Reacting to the release of new figures showing that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level for at least 650,000 years, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign Robin Oakley said:

"We're now witnessing a key moment in the climate change story and it's not good news. The last time the atmosphere was this choked with CO2 humans were yet to evolve as a species. To even consider building new runways and coal-fired power stations at this juncture in history is an unpardonable folly, but Gordon Brown seems determined to stumble forward regardless with his ill-conceived plans in the face of the science and widespread public opposition."

Scientists say atmospheric CO2 levels now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40 per cent since the industrial revolution.

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year.

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.

Reacting to the release of new figures showing that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level for at least 650,000 years, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign Robin Oakley said:

"We're now witnessing a key moment in the climate change story and it's not good news. The last time the atmosphere was this choked with CO2 humans were yet to evolve as a species. To even consider building new runways and coal-fired power stations at this juncture in history is an unpardonable folly, but Gordon Brown seems determined to stumble forward regardless with his ill-conceived plans in the face of the science and widespread public opposition."

Scientists say atmospheric CO2 levels now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40 per cent since the industrial revolution.

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year.

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.

GM food producers are reeling after new investigations by the European Commission (EC) uncovered problems with three new types of genetically modified crops. The Commission raised concerns over a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize, all of which had previously been given the green light by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For the first time, Europe's most senior lawmakers are publicly questioning the safety of GM crops.

Potential problems with the three new GM strains first came to light last year when leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) expressed fears about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.

"That policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant."
Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International

Matters first came to a head last October when, after taking these concerns into account, European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas stood up to big agribusiness and refused to allow cultivation of the two varieties of GM maize. BASF and Syngenta challenged the decision and threatened legal action, leading the EC to order a second investigation into the safety of the new strains. During this process we kept up the pressure by posting comments on Commission blogs and sending numerous emails and petitions. Many thanks to the 130,000 of you who took part in our email action to remind the Commissioners of their responsibilities.

Now the results of that research are in, and while it makes unhappy reading for the biotech companies, it's great news for all of us who oppose the genetic modification of our food in pursuit of a quick profit. A pat on the back is definitely in order for the Commissioners for standing up to intense industry pressure and applying the precautionary principle.

Although, having said that, you have to wonder why the Commission asked the EFSA to look again at the crops when it had showed itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round? There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. In truth the Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright first time around but hey, at least they got there in the end.

GM Podcast: the Celcias Show

An unrelated but equally welcome piece of news on the GM front aired last week when the residents of Montville, a small community located in Maine in the US became the first town outside of California to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. To do so, they had to take on the deep pockets and misguided motivations of corporations such as Monsanto, the Halliburton of the farming industry. In this podcast from The Celcias Show Leslie Berliant speaks with some of the courageous farmers and town residents of Montville who helped to make this ban a reality.

GM food producers are reeling after new investigations by the European Commission (EC) uncovered problems with three new types of genetically modified crops. The Commission raised concerns over a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize, all of which had previously been given the green light by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For the first time, Europe's most senior lawmakers are publicly questioning the safety of GM crops.

Potential problems with the three new GM strains first came to light last year when leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) expressed fears about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.

"That policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant."
Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International

Matters first came to a head last October when, after taking these concerns into account, European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas stood up to big agribusiness and refused to allow cultivation of the two varieties of GM maize. BASF and Syngenta challenged the decision and threatened legal action, leading the EC to order a second investigation into the safety of the new strains. During this process we kept up the pressure by posting comments on Commission blogs and sending numerous emails and petitions. Many thanks to the 130,000 of you who took part in our email action to remind the Commissioners of their responsibilities.

Now the results of that research are in, and while it makes unhappy reading for the biotech companies, it's great news for all of us who oppose the genetic modification of our food in pursuit of a quick profit. A pat on the back is definitely in order for the Commissioners for standing up to intense industry pressure and applying the precautionary principle.

Although, having said that, you have to wonder why the Commission asked the EFSA to look again at the crops when it had showed itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round? There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. In truth the Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright first time around but hey, at least they got there in the end.

GM Podcast: the Celcias Show

An unrelated but equally welcome piece of news on the GM front aired last week when the residents of Montville, a small community located in Maine in the US became the first town outside of California to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. To do so, they had to take on the deep pockets and misguided motivations of corporations such as Monsanto, the Halliburton of the farming industry. In this podcast from The Celcias Show Leslie Berliant speaks with some of the courageous farmers and town residents of Montville who helped to make this ban a reality.

GM food producers are reeling after new investigations by the European Commission (EC) uncovered problems with three new types of genetically modified crops. The Commission raised concerns over a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize, all of which had previously been given the green light by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For the first time, Europe's most senior lawmakers are publicly questioning the safety of GM crops.

Potential problems with the three new GM strains first came to light last year when leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) expressed fears about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.

"That policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant."
Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International

Matters first came to a head last October when, after taking these concerns into account, European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas stood up to big agribusiness and refused to allow cultivation of the two varieties of GM maize. BASF and Syngenta challenged the decision and threatened legal action, leading the EC to order a second investigation into the safety of the new strains. During this process we kept up the pressure by posting comments on Commission blogs and sending numerous emails and petitions. Many thanks to the 130,000 of you who took part in our email action to remind the Commissioners of their responsibilities.

Now the results of that research are in, and while it makes unhappy reading for the biotech companies, it's great news for all of us who oppose the genetic modification of our food in pursuit of a quick profit. A pat on the back is definitely in order for the Commissioners for standing up to intense industry pressure and applying the precautionary principle.

Although, having said that, you have to wonder why the Commission asked the EFSA to look again at the crops when it had showed itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round? There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. In truth the Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright first time around but hey, at least they got there in the end.

GM Podcast: the Celcias Show

An unrelated but equally welcome peice if news on the GM front aired last week when the residents of Montville, a small community located in Maine, became the first town outside of California to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. To do so, they had to take on the deep pockets and misguided motivations of corporations such as Monsanto, the Halliburton of the farming industry. In this podcast from The Celcias Show Leslie Berliant speaks with some of the courageous farmers and town residents of Montville who helped to make this ban a reality.

A group of Czech Greenpeace activists are set to begin their third week occupying the site of a proposed US 'Son of Star Wars' base in the Czech republic. About 20 Greenpeace activists broke into the Brdy military zone south of Prague on April 28th. After establishing a base camp in nearby woods, they entered a wooded area inside the military installation and hung a 60 ft banner carrying the message "We don't want to be targets" across a series of tree-platforms.

The US want to build an X band radar at Brdy - like the one the Labour government controversially gave go ahead for at Fylingdales in Yorkshire - as part of the European end of their proposed 'Son of Star Wars' missile defence system.

"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins."
Jacques Chirac, former President of France

The plans have sparked major opposition in the Czech Republic - where polls have repeatedly shown that more than six out of 10 Czechs oppose hosting the US facility. The Greenpeace occupation is one of a whole series of protests against the plans over recent weeks and months.

Despite this opposition the Czech and US governments still appear to be closing on a deal to place the radar base in Czech territory, although the last minute cancellation of the signing ceremony by US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice earlier this week have raised hopes of opponents. Although officials explained the delay as 'a matter of logistics', the strong Czech public opposition to the plan, which is also strongly opposed by Russia, is likely to have played a strong part.

We oppose the US 'Son of Star Wars' system as we believe that it will trigger another arms race. The only people who will benefit from Star wars are giant arms contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing who will build develop both the shield and then profit from building the new weapons designed to evade it. As former French President Jacques Chirac put it:

"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins. The more improvements that are made to the shield, the more improvements are made to the sword. We think that with these [anti-missile] systems, we are just going to spur swordmakers to intensify their efforts."

The programme will also be hugely expensive - diverting tens of billions away from tackling the real problems our planet is facing, like tackling the effects of climate change.

You can watch live coverage of the site occupation on www.greenpeace.cz. Or you can help internationalise the protest by posting your photograph and a personal message at www.fotoblokada.cz.

To find out about ongoing protests against son of star wars sites in the UK checkout www.yorkshirecnd.org.uk/ and the campaign for the accountability of US bases at www.caab.org.uk/

A group of Czech Greenpeace activists are set to begin their third week occupying the site of a proposed US 'Son of Star Wars' base in the Czech republic. About 20 Greenpeace activists broke into the Brdy military zone south of Prague on April 28th. After establishing a base camp in nearby woods, they entered a wooded area inside the military installation and hung a 60 ft banner carrying the message "We don't want to be targets" across a series of tree-platforms.

The US want to build an X band radar at Brdy - like the one the Labour government controversially gave go ahead for at Fylingdales in Yorkshire - as part of the European end of their proposed 'Son of Star Wars' missile defence system.

"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins."
Jacques Chirac, former President of France

The plans have sparked major opposition in the Czech Republic - where polls have repeatedly shown that more than six out of 10 Czechs oppose hosting the US facility. The Greenpeace occupation is one of a whole series of protests against the plans over recent weeks and months.

Despite this opposition the Czech and US governments still appear to be closing on a deal to place the radar base in Czech territory, although the last minute cancellation of the signing ceremony by US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice earlier this week have raised hopes of opponents. Although officials explained the delay as 'a matter of logistics', the strong Czech public opposition to the plan, which is also strongly opposed by Russia, is likely to have played a strong part.

We oppose the US 'Son of Star Wars' system as we believe that it will trigger another arms race. The only people who will benefit from Star wars are giant arms contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing who will build develop both the shield and then profit from building the new weapons designed to evade it. As former French President Jacques Chirac put it:

"If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there's a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins. The more improvements that are made to the shield, the more improvements are made to the sword. We think that with these [anti-missile] systems, we are just going to spur swordmakers to intensify their efforts."

The programme will also be hugely expensive - diverting tens of billions away from tackling the real problems our planet is facing, like tackling the effects of climate change.

You can watch live coverage of the site occupation on www.greenpeace.cz. Or you can help internationalise the protest by posting your photograph and a personal message at www.fotoblokada.cz.

To find out about ongoing protests against son of star wars sites in the UK checkout www.yorkshirecnd.org.uk/ and the campaign for the accountability of US bases at www.caab.org.uk/

Today is the deadline for bids to takeover British Energy, the country's beleaguered nuclear operator. Leading the pack of foreign companies hoping to get their hands on BE's nuclear sites is the French government owned Electricit?? de France, or EDF as they prefer to be known on this side of the Channel.

Now, EDF is hoping to bag large tranches of UK land at nuclear sites - not for BE's financial integrity or for operational performance, but to add the UK to its nuclear catalogue. Put simply, they reckon building a new reactor on British soil will pull punters into their atomic showroom.

Flogging BE has been heralded as a sure step forward in the fight against climate change and a way of getting some much needed money back in to the Treasury coffers after the UK taxpayer bailed them out in 2002. But look a little closer and, not surprisingly, it is anything but.

The expected takeover by EDF (a notion which would have Nelson turning in his grave) will come at huge financial cost, do very little to help the UK reduce its carbon emissions and lead to continued confusion over who picks up the tab for the radioactive legacy.

Only this week, the CEO of E.oN, one of the worlds' largest power providers, said that any replacement programme of nuclear reactors, including the cost of BE, could cost up to ??60 billion.

??60 billion! That's twice the amount this muddling government stated only months ago. And it would only deliver a paltry four percent reduction in emissions. When you consider the kind of return you'd get if you invested this in renewable technology and energy efficiency it's rather like comparing a radioactive Dairy Lea Triangle with a vintage Comt?? Extra Vieux.

To put it more bluntly, nuclear power is a multi-billion dollar blocker to actually getting the much more effective and cheaper alternative solutions up and running. If you find yourself tempted to scoff at this, ask EDF's CEO Vincent de Rivaz. He recently declared at the Adam Smith Institute that if the UK meets it renewables targets, the role for nuclear power will be marginalised.

The French takeover of British Energy also raises the question of just who is going to pay the massive bill for cleaning up the toxic legacy of spent fuel once the keys to our reactors settle next to Citroen's on the key fob. Since the beginning of 2005, the UK government has been legally committed to dealing with all the spent nuclear fuel on these sites, and this commitment will continue even when the sites are sold.

So instead of that money going back to the taxpayer, at a time when we are facing economic crisis, we will be subsiding French profits and accommodating increased fuel bills.

So, les incompetents in Westminster have once again undermined efforts to deliver meaningful reductions in carbon emissions and further burdened the tax payer with a legacy that will remain much longer than the memory of a Brown government that once again got it wrong.

Today is the deadline for bids to takeover British Energy, the country's beleaguered nuclear operator. Leading the pack of foreign companies hoping to get their hands on BE's nuclear sites is the French government owned Electricité de France, or EDF as they prefer to be known on this side of the Channel.

Now, EDF is hoping to bag large tranches of UK land at nuclear sites - not for BE's financial integrity or for operational performance, but to add the UK to its nuclear catalogue. Put simply, they reckon building a new reactor on British soil will pull punters into their atomic showroom.

Flogging BE has been heralded as a sure step forward in the fight against climate change and a way of getting some much needed money back in to the Treasury coffers after the UK taxpayer bailed them out in 2002. But look a little closer and, not surprisingly, it is anything but.

The expected takeover by EDF (a notion which would have Nelson turning in his grave) will come at huge financial cost, do very little to help the UK reduce its carbon emissions and lead to continued confusion over who picks up the tab for the radioactive legacy.

Only this week, the CEO of E.oN, one of the worlds' largest power providers, said that any replacement programme of nuclear reactors, including the cost of BE, could cost up to £60 billion.

£60 billion! That's twice the amount this muddling government stated only months ago. And it would only deliver a paltry four percent reduction in emissions. When you consider the kind of return you'd get if you invested this in renewable technology and energy efficiency it's rather like comparing a radioactive Dairy Lea Triangle with a vintage Comté Extra Vieux.

To put it more bluntly, nuclear power is a multi-billion dollar blocker to actually getting the much more effective and cheaper alternative solutions up and running. If you find yourself tempted to scoff at this, ask EDF's CEO Vincent de Rivaz. He recently declared at the Adam Smith Institute that if the UK meets it renewables targets, the role for nuclear power will be marginalised.

The French takeover of British Energy also raises the question of just who is going to pay the massive bill for cleaning up the toxic legacy of spent fuel once the keys to our reactors settle next to Citroen's on the key fob. Since the beginning of 2005, the UK government has been legally committed to dealing with all the spent nuclear fuel on these sites, and this commitment will continue even when the sites are sold.

So instead of that money going back to the taxpayer, at a time when we are facing economic crisis, we will be subsiding French profits and accommodating increased fuel bills.

So, les incompetents in Westminster have once again undermined efforts to deliver meaningful reductions in carbon emissions and further burdened the tax payer with a legacy that will remain much longer than the memory of a Brown government that once again got it wrong.

Bottom trawling, possibly the most destructive fishing method yet devised by man, is to be regulated across the whole North Atlantic ocean. The process, which involves dragging nets weight down by metal girders across the seabed, is notorious for its wastefulness. Besides legitimate target species such as cod, plaice and sole, vast quantities of corals, sponges and other deep sea creatures are destroyed as bycatch. The devastation caused is so great that Greenpeace has been calling for some time for a moritorium (suspension of activity) on bottom trawling. Now it looks as though some progress may be being made.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), whose members include Canada, the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Russia and the US, yesterday announced plans to regulate the activities of its fleets in line with a 2006 United Nations resolution. The resolution calls for urgent action to protect deep-sea corals and other vulnerable ecosystems from the impacts of bottom trawling on the high seas. The UN originally set a deadline for all regional fisheries treaty organizations to fully implement its plans by December 2008.

NAFO, whose members have the largest fleet of bottom trawlers in the world, is the first to start complying. It has agreed that all high seas bottom fishing within its areas will be subject to impact assessments by the end of 2008, and that fishing areas should be closed or fisheries prohibited where damage to corals, sponges and other deep sea species cannot be prevented. NAFO has set itself an ambitious work schedule over the next several months to complete the assessments and begin identifying areas on the high seas that require protection.

If, as NAFO promise, they implement the majority of UN's recommendations it would be good news, setting a precedent for protection of deep-sea ecosystems across the whole of the North Atlantic. Crucially, it would also be an acknowledgement that our seas are not a limitless resource which can be endlessly exploited without any consequences, but one which must be carefully and sustainably managed if we want to continue to harvest their bounties.

Video: Bottom trawling

Bottom trawling, possibly the most destructive fishing method yet devised by man, is to be regulated across the whole North Atlantic ocean. The process, which involves dragging nets weight down by metal girders across the seabed, is notorious for its wastefulness. Besides legitimate target species such as cod, plaice and sole, vast quantities of corals, sponges and other deep sea creatures are destroyed as bycatch. The devastation caused is so great that Greenpeace has been calling for some time for a moritorium (suspension of activity) on bottom trawling. Now it looks as though some progress may be being made.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), whose members include Canada, the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Russia and the US, yesterday announced plans to regulate the activities of its fleets in line with a 2006 United Nations resolution. The resolution calls for urgent action to protect deep-sea corals and other vulnerable ecosystems from the impacts of bottom trawling on the high seas. The UN originally set a deadline for all regional fisheries treaty organizations to fully implement its plans by December 2008.

NAFO, whose members have the largest fleet of bottom trawlers in the world, is the first to start complying. It has agreed that all high seas bottom fishing within its areas will be subject to impact assessments by the end of 2008, and that fishing areas should be closed or fisheries prohibited where damage to corals, sponges and other deep sea species cannot be prevented. NAFO has set itself an ambitious work schedule over the next several months to complete the assessments and begin identifying areas on the high seas that require protection.

If, as NAFO promise, they implement the majority of UN's recommendations it would be good news, setting a precedent for protection of deep-sea ecosystems across the whole of the North Atlantic. Crucially, it would also be an acknowledgement that our seas are not a limitless resource which can be endlessly exploited without any consequences, but one which must be carefully and sustainably managed if we want to continue to harvest their bounties.

Video: Bottom trawling

We made it, version two. Ok so it's not exactly fortnightly (it's not at all fortnightly), so we're going for the classic monthly format. In this episode I head down to Google's headquarters in London to hear Sir David Attenborough speaking about the access to information we have about the natural world through programs like Google Earth and the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. Bex talks to Fish (if you speak Mandarin that's peng yo gan tongshi) from Our office in Bejing about their chopsticks campaign, and Jamie speaks with our chief scientist about biofuels and the threat they pose to the climate. The podcast is presented by our very own James Turner (who lies, I have never been nor will be a fan of Jason Donovan).

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 find out more about the issues in this podcast?

Greenpeace, Google Earth and global awareness ??
Reclaiming paradise chopstick sales ??
Greenpeace China ??
Problems at the pump as new biofuel law draws closer ??
Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare? ??

We made it, version two. Ok so it's not exactly fortnightly (it's not at all fortnightly), so we're going for the classic monthly format. In this episode I head down to Google's headquarters in London to hear Sir David Attenborough speaking about the access to information we have about the natural world through programs like Google Earth and the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. Bex talks to Fish (if you speak Mandarin that's peng yo gan tongshi) from Our office in Bejing about their chopsticks campaign, and Jamie speaks with our chief scientist about biofuels and the threat they pose to the climate. The podcast is presented by our very own James Turner (who lies, I have never been nor will be a fan of Jason Donovan).

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 find out more about the issues in this podcast?

Greenpeace, Google Earth and global awareness »
Reclaiming paradise chopstick sales »
Greenpeace China »
Problems at the pump as new biofuel law draws closer »
Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare? »

It???s Transport Minister Ruth Kelly's 40th birthday, and just now seven women from Sipson were at the Department for Transport to give her a birthday cake. But the message is less traditional, it's a big fat, creamy, sugary NO ??? well that's the shape of the cake anyway. They also sang happy birthday in the reception and staff got NO cupcakes.

You too can send Ruth Kelly a birthday message. She's in charge of Heathrow expansion, so send her a message asking her to join the Make a NOise carnival on May31st.

Geraldine Nicholson from Sipson was one of the women who sang Happy Birthday for Kelly. She said: "They say life begins at forty, but for our village life will end if Ruth Kelly gives the green light to a third runway. They don???t seem very interested in the fight to save our village or the wider climate change implications of a third runway."

Come on Ruth, we've got God on our side. The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is backing the carnival. He's almost given up flying and will be writing a letter of support to be read out at the event because he has other commitments at the time. But you could say he will be there in spirit.

Or perhaps, Ruth, you can be swayed by the former executive of British Airways. Bob Ayling came out against the 3rd runway this week saying it "is against Britain's economic interests".

In the Times he wrote: "This is a classic exercise in misguided central planning. What Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, and the government do not see is that the transfer passengers, for whom such a hub would be built, spend no money in Britain, at least little beyond the price of a cup of tea, and Heathrow as an interchange is already so far behind its rivals that it is out of the game."

Ayling explains that the hub-and-spoke model which assumes Heathrow can act as an interchange for passengers is contributing to the bankruptcy or almost every US airline.

But really Ruth, the most important reason to come out to the carnival on the 31st is to hear what Londoners think about your plans to expand Heathrow.

It’s Transport Minister Ruth Kelly's 40th birthday, and just now seven women from Sipson were at the Department for Transport to give her a birthday cake. But the message is less traditional, it's a big fat, creamy, sugary NO – well that's the shape of the cake anyway. They also sang happy birthday in the reception and staff got NO cupcakes.

You too can send Ruth Kelly a birthday message. She's in charge of Heathrow expansion, so send her a message asking her to join the Make a NOise carnival on May31st.

Geraldine Nicholson from Sipson was one of the women who sang Happy Birthday for Kelly. She said: "They say life begins at forty, but for our village life will end if Ruth Kelly gives the green light to a third runway. They don’t seem very interested in the fight to save our village or the wider climate change implications of a third runway."

Come on Ruth, we've got God on our side. The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is backing the carnival. He's almost given up flying and will be writing a letter of support to be read out at the event because he has other commitments at the time. But you could say he will be there in spirit.

Or perhaps, Ruth, you can be swayed by the former executive of British Airways. Bob Ayling came out against the 3rd runway this week saying it "is against Britain's economic interests".

In the Times he wrote: "This is a classic exercise in misguided central planning. What Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, and the government do not see is that the transfer passengers, for whom such a hub would be built, spend no money in Britain, at least little beyond the price of a cup of tea, and Heathrow as an interchange is already so far behind its rivals that it is out of the game."

Ayling explains that the hub-and-spoke model which assumes Heathrow can act as an interchange for passengers is contributing to the bankruptcy or almost every US airline.

But really Ruth, the most important reason to come out to the carnival on the 31st is to hear what Londoners think about your plans to expand Heathrow.

• Third runway is a flight of fallacy
  A third runway at Heathrow is against Britain’s economic interests. It is being driven by BAA, the Spanish-owned airport operator, and the misguided aspirations of British airlines. It is likely, in the long term, to prove a costly mistake.
• Wall Street Journal: Parody ad flips Unilever
  Eco-Geek on a Wall Street Journal story, which says that the Greenpeace Dove ad campaign flipped Unilever.

The parties involved in the expected takeover of British Energy have "little interest in tackling climate change or protecting British taxpayers", said environmentalists today.

Nathan Argent, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, said:

"The expected French Government bid to takeover of British Energy will come with huge financial costs, a tiny reduction in carbon emissions and continued confusion over who pays for the clean up of radioactive waste.

"Energy bosses admit that replacing the UK's existing reactors will cost about ??60 billion - twice the amount the Government estimated only months ago. Even the Government has said that this will only reduce carbon emissions by around four per cent."

Such an investment should instead be used to enable the UK to reach legally binding renewable energy targets, environmentalists say.

"And there's still an enormous question mark over dealing with spent nuclear fuel produced by the reactors that the French hope to buy. Since the beginning of 2005, the UK Government has been legally committed to dealing with all the spent nuclear fuel on these sites, and this commitment will continue even when the sites are sold. So, the British taxpayer will be financing the clean-up of French owned nuclear sites in the UK.

"It's worryingly obvious that anyone involved in this dodgy deal - and that includes the Government - has little interest in tackling climate change or protecting British taxpayers."

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

The parties involved in the expected takeover of British Energy have "little interest in tackling climate change or protecting British taxpayers", said environmentalists today.

Nathan Argent, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, said:

"The expected French Government bid to takeover of British Energy will come with huge financial costs, a tiny reduction in carbon emissions and continued confusion over who pays for the clean up of radioactive waste.

"Energy bosses admit that replacing the UK's existing reactors will cost about £60 billion - twice the amount the Government estimated only months ago. Even the Government has said that this will only reduce carbon emissions by around four per cent."

Such an investment should instead be used to enable the UK to reach legally binding renewable energy targets, environmentalists say.

"And there's still an enormous question mark over dealing with spent nuclear fuel produced by the reactors that the French hope to buy. Since the beginning of 2005, the UK Government has been legally committed to dealing with all the spent nuclear fuel on these sites, and this commitment will continue even when the sites are sold. So, the British taxpayer will be financing the clean-up of French owned nuclear sites in the UK.

"It's worryingly obvious that anyone involved in this dodgy deal - and that includes the Government - has little interest in tackling climate change or protecting British taxpayers."

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

• Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb'
  The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
• Turning over an old leaf
  Only 24 books are produced for every tree felled. But book-swapping websites could provide a solution for the eco-aware reader. Charlotte Northedge reports

Potentially good news for orang-utans - Unilever announced this morning that they're now supporting our calls for a moratorium to protect Indonesia's rainforests from destruction at the hands of the expanding palm oil industry.

When we sent in our own 'orang-utans' to Unilever HQ last week to tell them that they needed to do more to stop rainforest and peatlands being cleared to make way for palm oil plantations, company executives told us that they wouldn't be forced into a quick decision on the matter.

But today they have started to change their tune, as chief executive Patrick Cesau made a speech supporting a moratorium, and promising that all Unilever's palm oil would be sustainable by 2015. His decison followed the release of our latest report: How Unilever Palm Oil Suppliers Are Burning Up Borneo, which details how its suppliers are actively involved in rainforest destruction, pushing species like the endangered orang-utans to the brink of extinction and speeding up climate change. And, of course, all the photographs and emails you all sent to him parodying Dove's 'Campaign for real beauty' marketing campaign. Check out the latest additions at Stop Dove destroying rainforests, and keep sending in contributions - this campaign is not over yet. And if you've not already seen it, watch our Dove Onslaugh(ter) video, which has racked up 254,000 YouTube views in just over a week.

As one of the world's biggest users of palm oil in its Dove soap and Persil products, Unilever has a huge influence on how suppliers operate. It is essential that the company pushes for a moratorium, as Greenpeace UK director John Sauven pointed out this morning, "Unilever's commitment to sourcing sustainable palm oil will be meaningless unless its suppliers stop trashing Indonesia???s rainforests - this is why the moratorium is so important. Every day that Unilever keeps buying palm oil from these suppliers, orang-utans are pushed closer to extinction."

If Unilever is serious about halting rainforest destruction in Indonesia, it needs to use its position as Chair of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to encourage other member companies to follow suit. Unilever has held this infuential position for the past six years - yet during that period not a single drop of sustainable palm oil has actually been produced. This situation urgently needs to be rectified, and until they start to exert real pressure on the ground, we'll be keeping up the pressure.