Visit: the site here.

Senior Greenpeace Campaigner Reece Turner said, “For the first time Australians can access an independent Green Electricity Guide which cuts through the mire of deals and shines a light on whether power companies are really as green as they claim.”

Twenty electricity retailers servicing Australian households are assessed against seven transparent criteria (see below), employing publicly available information and a survey which nearly all companies returned.

“Consumers rank energy providers up there with snake oil sellers and used car salesman. Power companies have earned a poor reputation for their foot in the door, hard sell tactics where confusing information rules the day.”1

What power companies are on offer varies widely between states. Origin Energy, EnergyAustralia and AGL currently provide electricity to over three quarters of Australian households and attract a ‘red’ ranking in the guide. The highest ranked retailer nationally – Powershop - is currently only available in Victoria, although it has plans to expand. Diamond, Aurora, Momentum and Red all attract a ‘green’ ranking in the national table. (Visit the Guide to find a state by state explanation and ranking.)

“Thankfully the days are gone where you were stuck with one power company. There’s now a new breed of retailers investing in renewables, eager to snare customers with an appetite for a renewable energy future.

“The biggest greenwashers by far are the top three energy retailers - EnergyAustralia, AGL and Origin Energy, which provide electricity to over three quarters of Australian households.

“The Dirty Three like to tout their green credentials but the guide shows their investments in renewables are relatively small and behind the scenes they are actively working to undermine Australia’s Renewable Energy Target.”

Mark Byrne, Energy Market Advocate for the Total Environment Centre said, “The guide follows in the tradition of Total Environment Centre’s earlier Green Electricity Watch rankings, which compared GreenPower products. This new guide is more ambitious, and is the only independent guide to the environmental performance of electricity retailers in Australia. It shows a big divide between the old companies which dominate the energy market and rely on burning coal and gas for electricity generation, and a new breed of forward-looking companies which are providing cleaner energy at a comparable price.

“Identifying a genuinely green electricity provider is no longer like trying to find a needle in a haystack. This guide will help consumers to flick the switch to a greener power company, send a message to the other providers to do the right thing by the environment and hopefully change the face of the electricity sector in Australia.

“But there is more we could know about retailers’ environmental performance, so TEC is calling for regulators to require retailers to disclose the emissions intensity of the total fuel mix - in other words, how much carbon pollution they are causing from all the energy they sell to customers, not just from the power stations they own.”

For more information and interviews:
Alison Orme Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0432 332 104 aorme@greenpeace.org.au
Mark Byrne, Total Environment Centre, 0403 070 442, markb@tec.org.au
Consumers who have changed power companies to greener retailers from the big retailers can be made available for interview.
High res version of attached graphic showing National ranking available on request - and state by state rankings.

NOTES:
1. The Green Electricity does not provide information or assistance to consumers on how to switch, but it is anticipated consumers will use it for this purpose.
2. Companies attract either a green, orange or red ranking. They are assessed against seven criteria: investments in fossil fuels or renewables, pollution intensity of their assets, support for - or hostility to - Australia’s Renewable Energy Target, offers to solar owners (additional feed-in tariffs), GreenPower products, investments in coal seam gas, and whether they are committed to not buying electricity generated by burning native forest timber.
3. Greenpeace Australia Pacific is currently campaigning to save the Renewable Energy Target and have a produced a detailed report, “The Dirty Three – Origin Energy, EnergyAustralia and AGL’s attack on Australia’s Renewable Energy Target” (June 2014).
4. As part of this project The Total Environment Centre has produced a factsheet on solar export prices available here. 

[1] Energy Marketers’ Retail Tactics, CHOICE, April 2014.

“If the Prime Minister adopts either of the two most likely options proposed by Dick Warburton’s review, he will be marked forever as a leader with a blind ideological vendetta to destroy policies which benefit the environment,” said Ben Pearson, Head of Program for Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“With over 95 per cent of Australians in favour of renewable energy[1], Prime Minister Abbott’s attempts to weaken Australia’s Renewable Energy Target is surely his most unpopular and backward-looking policy yet.

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) has generated more than 24,000 jobs, reduced Australia’s carbon pollution by 22 million tonnes and by 2020 will reduce average electricity bills by $50 a year.

“It’s very clear that damaging the RET only benefits the fossil fuel industry. Retailers such as Origin, AGL and Energy Australia stand to profit billions of dollars in the RET is weakened or abolished.[2]

Greenpeace has produced The Green Electricity Guide to help inform consumers which electricity providers really are as green as they say they are. ‘The Dirty Three’ (Origin, AGL, Energy Australia) control over 77 per cent of the household electricity market, but are ranked amongst the worst retailers in The Green Electricity Guide.

“More and more Australians are realising there are alternatives to three big energy retailers - Origin, AGL and Energy Australia - and are making the switch to a new breed of renewable energy based companies such as Powershop, Diamond , Momentum and Red Energy.

The organisation GetUp! has already shifted over 2,000 people to a greener alternative in Victoria alone in the past few months.

For more information or interviews: Alison Orme Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0432 332 104
[1] Newspoll published in The Australian 20 August 2014.
[2] See The Climate Institute / WWF / ACF report ‘Who Really Benefits from Reducing the Renewable Energy Target?’

“If confirmed, this is good news for the local community, the tourism industry and the vast majority of Australians who opposed the plan to dump waste in the Great Barrier Reef Park”, said Adam Walters, Greenpeace Head of Research.

But Mr Walters warned that the threat to the Reef remained and called on Commonwealth Environment Minister Greg Hunt to act.

“If the reports are true, the cheapest, most destructive option for expanding Abbot Point may have been taken off the table - but the threat from coal industry expansion plans is still urgent.



“Expanding the port - with its associated dredging - will bring with it damaging dredge plumes, destruction of sea grass beds, impacts for wetlands, increased shipping and will drive the greatest threat to the Reef which is climate change.”

Walters also pointed to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the project.

“Since North Queensland Bulk Ports first sought approval for dredging at Abbot Point, the proposal has changed significantly.

“One of the associated three coal terminal proposals has been cancelled, GVK’s coal terminal has been delayed, and Adani’s proposal has doubled in size.

“Given the confusion and uncertainty, the only safe and sensible outcome for the Reef is for Minister for the Environment Mr Greg Hunt to cancel approval for the dredging project made under Commonwealth legislation.

“Coal mining remains the greatest long term threat to the Reef.  The coal industry still seems determined to cook the Great Barrier Reef by fuelling climate change,” Mr Walters added.

Video footage and photographs of Abbot Point terminal available here: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/ 

Username: photos Password: green

For images or more information, contact: Julie Macken, 0400 925 217 or Adam Walters, 0408 029 181

It is reported that the Queensland Government plans to use the dredge waste for land reclamation and further port expansion.

“This is not a bandaid for reef dredging but salt in the wound,” said Greenpeace Head of Research Mr Adam Walters.

“The very idea that Queensland taxpayers should fund destruction of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by buying dredge waste to build an even larger port at Abbot Point is insulting.

“This Queensland Government has once again shown it is the enemy of the Reef and cannot be trusted as its guardian.

“Faced with community outrage at plans to dump on the Reef the Queensland government has proposed the next worst solution.

"It has been reported that the Queensland Govenrment is asking the Federal Environment Minister Mr Greg Hunt to approve the new scheme.

"Minister Hunt should reject this proposal as absurd.

“The Queensland Government must explain how a bigger port, damaging dredge plumes, seagrass destruction, increased shipping and coal driven climate change is in the interests of the Reef,” Mr Walters said.

Contact: Adam Walters Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0408 029 181 or Alison Orme 0432 332 104

A coalition of 12 groups, including GetUp!, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Conservation Foundation, will raise awareness that the Big 4 Banks may be use their customer’s savings for projects that impact the global icon.

A number of high profile international banks, including HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, have ruled out involvement in Abbot Point coal ports and Galilee mines. The coalition is asking Australia’s Big 4 Banks to follow this lead and rule out financing projects that threaten the Reef.


Sam Mclean, National Director of GetUp! said, “Almost all our members bank with one of the big four banks - they don’t want their money being used to destroy the Reef."

"Over the past year, our members dug deep to fund High Court challenges, rallied on the streets and campaigned to convince international banks not to fund developments on the Reef. They're ready to do it again until our Australian banks do the right thing and rule out the Abbot Point projects, along with Adani and GVK’s destructive mega-mines.”


Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter said, "International banks are refusing to fund the coal terminal at Abbot Point because of the unacceptable risks it poses to the Reef. Australians are now looking towards the Big Four Australian banks - surely they wouldn't dare fund the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef? "


Lucy Manne, Director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) said, "Our banks spend millions on marketing campaigns designed to attract young customers - but young Australians want to see the Great Barrier Reef and our climate protected. That's why we'll be urging our 100,000 members to take our campaign to their schools and universities, and send the banks a message: destruction of the Reef is risky business."


Blair Palese, of 350.org, said, “If the banks don’t distance themselves from these projects, then their customers and investors will distance themselves from the banks.”


Media Contact: Jane Garcia  0434 489 533


Australian NGOs who have signed the letter to Big 4 Banks include: Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Youth Climate Coalition, BankTrack, Birdlife Australia, Friends of the Earth, GetUp, Greenpeace, Lock the Gate, Mackay Conservation Group, Sumofus and 350.org

Polling conducted in mid-August found seven in ten (72%) Aussies think extreme weather events made worse by global warming in Australia (e.g. floods, bushfires etc.) are currently increasing insurance premiums, including 32% who say it’s significantly increasing premiums.

That level of concern looks set to worsen as almost three quarters (74%) of Aussies think extreme weather events will increase insurance premiums by 2020, including 39% who expect it will significantly increase premiums.

“Whether it’s the historic floods of Queensland or the terrifying mega fires that tore into the heart of rural Victorian communities, Australian communities are already feeling the impact of extreme weather, just as IPCC modelling predicted,” said Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International Climate and Energy Campaigner. 

“While the mining industry is patting itself on the back for having successfully removed the Mining Tax, it is clear Australian communities have made the link between fossil fuel emissions and extreme weather events that are devastating communities, here and across the globe.”

“That’s why Greenpeace is calling for the introduction of an extreme weather levy to be paid by the companies that are profiting from fossil fuels, the coal, gas and oil companies.”

The polling has also found three quarters (76%) of Australians disagree that fossil fuel companies should be allowed to pollute the air for free (excluding ‘don’t knows’, 86% disagree, 14% agree).

And two thirds (66%) of Australians agree the directors of fossil fuel companies that are found to have misled the public about the impact of pollution on global warming should be held legally accountable (excluding those with no opinion, 78% agree, 22% disagree). 

“These results send a very clear message the broader community is no longer willing to tolerate company executives who deal in spin and dissembling to talk down the impacts of climate change while profiting from its creation,” continued Minshull. “And makes it clear the issue of pricing carbon pollution is still one the community wants resolved.”

For further information contact

Leanne Minshull, Greenpeace International: international mobile 31646162025

Julie Macken Media Officer Greenpeace Australia Pacific: 0400 925 217.

The Alliance has no knowledge of any of the events alleged by Whitehaven Coal and the Minerals Council and has asked Whitehaven Coal to explain whether it has breached its own safety protocols at the site, given there are strict requirements relating to security of blasting operations.

“We have absolutely no knowledge of any of the events pertaining to the preparation of operational blasting at Whitehaven’s Maules Creek Coal mine as alleged by Whitehaven Coal,” said Phil Evans, spokesperson for Front Lline Action on Coal.

“We are committed to only non-violent protest activities and for two years have held true to that principle. The Alliance supports a full police investigation into this serious allegation.

“We are concerned about the security at the mine site and for the safety of the local community who live in the vicinity,” continued Evans. “Whilst it is not clear what information is known to the NSW Police, there have been no police allegations of impropriety against any member of the Leard Forest Alliance, so for Whitehaven Coal and the Minerals Council to imply otherwise is completely unacceptable.”

The Leard Forest Alliance and those who join activities at the protest camp, have a clearly stated commitment to non-violent actions and do not use or endorse property destruction as a tactic. Its commitment can be seen at: http://frontlineaction.org/participation-and-safety/.

“Greenpeace is committed to nonviolence,” said acting Greenpeace CEO, Lisa Walters. “Greenpeace's core values and our cornerstone principles are reflected in all our environmental campaign work worldwide. These include 'bearing witness' to environmental destruction in a peaceful and non-violent manner. Our core values can be found on the Greenpeace website,” concluded Walters.

“Likewise 350.org is committed to non-violence in its efforts to address the serious issue of climate change and has trained hundreds of Australians in non-violence in the last two years,” said 350.org’s Blair Palese. “We support the call for an investigation into the serious allegations made by Whitehaven to ensure the safety of those living in the Maules community.”

This news comes as the latest Whitehaven “Winter Clearing” court hearing is adjourned until the 10th of October, 2014.

Further Information:

Greenpeace media officer Julie Macken: 0400 925 217
Leard Forest Alliance Phil Evans: 0490 064 139
350.org head Blair Palese: 0414 659 511

“We’re building a coal mine on campus to remind the management of Sydney Uni of the daily destruction being funded through its shares in Whitehaven Coal,” Greenpeace campaigner Nikola Casule yelled above the drill rig and jack hammers.

“Every day the University of Sydney delays its decision to dump its shares in Whitehaven Coal is another day of suffering for the community affected by this company’s reckless construction of a new coal mine at Maules Creek.”

The University of Sydney announced a review into its fossil fuel investments last month after Greenpeace revealed the University held $1 million in shares in Whitehaven Coal. The review includes a halt to new share purchases in Whitehaven while it is underway.
According to the local community at Maules Creek, this is too little, too late.

“Right now, Whitehaven Coal is pushing through plans that will destroy yet more endangered forest and Indigenous heritage sites in the Leard State Forest. Whitehaven Coal wants its bulldozers back in action by November 1. When fully operational, Maules Creek coal mine will accelerate dangerous global warming by contributing over 30 million tons of CO² per year – more than NSW’s entire transport sector,” Dr Casule said.

“Vice Chancellor Michael Spence has all the information he needs to dump the University’s shares in this reckless company right now,” he said.

Maules Creek farmer Cliff Wallace, who is worried about the impact the new mine will have on the water table, couldn’t help but chuckle when he heard about the ‘mining activity’ at the University of Sydney:

“I guess it’s fair. You mine our business and we’ll mine yours,” he said.

“Our coal mine at Sydney Uni is a light-hearted protest with a serious message,” Dr Casule said. “Whitehaven’s mining for coal is clearly not welcome here on campus. It’s just as unwelcome at Maules Creek, where Whitehaven is building the biggest coal mine currently under construction in Australia.

“For the sake of the its reputation, Michael Spence needs to direct his fund managers to dump the University’s investment this reckless company today.”

For interviews or more information, contact: Elsa Evers Greenpeace 0438 204 041

For comment: Sydney University Professor John Keane 0400 556 744, Sydney University Environment Collective Co-ordinator Clo Schofield 0478 519 812, Sydney Uni Pres of NTEU Michael Thomson 02 8627 8248.

For images and video: Go to http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=18936 Username: photos Password: green or call Abram Powell on 0409 812 641

“If confirmed, this is good news for the local community, the tourism industry and the vast majority of Australians who opposed the plan to dump waste in the Great Barrier Reef Park”, said Adam Walters, Greenpeace Head of Research.

But Mr Walters warned that the threat to the Reef remained and called on Commonwealth Environment Minister Greg Hunt to act.

“If the reports are true, the cheapest, most destructive option for expanding Abbot Point may have been taken off the table - but the threat from coal industry expansion plans is still urgent.



“Expanding the port - with its associated dredging - will bring with it damaging dredge plumes, destruction of sea grass beds, impacts for wetlands, increased shipping and will drive the greatest threat to the Reef which is climate change.”

Walters also pointed to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the project.

“Since North Queensland Bulk Ports first sought approval for dredging at Abbot Point, the proposal has changed significantly.

“One of the associated three coal terminal proposals has been cancelled, GVK’s coal terminal has been delayed, and Adani’s proposal has doubled in size.

“Given the confusion and uncertainty, the only safe and sensible outcome for the Reef is for Minister for the Environment Mr Greg Hunt to cancel approval for the dredging project made under Commonwealth legislation.

“Coal mining remains the greatest long term threat to the Reef.  The coal industry still seems determined to cook the Great Barrier Reef by fuelling climate change,” Mr Walters added.

Video footage and photographs of Abbot Point terminal available here: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/ 

Username: photos Password: green

For images or more information, contact: Julie Macken, 0400 925 217 or Adam Walters, 0408 029 181

The call follows debate in the Australian Senate this morning on new legislation tabled by Senator Ludwig that would allow the Fisheries Minister to approve new vessels on a case by case basis. Senator Whish-Wilson proposed an amendment to permanently ban all super trawlers with a holding capacity over 2000 tonnes.

“Since Australia put a two-year ban on super trawlers in 2012, these monsters have continued their destruction of fisheries and fishing jobs around the world. Unless the Australian Government acts quickly to extend the ban on super trawlers permanently, these monster boats will be back on our doorstep,” said Greenpeace oceans campaigner Nathaniel Pelle.

Earlier this year Prime Minister Tony Abbott said “the super trawler was banned and will stay banned”, but the Coalition has failed to back that up with a legislative proposal.

“We need to hold this Government to their word and make sure Australia gets a permanent ban on super trawlers,” Mr. Pelle said. “The Australian Government must stop the threat of foreign super trawlers fishing Australian waters and place a permanent ban on these monster fishing boats.”

Super trawlers are oversized fishing vessels with industrial freezers that can can process hundreds of tonnes of fish per day.  The biggest have freezers that can hold over 2000 tonnes of fish. They can be up to 144 metres long - bigger than any boat to have fished in Australian waters.

“These gigantic vessels are more like floating fish factories than traditional fishing trawlers. Imagine a ship longer than one and a half football fields, with a net large enough to fly an A380 aeroplane through. They can process up to a staggering 250 tonnes of fish a day and operate for weeks on end without returning to port,” said Mr Pelle.

Greenpeace is campaigning against super trawlers worldwide and has seen the devastation left in their wake. Greenpeace has launched an online petition calling on the Abbott Government to permanently ban super trawlers from Australian waters.

“Allowing the current ban on super trawlers to expire is an open invitation to the entire global fleet of oversized, industrial ships,” said Pelle. “Australia should learn the lessons from the devastation super trawlers have wrought on marine life and fishing communities around the world.”

“If the little fish go, so do the big fish. So do the dolphins, seals and seabirds. And so do the fishermen,” said Pelle.

Greenpeace is part of the Stop the Super Trawler coalition of concerned fishing and environmental groups.

Photographs available at: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=18882 Username: photos Password: green

For interviews or more information, contact: Elsa Evers 0438 204 041

“We now know that carbon emissions played a major role in the extreme heatwave of 2013,” said Greenpeace Climate Campaigner, Dr Nikola Čašule.

“And today - after the two hottest consecutive September days on record - we have also been warned by the Sky News Severe Weather Report that we are in for a scorching summer with above average temperatures and a ‘heightened risk of bushfires’.”

“It is irresponsible in the extreme for the Abbott government to leave Australian families vulnerable to the devastating impacts of extreme heat and fires when it has the capacity to take action.”

“The RET has already proved itself to be popular, effective and has had a real impact on our carbon emissions – all of which puts Australian families in a better position to deal with a future compromised by dangerous global warming.”

“That’s why we are calling on the Prime Minister to act in the interests of the community, not the fossil fuel lobby by retaining the RET and getting on the front foot in building a climate resilient Australia.”

The full report 'Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Pespective' is available here.

For further information contact:

Greenpeace Climate Campaigner Dr Nikola Čašule: 0428 769 307

Greenpeace media officer Julie Macken: 0400 925 217

During Greenpeace’s three month campaign, more than one million people signed a petition calling on LEGO to stop promoting Shell’s brand because of its plans to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic. In stark contrast to Shell, LEGO’s policies include a commitment to produce more renewable energy than they use, phase out oil in their products and, in cooperation with its partners, leave a better world for future generations [3].

In its statement, LEGO argued the dispute was between Greenpeace and Shell. However, Greenpeace insists that while LEGO is doing the right thing under public pressure, it should choose its partners more carefully when it comes to the threats facing our children from climate change. Due to contractual obligations, LEGO’s current co-promotion with Shell will be honoured.

Ian Duff, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is a major blow to Shell. It desperately needs partners like LEGO to help give it respectability and repair the major brand damage it suffered after its last Arctic misadventure. Lego’s withdrawal from a 50 year relationship with Shell clearly shows that strategy will not work.”

“The tide is turning for these fossil fuel dinosaurs that see the melting Arctic as ripe for exploitation rather than protection. The message should be clear; your outdated, climate wrecking practices are no longer socially acceptable, and you need to keep away from the Arctic or face being ostracised by society.”

LEGO is the latest in a line of leading global companies to walk away from a relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In late 2012 Waitrose announced it has put its partnership with Shell on ice [4] and in the last month Microsoft, Google and Facebook all made commitments to end their support for ALEC, a controversial lobby group that campaigns against climate change legislation [5]. Only weeks ago, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it will begin pulling its investments in the fossil fuel industry [6].

In September, Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter accompanied Kiribati President Anote Tong to the Arctic to highlight its importance to countries on the climate change front line. "The Arctic may seem distant, but it's health is vital to all of us," said Ritter. "Lego's decision is yet another clear sign that the world is turning its back on companies such as Shell who are putting the Arctic - and our future - at risk."

Shell’s past attempts to drill in the Arctic have been plagued with multiple operational failings culminating in the running aground of its drilling rig, the Kulluk. The extreme Arctic conditions, including giant floating ice-bergs and stormy seas, make offshore drilling extremely risky. And scientists say that in the Arctic, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up meaning devastation for the Arctic’s unique wildlife [7].

But on 28 August 2014 Shell submitted new plans to the US administration for offshore exploratory drilling in the Alaskan Arctic [8], meaning it’s on course to resurrect its Arctic drilling plans as early as summer 2015.

In the past two years, a massive global movement has emerged calling for a sanctuary around the North Pole, to protect the Arctic and its unique wildlife from the onslaught of oil drilling and industrial fishing. More than six million people have joined the movement, and more than 1,000 influential people have signed an Arctic Declaration, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Emma Thompson and Sir Paul McCartney.

On 19 September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, met with Arctic campaigners to receive a global petition and said he would consider convening an international summit to discuss the issue of Arctic protection.

Contact for media requests: James Lorenz on 0418 408 683

Note to editors:

As part of the campaign, Greenpeace released a video LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome which reached nearly six million views. The video was temporarily taken down from YouTube because of a copyright complaint which was later withdrawn.

www.savethearctic.org

Report: LEGO is keeping bad company: no more playdates with Shell
Media briefing: Shell’s threat to the Arctic 

End notes: 
[1] Lego statement

[2] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014 
[3] LEGO’s values, see http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/sustainability/our-approach 
[4] You did it! Waitrose puts Shell relationship on ice, Greenpeace, 2012 
[5] Facebook set to become latest tech giant to abandon rightwing lobby group Alec, Guardian, 2014 
[6] Rockefellers go green: Rockefeller foundation divests funds in fossil fuel industries, Independent, 2014  
[7] Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, The PEW Charitable Trusts, 2010
[8] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014

See ‘Fresh controversy over factory ships in Australian waters’, Age and SMH Online.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has received two applications to fish for blue grenadier (often known as hoki) using overseas-flagged fishing vessels. One of those vessels is believed to be the Meridian-1, a 104.5m Ukrainian factory freezer trawler chartered by New Zealand fishing giant Sealord that sails under the flag of the Dominican Republic and is registered to an owner in Vanuatu.

The practice of registering vessels in countries unrelated to ownership often occurs to avoid regulations (e.g. governing labour costs) is known as operating under a flag of convenience. Flags of convenience are considered a major global contributor to the prevalence of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific Oceans Campaigner Nathaniel Pelle said, “Flags of convenience are used to dodge regulations, mistreat workers, avoid taxes and hide fishing capacity. Greenpeace has called for a ban on flags of convenience as one of the first steps to ending pirate fishing. The 'convenience' in this case refers to the fact that the ’flag’ state is usually one that doesn't care what they catch, how they catch it, how they treat their crew, or the safety standards of the ships."

"There is nothing convenient about ignoring basic rights, environmental regulations or good governance. Australia should apply a strict zero-tolerance policy to these operations,” Mr Pelle said.

In 2012 the Australian Government temporarily banned large factory freezer vessels from operating in an Australian fishery for two years and ordered a review of fishery legislation. One of the key outcomes of the review process was recommending increasing transparency in fisheries management.

Australian Marine Conservation Society campaigner Tooni Mahto said, “Has AFMA not learned the lessons of the super trawler Margiris? The public made it abundantly clear they care about the way Australian fisheries are managed, so trying to slip another big boat through a net of secrecy does no favours to the Australian Government, the Australian fishing industry or the Australian public.”

AFMA are not releasing full details on the applications to introduce overseas flagged vessels into this fishery, such as how much of the blue grenadier quota would be fished by these vessels and where the catch would be landed because of antiquated commercial in confidence issues.

“These commercial in confidence rules unnecessarily restrict access to important information that should be made public. It’s time that AFMA started taking a wide-open door approach to fisheries that the public deserves, rather than the closed-door policy that only serves those with vested financial interests,” said Miss Mahto.

Marine Coordinator of Environment Tasmania Rebecca Hubbard said, “The current temporary ban on super trawlers only applies to freezer-factory vessels over 130m in length, yet there is an international fleet of these industrial trawlers which might be slightly shorter but are equally concerning.”

“The fact that the Australian Government is considering these current applications is sending a message that Australia is open for big-boat business, but without asking the public how they want their fisheries managed. It seems that we not only need a permanent ban on all super trawlers to protect our fisheries and marine life, but we also need a fundamental shift in the Australian Government’s attitudes towards public consultation,” concluded Ms Hubbard.

For interviews:
Alison Orme Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0432 332 104
Tooni Mahto, AMCS – 0467 081 258
Rebecca Hubbard, Environment Tasmania – 0401 854 912

“If confirmed, this is good news for the local community, the tourism industry and the vast majority of Australians who opposed the plan to dump waste in the Great Barrier Reef Park”, said Adam Walters, Greenpeace Head of Research.

But Mr Walters warned that the threat to the Reef remained and called on Commonwealth Environment Minister Greg Hunt to act.

“If the reports are true, the cheapest, most destructive option for expanding Abbot Point may have been taken off the table - but the threat from coal industry expansion plans is still urgent.



“Expanding the port - with its associated dredging - will bring with it damaging dredge plumes, destruction of sea grass beds, impacts for wetlands, increased shipping and will drive the greatest threat to the Reef which is climate change.”

Walters also pointed to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the project.

“Since North Queensland Bulk Ports first sought approval for dredging at Abbot Point, the proposal has changed significantly.

“One of the associated three coal terminal proposals has been cancelled, GVK’s coal terminal has been delayed, and Adani’s proposal has doubled in size.

“Given the confusion and uncertainty, the only safe and sensible outcome for the Reef is for Minister for the Environment Mr Greg Hunt to cancel approval for the dredging project made under Commonwealth legislation.

“Coal mining remains the greatest long term threat to the Reef.  The coal industry still seems determined to cook the Great Barrier Reef by fuelling climate change,” Mr Walters added.

Video footage and photographs of Abbot Point terminal available here: http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/ 

Username: photos Password: green

For images or more information, contact: Julie Macken, 0400 925 217 or Adam Walters, 0408 029 181

It is reported that the Queensland Government plans to use the dredge waste for land reclamation and further port expansion.

“This is not a bandaid for reef dredging but salt in the wound,” said Greenpeace Head of Research Mr Adam Walters.

“The very idea that Queensland taxpayers should fund destruction of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by buying dredge waste to build an even larger port at Abbot Point is insulting.

“This Queensland Government has once again shown it is the enemy of the Reef and cannot be trusted as its guardian.

“Faced with community outrage at plans to dump on the Reef the Queensland government has proposed the next worst solution.

"It has been reported that the Queensland Govenrment is asking the Federal Environment Minister Mr Greg Hunt to approve the new scheme.

"Minister Hunt should reject this proposal as absurd.

“The Queensland Government must explain how a bigger port, damaging dredge plumes, seagrass destruction, increased shipping and coal driven climate change is in the interests of the Reef,” Mr Walters said.

Contact: Adam Walters Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0408 029 181 or Alison Orme 0432 332 104

During Greenpeace’s three month campaign, more than one million people signed a petition calling on LEGO to stop promoting Shell’s brand because of its plans to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic. In stark contrast to Shell, LEGO’s policies include a commitment to produce more renewable energy than they use, phase out oil in their products and, in cooperation with its partners, leave a better world for future generations [3].

In its statement, LEGO argued the dispute was between Greenpeace and Shell. However, Greenpeace insists that while LEGO is doing the right thing under public pressure, it should choose its partners more carefully when it comes to the threats facing our children from climate change. Due to contractual obligations, LEGO’s current co-promotion with Shell will be honoured.

Ian Duff, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is a major blow to Shell. It desperately needs partners like LEGO to help give it respectability and repair the major brand damage it suffered after its last Arctic misadventure. Lego’s withdrawal from a 50 year relationship with Shell clearly shows that strategy will not work.”

“The tide is turning for these fossil fuel dinosaurs that see the melting Arctic as ripe for exploitation rather than protection. The message should be clear; your outdated, climate wrecking practices are no longer socially acceptable, and you need to keep away from the Arctic or face being ostracised by society.”

LEGO is the latest in a line of leading global companies to walk away from a relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In late 2012 Waitrose announced it has put its partnership with Shell on ice [4] and in the last month Microsoft, Google and Facebook all made commitments to end their support for ALEC, a controversial lobby group that campaigns against climate change legislation [5]. Only weeks ago, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it will begin pulling its investments in the fossil fuel industry [6].

In September, Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO David Ritter accompanied Kiribati President Anote Tong to the Arctic to highlight its importance to countries on the climate change front line. "The Arctic may seem distant, but it's health is vital to all of us," said Ritter. "Lego's decision is yet another clear sign that the world is turning its back on companies such as Shell who are putting the Arctic - and our future - at risk."

Shell’s past attempts to drill in the Arctic have been plagued with multiple operational failings culminating in the running aground of its drilling rig, the Kulluk. The extreme Arctic conditions, including giant floating ice-bergs and stormy seas, make offshore drilling extremely risky. And scientists say that in the Arctic, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up meaning devastation for the Arctic’s unique wildlife [7].

But on 28 August 2014 Shell submitted new plans to the US administration for offshore exploratory drilling in the Alaskan Arctic [8], meaning it’s on course to resurrect its Arctic drilling plans as early as summer 2015.

In the past two years, a massive global movement has emerged calling for a sanctuary around the North Pole, to protect the Arctic and its unique wildlife from the onslaught of oil drilling and industrial fishing. More than six million people have joined the movement, and more than 1,000 influential people have signed an Arctic Declaration, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Emma Thompson and Sir Paul McCartney.

On 19 September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, met with Arctic campaigners to receive a global petition and said he would consider convening an international summit to discuss the issue of Arctic protection.

Contact for media requests: James Lorenz on 0418 408 683

Note to editors:

As part of the campaign, Greenpeace released a video LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome which reached nearly six million views. The video was temporarily taken down from YouTube because of a copyright complaint which was later withdrawn.

www.savethearctic.org

Report: LEGO is keeping bad company: no more playdates with Shell
Media briefing: Shell’s threat to the Arctic 

End notes: 
[1] Lego statement

[2] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014 
[3] LEGO’s values, see http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/sustainability/our-approach 
[4] You did it! Waitrose puts Shell relationship on ice, Greenpeace, 2012 
[5] Facebook set to become latest tech giant to abandon rightwing lobby group Alec, Guardian, 2014 
[6] Rockefellers go green: Rockefeller foundation divests funds in fossil fuel industries, Independent, 2014  
[7] Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, The PEW Charitable Trusts, 2010
[8] Shell Submits a Plan for New Exploration of Alaskan Arctic, New York Times, 2014

Campaign for clearer seafood labelling by top enviro groups, chefs, academics, celebs

16 October 2015. Peak environment groups, top chefs, fishers, academics and celebrities are calling for more accurate labelling of seafood in Australia, with the launch of the ‘Label My Fish’ campaign in Sydney today.

The Label My Fish Alliance is demanding improved consumer protection laws to require clear labelling of all seafood, including what fish it is, where it is from and how it was caught or farmed. Clearer labelling in fish shops, takeaways and restaurants will help protect public health, boost the Australian fishing industry and preserve fish for the future.

Members of the new alliance include Greenpeace, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Taronga and Zoos Victoria and the SEA LIFE Conservation Fund, campaigning with Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans.  Prominent individuals backing the campaign include actor Richard Roxburgh, Quay Chef Peter Gilmore, MoVida chef Frank Camorra and NY Times best-selling ‘I Quit Sugar’ author Sarah Wilson.

A Senate Inquiry into seafood labelling is now underway, due to report on 4 December.

Greenpeace CEO David Ritter says,“Australia’s seafood labelling laws are weak and consumers are in the dark about what seafood they’re buying and eating. Most Australians think they’re purchasing Australian seafood, when the reality is we now import approximately 70 per cent from overseas.

“Simple measures, requiring labelling of what fish we are eating, where it is from and how it was caught, are long overdue and will bring Australia into line with the European Union.

“Recent research by Greenpeace shows, for example, that the Aussie ‘flathead’ we think we are eating may well be an imported, cheaper South American fish, of a completely different family, bottom trawled in Argentinean waters.  But there is often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to reveal the truth.”

Gourmet Farmer, chef and former restaurant critic Matthew Evans said,“Imagine a menu that offered ‘mammal and root vegetable’, or ‘bird and green leaf’. It would be considered ridiculous. In Australia you can simply write ‘fish’ on a menu, without much of a problem.

“Some seafood we eat damages our marine environment, is produced by people under unfair conditions and may carry risks to our health.  

“What we really need is to know just what's on our plates. Only then can we make decisions about what we put in our mouths, making choices that will also help protect our oceans.”

Pavo Walker, a commercial tuna fisherman from Queensland, said, “Not every seafood product on the market is a good choice for consumers.  Giving the public more information about what fish they're buying and eating will help our oceans and local fishers".

Australian Marine Conservation Society Director Darren Kindleysides said,“AMCS has been producing Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide for a decade now. It’s clear that Australians want to do the right thing and choose sustainable seafood, but our current seafood labelling system means they are generally fishing in the dark.

“Shark, sold as ‘flake’ and popular in fish and chip shops, could be anything from Australian caught gummy shark to a threatened species of shark.

“As the public cannot tell if they are buying from seafood producers fishing with an eye on the future, it’s harder for sustainable fishers to reap the market rewards.

“These simple and inexpensive reforms are long overdue. AMCS have been calling for improvements in seafood labelling for a decade. We now have a real opportunity to take our labelling laws into the 21st century, so the public can know at all points of sale what fish they are choosing, where is came from and how it was produced.”

Visit www.labelmyfish.com for more information, a background report (includes detailed case studies of poor labelling) and a growing list of high profile supporters.

Contact: Alison Orme Greenpeace Media 0432 332 104 - alison.orme@greenpeace.org

Case studies: the impact of weak seafood labelling laws on consumers

Flathead. ‘Flathead’ is popular in fish and chip shops, restaurants and retailed as frozen fillets.  But when we buy ‘flathead’ it may well be an imported South American fish, of a completely different family (Percophis brasiliensis).  The imported ‘flathead’ is much cheaper - up to $20 per kilo less. But there’s often no labelling on your pub or fast food menu, or packet of frozen ‘flathead’, to indicate you’re not buying Aussie flathead, but a cheap imitation caught by destructive bottom trawling in Argentinean waters.

Barramundi. Australians rate barramundi as their favourite fish in restaurants.About 90 per cent of us believe the barramundi we are consuming is Australian yet over two thirds of the barramundi we eat is imported from Asia. 

Mercury in fish. Some fish contain high and potentially unsafe levels of mercury. Too much mercury can harm pregnant women and young children. For this reason government authorities recommend that pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and children restrict the amount they eat of certain species, including shark (flake), catfish and orange roughy. If Australians are not told which species they’re eating they are unable to act on warnings.

Orange roughy. ‘Orange roughy’ (Hoplostethus atlanticus) is very sensitive to overfishing and has been overfished in the past. Environment groups advise against eating it but conscientious consumers can’t do the right thing because it goes by a number of names on restaurant menus, including ‘deep sea perch’ and ‘sea perch’.

Squid and octopus. Australian squid and octopus fisheries are generally considered to have healthy stocks that can be harvested in a way that causes relatively little harm to the environment. Despite what many of us think though, around 80 per cent of the squid and octopus we eat is caught overseas. The product comes from fisheries which are often overfished, subject to inferior fishery management schemes and harvested in a damaging way - squid via trawling and octopus via bottom trawling - leading to bycatch concerns. But can you tell an Australian squid or octopus from its imported cousin? 

See ‘Fresh controversy over factory ships in Australian waters’, Age and SMH Online.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has received two applications to fish for blue grenadier (often known as hoki) using overseas-flagged fishing vessels. One of those vessels is believed to be the Meridian-1, a 104.5m Ukrainian factory freezer trawler chartered by New Zealand fishing giant Sealord that sails under the flag of the Dominican Republic and is registered to an owner in Vanuatu.

The practice of registering vessels in countries unrelated to ownership often occurs to avoid regulations (e.g. governing labour costs) is known as operating under a flag of convenience. Flags of convenience are considered a major global contributor to the prevalence of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific Oceans Campaigner Nathaniel Pelle said, “Flags of convenience are used to dodge regulations, mistreat workers, avoid taxes and hide fishing capacity. Greenpeace has called for a ban on flags of convenience as one of the first steps to ending pirate fishing. The 'convenience' in this case refers to the fact that the ’flag’ state is usually one that doesn't care what they catch, how they catch it, how they treat their crew, or the safety standards of the ships."

"There is nothing convenient about ignoring basic rights, environmental regulations or good governance. Australia should apply a strict zero-tolerance policy to these operations,” Mr Pelle said.

In 2012 the Australian Government temporarily banned large factory freezer vessels from operating in an Australian fishery for two years and ordered a review of fishery legislation. One of the key outcomes of the review process was recommending increasing transparency in fisheries management.

Australian Marine Conservation Society campaigner Tooni Mahto said, “Has AFMA not learned the lessons of the super trawler Margiris? The public made it abundantly clear they care about the way Australian fisheries are managed, so trying to slip another big boat through a net of secrecy does no favours to the Australian Government, the Australian fishing industry or the Australian public.”

AFMA are not releasing full details on the applications to introduce overseas flagged vessels into this fishery, such as how much of the blue grenadier quota would be fished by these vessels and where the catch would be landed because of antiquated commercial in confidence issues.

“These commercial in confidence rules unnecessarily restrict access to important information that should be made public. It’s time that AFMA started taking a wide-open door approach to fisheries that the public deserves, rather than the closed-door policy that only serves those with vested financial interests,” said Miss Mahto.

Marine Coordinator of Environment Tasmania Rebecca Hubbard said, “The current temporary ban on super trawlers only applies to freezer-factory vessels over 130m in length, yet there is an international fleet of these industrial trawlers which might be slightly shorter but are equally concerning.”

“The fact that the Australian Government is considering these current applications is sending a message that Australia is open for big-boat business, but without asking the public how they want their fisheries managed. It seems that we not only need a permanent ban on all super trawlers to protect our fisheries and marine life, but we also need a fundamental shift in the Australian Government’s attitudes towards public consultation,” concluded Ms Hubbard.

For interviews:
Alison Orme Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0432 332 104
Tooni Mahto, AMCS – 0467 081 258
Rebecca Hubbard, Environment Tasmania – 0401 854 912

Greenpeace reacted positively to the news but reaffirmed its belief that the arrest of the ship was illegal under international law.

Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said, "Millions of people spoke out against the illegal imprisonment of the Arctic 30, and today the final member of the group is free to come home. Our ship was arrested during an entirely peaceful protest against Arctic drilling in international waters. There was absolutely no justification either for boarding the ship or keeping her for eight months.

“This whole affair was a brazen attempt to intimidate those who believe that drilling for oil in the melting Arctic is reckless and unsafe. After months without proper maintenance our ship will need careful repairs, but like our campaign to protect the Arctic she will emerge better, fitter and stronger from this.”

The investigative committee recently extended its investigation into the protest at the Prirazlomnaya platform by two months, until July 24th. However, lawyers acting for Greenpeace International were informed of the ship’s release unexpectedly during a meeting in the port city of Murmansk this morning. The ship should now be able to leave Russia in the coming days.

Greenpeace lawyers were also informed that the investigation will continue in order to examine equipment found on the ship.

"Our main priority now is to get the ship checked by independent surveyors to assess the level of damage since it was seized by Russian agents on September 19th. We will also be asking the Russian authorities to continue guarding the vessel until our crew arrives to take custody of it", said Daniel Simons, Greenpeace International Legal Counsel.

In the eight months since the action took place Greenpeace has continued to campaign against Arctic oil drilling across the world, most recently in Norway last week where activists occupied a Statoil contracted oil rig in the Barents sea for over 48 hours. Meanwhile Dutch activists blocked a second Gazprom rig, the GSP Jupiter, as it left the Dutch port of IJmuiden to drill in the Russian Arctic.

Kumi Naidoo, who himself protested at the Prirazlomnaya rig in 2012 continued, “We will continue to oppose any oil company that attempts to drill in the Arctic ocean. As the world warms and the ice melts this is fast becoming an era defining battle, and we are determined to win it.”

For more information please contact:
Alison Orme Greenpeace Australia Pacific 0432 332 104
James Turner: james.turner@greenpeace.org +44 7415 515368
Maria Favorskaya in Moscow: mfavorsk@greenpeace.org +79 687358947

NOTES

The Arctic Sunrise was used as a support vessel during a protest at Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya platform on September 18th 2013. Two climbers attempted to hang a small “Save The Arctic” banner on the platform's side before Russian commandos fired warning shots into the water beneath them and forced them to descend their ropes. The next day, the Arctic Sunrise was boarded by helicopter and towed to Murmansk. All 28 activists along with two freelance journalists were arrested and charged with piracy and then hooliganism. The Arctic 30 were released on December 27th 2013 following the adoption of an amnesty law in the Russian Duma.

On 22 November 2013, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ordered Russia to 'immediately' release the vessel upon the posting of a €3.6 million bond by the Netherlands. The bond was posted by 2 December.

For a full timeline of the Arctic 30 story please see:

The Maules Creek Community Council had been seeking an injunction in the Land and Environment Court.

Greenpeace is calling for the State Government to ensure that no further work is done of any kind on the site until the scheduled hearing in September.

Greenpeace Senior Climate Campaigner, Nic Clyde said:

“We welcome today’s announcement but Minister Goward must immediately stop all work at Maules Creek coal mine.

“Whitehaven Coal’s investors should also be heading for the exits as this dud investment suffers another critical blow.”

 “This latest delay in construction is yet another warning to investors. Whitehaven Coal has consistently failed to meet its own construction schedule at their Maules Creek mine, which is why they found themselves in the Land and Environment Court. Happily though, this is great news for the threatened bat and bird species which now have a place to hibernate or nest over the winter.

Contact:

Elsa Evers, Greenpeace Communications Officer – 0438 204 041

Nic Clyde, Greenpeace Senior Climate Campaigner – 0438 282 409