Author Archives: angelo@percorso.net

Extinction Rebellion ‘begins at home’

Small venues are just as good as big for educating and enlisting new members, according to Extinction Rebellion (XR).

Ahead of a planned international day of non-violent civil disobedience on 15 April, an email from the direct action group stated: “Our challenge is big, the places we confront it in don’t have to be.”

Members of the group have experimented with holding talks in homes, which “creates more space for the honest, supportive discussions that we need to take action”, it says.

Homeparties

The XR talk – “Heading for Extinction and What to Do About It” – is kick-starting conversations about why to join XR and how. “It’s bringing an enormous amount of people with energy to our movement, but there’s no reason it needs to be limited to big venues,” XR said.

People who want to take part can request a speaker to come to their house, give the talk themselves, or screen a video of the talk, it said.  

XR used the example of Swedish feminist community organiser and co-founders of the Swedish political party Feminist Initiative (F!) Gudrun Schyman, who built her whole campaign around “Homeparties” about feminism, politics and the party.

Schyman spoke at around 1,000 home parties, and a year later in 2014, her party received 3.1 percent of the vote in the country’s general election, according to XR.

Full-scale rebellion

XR says that its event on 15 April will be a “full-scale rebellion to demand decisive action from governments on climate change and ecological collapse”.

“Join us as we engage in acts of non-violent civil disobedience against governments in capital cities around the world. This is not a one-off march – we will keep going for as long as we have to, shutting down cities day after day until our demands are met,” it says.

The rebellion will see independent XR groups, allies and protestors take to the streets, while a small number of conscientious protectors and activists from XR affinity groups will carry out peaceful civil disobedience “to disrupt the business-as-usual which is sending our species on a one-way track to extinction”, the organisation said.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Extinction Rebellion ‘begins at home’

Small venues are just as good as big for educating and enlisting new members, according to Extinction Rebellion (XR).

Ahead of a planned international day of non-violent civil disobedience on 15 April, an email from the direct action group stated: “Our challenge is big, the places we confront it in don’t have to be.”

Members of the group have experimented with holding talks in homes, which “creates more space for the honest, supportive discussions that we need to take action”, it says.

Homeparties

The XR talk – “Heading for Extinction and What to Do About It” – is kick-starting conversations about why to join XR and how. “It’s bringing an enormous amount of people with energy to our movement, but there’s no reason it needs to be limited to big venues,” XR said.

People who want to take part can request a speaker to come to their house, give the talk themselves, or screen a video of the talk, it said.  

XR used the example of Swedish feminist community organiser and co-founders of the Swedish political party Feminist Initiative (F!) Gudrun Schyman, who built her whole campaign around “Homeparties” about feminism, politics and the party.

Schyman spoke at around 1,000 home parties, and a year later in 2014, her party received 3.1 percent of the vote in the country’s general election, according to XR.

Full-scale rebellion

XR says that its event on 15 April will be a “full-scale rebellion to demand decisive action from governments on climate change and ecological collapse”.

“Join us as we engage in acts of non-violent civil disobedience against governments in capital cities around the world. This is not a one-off march – we will keep going for as long as we have to, shutting down cities day after day until our demands are met,” it says.

The rebellion will see independent XR groups, allies and protestors take to the streets, while a small number of conscientious protectors and activists from XR affinity groups will carry out peaceful civil disobedience “to disrupt the business-as-usual which is sending our species on a one-way track to extinction”, the organisation said.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Green homes for all

In the middle of São Paulo’s concrete jungle lies an area that was largely forgotten by its 12 million residents for decades.

Characterised by abandoned buildings and occupied largely by squatters, the Campos Eliseos neighborhood held only remnants of its early days, when it was occupied by wealthy coffee barons. Today, the neighborhood is changing.

A new segment of the green building movement has a vision that green housing must be for all, especially the poor. Within the neighbourhood’s precarious dwellings, the State of São Paulo government, in a public-private partnership with Canopus, has broken ground on the Julio Prestes social housing project, to provide more than 1,200 apartments for low-income families. 

Reducing bills

The project is transformational, not only for the city, but also for its people.

As a project certified with IFC’s EDGE, the complex will provide much-needed homes for low-income residents. Living in resource-efficient units will also significantly reduce energy and water bills among a population that often spends up to 20 percent of their income on utilities. Depending on the type of unit, residents at Julio Prestes will save up to 26 percent in utility costs.

Adriana Paiano, Chief Architect at Canopus, found that certifying Julio Prestes with EDGE greatly improves the quality of life among low-income residents: “We find that by integrating green efficiencies in our design, we are really making a difference, especially for this market segment.”

A few thousand miles away, the small nation of Haiti also understands how homeownership can change a person’s life. Patrick Brun, owner of the Chabuma S.A. construction company, said: “For us in Haiti, it’s almost revolutionary. Owning a home is transformative for people.” 

Brun represents only one of the developers receiving assistance from Affordable Housing Institute and the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU) to build green homes under the Haiti Home Ownership and Mortgage Expansion (HOME) project funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

The project hopes to mobilize a private sector-driven approach to financing affordable homes. HOME provides incentives to developers, like Chabuma, to build residences for low-income families, while also working with financial institutions to expand their mortgage portfolios to be more inclusive. 

Solar power

Olivia Caldwell, lead for HOME from the Affordable Housing Institute and an EDGE Expert, said: “We want the project to be perceived as completely market driven even though it is supported by USAID. 

“The idea is that in two years when the project ends, the banks and developers will continue to engage in these activities without us.” 

The HOME project has made green affordable housing a reality for Haitian developers in a market where it has never existed before. Brun, who developed EDGE-certified projects Villa Flora and Village la Fontaine under HOME, understood the need for the housing to save energy and water.

In Haiti, the government struggles to provide electricity to its citizens, placing a burden on the poor who cannot afford their own generators when the power goes out. With green features like solar panels, residents can reduce reliance on the electricity grid and take advantage of Haiti’s year-round average of nearly 12 hours of sunlight per day.

As Brun said: “Offering affordable homes that aren’t green is just going halfway. You haven’t solved anything.” 

Innovative technologies

Developers in other markets are realizing the potential of resource-efficient affordable homes as well. From the Philippines, where affordable housing developer Imperial Homes Corporation (IHC) saw a 300 percent increase in sales after building green, to South Africa, where International Housing Solutions (IHS) is altering the housing market landscape, the trend is growing.

Each home at the IHC’s Via Verde housing complex in the Philippines has solar panels, allowing residents like Philippine housewife Luzviminda Capin to save a significant amount in her utility bills.

Capin said: “My monthly electricity bill has gone down to only 500 (Philippine Pesos, or about $10). I use the extra savings of 2,000 (Philippine Pesos) to either buy food and groceries, or to pay off the mortgage on the house.”

Similarly, in South Africa, IHS properties have introduced innovative technologies such as smart meters to the sector. IHS functions as a financial services provider and partners with real estate developers in South Africa to provide equity financing for properties and to purchase turn-key developments.

Its funds have added a large amount of home stock to South Africa’s affordable housing market, many of which have been EDGE-certified. These projects include Waterfall Park,The Village (Clubview) and Candlewood Crescent.

Permanent homes

In such nascent green housing markets where building green can be perceived as a luxury instead of a necessity, developers are striving to change the stereotype that green is expensive.

In reality, simple alterations to a home’s design, such as adding external shading to keep a home cool, can greatly improve the affordability of homes and reduce utility bills for residents. 

Green affordable housing has the potential to change the housing market in countries like Haiti, Brazil and beyond. In Port Au Prince, where many live in overcrowded slums, living in a green affordable home instills a sense of pride.

Brun believes that as more of Haiti’s low-income residents move from unsafe shelters to permanent homes, the landscape of the country will begin to change. “Visually, it sheds the perspective that everything in this country is chaotic. It changes the panorama of the country by offering affordable homes.”

More importantly, it changes the country itself. Brun said: “It’s not just the development of affordable housing, it’s the development of the country.” 

This Author

Hayley Samu is the marketing and communications specialist for IFC’s EDGE green buildings certification program, which is available in nearly 140 countries.

Caged flowers could save rare bee

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust and the Eastern Moors Partnership – a joint initiative between the National Trust and the RSPB – aim to boost populations of the threatened Bilberry bumblebee by planting 1,000 bilberry plants inside specially designed grazing-proof metal cages on Hathersage Moor. 

Bilberry is a vital food source for the declining bumblebee. It flowers in the spring and early summer, before heathers and other moorland plants, and is essential for the bees and their larvae as the nests are established.

Sally Cuckney, Pollinating the Peak Project Manager for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, said: “Grazing animals such as sheep and deer find tender young bilberry plants especially tasty, and their constant browsing stunts the plants’ growth. That’s bad news for the Bilberry bumblebee. If grazing is reduced, bilberry does much better.

Pollinating the Peak

Cuckney added: “This hands-on project is the first attempt to help Bilberry bumblebees and bilberry plants survive and thrive together like this.”

This month, bilberry has been planted across 60 acres of Hathersage Moor, then protected by cages built by Bumblebee Conservation Trust and Eastern Moors volunteers and youth rangers. 

Past grazing pressure on the moor has led to a lack of mature bilberry bushes favoured by the bee. The project will build on changes over recent years in how the moor is managed, which have seen bilberry beginning to make a comeback.

The grazing cages will allow Bilberry bumblebees to enter to feed and nest while protecting the growing plants during their early years, by keeping livestock out. They are designed to blend into the landscape and will be left in place, maintained by Eastern Moors volunteers, until the plants are established. 

This joint venture is part of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust’s Pollinating the Peak project, made possible thanks to National Lottery players following a £720,000 National Lottery Heritage Fund grant.

Citizen science 

The initiative will also allow researchers to gather vital new data about the bees, and the plants’ growth. There has only been a handful of Bilberry bumblebee studies, and no research in the Peak District for decades.

A general lack of bumblebee records in Derbyshire means the species could be declining faster than has been thought. Tackling this data gap means conservation action can be taken before it’s too late.

This summer, volunteers will begin monitoring bumblebees on Hathersage Moor through the Bumblebee Conservation Trust’s national BeeWalk recording scheme – a citizen science survey that provides early warning of bee declines.

The volunteers will identify and count bumblebees they see while walking the same fixed route each month between March and October. Eastern Moors volunteers will continue the monitoring in future years.

Bilberry bumblebees have suffered a dramatic decline in recent years. They were once found widely across north and west Britain, but the Peak District is now one of their last strongholds. Even here, this cold-loving upland species is expected to decline further because of climate change.

Dynamic partnerships 

Also known as the Blaeberry or Mountain bumblebee, the rare bee is found almost exclusively on bilberry-rich moorlands. It has helped keep the bilberry plant alive for centuries through pollination.

The Eastern Moors Partnership, which manages Hathersage Moor on behalf of Sheffield City Council, has now identified the Bilberry bumblebee as a key species indicator – a species that is rapidly affected by environmental changes and so can give early warnings that a habitat is suffering.

Pollinating the Peak is also creating flower-rich habitats, monitoring bumblebees and raising awareness about them across the Peak and Derbyshire.

This project is run with partners Chatsworth, Chesterfield Borough Council, Derbyshire County Council, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, Little Green Space, Moors for the Future Partnership, National Trust, and Peak District National Park. 

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Bumblebee Conservation Trust. 

Why do environmentalists disagree about food?

Environmentalists disagree. Especially about food sustainability. Why? This situation is often confusing and hinders us on our path towards a greener agricultural future.

Uncovering some mistakes in climate logic, I hope, will help us on that path. The food sustainability debate needs sound science, but also robust reasoning to accompany it.

Mistake 1: Only a small percentage

Our overreliance on livestock has come under pressure as the scientific literature documents livestock’s large contributions to climate change. The United Nations has concluded that livestock accounts for at least 14.5 percent of total global green house emissions.

In response, many people think, “well, livestock’s contribution is still a relatively small percentage of our total greenhouse gas emissions, so does it really matter that much?” One instance of this reasoning is a recent piece by the Sustainable Food Trust.

We cannot reason that because a given source of emissions is far from the majority of total emissions, we can be lax about it.

We must make emissions cuts wherever we possibly can. That is the only way to reach the spectacular emissions reductions outlined by the United Nations. These targets include achieving net zero emissions in around thirty-one years. The UN says we need “deep emissions reductions” in each and every sector, including agriculture.

Mistake 2: China is worse

Some people say that since China is a bigger polluter, we in the UK shouldn’t be too concerned to cut its emissions by much. As such, they think, our industries have a get out of jail free card. And they think that we shouldn’t be concerned about our own meat consumption, when global meat consumption trends are on the rise because of patterns of eating in China, India, and elsewhere.

The underlying principle of this approach is: the countries that pollute the most should take the first move, and if they don’t, nor should we.

This is a great way of moving the planet closer to the precipice. Even if bigger polluters should get greener and aren’t, their wrong does not justify others in acting similarly. We tend to apply a similar principle elsewhere: if others avoid tax, we do not think we can then fiddle our books in order to get a slice of the tax-avoidance fun.

Mistake 3: Food waste is what we put in the bin

One third of food is destined to nestle against a bin liner or rot on the ground. This is well worth taking about, and I commend the food waste campaigners who are working to change this.

But such campaigners make a mistake in their unjustifiably narrow definition of food waste. They define food waste as food thrown in a bin. That might seem fair enough, but let us consider why we think food waste is bad.

If food is wasted, the emissions that were created in producing it were needless. Alternatively, the food could have helped those in need (usually indirectly). Food waste is bad, then, because it represents a missed opportunity which would have seen resources put to better use to help others.

If we are concerned by food thrown in the bin, we should also be concerned by a hidden form of waste: food fed to livestock. We feed a huge amount of edible grains, soya, oats, and peas to farm animals, in order to get food from those animals (though not all livestock are fed crops).

The problem is that evidence suggests only 12 in every 100 calories fed to livestock are converted into meat, eggs, or dairy, on average. The other 88 percent is used by the animal’s body for other purposes, e.g. movement. That 88 percent usually represents waste, then, because we lose this food in feeding it to livestock. We could eat the crops directly and recover those calories. This problem is significant. Greenpeace reports that a staggering 63 percent of EU cropland is used to grow crops to feed farm animals.

Yet I don’t see food waste campaigns doing much to encourage us towards plant-based foods. These foods bypass livestock, cutting waste at the farm level.

Mistake 4: White meat is sustainable

Because of the sky-high greenhouse gas emission associated with red meat, many environmentalists conclude that eating white meat is environmentally a good thing.

The underlying principle assumed here is: if it considerably better for the climate than the worst option, it is good.

This is false. White meat tends to be far worse than alternatives such as beans and other legumes, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but also food security, deforestation, and other forms of pollution. This is because poultry production is completely reliant on feeding animals (often imported) crops; chickens can’t eat grass.

That white meat is less bad in greenhouse gas terms than the worst food does not serve to render it sustainable, especially given the scale of the problems we face.

A journey

The world needs a greener food system. We are all on a journey together towards this. I hope people of different persuasions can coalesce around a way forward. And that careful thinking might bring us together.

This Author 

William Gildea is a campaigns and policy officer at The Vegan Society. Readers of The Ecologist are offered 10 percent off tickets for the Grow Green Conference, at the British Library on 11th April, where researchers, farmers, and policymakers will debate sustainable agriculture. Simply use the code GROW10.

Emulating the circle of life

The tendency towards decay (known as entropy) destroys order and reduces everything to randomness. But a system can create order, if there’s a flow running through it. This happens with the Earth: solar energy enters in, and the Earth sheds (‘dissipates’) waste heat into space.

Individual animals and plants do this too; and, taking the Earth system as a whole, the waste excreted by one component is absorbed into another, with the result that the flows are ‘tucked in’. As James Lovelock says, the pollution of one is the meat of another.

The latest issue of Resurgence & Ecologist is out now!

When we build or manufacture things that don’t exist in Nature, the bad tendency has been to neglect the tucked-in loops, so there’s simply a lot of energy and scarce matter flowing into each process, and a degraded form of these is pumped out in the form of garbage, pollution and greenhouse gases.

But we can address this problem by introducing a circular-systems approach. A good example is industrial ecology (or industrial symbiosis), where many productive processes are networked, the waste of one becoming “the meat of another”.

Growing food

My own work is to do with food systems, and in fact there’s always a food-growing component in industrial ecology, because urban farms can absorb a lot of by-products: grey water, surplus heat (which could warm greenhouses), and compostable waste (such as hops from breweries). This is one reason why urban farming is potentially more productive than rural farming, and contributes to an ‘urban metabolism’, characterised (like the body’s metabolism) by flows and circulation.

I participated in a project as part of University College London, setting up an anaerobic digester: a bicycle-driven box collects waste from local restaurants, and the composting process reduces it to digestate and methane gas. Food is then grown using the digestate as fertiliser and cooked using the gas, and we serve it in the project’s café – so the loop is closed.

These experiments are really interesting, but we should also think critically about what we are trying to achieve, and how. Thus, in industrial ecology, we shouldn’t let the food sector be treated merely as a sink for whatever industry wants to get rid of; at the very least, let’s insist on defining its role in terms of what farming actually needs from the urban metabolism, rather than simply what it can absorb.

Also, in a broader sense, it’s a lazy solution to merely give crops a lot of inputs, because this inhibits plants’ abilities to strengthen themselves. In some amazing experiments, French peasant Pascal Poot deliberately lets his crops fend for themselves in the harshest conditions, and they develop a heritable capacity to cope.

The scientific explan­ation has to do with which genes are ‘expressed’ (switched on): if the plant doesn’t need them, they stay dormant! Also, applying fertiliser high in nitrogen – as tends to be the case with digestate from anaerobic composting – may accentuate a major form of pollution, which in turn triggers CO2 emission.

Wider ecosystems

Front cover
Out now!

The food issue prompts a further interesting question: if we speak of closed-loop systems, how far is it really desirable to be closed?

It’s an exciting challenge to be self-reliant. I’ve found it’s not too difficult to produce all our family’s vegetables on our own plot, while still leaving time to do other jobs.

This is achievable because a no-dig (no-till) system minimises inputs of work: by not working the soil, you encourage nat­ural balances to self-engineer, so that fertility is maintained through the free energy of self-organisation. Residues are composted back, and the deep roots of plants like Russian comfrey can replenish minerals from the rocky layer beneath the soil.

But, taken to extremes, self-reliance could lead to a survivalist model where you’re scared of everything collapsing in the world outside. NASA has expressed interest in a swimming pool turned aquaponic farm, in the US.

In a realistic context, however, we are of course entirely dependent on the wider ecosystem within which our farm is inserted, so the ‘closedness’ is merely illusory. And the danger of a survivalist version of closed loop is that we become introspective and cut ourselves off from our place in society.

The point is that a farming model of the future must be able to feed the wider population in a sustainable way – which requires a large surplus over and above the consumption of the cultivators themselves.

The Guardians

At the same time, we must hold on to what is correct about self-reliance: instead of obsessing about how to absorb waste, let’s rather think about making our systems so efficient in themselves that they hardly produce any waste; and then the real meaning of ‘efficiency’ becomes ‘maximising the capacity for self-organisation’. Perhaps the slogan we’re looking for is ‘Output lots of food, not lots of entropy’!

Thus, taking as an example a project in France, La Ferme du Bec Hellouin, it’s possible using the methods of agro-ecology to produce a sizeable surplus that can contribute to the wider society – both by marketing the produce and by spreading ecological consciousness.

We don’t yet have all the answers for a sustainable food system, but what is encouraging about today’s debates is that we are raising meaningful questions. For example, the curvy or concentric beds encouraged by agro-ecology or permaculture are intuitively much closer to Nature’s contours; but do they place an upper limit on productivity? This is an interesting question: do we still need to safeguard some mechanisation, and if so, what would it look like?

The recently released film The Guardians, directed by Xavier Beauvois, is set in rural France during the first world war, and offers an extremely interesting exploration of human relations against a background of wider socio-economic shifts.

In the early part, labour is very manual and harsh, but also necessarily cooperative, because everyone needs to collaborate. As things develop, farming is organised more as a business; fam­ilies invest in machinery, productivity is improved, but the solidarity is lost and human relations are sacrificed. So what’s the solution? Of course, the mainstream approach to mechanisation is not sustainable anyway, but is there a different way?

Sharing economy 

Perhaps part of the answer can be glimpsed in a cooperative designing farm machinery, L’Atelier Paysan. Its principles of organisation are intrinsically commons-based, peer-to-peer and open-source.

In this way, it is tapping into a sharing economy, and a more broadly sharing society, where creativity constantly circulates, as part of an iterative process of co-learning. The result is a set of constantly evolving blueprints for a new type of machinery wholly dedicated to serving agro-ecology.

The lesson is that we need a circular system, not just in material flows, but also in flows of innovation and ideas; and this in turn can help galvanise social regeneration.

This Author 

Robert Biel teaches Political Ecology at University College London (UCL), and is a practising urban farmer. He is a member of UCL’s Circular Economy Lab, and author of the open-access book Sustainable Food Systems: The Role of the City. This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

Image: Dennis McClung, founder and CEO of Garden Pool. © Justin Bastien.

The fate of the badger

Hundreds of thousands of badgers have been killed in Great Britain since the 1970s, accused of spreading bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to cattle. More than 30,000 were killed in 2018 alone. 

Confronted with an injustice that defies reason, one can protest and investigate. The systematic slaughter of a ‘protected’ species demands a strong foundation in science, and an awareness of the ecological consequences, as well as an emotional response. 

Any government which institutes such a campaign must answer serious questions, such as: is it legal? Is there a consensus of expert opinion? Is the thinking joined-up? What are the costs and benefits, checks and balances? Who will physically carry out the policy? And, what is public opinion?  

Failed experiments

Not one of these has been answered satisfactorily. Albert Einstein reputedly said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result”. No scientist can waste time repeating failed experiments. Likewise, George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. And here we are. 

Conventionally, to test a theory, one tries to disprove it: fail, and it is deemed ‘acceptable’, at least until disproved.

In the eighties, I spent five years testing my hypothesis that Cornwall could support the return of its national bird, the Red-billed chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. When the species did return and, more critically, stayed to increase its numbers, the hypothesis was accepted. 

At that time, the poor circumstantial evidence behind the eradication of our largest surviving terrestrial carnivore appalled me, as it did many other naturalists. The more I looked into it, the more alarmed I became.  In fact, it made me a scientist. 

We formed BROCK (Badger Rights of Cornwall – Kernow) to scrutinise ministry activities. Surely only through science could this be challenged. I worked for WWF liaising between farming and conservation interests, and served on the Government’s Consultative Panel for three years while writing The Fate of the Badger, published by Batsford in 1986.

Unchecked pride

Today, the badger is still being killed officially in huge numbers: encouraging rural thugs to flout the law, claiming, “If men in suits can kill it, why can’t we?”.

So, how has this happened? A ministry scientist told me: “In my department, the top priority is to protect the Minister from any possible embarrassment”.  

He also told me that No.10 Downing Street took the decision to kill badgers. By then Mrs Thatcher had infamously claimed: “The lady’s not for turning”. Once a leader makes a decision, he or she feels compelled to defend it, even in the face of contrary evidence.

Humans dislike being corrected, admitting failure, or asking for help; we resist advice and prefer revenge to forgiveness.  All these traits are based on pride – a weakness associated with denial; at an overweening level it causes mistakes, setback and failure. The maxim, ‘Pride goes before a fall’ has its origin in the Bible: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs).  In 1813 Jane Austen wrote a novel in which the chief protagonists had to overcome pride and prejudice in order to find happiness. 

Writing at the end of Word War II, Bertrand Russell stated in his History of Western Philosophy: “The Renaissance restored human pride, but carried it to the point where it led to anarchy and disaster”.  He also observed: “When the check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road to madness – the intoxication of power [my italics] … to which modern men .., are prone”. He concluded: “this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and [increases] the danger of vast social disaster”.

Regaining hope

Now, in the twenty-first century, wildlife has its own war.  But, as the brilliant Greta Thunberg has told us, it never tops the News agenda. There is no single villain to blame or confront; no national / party politics; and it only indirectly concerns economics.

To attack it, is to attack ourselves. As Robert Frost, the American poet wrote in 1914: “And nothing to look backward to with pride / And nothing to look forward to with hope” – which are rather my sentiments now.

Badger cull politics have become self-evident: wildlife genocide dressed up as a cull to give the impression of rational science removing unwanted animals.

The tactics were and remain shameful. Since the early 1970s, successive governments have tried gassing, snares, poison, clean-ring exclusion zones, and cage trapping.  

Strange measures to deal with a mycobacterium. So, what do humans do when faced with a difficult animal?  They reach for a gun. 

Origins of error

All these policies rested on a false premise. This self-serving political decision was based on wishful thinking. Desperate farmers and vets grabbed the idea as if it were a £50 note in the gutter. One infected badger found in Gloucestershire in 1971 ‘cast the die’.  

Perversely, much had been gained before badgers were forced centre stage. The disease had been reduced post-war to less than 0.05 percent. However, after 1971, attention became fixed on the badger, reinforced in 1980 by Lord Zuckerman’s grossly opinionated report.

Following that political decision, all was lost. One calamitous error diverted the tried and tested strategy of strict whole herd testing, and a mycobacterium seized its chance. The national incidence of bTB rose to 10 percent. 

What error? To confuse ‘infected’ with ‘infectious’ is foolish, as any medical student knows. Given how and where they feed, the route of transmission from cow to badger is obvious, but transmission the other way has never been demonstrated; it defies natural science.  But no leadership can ever admit such an expensive catastrophe.  

After so long, costs are way beyond retrieval but must run into billions. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (1998-2017) alone cost £50m. A decade later, in one year, bTB cost £100m. Every badger killed costs us about £7,000. Compensation to farmers is colossal.

Expensive myth

These economics disregard ecological costs, notwithstanding the cruel persecution of an iconic and harmless wild species that we should be protecting and cherishing. 

Scientists know the right course to take but pride and prejudice have blinded governments – urged on by farmers – into believing a myth implanted in their minds for two generations.  

The Government still desperately paddles a lifeboat riddled with holes, going nowhere. An inability to learn from history is why, after 30 years, we were in the utterly bizarre position of being able to republish Fate, with additions, but without needing to change a single word of the first 1986 edition. 

All we seem to have learned is that it is easier to deceive people than convince them they have been deceived.

This Author

Dr Richard Meyer is a naturalist, writer and artist with a long career in wildlife conservation. He authored many books as Richard Mark Martin before The Fate of the Badger. Richard tweets @DrRichardMeyer.

Image: Steve Clark. 

‘We were ecologists before the capitalists’

In Paris this month more than 100,000 people poured into the streets to demand climate action. The city’s largest-ever climate march was taking place while across town a group of gilets jaunes – the protest group known for their hi-vis vests – were engaging in some of the worst violence of their entire three month revolt against declining wages, rising inequality and other consequences of globalisation.

The division between those demanding social justice and climate justice fits neatly with a widely-held view of the gilets jaunes as opposed to climate action. The initial protests were sparked by a rise in diesel tax, which would have cut pollution but landed the cost on drivers. This was too much for those living in poor neighbourhoods, isolated by cuts to public transport.

The narrative that this amounts to a popular rejection of efforts to fight global warming, has been amplified internationally, most prominently by US president Donald Trump. But amid the well-heeled climate marchers was a significant scattering of the distinctive vests. In the Place de la République, François Boulot walked out to address the crowd wearing his yellow gilet.

Ephemeral agora

“The social and ecological emergencies are inseparable: the fight against the end of the world and the end of the month are the same. We will not be able to operate the ecological transition without an equitable wealth redistribution,” said Boulot, who has been a prominent figure in the gilets jaunes. “How can you impose another tax on people already rummaging the bins to feed themselves?”

Rather than recoiling from climate action in the face of the gilets jaunes, France is reckoning with what fair climate policy looks like and how it is decided.

President Emmanuel Macron, the unifying object of ire for his top-down style of governing, has attempted to defuse the protests, first by dropping the tax, then, when that had no effect by convening a national ‘grand debate’ on four controversial issues: one of them the ecological transition. The series of town hall events ended on Friday.

Meanwhile, for 18 consecutive Saturdays, the gilets jaunes have occupied over 30,000 roundabouts across the country, erecting makeshift sheds in which political opinions are traded back and forth.

A week before the climate march, at one of those ephemeral agora on the Champs-Élysées, Jerôme Rodriguez watches as police wheel water cannons into the square. Two powerful jets gush on to a small crowd under the Arc de Triomphe.

Farmer’s cap

“Come on jackets! Time to go home now,” Rodriguez grins, a pair of sunglasses masking the eye he lost in the protests.

For this self-styled figurehead of the gilets, the climate issue is “not the priority”. Protestors are focused on full fridges and “dignified life”, he says.

“Eventually, when we obtain the first things, ecology will have its place, because kids talk a lot about it, and we have been told about it our whole lives. But nowadays, people aren’t concentrated on this. It’s a shame, of course. But we need to get them to live well so that we can interest them in the project,” Rodriguez says.

This is not entirely supported by data. The French Institute of National Opinion (IFOP) found 85% of lower professional categories (employees and workers) and 83% of the non-working population are worried about global warming. Young people are marginally more concerned about the issue, according to a different survey.

A group of women walk by wearing badges demanding climate justice. Meanwhile, Rodriguez, whose celebrity within the movement is obvious, is surrounded by a cluster of pensioners, an elderly woman in a motor wheelchair festooned with bags and a man wearing a farmer’s cap.

His carpet

The average age of the gilets jaunes is 45, according to recent analysis, and they are predominantly working to lower middle class and lean to the political left. For more than half of the participants, the movement represents their first political action.

If there is one thing that unites the gilets jaunes, it is the sense that responsibility for change lies with those at the top of society and government: “Plus de banquise, moins de banquiers” (More ice sheets, less bankers) is one of the many slogans associated with the movement. Macron, a former banker who has fashioned an image abroad as a defender of the Paris climate deal with his catchphrase ‘make our planet great again’, is a symbol of wasteful, hypocritical consumption at home.

“Ask Macron when he travels by plane, plus all of the cars that follow him,” Rodriguez says. “And that guy tells us: ‘Be careful’”.

“Not to mention his tableware, his bread and all of that!” another protestor Sylvain yells.

“And his carpet!” another calls out. (Macron and his wife Brigitte reportedly spent tens of thousands of euros on cutlery at the Élysée Palace and €300,000 on a new carpet.)

Building bridges

Marie-Claire, a pensioner who did not wish to give her family name, says: “You know, people who live precariously, they’ve made ecological efforts before the capitalists. Because they’ve already made efforts not to consume electricity.

“Not to consume too much water. You know, there are people who do not iron their clothes, because it costs too much electricity. I’ve known that, and my daughter does not iron her laundry. Children take a five minute shower. We were ecologists well before anyone else.”

“The real polluters, who are they?” Akli, also a pensioner, bounces back. “We forbid old cars. But we leave Ubers and big Lamborghini to circulate. The jet setters, the cargo ships, we allow them to burn heavy petrol. No one comes to ask them to burn anything else but fossil fuels.”

One manifesto has been widely circulated by the gilets jaunes, calling for among other things, increased building insulation and an aviation fuel tax. But the movement has yet to adopt a coherent programme or set of goals.

Because of this any snapshot of the gilets jaunes is bound to fail to grasp the full picture. Other prominent figures are building bridges with environmentalists.

Ecological justice

Priscillia Ludovsky, whose petition opposing fuel price hikes attracted more than one million signatures and catalysed the movement, has joined with Cyril Dion, a figurehead of the environmental movement, to urge Macron to meet a series of demands, such as a reduced VAT on organic produce and heftier taxes on polluting companies.

Mostly, the gilets jaunes shunned Macron’s Grand Debat, meaning that the two conversations, one encouraging a dialogue with established institutions and the other rejecting the president’s authority, have mostly run in parallel. Occasionally they have crossed over, with some gilets jaunes participating in the state’s fora.

Rodriguez says Macron’s forum is “just about getting more information so that he can sell us his electoral programme – which we don’t want. We can organise very well by ourselves, we can carry out debates. See, we’re debating today.”

The sense that the state is not listening has led to calls for a citizen’s referendum initiative (RIC), under which citizens would take an active role in the formulation of laws. This would, advocates say, ensure that the interests of the people are represented even as the climate crisis is addressed.

“The gilets jaunes, whether you like it or not, have succeeded where 30 years of social battles have failed: putting the question of social justice at the centre of the debate,” philosopher Pierre Dardot and sociologist Christian Laval, wrote in December: “Better, they have posed a fundamental question for humanity about the link between social justice and ecological justice.”

Far from the protests pouring cold water on the issue, suddenly, it seems all of France is talking about climate change.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.   

Swedish firm exported toxic waste to Chile

The Swedish mining conglomerate Boliden began shipping toxic waste from its Rönnskärs smelter to my home town, Arica, in northern Chile in the mid-1980s, when we lived under the rule of general Augusto Pinochet.

Boliden could have chosen to store the material in Sweden, and they claim that it would have been cheaper for them to do so. Instead, they shipped it halfway around the world in a deal with the now defunct Chilean mining company Promel S.A.

The terms of Boliden’s deal with Promel are unclear. Boliden claims that Promel purchased the smelter sludge from them with a view to reselling extracted products.

Deemed unsafe

However, an EU Parliamentary report on corporate human rights abuses states “it is an undisputed fact that Boliden paid Promel 10 million SEK (approx. 1 million euro) for taking care of the sludge.

What is clear though, is that Promel ultimately failed to process the vast majority of the smelter sludge, and nearly 20,000 tonnes, containing arsenic, mercury, lead and other heavy metals, were abandoned on the outskirts of our city. The waste pile lay uncovered for years.

There is some dispute about the proximity of the waste material to residential housing at the time it was initially received by Promel, but there is agreement, at least, that as our city grew, the dump site became a playground for local children.

By 1998, the Chilean government estimated that approximately 5,000 people had been exposed to dangerous toxins, and in 2009 it identified an array of illnesses and health conditions within our community, including cancers, birth defects, high rates of miscarriage and neurological disorders.

Today, an estimated 12,000 of my fellow citizens have been affected, part of the area has been deemed unsafe for habitation and a large-scale evacuation plan has been initiated by the Chilean government.

Toxic sludge

A legal action brought against Boliden by 796 Arica residents, a fraction of those affected, is now before the appeal court in Umeå, Sweden. The case is a technical one, and the outcome may well hinge upon the residents’ ability to establish a causal link between heightened levels of arsenic in their bodies and the exported smelter sludge.

In March 2018, a District Court in Sweden concluded that the victims had failed to establish that link, although went on to find it “remarkable and negligent of Boliden to have continued the relationship with Promel after realizing any exported waste would end up in an uncovered pile in close proximity to already populated areas – despite knowing this would never be acceptable in Sweden.”

On March 27th of this year, the decision of a Swedish Appeal Court will be issued, and the victims here in Arica will finally learn the outcome of their long fight for justice in the country where their nightmare began.

The export may well have been conducted in accordance with laws in operation at the time. That is a question for the lawyers.

Whether or not Boliden wins the legal argument, however, it is difficult to see how they can win the moral one. After all, they do not contest that they chose to export toxic sludge to Chile rather than deal with it themselves.

Leaked memo

In a now infamous leaked internal memo, Lawrence Summers, chief economist to the World Bank, stated the economic case for the global waste trade: “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that…”

Richard Denniss, chief economist to the Australia Institute, writes that “[s]ince toxic waste will inevitably make someone sick, we might as well make poor people sick, as doing so will minimize the amount of ‘foregone earnings’…[and]…[i]f it takes years for some pollutants to make us sick, why not dump pollution in countries where people don’t live long enough to get sick from the pollution?”

The trade in hazardous waste – whether conducted lawfully or otherwise – exposes impoverished communities such as ours to the risk of devastating harm. Developed countries produce 90 percent of the world’s hazardous waste and are best resourced to ensure that the waste is dealt with safely and responsibly at home.

So is it acceptable for a wealthy western corporation or consumer to look to the developing world as a site for the disposal of its effluent?

E-waste

Maybe the tide of the toxic waste trade is turning. Efforts are currently underway at the UN to draft a treaty that would enable corporations to be held accountable for any human rights abuses and environmental damage that arise within the context of their overseas operations.

The potential costs of legal liability in such circumstances may be a risk factor enough to swing the “economic logic” back in favor of domestic processing and disposal.

A proposed amendment to the Basel Convention – the international treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between nation states – would render the transfer of toxic waste from the developed to the developing world unlawful.

It needs just two more states to sign for it to enter into legal force. NGOs such as the Basel Action Network continue their work to highlight, name and shame unlawful shipments, pressuring States to do more to control illegal exports.

In the meantime, states that have long been targets for the disposal of the West’s hazardous waste materials are closing their doors to imports. China no longer accepts plastic or e-waste, and Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam are also acting to stem the flow to their shores.

Dumping ground

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the largest network of environmental citizens’ organisations in Europe, has written a letter in support of the Chilean victims which was recently presented to the Swedish Embassy in Chile along with a petition signed by 2700 residents from the affected area.

The EEB made four demands to the Swedish government: that a Swedish government representative based in Chile visit the affected site and meet victims of the environmental pollution; that the government work with the affected community in the development and delivery of an effective healthcare programme that will respond to the harms suffered;  that the government pay reparations to the community in recognition of the its role in permitting the export of the toxic waste from Sweden to Chile; and to repatriate the waste, in order that it can be adequately and safely processed in Sweden.

So where does all of this leave us, the people of Arica? Boliden no longer exports its waste and is currently constructing an underground storage facility to contain similar waste.

The storage conditions of the waste in Arica would not be considered acceptable in the West – and yet staggeringly, over 30 years after it arrived, the toxic waste is still here in Chile.

It stands as a daily affront to our community. Boliden refuses to take it back.

We did not ask for it to be brought here. We are not the West’s dumping ground.

This Author

Rodrigo Pino Vargas is a representative and campaigner on behalf of affected people in Arica. He is working with the community to establish a foundation to provide long-term legal support and healthcare for victims and their families.

Labour needs a Green New Deal

Amid turbulent political times, the shaky coalition between Brexit factions within the Labour Party is given much attention.

Relevant though this may be, another strategic divide held together within Labour is far more important beyond the Brexit moment. Although it rarely plays out in the public sphere, competing strategic priorities around climate change could have a far more significant impact on Labour’s ability to deliver a transformative economic program in government.

The most striking example of this divide played out around the vote on Heathrow expansion in June 2018. Unite lobbied hard for Labour MPs to back the expansion while Labour members and MPs with roots in the climate movement felt the free vote afforded to Labour MPs a travesty.

In reality, the vote was indicative of a schism over climate that should never have been allowed to develop in the labour movement. At the time I argued the dichotomy between jobs and climate is counter-productive for both. Its time to work together heal that divide.

Environmental justice

The Green New Deal has been successful in defining mainstream debate around climate change in the US in recent months because of its power as a framework in making our response climate, economic and social crises inseparable.

In the popular imagination, there no longer needs to be a trade off between transitioning our economy from fossil fuels to renewables and a good standard of living for all.

In fact, the Green New Deal helps us understand that only through a transformative program of investment to fully decarbonise the entire economy can we secure a prosperous future for the many.

At present, Labour’s environmental policy platform The Green Transformation is a mixture of radical ambition and pragmatic compromise underpinned by a powerful justice-oriented narrative. Labour will ban fracking; create 400,000 green jobs across the country; invest £2.3bn to insulate homes; expand public transport by bringing rail back into public ownership, fare caps and electrification; ensure UK aid does not support fossil fuel projects; and promote UK Export Finance support for the energy sector towards low-carbon projects.

For all of these positives, Labour’s target of 60 percent renewables within 12 years of government pales in comparison to the need for 100 per cent renewables by 2030; they are yet to commit to banning all new fossil fuels and fully transitioning away from oil, gas & coal; there is no discussion of reigning in private finance over their support for fossil fuel companies; airport expansion is not ruled out; and, overall, the scale of investment need to upgrade energy infrastructure, guarantee a green job for all and equitably re-industrialise every part of the country is just not there.

Policy formation

The Labour Party is regularly chastised for its shortcomings on climate both within and outside the party. As outlined above, these criticisms aren’t misguided.

However, Labour is a democratic party with a mass membership. It also happens to be the only party representing the interests of the majority of our society with a strong chance of entering government at the next general election.

It is clear that the Green New Deal offers Labour a framework to translate the politics woven through The Green Transformation into a coherent policy platform advancing in tandem workers, climate and global justice.

We should also be clear that without backing from Labour, the Green New Deal stands no chance of success in the UK.

In appreciating the constraints Labour’s leadership are under when it comes to policy formation – climate in particular – we can organise from the grassroots to support them to go further. Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, called for Labour members to exert this pressure from below in February.

Pressure from members

The radical framing of The Green Transformation makes it clear there is space to push. Members have a key role to play in building support for the transformative vision of a Green New Deal.

Together we must make the common sense argument that austerity ideology must be abandoned to win popular consent for the massive levels of public investment needed to transform the UK’s economy and revitalise green industry.

This week Labour members have started to do just that. The new Labour for a Green New Deal campaign seeks to activate Labour members, supports and trade unionists to make the case for a transformative Green New Deal to deliver the shared solutions for our crises of climate, work, poverty and inequality.

Labour has over 500,000 members. If we all come together to demand a Green New Deal, the future will surely be ours.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal. He is also co-director of Climate Change Campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.