What gives us more energy security? Deploying troops to secure gas pipelines, or building a renewable economy?

Since before their conference in October the Conservative party have been raising fears of energy blackouts in Britain. Greg Clark, Shadow energy minister, even claimed in his party conference speech that 'there must be immediate action to keep the lights on' - a speech which, for dramatic effect, began in a darkened room. The same language was trotted out at a debate about gas security in Westminster we helped organise, when Charles Hendry, Conservative Shadow Minister for Energy, raised the spectre of energy blackouts. He claimed that during the recent cold spell Britain had been ‘down to three days of gas storage' and had ‘reached the situation where we were at risk.'

What's going on here? Well, the thinly veiled subtext behind the Tory line goes like this: Britain is at the mercy of foreign powers - in particular the Russians - who supply us with our gas. It's a pretty strong challenge. But is it right?

At the event, the experts who actually run our energy systems were pretty dismissive of the ‘energy blackout' rhetoric. Chris Train, Network Operations Director at the National Grid, said that gas had not been in short supply during the cold spell, despite seven of the twenty coldest days on record in the UK. Where gas had cut out, it was a result of the ‘Grid balancing supply and demand - reducing supply to some industrial customers on cheaper tariffs, who get lower bills in return for less predictability. Sussex University energy expert Dr Jim Watson outlined new research showing that most challenges to energy security come from ropy domestic infrastructure (I'm paraphrasing) or limited gas storage capacity, but not from uncertainties in foreign supplies.

Undaunted, in the ensuing debate Mr Hendry stuck to his story of global gas shortages and a growing British dependency on foreign gas. But hang on. We only get about 2% of our gas from Russia and that's not going to change any time soon. In fact, assuming we meet our energy efficiency and renewables commitments, gas imports are actually set to fall, not rise. The whole ‘at the mercy of Russia' meme, however catchy, is basically wrong. Indeed BP's chief executive Tony Hayward, who ought to know about these things, has dismissed such speculation as 'unreasonable paranoia', pointing out that "there's a lot of gas in the world available from many diverse sources" and that gas is a 'sensible bridge' to a low-carbon future.

Rather than worrying about Russia, Chris Train and Dr Watson both emphasised that it was demand management and reducing overall gas demand through energy efficiency that were the affordable ways to maintain a steady supply of gas. But apparently that's exactly what Mr Hendry doesn't want to talk about. During the discussion he distanced his party from Britain's energy efficiency and renewables commitments, claiming that there are ‘very few people in the real world that think [these are] likely to happen' and emphasising that reaching renewable targets would be ‘an enormous challenge'.

Is that true? Well, the independent advisory body the Committee on Climate Change reckon meeting our renewables targets means building clean energy infrastructure at the same speed as Germany over the last ten years, or slower than Spain have managed - in other words: we can do it if we choose to. Meanwhile, big energy companies like EDF, NPower or Scottish and Southern are busy competing to build enough offshore wind to supply a quarter of Britain's electricity. I'm not sure what Mr Hendry's version of the real world is, but again it doesn't seem to agree with expert opinion.

There's an energy 'green' paper forthcoming from the Tories, and we've just had a package of front bench ‘green speeches' from the Conservative shadow cabinet. I've blogged before about the conflicted feelings Conservatives seem to have about the environment - this confusion just seems to be the latest example.

We will, of course, be seeking public assurances that Mr Hendry's trashing of renewables targets does not reflect the views of the Conservative front bench, but grumblings about the green agenda, whether from the tory grassroots or the shadow energy minister, doesn't inspire confidence - not in this office, not in the energy industry, and not in an investment community that needs strong signals that Conservative policies could deliver the scale of change needed.

Indeed, prior to the 'green' paper there are already a few red flags going up -  the recent Tory National Security Green Paper talked about tasking the Armed Forces with securing ‘fuel imports from volatile regions like the Middle East, where political instability, terrorism and piracy pose real risks'.

It would be pretty weird if the Tories were preparing to commit Britain's armed forces to "securing energy supplies abroad", but not willing to commit to achieving energy security by making our homes warmer and cheaper to run, and investing in new British jobs and British industries that will make our economy more competitive.

Perplexing. So will the Tories sort it out? We'll reserve further judgment until the policy paper.

Find more photos from the twinning on Flickr.

At the end of last year, Manchester Council approved proposals to expand Manchester airport's freight terminal, more proof that despite the rhetoric on climate change, it's still full steam ahead for the government's airport expansion programme across the country.

Yet, this Sunday there was more evidence that resistance to airport expansion is alive and well, and getting stronger by the day.

The proposed freight terminal at Manchester would demolish homes and destroy a large section of the historic Hasty Lane and acres of green belt. So Hasty Lane residents have teamed up with Sipson villagers - who are also threatened with losing their homes under the proposed third runway at Heathrow - and through a live video-link-up they were twinned!

Hasty Lane resident Peter Johnson said: "Together with Sipson residents, we are going to fight these irresponsible and unnecessary plans. Our local councilors all opposed the plans, but they were overruled. The council has let us down, but we're not going to give up that easily."

Hasty Lane residents were also adopted by environmental activists from Manchester and the surrounding area who have vowed to help residents resist the expansion plans if they are pushed through. Last year Plane Stupid launched an adopt-a-resident scheme for the villagers of Sipson.

Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport spokesperson Sian Jones said: "The residents aren't alone in this - climate justice campaigners from across Manchester and the country are backing them all the way."

You might remember that last year, Greenpeace groups around the country twinned apple trees with the Airplot Orchard, and MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates) dug in to show that airport expansion proposals must be reversed.

Determined not to let the government's policy bulldoze homes and undermine our climate change responsibilities, people across the country are standing up, joining together and making their voices heard. As John McDonnell has said (MP for the area around Heathrow) - "If politicians refuse to listen, direct action becomes inevitable."

We hope it doesn't have to get to that stage, but to be on the safe side, we've just launched a competition to help us find a design that can protect the Airplot. If you haven't done so already, find out more here.

Toru and Junichi at the 2008 press conference where they first exposed the corruption scandal

When two of our activists were detained after exposing major corruption in the Japanese whaling industry - we knew the Japanese authorities breached internationally guaranteed human rights. Now, as these two activists prepare to take the stand and have their day, or more in court, the violation of their human rights has been confirmed by a UN working group.

Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, known as the “Tokyo Two”, are due to stand trial on February 15th - charged for theft and trespass. But over the past two years it has become clear that much more is now under the legal spotlight. Corrupt government practices, censoring public information, Japan’s adherence to international law, freedom of speech and the right of individual protest together with the commercial killing of thousands of whales are all under the spotlight. And before the verdict has even been rendered, a working group of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has already ruled that, in the defendants' attempts to expose a scandal in the public interest, their human rights have been breached by the Japanese justice system. 

More from our international site »

Take Action

Support Junichi and Toru: join the whale trial pledge » 

It’s like déjà vu, but hopefully this time it will be for real.

Several months ago the UK jumped eagerly on France ’s coat-tails by announcing it’s support for a trade ban on bluefin. Amidst the ups and downs since then our friends at Defra have been noticeably unforthcoming of late. Getting any straight answer out of them on bluefin was like setting up a black pudding factory on Mount Everest. That’s why we encouraged supporters to make sure Defra did the right thing and publicly supported a trade ban.

And guess what? They just did. Hot on the stacked heels of Mr Sarkozy’s government, our own fisheries minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, issued a statement supporting a full trade ban for Atlantic bluefin at the end of last week. Notable highlights were:

“…As such, we maintain our long held position that Bluefin be given the highest protection available by listing it under CITES Appendix 1.” [that means a full international trade ban, not just restrictions on trade]

and

“…The UK will work tirelessly to secure the adoption of the Appendix I listing in Doha.”

Well, good on you Huw, and good on you, too, if you helped us by sending a message to Defra in the past few weeks. Thank you!

However, not wishing to rain on Huw’s parade, but there has since been an even more significant announcement since – by CITES themselves. Or, rather their secretariat and scientific advisory group. They have said that Atlantic bluefin qualifies for Appendix 1 (a full trade ban) and that they hope that it should be listed.

There seems now no credible doubt that the species meets the criteria, and should be subject to an international trade ban. (CITES say so, Governments say so, hey – even ICCAT say so!) … the only doubt is what will drive the politicians when it comes to the CITES meeting in Doha, where there will be all manner of horse-trading on everything from corals to polar bears.

Will they listen to the clear and impartial advice from the scientists? Will they heed public opinion? Will they listen to the growing band of famous names backing bluefin? Will they listen to the chefs eager to drop the species?

We still have to make sure that they do.

At last, France has officially announced support for an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin. This is great news. It means that 23 out of the 27 EU countries now support the species being protected by CITES (the organisation which regulates trade in endangered species). It also means there is no longer any effective block to stop the EU reaching a common position (at a previous vote, it had been blocked by the Mediterranean countries).

Two of the main fishing nations, Italy and France are supporting the trade ban, and Italy has already declared it is suspending its own fishery. That is pretty momentous. It's as if the proverbial turkeys have just voted for Christmas by a landslide.

Wind back just a year, and this might all seem unthinkable. Yet President Sarkozy stood up on a podium last July and announced France was going to protect bluefin. The position in France has not exactly been as clear as consommé in the intervening months, and the political position seems to have flip-flopped more than a floundering fish on a foredeck. This does France no favours. Whatever internal difficulties there are between ministries, whatever worries there are of backlash from the fishing industry, to the rest of us it is reprehensible that those directly responsible for the collapse of bluefin can then prevent the rest of Europe addressing the problem.

Ironically, even French chefs have decided to take matters into their own menus by dropping bluefin. Greenpeace recently conducted a poll that showed the public in France was in favour of protecting the species too. The French government is playing catch-up on public opinion.

So it is with some alarm that France’s announcement seems to be qualified with a condition to delay the trade ban. The rationale here doesn’t seem to be very clear, or in any way justifiable. It’s just putting off the inevitable and seems designed to give ICCAT, the feeble, failed management body which has presided over the collapse of Atlantic bluefin yet another last chance.

All of this is adding insult to injury. The EU has already been delayed enough in coming to a common position on this, it’s a Euroscpetic’s dream. Twenty-one out of 27 countries already voted for a trade ban back in September 2009,  Italy now support that too – which means there should be a qualified majority, even without France. So, frankly, there’s no need to even discuss a compromise and a delay that would just do even more damage to the depleted bluefin stock.

We are now only five weeks away from the CITES meeting in Doha. Now is not the time for more chin-scratching, shrugging and delay. The EU needs to do the right thing, the only credible thing, and immediately throw its full and unqualified support behind an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin.

Take action

Make a difference: pledge to boycott bluefin tuna and those who sell it »

An octopus adds its support to our Marine Reserves campaign

The chances are you’ve never heard of the Chagos Islands, let alone ever been for a visit, but over the next few days we all have an opportunity to help protect the amazing life in the seas around them.

The Chagos archipelago is a group of 55 small islands in the Indian Ocean, that makes up Britain’s Indian Ocean Territory. The UK government is currently consulting on whether to establish a Marine Reserve in the waters around the Chagos – which, if created, would be the largest Marine Reserve in the world, covering around 210,000 square miles. Crucially that area includes half of the Indian Ocean’s pristine coral reefs, the world’s largest coral atoll, as well as charismatic critters like turtles, sharks, coconut crabs and seabirds. Not to mention well over 200 species of coral, and a thousand species of fish!

Email Foreign Secretary David Miliband and let him know you support the creation of a no-take Marine Reserve in the Chagos »

However, as with so many parts of the world, the Chagos is an area with sad skeletons of a colonial past. The issue, and the impassioned involvement of long-standing Greenpeace activists over the years, have been well documented here by Rex Weyler - much better than I could hope to explain.

The bottom line is - Greenpeace acknowledges and supports the Chagossians in their struggle, and hopes that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. At the simplest level the tuna fishing that is happening in their waters can be seen as the theft of Chagossian fish, and creating a no-take Marine Reserve is a way of reclaiming and protecting those fish for the islanders. Of course the tuna fishing interests are busy lobbying against this outcome.

If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders. Protecting the waters now is putting them off limits to further exploitation, and putting them in trust for the Chagossian people. Greenpeace looks forward to the happy day when we can discuss with the returning Chagossians how to develop selective, small-scale sustainable fishing operations in their waters. But for the moment, we think setting the area off-limits and creating the world's largest Marine Reserve is a fantastic idea.

Just to put that into context, at 210,000 square miles the Chagos Marine Reserve would be around 26 times the size of Wales. It would also signal that the UK was starting to get serious about the creation of no-take Marine Reserves, given that our only previous effort to date is a miniscule reserve off the island of Lundy, not much larger in size than the proverbial postage stamp.

The government is now requesting your views on whether to protect this area as a Marine Reserve. But the window for comments is only open for a very limited time - in fact it closes next week on 12th February.

So, please take a minute to help.  Email Foreign Secretary David Miliband and call on him to create a no-take Marine Reserve to protect the colourful coral reef life around the Chagos. And please ask your friends to add their voices as well - this definitely is one of these times where a few short words from a lot of us really can make a big difference.

Take Action

Email David Miliband and let him know you support the creation of a no-take Marine Reserve in the Chagos »

Here’s a bit of hot gossip, that I am typing from Paris , where I’m with a gaggle of Greenpeace campaigners at a summit on sustainable seafood.

It seems that something is stirring in the Mediterranean . Bluefin followers will be familiar with the ‘will-they/won’t-they?’ saga that surrounds the EU countries and supporting and international ban on Atlantic bluefin.

But, just to be sure – I’ll summarise:

• Atlantic bluefin stocks have crashed and some predictions show the species becoming commercially extinct in just a few years.
• Monaco proposed that the species should be protected by an international trade ban under CITES (which also protects similarly endangered animals like gorillas and tigers).
• In July 2009, President Sarkozy announced France would support Monaco and the trade ban.
• The UK , Germany , Netherlands , Austria and Poland followed suit, declaring their support for a ban. As did the European Commission.
• Then, in September 2009, the EU Member States voted formally on whether to support the trade ban, but were blocked by the six Mediterranean nations (Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece, Cyprus and France – who it seemed had had a change of heart).
• So, the decision was postponed…

Fast forward to today, and here we are again still waiting for an agreement.

And the news is sounding rather positive. It’s been widely reported that Italy has taken a decision to support the trade ban. This is great news, and has been backed up with news today that Italy is officially seeking to suspend its own bluefin fishery.

That, in itself, should mean there is now no effective blocking minority amongst Mediterranean countries. But there are other rumours too that France may be changing its position (again) and will imminently announce its support for listing under CITES (here it is in French media).

So, prepare yourself for a shock this week. Europe might just step up to defend Atlantic bluefin after all. There’s a long way to go of course, and ultimately it will need the support of two thirds of the countries attending the CITES meeting in March. But the EU represents a bloc of 27 votes, and also represents many of the key fishing nations for the species – so the backing of the EU will be a huge step toward making a ban a reality.

If you want to help make sure that does happen – and give bluefin the protection it so desperately needs - then why not encourage the UK Fisheries Minister to make a public stance too.

Meanwhile, I’ll be keeping my ear to the ground in Paris for any seismic shifts.

Take action

Bluefin tuna are endangered and need your help »

Britain's leading architects are being invited to enter a competition to design an impenetrable fortress to be built on the land earmarked for a third runway at Heathrow.

The fortress will be constructed at the centre of the site in west London where airport operator BAA hopes to construct a £7bn runway and sixth terminal. An illustrious panel of celebrities and leading architects has been assembled to judge the entrants and select a winner. Construction will begin as soon as possible after the winning design is announced, unless the runway plans are dropped.

The plot of land where the stronghold will be built - in the village of Sipson to the north of the airport - was bought last year by Greenpeace, which then distributed ownership of it to people across the world. There are now over 60,000 beneficial owners of the runway land with more people signing up every day on the Greenpeace website, creating a legal headache for any government trying to push ahead with Heathrow expansion.

Now the one acre plot will see the construction of a fortress intended to defend the land from bulldozers and bailiffs. The structure will support owners of the land, local residents, seasoned campaigners and anybody else who wants to peacefully block the construction of a third runway. As well as leading architects, the panel of judges includes the comedian Alistair McGowan and the sculptor Rachel Whiteread CBE, who designed the official memorial to victims of the holocaust in central Vienna. Once the winning Heathrow design is chosen Greenpeace will raise the funds to build it. Previous Greenpeace appeals have raised seven-figure sums for specific projects.

The Open Ideas Architectural Competition will be launched at 11am today (Thursday) at St Pancras International champagne bar. Competition judges and leading figures from the architecture industry will join campaigners at the reception, where the competition brief will be revealed. The contest is open to architects, architectural students and architect-led mixed disciplinary teams. Given the nature of the brief, the judges are actively encouraging engineers, artists, landscape designers, sculptors and other professionals aligned with associated bodies to collaborate and submit designs. Greenpeace is also inviting the public to submit ideas via its website on how to defend the land in a ‘mass brainstorm' to come up with the best concepts.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

"This is a competition to design what could become the next frontline in the fight against climate change. Whoever wins the next election they will come under enormous pressure from the all-powerful aviation industry to push ahead with a third runway. But if the bulldozers roll they'll face a fortress occupied by a massive movement of ordinary people who oppose Heathrow expansion."

He continued:

"We can raise the funds to build it, now we need the right design. We're looking for a structure that is immovable and allows local residents and seasoned environmental campaigners to peacefully block the diggers. It might be underground, it might be overground, it might be both, that's up to the panel of experienced judges from the worlds of architecture and activism to decide. This is a battle of the architects. The other side has a budget of billions but in the end only one structure will be left, and it won't be a new runway."

One of the judges is Professor Neil Thomas, the founder of renowned structural engineering consultancy Atelier One. He said:

"This has to be one of the most fascinating design briefs ever put out to competition. Architects are being asked to design a structure that will become iconic the moment it's finished. Then, very soon after completion, it could face the possible threat of bulldozers and bailiffs trying to tear it down. We think they'll fail. British design is in a very exciting period at the moment, so it's with some relish that we judges await the entrants."

Also on the judging panel is experienced environmental activist Oli Rodker, a veteran of the 90s road protests, when campaigners built ingenious structures to block the construction of roads and bypasses across the country and eventually forced the abandonment of a multi-billion pound government road building programme.

The deadline for submissions is April 23rd, with the winning design announced soon afterwards. An exhibition of the entrants will be held in a central London gallery at the beginning of June.

Another judge is leading architect Peter Clegg, Senior Partner at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios. He said:

"As architects we know what can be achieved in terms of carbon reductions through the design and engineering of our buildings.  But we are painfully aware of the fact that there are bigger issues to do with major infrastructure projects where we also need to make a stand. Just as more and wider roads mean more cars, more runways will lead to more planes. We have to take a stand against freedom to fly anywhere, anytime and at any cost, and put an end to the absurd lifestyle changes that we are indulging in, that are increasing our carbon footprints and negating the savings we are managing to make in other areas."

Ends

For more contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255 / 07801 212967

Competition brief, autocad drawings and plans of the site can be downloaded at:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/heathrowcontest

Notes:

Design Aims

The winning design will offer -

• Ability for dozens of activists to occupy the Airplot for extended periods of time.
• Ability to withstand attempts by private security to evict activists.
• Ability to withstand attempts to seize the land using vehicles or heavy machinery.

Judging Criteria

• It must be as close to zero-carbon as possible - both in terms of its embodied energy and the energy it will use when "occupied".
• It must respect the natural environment.

• How applicants respond to site constraints, aims, basic needs, guiding design principles, requirements, constraints and considerations.
• Potential to aid resistance to eviction.
• Potential to communicate the cultural and moral significance of the campaign to stop the runway.
• Potential to inspire, galvanise support and communicate the gravity of the campaign to stop climate change.
• Potential to be a practical structure that whilst drawing upon the heritage of the site, would be truly sustainable in environmental, social and financial terms.

Ever since we bought our piece of land on the site of the proposed third runway at Heathrow, we've been receiving suggestions for what to do with it. We've already sunk our roots into it by establishing an allotment and planting an orchard, but now we want to go one step further and for that we want to get your ideas. Watch the video above for more details, and read on for the full lowdown on how to enter the competition.

We want to see how we could fortify the Airplot so that, if the police and the bulldozers come to turf us out, we'll be able to physically block the construction of a new runway. Hopefully it will never come to that, because there's no way a new government can continue to support the runway plans, but we want to be prepared.

So we're running not one but two competitions. One is for architects, landscape architects and architecture students to come up with some practical solutions for how we can defend the land, and the other is open to everyone to let their imaginations off the leash. We want to make sure we get the best ideas out there so whether it's a tower, a tunnel or a bouncy castle, get sketching.

Creativity and brilliant ideas are more important than artistic or technical brilliance so even if you're not Frank Lloyd Wright or Frank Gehry, if you have any inspiration get it down on paper.

As if helping to protect the land wasn't enough (and you'd be doing that on behalf of the 65,000+ beneficial owners), the best entries from the public competition will be showcased alongside the architectural designs at an exhibition in London later in the year. We'll bring one overall winner to the exhibition to see their design on display and one of the apple trees in the Airplot orchard will also be dedicated in their honour.

Find out how to enter (you should also check out the full rules), and get a feel for the Airplot with a 360˚ panorama.

Thinking caps on!

Join the plot
If you're not already a beneficial owner of the Airplot, sign up now and help us build a future, not a runway.

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Postcode

* Required fields

Country
Select One Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea-Bissau Guinea Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea (North) Korea (South) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka St. Helena St. Pierre and Miquelon Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Minor Outlying Islands United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (U.S.) Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

f_initializeForm();