THIRTY environmental organisations are calling for transparency regarding the true climate impact of the new Peterhead power station, as the documents in the planning application contain "holes".
Friends of the Earth Scotland, along with 29 other environmental organisations, sent a letter to the First Minister calling for a reassessment of the Peterhead power station's climate pollution, as the actual impact could be five times greater than the developers have stated.
Since February 2022, the Government has been considering an application from SSE and fossil company Equinor to build a new and additional plant next to the existing one at Peterhead in Aberdeenshire.
It is estimated that the plant could produce 1 million tonnes more carbon dioxide annually than the 250,000 tonnes stated in the official planning documents submitted to the Scottish Government.
The numbers come from research by the independent think tank Carbon Tracker.
A letter sent to First Minister John Swinney
Friends of the Earth Scotland, Oil Change International and Stop Climate Chaos Scotland are among 29 groups who have signed the open letter.
The letter is urging the Scottish Government to order the developers of Peterhead's new power station, SSE and Equinor, to carry out a new and “honest assessment” of the environmental impact the new power plant will have.
This letter comes after the Scottish Government refused to act after experts found “that the climate emissions from the project could be five times higher than SSE and Equinor have admitted in official documents” as part of their planning application.
“Ministers should be demanding the climate truth about the Peterhead gas project. Research has exposed how the official planning documents are riddled with selective carbon accounting and wildly optimistic forecasts,” said Alex Lee, Friends of the Earth Scotland climate campaigner.
“The Scottish Government’s lack of curiosity is astounding for a project that could be driving climate pollution and energy bills for the next 30 years.
"These companies are making claims about carbon capture that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny, yet Ministers are refusing to use their power to ask them to redo their climate assessment.”
Lee explained that new fossil fuels will “undermine the energy transition” and make it harder for Scotland to reach its goal towards the climate. They call on the Scottish Government to spend more time “expanding a renewable energy system that is affordable, reliable and run in the public interest”.
The plant would burn fossil fuels until 2059, 14 years after Scotland is due to reach net zero.
The letter states that “if approved, the Peterhead gas proposal would also lock Scottish households into paying energy prices”. These prices are set by international gas markets and are “prone to external shocks such as the war in Ukraine”.
Rosemary Harris, Senior Campaigner, Oil Change International, said: "The UK has thrown £500 million of public money at carbon capture schemes that have delivered absolutely nothing. This isn't an accident - it's a pattern. With 80% of carbon capture projects worldwide either failing or stalled, the fossil fuel industry's promises aren't just empty, they're expensive.
“Every pound wasted on these failed schemes is a pound stolen from real climate solutions. We don't need more costly experiments - we need proven, working solutions like renewable energy that can deliver for our communities today."
Peterhead was revealed as Scotland’s single biggest polluter from 2018 to 2020 and again in 2022.
Earlier this month, 13,000 people signed a petition to stop the new gas power construction in Peterhead.
“We are in a climate emergency and our government needs to start acting like it. At the very least that means refusing climate-wrecking proposals that are dependent on extracting and burning even more fossil fuels."
Labour MSP Monica Lennon called on the Scottish Government to ask for a reassessment to SSE and Equinor: “With carbon capture and storage set to play a significant role in Scotland’s journey, accurate data is needed on the full potential environmental implications of projects such as Peterhead, particularly around upstream pollution.
“The availability of trusted data and rigorous assessment are important to overcome concerns around carbon accounting."
