From WattHead:

The Sierra Club just won a HUGE legal victory in a coal permitting case at the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board [in the USA]...

While the Sierra Club's legal team and other lawyers are still determining the full implications of the decision, it appears that this decision will essentially stop all new coal plant permitting dead in it's tracks for at least a year as EPA decides what BACT means in the context of CO2...

In short, with this new regulatory uncertainty, it's highly unlikely anyone will want to invest a dime in a new coal plant for the foreseeable future.

Read the full story on WattHead »

I've noticed a higher-than-expected amount of traffic going to our Obama press statement over the past couple of days, so it looks like people are interested in what we make of Obama's victory.

I think this image, on the homepage of the Greenpeace USA website, says it all:

Residents of Washington DC were given a first hand experience last week of what climate change is doing to the polar bears. Scattered across the city, puzzled onlookers stopped in their tracks to see, touch and sometimes kiss polar bears in homeless garb. By portraying polar bears as homeless and destitute, Greenpeace USA has managed to humanise their plight and raise concerns about climate change which is melting the arctic sea ice polar bears depend on.

NATO and Russia facing off, plans for star wars causing political ructions – its almost like the 80’s all over again. Without the ra-ra skirts. Which can only be a good thing.

So finally Poland has signed an agreement to host part of the US missile defence system on its soil. With just parliamentary approval to leap (and a supportive parliament in place) it seems the US's Son of Star Wars dreams have advanced apace.

In return for hosting ten US missile interceptors the ex communist, now NATO, country gets 100 US troops stationed on its soil, US patriot missiles and ‘assistance in modernising its military’ and (ahem) help with ‘responding to the threats of the 21st century’.

In a story not as weird as the environmentally-friendly bullets one but still somewhat unnerving, it appears the US military is gunning for an increase in the amount of energy it derives from renewable sources. Military chiefs want to see 25 per cent come from the likes of wind, wave and solar by 2025 and while it accounts for 1.5 per cent of US energy consumption, the biggest impact could be the civil application for military developments in technology and efficiency so the rest of the country could be following in its khaki-coloured wake.

We're called Greenpeace for a reason. Not only do we defend the natural world but also promote world peace. Hence, the Bush administration is a major cause for concern; it clashes with both of our objectives by trashing the environment and warmongering.

As if the wars on Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq weren't enough, the bloodthirsty US government looks desperate to wage war on Iran - even if that means staging an incident to start it, as you'll see from this video.

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reveals one disturbing proposal, discussed in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, that might make you question the Bush administration's credibility (if you haven't already).

Our peaceful efforts to keep the nuclear arms race at bay were crushed by Czech military police this week. Peaceland, a newly formed state sits on a site earmarked for a radar station for US anti-missile defence on Czech soil. Dubbed as part of the ‘Son of Star Wars' project, this American anti-missile circuit is apparently intended to destroy enemy rockets headed for the US, and Greenpeace activists responded to this ludicrous plan by inhabiting the proposed site and declaring independence, thus forming the new country.

News from the Sunshine State reminds us that nuclear power is only an option for companies with very deep pockets. Or a hand in their customers' pockets, to be precise.

Progress (ha!) Energy have tripled the estimate for the new plant it's planning to build in Florida, saying that the new price tag will be an eye-watering $17 billion, and they haven't even got permission to start building yet. How are they going to pay for this? Why, by bumping up bills for its existing customers of course. "You can't avoid the notion that nuclear has an upfront cost for the customer," said Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress (double ha!) Energy Florida. "It does."

And that's just the beginning. We all know that, once the diggers move in, the costs for a nuclear power station take on a mysterious life of their own, spiralling ever upward. Just look at the delay-ridden, cash-sucking plant currently being built in Finland. It's the same in this country as well, with costs for dealing with existing waste (never mind the waste generated by a hypothetical fleet of new nuclear power stations) going repeatedly skywards.

So if the day comes when another load of nuclear power stations are being built here, remember it won't be private companies picking up the elephantine costs: one way or another, it'll be us.

US climate change policy will deliver hell and high water
© Greenpeace/Bill Auth

Last night, a day after George Bush's final State of the Union speech, Greenpeace volunteers in the US used one of their nation's most iconic monuments to paint a clear picture of what his climate change policies will mean for the planet.