The long awaited Agriculture Bill finally made its first appearance this week when it was introduced before Parliament. This is the UK Government’s plan on what UK farming will look like post Brexit.

There is no reference to the protection of human health or public health in the Agriculture Bill as regards to farmers, the main users of pesticides – despite the DEFRA Consultation that preceded the publication of the Agriculture Bill being called Health and Harmony.

In fact, it seems that the only notable references to the health of ‘people’ are in relation to the functions of public authorities.

Human health

There is no specific mention of pesticides except in three places when defining persons “closely connected” with an agri-food supply chain as including those supplying pesticides.

Further, there does not appear to be any specific mention of agro-chemicals or chemicals at all.

There is only a vague reference in a couple of places to “preventing, reducing or protecting from environmental hazards” – but with no definition of those hazards and so as said nothing specifically on either pesticides or human health and certainly nothing in relation to protecting human health from pesticides!

Therefore, there is no recognition or even any specific reference in the Agriculture Bill – or Mr Gove’s statements – to the continued risks associated with the continued use of pesticides and other agro-chemicals on crop fields across the UK.

Pesticides remain the biggest contributor of damage, pollution, and contamination of the air, soil, water and overall environment in agricultural areas, as well as damaging human health. 

Agricultural pesticides

This means that much of the perceived benefits of the proposed new Agriculture Bill that Michael Gove and DEFRA are advocating simply will not materialise.

The widespread use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in our existing farming system appears to be the Government’s ‘elephant in the room’ because of DEFRA’s reluctance to mention it – let alone focus on it.

Agriculture accounts for more than 70% of land use in the UK, and has a major influence on our environment. Considering that currently only around 3% of farmland in the UK is organic, then the vast majority of the 70% of land that is used in the UK for agriculture will be land that is regularly sprayed under the existing chemical intensive conventional farming system.

Latest Government statistics show that regarding just pesticides alone (ie. not including chemical fertilisers and all the other agro chemicals used in conventional farming), in 2014 the total area treated with pesticides on agricultural and horticultural crops was 80,107,993 hectares, with the total weight applied 17,757,242 kg.

The reality of crop spraying in the countryside is that it involves cocktails of pesticides, as agricultural pesticides are rarely used individually but commonly sprayed in mixtures – quite often a mixture will consist of 4 or 5 different products.

Rural citizens

There are approx. 2,000 pesticide products currently approved for UK agricultural use and each product formulation in itself can contain a number of active ingredients, as well as other hazardous chemicals, such as solvents, surfactants, co-formulants (and many of which can have adverse effects on human health in their own right, even before considering any potential synergistic effects in a chemical mixture).

Therefore if the Government continues to permit the release of innumerable cocktails of pesticides and other harmful chemicals over the majority of UK land then how will farming change in a post Brexit landscape? The answer is simple. It won’t.

The pollution and contamination of our health and the environment must be stopped at the highest level, which means if such harmful farming practices are no longer permitted by the Government then farmers would have to adapt and find alternative methods that do not put public health and the environment at the risk of harm.

It is concrete and definitive action that is needed to clean up UK agriculture. This is very long overdue, especially regarding the protection of human health and lives.

For over 7 decades rural residents and communities have not been protected from the risks that pesticides pose to us and our families, and there have been no mandatory measures in the UK specifically for the protection of rural citizens.

Chemical-intensive

While operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment, respirators, and will be in filtered cabs – rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all. In any event residents would obviously not be expected to wear such equipment on their own property and land!

There are many thousands of known cases of adverse health impacts reported by rural residents across the UK, but which the Government has continued to blatantly ignore. Obviously with millions of rural residents exposed in crop sprayed areas there will undoubtedly be many more unreported cases.

A few examples of the truly harrowing experiences from other affected rural residents can be seen within my ongoing petition which calls on the Prime Minister Theresa May, and DEFRA Secretary Michael Gove, to urgently secure the protection of rural residents and communities by banning all crop spraying and use of any pesticides near residents’ homes, schools, and children’s playgrounds.

The campaign petition has also been signed by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, Ben Goldsmith, Caroline Lucas MP, among others.

A number of recent major international reports have detailed the damage to human health from existing industrial and chemical-intensive conventional food and farming systems.

For example:

• The United Nations report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in March 2017 that found that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions including cancer, developmental disorders, and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure from these chemicals;
• The IPES-FOOD report that outlines the unacceptable harm caused by the current chemical farming systems; exposes just some of the astronomical health costs externalized by the current system; and finds an urgent and “overwhelming case for action.” The report found that many of the severest health conditions afflicting populations around the world – from respiratory diseases to a range of cancers – are linked to industrial food and farming practices, including chemical-intensive agriculture;
• The Lancet Commission on pollution and health report on the global deaths and chronic diseases from outdoor air pollution, and which included from the use of pesticides. In fact the lead author was reported as saying that his biggest concern is the impact of the hundreds of industrial chemicals and pesticides already widely dispersed around the world.

Wiped out

The 2017 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food concluded that moving away from pesticide-reliant industrial agriculture to non-chemical farming methods should now be a political priority in all countries globally.

The new post Brexit UK Agriculture Bill and policy provides a real opportunity for the UK to adopt such a non-chemical farming policy in order to no longer use toxic chemicals in the production of our food.

This would then protect not only the health of rural residents and communities, as well as other members of the public, but also the environment, wildlife, pollinators, other species, and biodiversity.

So here’s hoping that Parliamentarians will amend the Agriculture Bill to reflect the health and environmental protections that are so urgently needed.

The origins of traditional farming methods did not include dependence on chemical inputs for mass production. Such poisons should never have had any place in the air we breathe, food we eat, and environment we live in.

Therefore it is a complete paradigm shift that is needed to move away from the use of pesticides in farming/agriculture altogether. Such a move is absolutely integral to the health and existence of all those living in the British countryside, as well as other species that are being wiped out from the continued use of such toxic chemicals.

This Author

Georgina Downs is a journalist and campaigner. She runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, which specifically represents rural residents affected by pesticides sprayed in the locality of residents’ homes, as well as schools, playgrounds, among other areas.

McDonald’s has gone great lengths to paint itself as an ethical company in recent years. But does it need a refresher animal welfare course?

Keith Kenny is McDonald’s Vice President, Sustainability. He has been working for McDonald’s for nearly 30 years.

As part of this role, he is responsible for ensuring products are responsibly sourced, and that the company’s policies and business practices align in order to have a positive impact on society.

Supersized chickens

In a recent post on the business networking site LinkedIn, he said: “Given our size and reach as the world’s largest restaurant company, McDonald’s has the responsibility and opportunity to take action on some of the most pressing social and environmental challenges in the world today.”

Keith Kenny and other McDonald’s executives hold a great deal of power over the present and future global agricultural landscape.

And indeed, the company has gone great lengths to appear ethical in recent years, using only free-range eggs and organic milk, and phasing out the use of plastic straws in the UK.

These efforts can only be lauded. However, the company’s attempts to position itself as an industry leader for sustainability and animal welfare truly feel like a slap in the face for those who care about animals, when you consider that it refuses to take meaningful action on the most pressing animal welfare issue of our time. McDonald’s still uses supersized chickens who grow so big, so fast, their bodies can’t keep up.

This is a chicken who has been bred to suffer, for the sake of producing as much meat as possible, as fast as possible. At every stage of his short, miserable life, he will be subject to a whole host of welfare issues.

With fast growth, he’ll be so top-heavy that his legs are weak. He will probably struggle to walk, suffering from pain, lameness and decreased energy levels.

You’ll see him sitting down to ‘rest’ most of the time, rendered practically immobile, but this is not normal. Young chickens are playful and inquisitive, and should be actively foraging and scratching for food for a large part of the day. They are also highly intelligent, despite common misconceptions.

Chickens bred in this way often develop Green Muscle Disease and Wooden Breast Syndrome. In the former, the cells of the breast muscle become necrotic and die from lack of blood supply to the muscle fibres, creating areas of green, unsightly flesh that is dead and decaying.

In the latter, the breast becomes tough and wood-like. This is due to the fast growth of the breast muscle. This barely scratches the surface in the long list of severe problems with fast-growth breeds of chicken, but it can’t be denied that it is profitable.

Stock response

McDonald’s says it cares about chicken welfare. In the stock response it has been sending out to every enquiry about this subject, it claims it requires its suppliers to provide enrichment such as items for the birds to perch and peck on.

If their bodies render them so immobile they can barely walk, you have to ask yourself, can these birds make meaningful use of these enrichments? Are they really going to be flying up on to a perch or hopping on a bale of hay?

Over one billion chickens are reared for meat in the UK every year. That number is seven billion for the EU, and worldwide, the number is almost unfathomable: over 20 billion.

McDonald’s sources chickens from the UK, the EU, Brazil and Thailand. How McDonald’s acts now will set the agenda for the future of these birds for years to come.

Meanwhile, Francesca DeBiase, the company’s Global Chief Supply Chain and Sustainability Officer, writes in Brink, a publication covering risk for investors and businesses, about land management and offsetting carbon emissions.

In the face of the immense suffering endured by the millions of chickens in McDonald’s supply chains, this feels like an astounding double-standard.

Companies such as Burger King and Subway in the US have committed to move away from these frankenbird breeds. In the UK, Prezzo, ASK Italian, and Pret a Manger have done the same.

Lack of supply is not a valid argument, since 2 Sisters—the UK’s biggest producer of chicken—has pledged to supply chicken with higher standards to any company which asks for it.

According to McDonald’s, chicken is now more popular than beef at its restaurants. Maybe that’s why it is unwilling to make meaningful changes for the most numerous animal on its menu—chickens.

Or maybe it simply thinks that not enough people care about chickens to make this a marketable selling point, like with paper straws.

But people do care. They just aren’t aware of the scale of the suffering. McDonald’s knows this, and is exploiting it. McDonald’s, it would appear, is prepared to do the right thing, but only when it suits their wallet.

Welfare course

Perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone in a position of power knows how much pain and misery McDonald’s sourcing policies are causing, why would they not do all they can to end that suffering?

That’s why this year, as students of all ages return to study, we’re sending Keith Kenny to do some learning of his own. We’ve enrolled him onto a highly-respected, 6-week online Animal Welfare course, created by the University of Edinburgh.

We hope it will be a chance for Mr Kenny to brush-up on all the negative implications of fast growth chicken breeds like those currently used in McDonald’s supply chain, and pass this on through the company. If you want to encourage him in his studies, visit www.imnotlovinit.co.uk.

This Author

Pru Elliott is Head of Campaigns for The Humane League UK. She has been working in the animal protection movement for seven years and lives in Cornwall with her partner and their rescue animals.

McDonald’s has gone great lengths to paint itself as an ethical company in recent years. But does it need a refresher animal welfare course?

Keith Kenny is McDonald’s Vice President, Sustainability. He has been working for McDonald’s for nearly 30 years.

As part of this role, he is responsible for ensuring products are responsibly sourced, and that the company’s policies and business practices align in order to have a positive impact on society.

Supersized chickens

In a recent post on the business networking site LinkedIn, he said: “Given our size and reach as the world’s largest restaurant company, McDonald’s has the responsibility and opportunity to take action on some of the most pressing social and environmental challenges in the world today.”

Keith Kenny and other McDonald’s executives hold a great deal of power over the present and future global agricultural landscape.

And indeed, the company has gone great lengths to appear ethical in recent years, using only free-range eggs and organic milk, and phasing out the use of plastic straws in the UK.

These efforts can only be lauded. However, the company’s attempts to position itself as an industry leader for sustainability and animal welfare truly feel like a slap in the face for those who care about animals, when you consider that it refuses to take meaningful action on the most pressing animal welfare issue of our time. McDonald’s still uses supersized chickens who grow so big, so fast, their bodies can’t keep up.

This is a chicken who has been bred to suffer, for the sake of producing as much meat as possible, as fast as possible. At every stage of his short, miserable life, he will be subject to a whole host of welfare issues.

With fast growth, he’ll be so top-heavy that his legs are weak. He will probably struggle to walk, suffering from pain, lameness and decreased energy levels.

You’ll see him sitting down to ‘rest’ most of the time, rendered practically immobile, but this is not normal. Young chickens are playful and inquisitive, and should be actively foraging and scratching for food for a large part of the day. They are also highly intelligent, despite common misconceptions.

Chickens bred in this way often develop Green Muscle Disease and Wooden Breast Syndrome. In the former, the cells of the breast muscle become necrotic and die from lack of blood supply to the muscle fibres, creating areas of green, unsightly flesh that is dead and decaying.

In the latter, the breast becomes tough and wood-like. This is due to the fast growth of the breast muscle. This barely scratches the surface in the long list of severe problems with fast-growth breeds of chicken, but it can’t be denied that it is profitable.

Stock response

McDonald’s says it cares about chicken welfare. In the stock response it has been sending out to every enquiry about this subject, it claims it requires its suppliers to provide enrichment such as items for the birds to perch and peck on.

If their bodies render them so immobile they can barely walk, you have to ask yourself, can these birds make meaningful use of these enrichments? Are they really going to be flying up on to a perch or hopping on a bale of hay?

Over one billion chickens are reared for meat in the UK every year. That number is seven billion for the EU, and worldwide, the number is almost unfathomable: over 20 billion.

McDonald’s sources chickens from the UK, the EU, Brazil and Thailand. How McDonald’s acts now will set the agenda for the future of these birds for years to come.

Meanwhile, Francesca DeBiase, the company’s Global Chief Supply Chain and Sustainability Officer, writes in Brink, a publication covering risk for investors and businesses, about land management and offsetting carbon emissions.

In the face of the immense suffering endured by the millions of chickens in McDonald’s supply chains, this feels like an astounding double-standard.

Companies such as Burger King and Subway in the US have committed to move away from these frankenbird breeds. In the UK, Prezzo, ASK Italian, and Pret a Manger have done the same.

Lack of supply is not a valid argument, since 2 Sisters—the UK’s biggest producer of chicken—has pledged to supply chicken with higher standards to any company which asks for it.

According to McDonald’s, chicken is now more popular than beef at its restaurants. Maybe that’s why it is unwilling to make meaningful changes for the most numerous animal on its menu—chickens.

Or maybe it simply thinks that not enough people care about chickens to make this a marketable selling point, like with paper straws.

But people do care. They just aren’t aware of the scale of the suffering. McDonald’s knows this, and is exploiting it. McDonald’s, it would appear, is prepared to do the right thing, but only when it suits their wallet.

Welfare course

Perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone in a position of power knows how much pain and misery McDonald’s sourcing policies are causing, why would they not do all they can to end that suffering?

That’s why this year, as students of all ages return to study, we’re sending Keith Kenny to do some learning of his own. We’ve enrolled him onto a highly-respected, 6-week online Animal Welfare course, created by the University of Edinburgh.

We hope it will be a chance for Mr Kenny to brush-up on all the negative implications of fast growth chicken breeds like those currently used in McDonald’s supply chain, and pass this on through the company. If you want to encourage him in his studies, visit www.imnotlovinit.co.uk.

This Author

Pru Elliott is Head of Campaigns for The Humane League UK. She has been working in the animal protection movement for seven years and lives in Cornwall with her partner and their rescue animals.

I’m not shy about my age. I am often asked, mostly in bars, and once recently when I stopped to buy petrol at a motorway services.

But faced with the question “How old are you?” I couldn’t answer. I couldn’t bring myself to break the silence which had become a companion. “Ravi. My name. Ravi. English not so good. How old?”

“24. Ah god, I’ve gone and done it. I’m 24. My voice rang out pre-pubescently in the heat haze, several tones higher than I remembered it to be, which perhaps explained the look of mild disbelief which flickered across the portly man’s face.

‘Noble silence’

Moments later, however, it creased into a smile and I looked away over his shoulder, a little abashed.

Across the courtyard, other faces were split in similar imitations of joy, a mob of grins with human bodies of all shapes and sizes attached.

I did not know so much as their names, but with each felt a deeply rooted connection. My love towards them could have been upheld by a decade of intimate friendship.

We had undergone a lot together in the past nine days. A lot of nothing. At times, too much nothing. And all that nothing had produced in us a kind of alchemy, transforming a ragbag crew of cautious strangers into the most open and joyful of communities. 

Enrolling on a Vipassana meditation retreat is not unlike sentencing yourself to a short period in a low-security prison. Sexes are segregated, and communication with the outside world severed.

Leaving the premises is forbidden, and recreational activity restricted to walking round a smallish compound during defined periods. And all this in the name of blissful happiness.

A recommended 10 hours sitting meditation per day is encouraged, during which you should continually scan the entirety of your body like some overly zealous airport security official, heeding close attention to the sensations that arise.

Not dissimilar to playing ‘Heads, Shoulders, Knees and Toes’ over and over again in slow-motion and total silence.

Indeed, the entire course is conducted in ‘Noble Silence’ up until the morning of the last full day, meaning that no communication is permitted, be it speech, gesturing or eye contact. Reading materials, writing, exercise or any form of pastime are all likewise prohibited. You are not even allowed to wash your plate after eating.

The effect of several days of this routine can’t be said to have been pleasant – far from it.

With nothing to occupy it, my mind went into a sort of frenzied overdrive, dredging up memories, congenial or otherwise, drifting off into outlandish fantasies, conjecturing wild outcomes, and generally playing every trick in the book in order to avoid being still.

Mental workout

Not that this hadn’t happened before, but perhaps because there was so little else for this hyperactivity to blend into, it was exhausting. A non-consensual mental workout on an endless treadmill of thought.

As someone conditioned from birth to equate inertia with laziness and productivity with progress, inactivity was a difficult hurdle to clear. I have been busy most of my life, and now I could not be. One day I stripped bare and moisturized my entire body twice over. Just for something to do.

I don’t remember exactly when things shifted. I just know that they did.

If in some misspent hour of youth you watched Looney Tunes, it was a bit like the scene where the coyote runs off the cliff edge and keeps going for a while despite there now being no solid ground beneath him, before falling into the abyss below (if not, insert another – probably better – analogy).

Once deprived of stimulus, the mind keeps churning on what is left in the tank for a time, and like a petrol engine, burns the last morsel of fuel fiercest of all before petering out altogether. 

Boundless love

The resultant state is curious, cumulative, and not evident from any kind of external observation. Rather than a cessation of thought, it is a detachment from it that emerges, a capacity to step out of the flow of mental traffic and watch it from a quiet pavement.

It is a relaxation of the muscles of craving and of aversion that cause us to expend so much energy in the pursuit of certain outcomes and the avoidance of others. It is a willingness to be peaceful with the current state of things, to laughingly meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same.

And what arises in the absence of all else can only be described as a pervasive sense of calm, of joy, and of boundless love. 

Time to do a spot of myth busting. What I have written above sounds dangerously close to condoning apathy, as if meditation leads to blithe acceptance of all possible actions or states. Surely someone advanced in meditation could not also enjoy themselves, have preferences, or take strong action against certain outcomes?

This is a common trope levelled at practitioners, and misses a crucial but subtle distinction. It is not desire which becomes eroded through quieting the mind, but rather attachment to the upshot of that desire.

Benevolent engagement

A seasoned meditator might still do their utmost to influence an outcome, but would not undergo the same mental anguish if that outcome did not occur as someone in thrall to their mind. Instead they would quickly regain calm equilibrium, reassess, and adjust their efforts accordingly.

Similarly, meditation is not an isolating or self-centred practice. Conversely it increases our ability to engage benevolently in the world without the mind interfering with bias or judgement. Indeed, many Vipassana heavyweights could fill annals with altruistic acts committed during their lifetime. 

This all takes considerable practice, and certainly does not always resemble my own mental state. But I know it to be possible, having touched it with the lightest of strokes. I understand now that Vipassana – the original strain of Buddhism which Siddhartha Gotama developed in northern India – has nothing to do with religion, a label that has been clumsily slapped on it for centuries.

It is a mental technique, a carefully applied psychological science aimed at releasing us from mental binds, and thus, from suffering. There is no faith required, which is why many Buddhists also devoutly follow a religion without there being a clash of any sort.

It is a purely empirical exercise, much like going to the gym to get fit, to practise a way of being – hence meditation is commonly referred to as a practice – where each act becomes one of love and intimacy with all things. 

Enlightened thought

If that sounds far-fetched, that’s because it is. This pre-mental state, often termed “enlightenment”, is fiendishly tricky to achieve because the mind is like a despotic government: supremely powerful, and not at all willing to be overthrown.

The mind creates the illusion of thought as reality to perpetuate its own dominance. The trick of thought is to externalise meaning, to convince us that it’s what’s out there that defines us.

However, there is an important difference between fiendishly tricky and laughably idealistic. Meditation is a tool to chip away at this apparent reality.  Just as we can accept that our clothes do not sum us up (though the mind is inclined to receive any comment about an item we are wearing as if it does, hence we feel good when someone compliments our trousers), we can further grasp that the same is true for our physical body, our opinions, feelings and thoughts.

With exploration, it becomes more and more difficult to isolate any defined sense of self. Identity becomes a constantly changing and thus meaningless concept, and the only reality we are left with is the absolute unshakeable truth of what we find under our noses at a given moment.

Both Eastern and Western schools of thought have arrived at this conclusion using the diametrically opposed methodologies of science and spiritually. The Buddhist term “annica”, meaning constant change (and thus no concrete reality) strikes a remarkable chord with Einstein’s proclamation that “reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

‘Healthy discernment’

As a stalwart empiricist and pragmatist, the central appeal of the technique is its practicality.

I tend to approach spiritual traditions with what I hope is a healthy discernment, wary of the ease with which they can lose sight of meaning in deference to ritual, ceremony, and jargon.

I have witnessed spirituality being used as a vehicle to provide an identity, sometimes to vulnerable or isolated people. For me, as soon as style becomes more important than substance, alarm bells start ringing.

It’s a huge relief then, that meditation requires next to no particulars: you don’t have to wear distinctive clothing, enter a special building or practise in a certain position. The centre was completely devoid of symbolism or iconography – no shaved heads or smiling statues of chubby Buddhas adorning the gardens. The whole place was decidedly neutral in atmosphere.

For it is not the tone that matters. It is the work – the practice. Trying to achieve an enlightened state without this is like trying to learn to swim by reading lots of books about swimming.

‘Greedy for peace’

Coming back into the world, the pull of busyness has been as strong as ever.

The mind is eager to regain its sovereign rule and re-establish the belief that reality is external, that we can draw and measure meaning from what we see outside. But having stripped back to the bare bones of daily activity, I have stretched my capacity for nothingness and set a benchmark which, even as the cogs of life start whirring again, I do not forget.

I cannot forget the kernel of stillness unearthed during those 10 days, and knowing that it is possible to live with this underpinning my every waking moment has made me ambitious. I am greedy for peace. 

As such, I continue to meditate. Beforehand, it never seems as if I have time, and afterwards, as if I have all the time in the world. It is a curious thing, but having sat for an hour the day feels more spacious, despite the “lost” time. I get more done and enjoy doing it more. This is the paradox neatly phrased in the adage “If you don’t have time to sit for 10 minutes, sit for an hour”. 

‘Deliberate intensity’

In the original Pali, Vipassana means ‘to observe things as they really are’. This is a far cry to achieve in 10 short days, but that is not the course’s intention.

Instead, it is to ingrain the technique and habit strongly enough that it might withstand modern life’s circus of noise and colour vying for our attention.

There are no short cuts to happiness, no quick fixes or magic beans – this is made abundantly clear from the get-go. But the course’s deliberate intensity is enough to give you the faintest glimpse of the possible rewards should you continue to practise.

And thanks to the efforts of S. N. Goenka, who set up over 100 course centres across the world, you don’t have to put yourself behind bars in order to try. Crime burdens the taxpayer and would probably result in a fair whack of bad karma.

Vipassana does neither, is free to attend, and might just do what it says on the tin. In any case, I would recommend prising the thing open to have a look. There’s nothing magic about the beans inside, but they may still change your life.

This Author

Hugh Rose is a writer, facilitator, performance poet and storyteller based in Bristol. He runs workshops on the transformative power of stories both personally and politically, writes for The Hedge, and performs regularly at festivals and other spoken word events.

The heavy-handed attack from lobbyists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that arose during the 1990s presented a new risk: that the oilmen would become isolated from other leaders of industry.

As early as 1995, a deep divide began to open up between the chief executive officers and shareholders of major corporations in the United States and Britain who were anxious that their own operations and profits could be undermined by climate change.

The Delphi Group in London, a major investments advisor, published a landmark report that year, warning banks, insurers and institutional investors to immediately withdraw investments from oil and coal.

Mark Mansley, the report’s author, pointed out that “climate change presents major long-term risks to the carbon fuel industry [which] has not been adequately discounted by the financial markets.”

Major Threat

At the same time, Sven Hansen, vice-president of the Union Bank of Switzerland, spoke at a conference for finance capital: “Some of our clients are under major threat from climate change.”  

Then, in June 1995, Shell found itself in direct conflict with Greenpeace as the environmentalists launched an audacious campaign to prevent the dumping of the Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea. The campaign turned huge swathes of the public against the energy corporation.

Shell performed a startling u-turn, however, and caved into the green crusade.

“On the very same afternoon that Prime Minister John Major was defending Shell’s right to dump the Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea, the company itself announced that it would reverse its decision due to pressure from Greenpeace and German consumers,” wrote Cameron’s future chief adviser, Steve Hilton.

“Never mind that subsequent scientific analysis showed Shell’s original plan to have been the most environmentally responsible: the point is that the Conservative response was knee-jerk laissez-faireism while Shell understood that the world had changed.”

Environmental Concerns

The ordeal forced an institution-wide investigation on Shell and, as a direct result, the company decided it could no longer ignore environmental concerns. John Jennings, chairman of a Shell subsidiary, gave a speech to the World Energy Congress in late 1995.

“Some… organisations have, on occasion, shown that, through effective if unscrupulous use of the media they can influence public opinion significantly and with it the political mood to which democratic governments feel obliged to respond,” Jennings said.

“But I believe it is imperative that the debate is based in principle on sound science, honesty and objectivity… we have to start to prepare for the orderly transition to new, renewable forms of energy at the lowest possible economic and environmental cost while sustaining secure supplies of conventional energy as the world economy hopefully continues to expand.”

This was the first time a senior oil executive had publicly acknowledged the science of climate change and the seriousness of its consequences. While Shell would continue to be a key target for campaigners, there was now among the oil giants themselves opening up a fundamental chasm.

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. 

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

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.

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

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.

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

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.

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

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.

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

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.