Thousands of students are taking to the streets to demand action on climate change and call on the Government to teach children about the threat it poses.

Organisers say more than 120 protests are taking place in the UK, with tens of thousands of students attending – despite exams taking place in schools around the country. London, Brighton, Birmingham and Edinburgh’s events are expected to be particularly popular.

In London, students are gathering in Parliament Square before marching on the Department for Education. The strike calls on ministers to “Teach the Future”, by reforming the curriculum to include more material on climate change.

Movement

Shakira Martin, a former president of the National Union of Students, will address the London demonstration. Similar large-scale youth protests took place in February and March this year, with students “striking” from school to take part.

Extinction Rebellion, which organised protests in London last month, said it is not involved in Friday’s event but supports the cause.

Although the strikes are a “decentralised movement” and have no formal leader, many consider Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg to be the figurehead.

Reform

Ms Thunberg began “striking” from school on Fridays to lobby the Swedish parliament on climate change in August 2018. Her protest sparked similar strikes across Europe, North America and Australia. Protesters in 110 countries are expected to take part in Friday’s strike.

UK spokesman Jake Woodier, 26, said the Teach the Future campaign is designed to educate students more about climate change in schools. “Students are really learning and gaining their knowledge from outside of education,” he said.

“We’re calling for dramatic reform of the education system to provide students with the knowledge and tools to be equipped for the changing world which they’re going to be inheriting.”

This Author

Tony Diver is a reporter for the Press Association.

The majority of ecologists either do not know, or quickly forget, that the first published record of sustainability originated from a book about forest management.

In 1713, Hans Carl von Carlovitz wrote Sylvicultura Oeconomica to describe “the sustainable management of forest resources”. His intention was admittedly to manage the supply of timber, primarily for the silver mining industry. Nonetheless the concept of long-term management of resources to protect future yield as well as supplying present need can be attributed to him. 

The majority of foresters either do not know, or quickly forget, that part of the work of their professional body, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, is to “foster a greater public awareness and understanding of forestry in order to serve a variety of commercial, recreational, environmental and scientific interests.” 

Biodiversity loss

To further this aim, the National School of Forestry, University of Cumbria, is participating in Timber Festival this summer. 

We hope to give people the opportunity to learn some forestry skills, but also to engage in public discussion of how sustainable forest management can be part of the solution to climate breakdown and biodiversity loss, while providing space for recreation, improving health and well-being, reducing flooding impacts and supplying the timber and other wood products we need.

This article sets out how UK forestry currently contributes to combatting climate breakdown and biodiversity loss – the twin challenges of our time – and explains how managing commercial forest plantations protects rather than threatens our ancient semi-natural woodland.

According to the Office for National Statistics, just under 50 percent of the food consumed in the UK was supplied from within the UK in 2017, and according to Forest Research Forestry Statistics just over 19 percent of wood and wood products used in the UK were supplied from within the UK in the same year.

We can increase our self-sufficiency in food, for example through behavioural change towards vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian or flexitarian diets. However, it is not clear that a similar approach to reducing demand for wood by changing consumption patterns is achievable.

Self-sufficiency 

It could be argued that we should increase the amount of wood that we use, or perhaps that while we reduce overall consumption patterns, the proportion of wood products in the mix of materials that we continue to use ought to increase.

This is because the carbon footprint of wood (especially when new trees are grown to replace those being harvested) is much lower than alternatives such as concrete and steel, and less polluting to the environment than plastic.

It is well known that trees take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through net photosynthesis, storing carbon in their biomass and in forest ecosystems, especially soils. But even climate science experts often overlook the fact that forestry also contributes in products from the forest through this carbon substitution effect.

As long as we continue to use timber we need to harvest trees, meaning that sustainable forest management includes both the protection of woodland and the use of plantations to supply the wood we need.

It is important to remember that we also need to improve self-sufficiency in food and wood to ensure that we aren’t exporting our resource needs to other parts of the world where farming and forestry may be less regulated. These concerns are arising during a time when we may be weakening our links with the EU. Brexit would make us more dependent on our own supply chains rather than part of a larger political unit which is collectively self-sufficient in wood.

Land availability

This need to improve self-sufficiency from land use is not just a food and forestry issue; it has implications for other competing land uses, such as growing dedicated energy crops and the increasing desire for landscape scale rewilding.

It is hard to justify planting dedicated energy crops on land that is needed for agriculture or plantation forestry.

Using wood products instead of higher carbon footprint materials has a higher substitution effect than burning wood instead of fossil fuels. This means that woody biomass should only be a source of bioenergy when it is a by-product of good silviculture (thinning out young trees to give others more space to grow), not a final harvest product. 

Competition for land and the desire for increased levels of self-sufficiency do not mean that there is no potential in the UK for rewilding. There are no completely natural habitats in the UK, but our most precious semi-natural habitats, such as ancient woodland, should be protected and expanded.

The line between habitat restoration and rewilding is a blurry one, but sustainable forest management can contribute by producing wood products intensively from some areas of land to reduce the pressure to obtain resources from others.

The foresters’ mantra of ‘the right tree in the right place for the right reason’ applies to the expansion of ancient semi-natural woodland habitats and the use of commercial plantations to supply timber.

Public understanding

These are challenging but exciting times for professionals working in forest industry and woodland conservation.

The benefits that trees, woods and forests provide are better recognised than ever before. In order to maintain the climate mitigation effects of carbon sequestration by trees, carbon storage in forest ecosystems (especially soils) and carbon substitution from wood, it is essential that forests also adapt to climate change.

Trees are static, long-lived organisms with slow generation times; other flora and fauna can adapt more quickly but may depend on the woodland habitat. Climate change related pest and disease outbreaks and abiotic threats such as frost, flooding, drought and wildfire threaten both semi-natural woodlands and plantation forests.

Climate smart forestry is an approach that recognises that if trees are to continue to be life support systems, they must help us combat climate breakdown. However, there can be no ongoing climate mitigation by forests if they do not adapt in time.

In ancient semi-natural woodlands, increasing their ability to regenerate naturally may involve management to control grazing deer or reduce grey squirrel damage. Management in commercial forest plantations may lead to an initial loss in productivity and mitigation potential. This is because the move away from even-aged monocultures, using clearfell and restock systems, to a more diverse range of trees species and canopy structures, using low impact silvicultural systems, will produce forests that are more resistant and resilient to pests, diseases and abiotic impacts.

Positive action

These changes will also store carbon better as soil is less disturbed in timber extraction. None of these management interventions can be successful without stakeholder engagement, nor will it continue without the development of the next generation of future foresters and woodland conservationists with the skills and the will to implement sustainable forest management.

The school climate strikes inspired by Greta Thunberg, and non-violent resistance by Extinction Rebellion, demand that the world’s decision makers take responsibility, with the suggestion that young people will otherwise “make change happen by themselves”.

Future foresters, ecologists and conservationists will make change happen. Some as practitioners at a relatively modest site and landscape scale (think global act local), but others as scientists and policy makers at national and international levels.

Current students are aware of their potential to make a positive difference. I discussed the protests with one undergraduate student (Ella Barker, studying Conservation Biology) – she did not want to join the school climate strikes. She felt that she was already on a pathway towards positive action to combat climate breakdown, studying a degree to gain the knowledge to pursue a career with the expertise to be able to make a positive difference.

Courses that provide the skills and expertise to implement sustainable forest management are potential pathways to a career combatting climate change and biodiversity loss. Climate smart  forestry also provides other benefits to human society such as recreational access, flood mitigation, health and well-being and even supplying timber and other wood products.

I suspect that most participants in school strikes and protests do not immediately consider a career in forestry, or even woodland conservation, a way of making a lifelong difference to the way our food and wood are produced and our landscapes are managed. 

This is why the opportunity for public engagement through participation in Timber Festival is one that staff from the National School of Forestry and the Centre for National Parks and Protected Areas are keen to undertake. Come and talk to us.

This Author

Dr Andrew Weatherall MICFor is a senior lecturer in the National School of Forestry, University of Cumbria. He is programme lead for BSc (Hons) Woodland Ecology and Conservation.

Image: Adrian Naik, Naik Media Productions

Bolivia’s first indigenous president set out a bold and inspiring vision to save the planet from climate and environmental breakdown just over ten years ago.

In an open letter, Evo Morales said “Mother Earth is ill.” He urged the industrialised countries to drastically reduce emissions, increase technology transfer, and provide aid to those most affected by climate change.

Most of all, Morales said the international community had to address the structural causes of climate change. Morales declared that humanity faced a choice “to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life”.

Mounting anger

His prophetic words were largely sidelined or ignored at the time, but are echoed in the rising movements of schoolchildren, Extinction Rebellion activists, supporters of rights of nature and people calling for a Green New Deal.

They express the mounting anger that political leaders have so far chosen the deadly path of self-destruction, evident in the reports of ever-rising greenhouse gas emissions and the possible extinction of a million species within our lifetime.

So it is disturbing, despite his prescient warnings, that Morales seems to have made a choice to destroy a rich, biodiverse Amazonian region and indigenous territory within his own country.

That was the conclusion of a tribunal of globally renowned jurists, ecologists, legislators, activists and indigenous leaders, which declared on 15 May that the Bolivian government had “violated the rights of Mother Earth” and “the collective and individual rights of the nations and Indigenous peoples of TIPNIS”.

In most countries, “nature” is seen as property, to be owned and destroyed for profit. The Rights of Nature, now law in nine countries including Bolivia, seeks to redefine ecosystems as having the right to exist and regenerate their vital cycles.

Unique laws

As rights-bearing entities, ecosystems have legal standing in a court of law. Evo Morales was once a champion of the Rights of Nature, and enacting it into law for Bolivia.

The decision by the International Tribunal on the Rights of Nature came in response to a petition by indigenous communities in the Amazonian region of TIPNIS who opposed a government-imposed road that would cut through the heart of their territories.

The tribunal’s investigations found that the road had been approved without any environmental impact assessment and without the full prior, free and informed consent of its indigenous peoples.

Studies show that the TIPNIS road, currently under construction, will likely lead to the deforestation of 50 percent of the territory’s rainforest within 20 years – a complete breach of Bolivia’s own unique laws that recognise the rights of nature.

As the former Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon, put it: “We might expect neoliberal extractivist politicians to do this. But it’s particularly painful when it is done by former comrades who wave a banner of Mother Earth in the air while crushing those very rights under foot.”

Systemic shift

The truth is that the world needs the radical systemic shift Morales urged a decade ago, one that changes our relationship to nature and prioritises the environment and people over profits.

This is no longer a position held only by activists, but increasingly by scientists, too. The IPCC report in October 2018 said keeping temperature increases below 1.5 degrees centigrade requires “far-reaching transitions in energy, land … and industrial systems” for which there is “no documented historic precedent.”

Similarly, the UN Global Assessment on Biodiversity released in May 2019 notes that only “transformative change” can hope to stave off mass extinction, which they define as “a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.”

The UN Biodiversity Assessment also contains strong conclusions that the Bolivian government would do well to consider as it decides how to respond to the Tribunal on the Rights of Nature.

Notably, they show how land-use change, such as the building of roads, oil exploration or expansion of the agricultural frontier into intact ecosystems is the single biggest cause of biodiversity loss, far more than even climate change.

Deeply cynical

Conversely, they show that nature that is managed by indigenous peoples, while under ever more pressure, is declining less than in other regions.

The report explicitly states that the world “would benefit from an explicit consideration of the views, perspectives and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, their knowledge and understanding of large regions and ecosystems, and their desired future development pathways.”

It would be a tragedy if the Bolivian government decides to choose the path of destruction in TIPNIS just as more of the world’s people recognise the wisdom of Morales’ words on the need for “harmony with nature and respect of life”.

Yet powerful words without action are not only empty, they are deeply cynical and deceitful. Bolivia is hardly unique in choosing industrial development at all costs over nature – nor is it clearly as culpable as the richest countries who have already decimated their natural environments.

But for a moment, Bolivia’s government seemed to point to an alternative path to well-being, a path that we all must take for humanity’s survival.

It would be wonderful if the Bolivian government would start again to walk that path, exploring with all who love this planetary home a new way to live in harmony with Mother Earth.

These Authors 

Shannon Biggs is a co-founder of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) and was part of the International Tribunal on the Rights of Nature’s investigative mission to TIPNIS that visited Bolivia in 2018. She is also the executive director of Movement Rights.

Nick Buxton is an author, researcher and former communications coordinator of the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth that the Bolivian government hosted in 2010. He tweets @nickbuxton.

Image: MarielleClaudia, Flickr. 

I first met Thomas Berry at a talk in 1996 and immediately recognised him as an elder with a rare far-sightedness about our past, present and future. 

He pulled no punches during his talk: “The industrial process is now in its terminal phase. This is the inevitable consequence of civilisations that destroy their life support system. The difference now is that the dominant civilisation has colonised the farthest reaches of the Earth.”

At that time, Thomas was thinking about his next book, The Great Work. Published over twenty years ago, it proposed the kinds of change we now hear discussed by UN experts on climate change and biodiversity, and demanded by a groundswell of popular movements around our planet. 

Earth jurisprudence 

The Great Work calls for the transformation of the western industrial institutions of religion, education, governance and politics from anthropocentrism to an Earth-centred understanding of our role and responsibilities as humans, embedded in the larger Earth community.

More and more of us know now, as Thomas did then, that this is where we need to go. That this transformation – the philosophy, ways of being and practices it entails – is essential to the survival and thriving of our own species as well as the wider community of life.

Thomas called this way of living in right-relation with the planet ‘Earth Jurisprudence’. 

Jurisprudence as a term goes beyond narrow conceptions of the law. It is about how we live and govern our lives in their totality and, most importantly, in relation to Nature. 

In his writings, Thomas emphasised that, having been successfully imposed around the planet, our western, human-centred legal system is being used to legitimise the destruction of Nature and the violation of human and other species’ rights, in the interests of economic elites and the drive for endless growth on a finite planet. 

Dynamic equilibrium

This dominant legal system is rooted in a profound misconception of law as something humans can invent from scratch. Whereas, for most of human history we have understood that we are born into a lawful, self-regulating and living system we call Earth, Mother Earth, Pachamana, Gaia.

We are inextricably part of a web of life and as such the laws we must comply with, that we must live by, are the laws that govern life on Earth. 

By complying with Nature’s laws and codifying them in the institutions through which we govern our lives and societies, we contribute to the dynamic equilibrium upon which the health and the wellbeing of all depends.

This way of being and organising society, and the Earth-centred institutions it gives rise to, is what we call Earth Jurisprudence. 

Earth jurisprudence recognises that we are born into a lawful Universe, of which our planet is a part; that Earth is the ‘Primary Text’, the source of the laws that govern all of life, including our own. This is the reality of life on Earth, whether we recognise it or not. 

Indigenous lifeways

The great work ahead for those of us living in industrialised nations is to re-align ourselves and our societies with Earth’s laws and limits; to re-develop ways of complying with Earth Jurisprudence.  Thomas went to great lengths to impress on his friends, readers and followers that living in this way is not new. 

Indigenous societies who never left the path of Earth Jurisprudence can offer inspiration for understanding what Earth Jurisprudence means in practice. They continue to derive their customary laws from the laws embedded in their ancestral lands, with which they have an intimate, intergenerational relationship. 

As, Ailton Krenak, an indigenous leader from Brazil, said: “We hold the memory of what it means to be human … I think people should pay close attention to this. Even if we had all the white people’s technology and money, we would be worth nothing if we did not hold the memory of the creation of the world, our planet.”

In order to comply with Earth’s laws, Indigenous communities have developed sophisticated ways of ensuring each generation understands the lawfulness of the world they are born into. The consequences of breaking these laws is, ultimately, the destruction of our source of life and thereby ourselves and the rest of the Earth community.

This destruction is what we are faced with now, on a planetary scale. As we self-examine and try to transform our own societies it is essential to stand in solidarity with those indigenous communities on the frontlines of pitched battles to protect Mother Earth.  

Emerging movements

The emergence of Extinction Rebellion, school climate strikes and Rights of Nature precedents from Uganda to New Zealand shows us that there is an awakening happening. 

People of all ages and walks of life are willing to take action, to call the alert, to break through the silence of our media-dominated world and demand better for Nature, future generations of all species and those on the frontlines of climate breakdown. 

A more generous, Earth-centred consciousness is emerging, recognising the interconnectivity of climate change and ecological breakdown and that these crises are a consequence of the rampant industrial growth economy.  

Climate change and the unravelling of our ecological life support system is the inevitable consequence of systematically breaking the laws that govern life – of taking more than Nature can replenish, of digging up what Earth has buried, manufacturing products she cannot re-integrate and dumping the ‘waste’ where it does not belong.

Thomas Berry and Earth Jurisprudence offer us powerful medicine for this crisis – to be rigorous in complying with Earth’s laws in all walks of life and to make this compliance our primary societal concern, so that we begin to contribute to the vital task of regenerating life at all levels. 

Reviving connection 

To comply by Earth’s laws, we must first know them, and this requires us to revive our connection with Nature and our eco-literacy, re-learning Nature’s laws after generations of alienation.

This re-learning involves nurturing our relationship with nature. This could be through planting a window box, developing our relationship with a tree in a park, tuning in to the cycles of the moon, or more elaborate, wild ways, depending on our circumstances. This practice roots us in the reality of being a cell in the body of our living Earth and helps us to see the world through this lens. 

Reconnection with our greater nature and learning the laws by which we must re-order society are not intended to replace protest and contestation, but instead to inform and root this resistance more deeply in the realities of a world that brutally others nature and abounds with shallow, false solutions to our crises.

As young leader Greta Thunberg has said, we need to listen to the Earth, and the science telling us about her ailments, first and foremost. What is pragmatic and realistic for Earth, not for politics or economics, must be our ultimate guide to action.  

When we see life from an Earth-centred perspective, as Thomas Berry did, we are compelled to take responsibility for protecting life, following Earth’s laws in whatever we do and collectively re-shaping the institutions we encounter with these laws as our guiding principle.

As Thomas wrote: “Peace is the result of this recognition of the Earth and the common sense of togetherness that she creates among us all. She underpins and unites all regions, economics, education and the laws, which govern our lives. The challenge is to change our thinking from a humanistic perspective to an Earth-centred perspective. Through this change we can recover a mutually enhancing relationship with the wider Earth community.”

This Author 

Liz Hosken is Director of The Gaia Foundation, where she works alongside communities to revive their indigenous knowledge and practices. Liz teaches the philosophy and practice of Earth Jurisprudence as part of a course for budding Earth Jurisprudence Practitioners working to revive Earth-centred governance systems in sub-Saharan Africa. 

This article is part of a week of celebration marking the tenth anniversary of cultural historian and philosopher Thomas Berry and Earth Jurisprudence.  Find out more about Earth Jurisprudence on The Gaia Foundation’s website and sign up to their newsletter for news of Earth Jurisprudence from the Amazon to Africa.

About 2.5 million people across Britain are more than a 10-minute walk from a park or green space, a charity has claimed.

Fields in Trust has developed a “green space index” using new ordnance survey data to map the availability of parks and recreation grounds for communities across the country.

It is warning large numbers of people who do not have easy access to parks nearby could miss out on the benefits they can provide for health and wellbeing, and it said the situation could get worse with public sector cuts.

Parks

Although Britain has some 216,160 hectares (534,000 acres) of publicly-accessible local parks and green spaces, Fields in Trust said just six percent of this is legally protected through the organisation.

With austerity leading to pressure on parks and green space provision, it said there is a risk that a lack of legal protection could lead to more areas being sold off or developed.

Disadvantaged communities are likely to be most affected by any future losses, it warned.

Fields in Trust, which was set up more than 90 years ago to champion open spaces and playing fields, is urging local authorities and landowners to take steps to legally protect the green areas they own.

The green space index also ranks regions and nations of Britain against its standard of what should be the minimum provision of parks, play facilities and outdoor sport per 1,000 people.

Protected

Scotland tops the index for green space provision and the largest amount that is protected, while London, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North West and North East of England all fall below the minimum level, Fields in Trust said.

The average amount of green space per person in Britain is just over 35 square metres, less than half the size of a six-yard box on a football pitch.

Angela Lewis, head of programmes at Fields in Trust, said: “Parks and green spaces are much-loved by people and provide many benefits to society.

“But our new green space index shows, for the first time, that there is insufficient access to parks and green spaces and that far too few are legally protected, leaving those unprotected vulnerable to loss or development.

Policy

“These findings show that there is an urgent need to ensure the current level of park and green space provision is maintained and review what more can be done to legally protect them for future generations to enjoy.”

Fields in Trust plans to update the index on a regular basis to track changes in green space provision.

An Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Parks and green spaces are vital public assets that boost our health and wellbeing with natural spaces everyone can enjoy.

“That’s why this government continues to work with experts in the Parks Action Group, including Fields in Trust, to help maximise the rewards they bring, and our revised national planning policy framework lets communities protect parks in their area.”

The Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent. 

The klaxon call has gone out, the climate emergency is here, so why are we still beating around the bush? Let’s seize this moment to take on the fossil fuel companies, their acolytes and financiers.

When I took my first foray into climate activism, I wasn’t sure where to start. How to engage with something so large and complex? Making lifestyle changes is great if you are able, but it isn’t nearly enough.

What’s needed is systemic change, and when it comes to the climate that means targeting fossil fuel companies.

Unprecedented organising 

These corporations continue to burn oil, coal and gas with impunity. Just 100 fossil fuel companies are responsible for 70 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions since the mid-1980s.

Their core business model is at the very heart of the climate crisis. They know they’re on the wrong side of history – so they try to hide it.

Exxon Mobil and Shell have a history of misleading the public about climate science and since the Paris Agreement have spent millions directly lobbying to stop the development of clean energy.

But their time is up. We are experiencing an unprecedented wave of grassroots organising and citizen engagement with climate action. From millions of students holding school strikes around the world, to peaceful civil disobedience in our cities, to David Attenborough’s much talked about new documentary. 

Climate breakdown has received more media coverage in the UK recently than at any other time in the past five years. This public pressure is working, resulting in the Welsh and Scottish governments as well as UK and Irish parliaments all declaring a climate emergency.

Divestment movement 

But if we want these declarations to mean anything then the same decision-makers who are readily jumping on the bandwagon of public opinion need to address the elephant in the room: fossil fuels.

For too long, the rhetoric around climate breakdown from politicians has avoided the simple, undeniable fact that we must prevent new fossil fuel infrastructure and keep existing reserves in the ground, while delivering a just transition to a zero-carbon economy.

Yet our politicians continue to support the obscenely rich fossil fuel industry who in turn continue to search for new reserves. They are on track to increase new oil reserves by 30 percent in 2019 alone.

So we have Goliath in our sights, but where can we find David?

Enter the many thousands of people, from all across the world, who are pushing their public institutions to divest from fossil fuel companies. From university common rooms, to village church halls, to town councils, and finally this week to the heart of Westminster itself; the divestment movement has come a long way.

Divest Parliament 

By directly and strategically targeting the culprits behind climate breakdown, divestment offers us a chance to strike at the heart of the problem in a way that is approachable, scalable, and effective.

It is a potent, hopeful antidote to the paralyzing despair that the climate crisis has wrought on so many of us. It’s just what we need to hone our focus in the midst of a climate emergency.

Now our MPs must pick up the baton and tackle the fossil fuel industry head on. The MPs’ Pension Fund has millions of pounds invested in fossil fuel companies, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell.

Divesting this fund offers our MPs the chance to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to climate action.

Following the dedicated efforts of hundreds of constituents and organisers from across the UK, a third of all current MPs (and 29 former MPs) from all parties have signed the Divest Parliament Pledge, calling for their pension savings to be taken out of fossil fuels.

Climate emergency 

With growing pressure from so many MPs, the fund’s trustees have been forced to listen and reconsider their rules of investment, to account for climate risk.

But this is just one campaign of many. We also need to end fossil fuel subsidies, ban fracking, and stop airport expansion. We need to plant millions of trees, rewild and restore ecosystems, and invest in zero-carbon infrastructure including affordable, reliable public transport.

We must do all this taking into account the UK’s massive historical carbon debt and legacy of colonialism and exploitation in the global South by providing international financial support to enable a truly just transition for everyone.

This is a climate emergency so let’s start treating it like one. We need a Green New Deal – and we can use the money divested from fossil fuels to fund it.

This Author 

Karn Bianco is a Divest Parliament campaigner. 

Climate change tops the agenda of the European election campaign in many countries for the first time. The hundreds of thousands of young people protesting across Europe and the world have put pressure on more conservative politicians to take up climate issues in their election campaigns.

The European elections are taking place across the EU between May 23 and 26, and UK citizens can cast their vote today (Thursday 23 May 2019) from 7am to 10pm.

The elections, which are held every five years, will see 751 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected. Voters in the UK elect 73 MEPs to represent Britain in the parliament, based on proportional representation.

Candidates

The European Parliament consists of eight political groups. The two largest are the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), currently with 219 MEPs, and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), with 189 MEPs.

Besides the 8 groups, there are 20 independent MEPs.

The newly elected European parliament will run for the next five years, from 2019 to 2024. It will influence lawmaking on far-ranging issues such as the EU single market, data protection, migration, farming, fisheries, energy, the environment, and other areas.

When voting in European Elections in the UK, you can vote for national parties or individual candidates who stand nominated for election, and divided into 12 regions: East Midlands, Eastern, London, North East, North West, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South East, South West, Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humber.

Climate crisis

In the past, the European parliament has played a key role for many decisions related to the environment, including the clean energy transition, the reform of the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), the future emissions from transport, buildings, agriculture and forests, or the EU funding for fossil fuels.

The European parliament has also proven it can play an important role in increasing climate action, both at the EU and at the national level, for example by putting in place higher targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The new European parliament, and European Commission, will be shaping European policies for the next five years, including policies to rapidly phase out greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep temperature rise below 1.5oC.

Priorities

Yet, many of the political groups running in the European parliament lack substantive priorities on climate action.

An analysis by the civil society group Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, ranking EU political groups and national parties on climate change, concluded the majority of EU political groups scores badly on climate policy.

In particular, the conservative and right-leaning Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), the European People’s Party (EPP) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) show a complete lack of ambition on climate change action.

The far-right ENF group consistently votes against EU climate policies, and undermines international cooperation, the report said.

“In the last five years conservative and centre parties in the European Parliament have not done enough to stand up for European citizens and protect them from the climate crisis,“ said Wendel Trio, director of CAN Europe.

Political groups showing a progressive approach to climate policy include the Greens/European Free Alliance, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), according to the analysis.

Things are not always as clear-cut, however. European parties are also internally divided on climate, with most European political group having climate champions, either in the form of national parties or MEPs.

Climate champions

In the UK, the three national parties who are member of the European Greens/EFA group score best on climate, according to CAN Europe its analysis: the Plaid Cymru – Party of Wales, the Green Party, and the Scottish National Party.

Scoring moderate on climate policy are the Labour Party, which is member of the EU S&D coalition and currently has by far the highest number of MEPs, as well as Sinn Fein, which is a member of the GUE/NGL.

The Liberal Democrats, which are part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) have shown only limited interest, believing in the need for climate action, but not acting with the required urgency.

All other national parties represent insufficient climate policies or outright oppose climate action: the Conservative Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, Libertarian Party, Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Unionist Party.

The Conservative Party is split, with the majority of its members who are part of the European ECR group scoring much worse than their party fellows that affiliate to the EPP group.

”The youth climate strikes created the momentum for all politicians to acknowledge that climate change is a topic they can no longer ignore, ” said Wendel Trio.

”After the European elections we will hold MEPs accountable and make sure that their promises are followed by concrete measures to tackle the climate emergency. ”

This Author

Arthur Wyns is a biologist and science journalist. He is a climate change researcher at the World Health Organization and tweets from @ArthurWyns.

By the time you’ve finished reading this paragraph, the world will have lost another football pitch of soil. At current rates of erosion, 90 percent of our planet’s soil could be gone by 2050, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Natural soil erosion is being accelerated by deforestation, mining, urban sprawl and – ironically – the intensive agriculture that simply couldn’t function without it.

The increasingly extreme heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms that come with climate breakdown only make matters worse – damaging crops, ruining livelihoods and sending food prices soaring around the world.

Radical solution

At the same time, our population is growing – estimated to reach 10 billion people by 2050, when the UN fears we’ll be eking an existence out of just 10 percent of the soil we have now. Without soil, we face starvation.

At the University of Sheffield, we’re pioneering a radical solution that could buy us some time. Our new Institute for Sustainable Food has launched a soil-free urban farm, where scientists are growing food from foam.

Harry Wright – a PhD student at the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures – has developed specialist foams that chemically, physically and biologically resemble soil.

Together with Jacob Nickles, N8 Knowledge Exchange Associate at the University of Sheffield Institute for Sustainable Food, Harry has used a network of pipes, nutrient solutions and controlled growing environments, scientists are growing everything from salad to tomatoes in an abandoned school in Sheffield.

Community participation

We’ve found that crops planted in the polyurethane foams grow two to ten times faster than plants grown in soil.

The potential of this low-cost system has already been demonstrated with an initiative – led by Grantham Centre Director Professor Tony Ryan in collaboration with Professor Duncan Cameron – to install hydroponics systems made from used mattresses at a refugee camp in Jordan, where planting straight into the soil isn’t allowed.

In Sheffield, we’re putting our research into practice again to provide fresh fruit and vegetables for our local community, as well as training for local unemployed or low-skilled workers and an educational environment for schools.

Our hope is to replicate this model across the globe and optimise it for local conditions to produce cheap, healthy food using fewer resources.

These soil-free farms could help take some of the pressure off traditional agricultural systems – but they’re no excuse to carry on as usual. Foam alone will never feed the world.

We urgently need a new approach to farming that protects and restores our soils, eliminates waste, enhances the natural world and gives everyone their fair share of nutritious food.

Policy changes

To get there requires science and innovation – but, most importantly, a step-change in policy and public attitudes.

The Institute for Sustainable Food will produce groundbreaking research to form an evidence base for a better agricultural system, bringing together experts across every discipline, from politics and computer science, to geography and medicine.

But with a crisis unfolding beneath our feet, it’s not enough to publish academic papers and discuss theories with our peers.

Opening our urban farm to the public sets the tone for our new institute. We’ll be learning from our community about what food they want to see us grow and asking how they’d like to be involved.

It’s time for scientists like me to step out of the lab and work with farmers, politicians and local people to put our research into practice. We won’t solve the soil crisis without getting our hands dirty.

This Author 

Professor Duncan Cameron is director of the University of Sheffield’s new Institute for Sustainable Food. 

One thing really sticks out for me among all the inspiring climate actions we’ve seen over the last few months: Greta Thunberg arriving by train to speak to UK politicians, as part of an epic Spring trip to European cities.

It’s safe to say the social silence around ‘talking climate’ has been temporarily if not permanently broken for many Brits. A recent opinion poll showed that two thirds of us would be willing to make a personal sacrifice for the climate if we knew others were doing the same.

But there’s still one area of carbon cutting behaviour that even some people within the climate movement struggle to talk about: not flying. 

Frequent flyers

Flying is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases globally and reducing the amount we fly is one of the most impactful behaviour changes frequent flyers can take to cut carbon.

At 10:10 Climate Action we’re working to make carbon conscious travel easier with a new scheme; Climate Perks.

It’s important to note one crucial fact about flying before I get into how much carbon is saved by choosing to stay grounded when travelling. Only a small proportion of us are responsible for the majority of the problem.

Estimates suggest only five percent of the world’s population have ever flown. Government data shows that even within the UK 70 percent of all flights are taken by just 15 percent of Brits.

These ‘frequent flyers’ are more likely to be professionals with disposable income who can afford to take multiple flights a year. 

Taking responsibility 

Those who fly the least if at all are generally from poorer communities who are also most vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis.

The disproportionate number of people flying is just another example of how those most vulnerable to climate change are generally least responsible for it.

It also means that those most responsible must be most empowered to take action and change their behaviour.

When it comes to taking personal action on climate change, for frequent flyers, there is scarcely any other single act more effective at cutting carbon than avoiding a flight.

Defying gravity through air travel produces a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. So much so that taking eight return trips from London to Berlin on the train produces the same amount of carbon as a single flight from the UK to the German capital.

Greenhouse gasses

Worse still, the impact of releasing emissions higher in the atmosphere is much worse than emitting it on the ground. Other than carbon, planes also emit other kinds of gases and particles, which have both a cooling or warming effect.

High in the atmosphere where most planes fly, the hot, moist air released from the engine exhaust mixes with cold air. The moisture condenses, forming ice crystals which reflect the sun’s heat into space but also trap it in the atmosphere.

Despite the cooling effect, scientists calculated the total impact of a plane on raising global temperatures, is twice as high as its carbon emissions alone. 

Despite this, aviation is rapidly expanding in the UK and is currently on track to account for a quarter of all UK carbon emissions by 2050. 

The good news is however that attitudes are beginning to move in the right direction on flying.

Slower travel

In research 10:10 commissioned late last year, we found 50 percent of people are ready to reduce the amount they fly in order to protect the environment, but only three percent of us do.

Clean travel is already mainstream in Sweden as climate superstar Greta Thunberg kickstarted a “flygskam” (flight shame) movement with her train-trips around Europe.

And with the launch of the new Caledonian Sleeper and the London to Amsterdam Eurostar in the last year, slow travel with an emphasis on the journey as well as the destination, is set to become easier.

Europe is blessed with some of the best transport networks in the world, with several world-class high speed rail networks and a host of organisations, like Seat 61, dedicated to helping plan and book your journeys. 

For many however time is a huge barrier to choosing flight free holidays. Generally, travelling on holiday by train, coach or boat instead flying, takes a lot longer. That’s exactly why we’re developing our new scheme, Climate Perks. 

Journey days

Climate Perks enables employers to offer paid ‘journey days’ to empower staff to choose low-carbon holiday travel. The perfect solution for those who love to travel the world and protect it too. 

Working for a Climate Perks employer means you can choose clean travel without losing out on hard-earned leisure time, by being offered at least two paid ‘journey days’ annually to use for holiday travel without heading to the airport.

By coming on board to Climate Perks as an employer, you’ll be a part of getting climate conscious travel off (or rather on) the ground in the UK and be recognised as leading the way on climate action. 

Our research found that 50 percent of 18-44 year olds would prefer to work for an employer that helps them to take clean travel on holiday.

Climate Perks employers can meet this rising demand from staff, and potential recruits, assisting them in making lifestyle choices that reflect their values – strengthening staff well-being, satisfaction and loyalty.

Travel habits

Helping to shift these travel habits is the quickest and smartest way to keep carbon emissions from planes in check, whilst ensuring those most responsible are most empowered to take action.

For me, clean travel is a chance to rediscover the magic of the journey – whether that’s winding through stunning scenery in the alps or waking up after a night journey in the heart of a new city.

Travelling slowly gives me valuable time for reflection and has helped re-evaluate what I really cherish when I go on holiday, making me appreciate it so much more.

After all taking action on climate change isn’t about having less of what you want, but rather more of what you need. Staying grounded really is the best way to stay grounded. 

This Author 

Sarah Barfield Marks is press and PR office at 10:10 Climate Action, a charity that runs positive, practical projects at the community level, and turns these local actions into a force for bigger changes.

Environmental campaigners are aiming to involve one billion people worldwide in a “visual survey” of plastic pollution as part of the second annual One Plastic Free Day.

Set to coincide with World Environment Day on June 5, campaign group A Plastic Planet is asking people to photograph a plastic item they wish to switch to an environmentally friendly item, and post it on social media using the hashtag #OnePlasticFreeDay.

Following the survey on June 5, the results will form the basis of an interactive world map where global plastic pollution hot-spots can be identified.

Tourists

The campaign comes as the Government announced that plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds are to be banned from April 2020 in a bid to reduce plastic pollution.

In 2018, a quarter of a billion people joined in on what was the first annual One Plastic Free Day. A Plastic Planet co-founder Sian Sutherland said: “So far there have been too many words and not enough action.

“I’m incredibly excited about the prospect of mobilising one billion people for the brighter plastic-free future we all know is possible.”

To mark the campaign, the One Plastic Free Day logo will be projected at tourist sights including Times Square in New York.

Speaking about the Government’s move to ban plastic straws, stirrers, and cotton buds, Environment Secretary Michael Gove said: “Urgent and decisive action is needed to tackle plastic pollution and protect our environment.

Emergency

“Today I am taking action to turn the tide on plastic pollution, and ensure we leave our environment in a better state for future generations.”

A Plastic Planet’s campaign comes after months of campaigning for action on pollution and plastic waste by environmental activists.

In April 2019, climate group Extinction Rebellion occupied four prominent sites in central London over a period of 11 days in order to provoke government action on climate change.

Since then, the UK Parliament has become the first in the world to recognise a “climate change emergency”.

“We don’t want to be part of the plastic pollution problem any longer. Every time we shop we feel guilty. Why is it taking so long for change to happen?” Ms Sutherland said.

This Author

Emily Chudy is a reporter for the Press Association.