Also by christian

You probably won't be too shocked to hear that BP
and Shell are developing even dirtier ways to profit from oil extraction.

What you might not know is that our pension money is being invested in the companies that are developing 'tar sands' - the dirtiest oil available. But that's the surprising heads-up from top ethical investment campaigners FairPensions.

A new report from Friends of the Earth and oil finance experts Platform places a clear financial analysis of the Canadian tar sands alongside testimonies of those affected by the race to extract oil from the Albertan wilderness.

I was struck by the argument it makes that the Canadian tar sands are the 'test case' for an oil industry that wants to move into extracting dirtier unconventional oil in other parts of the world. The report points out other areas of tar sands around the world which are being eyed up by the big oil companies. As the authors point out:

Canada is the international oil industry’s test site – if it becomes acceptable to finance the tar sands of Alberta, then the global finance sector will have ‘normalised’ a disastrously high-carbon development path.

... As investment in technology in Alberta brings down the price of producing synthetic crude and as oil prices fluctuate in higher ranges, companies are re-assessing the potential of operations in other countries. If extraction can be undertaken on the scale envisaged in Alberta then it opens the floodgates for unconventional oil extraction around the world.

In other words, if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the environmental destruction and soaring carbon emissions that come with the tar sands in Canada is acceptable, we're basically saying that trashing the planet is just business as usual.

Get the report, 'Cashing in on tar sands' (pdf).

We always thought that the government's economic case for the third runway at Heathrow was flawed. Particularly so given their plan to only allow use of half of the runway's capacity if environmental targets weren't met.

This time we're making arguments in court, rather than on top of a plane.

Just over a year ago, at the start of 2009, transport secretary Geoff Hoon gave the government's approval for a third runway at Heathrow airport. It would be accompanied, he said, by "the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world".

Cleaner planes, tougher regulation, green slots for takeoff and landing - the secretary of state was keen to broadcast the runway's green credentials. But it didn't make a lot of sense to me then - and it still doesn't.

Anyway, I'll get to spend a whole lot more time thinking about it this week, because tomorrow I'm off to court to report on a legal challenge to the controversial third runway decision.

Greenpeace is part of a coalition mounting a legal challenge to the government's Heathrow decision. Twelve other groups are also backing the challenge, including local councils, other NGOs, residents' groups - altogether, millions of people are represented.

In front of Lord Justice Carnwath, our lawyers will claim that the consultation the government held over the plans for Heathrow expansion was fundamentally flawed. They'll argue that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets, and they'll also contend that the government hasn't made good enough plans to ensure there's enough public transport to serve an expanded airport.

It's a trio of challenges to the way the decision was made - and if the ruling goes in our favour on any one of the three points, the government's decision to proceed with the runway will be overturned, which is obviously going to lead to a pretty major rethink in transport policy.

We'll see what happens, but it's sure to be a comprehensive thrashing-through for the issues around the third runway, and I'm lucky enough to get to sit through the whole thing, in order to report back to you all.

Wish me luck... (And look out for updates from the court, or just outside the court, through the week.)