Tag Archives: company

Fracking company defies Wales’s shale gas moratorium Updated for 2026





IGas has responded to a motion passed at the Welsh Assembly this week stating the Welsh Government’s opposition to shale gas extraction, declaring “they have no power to stop fracking!”

The motion calling for a fracking moratorium was tabled by Plaid Cymru, and passed with the support of Welsh Labour Assembly Members by a large margin: 37 for and 16 against. 

Despite the cross party backing, the Welsh Government has yet to take action. Labour’s economy minister Edwina Hart, who backed the Plaid motion calling for a moratorium, has turned down calls for planning advice on fracking to be updated.

But insiders have indicated that the First Minster, Carwyn Jones, is currently seeking legal advice on what powers the Welsh Government has to effectively place a moratorium on fracking.

The UK Government currently has control over shale gas licensing but the Welsh Government has responsibility, in theory, for any related planning applications. But any appeals against refusals are judged by the London-based Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales.

And as IGas helpfully points out, these devolved planning powers render the Welsh Government helpless in protecting Welsh communities against any unwanted developments.

IGas: ‘we’re going ahead anyway’

The original IGas application to carry out test drilling at a site in Borras, near Wrexham was rejected by the democratically elected councillors on the local authority. The company then appealed against the decision, which went to the Westminster-controlled Planning Inspectorate, which overturned the earlier refusal.

An IGas spokesman told the Daily Post: “Nothing has changed in our plans to test drill for underground gas in Wrexham, which we will be continuing with.

“And if we were to put in a planning application in the future, which is rejected by Wrexham council, the appeal would go to the Welsh Secretary, which comes under Westminster, not the Welsh Government.

“The decision by the Welsh Government was not a moratorium. They can refuse applications on planning grounds, but they have no power to stop fracking.”

As Sion Chavez, editor of Daily Wales, points out, “It’s a situation which highlights the absurd consequences of having one country administered by a neighbouring country.”

“Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own completely separate Planning Inspectorates which allow their own governments to oversee any appeals. But in the case of Wales, it’s the Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales.”

The SNP controlled Scottish Government has recently used its control over planning to announce an immediate moratorium on all fracking applications.

Welsh Government must be firm

Gareth Clubb, Director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, commented: “As soon as this legal advice is available, it needs to be published so that all the people of Wales can know where we stand on this problem.

“If a moratorium is within the Welsh Government’s powers then it just needs to get on and make it happen. If a ban isn’t possible, two things need to happen straight away. The first is that any powers restricting Wales’ ability to protect its communities should be devolved immediately.

“The second is that until those powers are devolved the Welsh Government must issue a Planning Policy Statement with a presumption against the development of unconventional oil and gas onshore in Wales.

“Anything other than these steps will suggest that the Welsh Government was being duplicitous through voting in favour of doing everything in its power to prevent fracking in Wales, but failing to take the action needed to deliver on its promise.”

Among other clauses, the successful motion calling for a fracking moratorium “Believes that energy should be fully devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and that the Welsh Government should have the power to block fracking.”

It further “Calls on the Welsh Government to do everything within its power to prevent fracking from taking place in Wales until it is proven to be safe in both an environmental and public health context.”

 


 

Principal source:  original articles published by Daily Wales.

 

 




389955

Long noses: Shell, GDF Suez, Samsung sweep Pinocchio Awards Updated for 2026





The grand winners of the Pinocchio Awards 2014 were Shell, GDF Suez and Samsung, announced at a celebrity-studded ceremony in Paris.

This year there were nine nominees for voters to choose between, and a new record was set for the number of votes since the Awards began in 2008: over 61,000 in total.

“This demonstrates citizens’ growing outrage about the severe impact multinational corporations’ activities are having on society and the environment”, commented Friends of the Earth France (FOEF) – which organises the Awards with Peuples Solidaires (ActionAid France) and CRID (Research and Information Centre for Development).

‘Most aggressive’ Shell – a richly deserved distinction

Shell won hands down for the Pinocchio award category ‘One for all and all for me!’, with 43% of the vote, for the development of shale gas projects across the entire world – except in Holland, its home country, which is subject to a fracking moratorium.

This prize is awarded to the company “which has the most aggressive policy in terms of appropriation, exploitation or destruction of natural resources.”

While Shell, like other big oil majors, prides itself on conducting its operations in accordance with “ambitious principles”, the reality observed on the ground, particularly in Argentina and the Ukraine, is quite different.

In these countries, reports FOEF, we see “lack of consultation with the population, wells drilled in a natural protected area and on farmland, toxic well-water reservoirs left out in the open, and lack of financial transparency, to name a few examples.”

Number two in the category with 29% of the vote was the French bank Crédit Agricole, for its financing of Mountain-top removal coal mining in Appalachia, USA – providing finance to Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources. Banktrack has published a full dossier on the bank’s activities.

GDF Suez – ‘green bonds’

In the prestigious ‘Greener than green’ category – which rewards the company which has led “the most abusive and misleading communication campaign in regard to its actual activities”, the Pinocchio award was received by GDF Suez with 42% of the vote for its ‘green bonds’, beating EDF and Pur Projet.

Last May, this French energy giant proudly announced that it had issued the biggest “green bond” ever made by a private company, collecting 2.5 billion Euros from private investors to finance its so-called clean energy projects.

However, on closer examination, no clear social or environmental criteria were associated with these ‘green’ bonds, and the company has not published a list of the projects it has financed.

It could even be using this money for destructive projects, such as large dams, like the one in Jirau (Brazil) that the company mentioned as an example. Furthermore, GDF Suez is continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels.

Running up with a 31% share of the vote was the French parastatal energy giant EDF, recognising its construction of the Kolubara B 750MW coal-fired power station in Serbia – in direct contradiction of its declared “ambition for a diversified and decarbonised energy mix”.

Samsung – ‘dirty hands, full wallet’

Finally, with 40% of the vote, the Pinocchio award for the category ‘Dirty hands, full wallet’ – which honours the company with the most opaque policy at the financial level, in terms of lobbying or in its supply chain – was given to Samsung.

The award reflects the company’s “disgraceful working conditions in its product-manufacturing factories in China: excessive working hours, pitiful wages and child labour, to cite just a few examples.”

Despite repeated inquiries and questioning civil society, as well as the filing of a complaint in France, this technology market-leader persistently denies these accusations.

“The company should face up to reality and implement some practical measures to improve working conditions for Chinese factory workers and put an end to these violations of human rights”, says FOEF.

It was closely followed by French oil company Perenco, with 31%, for its oil drilling in DRC Congo characterised by “the pillage of natural resources, financial opacity, environmental destruction and repression of dissent in local communities.”

A powerful tool in holding corporations to account

By condemning numerous violations against human rights and the environment, the Pinocchio Awards have grown in importance since they were established in 2008, and they help put pressure on companies to make them change their practices.

The scale of the event and its role in the public debate surrounding CSR this year has forced all companies nominated for an award to speak out publicly on the facts that have been reported about them.

Juliette Renaud, Corporate Accountability Campaigner at Friends of the Earth France, says: “Just a year ago we were celebrating the proposal of a bill on the due diligence of multinational companies – but pressure from lobby groups kept the government inactive on the subject, and this law has still not been voted or even discussed in Parliament.

Fanny Gallois, Campaign Manager at Peuples Solidaires, added: “By setting concrete facts against companies’ grand speeches, the Pinocchio Awards are showing this year again that these loopholes are allowing companies to operate with impunity in France and throughout the world.”

 


 

The Pinocchio Awards are organised in a media partnership with Basta!, the Multinational Observatory and Real World Radio, who have published informative articles and interviews on each of the nominees.

More information: Prix Pinocchio.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




386949

Coca-Cola forced out of $25 million factory in India Updated for 2026





The Coca-Cola company has been forced to abandon a $25 million newly built bottling plant in Mehdiganj, Varanasi, India as the result of a sustained campaign against the company’s plans.

The $25 million plant – which was a significant expansion to its existing plant in Mehdiganj – had already been fully built and the company had also conducted trial runs, but could not operate commercially as it did not have the required permits to operate.

Coca-Cola required permissions, or ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC), from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) – the national groundwater regulatory agency, and the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) – the statewide pollution regulatory agency.

The Central Ground Water Authority rejected Coca-Cola’s application to operate for its new facility on July 21, 2014, and had sought time till 25th August 2014, to announce its decision before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), India’s ‘green’ court.

Coke ‘withdraws’ days before the announcement

Somehow having learnt that its application had been rejected, in order to save itself major embarrassment, Coca-Cola sent a letter to the CGWA on Friday, August 22, 2014 – two days before the rejection was to be made public on Monday, August 25, 2014 – stating that it was “withdrawing” its application.

Bizarrely, Coca-Cola blamed “inordinate delays” by the authority as the reason for its “withdrawal” just two days before the decision was to be made public.

The campaign has worked for the last two years to ensure that the regulators were made aware of the problems being created by Coca-Cola’s existing bottling facility, and the reasons why a five-fold increase in groundwater allowance that Coca-Cola had sought for its new facility would further deteriorate the conditions in the area.

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) had also shut down Coca-Cola’s plant on June 6, 2014 because it found the company to be violating a number of conditions of its license, including a lack of NOC from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA).

Coca-Cola was able to obtain a stay order from the NGT that allowed it to temporarily re-open its existing plant on June 20, 2014

Groundwater shortages followed Coke’s arrival

The groundwater conditions in the Mehdiganj area have gone from ‘safe’ category, when Coca-Cola began operations in June 1999 to ‘critical’ in 2009.

As a result, severe restrictions have been placed by the government on groundwater use by the community and farmers.

“Coca-Cola is a shameless and unethical company that has consistently placed its pursuit of profits over the well-being of communities that live around its facilities”, said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center which has led the campaign to challenge the new plant.

“It is absolutely reprehensible for a globally recognized company like Coca-Cola to seek further groundwater allowances from an area that has become acutely water-stressed, and that in large part due to its own mining of groundwater.”

A ‘major setback’

The loss of the $25 million project is a major setback for Coca-Cola. The company has identified India as a major market where it seeks to derive significant future profits, particularly since Coca-Cola sales are being hit in more developed due to major health concerns.

“We are delighted that the Indian government is doing what it is supposed to do – protect the common property resource of groundwater from rampant exploitation, particularly in water-stressed areas.

“This should serve as a notice to other companies that they cannot run roughshod over Indian rules and regulations and deny community rights over groundwater”, said Srivastava.

 


 

More information: www.IndiaResource.org.

Also on The Ecologist:

 




383176