Monthly Archives: July 2015

Norway’s ‘green battery’ hydro plan for Europe





Norway is hoping to become the ‘green battery of Europe‘ by using its hydropower plants to provide instant extra electricity when demand is strongest, or when generation from wind and solar power sources in other countries fades.

Without building any new dams or power stations, Norwegian engineers believe they could use the existing network to instantly boost European supplies and avoid other countries having to switch on fossil fuel plants to make up shortfalls.

Norway has 937 hydropower plants, which provide 96% of its electricity, making it the sixth largest hydropower producer in the world – despite having a population of only 5 million.

Europe already has 400 million people in 24 countries connected to a single grid, with power surpluses from one country being exported to neighbours or imported as national needs change.

Denmark is already ‘dumping’ surplus wind power into Norwegian and German hydropower dams when its electricity is in surplus, as it was earlier this month on 9th July when wind turbines were at one point producing 140% of the country’s power demand.

“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy”, said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the European Wind Energy Association.

The problem: variable supply, variable demand

As more and more renewables are installed across the continent, the problem of balancing supply and demand gets more difficult.

Because supply from wind and sun sources fluctuates, the grid needs back-up plants to keep the power constant. At present, this means that many countries have to keep gas and coal plants on standby to make up any shortage.

However, the Hydraulic Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim believes it can engineer the country’s vast power plants so that they can themselves be a giant standby battery that can be turned on and off.

When there is surplus wind or solar power in Europe, the electricity it generates can be imported to pump water uphill to keep re-filling the Norwegian reservoirs. This is, in effect, electricity that is stored, because when energy is needed again the generators can be turned back on to produce hydropower.

The problem at the moment is that even hydropower is not instant. This is because water takes time to flow through the vast network of pipes and the turbines to reach the correct speed to provide stable power to the grid at the correct frequency of alternating current.

‘Norwegian mountain are full of tunnels. It’s like an anthill’

Norway currently has more kilometres of pipes carrying water to its hydroelectricity plants than it has miles of road, so controlling the flow is the key.

But Kaspar Vereide, a doctoral student in the department of hydraulic and environmental engineering at NTNU, has designed a model solution, with funding from the Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy.

By creating a sealed surge chamber in rock close to the turbines, engineers can feed electricity, at the right frequency, into the grid immediately. The empty chamber contains air that is compressed as the space is filled with water. So, when the valves are open, the water can instantly turn turbines at the correct speed.

Vereide says: “Norwegian mountains are full of water tunnels. It’s like an anthill.” The length of the waterway, he says, can be many kilometres, though this will require the engineers to accelerate the water to reach the turbines.

His solution involves blowing out a cavern inside the water tunnel near the turbine where the electricity is to be generated, creating a surge chamber where water at the correct velocity can reach the turbines immediately.

Fluctuations in power will force major design upgrade

He admits that his design is still at the early stages of development. The surge chambers have to be designed to avoid fluctuations in power needs, which can cause uncontrolled blowouts of air into the power plants, risking damage.

“We have to be able to control these load fluctuations that occur”, he says. “Among other things, it’s important to determine how big surge chambers need to be to function best. My task is to figure out the optimal design for the chambers.”

Vereide says that plants have traditionally been run very smoothly and quietly, with few stops and starts to create these fluctuations. But to become the green battery of Europe, the power plants would need to be started and stopped much more often – and then the problem of load fluctuations would increase significantly.

“We’ll benefit a lot from developing these new technologies, both in order to keep electrical frequency stable and to run power plants more aggressively to serve a large market”, he says.

There is just one further problem, however – upgrading Europe’s power grid to enable the necessary volumes of power to be transmitted to Norway, and back again, points out Oliver Joy:

“If we want to see this happening on a European scale, it is essential that we upgrade the continent’s ageing grid infrastructure, ensure that countries open up borders, increase interconnection and trade electricity on a single market.”

 


 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 






Norway’s ‘green battery’ hydro plan for Europe





Norway is hoping to become the ‘green battery of Europe‘ by using its hydropower plants to provide instant extra electricity when demand is strongest, or when generation from wind and solar power sources in other countries fades.

Without building any new dams or power stations, Norwegian engineers believe they could use the existing network to instantly boost European supplies and avoid other countries having to switch on fossil fuel plants to make up shortfalls.

Norway has 937 hydropower plants, which provide 96% of its electricity, making it the sixth largest hydropower producer in the world – despite having a population of only 5 million.

Europe already has 400 million people in 24 countries connected to a single grid, with power surpluses from one country being exported to neighbours or imported as national needs change.

Denmark is already ‘dumping’ surplus wind power into Norwegian and German hydropower dams when its electricity is in surplus, as it was earlier this month on 9th July when wind turbines were at one point producing 140% of the country’s power demand.

“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy”, said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the European Wind Energy Association.

The problem: variable supply, variable demand

As more and more renewables are installed across the continent, the problem of balancing supply and demand gets more difficult.

Because supply from wind and sun sources fluctuates, the grid needs back-up plants to keep the power constant. At present, this means that many countries have to keep gas and coal plants on standby to make up any shortage.

However, the Hydraulic Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim believes it can engineer the country’s vast power plants so that they can themselves be a giant standby battery that can be turned on and off.

When there is surplus wind or solar power in Europe, the electricity it generates can be imported to pump water uphill to keep re-filling the Norwegian reservoirs. This is, in effect, electricity that is stored, because when energy is needed again the generators can be turned back on to produce hydropower.

The problem at the moment is that even hydropower is not instant. This is because water takes time to flow through the vast network of pipes and the turbines to reach the correct speed to provide stable power to the grid at the correct frequency of alternating current.

‘Norwegian mountain are full of tunnels. It’s like an anthill’

Norway currently has more kilometres of pipes carrying water to its hydroelectricity plants than it has miles of road, so controlling the flow is the key.

But Kaspar Vereide, a doctoral student in the department of hydraulic and environmental engineering at NTNU, has designed a model solution, with funding from the Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy.

By creating a sealed surge chamber in rock close to the turbines, engineers can feed electricity, at the right frequency, into the grid immediately. The empty chamber contains air that is compressed as the space is filled with water. So, when the valves are open, the water can instantly turn turbines at the correct speed.

Vereide says: “Norwegian mountains are full of water tunnels. It’s like an anthill.” The length of the waterway, he says, can be many kilometres, though this will require the engineers to accelerate the water to reach the turbines.

His solution involves blowing out a cavern inside the water tunnel near the turbine where the electricity is to be generated, creating a surge chamber where water at the correct velocity can reach the turbines immediately.

Fluctuations in power will force major design upgrade

He admits that his design is still at the early stages of development. The surge chambers have to be designed to avoid fluctuations in power needs, which can cause uncontrolled blowouts of air into the power plants, risking damage.

“We have to be able to control these load fluctuations that occur”, he says. “Among other things, it’s important to determine how big surge chambers need to be to function best. My task is to figure out the optimal design for the chambers.”

Vereide says that plants have traditionally been run very smoothly and quietly, with few stops and starts to create these fluctuations. But to become the green battery of Europe, the power plants would need to be started and stopped much more often – and then the problem of load fluctuations would increase significantly.

“We’ll benefit a lot from developing these new technologies, both in order to keep electrical frequency stable and to run power plants more aggressively to serve a large market”, he says.

There is just one further problem, however – upgrading Europe’s power grid to enable the necessary volumes of power to be transmitted to Norway, and back again, points out Oliver Joy:

“If we want to see this happening on a European scale, it is essential that we upgrade the continent’s ageing grid infrastructure, ensure that countries open up borders, increase interconnection and trade electricity on a single market.”

 


 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 






Norway’s ‘green battery’ hydro plan for Europe





Norway is hoping to become the ‘green battery of Europe‘ by using its hydropower plants to provide instant extra electricity when demand is strongest, or when generation from wind and solar power sources in other countries fades.

Without building any new dams or power stations, Norwegian engineers believe they could use the existing network to instantly boost European supplies and avoid other countries having to switch on fossil fuel plants to make up shortfalls.

Norway has 937 hydropower plants, which provide 96% of its electricity, making it the sixth largest hydropower producer in the world – despite having a population of only 5 million.

Europe already has 400 million people in 24 countries connected to a single grid, with power surpluses from one country being exported to neighbours or imported as national needs change.

Denmark is already ‘dumping’ surplus wind power into Norwegian and German hydropower dams when its electricity is in surplus, as it was earlier this month on 9th July when wind turbines were at one point producing 140% of the country’s power demand.

“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy”, said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the European Wind Energy Association.

The problem: variable supply, variable demand

As more and more renewables are installed across the continent, the problem of balancing supply and demand gets more difficult.

Because supply from wind and sun sources fluctuates, the grid needs back-up plants to keep the power constant. At present, this means that many countries have to keep gas and coal plants on standby to make up any shortage.

However, the Hydraulic Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim believes it can engineer the country’s vast power plants so that they can themselves be a giant standby battery that can be turned on and off.

When there is surplus wind or solar power in Europe, the electricity it generates can be imported to pump water uphill to keep re-filling the Norwegian reservoirs. This is, in effect, electricity that is stored, because when energy is needed again the generators can be turned back on to produce hydropower.

The problem at the moment is that even hydropower is not instant. This is because water takes time to flow through the vast network of pipes and the turbines to reach the correct speed to provide stable power to the grid at the correct frequency of alternating current.

‘Norwegian mountain are full of tunnels. It’s like an anthill’

Norway currently has more kilometres of pipes carrying water to its hydroelectricity plants than it has miles of road, so controlling the flow is the key.

But Kaspar Vereide, a doctoral student in the department of hydraulic and environmental engineering at NTNU, has designed a model solution, with funding from the Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy.

By creating a sealed surge chamber in rock close to the turbines, engineers can feed electricity, at the right frequency, into the grid immediately. The empty chamber contains air that is compressed as the space is filled with water. So, when the valves are open, the water can instantly turn turbines at the correct speed.

Vereide says: “Norwegian mountains are full of water tunnels. It’s like an anthill.” The length of the waterway, he says, can be many kilometres, though this will require the engineers to accelerate the water to reach the turbines.

His solution involves blowing out a cavern inside the water tunnel near the turbine where the electricity is to be generated, creating a surge chamber where water at the correct velocity can reach the turbines immediately.

Fluctuations in power will force major design upgrade

He admits that his design is still at the early stages of development. The surge chambers have to be designed to avoid fluctuations in power needs, which can cause uncontrolled blowouts of air into the power plants, risking damage.

“We have to be able to control these load fluctuations that occur”, he says. “Among other things, it’s important to determine how big surge chambers need to be to function best. My task is to figure out the optimal design for the chambers.”

Vereide says that plants have traditionally been run very smoothly and quietly, with few stops and starts to create these fluctuations. But to become the green battery of Europe, the power plants would need to be started and stopped much more often – and then the problem of load fluctuations would increase significantly.

“We’ll benefit a lot from developing these new technologies, both in order to keep electrical frequency stable and to run power plants more aggressively to serve a large market”, he says.

There is just one further problem, however – upgrading Europe’s power grid to enable the necessary volumes of power to be transmitted to Norway, and back again, points out Oliver Joy:

“If we want to see this happening on a European scale, it is essential that we upgrade the continent’s ageing grid infrastructure, ensure that countries open up borders, increase interconnection and trade electricity on a single market.”

 


 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 






Norway’s ‘green battery’ hydro plan for Europe





Norway is hoping to become the ‘green battery of Europe‘ by using its hydropower plants to provide instant extra electricity when demand is strongest, or when generation from wind and solar power sources in other countries fades.

Without building any new dams or power stations, Norwegian engineers believe they could use the existing network to instantly boost European supplies and avoid other countries having to switch on fossil fuel plants to make up shortfalls.

Norway has 937 hydropower plants, which provide 96% of its electricity, making it the sixth largest hydropower producer in the world – despite having a population of only 5 million.

Europe already has 400 million people in 24 countries connected to a single grid, with power surpluses from one country being exported to neighbours or imported as national needs change.

Denmark is already ‘dumping’ surplus wind power into Norwegian and German hydropower dams when its electricity is in surplus, as it was earlier this month on 9th July when wind turbines were at one point producing 140% of the country’s power demand.

“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy”, said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the European Wind Energy Association.

The problem: variable supply, variable demand

As more and more renewables are installed across the continent, the problem of balancing supply and demand gets more difficult.

Because supply from wind and sun sources fluctuates, the grid needs back-up plants to keep the power constant. At present, this means that many countries have to keep gas and coal plants on standby to make up any shortage.

However, the Hydraulic Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim believes it can engineer the country’s vast power plants so that they can themselves be a giant standby battery that can be turned on and off.

When there is surplus wind or solar power in Europe, the electricity it generates can be imported to pump water uphill to keep re-filling the Norwegian reservoirs. This is, in effect, electricity that is stored, because when energy is needed again the generators can be turned back on to produce hydropower.

The problem at the moment is that even hydropower is not instant. This is because water takes time to flow through the vast network of pipes and the turbines to reach the correct speed to provide stable power to the grid at the correct frequency of alternating current.

‘Norwegian mountain are full of tunnels. It’s like an anthill’

Norway currently has more kilometres of pipes carrying water to its hydroelectricity plants than it has miles of road, so controlling the flow is the key.

But Kaspar Vereide, a doctoral student in the department of hydraulic and environmental engineering at NTNU, has designed a model solution, with funding from the Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy.

By creating a sealed surge chamber in rock close to the turbines, engineers can feed electricity, at the right frequency, into the grid immediately. The empty chamber contains air that is compressed as the space is filled with water. So, when the valves are open, the water can instantly turn turbines at the correct speed.

Vereide says: “Norwegian mountains are full of water tunnels. It’s like an anthill.” The length of the waterway, he says, can be many kilometres, though this will require the engineers to accelerate the water to reach the turbines.

His solution involves blowing out a cavern inside the water tunnel near the turbine where the electricity is to be generated, creating a surge chamber where water at the correct velocity can reach the turbines immediately.

Fluctuations in power will force major design upgrade

He admits that his design is still at the early stages of development. The surge chambers have to be designed to avoid fluctuations in power needs, which can cause uncontrolled blowouts of air into the power plants, risking damage.

“We have to be able to control these load fluctuations that occur”, he says. “Among other things, it’s important to determine how big surge chambers need to be to function best. My task is to figure out the optimal design for the chambers.”

Vereide says that plants have traditionally been run very smoothly and quietly, with few stops and starts to create these fluctuations. But to become the green battery of Europe, the power plants would need to be started and stopped much more often – and then the problem of load fluctuations would increase significantly.

“We’ll benefit a lot from developing these new technologies, both in order to keep electrical frequency stable and to run power plants more aggressively to serve a large market”, he says.

There is just one further problem, however – upgrading Europe’s power grid to enable the necessary volumes of power to be transmitted to Norway, and back again, points out Oliver Joy:

“If we want to see this happening on a European scale, it is essential that we upgrade the continent’s ageing grid infrastructure, ensure that countries open up borders, increase interconnection and trade electricity on a single market.”

 


 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 






Defending life! Jairo Restrepo, organic revolutionary





A passionate educator and activist in sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty, Jairo Restrepo campaigns for a return of self determination, knowledge and autonomy to the farmer away from the power of agribusiness.

His background is in Latin America including Cuba, where his philosophy has been hugely influential in helping to build that country’s agroecological movement:

“When we started promoting the proposal of organic agriculture in Cuba, in 10 years we were linked with 87,500 promoters of organic agriculture“, he told me.

“From 1997 up to 2007 where a 10 year programme was concluded and an assessment was performed in Havana, we recognised that this movement grew due to the interest of many farmers, so we did have a huge impact.

“I participated in the founding of the movement in Cuba and made several consecutive volunteer trips from place to place throughout the country. One of my trips lasted 78 days, and we were in contact with 3,000 Cuban technicians – this practically became policy.

“Ideas are shared through farmer to farmer learning. But organic agriculture is not a small farmer unit. It is not even a broader political proposal; it is broader than that. Organic agriculture goes from being an instrument of technological transformation to an instrument for transforming society.”

Society’s enslavement by technology and capital must end

And that idea of organic farming as a means of societal change driven by clean, green, ‘open-source’ technologies is key to his mission, which is ultimately one of human liberation: “Society does not have to be detached from technology. Technology is an expression of society and this is what we want.

“We don’t want to change technology; we want to transform society, thereby changing the technological proposal. Today the opposite occurs, the dominant type of technology proposes a society subjugated to industry, and we want the opposite.

And here I use one sentence quite a lot … ‘my dream is to construct a being, an ideal state of a being, so that I shall not be the ideal being of the State.’ I want to fight for this ideal state of being so that I won’t be the ideal of the State; that is not to be slavish.”

Economic transformation too is another part of the equation, he explains: “Industrial agriculture is no longer able to respond to the crisis of societal change. On the contrary it is causing the crisis, because agriculture and the food system wants to enslave society, concentrating economic revenues.

“This hungry proposal of accumulating capital by all means causes a crisis, and farmers see that this is not a technological issue but an economic crisis that in turn is a political crisis. Capital is its own gravedigger in this respect.”

Unlikely beginnings – as a chemist working on agrochemicals

As an advocate for agroecology and regenerative farming, Jairo combines his passionate advocacy of the rights of farmers with his promotion of practical technologies and preparations to increase soil fertility and transform cropping, offering tools and inspiration for farmers, smallholders and activists.

So it’s surprising that he began he career as a chemist working on agrochemicals at the Federal University of Rio Grande de Sul in Brazil, where he was employed for many years. “I was researching how to eradicate the smell of rotten eggs from a phosphoric poison called Malatol used in corn and wheat storage”, he recalls.

“However, in 1979 I happened to hear a talk given by a professor working in the poison residues lab on the Ministry of Agriculture. His name was Sebastián Pinheiro and in 45 minutes he was able to describe how agricultural poisons were used not only in the environment, but also how the industry was born out of the second world war, and that it was now bribing the entire structure of the Brazilian Dictatorship.

“This was a turning point for me. I became very self critical and aligned myself with Pinheiro. Working with him, I trained in chemical residue analysis, and then I started speaking out to defend and protect life.”

The three big challenges facing the organic movement

So what obstacles are facing him in disseminating his message further? “In South America there are three obstacles”, says Jairo. “The first is the State. It has little societal commitment and no desire to change. Industry is where the power lies, and politicians are temporarily there as its representatives.

“The second obstacle is the monolithic approach of Universities. The term University is derived from ‘universities’, the universal set of knowledge possible to dream up, construct, and propose a thesis.

“Today Universities don’t propose theses, they propose ‘research’ but already know the results. This is adjusted research. Industry does not need universities for knowledge, as they conduct more research themselves, what they need is legitimacy. People have an idea that university is ‘free, public and serves the people’. That’s a lie, the university doesn’t represent the citizenry.

“What’s more, if universities were to close farmers wouldn’t even notice, the social impact of universities is negligible as compared to farmers. People think that Universities are prestigious; this is still the image that is maintained, like a veil. The truth is that the University is a brothel, where knowledge and technology are prostituted.”

The third obstacle, says Jairo, is rural outreach – the system for disseminating information to farmers, widely co-opted by commercial organisations to promote their private interests:

“It has been created on a lie. It assumes farmers as a technological consumer unit rather than as a cultural entity. The agricultural supply industry can sell products through operatives that need very little training – you don’t need to be an agronomist, to be a mugger you don’t need to go to college.

“Organic agriculture is about rural communication, where discussion and dialogue is held, where the farmer is recognized as having something to give, as they know the territory. The farmer provides the context and the background, and then others coming in can see the potential or possibilities. This is the basis for developing organic agriculture where both parties can grow together.”

The roots of life are in the soil

One way that Jairo seeks to influence the world is in his role as consultant to the UN. UNESCO and the International Labour Organisation – not that he is too impressed with the UN’s designation of 2015 as the ‘Year of the Soil’:

“They have a year for everything. Saying it’s the year of the Soil is like saying its International Life Year! Every single day humanity is related to soil. Our stomach does not exist without being tied to the soil – without soil there is no life, so why have one year that is for soil? Its madness.”

But still, there is the potential for good things to result – especially with the COP21 climate conference taking place in Paris this December: it’s essential to remove carbon from the atmosphere, where it causes global warming, to the soil, where it retains moisture and nutrients, and provides the basis for productive, resilient farming:

“It’s very simple. The more we can build life in the soil, the less carbon will be in the atmosphere. So for example the herbicide industry should pay for carbon emissions, not only for the embodied oil within the product itself, but for killing life.

“Fungicides greatly modify the climate, why? Because they are selective and modify the food networks connecting microbiology and decomposition. When decomposition of organic matter is paralysed and modified this releases more carbon. On the other hand the proposal of organic agriculture is to increase soil life and to trap carbon within productive systems.”

Hope springs eternal

And despite the many setbacks suffered by across Latin America with the advance of industrial farming across enormous areas of Brazil and Argentina, Jairo remains optimistic, buoyed by campaign successes and a growing spirit of rebellion against corrupt politicians and the dominance of agribusiness.

“Many things in Latin America happened due to the crisis or terror and rising social tension”, says Jairo. “So there is resistance and re-existence. When I speak of re-existence I speak of people who have always found a way without industrial agriculture. Some farmers have access to industrial technology, other have not.

“But the changes are huge. 75% of farmers in Latin America are now using organic fertilizer in one way or another and they produce 67% of food in Latin America, mostly in the small farmer sector.”

An agronomist with a rebellious character, Jairo has developed a passionate belief in people power, in local rural culture, food sovereignty, and a powerful desire to transmit the indigenous knowledge and experience gathered from over 20 years work across all continents. And he’s as clear as ever about the work he has to do:

“My mission now is to defend life. This is my purpose, my instinct, but also to protect the conditions that encourage perpetual and healthy life.”

 


 

Meeting: After a few weeks teaching at Ragmans organic farm in Gloucestershire’s Forest of Dean, Jairo will be speaking at the Gaia Foundation in London tomorrow evening, Tuesday 28th July. Book here.

JuanFran Lopez is Acting Senior Farm Worker at Ragmans Farm, while also  studying for a Diploma in Applied Permaculture. He is passionate about working  with different regenerative techniques and tools to create low cost sustainable solutions. He has studied with Patrick Whitefield, Chris Evans and Jairo Restrepo and is bringing Organic Agriculture and biofertilisers to Ragmans. JuanFran trained as an Agronomist in Spain before  travelling to learn different approaches to land management.

Jairo Restrepo Rivera has published 40 scientific papers and 14 books on organic agriculture. He has participated in more than 500 conferences on the subject of organic agriculture and worked with 37 universities. He has worked as a consultant for governments and parliaments and is the founder of various NGO’s, foundations, programs, and international initiatives. He has taught over 400 courses in 52 countries, is a consultant to the UN, UNESCO and Panama and FAO in Chile and Brazil.

This article is an edited version of one first pubished by Ragmans Farm.

 






All go for cycling and walking – but where’s the money?





The aftermath of the general election is well and truly over now. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has presented the first ‘true blue’ Budget to Parliament in almost two decades and followed that up with a productivity plan called Fixing the Foundations.

Transport is prominent in both documents, with radical changes to funding made, but neither even mentions cycling or walking.

Osborne’s first Budget in 2010, as part of the coalition Government with the Lib Dems, gave real cause for optimism for those trying to protect the countryside through better transport.

The first three priorities of that Budget were to deal with the deficit; deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge of ‘the greenest government ever’; and make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Government’s final Budget in 2015 had drifted a long way from the final two of these priorities. Support for the oil and gas industry, support for energy intensive industry, and cancelling the planned fuel duty rise were some of its main themes.

One bright spot: the ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy’

One of the last acts of the Parliament was the Infrastructure Act 2015, which paved the way for fracking and a return to major road-building.

But there was one ray of hope for those crying out for smarter forms of travel. Multiple NGOs from transport, environmental and health backgrounds joined together behind a CPRE idea to amend the Infrastructure Act and create the first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

The amendment would ensure that the Government set out long-term cycling targets and guaranteed consistent funding over five year periods.

The idea was initially refused, but after thousands of people wrote to their MPs to demand it, the amendment was agreed. The Investment Strategy will now come into force this Friday 31st July, and the previous coalition Government deserves credit for that.

There’s just one problem – where’s the money coming from to make anything actually happen?

Lofty aims but no real commitments

In their 2015 election manifesto, the Conservatives stated: “We want to double the number of journeys made by bicycle and will invest over £200 million to make cycling safer, so we reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed or injured on our roads every year.”

But there’s a catch. They had already committed £175 million to Highways England in their first Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for cycling, safety and integration for the next five years. If the £200 million is simply the RIS fund plus another £25 million, then almost 90% of the cycle funding for this Parliament is about to be spent on cycling related to the motorway and major roads network.

The Prime Minister later went on to declare 2025 as the year by which the Conservatives aim to double cycling levels, along with an aim to raise cycling funding to £10 per head. He also made some bold claims over  funding levels:

“When we came to office in 2010, spending on cycling was £2 per person – it’s now at £6 per person”, Mr Cameron wrote in his letter to Cycling England on 23rd April 2015. However the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group places this figure at just £2 per head outside London, where transport is devolved.

He continued: “We have made clear our aim to increase spending further to £10 per person each year. The money we’re investing in our eight cycle cities and TfL funding in London is already in excess of £10 per person per year, which is a great start.”

However this is not actual money on the table. He warned that “this is only possible if we continue working through our long-term economic plan – cutting the deficit while also making the investment needed.” While it’s billions of pounds of hard cash for road building, cycling has to get by on vague promises.

So beyond one aim and one £200 million pledge for safety, the manifesto made no further mention of cycling or walking. This is a trend that has unfortunately continued into this Parliament. So the way it looks is, we have strategy, but little to no money to put it into effect.

Productivity own goal

The one word that you will consistently hear around Government these days is ‘productivity’. In fact, the Chancellor’s productivity plan calls it the “challenge of our time”.

So it’s remarkable that such productive forms of transport as cycling and walking receive no mention in either the Budget or the accompanying productivity plan. Instead, the overwhelming transport focus is on making the road network even bigger.

As productivity is explicitly linked to efficiency it is strange that the Government would focus its productivity efforts on such inefficient means as private road transport. It’s been consistently shown that trying to build your way out of congestion is akin to using petrol to put out a fire.

When you make roads bigger the result is more traffic, most of which is travelling very short distances. How even more traffic will contribute to productivity is still not clear.

How cycling and walking can contribute to productivity is very clear. Invest in walking and cycling infrastructure you get more cycling and walking. And unlike with road infrastructure, that doesn’t lead to more air pollution, congestion and lost working days.

It leads to a healthier population, which research has shown to take half the sick days of non-cycling counterparts. With health also linked to performance, the potential productivity gains from a significant shift to cycling and walking could be significant. Reducing absenteeism alone could amount to £13.7 billion to the UK economy.

The economic returns from cycling and walking are so good that the Department for Transport has found that cycling and walking schemes frequently offer “high to very high” Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs).

These are usually in the impressive region of 5 to 1 – meaning that every pound spent produces public benefits of £5. The best performing cycling example, the Linking Communities Fund, had a BCR of 10 to 1, while the best walking example from Living Streets came in with a BCR of 37 to 1.

A blast from the past

The other novel transport element from the Budget and productivity plan was the relinking of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED – more commonly referred to as ‘road tax’) with funding for roads.

To be specific, VED collected from applicable vehicles registered from 2017 onwards will go into a Roads Fund. This will all be spent on the Strategic Road Network – i.e., the 2% of the road network that consists of motorways and major A roads. ‘Road tax’ hasn’t been ring-fenced for roads spending since 1937.

So the plan now is to use taxes collected from ownership of a polluting vehicle (zero carbon vehicles are exempt) to build roads to make way for even more polluting vehicles.

But still there seems to be no plan for how cycling funding is going to reach the Conservative aim of £10 per head.

It wasn’t so long ago that George Osborne and David Cameron liked to be photographed cycling around the streets together. Now the Prime Minister says he finds it difficult to find the time to get on two wheels.

That’s okay so long as he and his Chancellor are finding the time to properly fund England’s first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

We need a minimum spend of £10 per head on cycling over the next five years. Achieving that could well be the most productive thing the Prime Minister and Chancellor do in this Parliament.

 


 

Matthew Ford is transport campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

 






All go for cycling and walking – but where’s the money?





The aftermath of the general election is well and truly over now. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has presented the first ‘true blue’ Budget to Parliament in almost two decades and followed that up with a productivity plan called Fixing the Foundations.

Transport is prominent in both documents, with radical changes to funding made, but neither even mentions cycling or walking.

Osborne’s first Budget in 2010, as part of the coalition Government with the Lib Dems, gave real cause for optimism for those trying to protect the countryside through better transport.

The first three priorities of that Budget were to deal with the deficit; deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge of ‘the greenest government ever’; and make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Government’s final Budget in 2015 had drifted a long way from the final two of these priorities. Support for the oil and gas industry, support for energy intensive industry, and cancelling the planned fuel duty rise were some of its main themes.

One bright spot: the ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy’

One of the last acts of the Parliament was the Infrastructure Act 2015, which paved the way for fracking and a return to major road-building.

But there was one ray of hope for those crying out for smarter forms of travel. Multiple NGOs from transport, environmental and health backgrounds joined together behind a CPRE idea to amend the Infrastructure Act and create the first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

The amendment would ensure that the Government set out long-term cycling targets and guaranteed consistent funding over five year periods.

The idea was initially refused, but after thousands of people wrote to their MPs to demand it, the amendment was agreed. The Investment Strategy will now come into force this Friday 31st July, and the previous coalition Government deserves credit for that.

There’s just one problem – where’s the money coming from to make anything actually happen?

Lofty aims but no real commitments

In their 2015 election manifesto, the Conservatives stated: “We want to double the number of journeys made by bicycle and will invest over £200 million to make cycling safer, so we reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed or injured on our roads every year.”

But there’s a catch. They had already committed £175 million to Highways England in their first Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for cycling, safety and integration for the next five years. If the £200 million is simply the RIS fund plus another £25 million, then almost 90% of the cycle funding for this Parliament is about to be spent on cycling related to the motorway and major roads network.

The Prime Minister later went on to declare 2025 as the year by which the Conservatives aim to double cycling levels, along with an aim to raise cycling funding to £10 per head. He also made some bold claims over  funding levels:

“When we came to office in 2010, spending on cycling was £2 per person – it’s now at £6 per person”, Mr Cameron wrote in his letter to Cycling England on 23rd April 2015. However the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group places this figure at just £2 per head outside London, where transport is devolved.

He continued: “We have made clear our aim to increase spending further to £10 per person each year. The money we’re investing in our eight cycle cities and TfL funding in London is already in excess of £10 per person per year, which is a great start.”

However this is not actual money on the table. He warned that “this is only possible if we continue working through our long-term economic plan – cutting the deficit while also making the investment needed.” While it’s billions of pounds of hard cash for road building and HS2, cycling has to get by on vague promises.

So beyond one aim and one £200 million pledge for safety, the manifesto made no further mention of cycling or walking. This is a trend that has unfortunately continued into this Parliament. So the way it looks is, we have strategy, but little to no money to put it into effect.

Productivity own goal

The one word that you will consistently hear around Government these days is ‘productivity’. In fact, the Chancellor’s productivity plan calls it the “challenge of our time”.

So it’s remarkable that such productive forms of transport as cycling and walking receive no mention in either the Budget or the accompanying productivity plan. Instead, the overwhelming transport focus is on making the road network even bigger.

As productivity is explicitly linked to efficiency it is strange that the Government would focus its productivity efforts on such inefficient means as private road transport. It’s been consistently shown that trying to build your way out of congestion is akin to using petrol to put out a fire.

When you make roads bigger the result is more traffic, most of which is travelling very short distances. How even more traffic will contribute to productivity is still not clear.

How cycling and walking can contribute to productivity is very clear. Invest in walking and cycling infrastructure you get more cycling and walking. And unlike with road infrastructure, that doesn’t lead to more air pollution, congestion and lost working days.

It leads to a healthier population, which research has shown to take half the sick days of non-cycling counterparts. With health also linked to performance, the potential productivity gains from a significant shift to cycling and walking could be significant. Reducing absenteeism alone could amount to £13.7 billion to the UK economy.

The economic returns from cycling and walking are so good that the Department for Transport has found that cycling and walking schemes frequently offer “high to very high” Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs).

These are usually in the impressive region of 5 to 1 – meaning that every pound spent produces public benefits of £5 – more than twice as much as estimates for the HS2 high speed rail project.

But the best performing cycling example, the Linking Communities Fund, had a BCR of 10 to 1, while the best walking example from Living Streets came in with a BCR of 37 to 1.

A blast from the past

The other novel transport element from the Budget and productivity plan was the relinking of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED – more commonly referred to as ‘road tax’) with funding for roads.

To be specific, VED collected from applicable vehicles registered from 2017 onwards will go into a Roads Fund. This will all be spent on the Strategic Road Network – i.e., the 2% of the road network that consists of motorways and major A roads. ‘Road tax’ hasn’t been ring-fenced for roads spending since 1937.

So the plan now is to use taxes collected from ownership of a polluting vehicle (zero carbon vehicles are exempt) to build roads to make way for even more polluting vehicles.

But still there seems to be no plan for how cycling funding is going to reach the Conservative aim of £10 per head.

It wasn’t so long ago that George Osborne and David Cameron liked to be photographed cycling around the streets together. Now the Prime Minister says he finds it difficult to find the time to get on two wheels.

That’s okay so long as he and his Chancellor are finding the time to properly fund England’s first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

We need a minimum spend of £10 per head on cycling over the next five years. Achieving that could well be the most productive thing the Prime Minister and Chancellor do in this Parliament.

 


 

Matthew Ford is transport campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

 






Neoliberal Ebola: palm oil, logging, land grabs, ecological havoc and disease





The notion of a neoliberal Ebola is so beyond the pale as to send leading lights in ecology and health into apoplectic fits.

Here’s one of bestseller David Quammen’s five tweets denouncing my hypothesis that neoliberalism drove the emergence of Ebola in West Africa.

Apparently I’m an “addled guy” whose “loopy post” and “confused nonsense” Quammen hopes “doesn’t mislead credulous people”.

Scientific American‘s Steve Mirksy joked that he feared “the supply-side salmonella”. He would walk that back when I pointed out the large literature documenting the ways and means by which the economics of the egg sector is driving salmonella’s evolution.

The facts of the Ebola outbreak similarly turn Quammen’s objection on its head.

The virus appears to have been spilling over for years in West Africa. Epidemiologist Joseph Fair’s group found antibodies to multiple species of Ebola, including the very Zaire strain that set off the outbreak, in patients in Sierra Leone as far back as five years ago.

Phylogenetic analyses meanwhile show the Zaire strain Bayesian-dated in West Africa as far back as a decade. An NIAID team showed the outbreak strain as possessing no molecular anomaly, with nucleotide substitution rates typical of Ebola outbreaks across Africa.

That result begs an explanation for Ebola’s ecotypic shift from intermittent forest killer to a protopandemic infection infecting 27,000 and killing over 11,000 across the region, leaving bodies in the streets of capital cities Monrovia and Conakry.

Ebola, logging, land grabs and investment

The answer, little explored in the scientific literature or the media, appears in the broader context in which Ebola emerged in West Africa. (With the notable exception of Richard Kock’s analysis.)

The truth of the whole, in this case connecting disease dynamics, land use and global economics, routinely suffers at the expense of the principle of expediency. Such contextualization often represents a threat to many of the underlying premises of power.

In the face of such an objection, it was noted that the structural adjustment to which West Africa has been subjected the past decade included the kinds of divestment from public health infrastructure that permitted Ebola to incubate at the population level once it spilled over.

The effects, however, extend even farther back in the causal chain. The shifts in land use in the Guinea Forest Region from where the Ebola epidemic spread were also connected to neoliberal efforts at opening the forest to global circuits of capital.

Daniel Bausch and Lara Schwarz characterize the Forest Region, where the virus emerged, as a mosaic of small and isolated populations of a variety of ethnic groups that hold little political power and receive little social investment. The forest’s economy and ecology are also strained by thousands of refugees from civil wars in neighboring countries.

The Region is subjected to the tandem trajectories of accelerating deterioration in public infrastructure and concerted efforts at private development dispossessing smallholdings and traditional foraging grounds for mining, clear-cut logging, and increasingly intensified agriculture.

The world’s biggest agricultural frontier

The Ebola hot zone as a whole comprises a part of the larger Guinea Savannah Zone the World Bank describes as “one of the largest underused agricultural land reserves in the world.” Africa hosts 60% of the world’s last farmland frontier. And the Bank sees the Savannah best developed by market commercialization, if not solely on the agribusiness model.

As the Land Matrix Observatory documents, such prospects are in the process of being actualized. There, one can see the 90 deals by which US-backed multinationals have procured hundreds of thousands of hectares for export crops, biofuels and mining around the world, including multiple deals in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Observatory’s online database shows similar land deals pursued by other world powers, including the UK, France, and China.

Under the newly democratized Guinean government, the Nevada-based and British-backed Farm Land of Guinea Limitedsecured 99-year leases for two parcels totaling nearly 9,000 hectares outside the villages of N’Dema and Konindou in Dabola Prefecture, where a secondary Ebola epicenter developed, and 98,000 hectares outside the village of Saraya in Kouroussa Prefecture.

The Ministry of Agriculture has now tasked Farm Land Inc to survey and map an additional 1.5 million hectares for third-party development.

While these as of yet undeveloped acquisitions are not directly tied to Ebola, they are markers of a complex, policy-driven phase change in agroecology that our group hypothesizes undergirds Ebola’s emergence.

The global growth of palm oil

Our thesis orbits around palm oil, in particular. Palm is a vegetable oil of highly saturated fats derived from the red mesocarp of the African oil palm tree now grown around the world. The fruit’s kernel also produces its own oil.

Refined and fractionated into a variety of byproducts, both oils are used in an array of food, cosmetic and cleaning products, as well as in some biodiesels. With the abandonment of partially hydrogenated oils rich in industrial trans fats, palm oil represents a growing market, with global exports totaling nearly 44 million metric tons in the 2014 growing season.

Oil palm plantations, covering more than 17 million hectares worldwide, are tied to deforestation and expropriation of lands from indigenous groups around the world.

We see from this Food and Agriculture Organization map that while most of the production can be found in Asia, particularly in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, most of the suitable land left for palm oil can be found in the Amazon and the Congo Basin, the two largest rainforests in the world.

Palm oil represents a classic case of Lauderdale’s paradox. As environmental resources are destroyed what’s left becomes more valuable. A decaying resource base, then, is no due cause for agribusiness turning into good global citizens, as industry-funded advocates have argued. On the contrary, agribusiness seeks exclusive access to our now fiscally appreciating, if ecologically declining, landscapes.

Palm oil – from local subsistence to industrial plantations

Food production didn’t start that way in West Africa, of course. Natural and semi-wild groves of different oil palm types have long served as a source of red palm oil in the Guinea Forest Region. Forest farmers have been raising palm oil in one or another form for hundreds of years.

Fallow periods allowing soils to recover, however, were reduced over the 20th century from 20 years in the 1930s to 10 by the 1970s, and still further by the 2000s, with the added effect of increasing grove density. Concomitantly, semi-wild production has been increasingly replaced with intensive hybrids, and red oil replaced by, or mixed with, industrial and kernel oils.

Other crops are grown too, of course. Regional shade agriculture includes coffee, cocoa and kola. Slash-and-burn rice, maize, hibiscus, and corms of the first year, followed by peanut and cassava of the second and a fallow period, are rotated through the agroforest. Lowland flooding supports rice.

In essence, we see a move toward increased intensification without private capital but still classifiable as agroforestry. But even this kind of farming has since been transformed.

The Guinean Oil Palm and Rubber Company (with the French acronym SOGUIPAH) began in 1987 as a parastatal cooperative in the Forest but since has grown to the point it is better characterized a state company. It is leading efforts that began in 2006 to develop plantations of intensive hybrid palm for commodity export.

SOGUIPAH economized palm production for the market by forcibly expropriating farmland, which to this day continues to set off violent protest. International aid has only accelerated this process of industrialization. SOGUIPAH’s new mill, with four times the capacity of one it previously used, was financed by the European Investment Bank.

The mill’s capacity ended the artisanal extraction that as late as 2010 provided local populations full employment. The subsequent increase in seasonal production has at one and the same time led to harvesting above the mill’s capacity and operation below capacity off-season.

This has led to a conflict between the company and some of its 2,000 now partially proletarianized pickers, some of whom insist on processing a portion of their own yield to cover the resulting gaps in cash flow. Pickers who insist on processing their own oil during the rainy season now risk arrest.

The new economic geography has also initiated a classic case of land expropriation and enclosure, turning a tradition of shared forest commons toward expectations whereby informal pickers working fallow land outside their family lineage obtain an owner’s permission before picking palm.

Palm oil and fruit bats

What does all this have to do with Ebola?

Figure 1 (top left) shows an archipelago of oil palm plots in the Guéckédou area, the outbreak’s apparent ground zero. The characteristic landscape is a mosaic of villages surrounded by dense vegetation and interspersed by crop fields of oil palm (in red) and patches of open forest and regenerated young forest.

The general pattern can be discerned at a finer scale as well, above, west of the town of Meliandou, where the index cases appeared. The landscape embodies a growing interface between humans and frugivore bats, a key Ebola reservoir, including hammer-headed bats, little collared fruit bats and Franquet’s epauletted fruit bats.

Nur Juliani Shafie and colleagues document a variety of disturbance-associated fruit bats attracted to oil palm plantations. Bats migrate to oil palm for food and shelter from the heat while the plantations’ wide trails also permit easy movement between roosting and foraging sites.

Bats aren’t stupid. As the forest disappears they shift their foraging behavior to what food and shelter are left.

Bush meat hunting and butchery are one means by which subsequent spillover may take place. But to move away from the kinds of Western ooga booga epidemiology that wraps outbreaks in such ‘dirty’ cultural cloth, agricultural cultivation may be enough. Fruit bats in Bangladesh transmitted Nipah virus to human hosts by urinating on the date fruit humans cultivated.

Almudena Marí Saéz and colleagues have since proposed the initial Ebola spillover occurred outside Meliandou when children, including the putative index case, caught and played with Angolan free-tailed bats in a local tree. The bats are an insectivore species also previously documented as an Ebola virus carrier.

Whatever the specific reservoir source, shifts in agroeconomic context still appear a primary cause. Previous studies show the free-tailed bats also attracted to expanding cash crop production in West Africa, including of sugar cane, cotton, and macadamia.

Indeed, every Ebola outbreak appears connected to capital-driven shifts in land use, including back to the first outbreak in Nzara, Sudan in 1976, where a British-financed factory spun and wove local cotton.

When Sudan’s civil war ended in 1972, the area rapidly repopulated and much of the local rainforest – and bat ecology – was reclaimed for subsistence farming, with cotton returning as the area’s dominant cash crop.

Are New York, London and Hong Kong as much to blame?

Clearly such outbreaks aren’t merely about specific companies.

We have started working with University of Washington’s Luke Bergmann to test whether the world’s circuits of capital as they relate to husbandry and land use are related to disease emergence. Bergmann and Holmberg’s maps, still in preparation, show the percent of land whose harvests are consumed abroad as agricultural goods or in manufactured goods and services for croplands, pastureland and forests.

The maps show landscapes are globalized by circuits of capital. In this way, the source of a disease may be more than merely the country in which it may first appear and indeed may extend as far as the other side of the world. We need to identify who funded the development and deforestation to begin with.

Such an epidemiology begs whether we might more accurately characterize such places as New York, London and Hong Kong, key sources of capital, as disease ‘hot spots’ in their own right. Diseases are relational in their geographies, and not solely absolute, as the ecohealth cowboys chronicled by David Quammen claim.

Similarly, such a new approach ruins the neat dichotomy between emergency responses and structural interventions.

Some disease hounds who acknowledge global structural issues tend to still focus on the immediate logistics of any given outbreak. Emergency responses are needed, of course. But we need to acknowledge that the emergency arose from the structural. Indeed, such emergencies are used as a means by which to avoid talking about the bigger picture driving the emergence of new diseases.

The forest may be its own cure

There’s another false dichotomy to unpack – this one between the forest’s ecosystemic noise and deterministic effect. The environmental stochasticity at the center of forest ecology isn’t synonymous with random noise.

Here a bit of math can help. A simple stochastic differential model of exponential pathogen population growth can include fractional white noise of an index 0 to 1 defined by a covariance relationship across time and space. An Ito expansion produces a classic result in population growth:

When below a threshold, the noise exponent is small enough to permit a pathogen population to explode in size. When above the threshold, the noise is large enough to control an outbreak, frustrating efforts on the part of the pathogen to string together a bunch of susceptibles to infect.

Never mind the technical details. The important point is that disease trajectories, even in the deepest forest, aren’t divorced from their anthropogenic context. That context can impact upon the forest’s environmental noise and its effects on disease.

How exactly in Ebola’s case?

It’s been long known that if you can lower an outbreak below an infection Allee threshold – say by a vaccine or sanitary practices – an outbreak, not finding enough susceptibles, can burn out on its own.

But commoditizing the forest may have lowered the region’s ecosystemic threshold to such a point where no emergency intervention can drive the Ebola outbreak low enough to burn out on its own. The virus will continue to circulate, with the potential to explode again.

In short, neoliberalism’s structural shifts aren’t just a background on which the emergency of Ebola takes place. The shifts are the emergency as much as the virus itself.

In contrast to Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan – history as shit happens – we have here an example of stochasticity’s impact arising out of deterministic agroeconomic policy – a phenomenon I’ve taken to calling the Red Swan.

Here, sudden switches in land use may explain Ebola’s emergence. Deforestation and intensive agriculture strip out traditional agroforestry’s stochastic friction that until this point had kept the virus from stringing together enough transmission.

Under certain conditions, the forest may act as its own epidemiological protection. We risk the next deadly pandemic when we destroy that capacity.

 


 

Rob Wallace is an evolutionary biologist and public health phylogeographer currently visiting the Institute of Global Studies at the University of Minnesota. He also blogs at Farming Pathogens.

Also on The Ecologist:Oil palm explosion driving West Africa’s Ebola outbreak‘ by Richard Kock.

This article was originally published by Independent Science News under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

 






Victory! Toxic chemical banned in EU textile imports





A huge victory for Detox supporters came out of Europe this week as all EU member states voted to ban toxic chemicals called nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) from textile imports.

This decision closes a trade loophole that allowed clothing containing dangerous levels of NPE to enter the EU even though the substance is banned from regional manufacturing.

The chemicals are used in textile production as wetting agents, detergents, and emulsifiers. This toxic chemical then remains in the garment, released once you wash your clothing, breaking down to form toxic nonylphenol (NP).

Nonylphenol is a persistent chemical with hormone-disrupting properties that builds up in the food chain and is hazardous even at very low levels. Although a relatively weak estrogen mimic, it is hazardous in the environment due to the high concentrations in which it can occur.

The wide use of NPE in the textile industry was brought to light by a Greenpeace International report, Dirty Laundry 2: Hung Out to Dry. Released in 2011, the report initially drew huge media attention, as it pointed out a loophole in the EU’s REACH chemical regulations.

Released in 2011, the report initially drew huge media attention, as it pointed out a loophole in the EU’s REACH chemical regulations. While NPE was banned in textile products within the EU, it did not ban the use of NPE in imported textile products.

Now the exporting countries will have to clean up their act

As the report made clear, “major clothing brands are making their consumers unwitting contributors to increasing levels of hazardous nonylphenol in the environment and water bodies of countries where the products are purchased, as the washing of these clothing items can release residual levels of NPEs contained within the apparel into sewage systems.

“Although the level of NPEs in any given article of clothing is small, the sheer volume of clothing being sold and subsequently washed means that the total quantities being released may be substantial.”

This ban will now need to be adopted by the European Commission, which should happen in the upcoming weeks and will take effect within five years, allowing the fashion industry ample time to remove NPE from its supply chain.

Manufacturing countries such as China, rely heavily on their trade relationship with Europe. For more than a decade, Europe has been China’s number one trade partner and China’s textile production needs that relationship to continue.

That said, China’s textile industry needs to be more progressive in identifying and banning harmful chemicals from their products otherwise they will lose a key market.

Problems in China too: the pollued Yangtse Delta

Two earlier studies published by Greenpeace. found that nonylphenol (in addition to a range perfluorinated chemicals used as fire-retardants) were present in fish from the Yangtze River Delta.

A more recent study, detailed in the original Dirty Laundry report, found hazardous chemicals in samples of wastewater discharges from two Chinese textile processing facilities, the Youngor Textile City Complex and the Well Dyeing Factory Limited.

These facilities have links to a number of major international and national clothing brands including Adidas, Nike, Puma and the Chinese company Li Ning. Nike and Puma are among the companies to have promised to stop releases of toxic chemicals by 2020.

Nike’s commitment to zero discharge by 2020 adds a commitment to action on disclosing its hazardous chemical discharges to the public, and offers to share its tools with the whole apparel sector, seeking to catalyse a sectoral shift, and so support the goal of systemic societal change.

Since then hundreds of thousands of supporters have called on high street brands to clean up their supply chain, including Abercombie & Fitch, Adidas, Calvin Klein, Converse, G-Star RAW, H&M, Kappa, Lacoste, Li Ning, Nike, Puma, Ralph Lauren, Uniqlo and Youngor, all companies identified in the report.

While the EU’s decision is a huge win for a cleaner, toxic free future, Greenpeace will continue to monitor this industry’s use of NPE. “But we still need your help”, say campaginers. “The Detox campaign is far from won and we need your support if we are going to have all hazardous chemicals banned from use in the textile industry.”

Greenpeace is calling on the brands and suppliers to become champions for a toxic free future, by eliminating all releases of hazardous chemicals from their supply chains and their products.

 


 

Action: Add your name to the Detox Movement!

Yixiu Wu is the Detox My Fashion Project Leader at Greenpeace East Asia.

This article is based on an original article by Yixiu Wu published by Greenpeace with additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 






Buy Conservative! No other party washes greener





David Cameron said an amazing thing this week: “I believe we’ve been the greenest government ever”.

Yes, not five years ago – this week! He made this astonishing claim at the Royal Welsh Show in Builth Wells, mid Wales.

Some might say that’s he’s had precious little time in which to establish his government as the anythingest-ever. After all it’s been in power for barely two months.

But more to the point, what a two months it has been! During this time he and his chancellor George Osborne have managed to generate a prodigious trail of environmental wreckage:

Is that enough? There’s probably more. These last few days the pace of the attack on the environment has been dizzying. Announcements have been coming out so thick and fast it’s hard to keep up with them all.

And today, more greenwash

This morning the energy secretary Amber Rudd gave an extraordinary speech to an insurance industry conference on climate change and its financial implications. It was as if none of the above had happened. Instead soothing ripples of purest greenwash poured over the assembled delegates. It sounded so convincing it was hard not to be carried long in the melifluous flow of it all.

“I see climate action as a vital safety net for our families and businesses”, she purred. “Protecting our homes, our livelihoods, our prosperity … if we act in the right way by backing business and helping them grasp the opportunity that clean growth represents – we actually improve our economic security, improve our prosperity, improve our way of life.

“The bottom line is this: if we are acting on climate change to preserve our economic prosperity, we have to make sure that climate change action is pro-growth, pro-business. That is why our approach will keep the costs of bills down and encourage businesses to innovate, grow and create jobs.”

Stop right there! How is hammering the cheapest form of renewable electricity we have, onshore wind, keeping bills down? How is it creating jobs to pull the rug out from under solar power installers just as the sector is heading to be cheaper than gas fired generation by 2020?

How is it encouraging business to do anything but retreat into a corner and cry, if you impose a carbon tax on renewable power generation, cut away the funding pipeline for future projects, and put complex new hoops in the way of planning permission?

You call this cost-effective?

“Governments can set the direction, set the vision, set the ambition”, Rudd went on. “We can create the framework, create the rules, provide the support, predictability and stability needed.” Yes – and then kick the supports away and leave entire industries floundering as investors flee to other countries like Germany and Denmark which reallly mean it.

“But we need to reduce our emissions in the most cost-effective way”, she said. Now hang on – this from a government committed to building the Hinkley C nuclear power station under a support package independently costed at £76 billion (€108 billion)?

Making energy users pay double the going rate for its power until 2050 or beyond, even as ever cheaper renewables bring costs down? While pressing ahead with another eight nuclear reactors at similar exorbitant expense? And so committing the UK to a future of the world’s highest electricity prices?

Of course the single best investment we can make in greening out energy landscape and reducing emissions to make sure we use energy more efficiently through common sense measures like draught proofing doors and windows and insulating our homes.

And that applies particularly to new homes: high levels of insulation can be built in at minimal extra cost, but it’s expensive to come back and do it later. So what does Rudd do? Scrap the ‘zero carbon home’ requirement on housebuilders due to come in next year; and close down the Green New Deal.

And yet, total commitment to climate change targets

Now for the real mystery in all this. Even as the government does everything it can to destroy the renewable energy sector and lock us into another generation of high domestic fuel costs, here is Amber Rudd talking it up big on climate change:

“We are committed to climate action; committed to economic security; committed to decarbonising at the least cost. In December, world leaders will gather in Paris to finalise the first truly global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The UK is lined up with the progressive countries of the world on this. We want a strong, ambitious, rules-based agreement that makes the shift to a clean global economy irreversible.”

Is a pattern emerging here? In the US, politicians who have sold out to fossil fuels (and that’s most of them) fulminate against the ‘climate change conspiracy’. But that wouldn’t work over here, where people are smart enough to figure that if over 99% of climate scientists think there’s a problem, they are probably right.

So different tactics are called for. To whit, a two-track approach. On the one hand, accept climate change. Make big speeches about how it’s the world’s greatest challenge. Grandstand at international conferences. Pull every rhetorical trick in the book to show how much you care.

Sign up to pretty much any climate agreement that’s going. After all we’ve been doing climate agreements since 1992 and the collective effect has been absolutely nothing. The world’s emissions trajectory is firmly on the IPPC’s ‘let rip’ track to climate perdition. Meanwhile the main beneficiaries have been the biggest greenhouse gas emitters – on the new ‘polluter is paid’ principle.

And at the same time attack renewable energy for all it’s worth. Make sure it runs out of money. Subsidise fossil fuel producers at home and abroad. Encourage power company monopolies and their systematic ripoff of consumers. Go for nuclear energy as the best way to maintain the centralised energy model that keeps power where it belongs, in the hands of government and corporations.

Now of course there will be some people who see through the elaborately constructed mirage and can see what’s really happening. But not too many – the press will see to that. And hey – they’d never vote Conservative anyway.

So if you find yourself suffering from an unsettling sense of ‘cognitive dissonance’ – a feeling that the words you hear are saying the exact opposite of the actions you see, don’t worry. You’re right. And at least you understand.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.