plane took off on the first transatlantic flight by a commercial airliner fully powered by “sustainable” jet fuel, largely comprising cooking oil. The flight, partly funded by the UK government, flew to great fanfare from airlines and ministers as a potentially guilt-free way to fly. However, scientists and environmental groups are more sceptical. Continue reading...

Virgin Atlantic and British Airways are facing a formal complaints over their sustainable flight claims after being accused of misleading potential customers about the environmental credentials of aviation.

This week, a Virgin plane took off on the first transatlantic flight by a commercial airliner fully powered by “sustainable” jet fuel, largely comprising cooking oil. The flight, partly funded by the UK government, flew to great fanfare from airlines and ministers as a potentially guilt-free way to fly. However, scientists and environmental groups are more sceptical.

Now, climate charity Possible and law firm Leigh Day have filed formal complaints against the two major airlines over their claims about reducing emissions from flights.

The senior campaigner at Possible, Alethea Warrington, said: “The reality is that technologies for cleaner flight either don’t work, or don’t even exist yet. We think that airlines’ misleading claims about their emissions are unfair on people who want to do the right thing when they travel. It’s time for airlines to start being honest about their sky-high emissions.”

The complaints, filed under the National Contact point mechanism run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), set out that both airlines are misleading consumers over their claims on reducing carbon emissions from flights as the layperson does not have the expertise to discern the limits of decarbonisation technology.

Airlines claim they can use biofuels made from crops or green hydrogen made from renewable energy, but recent research from the Royal Society has found the UK would have to devote half its farmland or more than double its total renewable electricity supply to make enough aviation fuel to meet its ambitions for net zero flying.

The filing highlights that BA claims to be “driving urgent action towards net-zero emissions” and said it has a “clear roadmap to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. However, analysis has found BA’s emissions from jet fuel have increased year-on-year between 2016 and 2019.

Virgin Atlantic features its “mission to net zero” on its promotional materials but fails to mention it is falling short of its emissions targets, which Possible has argued is crucial information for consumers.

The charity also points out scientific literature comparing the lifecycle emissions from biofuels compared to conventional jet fuel, “which is clear that these fuels may produce even more emissions and be worse for the climate than kerosene”. Both feedstocks produce fuels with similar tailpipe emissions to kerosene, and the emissions reductions are claimed to be created at a systemic level.

“For fuels derived from biomass, land is not available to produce crops for biofuels in sufficient quantities to power aviation without causing hugely damaging deforestation, which increase emissions and makes biofuels just as bad for the climate as kerosene, if not worse,” the charity said.

A British Airways spokesperson said: “In 2019, we committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 and, while there is no single solution to this challenge, as part of our BA Better World programme, we have a clear roadmap of initiatives to get there.

skip past newsletter promotion

“In the short-term, this means improving our operational efficiency, investing in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft and progressively introducing sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) with partnerships in the UK and US, while for the medium to longer term, we’re continuing to invest in the development of SAF – a critical path to decarbonise, and looking at how we can help with the growth of zero-emissions hydrogen-powered aircraft and carbon-removal technology.

“We were the first airline to report our carbon footprint more than two decades ago and were the first airline to voluntarily participate in the UK emissions trading scheme.”

A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said: “At Virgin Atlantic, we are committed to achieving Net Zero 2050 and have set interim targets on our pathway to get there, including 10% sustainable aviation fuel by 2030.

“There are two levers for delivering in-sector carbon reductions in the short to medium term: the fleet we operate and fuel we burn. We already fly one of the youngest and most efficient fleets across the Atlantic.

“Beyond fleet renewals, SAF presents an immediate opportunity to deliver lifecycle carbon reductions of up to 70% and is something we have been pioneering for over 15 years.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Drax Group to give shareholders £300m windfall as profits rise

Owner of North Yorkshire power station earned £393m in government subsidies to biomassThe owner of the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire will give shareholders a £300m windfall after a surge in taxpayer subsidies boosted its profits for the first half of the year to more than £500m.The power station, which earns hefty subsidies from burning biomass wood chips, mainly shipped from North America, generated almost a third more electricity over the first half of this year compared with the same months last year. Continue reading...

The owner of the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire will give shareholders a £300m windfall after a surge in taxpayer subsidies boosted its profits for the first half of the year to more than £500m.The power station, which earns hefty subsidies from burning biomass wood chips, mainly shipped from North America, generated almost a third more electricity over the first half of this year compared with the same months last year.This earned Drax Group £393m in biomass subsidies, which are opposed by many climate campaigners who claim that burning biomass is not sustainable and may increase carbon emissions.The company has received more than £6bn in subsidies for its biomass plant, which is the UK’s biggest single emitter of carbon dioxide. Drax, which supplies about 5% of the UK’s electricity, has called on the government to continue supporting its power plant by extending the subsidy scheme, which is due to end in 2027, until the end of the decade.From 2030, Drax expects to earn subsidies through a new scheme designed to support its plan to fit carbon capture technology to the power plant, in a project that could cost bill payers more than £40bn. The plans have been backed by National Grid’s electricity system operator and the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee as an important element in the UK’s efforts to meet its 2050 climate targets.In total, the company’s adjusted earnings climbed to £515m for the six months to the end of June, up from £417m in the first half of last year. The company said rising profits would continue in the second half of the year to reach “the top end” of the City’s expectations for its full-year results.In addition to buying back £300m of its shares, the company also promised to increase dividends by 12.6%, more than expected by City analysts, which ignited a share price leap of 11% on Friday morning.Matt Williams, a campaigner for Cut Carbon Not Forests and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “It is unacceptable that this company is burning the world’s forests and making money hand over fist from environmental harm.“A large part of those profits come from public subsidies Drax is given by claiming that burning forests is good for the planet. Worse than that, Drax has told the government it needs more subsidies after 2027 – at the same time as handing hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders. Every time you pay your energy bill, you help pay Drax’s subsidies.”Will Gardiner, the chief executive of Drax Group, said the power plant was playing an important role in the UK’s electricity system by “keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses, while supporting thousands of jobs throughout our supply chain”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionDrax claims that burning wood pellets is carbon neutral because trees absorb as much carbon dioxide when they grow as they emit when they are burned. Capturing the carbon emissions from biomass power plants would then effectively create “negative carbon emissions”, according to Drax. These claims are disputed by environmentalists.Simon Francis, a campaigner at the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said Drax was profiting from a “broken energy system” and called on companies that have benefited financially from the energy crisis to “contribute more to ensure the most vulnerable households are supported” and “pay a fair tax on their ever-mounting profits”.Meanwhile, the French energy company EDF posted a 15.7% rise in its first-half profit to €18.7bn (£15.8bn) after higher electricity production from its nuclear fleet and hydropower plants. It expects its profits over the second half of the year to be lower than in 2023 because of the decline in energy market prices since the energy crisis.

Government
Business
CO2

"It's not just about abortion": How the Chevron ruling could unravel reproductive rights

Experts weigh in on our destabilized Supreme Court and how more than environmental regulation is being threatened

In April the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized its Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, after being criticized by conservative lawmakers and religious organizations. Part of the update included a clarification that accommodations, like a leave of absence, applied to abortion care. But now since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, which made it possible for Congress to rely on federal expertise when implementing a wide range of policy measures, conservative judges in lower courts can seek to reverse expert policies for ideological reasons — and that applies to policies regarding reproductive care.  "They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement." As reported by Bloomberg Law this week, a coalition of 17 Republican attorneys general told a federal appeals court that the recent decision to overturn the Chevron deference should bring back their challenge to the EEOC’s pregnancy regulation. In other words, they’re trying to leverage the Chevron ruling to remove the EEOC’s approved leave of absence for abortion care. The move appears to be part of a more comprehensive anti-abortion plan to lean on the Chevron ruling to dismantle reproductive rights further.  “A Chevron ruling says that government regulations, or when the agency passes a rule, if it is not strictly required by the statute that Congress passed, then a court may invalidate the rule,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, explained to Salon. Previously, it was up to the agency to determine clarity in cases where there was “vague language from Congress.” But the ruling in the Chevron case says now it's up to the judges to answer that question. Depending on the judge, the decision could be made through an ideological lens.  That's not the only possible threat to reproductive health care. Cohen provided Salon with another example: under Obamacare, preventative medicine must be covered, which includes birth control. “Now, the conservative federal judiciary might say birth control, under our reading of the statute is not preventive medicine, so the agency went too far in requiring birth control,” Cohen said. “It used to be that the agency got a lot of deference. Preventive medicine is broad, it’s vague, so it's up to the agency to determine what the rule is when you've got vague language from Congress.” But now it’s up to the judges.  In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court voted along party lines in a historic decision against the government in a pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The ruling set a precedent of gutting the power of regulatory agencies to protect the environment and consumers. Gautham Rao, a professor of legal history at American University, told Salon at the time that the case had "historic implications" as an attack "on what we call the administrative state." Reproductive rights advocates worry that the implications will extend beyond environmental protections.  Leila Abolfazli, director of National Abortion Strategy at the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, told Salon she fully expects conservative justices to now start making claims that due to the decision in the Loper Bright case, some regulations related to reproductive rights can be revisited by the lower courts instead of federal agencies.  “But I will say that, with or without Loper Bright, the parties were making these claims, and some courts were open to them,” Abolfazli said. “But Loper Bright certainly gives them sights and saying, ‘No we get to decide what the law is, and it's XYZ, not what the administration said.’”  The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and lost, filed an amicus brief for the Loper Bright case that outlined how a ruling to overturn the Chevron deference could unravel access to abortion care. In the amicus brief, ADF argues that “agencies are weaponizing federal healthcare laws to violate the right to life.” It specifically called out Title X, EMTALA covering life-saving abortion care, and the mail delivery of mifepristone.  It also called out a range of agencies like the EEOC, for “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.” “ADF definitely has a full, comprehensive plan on how it wants to take down abortion and other reproductive health care,” Abolfazli said.  In regards to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, that litigation will likely continue, Abolfazli said.   “But I think there's an overarching comment here on how destabilizing the Supreme Court is right now. They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement,” Abolfazli said.  Cohen said that leveraging the Chevron case to unravel reproductive rights is yet another example that the “anti-abortion movement is not stopping at abortion.”  “They are looking to do anything to restrict family planning, sexual health, reproductive health. It's not just about abortion,” Cohen said. “This is about anything related to sexual reproductive health and women's health too.” Read more about reproductive rights

Government
Health

Republicans are going on summer break early, risking a government shutdown later this year

House Republicans have failed to pass several mandatory spending bills, but they're going on vacation anyway

House Republicans, stumbling over demands from the right-wing Freedom Caucus, have failed to get even half of the 12 must-pass spending bills across the finish line, while even the spending legislation that has passed is full of extreme provisions that Democrats in the Senate are certain to reject out of hand. Instead of working overtime, however, GOP leaders are canceling the remaining votes and sending House members away on summer recess — a week early — as the September deadline to avoid a government shutdown edges closer. The decision to go on break is a reversal of Speaker Mike Johnson's earlier pledge to pass the bills that would fund the federal government through the 2025 fiscal year before the summer recess. Initially, it looked as if House Republicans might succeed — GOP appropriators managed to get all 12 bills onto the House floor and strip an abortion pill ban amendment from an Agriculture bill that doomed its passage last year. But the string of good fortune could not last, as Johnson now faces the same intra-party fighting that toppled his predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Far-right Republicans have vowed to vote against bills they argue do not sufficiently advance conservative priorities, forcing Johnson to pull several of them from the floor, including a bill to fund the legislative branch; the Energy and Water bill was also yanked away Tuesday, mere moments before a scheduled vote. Others, like an Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency bill that would strip the latter's funding by 20 percent, passed by the narrowest of margins due to largely united Democratic opposition and GOP defections. Those bills have satisfied most of the House Republican Conference by including partisan riders and steep cuts to federal agencies that will face certain opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where 60 votes are required to pass most legislation. The prospect of stalled negotiations and a shrinking timeline has given heartburn to many Republicans who want to wrap things up before campaign season begins in earnest. "We need to get back to the things that matter, like what bills that need to be passed between now and election time and get the hell out of here to let these people go home and campaign versus members in critical districts having to throw up stupid votes against worse amendments,” Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio, complained to The Washington Post. One bill meant to fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, as well as related agencies like the Social Security Administration, would reduce their collective budget by 11%, which Democrats say will impoverish millions of Americans. Three spending bills for the departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security would prohibit paid leave for Pentagon employees who get an abortion and strip the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security of their salaries. Even House GOP leaders acknowledge that such measures, which already passed with almost no bipartisan support in the House, will be rejected by the Senate. When the House returns from recess, Congress will have one more month to send all the government funding bills to President Joe Biden's desk or punt negotiations until after the election. Otherwise, the well dries up on September 30 and will lead to a government shutdown. Read more about our dysfunctional Congress

Government
Agriculture
Energy

U.K. royals to get big raise as Crown Estate sees record $1.4 billion profit

The Crown Estate’s profits more than doubled in the past year, partly due to lucrative offshore wind farm leases on land owned by the monarchy, meaning a windfall for them and the government.

LONDON — The British royal family will be receiving a 53 percent raise, worth more than 45 million pounds ($58 million), thanks to a record increase in its estates’ annual profit, propelled in part by offshore wind farm leases on seabed plots owned by the monarchy.The Crown Estate, the organization that manages the sprawling royal land and property portfolio, released a report Wednesday for the 2023-24 financial year, the first to cover a full financial year with King Charles III on the throne.It showed that Crown Estate generated a “record net revenue profit” of 1.1 billion pounds ($1.4 billion) — 658.1 million pounds more than last year — and revealed the royal family’s plans for future purchases with its share of that money, including two new helicopters.The Crown Estate is formally owned by the royal family but controlled by the British government. Profits that the estate generates each year go to the state treasury, and the government returns a percentage to the royals under what is known as the “Sovereign Grant” to cover the operating costs of the royal household — including staff salaries, entertainment, property maintenance and travel.“A year of record results driven by decades of investment in offshore wind, combined with a diverse and resilient property and land portfolio, shows how The Crown Estate continues to deliver economic, social, and environmental value for the benefit of the nation,” the estate said in a news release.The Sovereign Grant is based on funds two years in arrears, meaning the royal family won't be getting an increase until the 2025-2026 financial year.In recent years, the royal family has received 86.3 million pounds ($111.4 million) from the government, and will again in 2024-2025. That figure will rise to 132 million pounds ($170 million) for 2025-2026.The grant will support ongoing 10-year renovation projects at Buckingham Palace, British media reported, citing royal officials.The program, whose total cost will be 369 million pounds ($476 million), is “making progress” according to a report published Monday by Britain’s National Audit Office, a public spending watchdog.The report noted that while the program is “within budget,” some projects “have increased in cost and taken longer to complete than expected.”The Crown Estate places the total value of its portfolio at 15.5 billion pounds ($20 billion). The land that the royal family owns or profits from totals nearly 500,000 acres, The Washington Post reported last year — more than 1 percent of the land in the United Kingdom.The royals’ property holdings include lucrative properties in London and much of the seabed surrounding the British Isles, which is being used for offshore wind leasing.Early last year, the Crown Estate announced the signing of six new wind farm deals that it said would generate power for an estimated 7 million homes by 2030. That same day, Charles said the public should benefit from wind farm profits — not the royals.Because of the high-income forecast of the offshore wind farms, the funding of the monarchy was reduced last year to 12 percent of the Crown Estate’s net profits, instead of 25 percent, the BBC reported. Dan Labbad, the chief executive of the Crown Estate, said in the report this week that the profit boost reflected was “short term in nature,” and that “revenue and valuation will normalize” in the years to come.Following the report’s release, which was delayed by a month because of Britain’s general election, some took to social media to express skepticism of royal wealth — which grew last year during the coronation amid a cost-of-living crisis.“No cost of living squeeze for indulged King Charles,” tweeted Kevin Maguire, associate editor of Britain’s Daily Mirror newspaper. Maguire noted that the monarch “avoided inheritance tax on mummy’s ££££££££s estate.”Critics of the royal family have long pointed out that while Britons pay a 40 percent inheritance tax, Charles paid zero on the estate when he inherited it upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II.The accounts revealed that the royal family will receive two new helicopters to replace their existing 15-year-old helicopters. The document said “the use of helicopters is a key component of delivering engagements” by royal family members, helping them to reach remote locations.As well as offshore wind, the royals are seeking to invest in other renewable technologies, according to the report, which said more renewable energy solutions will be installed across the royal portfolio.It has been a turbulent period for the royal family, with both the king and his daughter-in-law Catherine, Princess of Wales, stepping back from public-facing duties as each was diagnosed with cancer.After Charles was diagnosed in February, Catherine revealed in March that she too had cancer and was in the early stages of preventive chemotherapy.Despite his diagnosis, the king undertook 464 official engagements in the 12 months ending March 31, according to the report.In Britain and overseas, the royals carried out more than 2,300 official engagements, 400 fewer than the year before.A separate income report published by the royal household Wednesday noted an increase in visitors to Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle “back to almost pre-covid levels.” That helped boost funds to supplement the Sovereign Grant to 19.8 million pounds ($25.5 million) during the 2023-2024 financial year — up from 9.8 million pounds ($12.6 million) the year before.Karla Adam and Adam Taylor contributed to this report

Government
Crisis
Nature

Revealed: Tories failed to do impact check before approving banned pesticide

Exclusive: UK campaigners say it is ‘unacceptable’ no nature assessments were made on bee-killing Cruiser SBThe Conservative government did not carry out a legally required assessment of how greenlighting the use of a banned pesticide, described as a “death blow to wildlife”, would affect some of the most important nature sites, documents have revealed.The previous government gave emergency approval this year for sugar beet farmers to use Cruiser SB for the fourth year in a row. Continue reading...

The Conservative government did not carry out a legally required assessment of how green-lighting the use of a banned pesticide, described as a “death blow to wildlife”, would affect some of the most important nature sites, documents have revealed.The previous government gave emergency approval this year for sugar beet farmers to use Cruiser SB for the fourth year in a row.A single teaspoon of this pesticide is enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion bees. In granting approval, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) went against the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and the UK expert committee on pesticides.The decision was criticised at the time as a “death blow for wildlife” by the Wildlife Trusts, because of the neonicotinoid pesticide’s toxic impact on bees and the way the chemical makes its way from fields into waterways.It has now emerged that officials chose not to carry out a legally required assessment of how the decision would affect protected sites, on the basis that doing so would be too difficult.In a briefing document given to the former farming minister Mark Spencer to inform his decision-making, obtained by the Ends Report through a freedom of information request, it said: “We have considered for the current decision whether it would be possible to carry out a meaningful assessment of impacts on protected areas. Our conclusion is that this is not possible.“It is not known where the treated seed will be used in relation to protected sites and [sites of special scientific interest] SSSIs,” it said, adding that “there are many hundreds of protected areas in the part of England where sugar beet is grown”.A protest in Bury St Edmunds against the government’s approval of neonicotinoid pesticides. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty ImagesWeeks earlier, the green watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), said it had opened an investigation into Defra in relation to the approval.The OEP said it was considering whether there had been “serious failures” by Defra to comply with nature conservation law, specifically regarding its duty to carry out just such an assessment on how the pesticide approval would affect the country’s most ecologically important sites.In the briefing, officials explicitly acknowledged this requirement existed in law, stating “any decision to give emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser should include an assessment of impacts on sites designated as SSSIs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and on sites designated as special protection areas and special areas of conservation under the conservation of habitats and species regulations 2017”.Kyle Lischak, the UK head of the environmental charity Client Earth, which initiated the complaint to the OEP that led to its investigation, said: “The way I read it is they seem to think that it’s all just too complicated.“The law is there for a reason. The point is, in these circumstances, they have to go through the legal processes to be clear on what is at stake. And if they don’t do that because it is too expensive, or too complicated, or too much of an inconvenience, then that is not a legal defence. That’s just being sloppy.”In the document, Defra officials briefed the minister that were Cruiser SB to be used in a SSSI, the nature regulator Natural England would have to consent to it, and that as this would be unlikely to happen, “the risks will be mitigated to a certain extent in areas where the risks to animals may be highest”.This justification has been met with scorn by Lischak and wildlife campaigners, with most protected sites in England failing to be classed as healthy, not because of pollution within them but because of pollution coming in from outside heir boundaries.“It’s misinformed and it’s quite frankly disappointing,” he said, adding that there were multiple impending biodiversity targets that the government was legally accountable for, the biggest being the goal to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2030.A harvester moves through a field of sugar beet. Neonicotinoids are toxic to all pollinators and insect life, on which most crops and plant life rely. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesElliot Chapman-Jones, the head of public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts, said it was “completely unacceptable that no assessment was made on the harm this could cause some of the country’s most important sites for nature”.Before coming to power, Labour promised to end the use of Cruiser SB but the promise did not make it into the party’s manifesto.Chapman-Jones said: “The new UK government should learn from its predecessor’s mistakes and uphold its promise to rule out authorising these pesticides again.He added that the country urgently needed an ambitious action plan for pesticide reduction to protect the environment and human health.Cruiser SB is a neonicotinoid pesticide that has been banned in the EU and the UK since 2018, after evidence emerged of how toxic it is to all pollinators and insect life, on which most crops and plant life rely.For the past four years, the UK has overridden this ban through emergency approvals so sugar beet farmers can use the pesticide against the beet yellows virus, which damages crops.However, according to Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, about 95% of the product does not get taken up by the plant and instead moves into the environment.He said: “It goes to the soil and the soil water, where it then gently leaches into ditches, streams, rivers, lakes. By contaminating the soil, it means that any flowers that are grown near a treated crop, or in the following year in the same soil as a treated crop, are contaminated. So the pollen and nectar become contaminated.”Research has repeatedly shown high levels of neonicotinoids in British waterways. Analysis of water-quality data by nature NGOs last year found the highest concentrations of the chemical were detected in areas where sugar beet is grown, including the east of England, the south-east and the West Midlands.In 2017, a report by the NGO Buglife showed a section of the River Wensum in Norfolk, classified as a special area of conservation for its river life, was found to be “chronically polluted” with neonicotinoids.Research has shown high levels of neonicotinoids in British waterways. Photograph: Loop Images Ltd/AlamyGoulson said the rest of Europe was managing without the use of the pesticides, and farmers in northern France – which had a similar climate and soil to East Anglia – were growing sugar beet “perfectly well without this chemical”.Campaigners are concerned that if a protected site assessment was not carried out for the use of Cruiser SB, which has attracted an increasing amount of public attention, the same could be true for other chemical approvals.NFU Sugar and British Sugar have confirmed that they have applied again for emergency approval to use Cruiser SB for next year’s sugar beet crop.In a joint statement, the chair of the NFU Sugar board, Michael Sly, and British Sugar’s agriculture director, Daniel Green, said: “The British sugar beet crop continues to be threatened by virus yellows disease. In recent years, the disease has caused crop losses of up to 80%. If authorisation is granted, the seed treatment will only be used if a specified threshold, set each year by Defra, is met.“Growers must also follow a strict stewardship programme to ensure best practice, and that the conditions of the emergency authorisation are met on farms. In addition, the industry has jointly funded residue monitoring over the past couple of years.”The OEP is investigating whether there were a number of failures to comply with environmental law when making the decision on Cruiser SB.Helen Venn, the OEP’s chief regulatory officer, said as the investigation was ongoing “it would be inappropriate to comment at this time”.Defra said it would “work constructively” with the OEP as it took forward its investigation. It emphasised that the emergency authorisation process was “highly regulated”, with the previous use of Cruiser SB having had to meet a number of conditions to mitigate risks to the environment, including potential risks to pollinators.The spokesperson restated Labour’s election comittment to ban the use of bee-killing pesticides.

Government
Nature
Animals

Suggested Viewing

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

Jetty Cats

Jetty Cats explores contemporary animal rights issues through a focus on a feral cat colony that has survived on a rocky, seaside jetty in Southern California for decades. There is an ongoing debate over feral cat colonies involving advocates who support the trap, neuter, and return -- or "TNR" -- model of management, and those who argue that trapping and euthanizing the cats is more humane. This documentary’s point-of-view supports the TNR model and the related “no-kill” animal shelter policy, and features an exclusive interview with Richard Avanzino, the "Father" of the no-kill movement.

Animals
Government
Activism

Descended: The Fight for Harris Neck

The documentary film “Descended: The Fight for Harris Neck” explores an ongoing land battle in Harris Neck, Georgia. In 1942 the U.S. war department seized 2,687 acres of land from a self-reliant community of seventy-five African American families. Since 1962 the land has been a national wildlife refuge. The film seeks to answer the pivotal question: How has a community been shaped by its common goal to reclaim their land?

Social Justice
Government
Nature

The Fellowship of the Springs

Florida’s artesian springs are a natural wonder of the world. As unique as the geysers of Yellowstone and as mesmerizing as Vernal Falls in Yosemite, these blue jewels surrounding the north Florida landscape are considered a treasure by many who see them. The state contains the largest and highest concentration of fresh water springs on earth. But today, the future of Florida’s springs is uncertain. With flow levels declining and nitrate pollution on the rise, the springs today bear the scars of a profound struggle. Florida's own government continues to approve permits for large companies that want to pump water from the springs and their springsheds, for nominal permit fees that often cost less than a day pass to Disney World. The Fellowship of the Springs takes viewers behind the scenes of the fight to save Florida's springs, from the halls of the state capitol in Tallahassee to deep caves of Ichetucknee spring.

Water
Government
Business

Waters of the U.S.

The current administration is rolling back crucial protections for streams and wetlands across the country in a direct assault on the Clean Water Act. This incredibly beautiful film tells the story of the rivers, streams, and wetlands of Alabama to illustrate the dangers of the proposed regulation. By doing so, it shows the economic benefits, ecological health, and cultural way of life that hang in the balance. The director hails from Miami, Florida, with a strong passion for environmental advocacy. With a degree in Editing, Writing & Media from Florida State University and a background in environmental journalism, he intends to make documentaries to inspire protection wildlife and our natural resources.

Government
Water
Pollution

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.