Another week, another media story about ‘the fight’ between the meat industry and vegans. This latest piece came off the back of a Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (ADHB) report.

The report did include the odd questionable statement about veganism – but it really wasn’t the attack it has been billed to be.

The AHDB has liked veganism to “other youth tribes such as ‘gym bro’ or ‘craft beer nerd’” which is rather disrespectful of a lifestyle choice and philosophy.

Militant vegans

And there are unfounded questions about the health implications of a vegan diet. But to state that this report is the meat industry fighting back “after years of being harried by activist vegans” is rather over the top.

Indeed, there is much in the report for vegans to take encouragement from, and I particularly welcomed the fact that plant-based farming was presented as the opportunity it is.

We know that not all farms can make that transition, but those who can use their land to grow plant proteins could be farming in a more environmentally friendly, healthy and cruelty-free way.

This ongoing pitting of vegans versus farmers is becoming tiresome. I’m looking forward to joining farmers and food producers on a panel at Abergavenny Food Festival next month, but the title – Should the British farming industry be worried about the rise in veganism? – is again creating an unnecessary divide.

National media coverage this year has included headlines such as ‘vegans go nuts with threats to farmers’ and ‘farmers speak out about “militant” vegans’. It seems the media is intent on exacerbating the natural differences that exist between the two groups and latching on to any opportunities to divide us.

Support and community

The fact that is missing from all this hyperbole is that vegans eat food too. And we’d like our food to be produced by British farmers and for those farmers to have sustainable and fair employment.

As we approach the point of no return in the never-ending Brexit negotiations we will have very difficult choices to make as a nation around which farming practices we continue to subsidise, and which we see as anachronisms.

As vegans, we approach these difficult choices not with glee – ‘let’s see how the farmers like it now!’ – but with pragmatism, empathy and compassion.

Compassion is a key word for vegans, and it’s always surprised me that people assume that our concern stops at the animals that we speak up for.

On the contrary, as people who have chosen to put compassion at the heart of our lives, we feel a natural sense of support and community for people too. This rings true when thinking of the farmers who produce the fruit, vegetables, and legumes which form the backbone of a vegan diet.  

Sad truth

Things do need to change though, and the only question is whether that will be foisted upon farmers, or whether they will embrace the switch that is so obviously coming.

The systemic use of animals in our food production is not necessary, and is not sustainable in the long term. Our recent ‘Grow Green’ report which we produced in association with the New Economics Foundation illustrated this clearly.

A switch to plant based farming would be sustainable, healthy, affordable, and of course would remove animal slaughter from the food chain. 

The fundamental driver for policy makers, however, should be that our environment cannot continue to support the unfettered expansion of animal agriculture.

As environmentalists, we all strive to do our bit, either locally or globally. The sad truth though is that many of us will spend a good proportion of our lives working and campaigning on environmental issues, while ignoring one of the largest impacts we are creating – the food we eat.

Inexpensive and tasty

At the risk of being provocative, it is my sincere belief that the concept of a meat-eating environmentalist is an oxymoron.

In years to come, those who follow in our footsteps may well look back on us at the start of a twenty first century with wry smiles on their faces – puzzled that for all our good intentions, we couldn’t see the obvious solution that was right in front of us, literally on a plate.

Some argue that eating animals is ingrained in our culture, and we are always able to come up with convenient excuses to carry on doing it – ‘locally sourced,’ ‘ethically reared,’ ‘grass fed.’

These supposedly sustainable alternatives could not feed a growing nation. When we only get 12 calories back for every 100 fed to animals it becomes clear that eating plants is the real ethical choice.

Change can happen. You will all be familiar with the famous Gandhi quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

We as vegans have heard our share of laughter over the years, and it was a pleasant change from being ignored. Now, our challenge is to move out of the ‘fighting’ stage and on to the acceptance which we know is inevitable.

If you’re ready to start your vegan journey, a great way to get cracking is to take our ‘Plate Up for the Planet’ challenge.

We’ll send you recipes, hints, tips and advice for a week to get you started. More than 15,000 people have signed up so far, and many have never looked back once they realise how easy, inexpensive and tasty vegan food can be.

This Author

Louise Davies is head of campaigns, policy and research at The Vegan Society. If you would like to learn more about veganism, sign up to the seven-day challenge here.

I met Wayne Dixon and his dog Koda passing through Noss Mayo in South Devon two and a half years into his walk. I was having dinner with friends, and one of them noticed him going to the bar to get a drink, looking outdoorsy, sun-tanned, and vaguely familiar.

We had all glimpsed him on the local South West news recently: he was picking litter, wild camping, and inspiring anyone who would listen.

Wayne had walked from his home in Lancashire, down the West coast, round Cornwall and was on his way through Devon, giving talks at schools, scouts, brownies, and attending beach cleans along the way.

Sharing questions

Fresh from a beach clean back home in Brighton, I went out and approached Wayne. He was having a quiet pint with a friend, Koda, the enormous Inuit husky, who was sleeping on the ground beside him.

I asked: ‘Are you the litter guy?!’ – ‘Yes’ he replied, smiling sheepishly. We chatted about beach cleaning, litter, plastic, and the state of things.

Wayne wondered why young people don’t seem to see, or care about where they live: was it a generational thing? What’s gone wrong?

Wildlife gets hurt by humans who throw away plastic, fishing tackle and litter: why don’t people see? Why don’t people take care of there neighbourhoods? Where has this litter blindness come from? This has to come from the ground up, we can’t expect councils to do it all. 

He talked about the amazing kindness and generosity of people he had met along the way, offers of food, accommodation, invitations to speak at schools and beach cleans, and how he hoped to inspire.

Muddling through 

Wayne was happy living out in nature, walking about 6 miles a day, picking up every single piece of litter on his path.

He talked of his history in the army medical corps at the age of 17, stationed in Germany, followed by various jobs in Israel, doing everything from construction, to fruit picking, to cleaning portaloos, and doing anything to fund his travels.

Inspired by his father, John Dixon, a keen rambler and author of some 30 rambling guides covering walks from Lancashire to Russia. This father and son had shared many walking holidays, and planned to walk the 7,000 mile coast line of the UK together.

Sadly, John died in 2016 of a heart attack, aged 62. He had rescued a little dog named Koda ten days before. 

Wayne believes that Koda was sent for a reason. Though quite a bit of trouble in the outset, the family muddled through with lots of help from the Northern Inuit rescue society. 

Warm welcomes

The litter picking started in the early days out walking the dog. Angered by the volume of litter and people’s reluctance to keep their neighbourhoods clean, Wayne decided to do something about it. He quit his job as a youth support worker and set out on his litter picking walk around the coast of the UK. 

Wayne decided to do the walk in memory of his father, with Koda for company. They are living on ten pounds per day, his share of the rental income from the home he inherited with his sister. Once he’s done, Wayne will write his book of the journey.

He carries his tent, a ruck sack with essentials, food enough for 2 days for himself and Koda, water, a wind up radio, his litter-grab stick, and a carrier for his litter bag. Koda is shackled to Wayne’s belt, perhaps because Koda has the wanderlust too.

I told him to go and bang on a friends door up on the headland in the morning and they would give him breakfast. Which they did, as well as a packed lunch and filling-up his water bottles. They called me that evening to say how charmed they were by meeting Wayne and Koda, and hearing his wisdom. 

I’ve invited Wayne and Koda to stay when they get to East Sussex, he doesn’t know when they will get here, but they will get here.

Join in 

I’ve since been following his on Facebook and Twitter, I told him to call in at Schumacher College when he got to Totnes, as he reminds me of a young Satish Kumar, from up North.

He was wholly unimpressed with Totnes. He picked up needles and fag ends at the bus stop by Morrison’s, and cleaned up neglected alleyways by swanky cafés in town.

He didn’t linger in the area, and headed on to Salcombe and spent an evening picking up fag ends at the back of a hotel in town. He asked: ‘Such a beautiful town, probably the staff at the hotel on breaks, why doesn’t the hotel put a bin out for them, or sweep up?’ Three hundred butts later, Wayne and Koda headed off for a wild camp and a Pasty on the headland. Job done.

They were off to Bournemouth to be filmed for Blue Peter. Wayne and Koda both receiving Blue Peter badges – that’s better than an OBE – but in the meantime, he should get one of those too.

This Author 

Annabel Tarrant was an international shoe designer for twenty years. She now runs two Right Livelihood businesses, and is an active beach cleaner, guerilla gardener, nature campaigner and alumnus of Schumacher college.

You can follow Wayne and Koda on Twitter @WayneKoda, go and join them for some litter picking, and take then a packed lunch when they’re in your area. Wayne is fundraising for the mental health charity Mind and the Northern Inuit Society.

The British public wants urgent action on climate change and strongly supports holding fossil fuel companies and the UK government accountable for the negative effects of climate change, a groundbreaking new survey from ClientEarth has revealed.

After a record heatwave in the UK and northern Europe, the majority of British people think fossil fuel companies, whose products contribute directly to climate change, should be made to pay damages for their role in contributing to global warming (71 percent), and also that the UK government must do more to help prepare for and adapt to climate change (62 percent).

Undertaken by YouGov and commissioned by environment lawyers ClientEarth, the survey aimed to capture British public sentiment towards who should pay for climate change, fossil fuel investments in personal finance and what the future of Britain’s energy should look like.

Key results

Key results of ClientEarth’s Climate Snapshot include:

·         Almost two-thirds of people think the UK government is not doing enough in adapting to climate change and limiting global temperature increases;

·         More than eight in ten believe that fossil fuel companies who knew about climate change early on and continue to lobby against taking action should be responsible in some way for the costs of major weather events (83 percent);

·         Three-fifths would be interested in a financial institution, such as a bank account or pension fund, that considers the climate change impacts of the companies it invests in (62 percent);

·         Almost two-thirds thought investing in fossil fuel companies was risky long-term and more than half thought such companies could not be trusted to change their business model;

·         More than two thirds were in favour of breaking up the Big Six’s market share to allow smaller, cleaner, and locally owned energy systems to develop (68 percent); 

·         Almost three quarters of consumers would be interested in joining a community energy scheme if the government made it easier (71 percent), and individuals keen to install their own solar panels (62 percent) and home energy storage (60 percent).

Litigation risk

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “These results make it clear that the British public want action on climate change, and urgently.

“A majority of people expect more from the government and believe that fossil fuel companies should pay for damages resulting from extreme weather events. People in this country also see a strong role for the courts in holding business and the government to account if they don’t act quickly enough.

“The government can take the lead on climate quickly by cutting off the hundreds of millions of pounds in annual subsidies to fossil fuel power stations and other schemes that are giving carbon-intensive power generation an unfair advantage over renewables.

“Making people’s homes more energy efficient is also a key way of tackling overall emissions and this poll shows that there is strong public support for doing so – the government has no excuse for dragging its feet on this.

“These results also have strong implications for business: the litigation risk for fossil fuel companies and those who invest in them is likely to grow and investors should take note – the costs of defending actions on climate change are likely to be substantial and the damages involved, should a company be required to pay, could be enormous.

“Our survey also revealed that the financial world has much work to do if they are to match consumers’ wishes. The British public said quite clearly they want their banks and pension funds to avoid investments in fossil fuel projects, and were surprised to learn that this might be the case.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story was based on a press release from ClientEarth. A copy of ClientEarth’s Climate Snapshot opinion poll report can be found here.

Margaret Thatcher’s contribution to the climate debate while British prime minister would cause her free market fellows considerable difficulty in the coming decades. They would spark speculation that the PM, in her prime, was ‘taken in by environmentalists’. 

Lord Lawson, then her chancellor, preferred to believe that Thatcher was engaged in a Machiavellian deception of the British public in order to justify her use of newly discovered North Sea gas to shut down most of the country’s mining industry, with the loss of 100,000 jobs. But can this be true?

Sir Crispin Tickell went to the same school as Lawson, and both men then went on to Oxford, with Tickell eventually becoming a career diplomat. He is widely acknowledged as the man who persuaded Thatcher to adopt the climate cause, and was responsible for drafting much of her speech to the Royal Society.  

The pioneering and brilliant Sir Crispin first heard of climate change during the Stockholm conference of scientists in 1972, and took a sabbatical from the civil service to study the subject at Harvard University.

He also happened to be among the advisors taken on an official visit to France with the Prime Minister shortly afterwards.

Washing dishes

During the short flight, one of Thatcher’s aides indicated that she had a few spare minutes and would welcome any interesting suggestions for her contribution to the United Nations summit, to be held in London the following year.

Sir Crispin raised his hand and was taken to the front of the plane to brief the PM on his suggestion. Some weeks later, Sir Crispin found himself washing dishes with Thatcher after a meeting at the House of Commons.

“I took her through the whole story of climate change, how it worked, the importance of greenhouse gases, and what the temperature of the planet would be without them.” Thatcher said: “Alright, let’s have a look into this.”

Sir Crispin told me: “She very much felt herself to be a scientist among non-scientists, and of course she certainly felt that, as a woman in a man-made world, she had to make her point.”

“People have attributed [her speech] to all kinds of manoeuvring to score advantage. But I think it was a much more genuine intellectual interest.”

Sir Crispin, who was 82 years old and as bright as a button when we met, remembered countering Lawson’s scepticism even back then. The two men had known of each other since they both attended Westminster School as young boys.

“I remember an occasion with him and Jimmy Goldsmith; the three of us had a fight on the subject, but he was already dug in. The thing about Nigel is that he gets dug in on something and that means he can’t get out again.” 

Ignored majestically

He added: “He gradually got out of touch, out of tune, out of sync with Thatcher on quite a lot of issues…in the days when he was battling it out with Margaret Thatcher, he was ignored by her majestically.”

Thatcher met with the independent scientist, James Lovelock, in May 1984. Two years earlier, Lovelock had published his seminal book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, which introduced his controversial Gaia hypothesis, suggesting the earth was a single living organism.

He warned that climate change would ultimately mean that “most of the surface of the globe will change into desert. The survivors will gather around the Arctic. But there won’t be enough room for everybody, so there will be wars raging populations, warlords.” 

Lovelock later became patron of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE). The industry group was set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, Thatcher’s friend and press secretary before becoming a lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL).

Lovelock’s meeting would later resurface as evidence that she simply used climate change to promote her nuclear agenda.

Another significant influence on Thatcher’s attitude towards the relationship between science and industry was Lord Rothschild, the one-time member of the MI5 anti-sabotage unit and then research director of Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Edward Health had hired him in February 1971 as part of the Central Policy Review Staff which was a think tank at the heart of government.

A financial motive

Prime Minister Heath had called the young Thatcher, then education minister, to his office at 10 Downing Street the following April to discuss the governmental funding of science.

Thatcher began the meeting defending the scientific community. “It was felt that the system was now working better than it had ever worked before”, an official noted her saying.

Her “main concern” was “to ensure that no change was made against the wishes of the scientists without having been consulted”. By the end of the meeting, the education secretary had reversed her position.

She agreed that funding would no longer support projects of general interest, but would be granted only when there was a demonstrable benefit to the industry.

This was a fundamental change in policy, agreed in private and without the consultation of scientists.

Jon Agar, publishing with the Royal Society, would state that: “Thatcher had changed her mind. She now embraced the relevance of the market in shaping key areas of government science, and had already moved into ‘tactical’ considerations of how to sell the conclusion. The lady had turned.” [PDF]

He added: “Science [was for Thatcher] even more of a test case for her developing views on economic liberalism. If markets could work for science policy, they could work anywhere.”

The man from Shell and MI5 had persuaded Thatcher that science, as with everything else, must have a financial motive.

But there is an even more curious and controversial version of events about Thatcher’s road to Damascus…

This Article

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. 

Peter Matthiessen once said that elephants “command the silence ordinarily reserved for mountains, peaks, great fires, and the sea”. 

However, when I gazed into the soulful eyes of these archaic creatures, mountains and oceans almost paled in comparison to the sublime feeling of implicit communication with another species.

When those thick lashes close over the eyes you feel tangible sorrow as the quivering boundary between two distinct species is established once again.

Transcendent presence

Anyone that has ever gazed into the ochre eye of the elephant will be able to understand that human intelligence, rather than being the pinnacle of evolution, is just another branch of the diverse tree of life.

For the past few weeks I have been travelling around Thailand to document the plight of the Asian elephant and expose the horrific industry that normalises a practice called ‘Phajaan’, which means ‘to break the spirit of an elephant’.

The camps may have appeared bucolic and blissful to anyone unaware of what goes on behind the scenes. The lumbering giants and the gently rolling green hills all contribute to the concealment of the horrific reality.

However, it does not take an expert to see that the swinging heads, pawing feet and wild eyes eyes all hint at something more sinister.

While the elephant’s leathery skin and almost transcendent presence seems to suggest that they are resistant to any man-inflicted torture, this is completely untrue.

Sick babies

Whilst investigating the camps – and filming an exposé – I saw crippled creatures with sores and slashes etched into their bodies.

Most of them displayed severe stereotypic behaviour, which is evidence of psychological problems such as anxiety, depression or stress.

One of the most distressing scenes came in the form of a six month old called Sheshan. This baby was imprisoned in a meagre concrete pen with his distressed mother, who was on a metre-long chain.

He stumbled around her legs, tripping over her chains and flipping his thin trunk around in juvenile incompetence. The bond between a mother and baby elephant is one of the strongest in the animal kingdom.

This is taken to such an extent that wild mothers will leave the herd – which is almost always a precursor to death – in order to stay with their sick babies.

Fearful creature

They will also mourn them if they die, and their grief is so intense that not only will they bury their babies, but they will return for many years after to visit the bones of their loved ones.

So as you can imagine, enforced separation is incredibly distressing. However, this happens to thousands of elephants across Asia all for the amusement of tourists.

Once the babies are taken from their mothers, they are put through a training process which includes starvation, isolation, repeated beating with a bull-hook and confinement.

The length of the process varies depending on how easy it is to ‘break the spirit’ of the elephant. Essentially, Phajaan is completed whenever the elephant has been abused to such an extent that he believes he is subservient to humans.

The product of the training is usually a very fearful creature who will stumble for miles under the torrid sun with a heavy chair and several tourists on his back.

Simply sublime

However, with the increase in tourism, the camps have found novel ways to entertain the rapacious appetite of humans for continual amusement. These variations may include the elephants painting, playing football, dancing, bowing or praying.

While I stood in the camps filming these horrors, I couldn’t help but feel disgusted as I saw the intelligent eyes of such beautiful creatures watching as throngs of tourists poke and prod them, baying for a selfie.

What makes this cruelty even worse is the fact that elephants have existed for 55 million years, which makes our measly 200,000 years on this planet pale in comparison.

The layers and folds of their thick skin, the colour of sun-baked earth, seem to replicate the fissures and curves of the landscape. Their ears command the air around them, swishing like corduroy.

Their deep rumbles undulate and pulse through your body, necessitating an awe that is usually reserved for mountains and the ocean. They are, to put it simply, sublime.

Yet their magnificence doesn’t stand alone, they have a purpose too – which does not involve serving humans. They are the Gardeners Of The Forest.

Gardeners of the forest

All eight species of elephant are essential for the dispersal of seeds. They defecate over long distances, which ensures far-reaching dispersal, but they also fertilise them by leaving the seeds in viable conditions – nutrient-rich and protective dung.

A scientific paper published on Science Direct states: “Large numbers of forest elephants ranging over large areas may be essential for ecosystem function. The loss of elephants will have important negative consequences for the ecological trajectories of some plant species and whole ecological communities.”

When elephants are taken from their lush, ecologically-rich homes and imbedded in the human community, we will at some stage cause catastrophic ecological consequences which would also affect us greatly.

When our actions are not only harming other species, the environment and consequently ourselves, wouldn’t it be more beneficial if we skip those half hour elephant rides and find something less detrimental to add to our bucket.

This Author

Bella Lack is Born Free Foundation youth ambassador.

Fracking developer and chemical firm INEOS has won an appeal over its application to build a well for test drilling in Derbyshire.

The firm applied for permission in May 2017 to erect a drilling rig up to 60 metres tall and drill around 2,400 metres below the ground, off Bramleymoor Lane near Marsh Lane in Derbyshire for a temporary period of five years. But Derbyshire County Council had not come to a conclusion by December, in breach of the allowed timescale of 16 weeks.

INEOS then took its application to government body the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), which held a public inquiry in June 2018. The council by then had decided to oppose the application, along with local campaign group Eckington Against Fracking, local MP Lee Rowley, and more than 30 members of the public.

Strong reactions

But the planning inspector concluded that, although residents near the development would suffer slightly from nighttime noise, this would not outweigh the benefits of the exploration in terms of improvements to energy resources. Other impacts could be reduced through planning conditions, she said.

Friends of the Earth tweeted: “Devastating news for Derbyshire and yet another example of local decisions being overturned in favour of the #fracking industry. Local people said no and the local council said no.”

Rebecca Long Bailey MP, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said that the decision was scandalous, and that a Labour government would ban fracking.

INEOS welcomed the decision but said that its application should not have had to go to public inquiry, which was “an unjustifiable waste of public money”. Following the test drill, the firm would have to obtain a separate environmental permit and planning permission if it wants to go ahead with fracking.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

At least twelve earthquakes have awoken the usually quiet rural area around the village of Newdigate. The area is close to the oil exploration sites of UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) at Horse Hill and Angus Energy at Brockham.  

Along with searing global temperatures attributed to climate change, the quakes have not deterred the government from pressing ahead with measures to smooth the way for the onshore oil and gas industry. 

Water reinjection

Critics say the timing is a cynical ploy to accelerate development over the summer – traditionally a time of low public scrutiny. 

David Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow, told The Ecologist: “We know from the US that re-injection can trigger quite major earthquakes, bigger than the ones in Surrey.

“For every barrel of oil that’s produced … you get seven barrels of water that you have to get rid of … The usual way of doing it that you have another borehole nearby and you force it down there back underground … That’s called re-injection.” 

The reinjection site doesn’t even need to be close by to trigger an earthquake: “They can be 40-50 miles away”. 

It has now become clear that the quakes were relatively near the surface, increasing the likelihood that they were caused by human interference.

Weak regulation

Smythe explained: “In the case of UKOG at Horse Hill it is just possible that they started some activity that they haven’t told anyone about. Re-injection or well testing or something like that, before the first of the Newdigate earthquakes that was on 1 April this year.” 

On the 27 June 2018, the same day as one of the bigger earthquakes, UKOG put out a press release that stated: “Production flow test operations commence.” 

The Ecologist invited UKOG to comment on reports linking its operations to the earthquakes but it did not respond. 

Smythe said: “It’s clear from the evidence that they will ignore the regulations and permits with impunity. And they say they’re not active at a certain day but you know, whose checking up on them?”

Recent regulatory and government approvals coupled with a draft law designed to dissolve planning obstacles, have given oil and gas companies a summer fillip. 

Commercial fracking

On 24 July, energy minister Claire Perry announced: “I am content that Hydraulic Fracturing Consent should be granted” for an extraction license at the Preston New Road exploration site in Lancashire. 

This is the first time that horizontal commercial fracking has been allowed on mainland Britain since a moratorium was put in place in 2011 due to earthquakes linked to operations. 

Green MP Caroline Lucas said in parliament the decision had been: “smuggled out on this last day before recess.

“It is an extraordinarily perverse decision given the reality of accelerating climate change. Essentially the government is locking us in to a whole new fossil fuel industry.” 

Residents Action on Fylde Fracking have challenged fracking company Cuadrilla’s apparent exemption to water restrictions at a time when Northwest water provider United Utilities has imposed a hosepipe ban from 5 August. 

‘Water protector’

That same day that the government awarded the license, six activists were arrested for locking on using arm pipes and obstructing the fracking site entrance road. A Cuadrilla press release on 24 July stated: “Cuadrilla can confirm that it plans to take legal action against six individuals.” 

When asked whether he was there to enforce the injunction one policeman at the site that day said the injunction covered, “actions on this road and any other road as well, but that’s their [Cuadrilla’s] concern and not the police. It’s a civil matter.”

Fiona [last name withheld], an activist at Preston New Road, described herself as a “water protector” and was doing her shift on “rig watch.” 

She said that the injunction had not stopped protesters blockading the site. “I’m staying here all the time. It feels really important.” she said. One protestor said that the cost of challenging the injunction at Preston New Road had so far proved prohibitive. 

The six anti-frackers from Surrey including from Leith Hill Protection Camp, were in court in early July and are expecting the verdict on their legal challenge in August. The ruling could have significant implications for civil liberties including the right to protest against fracking companies.

Eroding democracy 

On 17 May, government minister Greg Clark announced that it would introduce a bill to allow oil companies to bypass the planning application process altogether by allowing exploration to go ahead as “permitted development.” 

The bill is currently under public consultation over the summer and if successful could see central Government excluding local and county planners from much of the process. 

Campaigners say this amounts to an erosion of local democracy. Fiona said the campaigning organisations around Preston plan group meetings with their MPs to lobby against the plans. The plans could enable companies such as Angus Energy easier access to drill. 

According to campaign group Brockham Oil Watch, Angus has ignored planning requirements and went ahead with unauthorised drilling. Now, a year and a half later, its retrospective application was approved on 8 August by Surrey County Council, to the dismay of campaigners.  

Ada Zaffina of Brockham Oil Watch said: “They [Angus Energy] misled the council into believing they were doing maintenance on an existing well and not drilling.” 

Ignoring opposition

In a letter to The Times, 6 August, four senior academics said: “A moratorium is urgently needed on hydrocarbon exploration in the area of Surrey recently affected by 12 earthquakes.”  

However their professional concerns failed to sway Surrey County Council which on 8 August passed a controversial application by 7 votes to 4 for Brockham operator, Angus Energy to drill. The company said it was “pleased to acknowledge today’s planning approval.” 

Zaffina, who spoke at the meeting, said: “This permission was given against the objections by the Parish Council, Mole Valley District Council and the local people”. Campaigners were shocked that the Council decision had ignored widespread local opposition.

Referring to letter in The Times, Zaffina said: “The Oil & Gas Authority can hardly be regarded as independent or impartial. Its objective is to support the industry in maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas, and it is largely funded by the industry.

“We are disappointed that the planning officers relied on such advice in favour of the recent advice from a group of leading independent geologists.” 

Self regulation

Smythe argued that existing permits do not require the company to submit an appropriate level of detail: “Unfortunately under the regulations in which Angus energy operate, there has been no requirement for them to report on a daily or weekly basis, what they are doing to report about re-injection – how much and how often.” 

Zaffina agreed that self-monitoring by the industry is not adequate: “Even the way the permit applications work is really old school. In some US states you have a live, searchable online database that can be accessed by the public. Here you have nothing like that.” 

At nearby Leith Hill campaigners were dismayed to receive news that the Environment Agency had issued an approval decision for exploration to go ahead on 23 July. 

In its decision the Environment Agency highlighted the biological sensitivity of this ancient woodland classified as both a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 

Yet it has still given the green light for industrialisation of this protected area.

Radioactive materials 

The decision report stated that: “The permit will authorise as part of the mining waste activity the flaring of any waste gas arising from well testing.” 

The decision also allows naturally occurring radioactive materials “in concentrations exceeding those set out in … the Regulations.” It also determines that “an environmental permit for a groundwater activity is not required.” 

A concerted Government drive to promote the industry is now underway. Ongoing consultations over the summer could decide whether onshore projects are included in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime, allowing central government to override regional decisions about projects. 

This dovetails with provision for extra resources for fast-tracking decisions on appeals of oil and gas applications that were refused at the county level. Whether the measures will kickstart the nascent industry in the face of widespread public opposition, has yet to be seen.

This Author

Rod Harbinson is a multimedia journalist focussing on environment and human rights issues, often in developing countries. At home behind a camera, he is also a persistent researcher, uncovering new and often overlooked stories. His photography is represented by the Polaris Images agency in New York.

Further Information

Brockham: https://brockhamoilwatch.org/

Preston: http://pnrgroup.org.uk/

Leith Hill: https://www.voiceforleithhill.co.uk/

If there’s one thing I’ve had the occasional guilty longing for over the course of my organic farming career, it is the odd squirt of glyphosate.

It could save so much time and effort, whether destroying pernicious weeds like couch, stopping grass shorting out electric fences in our pig field or helping young trees establish.

And like virtually all farmers, I had been convinced it was safe – safe enough to drink, as everyone would regularly say. Of course, organic farmers can’t use it, but there have been moments when I’ve wished we could!

So I was as taken aback as anyone by the decision in 2015 of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, which found glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.

Then this week we’ve seen a landmark case in the US which ruled that not only did Monsanto’s weed killer cause a man’s terminal cancer, but that the company knew its glyphosate products could be dangerous.

Monsanto has argued strongly against the jury’s decision, and there is surprisingly little research into the impacts of the chemical, especially when combined with the other ingredients in these weedkillers.

Whatever your view, there is no doubt that the case is mounting against glyphosate and questions are increasingly being raised over pesticides in general, particularly their impact on soil and wildlife. 

The same pattern repeats

Over the last 60 years the pattern has been the same.

A new chemical group is launched on the world, marketed as the solution to all our farming woes, then the doubts start to creep in, the evidence of human health and/or environmental damage builds, cautionary voices clash with practical farmers who feel their livelihoods are threatened, and finally the chemical is banned.

From DDT, to the organochlorines, then the organophosphates, the neonicotinoids, and now the ‘so safe you can drink it’ glyphosate – the same lifecycle plays out.

To add insult to injury, even those chemicals still allowed are failing. Farmers are struggling to control blackgrass, how-ever often they spray, and starting to recognise that other methods need to be employed if they are to protect their crops.

The water companies are spending a fortune trying to strip the slug killer metaldehyde out of our drinking water, the cost of which is ultimately passed onto consumers.

New genetic technologies like GM have been sold on the basis that they will allow us to reduce pesticide use, but the experience of farmers in countries where GM is allowed is that short term gain soon reverses into resistant ‘superweeds’ and the need for ever more powerful pesticides. 

Food without pesticides is perfectly possible

Enough of the quick fixes, the sticking plasters that scarcely cover the wound. What farmers need now is help to get off the treadmill, and that requires a wholesale rethink of our food and farming systems.

Producing plentiful, high quality food without pesticides is perfectly possible, as organic farmers worldwide demonstrate, but under our current economic model it costs more to do so; pesticides don’t carry the costs they incur, while labour is expensive.

Ecological approaches require diversity which is more management intensive, demanding skills and knowledge which many farmers don’t have, and investment is often needed too.

This is the perfect moment to rethink our food and farming system, as we prepare to exit the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

The Soil Association has long campaigned for a stop to spraying glyphosate on crops at harvest time and to it use in parks and gardens, and for a thorough rethink of pesticide regulations. 

We can support farmers to move away from pesticides, and invest in the research and development that is required to tackle the challenges that even successful organic producers face.

Government has committed to target public funding on the ‘public goods’ that benefit the whole of society but which farmers are not rewarded for, such as carbon sequestration, reversing wildlife declines, and cutting antibiotic use.

With the right (organic) carrots and sticks, we could transition our food system over the next decade to one which works with and for nature, provides a fair living for producers, and supports a healthy, affordable diet for citizens. 

The Author

Helen Browning is an organic farmer and business owner. She is Chief Executive of the Soil Association and a member of the Food Ethics Council.

If there’s one thing I’ve had the occasional guilty longing for over the course of my organic farming career, it is the odd squirt of glyphosate.

It could save so much time and effort, whether destroying pernicious weeds like couch, stopping grass shorting out electric fences in our pig field or helping young trees establish.

And like virtually all farmers, I had been convinced it was safe – safe enough to drink, as everyone would regularly say. Of course, organic farmers can’t use it, but there have been moments when I’ve wished we could!

So I was as taken aback as anyone by the decision in 2015 of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, which found glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.

Then this week we’ve seen a landmark case in the US which ruled that not only did Monsanto’s weed killer cause a man’s terminal cancer, but that the company knew its glyphosate products could be dangerous.

Monsanto has argued strongly against the jury’s decision, and there is surprisingly little research into the impacts of the chemical, especially when combined with the other ingredients in these weedkillers.

Whatever your view, there is no doubt that the case is mounting against glyphosate and questions are increasingly being raised over pesticides in general, particularly their impact on soil and wildlife. 

The same pattern repeats

Over the last 60 years the pattern has been the same.

A new chemical group is launched on the world, marketed as the solution to all our farming woes, then the doubts start to creep in, the evidence of human health and/or environmental damage builds, cautionary voices clash with practical farmers who feel their livelihoods are threatened, and finally the chemical is banned.

From DDT, to the organochlorines, then the organophosphates, the neonicotinoids, and now the ‘so safe you can drink it’ glyphosate – the same lifecycle plays out.

To add insult to injury, even those chemicals still allowed are failing. Farmers are struggling to control blackgrass, how-ever often they spray, and starting to recognise that other methods need to be employed if they are to protect their crops.

The water companies are spending a fortune trying to strip the slug killer metaldehyde out of our drinking water, the cost of which is ultimately passed onto consumers.

New genetic technologies like GM have been sold on the basis that they will allow us to reduce pesticide use, but the experience of farmers in countries where GM is allowed is that short term gain soon reverses into resistant ‘superweeds’ and the need for ever more powerful pesticides. 

Food without pesticides is perfectly possible

Enough of the quick fixes, the sticking plasters that scarcely cover the wound. What farmers need now is help to get off the treadmill, and that requires a wholesale rethink of our food and farming systems.

Producing plentiful, high quality food without pesticides is perfectly possible, as organic farmers worldwide demonstrate, but under our current economic model it costs more to do so; pesticides don’t carry the costs they incur, while labour is expensive.

Ecological approaches require diversity which is more management intensive, demanding skills and knowledge which many farmers don’t have, and investment is often needed too.

This is the perfect moment to rethink our food and farming system, as we prepare to exit the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

The Soil Association has long campaigned for a stop to spraying glyphosate on crops at harvest time and to it use in parks and gardens, and for a thorough rethink of pesticide regulations. 

We can support farmers to move away from pesticides, and invest in the research and development that is required to tackle the challenges that even successful organic producers face.

Government has committed to target public funding on the ‘public goods’ that benefit the whole of society but which farmers are not rewarded for, such as carbon sequestration, reversing wildlife declines, and cutting antibiotic use.

With the right (organic) carrots and sticks, we could transition our food system over the next decade to one which works with and for nature, provides a fair living for producers, and supports a healthy, affordable diet for citizens. 

The Author

Helen Browning is an organic farmer and business owner. She is Chief Executive of the Soil Association and a member of the Food Ethics Council.

If there’s one thing I’ve had the occasional guilty longing for over the course of my organic farming career, it is the odd squirt of glyphosate.

It could save so much time and effort, whether destroying pernicious weeds like couch, stopping grass shorting out electric fences in our pig field or helping young trees establish.

And like virtually all farmers, I had been convinced it was safe – safe enough to drink, as everyone would regularly say. Of course, organic farmers can’t use it, but there have been moments when I’ve wished we could!

So I was as taken aback as anyone by the decision in 2015 of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, which found glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.

Then this week we’ve seen a landmark case in the US which ruled that not only did Monsanto’s weed killer cause a man’s terminal cancer, but that the company knew its glyphosate products could be dangerous.

Monsanto has argued strongly against the jury’s decision, and there is surprisingly little research into the impacts of the chemical, especially when combined with the other ingredients in these weedkillers.

Whatever your view, there is no doubt that the case is mounting against glyphosate and questions are increasingly being raised over pesticides in general, particularly their impact on soil and wildlife. 

The same pattern repeats

Over the last 60 years the pattern has been the same.

A new chemical group is launched on the world, marketed as the solution to all our farming woes, then the doubts start to creep in, the evidence of human health and/or environmental damage builds, cautionary voices clash with practical farmers who feel their livelihoods are threatened, and finally the chemical is banned.

From DDT, to the organochlorines, then the organophosphates, the neonicotinoids, and now the ‘so safe you can drink it’ glyphosate – the same lifecycle plays out.

To add insult to injury, even those chemicals still allowed are failing. Farmers are struggling to control blackgrass, how-ever often they spray, and starting to recognise that other methods need to be employed if they are to protect their crops.

The water companies are spending a fortune trying to strip the slug killer metaldehyde out of our drinking water, the cost of which is ultimately passed onto consumers.

New genetic technologies like GM have been sold on the basis that they will allow us to reduce pesticide use, but the experience of farmers in countries where GM is allowed is that short term gain soon reverses into resistant ‘superweeds’ and the need for ever more powerful pesticides. 

Food without pesticides is perfectly possible

Enough of the quick fixes, the sticking plasters that scarcely cover the wound. What farmers need now is help to get off the treadmill, and that requires a wholesale rethink of our food and farming systems.

Producing plentiful, high quality food without pesticides is perfectly possible, as organic farmers worldwide demonstrate, but under our current economic model it costs more to do so; pesticides don’t carry the costs they incur, while labour is expensive.

Ecological approaches require diversity which is more management intensive, demanding skills and knowledge which many farmers don’t have, and investment is often needed too.

This is the perfect moment to rethink our food and farming system, as we prepare to exit the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

The Soil Association has long campaigned for a stop to spraying glyphosate on crops at harvest time and to it use in parks and gardens, and for a thorough rethink of pesticide regulations. 

We can support farmers to move away from pesticides, and invest in the research and development that is required to tackle the challenges that even successful organic producers face.

Government has committed to target public funding on the ‘public goods’ that benefit the whole of society but which farmers are not rewarded for, such as carbon sequestration, reversing wildlife declines, and cutting antibiotic use.

With the right (organic) carrots and sticks, we could transition our food system over the next decade to one which works with and for nature, provides a fair living for producers, and supports a healthy, affordable diet for citizens. 

The Author

Helen Browning is an organic farmer and business owner. She is Chief Executive of the Soil Association and a member of the Food Ethics Council.