Protesters from St. Petersburg to Auckland demand immediate action on climate change

ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA - The Group of Eight industrial nations approved at their recent meeting a statement on "Global Energy Security," which allocates billions of dollars for nuclear energy infrastructure and oil extraction.

The G8 statement on global energy security advocates nuclear energy as one way to address global climate change, yet environmental activists warn that nuclear energy cannot be considered a favourable way to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear reactors are dangerous, extremely expensive, take many years to build, and require massive government subsidies. Activists would like this funding to instead be used to quickly reduce carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures, development of renewable energy sources, and restoration of damaged wetland and forest ecosystems.

In coalition with protests in St. Petersburg alongside the G8 meeting, international demonstrations occurred on July 14 and 15 in numerous cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Germany. The protests included large "banner drops" in multiple cities, protests of coal and oil companies, and rallies at the U.S. embassy in London and U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman's home in Washington, DC. In Maracaibo, Venezuela, indigenous peoples protested the destruction of their water and way of life by open coal pit mines.

"The G8 countries represent just 15 percent of the world's population but they produce 45 percent of all human emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas," said Ethan Green of Rising Tide North America, a group that publicized the July 15th protests against Climate Change and the G8 in the United States. "Poor, indigenous and environmentally vulnerable communities should not bear the brunt of the global climate change that the richer countries are creating."

"The majority of the world's top twenty oil companies are based in G8 nations and enjoy "open door" policies with their governments. It's no surprise that these companies are the biggest polluters," said Mike Hudema, Independence from Oil director at the human rights group Global Exchange. "In addition, the G8 already gives over a hundred billion dollars in subsidies to nuclear developers, yet refuses to subsidize safer sustainable alternatives - like wind, water, and solar power. The politics of energy security are, at this point, more based on the pork barrel than on science. This plan makes no ecological sense."

The shortsightedness of the energy policy has also been corroborated by a joint statement released by the G8's own top scientists on June 14. Scientists urged the G8 to heed its own Gleneagles recommendations and pursue sustainable energy growth, in response to the increasing threat of the climate crisis. Read about it here: www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14523354.htm

A coalition of youth groups from all 6 continents recently circulated a statement to the G8 on the need for clean energy alternatives. They say that the youth will have to bear the burden of today's unsustainable energy policies.

The statement is available at www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/3983.html (IYPF’s CEO, Cameron Neil, was a signatory).

A previous press release about this statement is available here: www.globalexchange.org/update/press/4037.html