IN an attempt to help shape the European Union鈥檚 review of chemicals policy, a number of influential European environmental and consumer lobby groups drew up a charter in October 2000. Their drive then was to persuade as many other non-governmental organisations as possible to sign what became known as the Copenhagen Charter.
Essentially, it calls for a safety assessment of all chemicals to ensure that their use is safe beyond reasonable doubt. It wants safer alternatives to be substituted for risky chemicals wherever practical, and for chemicals that accumulate in our bodies or in the environment to be phased out. Consumers, it says, should have the right to know what chemicals are in the products they buy. Moreover, it wants to stop all hazardous substances being released into the environment by 2020.
More than 70 consumer and environmental groups across Europe now back the charter. Britain鈥檚 Marine Conservation Society recently persuaded six MPs, led by Julia Drown, to raise the matter of 鈥淭he Copenhagen Charter and Safer Chemicals鈥� as an early day motion. Specifically, the proposers claimed that 鈥渢his House is concerned at the potential impact of some industrial chemicals on human health and the environment, supports the Copenhagen Charter, and urges the government to support regulations based on the charter鈥�.
Advertisement
An early day motion is, of course, merely an indication of Parliamentary opinion, and nothing more. Even so, some are more significant than others. I consider that ministers should take note and do something meaningful about the Copenhagen Charter and safer chemicals.
IAN GIBSON, chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC), recently told MPs that his committee鈥檚 seventh report on wave and tidal energy systems looked at their technological and commercial viability and the part they could play in the government鈥檚 renewable energy strategy. It also investigated how Britain compared with other nations in these developments.
In discussions that followed, Conservative MP Robert Key said he had visited the Rance estuary between Dinard and St Malo in France the previous week, and praised the barrage there which has been operating reliably for more than 20 years. Labour MP Des Turner, a member of the STC, commented on the 鈥淒uck鈥� wave-power system devised in the 1970s by Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh. Turner said that even though it operated successfully for 10 years, work on it had been terminated in 1982 on the grounds that it would never be commercially viable. He hinted that the device had been killed off by dark doings from within the energy industry. That was a mistake, he added, but it was good that the STC should hear fresh evidence on Salter鈥檚 energy system.
Other speakers included Andrew Stunell, who has published a small booklet called Energy: Clean and Green until 2050, and Brian Iddon, another STC member, who underscored the need to replace many of the old hydroelectric plants.
Energy minister Brian Wilson drew the discussions to a close, pointing out that Britain is at an exciting point in the choices it can make over energy, and added that decisions made now would affect the energy situation for many years.
Hansard鈥檚 account of this well-informed debate deserves a wide readership, especially by all in the energy industry. It is a shame that Britain鈥檚 daily newspapers give so little space to debates on STC reports.