Author Archives: angelo@percorso.net

Call for a ban on onshore oil and gas development using ‘acid stimulation’

The government must ban onshore oil and gas exploration which uses acid stimulation treatments, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth. 

The report, entitled ‘The Acid Test: The Case for a Ban on Acid Stimulation of Oil and Gas Wells’, explains what acid stimulation is, highlights key concerns, and makes recommendations including a call for a full independent assessment of the health and environmental impacts of acid well stimulation.

The campaigners call for a ban due to gaps in knowledge about the chemicals being used, the risks related to oil and gas exploration, and the need to avoid climate chaos.

Significant risks

Friends of the Earth said that many of the risks associated with fracking are similar when it comes to acid stimulation of wells. These include risks of groundwater, air and soil contamination from the chemicals, risks for human health, and risk of earth tremors.

There are also the same issues regarding the industrialisation of rural areas with increased heavy goods traffic, noise and how the waste fluids coming from these sites are being monitored and dealt with.

Recent concerns about an increased number of earthquakes near two oil sites in Surrey led to four senior geologists calling for a moratorium until the cause of these have been established.

Brenda Pollack, South East campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Residents are right to be worried about the increasing use of acid well stimulation to produce oil and gas in this area. There are a lot of unknowns about the quantities and type of chemicals being used and where they end up.

“It’s clear that we should be reducing fossil fuel use, yet the government is encouraging the industry. Plans to fast-track shale gas operations could have implications here in the Weald basin which is a known shale oil area.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. A full briefing can be read here.

Amazon’s greed has got to end

I want to ask you to clear your mind for a moment and count to 10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In those 10 seconds, Jeff Bezos, the owner and founder of Amazon, made more money than the median employee of Amazon makes in an entire year. An entire year. Think about that.

Who pays?

Think about how hard that family member has to work for an entire year, the days she or he goes into work sick, or has a sick child, or struggles to buy school supplies or Christmas presents, to make what one man makes in 10 seconds.

According to Time magazine, from 1 January through 1 May of this 2018, Jeff Bezos saw his wealth increase by $275 million every single day for a total increase in wealth of $33 billion in a four-month period.

Meanwhile, thousands of Amazon employees are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because their wages are too low. And guess who pays for that? You do.

Frankly, I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because he pays his employees inadequate wages.

Absurd expense

But it gets remarkably more ridiculous: Jeff Bezos has so much money that he says the only way he could possibly spend it all is on space travel.

Space travel. Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is absolutely absurd.

Well here is a radical idea: Instead of attempting to explore Mars or go to the moon, how about Jeff Bezos pays his workers a living wage? How about he improves the working conditions at Amazon warehouses across the country so people stop dying on the job? He can no doubt do that and have billions of dollars left over to spend on anything he wants.

So today, whether or not you use Amazon, I want to ask the Americans among you to join me in sending a message to Jeff Bezos.

Now, I have never understood how someone could have hundreds of billions of dollars and feel the desperate need for even more. I would think that, with the amount of money he has, Jeff Bezos might just be able to get by.

Policy failures

I think there is something weird and wrong with people who have that much and are willing to step over working people, many with families and young children, in order to get more and more.

But this is not just about the greed of one man. These are policy failures as well.

Last year, Amazon made $5.6 billion in profits and did not pay one penny in federal income taxes. The Trump tax cuts rewarded Amazon with almost $1 billion more. And city after city is offering additional tax breaks, mostly in secret, for the right to host Amazon’s second corporate headquarters.

In my view, a nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. Millions of people across this country struggle to put bread on the table and are one paycheck away from economic devastation, and the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

It has got to stop.

Get involved

But that starts with all of us making our voices heard and being clear — loudly and directly — that this kind of greed is intolerable, and it must end. And that starts with you.

Sign my petition to Jeff Bezos: It is long past time you start to pay your workers a living wage and improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses all across the country. He needs to know that you are aware of his company’s greed, which seems to have no end.

We must ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether or not this is the kind of country and economic culture we are comfortable with. I am not. And I don’t believe you are either. Thank you for making your voice heard.

This Author

Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has served as junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. In 2016 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America. 

Call for a ban on onshore oil and gas development using ‘acid stimulation’

The government must ban onshore oil and gas exploration which uses acid stimulation treatments, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth. 

The report, entitled ‘The Acid Test: The Case for a Ban on Acid Stimulation of Oil and Gas Wells’, explains what acid stimulation is, highlights key concerns, and makes recommendations including a call for a full independent assessment of the health and environmental impacts of acid well stimulation.

The campaigners call for a ban due to gaps in knowledge about the chemicals being used, the risks related to oil and gas exploration, and the need to avoid climate chaos.

Significant risks

Friends of the Earth said that many of the risks associated with fracking are similar when it comes to acid stimulation of wells. These include risks of groundwater, air and soil contamination from the chemicals, risks for human health, and risk of earth tremors.

There are also the same issues regarding the industrialisation of rural areas with increased heavy goods traffic, noise and how the waste fluids coming from these sites are being monitored and dealt with.

Recent concerns about an increased number of earthquakes near two oil sites in Surrey led to four senior geologists calling for a moratorium until the cause of these have been established.

Brenda Pollack, South East campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Residents are right to be worried about the increasing use of acid well stimulation to produce oil and gas in this area. There are a lot of unknowns about the quantities and type of chemicals being used and where they end up.

“It’s clear that we should be reducing fossil fuel use, yet the government is encouraging the industry. Plans to fast-track shale gas operations could have implications here in the Weald basin which is a known shale oil area.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. A full briefing can be read here.

Amazon’s greed has got to end

I want to ask you to clear your mind for a moment and count to 10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In those 10 seconds, Jeff Bezos, the owner and founder of Amazon, made more money than the median employee of Amazon makes in an entire year. An entire year. Think about that.

Who pays?

Think about how hard that family member has to work for an entire year, the days she or he goes into work sick, or has a sick child, or struggles to buy school supplies or Christmas presents, to make what one man makes in 10 seconds.

According to Time magazine, from 1 January through 1 May of this 2018, Jeff Bezos saw his wealth increase by $275 million every single day for a total increase in wealth of $33 billion in a four-month period.

Meanwhile, thousands of Amazon employees are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because their wages are too low. And guess who pays for that? You do.

Frankly, I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because he pays his employees inadequate wages.

Absurd expense

But it gets remarkably more ridiculous: Jeff Bezos has so much money that he says the only way he could possibly spend it all is on space travel.

Space travel. Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is absolutely absurd.

Well here is a radical idea: Instead of attempting to explore Mars or go to the moon, how about Jeff Bezos pays his workers a living wage? How about he improves the working conditions at Amazon warehouses across the country so people stop dying on the job? He can no doubt do that and have billions of dollars left over to spend on anything he wants.

So today, whether or not you use Amazon, I want to ask the Americans among you to join me in sending a message to Jeff Bezos.

Now, I have never understood how someone could have hundreds of billions of dollars and feel the desperate need for even more. I would think that, with the amount of money he has, Jeff Bezos might just be able to get by.

Policy failures

I think there is something weird and wrong with people who have that much and are willing to step over working people, many with families and young children, in order to get more and more.

But this is not just about the greed of one man. These are policy failures as well.

Last year, Amazon made $5.6 billion in profits and did not pay one penny in federal income taxes. The Trump tax cuts rewarded Amazon with almost $1 billion more. And city after city is offering additional tax breaks, mostly in secret, for the right to host Amazon’s second corporate headquarters.

In my view, a nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. Millions of people across this country struggle to put bread on the table and are one paycheck away from economic devastation, and the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

It has got to stop.

Get involved

But that starts with all of us making our voices heard and being clear — loudly and directly — that this kind of greed is intolerable, and it must end. And that starts with you.

Sign my petition to Jeff Bezos: It is long past time you start to pay your workers a living wage and improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses all across the country. He needs to know that you are aware of his company’s greed, which seems to have no end.

We must ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether or not this is the kind of country and economic culture we are comfortable with. I am not. And I don’t believe you are either. Thank you for making your voice heard.

This Author

Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has served as junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. In 2016 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America. 

Call for a ban on onshore oil and gas development using ‘acid stimulation’

The government must ban onshore oil and gas exploration which uses acid stimulation treatments, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth. 

The report, entitled ‘The Acid Test: The Case for a Ban on Acid Stimulation of Oil and Gas Wells’, explains what acid stimulation is, highlights key concerns, and makes recommendations including a call for a full independent assessment of the health and environmental impacts of acid well stimulation.

The campaigners call for a ban due to gaps in knowledge about the chemicals being used, the risks related to oil and gas exploration, and the need to avoid climate chaos.

Significant risks

Friends of the Earth said that many of the risks associated with fracking are similar when it comes to acid stimulation of wells. These include risks of groundwater, air and soil contamination from the chemicals, risks for human health, and risk of earth tremors.

There are also the same issues regarding the industrialisation of rural areas with increased heavy goods traffic, noise and how the waste fluids coming from these sites are being monitored and dealt with.

Recent concerns about an increased number of earthquakes near two oil sites in Surrey led to four senior geologists calling for a moratorium until the cause of these have been established.

Brenda Pollack, South East campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Residents are right to be worried about the increasing use of acid well stimulation to produce oil and gas in this area. There are a lot of unknowns about the quantities and type of chemicals being used and where they end up.

“It’s clear that we should be reducing fossil fuel use, yet the government is encouraging the industry. Plans to fast-track shale gas operations could have implications here in the Weald basin which is a known shale oil area.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. A full briefing can be read here.

Rewilding the law

Re-wilding the Law might sound like an odd proposition, even a contradiction. Law is not meant to be wild.

It’s supposed to bring in a civilised, organised, orderly way of doing things. It sets out clear rules which govern our relationships with each other and the world around us.

So how can the law be wild?

Earth jurisprudence 

The problem is that the laws we have created often do not reflect the ecological reality we live in. They do not reflect the laws of the earth.

The wild law view is that this is a fundamental problem underlying not just individual laws, but our whole system of law and governance. It has led to the severe environmental crisis we now find ourselves in.

The term wild law was coined by the South African environmental lawyer and author Cormac Cullinan. He argues that we live in a human-centred, or anthropocentric, civilisation, a “homosphere” which is cut off from the natural world around us. We see ourselves as separate from, and superior to, the rest of nature, when in reality we are not.

Cullinan draws on principles of earth jurisprudence, a philosophy articulated by the late Catholic priest and eco-philosopher Thomas Berry.

Earth jurisprudence asks us to re-examine the assumptions underlying our systems of law and governance, and shift them from being human-centered to being earth-centred or ecocentric.

Radical shift

Moving to an earth-centred way of seeing the world means seeing ourselves as close to and inextricable from nature. This reflects the reality that we cannot live without water, oxygenated air and soil.

An ecocentric view also sees nature as having an inherent right to exist in the same way as humans do: we would no longer be superior. These ideas are not new, indeed, they are present in the philosophies of many indigenous peoples. They would also be familiar to ‘deep green’ or ‘dark green’ ecologists.

Wild law re-aligns our legal and governance systems in accordance with an ecocentric world view. It is more about creating laws that are in harmony with the earth, it natural processes and cycles,  than imposing laws on it.

The conventional legal approach is regulatory. It believes that the environmental crisis comes from simply do not have strong enough regulation and/or not adequately enforcing what we do have. Wild law therefore entails a radical, paradigm shift. 

One legal tool that can be used to give effect to wild law is extending legal rights to nature, both animate beings including animals and plants, and inanimate natural features such as mountains and rivers.

Legal personality

Currently, human beings can own nature and do what we like to it subject to certain regulations. It is essentially a relationship of property and “rights over”. Giving legal rights to nature makes it the subject, and not just the object, of rights.

In doing so, it recognises that nature has an inherent value, separate from its value to human beings. 

It is important to stress that this is not giving human rights to nature, though it does give legal personality. The rights would simply enable a mountain, river or bird to do what it naturally does. In Berry’s words, the rights to “exist, thrive and renew its natural cycles”. 

Making nature a “legal person” goes further than the legal protections is normally has.

Where does wild law and rights of nature already exist? The United Nations set up a Harmony with Nature programme in 2012, which promotes an ecocentric world view. The UN General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions embracing this. These resolutions are part of international law, although they are not binding on countries.

Enforceable rights 

The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth was drafted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights, held in Bolivia in 2010, and was incorporated into Bolivian law in the same year.

More famously, the 2008 constitution of Ecuador  gives legally enforceable rights to nature. Also in South America, the Supreme Court of Colombia only this year recognised that the Amazon rainforest has legal rights of its own, in a case that involved deforestation and climate change. It had previously recognised rights of the Atrato River. 

The first ‘rights of nature’ law was enacted in the USA in 2007. It was an ordinance, a local law passed in the borough of Tamaqhua, Pennsylvania, that gave rights to the local river ecosystem, due to concerns that high levels of contaminated sewage sludge were polluting it.

There are now thirty rights of nature ordinances in the USA. An application to pass a similar local law, a by-law in English town of Frome in Somerset, is currently in progress. If successful, it would be the first of its kind in the UK.

In New Zealand, legal personality has been granted to a river, a national park and most recently a mountain. Meanwhile, the High Court of Uttarakhand in India has recognised the rights of two major rivers, and in a groundbreaking judgement only last month, those of the whole of the animal kingdom. 

Get involved

The Wild Law Special Interest Group (SIG) of the UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) was set up in 2005. It held a series of annual conferences on wild law.

These were later replaced with wild law weekends away every year, usually in Scotland or the Lake District, which continue to take place.

In addition, this year the SIG is organising a one day conference to be held on 21 September at Bristol University. The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the discussion of wild law generally.

There will be various presentations on rights of nature, both in theory and real life examples of it, as well as other aspects of wild law. The programme and booking information can be found here

This Author

Shehana Gomez is a co-convenor of the Wild Law special interest group of the UKELA.

Climate denier Lord Lawson and the art of nest feathering

For Friedrich Hayek and his friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) it was a vindication of everything they believed about the perils of Communism and the culmination of their efforts in promoting the free market as opposed to planned economies.

For the people of eastern Europe it would prove a pyrrhic victory as mafia capitalism would prove as hostile and vicious as any dictatorship and living standards would actually fall. And for Lord Lawson, having just resigned as chancellor, the newly opened markets were simply a business opportunity.

Nine days after Nigel – now Lord – Lawson resigned as chancellor protesters in East Berlin began tearing down the Berlin Wall, but a Lawson free from political restraints began forging his own doctrine in the newly available markets to the east, in his bid to remain in power and in the company of the world’s industrial leaders.

Lawson, having fallen from grace, hoped to land on his feet. He was inundated with offers. He became a non-executive director of Barclays Bank which the Independent newspaper claimed was “a $400,000 a year, two-days-a-week job on the board”.  

He took another job with Guinness Peat Aviation, an Irish aircraft leasing company, which paid about £50,000 a year to attend four board meetings, provide financial advice and act as chairman of its new financial arm.

Open theft

Public concerns about the revolving door between government and big business were dismissed by Lawson as “sanctimonious humbug,” and “the politics of envy and an awful lot of humbug.”

He said at the time: “I obviously am now earning a substantial amount, but I sacrificed far more financially during those 10 years with the Government”.

Lawson took advantage of the housing price boom he created by selling his house at Newnham Lodge, Newnham, for £1,850,000.

But it was an offer from his old friend Charles Jonscher to become chairman of the Central Europe Trust (CET) that really captured his imagination. The company had been formed while Lawson was brooding about resigning.

This was the great wave of asset stripping, privatisation and sometimes open theft of the industry built under tyranny, sometimes with forced labour. Some would make billions. Millions of families would lose everything.

Ironically, it would land a subsidy from Lawson’s old department “to help Poland with its first privatisation studies”.

“The countries of Central and eastern Europe were suffering the pain and travails of making the transition, never before achieved, from the disasters of communism and the command economy to the complexities of capitalism and the market economy,” Lawson wrote at the time.

“Making a success of this…is the great European challenge of the 1990s.” The former Soviet bloc would needed “the know-how, the training, the management, and marketing skills, and the practical example of capitalism at work, that only Western private investment can provide.”

CET would in the coming years work to help British and European oil, tobacco, weapons and pharmaceutical monopolies ravage the newly opened eastern European markets before new domestic companies had a chance.

Tony Fekete, based in Germany, was hired by Lawson at the CET offices in Piccadilly to help start up the company. “We had to do lobbying – government level lobbying, which usually was the state privatisation of industry,” he told me.

“One of the companies that we were advising was Coca Cola who were desperate to get into eastern Europe.” Lawson was apparently keen to work with cigarette manufacturers.

“They were all interested in buying tobacco plants and all of the farms were bought by the big players, and I think they did come along to one or two lunches,” recalled Fekete. “We definitely had contact with all the tobacco companies.”

Sex line mogul

Patrick Sheehy at British American Tobacco wrote a private letter to Lawson in January 1991 declining an invitation to lunch: “Thank you for your letter of 23rd January inviting me to join one of the lunches you are hosting for businessmen to discuss business and economic conditions and prospects in Central Europe,” he said.

“I would very much like to join you for a lunch of this kind and will ask my secretary to contact your office to try and find a mutually convenient date.” Sheehy at that time was good friends with Lawson’s son, Dominic.

The tobacco boss was director of the Spectator when Dominic was editor. Lawson was wise enough to know the potential fortunes in buying up Russian grown tobacco but also shrewd enough to refuse an invitation to be publicly associated with the deadly industry, and declined the invitation from the Tobacco Alliance.

Fekete also recalls how CET went into business with an Amsterdam-based pornographer who was cashing in on sex lines and horoscopes. Lawson’s firm secured the first “value added” telephone licence in Hungary, the equivalent of the 0898 premium lines.

“We intended to set up horoscope lines as sex services were outlawed in Hungary,” Fekete told me: “It should have earned us a huge amount of money.”

But his business partner suddenly went bust and they were forced to work with a sex lines mogul who “offered sex, and horoscopes and things like that” in the Netherlands.

“People are excited to call the numbers, they weren’t aware of the rates,” he reflected. “That was not something you want to be most proud of – offering a very low value added product with a high price relying on people’s insensitivity to time.”

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

North Yorkshire mayor starts legal action to challenge government fracking policy statement

Paul Andrews, who is a member of the Ryedale District Council and Chair of Habton Parish Council, has said: “I am taking this legal action as a private individual as I consider it my duty to protect the interests of the communities I represent.

“Fracking will industrialise our beautiful countryside and destroy our rural economy and tourist businesses. Somebody has to stand up against the bullies in government and the greed of the oil and gas industry. This is about defending your property, your family’s health and your local democratic rights. Would you want full scale industrial fracking  only 300m of your home?”

The WMS, which was published on 17 May by Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, sets out changes in government policy on how local planning authorities should deal with fracking applications. 

Democratic control 

Councillor Andrews sought legal advice from Marc Willers QC, and was advised that the Minister’s Statement is unlawful. He has therefore instructed his solicitors to issue proceedings for Judicial Review.

Andrews added: “The Statement seeks to impose an unacceptable level of government control on regional planning authorities, and will significantly reduce the ability of democratically elected local councils to establish their own parameters for fracking in their area.

“It is also a direct challenge to the North Yorkshire Minerals Plan, which seeks to impose modest limits on fracking in an area celebrated for its world class natural environment, high quality food production and thriving rural tourist industry.”

An online crowdfunder to support Andrews’ private legal challenge has been set up on the Crowdjustice website, and has already raised over £5,500. You can donate to this appeal here.

Andrews added, “In particular, this Statement is clearly a direct challenge to the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. 

Direct challenge 

This Plan, which is the result of many thousands of hours work by local officials and numerous consultees over four years, seeks to find a compromise between the interests of the oil and gas industry and the concerns of local residents, businesses, parish councils, farmers, landowners and the rural tourist industry.”

One of these modest restrictions is a requirement to establish a 500m separation distance between fracking well sites and the nearest home, school or other dwelling. 

Another is that the Plan considers any drilling operation into shale rock to produce gas as ‘fracking’, while the industry argue that it is only fracking if more than 1,000 m3 of fluid is used (which is how the government defined fracking in the 2015 Infrastructure Act).

The plan also supported the government’s promise to keep fracking drill pads out of the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Andrews said, “These modest restrictions in the Plan did not please the fracking industry, who want unrestricted permission to do as they please wherever they hold a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL).

Modest restrictions

This is because they require grids of drill pads evenly spaced all over the fracking area at intervals of one and a half  to two miles in every direction, and think that the 500m buffer zone would “sterilise” their ability to frack.”

The WMS, which was published less than five weeks after the finalisation of the North Yorkshire Minerals Plan, includes the following directive to planning authorities:  “Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across the plan area that limit shale gas development without proper justification”. 

It instructs planning authorities to recognise the government’s definition of fracking as stated in the Infrastructure Act. The Statement also said that ‘policies should avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources (including shale gas).’

Andrews added, “This Statement was issued unilaterally without public consultation at the whim of the government and its friends in the oil and gas industry, and has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

Andrews continued: “It was also issued in such haste that Secretary of State failed to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment on the proposals, as required by law.

“The Statement has already been heavily criticised by the Communities and Government Select Committee, who condemned its publication only a few days before the Committee published its own report on planning guidance for fracking.” 

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Frack Free United. 

Decolonising our minds and public spaces 

We have witnessed a movement, in Britain as elsewhere, to ‘decolonise’ our public spaces. From the taking down of statues, to the renaming of sites named after slave traders, to student campaigns to decolonise universities, the global movement to decolonise our minds is growing.

Campaigners are calling for the removal of the legacies of colonialism, which include a dominance of European writers on university curriculums, and statues, plaques and sites commemorating European men who gained wealth and fame through the brutalisation of people from the colonies

Intellectually, this movement began in the late 1940s, gathering momentum in the 1950s and 1960s as Asian and African countries gained independence from the British and other European colonial powers. As well as the physical removal of imperial power, the concept includes a rejection of the colonisers’ ideas that led to the colonised being oppressed and feeling inferior.

“Germs of rot”

Frantz Fanon, the influential author on decolonisation who supported the Algerian independence revolt against the French in the 1950s and defended the use of violence in such circumstances, wrote: “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Decolonisation is about the present as well as the past: it is important that descendants of the colonised do not have to live in societies that honour those who oppressed their ancestors. It is about eradicating racism, a direct legacy of colonialism.

It can be viewed as part of a wider movement to dismantle old, oppressive systems and tell a wide range of counter-stories – those of working-class people, women, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities – that enable us to challenge racist and other discriminatory beliefs that have resurfaced in the current political environment. 

A great deal of mainstream media attention has been given to campaigns at universities – most recently in March, when an online article in the Telegraph covered activities by the Cambridge University students’ decolonisation campaign, reporting that it had “spread to Classics, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering”.

Decolonised curriculum

The campaign posted a response on Facebook that includes the following:“The purpose of decolonising knowledge is not merely to tack on a few authors of colour to the reading list to reach a tokenistic diversity quota. Change does not come through such gestures. Instead, a decolonised curriculum places knowledge in the context of colonialism to recognise how knowledge has been used to oppress, as well as to learn about the knowledge of the oppressed.

A decolonised curriculum recognises that Europe does not exist in isolation, that its own knowledge has been produced through centuries of exchange with (and often erasure of) Others. Finally, a decolonised university cares where university funds are invested and how this contributes to the continued subjugation of the global south, particularly through the arms and fossil fuel industries.”

Last year, students at the School of Oriental and Asian studies in London made headlines when they launched a campaign to decolonise the curriculum. The Decolonising Our Minds Society “seeks to challenge the political, intellectual and structural legacies of colonialism and racism both within and outside the university”.

A media debate followed in which the students stated that they wanted not, as the media suggested, to drop white, European thinkers such as Plato from the syllabus, but to stop them from being seen as unquestionable. They argued that the curriculum is too deeply rooted in colonial worldviews, and excludes non-white thinkers. 

“Rhodes Must Fall”

Other university campaigns include the Rhodes Must Fall movement, which calls for the removal of statues of the imperialist Cecil Rhodes from Oxford University and the University of Cape Town in South Africa. As well as, like other students, reforming the Euro-centric curriculum, Rhodes Must Fall Oxford aims to address the underrepresentation of BAME students and staff in universities. 

Decolonisation campaigns have also taken place beyond the academic community. In Bristol the Countering Colston campaign fought successfully for the renaming of the concert venue named after the slave trader Edward Colston, who became deputy governor of the Royal African Company. Colston Hall is to be renamed when it reopens in 2020.

Media discussions are often simplified to the rights and wrongs of keeping or removing statues or European thinkers from university curriculums. Some decolonisation campaigners have been criticised for wanting to ‘whitewash’ Empire out of history.

Some, like the historian and TV presenter David Olusoga, are opposed to the toppling of statues, and in favour of contextualisation. In an opinion piece in the Guardian Olusoga wrote that he would like to see, for instance, a new plaque under the statue of Cecil Rhodes outlining who Rhodes was and what he did. “I’m after more history, not less, and not just for Rhodes,” Olusoga wrote. “Let’s not pull statues down,” he continued, “let’s brand them, as the Royal Africa[n] Company branded enslaved Africans, with the truth about who these men really were.” This is the argument behind the student movement too – diversify voices, yes, but also examine the history of European colonisers more critically

What constitutes national history?

Sumita Mukherjee, historian at the University of Bristol, says that we need to think carefully about how we decolonise: “If we simply replace an elite, imperialist white man with an equally elite black man then we are failing to really decolonise anything, unless it dismantles and challenges systems of hierarchy such as the patriarchy, class-based hierarchies, and sexuality.” 

She agrees with the point that we need to contextualise these histories, such as that of Colston, and not relegate them to the dustbin, but she does not believe that removing a name or a statue is whitewashing history, because ‘history’ is not straightforward. “A lot of history is based upon certain perspectives.

I think what is happening is that certain groups of people are realising they are excluded from myths about what constitutes national history or identity. They’re realising that imperialist/patriarchal systems still exist, and that some people’s stories and perspectives are privileged over others.”

Through the removal or re-presentation of colonisers, decolonisation is attempting the mountainous task of undoing centuries of emotional and physical damage inflicted on individuals and communities from African and Asian diasporas. If we achieve this we will free ourselves of limiting, divisive and damaging beliefs. It’s not going to happen overnight – ideas of white supremacy are deeply embedded in our collective consciousness – but I am hopeful that we can get there. 

More than one truth

Now that decolonisation – which can be seen as part of a wider ethical living movement that calls for respect for all living beings and the planet – has spread into the mainstream, we can begin to decolonise every aspect of society: employment, the criminal justice and healthcare systems, the media, the arts and the family.

We can teach our children that there is more than one truth. We might not agree on the best ways to interpret or implement decolonisation, but the important thing is to have these conversations, respectfully, and to move forward together to leave the legacy of a new world understanding for future generations. 

This Author

Louisa Adjoa Parker is a writer with a particular focus on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic history. Her collection of poems Blinking in the Light is published by Cinnamon Press. www.louisaadjoaparker.com

Journey through a changing land

It was still dark when we arrived at the shores of the Xingu River. Artificial lights were shining on the man-made beach built during the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant. The wooden canoes were moored side by side; most of them seemed to have had a long life in partnership with their Indigenous and riverside owners.

Headlamps were on and backpacks were being bagged in order to keep them dry. There were reporters and cameras at the beach. And so we embarked, carrying our handmade wooden paddles. Thirteen canoes were leaving that day, carrying a collection of scientists, local Indigenous people, researchers, journalists, activists, and other Brazilians who live by the riverside.

Mr Manoel (a riverside resident) and Aré (a member of the Yudjá ethnic group located at Tuba-Tuba village in Mato Grosso) were our local guides, teaching us some of the secrets of a good canoeist – how to place our arms and how to avoid hurting our hands… Even so, as we left the beach behind, our muscles were soon sore. 

“Xingu River alive forever”

The sun was slowly announcing its appearance on the river’s horizon. We felt a jumble of sensations: the rhythm of our paddling, the moment of facing the unknown, the feeling of openness towards what was to come. The yearning, longing, the beating of the heart for the Earth, for the Amazon, for the whole of that group of people, and in particular for the ones paddling with us: “Xingu River alive forever!” we all cried together.

Sunlight was revealing the contrasts of that land. Some forest areas were flooded, trees and other beings drowned since the hydroelectric plant was built. When a tree’s roots and trunk are submersed but its branches are out of the water, it dies slowly; its branches dry out and the landscape loses its dark green, vibrant and humid identity. Under water, the dead and dying trees decompose, producing a great quantity of greenhouse gases. The quality of the riverbank forest is smudged by a morbid grey. 

During the first day of canoeing we travelled the length of the Belo Monte reservoir, and the flooded forest, the turbidity of water, the silence of birds, the daily challenges of Mr Manoel, and the absence of movement within the Xingu had a marked effect on our enthusiasm. Those first hours were the most challenging of the whole 110-kilometre route.

The expedition was organised by Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), which is a Brazilian civil society organisation aimed at defending the rights of Indigenous and traditional people and focused on environmental and social issues, in partnership with AYMIX, an Indigenous association of the Yudjá Mïratu people of the Big Bend of the Xingu River. It was open to the public, and researchers from universities around Brazil were also invited. It is hoped that this will stimulate more studies within the territory affected by the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant.

Responsibility

The expedition had no pre-planned outcome other than to engage with and get to know that bittersweet part of the Amazon, and its people. Escola Schumacher Brasil was invited by ISA to participate and to contribute to the group reflection processes, while potentially creating possibilities for partnership between the two organisations. The way in which the expedition was organised through a complex network of interactions, encouraging a kind of soft activism that was simultaneously engaged and spontaneous in offering experiences and observing what emerged from them, echoes the way of Schumacher College and Escola Schumacher Brasil. 

A sense of responsibility towards our direct environment was evident in each one of our camps: waste was managed, potentially harmful chemical products such as shampoo were not used in the river, and compost loos were built and taken away. The cooks and their food were very special. Healthy, local and even vegan food was encouraged, although fish couldn’t be missing from the daily diet of these river people. Every day the kitchen crew went exploring the surrounding area to bring us delicious fruits and roots. 

The act of paddling was our daily meditation, bringing about introspection, a sort of absorption state, and integration with water and forest. There is a rhythm, there is the collective and the individual, there is the flow of water and Nature all around. Sometimes we travelled in silence; at other moments we chanted in protest for the pulsing life in that wounded river. 

By the end of the first day we had arrived at the main Belo Monte barrier plant, and the canoes were transported by a small tractor to the other side of the river. From then on, although the river’s flow was reduced (because most of the water was diverted to produce electricity), the landscape was far more pleasant. As we canoed down the river, Nature was showing itself as more and more vibrant (or less and less hurt compared to the first part of the route). That beautiful landscape was also giving us a taste of loss related to the harmed areas we had seen earlier. 

Ancient traditions

From time to time Aré, sitting at the very front of our canoe, would put down his paddle, take his handmade bamboo flute out of his bag, and begin playing beautifully for the forest that we felt was silently listening. He also coloured our days with his knowledge about the river and lessons from his elders. His presence deepened our embodied understanding of Indigenous wisdom.

Aré had been invited by ISA to participate in the expedition and had travelled from Tuba-Tuba by boat and car, a journey of three days. His ancestors had moved out of the area when the land began to be threatened by non-Indigenous people in the 20th century.

At Tuba-Tuba they were able to cultivate more of their ancient traditions and language. Nowadays there is a constant exchange between Tuba-Tuba and the village of Mïratu, two communities that call each other family. Two young women from Mïratu had been sent to live in Aré’s village for a year to learn the language and ways of living. They came with Aré to visit their parents, and joined the expedition.

We arrived towards evening at the island that would be our first base camp. As we all went to pitch our tents and bathe in the river before dinner, the sun was setting on one side of the river, and the moon was rising, full and red, on the other. We were warned about the fierce mosquitoes that would soon arrive. We had travelled 50 kilometres that day, so we opted for an early night, sleeping under the brightness of the moon.

Land under threat

On the second day, the ride was smoother and we had fewer kilometres to cover. Nevertheless, we paddled the whole day to get to Mïratu, where we were to stay for the next two days. Halfway there we made a remarkable stop at the island of Fazenda, home to many of the riverside people who were travelling with us, including Mr Manoel.

As we approached the island, all the canoes grouped together. We chanted “Xingu River alive forever” as we slowly got closer and closer. There on the beach the community was waiting for us, welcoming us with signs and smiles. Children, teachers, mothers, elders and fishermen were there, ready for a strong, heartfelt and memorable encounter. 

Imagine being a resident of that island, in the midst of that wilderness, picturing those canoes approaching filled with enthusiastic people shouting for the significance of your land, your river – your home that’s been under threat for so long. This set us thinking that perhaps one of the more powerful effects of the expedition was at the psychological level, strengthening everyone’s self-reliance (including ours) and contributing to empower, at a subtle level, the villagers we met, in defending what is true for them.

The moon was rising on the horizon as we approached Mïratu, reminding us that life pulses in cycles, even though, on that part of the river, the Belo Monte project had deprived its human and other-than-human inhabitants of the oscillatory quality of river flow. Slowly the sky was uncovering a multitude of stars. We were keen to get together with our hosts, and some researchers and Indigenous people presented their work at the meeting house built by the villagers at the base camp. Later, as every day, we would go to sleep and wake up to the blissful, almost dreamlike sound of Aré’s flute.

Nature’s dialogue

There is a lot of insensitivity (or ignorance) around what water is. Water is movement, flow. It is water that gives shape to the landscape, that gave form to the river. That specific trajectory of the river was carved by water itself, during millions of years. Water, soil and rocks are in dialogue, influencing each other since times with no beginning. 

But today, beings that emerged from those communions, and that are part of the river’s life, find themselves unable to continue their course, blocked by the hydroelectric plant. Fruit trees once on the shores of the river, whose fruits used to feed the fish, are now located 50 metres away from the water: connections that took millions of years to form have suddenly been broken.

To block this flow is to alter the consolidated movement that is the gesture of water in that particular place, forming what we call the Big Bend of the Xingu River. Nature is in itself so marvellous and wise, with all its diversity and richness, that the violence against it made us profoundly sad. 

There are also many consequences for the Indigenous and riverside communities who live there. Mrs Raimunda, a riverside resident and local leader gifted with great communicative capacity, coloured our expedition with her words, filled with strong and eloquent images: “The more bark is torn off me, the more I renew” (a reference to what happens to trees); “Money is paper, soil is life, richness is health”; “I had no voice in saying how much my land is worth. I, the one who knows how valuable my land is, was not heard in expressing its richness”; “[The enterprise] has taken out my legs and given me crutches in exchange”; “My husband and other people are dead, but they are still walking” (referring to the suffering of those around her).

Despair and downheartedness

There is despair, downheartedness and a high rate of suicide here. Children and young people have been deeply harmed by crime, drugs, violence against women, and prostitution. The health and quality – and hence the price – of fish have fallen as a consequence of the environmental impacts since the river’s regime was changed.

The turbidity of the water, noise pollution, and artificial lighting at night are only a few of the impacts we heard of from residents of the area. The blockage of piracema – the natural movement of fish who swim upstream to find specific places for reproduction – caused millions of fish to die near the dam. Various remediation or other programmes were offered by the construction company, but they are vague regarding the enormous vulnerability that the project created. Nevertheless, “We must show that we have survived,” Mrs Raimunda insists. 

This last sentence from Mrs Raimunda reinforces something we saw in many instances of our journey: the importance of showing the world what is happening to her people, who, despite all their vulnerability, are firmly and resiliently staying there. For the most incredible thing is that, despite such profound violation – destruction of the land, aggression towards their communities, the damage to aquatic ecosystems – what we encountered there was life pulsing among all that suffering. 

Our feeling is that such great challenges are strengthening cohesion, especially within the Indigenous community, stimulating them to recover and preserve their values and knowledge. In some way, like the river that has had its course interrupted and altered, they are finding new paths to live in, to let flow and to grow roots. Every adversity seems to be animating these courageous people to redeem their origins and rebuild their identity with great strength. We are not saying that the great harm caused by Belo Monte is, therefore, a good thing in any way, but that despite all the destruction, there is still life and hope and determination in that land and its people. 

Engaging with people and planet

This was the fourth such canoe expedition along the Xingu and – besides the important work of developing independent research and monitoring fauna and flora in the harmed area and surroundings – we noticed more subtle things that cannot be disregarded: for example, the kind of food that was being prepared and its influence among the kitchen crew, considering a diet free from industrialised ingredients and valuing local products. 

We would like to highlight some significant aspects of getting Indigenous and riverside people and visitors from all over Brazil together, sharing conversations, canoeing and organising daily activities. We noticed that we were returning stronger than when we had arrived, as if we were carrying with us some of the strength and integrity of those with whom we shared the journey.

A sense of readiness was growing among us to solve issues quickly and collectively – for instance, when a canoe began taking on water in one of the river rapids and was about to sink, it was rescued by the hands and help of many. Some quickly went into the water after equipment and bags, others helped save the canoe, and a third group gave support to crew members who needed it. A sense of group engagement was deepening, not only on a personal and immediate level, but also with regard to our beautiful and chaotic planet. 

Paddling, camping and having the Xingu River as our home for the week was a profound experience in which such intense exchange (between people, cultures, Nature and civilisation) dissolves, with water from the river, the boundaries between teaching and learning, right and wrong, and many other polarities we can so easily create. We all came together to savour the delights and pains of being who we are – and then to act together in responsive and responsible ways in a world where respect and integrity can flow more powerfully than a violent vision of development at all costs.

These Authors

Elisa Hornett is a teacher working with children. She has recently concluded an MSc degree at Schumacher College. Rita Mendonça is a biologist and sociologist and has dedicated her life to facilitate learning processes with Nature. She teaches Holistic Science at Escola Schumacher Brasil.

This year’s Xingu canoeing expedition takes place from 3 to 8 September 2018 and the programme will enjoy the collaboration of Escola Schumacher Brasil. Pre-registration is open at www.aymix.org/canoada