We’re on a six-month voyage across the Pacific to test for microplastics in remote archipelagos where this type of data has never been formally recorded, in partnership with the 5 Gyres Trawl Share Program.

Eighty-five miles to the west of Tahiti, Tim was the one who spotted it first: plastic — or rather microplastic — intermixed with bits of natural debris that had made their way into the “manta trawl” deployed off the stern of our sailboat.

Even out here in the wide open blue – where Raratonga lay two days ahead and Tahiti two days behind – humanity’s bits of commercial convenience have made the ocean sick.

New insights 

When our six-month voyage – dubbed Eat Less Plastic – set out in May from California, on a path toward Auckland, New Zealand, the goal was to not only test for plastics encountered along the journey, but also gain insight into ways that plastics are affecting South Pacific communities in some of the world’s smallest corners.

Though weeks still remain before our sailboat, Today, secures its dock lines in Auckland, the results thus far have been potent and humbling:

We need to make changes. Now.

On idyllic beaches through Tonga and Fiji, plastic waste from industrialised nations is washing up on the shorelines.

This was largely expected when we departed Los Angeles, considering the same problem is plaguing Hawaii, where our non-profit sponsor Love The Sea is based on the island of Maui. 

Homegrown threats

Perhaps the largest surprise has been realizing how much of the plastic threat isn’t foreign, but rather homegrown.

Tim Lara, whose company Hawaiian Paddle Sports runs eco-tours in Hawaii, said “For years villagers in places like Raratonga have been burying or burning their garbage. Then all this stuff started showing up in packaging and suddenly that doesn’t work anymore.” 

In Raratonga, where we toured a landfill, we were told the ground was pretty much full and there’s nowhere to put the trash. We spoke with elders in the Tuamotos, and offered all the different alternatives to simply gathering and burning their plastic, which is the current means of disposal. 

Lara said: “A lot of these indigenous cultures really got blindsided by this stuff.  Really, everyone did.”

In Western nations like the UK and US, where there’s still more space than people who live there, the ability to move waste to somewhere out of sight is a geographic luxury. 

Next generation

Considering the waste isn’t right in our face, or literally outside our door, it’s easier to also push it out of mind and kick the can toward the future. 

As we’re rapidly starting to realize, however, that future is getting closer. 

Microplastics are entering our food chain and have infiltrated our tap water. It’s in everything from beer to our very own bowels, and there’s a growing fear that the next generation will live on a plastic planet. 

For Phil Somerville, the captain of this voyage, that’s something he just can’t accept. 

A lifelong surfer and sailor from New Zealand, Somerville said that the ocean is “life force”. The thought that his children and future generations won’t be able to enjoy it as he has is what’s led him to spearhead this mission.

Since casting the bowlines off in Los Angeles, he’s petitioned the French Polynesian government for a ban on plastic bags, and met with non-profits from Niue to Nadi to help clean the beaches, lobby for change, and educate school groups on alternatives to plastic, so it never shows up in the first place. 

Positive solutions

While the world is finally starting to wake up to the real severity of this crisis, our crew agrees there’s been enough alarm, and it’s time to start finding solutions. 

That search for real, actionable progress led us to seek out Adrian Midwood as we brought the boat into Tonga. Midwood’s organization, Ocean Ambassadors, has been taking bold, innovative steps to take the plastics plaguing these waters and put them back to good use.

In one of their most successful campaigns, the group worked in Fiji to install a commercial grade processor, which can take 1kg of mixed plastics and convert it to 1 liter of oil.

The process consumes about 1 kWh of electricity, but Midwood notes that with 1 liter of oil you can generate up to 10 kWh, so you gain about ten units of energy.

In another move meant to power individuals, they’ve also launched a Pirate Pack program where members get boxes of zero waste products delivered right to their door step. 

Final leg

We’ve also partnered with conservation groups like Bags Not and Algalita South Pacific, and received word while sailing across the Pacific that the New Zealand government passed a ruling in August against single use plastic bags.

While there’s no doubt that plastic pollution is a threat of global proportions, this sail has taught us that progress is born not solely from legislation, but action on a small, individual level to the point where together we really can make a difference.  

It’s empowering and exciting to see how many people have been galvanized, inspired, and committed to change over the course of our six-month voyage.

A school we visited in Raratonga has agreed to eliminate single use plastics from all operations on campus, and hundreds of people have joined us in cleanups across the South Pacific. 

As we prepare to leave Fiji for the crossing to Auckland, plans have been drawn for a landing event to take place in Auckland Harbor, where government officials and local non-profits will welcome the crew, take part in a cleanup, and discuss the growing importance of keeping plastic out of our seas.

A journey of a thousand miles, they say, begins with a single step, or in our case a single breath of wind that propels us closer to the next set of people we can teach about making a change.

This Author

Kyle Ellison is a freelance writer who lives in Maui, Hawaii. He’s a recipient of the Hawaii Ecotourism Association Travel Writer of the Year award, and you can follow on Twitter @eatlessplastic for more info on the voyage.  

Nature-based sustainable prescribing could result in savings for the NHS and improved water quality for all, a new study has found.

The project was delivered by environmental consultancy Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, with support from South Gloucestershire Council and Bristol Avon Rivers Trust, and funded by the Environment Agency.

Eunomia was commissioned by the Environment Agency to develop an evaluation framework for collecting primary research results to see if they could find evidence of the value of nature-based prescribing – whether in benefits to health, or raised awareness of pollution in the natural environment.

River remedies

To deliver the framework, Eunomia identified and facilitated relationships with relevant stakeholders including South Gloucestershire Council, Bristol Avon Catchment Partnership, and Bristol Avon Rivers Trust.

Working closely with these organisations, the consultancy put together a six-week programme called River Remedies: Improving Wellbeing through Nature which offered vulnerable adults and teenagers the chance to engage with nature at sites on the Bristol Frome River.

Project partner Bristol Avon Rivers Trust co-ordinated river access and risk assessments whilst the public health team from South Gloucestershire Council sourced participants likely to benefit from taking part.

Participants were invited to sessions made up of a variety of activities including looking at river samples, testing for phosphates and nitrates, litter picking and yellow fish campaigning.

Wellbeing scores and pollution awareness levels were recorded before and after the sessions. Although it’s unlikely researchers will be able to estimate NHS savings until South Gloucestershire has tracked whether GP and secondary medical visits decline over time, or if there is a reduction of medication used. 

Social prescriptions 

The accompanying project report shows the small sample size indicated positive wellbeing following activities, and a potential crisis was averted thanks to early intervention with a participating individual. An increased awareness of pollution to the natural environment was also recorded.

David Baxter, head of natural economy at Eunomia and project director, said: “I believe projects on rivers should be part of a portfolio of social prescriptions available for everyone, particularly those who are dealing with issues of depression, anxiety or isolation.

“They are suitable for all ages but, as mental health is a growing problem for young people, it is worth noting that they are a particularly accessible and relevant therapy for teenagers.

“Rivers Trusts exist in every part of England. I would encourage them to consider the learning we developed in this programme to develop their own offering.

“There is no need to feel daunted by questions around health and safety or risk assessments, if you find the right partners amongst public health professionals they’ll look after these things for you.”

Improved wellbeing 

Damian Crilly, manager of strategic catchment partnerships at the Environment Agency, added: “The 25 Year Environment Plan promotes the use of the natural environment as a resource for good health and wellbeing, including through nature based social prescribing.

“Our overall aim for the project was to contribute to the evidence base on the benefits of nature based social prescribing and to show the practicalities that could be followed by catchment partnerships.

“This study has provided valuable, practical insight into the delivery of a social prescription on connecting people with nature.

“It found that river based remedies, a kind of nature based social prescription, has a positive effect in terms of increased engagement with the river, it helped manage mental health risks and improved wellbeing.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd.

The idea of the conscious consumer – or prosumer – has been explored at length – but much less attention has been given to the ‘conscious company’.

Would you shop more in your local community if you held shares in your local farm or pub? Would you care more about the carbon intensity of your electricity if you had invested in your energy company?

Would you support improvements in your local infrastructure – even if they didn’t benefit you directly – if you could invest in the projects themselves?

Building relationships

Would you change the way you ran your business if your customers and local community were co-invested as your shareholders? 

Abundance took the major step of offering shares to our customers (and other small investors) this month. More than 500 have signed up so far and we are well on the way to our target of raising £1.2m.

We now understand what it means to build a relationship with our customers based on shared interests as co-investors, as well as providing the means for people to invest for their future.

It feels both emotional and enlightening, as our own motivations are dissected and discussed by our investors – the ‘so-called’ crowd (although I prefer ‘peers’).

The best way I can describe the experience is to imagine BBC Question Time where the audience has actual money riding on your ability to respond to their questions. 

Patient capital

Small businesses (according to the Department for BEIS and the Federation of Small Businesses) account for more than 60 percent of private sector employment in the UK and 51 percent (£1.9 trillion) of private sector companies’ turnover.

The way they are run and managed (including how they invest in productivity and sustainability) matters if you care about creating not only a more sustainable world but also a more equal one. 

SMEs often claim they need the support of their communities against the threat of global corporations. Yet only a tiny proportion consider raising “patient capital” (i.e. selling shares) that addresses the very long-term objectives which are important to communities.

Small businesses also find it harder to make the long-term investments which would boost their productivity leading to both higher wages and profits.

This underinvestment, endemic to small businesses, is a major disadvantage for the UK compared with other countries in terms of business investment. 

Conscious investors

After six years, having helped ordinary people to invest over £77 million in 34 different sustainable and social infrastructure projects– ranging from wind turbines to social housing – the management team at Abundance decided we needed a step change to grow our business.

That meant bringing our customers in as investors and stakeholders to raise the long-term capital we need to achieve our long-term objectives.

Dragon’s Den and The Apprentice have a lot to answer for! They reinforce a view of equity investors as selfish and short term in their pursuit of profits and “exits” driven by financial markets rather than socially-conscious motivations (Deborah Meaden being the exception…).

But if shareholders are the customers and community the business aims to serve, that changes the relationship between the company and its public.

As conscious investors, our capital should help the business community to grow a stronger conscience of its own.

Social purpose

There are a few misconceptions to clear up first. There is often confusion about what it means for a company to “go public”.  It’s no longer the realm of sharp-suited stockbrokers and numbers flashing on a screen.

Since 2012 in the UK it has been possible for any company to go public directly with their customers and investors, with offers of shares or bonds from just £5. 

There is also a strange distinction between a “social enterprise” and a “normal” one. Large corporations with a strong social, environmental and governance record outperform those without.  This can and should apply to small and medium companies too.

It’s axiomatic that any normal business will suffer if its profit and purpose become disconnected from the society within which it operates. For the most part, businesses profit by providing something of value to their local community. If purpose and function are aligned with the needs of that community they are more likely to succeed. 

Then there’s the idea that somehow making a profit and doing good are exclusive outcomes. The best a profitable business can do is “don’t be evil” (Google’s unofficial motto until recently).  

But Abundance’s experience – and of our investors who also use our company to invest in projects with a social or environmental purpose – is that it is good business to serve the greater good. 

This Author 

Bruce Davis is managing director of Abundance Investment, which advertises with The Ecologist. Any investment is a risk and can result in financial loss. The Ecologist does not make any recommendations with regard to investments. 

Barack Obama’s decision to give Shell permission to drill for potential oil reserves in the Arctic undermined his legacy as the American president who took climate change seriously.

The public outcry as he comes to the end of his second and final term in the White House was hoarse with disappointment because of the audacious promises he made when first running for office: that he would challenge coal, oil and gas monopolies and deliver international climate deals.

Obama did warn during his first presidential address that it would be an uphill struggle and, over the coming weeks, the American electorate will have to assess how far they have really come. Had ExxonMobil and the Koch oil billionaires successfully tamed the man who was supposed to be the most powerful in the world?

Oil Money

The future president was a virtual unknown when he announced his election campaign in February 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. The Hawaii-born Harvard Law School graduate had been a community organiser in Chicago and a civil rights attorney.

The Senator was also among the few American legislators who had not (yet) received millions in funding from coal, oil and gas companies trying to spread their bets by funding both Democrat and Republican politicians who might get in the way of their drilling and refining.

“I don’t take money from oil companies,” Obama boasted at the beginning of 2008. This was technically true, but oil money did bleed into his campaign.

According to FactCheck.org he received $213,000 from oil and gas workers and their spouses. This included $66,000 from employees of the most well-known oil majors, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP.

In fact, the company formally known as British Petroleum and its employees had donated $77,051 to Obama during his time at the Senate and as a presidential hopeful. The total given to federal candidates exceeded $3.5 million in the two decades before his election.

By the end of the race, $916,162 was piped to Obama by the oil and gas industry, according to the OpenSecrets website. His Republican rival, John McCain, was awash with oil money – raising $2,666,842 from the industry.

Epochal Threat

During the campaign, Obama raised $745 million and spent $730 million, so the oil money was a drop in the ocean and seemingly not enough to buy his silence.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, the future president described climate change as the “epochal, manmade threat to the planet.” Later he alerted Americans to the potential of “a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands”.

In October 2007, he supported a climate change bill and was calling for a graduated cap on carbon dioxide emissions and an auction to sell ‘pollution credits’. “No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gas for free,” he asserted boldly.

A campaign advert, run in March 2008 in Pennsylvania and Indiana, signalled war against the monopoly of the American oil companies. Obama warned about over-reliance on foreign imports and championed energy independence, praising alternative fuels.

He said: “Since the gas lines of the 70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed – except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

“I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.”

ExxonMobil Candidate

Steve Coll, in his brilliant biography of an oil behemoth, Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, provides a dramatic account of how Obama attacked oil while out on the stump, challenging the most powerful vested interests in the world. Coll notes that Obama “spoke most pointedly about ExxonMobil…”

Obama said at an early primary debate: “It’s not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11billion last quarter. They’re not going to give up those profits easily.”

And he told a rally in North Carolina: “Think about that: at a time when we’re fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we’re paying more than four dollars for a gallon of gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2billion on a tax break for ExxonMobil. That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous!”

As voters went to the polls his attack on the energy industry began to crescendo. In August 2008, he announced at the Austintown-Fitch High School: “For the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we must end the age of oil in our time.”

He attacked George W. Bush for his reliance on oil, and the fact that gas prices for drivers had exploded. “They had a plan,” he said. “Problem was it was the oil company plan. It was the gas company plan. We need a people plan! And that’s why I’m running for president.

Yes we can

“The oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain, and if he wins, they will continue to cash in while our families and our economy suffer and our future is put in jeopardy.”

And he was not joking. At the same time, he was promising that the US would produce enough clean energy to end Middle East oil imports within a decade.

The oil companies certainly took the threat very seriously. One senior ExxonMobil executive told Coll: “We were like a candidate. Both parties were mentioning us by name… we were a candidate and we clearly knew that we were not electable.”

Now a decade has passed, with emissions still rising, will Obama supporters be able look back on the hope and the mania and say, “Yes, We Did”?

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

The growing mistrust and hostility towards global intuitions must be overcome if the world is to successfully tackle the environmental challenges it faces, the head of the University of Sussex’s global sustainability research centre has warned.

Too often, people consider organisations such as the UN as meddling amid a geopolitical backdrop of cancelled treaties, neglected obligations and frozen negotiations.

Professor Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP), said high-quality research and closer engagement with citizens around the world was needed to overcome this growing zeitgeist.

Environmental globalism

Delivering his keynote speech at the 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance this morning, Prof Alcamo said: “To many people earth system governance is not beautiful, it is worrisome, it means loss of control over their lives,  and this mistrust is a big part of the national retrenchment going on.

The former UN Environment Chief Scientist also said: “The research community must find a way to fight mistrust in the global institutions needed for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and to figure out how to implement the goals efficiently.”

Prof Alcamo warned those who believed in global governance would need to act in order to ensure that the major milestones achieved in 2015 including The Paris Climate Agreement, the 2030 Development Agenda, and the Sendai Framework were not part of the last wave of environmental globalism before the era of national retrenchment.

Prof Alcamo said he believed there was a latent interest in global governance, illustrated by the one million tourists visiting the UN headquarters every year, and that engagement and cooperation through local civil society organisations and on-line could be vital to help rebuild trust.

Prof Alcamo explained: “Even though I personally believe that we are morally obliged to achieve the SDGs – there are probably not enough important people in the world that feel the same way.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll be enough self-interest in the governments of the rich countries and private sector to propel the SDGs forward.

“Environmental protection and other societal goals are not a zero sum game. We can have it all and in fact we can’t have one without the other. Unfortunately this fallacy, this false dichotomy of a clash between economy and environment still has legs.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Sussex.

The growing mistrust and hostility towards global intuitions must be overcome if the world is to successfully tackle the environmental challenges it faces, the head of the University of Sussex’s global sustainability research centre has warned.

Too often, people consider organisations such as the UN as meddling amid a geopolitical backdrop of cancelled treaties, neglected obligations and frozen negotiations.

Professor Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP), said high-quality research and closer engagement with citizens around the world was needed to overcome this growing zeitgeist.

Environmental globalism

Delivering his keynote speech at the 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance this morning, Prof Alcamo said: “To many people earth system governance is not beautiful, it is worrisome, it means loss of control over their lives,  and this mistrust is a big part of the national retrenchment going on.

The former UN Environment Chief Scientist also said: “The research community must find a way to fight mistrust in the global institutions needed for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and to figure out how to implement the goals efficiently.”

Prof Alcamo warned those who believed in global governance would need to act in order to ensure that the major milestones achieved in 2015 including The Paris Climate Agreement, the 2030 Development Agenda, and the Sendai Framework were not part of the last wave of environmental globalism before the era of national retrenchment.

Prof Alcamo said he believed there was a latent interest in global governance, illustrated by the one million tourists visiting the UN headquarters every year, and that engagement and cooperation through local civil society organisations and on-line could be vital to help rebuild trust.

Prof Alcamo explained: “Even though I personally believe that we are morally obliged to achieve the SDGs – there are probably not enough important people in the world that feel the same way.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll be enough self-interest in the governments of the rich countries and private sector to propel the SDGs forward.

“Environmental protection and other societal goals are not a zero sum game. We can have it all and in fact we can’t have one without the other. Unfortunately this fallacy, this false dichotomy of a clash between economy and environment still has legs.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Sussex.

The growing mistrust and hostility towards global intuitions must be overcome if the world is to successfully tackle the environmental challenges it faces, the head of the University of Sussex’s global sustainability research centre has warned.

Too often, people consider organisations such as the UN as meddling amid a geopolitical backdrop of cancelled treaties, neglected obligations and frozen negotiations.

Professor Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP), said high-quality research and closer engagement with citizens around the world was needed to overcome this growing zeitgeist.

Environmental globalism

Delivering his keynote speech at the 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance this morning, Prof Alcamo said: “To many people earth system governance is not beautiful, it is worrisome, it means loss of control over their lives,  and this mistrust is a big part of the national retrenchment going on.

The former UN Environment Chief Scientist also said: “The research community must find a way to fight mistrust in the global institutions needed for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and to figure out how to implement the goals efficiently.”

Prof Alcamo warned those who believed in global governance would need to act in order to ensure that the major milestones achieved in 2015 including The Paris Climate Agreement, the 2030 Development Agenda, and the Sendai Framework were not part of the last wave of environmental globalism before the era of national retrenchment.

Prof Alcamo said he believed there was a latent interest in global governance, illustrated by the one million tourists visiting the UN headquarters every year, and that engagement and cooperation through local civil society organisations and on-line could be vital to help rebuild trust.

Prof Alcamo explained: “Even though I personally believe that we are morally obliged to achieve the SDGs – there are probably not enough important people in the world that feel the same way.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll be enough self-interest in the governments of the rich countries and private sector to propel the SDGs forward.

“Environmental protection and other societal goals are not a zero sum game. We can have it all and in fact we can’t have one without the other. Unfortunately this fallacy, this false dichotomy of a clash between economy and environment still has legs.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Sussex.

The growing mistrust and hostility towards global intuitions must be overcome if the world is to successfully tackle the environmental challenges it faces, the head of the University of Sussex’s global sustainability research centre has warned.

Too often, people consider organisations such as the UN as meddling amid a geopolitical backdrop of cancelled treaties, neglected obligations and frozen negotiations.

Professor Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP), said high-quality research and closer engagement with citizens around the world was needed to overcome this growing zeitgeist.

Environmental globalism

Delivering his keynote speech at the 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance this morning, Prof Alcamo said: “To many people earth system governance is not beautiful, it is worrisome, it means loss of control over their lives,  and this mistrust is a big part of the national retrenchment going on.

The former UN Environment Chief Scientist also said: “The research community must find a way to fight mistrust in the global institutions needed for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and to figure out how to implement the goals efficiently.”

Prof Alcamo warned those who believed in global governance would need to act in order to ensure that the major milestones achieved in 2015 including The Paris Climate Agreement, the 2030 Development Agenda, and the Sendai Framework were not part of the last wave of environmental globalism before the era of national retrenchment.

Prof Alcamo said he believed there was a latent interest in global governance, illustrated by the one million tourists visiting the UN headquarters every year, and that engagement and cooperation through local civil society organisations and on-line could be vital to help rebuild trust.

Prof Alcamo explained: “Even though I personally believe that we are morally obliged to achieve the SDGs – there are probably not enough important people in the world that feel the same way.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll be enough self-interest in the governments of the rich countries and private sector to propel the SDGs forward.

“Environmental protection and other societal goals are not a zero sum game. We can have it all and in fact we can’t have one without the other. Unfortunately this fallacy, this false dichotomy of a clash between economy and environment still has legs.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Sussex.

The growing mistrust and hostility towards global intuitions must be overcome if the world is to successfully tackle the environmental challenges it faces, the head of the University of Sussex’s global sustainability research centre has warned.

Too often, people consider organisations such as the UN as meddling amid a geopolitical backdrop of cancelled treaties, neglected obligations and frozen negotiations.

Professor Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP), said high-quality research and closer engagement with citizens around the world was needed to overcome this growing zeitgeist.

Environmental globalism

Delivering his keynote speech at the 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance this morning, Prof Alcamo said: “To many people earth system governance is not beautiful, it is worrisome, it means loss of control over their lives,  and this mistrust is a big part of the national retrenchment going on.

The former UN Environment Chief Scientist also said: “The research community must find a way to fight mistrust in the global institutions needed for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and to figure out how to implement the goals efficiently.”

Prof Alcamo warned those who believed in global governance would need to act in order to ensure that the major milestones achieved in 2015 including The Paris Climate Agreement, the 2030 Development Agenda, and the Sendai Framework were not part of the last wave of environmental globalism before the era of national retrenchment.

Prof Alcamo said he believed there was a latent interest in global governance, illustrated by the one million tourists visiting the UN headquarters every year, and that engagement and cooperation through local civil society organisations and on-line could be vital to help rebuild trust.

Prof Alcamo explained: “Even though I personally believe that we are morally obliged to achieve the SDGs – there are probably not enough important people in the world that feel the same way.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll be enough self-interest in the governments of the rich countries and private sector to propel the SDGs forward.

“Environmental protection and other societal goals are not a zero sum game. We can have it all and in fact we can’t have one without the other. Unfortunately this fallacy, this false dichotomy of a clash between economy and environment still has legs.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Sussex.

The alliance of rich, emerging and poor economies that sealed the Paris climate deal is falling apart. In 2015, the world’s top two emitters, the US and China, joined with Brazil, some small island countries and the European Union, led by Germany, France and the UK, to land the agreement.

But climate change politics have shifted significantly since then. Brazil elected a staunch and radical anti-environmentalist president, while Germany’s Angela Merkel confirmed her exit plans, further weakening an already fading image as the “climate chancellor” and Europe’s go-to leader in the field.

It is the latest bout of a malaise that has infected climate efforts since Donald Trump was elected in the US in 2016.

Slow and fraught

Now, in many important countries, climate scepticism and economic nationalism are usurping the international green enthusiasm of 2015.

As a result, political support for slashing greenhouse gas emissions, sending aid to the poorest and most vulnerable countries and discussing it all in multilateral summits is waning.

Others that remain committed to climate action are consumed by domestic concerns – like Brexit in the UK, and political instability in Germany.

None of this bodes well for the Cop24 climate summit in Katowice, Poland this December, where nearly 200 countries must agree the complex rules to keep each other on track to fulfil the Paris goals for limiting the temperature rise.

Negotiations in the run-up to what observers are calling the most important Cop since Paris have been slow and fraught.

Radical changes

The rhetoric going into the meeting is less positive than before Paris – at least in the top echelons of national politics.

Ambitious calls to overhaul old, dirty sectors such as energy and transport is matched by caution from Germany, Poland, Australia, Brazil, the US and others about the need to protect industrial heavyweights such as coal miners, auto-makers and beef farmers.

“Of course, we have big issue with Trump and the consequences of Trump in other countries,” said Laurence Tubiana, chief executive of the European Climate Foundation and France’s ambassador at the Paris summit.

That raises the pressure for Katowice, she said. “Symbolically, politically, to have a well-run Cop which delivers on its results is really important to show that whatever the ups and downs of the global politics on climate, and however much the climate issue is taken hostage by certain political parties, in reality there is still global consensus pushing for it.”

The election of the rightwing Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil is set to bring radical changes, including opening the Amazon to mining, agriculture and construction and merging the environment and agriculture ministries.

Step down

Bolsonaro said that he would not pull out of the Paris Agreement, as long as it did not affect Brazilian control over the Andes mountains, Amazon and Atlantic Ocean. Previously, however, he praised US president Trump for his decision to withdraw.

Brazil was never an all-out champion of climate action. Yet it did help tip the balance in favour of a stronger Paris Agreement, breaking ranks with other emerging economies and backing bigger and faster emissions cuts.

More recently, Michel Temer’s current government has crimped Amazon deforestation – while drawing criticism from environmentalists for still favouring farmers – and secured the role of host of next year’s COP25 summit, where countries will be under pressure to hike their national commitments to reducing greenhouse gases.

Compared to Bolsonaro’s Brazil, the German shift will be far more subtle – with continued headline support for the Paris Agreement and strict rules to fulfil it, as well as financial aid for poorer countries.

But Merkel’s announcement on Monday, that she will step down as leader of her conservative Christian Democratic Union and will not stand for re-election in 2021, further weakens her clout.

Political upheaval

Her image on climate change has already taken a hit this year, amid criticism for allowing deforestation for a coal mine, failure to meet the country’s 2020 emissions reduction goal, and slow progress on setting an end date for coal use.

It marks a change from 2015, when Merkel won praise for securing a G7 commitment to keeping the temperature below 2C, just months before Paris. Germany’s Energiewende pivot to renewable energy has also lost its lustre since then, and is now blamed for keeping coal afloat to make up for the shutdown of emissions-free nuclear power plants.

“I do not expect Merkel to stand out at the Cop,” said German European parliament member Reinhard Bütikofer, co-chair of the European Greens, adding that she is swayed by the Social Democrats’ “conventional and backward” views on environmental policy.

Referring to the chancellor’s 2007 trip to learn about the consequences of global warming, he added: “Merkel has not been a proactive force in that realm of policymaking ever since she famously sported her red jacket in front of some Greenland glaciers.”

These developments come after two years of political upheaval that has affected all the key players in the Paris deal.

Drive action

The most well-documented was Trump’s announcement six months after Paris that he would pull the US out of the deal, and subsequent moves to eliminate Obama-era measures including limits on coal-fired power and fuel efficiency improvements.

Meanwhile Australia – always reluctant to take climate action that might harm its large resource economy – is growing more brazen, criticising international climate talks and funding and ruling out a quick end to coal use.

Similar views are still alive and kicking in coal-reliant Poland, which presides over Cop24. Warsaw tends to stress the need for a gradual transition from coal, along with forestry and technology to catch CO2 and offset fossil fuel burning, and the rise of electric transport – which could present new demand for coal-fired power.

Even China, which has set high targets for cutting coal use and adding renewables and electric vehicles, sticks to a hard line behind negotiating doors. It wants to differentiate the responsibilities for developing economies and put more burden on developed countries – something the US and EU oppose.

This leaves the question of where leadership will come from to drive action forward.

Decarbonised economy

“The political signals we are getting are not in favour of climate action,” said Harjeet Singh from the NGO ActionAid. “This is quite frustrating, this is a time when all of us in the global community should have come together to deal with this global problem.”

Still, climate change advocates stress that they see a positive side-effect to the disappointing turns in high-level politics: the rise of action from states, cities, regions, businesses, philanthropists and others.

“At this point the private sector and finance and technology have taken over the leadership and are decarbonising the electricity grid and are moving, not fast enough, but much more quickly than they were five years ago into a decarbonised economy,” Christiana Figueres, former head of the UN’s climate secretariat and convener of the Mission 2020 initiative, told Climate Home News.

This Article

This article first appeared on Climate Home News.