April 2009

In this episode of our podcast we're trying something new - James hosts a round-table discussion with solutions adviser Nathan, coal campaigner Emma and new web editor Christian about what Greenpeace stands for, and (in the run up to the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen this December) whether we're going the right way about tackling the greatest challenge we've ever faced - minimising the effects of climate change.

Are we spending too much time lobbying national politicians directly, and not taking enough action at a local level? Do we talk too much about problems and not enough about the solutions?

The aim is to give you a bit more insight into the sort of discussions that go on between campaigners when they're planning a campaign, the various tools and techniques at our disposal, and the ways in which they can be combined to address the massive environmental threats we all face.

Download the podcast

You can also listen to it right now - just click the play button below.

Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes | Google Reader | My Yahoo!

You can also subscribe by email to receive an alert when a new episode is published.

Want to know more about the issues in this podcast?
Copenhagen: can scientists save the world?

This female Caribbean Reef Shark in Roatan apparently survived a finning - most do not © CC yukikokubo

Tesco have just announced that they're going to stop selling shark fins in their stores in Thailand.

This follows some bad press on the issue and subsequent lobbying by the Shark Trust to clean up their act.

Sharks are a dividing issue with people – some people love them and are fascinated by them, others are terrified of them. Whilst sharks have an ferocious and fearsome reputation, and any shark attack or alleged sightings of man-eating great whites off Cornwall make the news, we rarely hear of the impact we humans are having on sharks. And we are having an enormous impact.

Backers of the controversial MOX plant at Sellafield, which promised to turn toxic waste into a useable fuel that could be sold worldwide, had claimed the plant would make a profit of more than £200m in its lifetime, producing 120 tonnes of recycled fuel a year.

But an investigation published in today's Independent newspaper reveals what the government has been trying to keep secret - that technical problems and a dearth in orders has meant it has produced just 6.3 tonnes of fuel since opening in 2001.

Since building work began in the 1990s the plant has absorbed over £1 billion in public subsidies - money which could have been far better invested in developing renewable energy projects.

A pollack called Colin... what's in a name?

Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you. Unless you're at the fish counter it seems, where the retailers Sainsbury's have 'renamed' pollack as 'colin'.

No, it's not April Fools' Day - apparently customers had a bit of an issue asking for pollack. I guess in much the same way as Uranus started being pronounced 'Yoo-ran-uss' at some point in the last couple of decades to avoid embarrassment and puerile jokes.

Prince Charles has a cunning plan to protect rainforests like this one along the banks of the Congo river © Stok/Greenpeace

The almost complete lack of green issues on the G20 agenda has had heads shaking both in our office and across the environmental movement, yet there was one result this week worth celebrating. It didn't come from the G20 directly, but the presence of so many world leaders was an excellent opportunity for Prince Charles to gather many of them together to talk about rainforests.

For some time now, the Prince has (like us) been promoting the idea that stopping deforestation in places like the Amazon and Indonesia is an excellent way to put the brakes on climate change. His recent trip to the Amazon (documented by the Sun's new environment editor) was just the latest demonstration of the Prince's passion for the issue.