The idea that planting trees is the wrong way to tackle our depleted woodlands is quite controversial. Expressing this opinion out loud at a Tree Conference is downright dangerous – but Isabella Tree, author of the book Wilding, was so persuasive that she’d convinced most of the audience by the end of her talk. 

Tree challenged the wisdom of the accepted concept and argued that letting trees seed naturally and grow up through brambles and scrub, which provides natural protection, is a more successful way to develop woodlands long term – and her book provides the compelling supporting evidence. 

In it, she tracks the inspirational story of how she and her husband Charlie Burrell undertook a daring experiment to rewild their Knepp Estate in West Sussex. After decades of intensive but unprofitable farming had left their 3,500 acres denuded, the land is now bursting with life – from critically endangered nightingales, turtle doves and purple emperor butterflies to rocketing populations of many other struggling species. 

Stark warnings

Tree explained: “Dynamic open wood pasture systems are vital for our native wildlife. At Knepp, we are achieving tree regeneration with a minimum of human intervention.”

Her talk was thought-provoking and hopeful, and encouraged the idea of getting more trees in our landscape through this cheaper, more efficient and less polluting way. She backing up her argument with data accumulated since starting her project in 2000.

The conference also highlighted a worryingly under-researched area: the negative impact of human society on the fungi that plays a vital role in the health of our forests.

Dr Martin Bidartondo and his pan-European team have spent ten years investigating the often-overlooked relationship of the plant-fungal system.

Their work so far has shown excess man-made CO2 and nitrogen is overloading our woodlands and adversely affecting the delicate underground network that links tree roots. He had a stark warning that we continue to ignore this vital symbiosis at our peril.

It was not all doom and gloom, however. It was heartwarming to hear the uplifting enthusiasm of a group of school children from Hampshire. They eloquently represented Andover Trees United, which was founded by Wendy Davis to work closely with 25 schools and the community as part of a ten-year plan to create a woodland on a 44-acre patch of land.

Information corridor

Now at the half-way point, 5,000 trees have been planted in the Harmony Wood. Granted, against the scale of our arboreal deficiencies it’s a little acorn – only 10 percent of England is covered in woodland compared with an average 37 percent across the rest of Europe. But the youngsters’ interest has spread to their family and friends and forged a strong bond between these trees and their community.

The subject matter of environmental conferences tends to keep the mood sober and downbeat but Suzi Martineau and her team heading up the Frome meeting for the second year, maintained a flow of positive news that left the audience enthused about how communities can drive the change we need.

The idea of a wildlife corridor – linking habitats so that animals can move freely – is well known. The Tree Conference organisers have an ambitious aim to create an information corridor, offering training to support others in establishing Tree Conferences in the UK and beyond that can work together for maximum results.

The plan reflects the conference’s optimistic message that there are many routes to the over-arching aim: to encourage a love of and desire to protect our trees. There’s even a place for digging holes and planting them.

This Author 

Gary Cook is an environmental painter who was the senior artist for The Sunday Times for twenty six years. He exhibits regularly in the south west and London including with the Society of Graphic Fine Art, the RI, the RWA and The Arborealists. Gary tweets from @cookthepainter. 

Nuclear lobbyists have jumped on the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to promote nuclear power. In so doing they misrepresent the IPCC report.

World Nuclear Association Director General Agneta Rising said the IPCC report “makes clear … the necessity of nuclear energy as an important part of an effective global response” to climate change.

He argues that it “highlights the proven qualities of nuclear energy as a highly effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing secure, reliable and scalable electricity supplies.”

In a separate statement, the association falsely claimed that nuclear power increases under all of the IPCC scenarios compatible with limiting warming to 1.5˚C.

The IPCC report does indeed have some nice things to say about nuclear power. For example it argues that, “comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production and land requirement is lower than that of other power sources”.

But the report also raises numerous concerns. It states that historically high rates of scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants “are not achieved anymore” and “the current time-lag between the decision date and the commissioning of plants is observed to be 10-19 years.”

The IPCC report states that the deployment of nuclear energy is “constrained by social acceptability in many countries” due to concerns over risks of accidents and radioactive waste management.

It states that: “The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a politically fraught subject, with no large-scale long-term storage operational worldwide.”

It mentions studies finding an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia in populations living within five kilometres of nuclear power plants – the evidence of a link is actually stronger than the IPCC suggests.

The IPCC report notes that the costs of nuclear power have increased over time in some developed nations “principally due to market conditions where increased investment risks of high-capital expenditure technologies have become significant”.

It notes that nuclear power provides an example of “where real-world costs have been higher than anticipated … while solar PV is an example where real-world costs have been lower”.

Weapons proliferation

The IPCC report states that “continued use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation.” Michael Shellenberger, a nuclear lobbyist in the US, calls this “unsubstantiated fear-mongering“.

But Shellenberger himself has recently written at length about the manifold and repeatedly-demonstrated connections between nuclear power and weapons.

“[N]ational security, having a weapons option, is often the most important factor in a state pursuing peaceful nuclear energy,” Shellenberger said in August.

A recent analysis by Shellenberger’s nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ found that of the 26 nations that are building or are committed to build nuclear power plants, 23 have nuclear weapons, had weapons, or have shown interest in acquiring weapons.

“While those 23 nations clearly have motives other than national security for pursuing nuclear energy,” Shellenberger wrote, “gaining weapons latency appears to be the difference-maker.”

Walking back his earlier statements linking nuclear power and weapons, Shellenberger writes in his response to the IPCC report that: “No nation has used its civilian nuclear plants to create a weapon.”

That claim is garbage: nuclear power reactors have been used directly for weapons production, as have technologies association with nuclear power ‒ enrichment and reprocessing plants, and research and training reactors.

Nuclear power’s decline

On October 16, The Australian newspaper published an opinion piece by Tony Grey headlined ‘Turns out that even the Greens see nuclear sense’. The ‘Greens’ in this case are the climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC report.

According to Grey, the IPCC report “offers a refreshing view on nuclear power’s role in helping to mitigate global warming. It’s refreshing because the green lobby has been such a closed-minded opponent.”

Grey continues: “The inescapable inference from the report is that without its contribution, there would be no possibility of achieving the objective the IPCC calls for.”

Grey misrepresents the IPCC report. The report states: “Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators declines.

“There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways … Some 1.5°C pathways no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project over 200 EJ / yr of nuclear power in 2100.”

Marginal contributor

Nearly all of the scenarios presented in the IPCC report envisage a decline in nuclear power generation to 2030 followed by an upswing. No logical rationale ‒ or any rationale at all ‒ is provided to support the upswing from 2030 to 2050.

All we know for sure is that an overwhelming majority of the world’s ageing fleet of nuclear power reactors will be shut down by 2050, and it seems increasingly unlikely that the number of reactor start-ups will match shut-downs.

But even if nuclear power does enjoy an upswing, it will still be a marginal contributor to energy supply and to climate change abatement. The points that jump out from most the IPCC’s low-carbon 1.5°C scenarios are that nuclear accounts for only a small fraction of energy/electricity supply (even if nuclear output increases) whereas renewables do the heavy lifting.

For example, in one 1.5°C scenario highlighted in the report, nuclear power more than doubles by 2050 but only accounts for 4.2 percent of primary energy whereas renewables account for 60.8 percent. In another 1.5°C scenario, nuclear nearly doubles by 2050 but its contribution to total electricity supply falls to 8.9 percent (from 10.3 percent in 2017), compared to 77.5 percent for renewables.

This Author

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where a version of this article was originally published.

Most women use pads and tampons during their period and are reasonably happy with them. They work quite well at doing what they’re designed to do: preventing leaks. They’re also very easy to dispose of by just throwing them in the rubbish.

But, is there a better way? One that doesn’t require throwing little bits of plastic away every single month for decades? Or wasting money on period products?  

Let’s find out more about eco-friendly period products, including menstrual cups, reusable cloth pads and organic disposables.

Menstrual cups

You may have heard of the Diva Cup, Moon Cup, or Lunette Cup before. They’re the most popular brands of menstrual cups in the world and have been around for about 20 years now.

In case you haven’t, they’re cups made mostly from medical grade silicone that are designed to collect menstrual fluid. Although some companies recommend replacing them every year or two (the Diva Cup for example), most people find that the top-quality ones last for 5-10 years.

Making the switch early in your life means 4-8 cups during your lifetime instead of 10,000+ tampons. That’s a big difference for our the plant. Besides being great for the environment, menstrual cups will save you a ton of money, and are about 10 times cheaper than tampons over the long-term.

The only real problem with period cups is that it can be difficult to choose the best one because there are so many of them on the market today. Each brand also comes in a range of sizes and styles.

You can check out reviews of some of the top brands here: Menstrual Cup Reviews.

Reusable pads

Disposable pads – out of all the period products – are the worst for the environment. They contain large amounts of non-biodegradable plastic that’ll still be hanging around the landfill hundreds of years from now.

What’s the better way? Cloth pads. They’re made from natural materials like cotton, bamboo or charcoal – and like menstrual cups they can last for years. Most people find that they need 5-6 of them to make it through their period in style.

They’re similar to disposable pads, except that they stay in place with snaps instead of a sticky backing. Cloth pads come in a wide range of absorbency levels so you’re sure to find one that’s right for your needs.

One cloth pad can last for 5-10 years and can potentially replace hundreds of plastic-filled disposables. That’s a serious win in my books, and probably is for you too. Some of my favourite brands include Hesta Organic, Blushing Bluebirds, Lunapads, and Party in My Pants. There are some very cheap cloth pads on Amazon but they often don’t work that well as preventing leaks.

Cloth pads are one of those things that it’s definitely worth spending a bit more money on up-front for quality. Remember, it’s not such a big deal because they’ll last for years.

Organic tampons

Rather than sticking to conventional pads and tampons you can buy disposable products made with organic cotton. Almost all of them are also plastic-free, including the packaging as well.

This is a serious win for your body as you’ll be reducing your exposure to toxic chemicals during your period. These organic products are also a serious win for the environment because they’ll break down in just a few years as opposed to hundreds.

Quick tip: Organic feminine hygiene products can be expensive if you buy them at your local health food shop, or natural health store. Instead, check them out online and you’ll potentially save about 50 percent, especially if you buy them in a package of three boxes for example.

While you’re there, check out customer reviews for the products you’re considering. Quality and effectiveness varies widely for organic pads and tampons.

Ready to make the switch to green period products? Welcome to the club! You’ll be joining an enlightened group of people who are serious about helping the environment, saving money, and making a better choice for their health.

This Author 

Jackie Bolen is a tree-hugging friend of the Earth who can usually be found on top of a mountain, or drinking coffee around Vancouver, Canada.

“You have only thought of earning profits from the Ganges,” wrote GD Agarwal to the Indian government. His protest against a failure to prevent industrial pollution into the river eventually led to his death – 111 days into a hunger strike.

GD Agarwal, a former professor of environmental engineering at one of India’s top universities, died from a heart attack caused by his fast, according to doctors.

The 2,525km Ganges is considered holy by Hindus, but for is heavily polluted by untreated sewage and industrial waste.

Weak action

Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, has said that cleaning the river was one of his government’s top priorities, but Agarwal said that action taken by the government so far had not been nearly effective enough.

He wanted hydropower and sand mining projects along the river to be stopped. In a letter to Modi, he said that businesses had been the only ones to gain from government action along the river.

The Indian government claimed that it was preparing tougher environmental regulations, but Agarwal did not believe that these would be strong enough, and gave up all liquids, leading to his death.

Agarwal had undertaken several fasts before against development in the river and in 2009 managed to stop the damming of the Bhagirathi river, a source stream for the Ganges, after fasting for 38 days.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Lord Lawson began his public relations attack on climate science in earnest on 8 March 2007 when he appeared alongside the distinguished cast of oil-funded deniers on the Channel Four programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Lawson used the platform to try and undermine Margaret Thatcher’s legacy as the politician who had placed climate change at the centre of global political debate, claiming her support was just a Machiavellian counterattack against coal workers and the National Union of Miners.

The programme was directed by Martin Durkin, a former Marxist who had become close friends with Julian Morris and the radical free market Institute of Economic Affairs. Durkin told me that Morris, then at the International Policy Network, was very much the inspiration for the show.

Provocative programme

‘Swindle’ was a deliberately provocative polemic and Durkin was entirely at ease with editing interviews – on at least one occasion – so that the participants appeared to be saying exactly the opposite of what they had in fact proposed. He claims that global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists.

Sir David King, then chief scientific advisor to the UK Government, complained to Channel Four about how his own contribution had been manipulated. After the show aired there were more than 260 further complaints from viewers. Professor Chris Rapley, then head of the British Antarctic Survey, described the programme as “a tissue of lies”.

Bob Ward from the Royal Society, who had previously taken on ExxonMobil, drafted a 180 page report for the broadcast regulator, accusing the programme of “displaying erroneous or artificially manipulated graphs, and presenting incorrect, misleading, or incomplete opinions and facts on the science of global warming and the related economics.”

Ward told me: “I thought it was outrageous. I thought: how is it possible that this has been allowed to be broadcast, because it’s so blatantly full of demonstrably false information? What I decided to do was to organise a joint letter by a group of climate scientists to complain about it.”

Not impartial

Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, indeed ruled that Channel Four had broken impartiality guidelines and had misrepresented statements by King. They found the programme’s representation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unfair, as was its treatment of Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT.

There were several contributors who had no complaints about the programme – indeed, they only had cause of celebration. Many of them had become familiar faces to those scrutinising ExxonMobil’s and the Koch brothers’ funding of climate denial.

Fred Singer was asked to give an expert opinion, with no reference to the fact that he had previously worked as a consultant to major oil companies including ExxonMobil. Tim Ball, also funded by fossil fuels, was interviewed, as were Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Patrick Michaels.

Among those supporting the programme was Christopher Booker, the ever-eccentric Sunday Telegraph columnist.

He celebrated the broadcast “as unashamedly one-sided in putting the sceptical objections to the theory of man-made global warming as innumerable BBC programmes had been in conveying the ‘consensus’ view.”

Political spin

Stewart Dimmock – described as a 45-year-old lorry driver and school governor from Kent – apparently took it upon himself to take the Labour Government to court to prevent the distribution of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to schools. He claimed the “political spin” should be balanced by the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ being sent out at the same time.

“I care about the environment as much as the next man,” Dimmock was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying. “However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom”.

Much of the charm of Dimmock’s David-and-Goliath assault on Al Gore – and support for Martin Durkin – was the fact that he was not a political animal. Yet, it was not long before Viscount Monckton, the Tory peer, revealed himself as among those bankrolling the legal battle.

Monckton also threatened to send out his own film, Apocalypse No!, with the financial support of Fred Singer and his Science and Public Policy Institute, which was once housed with the Atlas Foundation, set up by Antony Fisher and supported with plumes of tobacco funding.

Lawson lent considerable gravitas to ‘Swindle’, but was shrewd enough to distance himself from Monckton’s headline-grabbing antics. It was also shortly after his appearance on Channel 4 that he began to unwind his investments in a consultancy company working closely with Polish coal, oil and gas companies.

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. 

World Vegan Day is a time to recognise how far the vegan movement has come and to raise awareness of the many benefits of a vegan lifestyle. It is commemorated through exhibitions, seminars, public debates and workshops.

The day presents a perfect opportunity for anyone looking to adopt the vegan lifestyle – and the Vegan Society has today launched an innovative new app to help people switch.

There are now more vegans than ever, with recent polling suggesting that the number of UK vegans has quadrupled in the last four years alone – there really is no better time to try out the lifestyle for yourself.

VeGuide app

The first World Vegan Day was celebrated in 1994, and since then 1 November has attracted greater significance and international recognition every year.

Plant-based food ranges are expanding and are a far cry from the typical hummus and veg sandwich you were lucky to find in a café a few years ago, or the sad reality of having to order chips and an undressed side salad when out for dinner with friends. Quite the opposite – options are becoming more creative, flavourful and exciting than ever before.

VeGuide is perfect for anyone considering transitioning to a vegan lifestyle. If you’d like to give plant-based living a go but you’re not quite sure where to start, VeGuide has you covered – simply download the app to follow our easy 30-day programme.

Each day, you will be treated to a short video covering the most common topics that arise in the early days of going vegan. You can also select your personal reasons for going vegan to receive regular encouraging boosts along the way, especially tailored to you!

Get involved

VeGuide features recipes, shopping tips and nutritional information, and is brought to life by video content featuring our friendly vegan presenters.

We currently have a UK and a US version of the app, with advice customised to include resources and products available in each area of the world, with plans to expand to include more countries in the future.

If you are not yet vegan, then World Vegan Month presents an opportunity like no other to give it a go. You could try downloading the app and see how you get on over the course of your month, or if that feels like too big a step then simply try experimenting more with vegan food over November.

You could organise a vegan potluck and invite your friends to all bring over a different vegan dish. This is a great way to familiarise yourself with vegan cooking while having fun and trying something different.

There are also many easily accessible documentaries on veganism which you can access online or through a Netflix account. World Vegan Month would be the ideal time to find out a bit more about veganism, from whatever angle takes your fancy – whether that be the environmental benefits of a plant-based lifestyle, the hard-to-ignore animal rights angle or motivations related to health and wellbeing.

There are so many reasons to find out more about veganism, and World Vegan Day and Month could be the little nudge you need. We would love to hear about your adventures in veganism throughout November – please tag #WorldVeganDay and #WorldVeganMonth on social media and let us know how you’re getting on.

This Author 

Elena Orde is communication and campaigns officer for the The Vegan Society. 

Liam Fox’s plans for post-Brexit trade deals were dealt a blow by the Scottish Parliament yesterday as Holyrood’s Finance and Constitution Committee advised MSPs not to give consent to the controversial Trade Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords.

Nick Dearden, the director of Global Justice Now, also told MPs on Westminster’s International Trade committee that the Department for International Trade was failing to allow either the public or MPs basic information which would allow them to prevent a disastrous trade deal with Donald Trump’s USA.

Dearden told MPs that it was impossible for the public or MPs to debate or hold the government to account on trade deals when no detail at all was provided on the government’s strategy or objectives.

Freedom of information

Dearden pointed to official statistics which show that in the last quarter of freedom of information requests submitted to Dr Fox’s department 48 percent of requests were completely rejected and only 27 percent of requests were met in full.

Meanwhile the department holds the record for being the least punctual – 34 percent were not answered in the permitted time period in the last quarter. 

Dearden said: “We have had the most basic information requests turned down – like when and where do Liam Fox’s trade working groups meet with other countries. What can possibly be the justification for withholding such information?

“It bodes extremely ill for our ability to hold Fox to account for post-Brexit trade deals, and means we could easily walk into a ‘race to the bottom’ deal with Trump. The government must understand that trade deals are not corporate deals, discussed behind closed doors. They affect all of us – our food quality, our NHS, how we treat the banks.

“Transparency is vital if we’re not to repeat the disaster of TTIP.”   

Scotland has the right to withhold consent for Fox’s Trade Bill, which lays out a process for agreeing some post-Brexit trade deals. Yesterday’s cross-party Holyrood committee brought that reality one step closer.

Testing devolution

While the decision would not necessarily scupper the bill, it would set up a constitutional battle between Holyrood and Westminster, and drain the government’s trade strategy of much needed legitimacy.

Importantly, the Holyrood committee has also stated that it is essential that the devolved institutions are involved at all stages of the trade negotiation process and is also challenging the UK government to publicly respond to that.

Liz Murray, head of Scottish campaigns at Global Justice Now said: “It’s clear that the UK government’s trade bill is really testing the devolution settlement and raising important questions about where the power lies over trade deals that the UK government makes after it leaves the European Union.

“For many months, we’ve been calling for Scotland and the other devolved nations of the UK to be given a formal say over post-Brexit trade deals since the impacts of those deals will be felt across the UK. In their report today, Holyrood’s finance and constitution committee are absolutely right to recognise that trade agreements include a wide range of issues that fall within devolved areas.  

“The extent of modern trade deals is so far reaching that this includes not just the obvious devolved areas of food safety, farming and fishing, but also public services such as health, water provision and even education.  It’s absolutely vital that members of the Scottish parliament get a say in post-Brexit trade deals before, during and after their negotiation.  The best way that we have to make sure this happens is for the UK trade bill to be amended.”

The Trade Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords in September and is awaiting a date for committee stage. At least six trade democracy amendments have so far been tabled. 

A UK Government spokesperson said:

“The Trade Bill is about ensuring continuity for businesses and consumers across the UK and our international trade partners, ensuring that the essential legal structures that will enable the UK to operate an independent trade policy are in place.

“Additionally, the UK Government is committed to seeking the input of the Devolved Administrations on future trade policy, recognising the role they will have in developing and delivering it.

“Last year, the Department for International Trade published a White Paper preparing for the UK’s future trade policy, in which the Government’s commitment to the transparency and inclusiveness in future trading arrangements was set out. Also, the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority, a vital new agency to safeguard UK industry as the government prepares for an independent UK trade policy, will protect the interest of industries across the UK.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Global Justice Now. 

Ever since Blue Planet II hit our screens last winter, plastic – and plastic packaging – has been at the forefront of the national and international policy debate. Indeed, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) research suggests as many as 88 percent of people want to reduce their consumption of plastic packaging.

One of the great questions in the quest to reduce waste plastic is whether paper or card offers a solution to the plastic crisis. We know some products need to be packaged in plastic for food safety reasons, to increase shelf life or for ease of transportation. But for those items that don’t need plastic, do paper or card offer a credible alternative?

Morrisons recently announced it was bringing back the traditional brown paper bag for groceries in an effort to save an estimated 150 million plastic bags every year.

Completely illogically

Despite public concern about single use plastic, the decision was met with some scepticism by the Environment Agency and WRAP, the industry body for waste management. Indeed, many packaging producers have rushed to the defence of plastic as the sensible packaging solution for many products.

Some of the arguments against paper packaging are well-known – that it’s bulkier, heavier and takes more energy and water to make and transport. In other words, the carbon footprint of paper and card is actually greater than that of plastic.

These arguments ignore the work being done by some of the world’s leading cardboard manufacturers to increase levels of renewable energy use, recycle the non-fibre elements of processed wood to generate heat and electricity on site and dramatic reductions of the water used in their processes. Arguments also ignore the wider, long-lasting issues with plastic.

Soil Association Certification Forestry, as one of the biggest forest management and chain of custody certification bodies in the UK – certifying to both FSC and PEFC standards – is well positioned to inform this debate.

Plastic is designed to last – over 500 years! Yet, completely illogically, 50 percent of them are single use. An estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean each year, including the great South Pacific Garbage Patch, estimated to be three times the size of France.

Cardboard production

While some plastics may break down into much smaller pieces over time, these tiny pieces become micro pollution that leech into waterways and the food we eat.

Researchers at the University of Manchester recently found that a British river has the highest levels of microplastic pollution recorded anywhere in the world. Most ocean plastic is at plankton level – alarming given that plankton provide 50 percent of all the oxygen we breathe. 

‘Compostable’ plastics – seen by many as a possible packaging solution – largely require industrial composting and can pollute the recyclability of ‘normal’ plastics if they get into the regular recycling stream.

While these plastics may one day provide a solution, the current lack of clarity on methods of disposal is a major hindrance to efforts to reduce the plastic that ends up as waste and in the environment.  

In contrast, the wood fibre used to produce paper, card and cardboard production is highly recyclable, with packaging materials having the highest recycled content of any consumer products.

Carbon sinks

The paper recycling rate in Europe reached a near theoretical maximum of 71.5 percent in 2015, up from just 50 percent in 1998. In contrast, figures released earlier this year show plastic recycling on the continent is languishing at 40.9 percent, despite global concern.

The paper industry has been a driving force in achieving this high recycling rate. Since 2000, the European paper value chain has been committed to increasing recycling, in part by joining efforts to remove obstacles that had previously hampered paper recycling in Europe.

These efforts to create a paper fibre loop offer the current EU-level discussions on the Circular Economy a clear and workable model to be followed. 

Forests managed responsibly are, of course, not just sources of a raw material. When managed to internationally-recognised schemes like FSC or PEFC they can deliver beautiful landscapes, clean water, and habitats for a range of wildlife.

They support tourism and well-being. They also act as carbon sinks, trapping more carbon within them than nearly all other landscapes. All things that fossil-fuel derived alternatives cannot do.

Recycled, certified

As demand for paper and card products increase in the wake of world-wide concern about plastic, the economic value of productive forests will increase.

Certified forests that meet independently verified standards on social, environmental and economic factors will become more important to reduce irresponsible loss of natural forests. Shoppers who want to purchase timber, paper and packaging products that are responsibly sourced should look for the FSC or PEFC logos for reassurance.

A shift away from plastic packaging is essential, and while such system change can seem daunting, with a supportive policy environment major shifts can happen quickly.

The landfill tax in 1996 and plastic bag levy in 2015 are good examples of this. In the meantime, timber and plant-based solutions from recycled, certified and responsibly managed sources can be a solution to much of the packaging we currently create from plastic.

This author

Kevin Jones is head of forestry for Soil Association Certification Forestry and is responsible for their global forest certification programme, certifying to FSC and PEFC forest management and chain of custody standards. For more on our work as a timber certification body, visit its website. 

The UK government has submitted a voluntary commitment to step up its efforts to tackle air pollution across the country at the final High Level Action Day of the conference today.

The first-ever international air pollution conference organised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) brought together government officials and health experts from more than 100 countries to place the issue on the global agenda. At least 18 other national governments, eight cities and 20 NGOs also submitted individual commitments.

Air pollution is the fourth biggest threat to public health in the UK, after cancer, obesity and heart disease.

Roadside hotspots

The launch of a Clean Air Strategy in May by environment secretary Michael Gove already indicated the reduction of air pollution has become a priority for the UK government. The WHO estimates that the UK Clean Air Strategy will reduce the costs of air pollution to British society by £1 billion every year by 2020.

In Geneva today, the UK government has further committed to take action in bringing down particulate matter in the country, the most harmful air pollutant, promising to halve the number of British people living with concentrations of particulate matter above the WHO guideline of 10 μg/m3 by 2025.

Dr Thérèse Coffey MP, the under secretary of state for the environment confirmed in a written statement to the Global Air Pollution conference that her government will start legislation for a new Environment Act by early 2019.

First generation

The new Environment Act will give local governments more powers to take decisive action in areas with an air pollution problem and will put stricter standards in place for domestic fuels and stoves.

The UK’s commitment for Clean Air in Geneva today also highlighted the commitment of a £3.5bn government investment to reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at roadside hotspots, including £1.2bn to improve provision for walking and cycling and £475 million to help local authorities develop and implement local air quality plans.

“Governments cannot do this alone. That is why [our air pollution measures] have collaboration at their heart, working with businesses, farmers, industry and households, to develop innovative new solutions to reduce emissions,” MP Thérèse Coffey stated.

“We are committed to being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.”

This Author

Arthur Wyns is a tropical biologist and science journalist who writes about climate change, environment and migration. He tweets from @ArthurWyns

Lord Monckton hoisted himself into centre stage of the denier circus in November 2006 with a double-page feature in the then respectable Sunday Telegraph, in which he claimed climate science was “a Sci-Fi panic”.

The eccentric Scottish peer would boast: “In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph’s website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week’s article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun’s role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming.”

The newspaper article represented a remarkable return after illness to the media spotlight for a man apparently addicted to publicity and the adoration of the crowd. As the satirical magazine Private Eye reported at the time, the article was “largely incomprehensible”.

Untidy Factoids

Tim Lambert, of the Deltoid science blog, was even more dismissive. “The main problem with his article is that he doesn’t know what he’s writing about it. He offers up an untidy pile of factoids, some of which are true but out of context, some of which are not at all true, and some of which he seems to have conjured up out of thin air.”

Prior to this news splash, the viscount had appeared in the press in 2000 as the inventor of the Eternity puzzle and the man who promised £1m to the first person to find its solution. Two Cambridge mathematicians were quick to claim the prize. Monckton at first claimed the payout forced him to sell his 67-room mansion – and then later that he had lied to get more publicity for the puzzle.

Many years earlier, Monckton had worked as a junior advisor in Margaret Thatcher’s highly politicised Number 10 Policy Unit, and claimed to have introduced the first computer to government.

He also claimed to have been the first to persuade the PM to take the issue of climate change seriously. It may have been this remarkable and totally unsubstantiated claim that persuaded Patience Wheatcroft, the then editor of the Sunday Telegraph, to take his rambling feature seriously.

However, he failed to get a mention in the former prime minister’s autobiography years later.

As it would happen, Monckton’s sister Rose is married to Lord Lawson’s eldest son Dominic. But both men deny that it was Lawson who had persuaded his in-law to adopt the well-worn and tragic claims that scientists had conspired to construct an international conspiracy in order to support the case for a Communist global government.

Monckton’s Denial

So how exactly did it come to be that Lord Monckton should become the spokesperson for the more eclectic climate deniers – flown around the world by ExxonMobil-funded think tanks like the ominous sounding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) – to attack scientists?

This is how Monckton himself takes up the story: “Well, I didn’t decide. It was all accidentally; I was rung up by the chief executive of a boutique finance house.”

According to Monckton, the mystery chief executive said: “Look, all our investors want to pile in on this green investment stuff but I want to know: is there a problem with the climate?”

Monckton replied: “Oh yes, I advised Margaret Thatcher on it 25 years ago and it was quite clear then that the scientists were worried and I recommended to find out more.”

CEO: “[We] would like you to find out more.”

Monckton, he says, “spent a month on his dime” investigating the science and sent the investor a 40-page report. It concluded that climate change did not represent a serious threat.

The man called a few days later and demanded: “Why should I pay any attention to this?”

Monckton: “Well, you asked me to do this, I gave it my best shot, you’ve got all my evidence there.”

CEO: “I’ve consulted a dozen people, all of them more eminent than you…”

Monckton: “Well, thank you very much.”

CEO: “And they all tell me that this is a real problem, this is the worst problem humanity has ever faced and we have to do everything we can to stop this and you’ve said: ‘no problem at all’.”

Monckton: ‘Well I don’t say there is no problem at all, I say it’s not likely that there is much of a problem and even if it were it would be cheaper to let it happen.”

CEO: “Well, we are going to go with you and not the other 11.”

Monckton: “Why is that?”

CEO: “You’re the only one who provided any evidence, and you’ve provided 40 pages of it. The others all told me that I had to believe: I didn’t get where I am today by believing stuff.”

Generous Financier

Monckton has always refused to give up the name of the financier who paid him generously to investigate climate science who and set him on the path of attacking scientists in talks in the United States and Australia ever since.

However, my investigation established that the mystery man is Edgar Miller, a right-wing American who claims to have significant influence in the Conservative Party and who boasts of having made a fortune from early investments in shale gas development.

Miller was born in Bailey County, Texas, but moved to Britain almost 40 years ago. He is a serial investor and entrepreneur, having directed companies with names like Palladian Software Limited, Maxwell Espinosa and UK Israel Business.

The climate denier is a political animal, claiming to have met Margaret Thatcher “on several occasions.” He is also close to Peter Lilley MP and Andrew Tyrie – the unsung hero of Tory climate denial.

“I used to be more connected to the Conservative Party. I used to work up in there with policy but I quickly learnt that it’s a mug’s game because most politicians are not interested in anyone’s help,” he told a female journalist over dinner.

Moderately Wealthy

“When you are talking to these people, they are either so ignorant that they didn’t understand what you were saying or they were just so ego driven, or both, that they figured they know all the answers.”

Miller is moderately wealthy, having bought a London townhouse in Notting Hill for £725,000 in 2000. He used to drive an E-Type Jag until he had an accident, apparently attempting to impress a female passenger.

Miller will become significant again in our history of climate denial – supporting Lord Lawson at the Global Warming Policy Foundation and speaking candidly about his falling out with the new Conservative leadership.

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.