5 Activists Arrested for Taking Over FORTH ENERGY H.Q.

Indymedia, U.K. / Deepak | 23.08.2010 15:05

This is the unspoken face of climate change. Logging concessions in Alaska, West Papua and the Congo are being offered to provide wood chip and pellets for Europe to burn as 'green energy'. Climate Camp activists targeted Forth Energy because of their plans to build 4 biomass power stations. Along with deforestation, biodiversity loss & accelerated climate change, millions of indigenous people will be evicted. Local residents in Scotland will pay a high price from health-damaging emissions from burning wood.

Protestors drop banner from roof, chain themselves to the door and occupy
office of Scottish energy company
PHOTOGRAPHS AVAIABLE AT WWW.tinyurl.com/biomassaction

Leith—A group of 5 activists have been arrested for occupying the headquarters for Forth Energy in Lieth. Three activists locked themselves to office furniture while two others chained themselves to the front doors. Two other activists scaled the roof of the building and hung a banner reading ‘BIOMASS = DEFORESTATION +POLLUTION = CLIMATE CHANGE’ and were released without arrest. The activists, part of the Climate Camp outside of RBS headquarters in Edinburgh, are targeting Forth Energy because of their plans to build four environmentally destructive biomass(wood-burning) energy power stations in Scotland. The office took ran from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. Location: 1 Prince of Wales, Dock, Leith, EH6 7DX

Why are environmental activists risking arrest by taking such drastic
action? Forth Energy, which labels itself a ‘green’ energy company, is
misleadingly pushing biomass as a solution to climate change. In reality
these power stations will increase carbon emissions, pollute local air,
increase deforestation and lead to the displacement of native peoples in
the global south. Wood burned in the proposed Lieth, Grangemouth, Rosyth
Port and Dundee Port sites will be fed primarily from wood chip freighted
in from abroad.

Biomass power stations are more climate damaging than traditional fossil
fuel power stations because of the destruction of virgin woodlands that
they inevitably require. If built these power stations will mean even
more wood imports from abroad and even more destruction of rainforests and
old growth forests to be replaced with plantations of eucalyptus in places
like South America. For example, the smokestack CO2 emissions from a
biomass power station are commonly around 1.5 times greater than those
from a coal power station with the same energy output.

In addition to harming the global climate, these power stations will
severely impact the health of the communities where they are built. All
biomass burning releases significant quantities of nitrogen oxides,
sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs). Such pollution increases the risks of respiratory
diseases, heart disease, cancer and premature mortality including infant
mortality and miscarriage. Leith power station alone would generate
nitrogen oxide and particulates equivalent to 100,000 more cars while
Edinburgh and Grangemouth power stations are 200m to the nearest home and
Dundee power station just 100m.

Demand for imported wood will also mean native peoples and peasant farmers
could be displaced from their land and intimidated, killed, injured or
enslaved to make room for new mono culture wood plantations as routinely
happens in many developing countries.

Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, the UK and EU
governments class biomass power stations as renewable, green energy.
Forth energy will receive £300 million in subsidies annually for their
four biomass power stations and this is to be funded through an increase
on utility bills.

Sean Gifford, spokesperson for the activists, said ‘Biomass is exacerbating climate change, destroying precious forests and pulling money away from real, sustainable solutions like energy efficiency measures, wind, solar and tidal power. Forth Energy can expect growing opposition until they scrap the idea of biomass altogether’.

For more information about biomass and the campaign against it, please visit www.biofuelwatch.org.uk,
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/Biomess.

Notes to editor:
- The four power stations which will produce a total 560MW will burn a total of 5.6 million tones of wood a year.
- The four power stations would burn approximately the equivalent of 2/3 of all the wood the UK currently produces every year.
- The UK’s total demand for wood for pulp, paper and biomass is already altogether unsustainable as the UK relies on net imports for over 80% for its wood and wood products.

Are biofuels worth the investment in East Africa?

World Agroforestry Centre
A new study shows that investment in jatropha for biofuel in Northern Tanzania is a risky venture.

A cost-benefit analysis reveals that farmers will only start earning money after yields of around 3,000 kilograms per hectare of jatropha seed. And this is considerably more than is currently being harvested in the regions studied.

Nepomuk Wahl, principal author of the study, says the results suggest fertile land in Northern Tanzania should not be sacrificed to grow the oil-rich jatropha. "It is still a rather risky and long-term investment with insecure prospects and high opportunity costs," she says.

"However, we believe the traditional growing of jatropha in hedge rows combined with local processing of the oil for local use make jatropha viable for rural communities in the short-term," Nepomuk adds.

Jatropha curcas L. is prevalent in many African countries and is one of several biofuel sources being considered as the world searches for alternatives to fossil fuels.

When energy prices soared in 2007, many companies, private investors, NGOs, farmers and national as well as local governments from developed and developing countries embarked on jatropha ventures.

But as this study notes, the viability of jatropha seed production is yet to be thoroughly assessed. While there have been some investigations into its feasibility in East Africa, these have been largely based on assumptions or extrapolations of data from elsewhere.

Despite the lack of data, more than 10,000 smallholder famers in Tanzania, and many more in East Africa, are establishing jatropha plantations.

This study set out to determine whether jatropha is a viable venture in Northern Tanzania. Using a combination of interviews with farmers growing jatropha and conservative assumptions based on a review of the literature, it aims to provide reliable data that smallholder farmers, investors, development agencies and the government can rely on for further decision making.

The results show that jatropha cultivation is only profitable under certain conditions and unlikely to substantially increase employment and income in rural areas.

The situation is worsened by the fact that many farmers tend to intercrop jatropha with food crops on arable land thus reducing food production for little or no gain.

Dr Ramni Jamnadass, Co-leader of the World Agroforestry Centre's research into agroforestry germplasm notes that jatropha is still a wild species and farmers lack the knowledge required to apply best practice which would provide the most efficient methods of production.

"Intensive research and experimentation is required to tackle the numerous problems that affect economic viability," Dr Jamnadass remarked.

Among these problems is how to reduce production costs and increase seed yields. One option might be to breed high yielding varieties but this is a long-term undertaking and will not benefit farmers who have already invested in jatropha plantations.

Another problem is that the management and harvesting of jatropha requires considerable labour input. The development of pruning techniques for an easy-to-harvest canopy and a small picking tool to speed up harvesting could be the way forward.

So does this mean the end to immediate cultivation of jatropha? According to the authors of this study "not at all." They believe there is one way to avoid high opportunity costs for land and labour without the need to grow jatropha on less suitable land, and that is to optimize the traditional use of jatropha as hedges and fences.

"Hedges can be established almost anywhere without taking up valuable land that could be used for food crops," Nepomuk explains. "They are currently the only proven system when it comes to economically viable jatropha seed production and trade, and if their use is optimized they may encourage the development of a jatropha value chain."

The report also suggests exploration of a Multi Functional Platform in order to offer different energy related services to rural communities such as electricity for lighting and mobile phone charging and milling. This would include a mechanized oil expeller to enable higher quantities of oil to be extracted locally for local use.

The full study, published in the World Agroforestry Centre's working paper series, can be downloaded from our website: Economic viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern Tanzania: Assessing farmers' prospects via cost-benefit analysis.