Forget the K-Pg extinction that led to the demise of the dinosaurs 66 million-years-ago – the most devastating mass extinction in Earth’s history occurred 251 million-years-ago at the end of the Permian.

This event – appropriately nicknamed the Great Dying – is the closest life on our planet has ever come to being entirely extinguished.

The geological evidence suggests that the main cause of the extinction was climatic change. 

Unmatched scale

Estimating the exact moment that the extinction took place has proven difficult. Unlike the clear iridium-rich clay layer that delineates the K-Pg event, most of the rock record for the end Permian has been eroded away by fluctuations in sea level.

Even the famous Meishan Section in China, although an invaluable resource to scientists, is too restrictive to offer a clear picture of what was happening at a global scale.

When compared with data collected from other sites around the world it is clear that the Great Dying was a series of extinction events that occurred during the Late Permian into the Early Triassic.

The scale of the extinction is unmatched by anything else in the geological record. Although there is little evidence to suggest that life itself was ever at risk of disappearing entirely, the statists are staggering.

It is estimated that up to 90 percent of all species became extinct within a few million years.  The event led to the wholescale collapse of entire ecosystems as plankton and other producers disappeared. 

Sea temperatures

Isotopic data shows intense warming at the end of the Permo-Triassic boundary, around 250 million-years-ago.

A 2012 study published in the journal Science reported a rise in temperature from 21°C to 36°C (the ocean temperature at the time of writing this article is about 17°C) in the Tethys, an ancient ocean that was situated at the equator, over an 800ky period.

A second rise in temperature in the Early Triassic lead to temperatures exceeding 40°C, a critical temperature for marine organisms.

Such extreme estimates have been criticized for methological flaws in the data. Despite this, the rise in ocean temperatures at the end Permian is well documented – it’s the extent of the warming that is subject of ongoing study. 

Marine organisms with high oxygen demands – such as cephalopods – cannot survive long in waters exceeding 35°C. The extreme temperatures at the equator forced organisms to higher latitudes where conditions remained somewhat tolerable.

Global anoxia

The same phenomena is observed in terrestrial organisms. During the Permian and Triassic the continents were joined together to form a single landmass called Pangea. 

The rise in ocean temperatures was likely the dominate factor driving the extinction, but it is not enough to account for the sheer magnitude of the event. Many researchers instead think that the extinction was driven by a complex range of factors.

Unoxidised carbon-rich minerals, notably pyrite, are characteristic of the end Permian occurring in marine deposits worldwide. Ocean waters at the time were structured with anaerobic bottom waters capped by oxygenated surface waters.

The warming of the oceans reduced the solubility of oxygen in the seawater, causing the concentration of the oxygen to decrease. This coupled with increased weathering of the continents – caused in part by higher sea levels – led to an influx of phosphates in to the oceans.

The increase in phosphates was good for life, in the short-term, because the extra nutrients supported more primary producers, notably plankton, in the oceans. But the increase in productivity was a double edged sword: as the increase in the amount of plankton meant that they sank to the bottom of the ocean where they further decreased the oxygen concentration.

Methane hydrates

The accumulation of organic matter on the seabed led to release of CO2 as the organics decayed. Such ocean anoxic events allowed the formation of organic rich shales, the source rocks for petroleum and natural gas.

This makes studying palaeoclimatology important not just from an environmental but also an economic perspective. 

During cool periods methane gas becomes trapped at the bottom of the sea forming methane hydrate deposits. An increase in temperatures causes the trapped methane in be released, furthering global warming.

When released, methane rapidly degrades to CO2. This increases ocean acidity, anoxia, and contributes to global warming by releasing greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere. All three of these factors amplified the extinction rates.

The release of methane hydrates would also explain the negative carbon excursion seen at the end of the Permian.  There is real concern that contemporary climate change may cause methane hydrates to melt, with a severe impact on the earth’s climate. 

Triggering factor

What triggered the global warming at the end of the Permian has been debated by researchers.

One theory suggests that the warming was triggered by a meteorite impact citing shocked quartz discovered in Antarctica. However, the shocked quartz appeared to have been plastic deformation structures more consistent with tectonic activity rather than a bolide impact. The meteor hypothesis is largely rejected by most scientists. 

The most widely accepted explanation is volcanic activity. The Siberian Traps in Russia are a large expanse of basaltic lava with a volume roughly 4 million km3which formed during 300,000 years of continuous eruptions over a mantle plume.

The phenomenal amounts of greenhouse gases released would have caused major climatic changes. The amount of CO2 released by these volcanic eruptions would also account for the isotopic data. 

Heeding a warning 

The end Permian extinction should serve as a warning as to the dangers about extreme climatic change.

The release of greenhouse gases by volcanic activity led to warming of the oceans and the results release of trapped methane caused the climate to spiral out of control. Just replace volcanic with human in the previous sentence and you have our current situation.

As global temperatures continue to rise we may see a repeat of the end Permian, though nowhere near as extreme. 

This Author

Jack Wilkin is a graduate research student at the Camborne School of Mines in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on the isotopic geochemistry of fossils from the Jurassic of Germany for paleoclimate studies.   

More than 800 million people still live in hunger, and many of us now eat more unhealthy than ever. Global food production remains the largest pressure caused by humans on the planet, threatening local ecosystems and the stability of the Earth system itself.

This is despite of increased food production around the world over the past 50 years, and a drop in hunger, infant mortality and poverty globally.

Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production, and reducing food waste, concludes a scientific commission.

Plant-based foods

The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems, a three-year long project involving scientists from 16 different countries, now provides the first scientific targets for a healthy diet that operates within the planetary boundaries. Their findings were published today in a report entitled Food in the Anthropocene in the medical journal The Lancet.

“The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong,” says one of the commission authors, Professor Tim Lang from the University of London.

“We need a significant overhaul, changing the global food system on a scale not seen before in ways appropriate to each country’s circumstances.”

To stay within planetary boundaries, the report urges a combination of major dietary change, improved food production through enhanced agriculture and technology changes, and reduced food waste during production and at the point of consumption.

On an individual level, the scientific commission recommend diets consisting of a variety of plant-based foods, with low amounts of animal-based foods, refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars, and with unsaturated rather than saturated fats. Consumption of red meat and sugar would have to be cut by over 50 percent to ensure human and planetary health.

Connection with nature

If the world followed this Planetary Health diet, more than 11 million premature deaths could be prevented annually. The diet addresses the global burden of disease that is linked to poor diets (including obesity, undernutrition, and malnutrition). Unhealthy diets are the leading cause of ill-health worldwide, causing more death and disease than unsafe sex, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use combined.

The diet would cut greenhouse gas emissions to levels compatible with the Paris Agreement on climate change, while also reducing biodiversity loss and phosphorus use, and limiting agriculture’s demand for land, water and nitrogen.

Professor Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, is a co-lead commissioner of the report. He said: “Designing … sustainable food systems that can deliver healthy diets for a growing and wealthier world population presents a formidable challenge. Nothing less than a new global agricultural revolution.”

Dr Richard Horton, editor-in-chief at The Lancet, added: “The transformation that the Commission calls for is not superficial or simple, and requires a focus on complex systems, incentives, and regulations, with communities and governments at multiple levels having a part to play in redefining how we eat.

“Our connection with nature holds the answer, and if we can eat in a way that works for our planet as well as our bodies, the natural balance of the planet’s resources will be restored.”

This Author

Arthur Wyns is the program manager of Climate Tracker, an organisation supporting environmental journalists worldwide to bring climate change into their national debates. He tweets from @ArthurWyns

Nigel Lawson, the founder of the climate science denial group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has announced that he is stepping down as the group’s chairman. 

Lawson – who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher’s government – led the UK’s most prominent climate science denial campaign group for a decade.

He announced his resignation at a meeting of the GWPF’s board of trustees during which he said that since establishing the group in 2009, it had become “a prominent force in the climate policy debate” and that it was now “stronger than ever”.

Bernard Donoughue

Lawson, who will turn 87 in March, will remain affiliated to the GWPF as its honorary president. 

Launching the GWPF in 2009, Lawson argued in a column in The Times that it was morally wrong to “force the world’s poorest countries to cut carbon emissions”.

Lawson has repeatedly spread disinformation about climate science in newspaper columns and regular media appearances. In October 2017, the BBC apologised and admitted Lawson “should have been challenged” over incorrect statements he made on the BBC’s flagship Today programme.

In October 2018, broadcast regulator Ofcom found that Lawson’s statement on the Today programme was “neither correct or sufficiently challenged during the interview or subsequently during the programme”. 

The GWPF said Bernard Donoughue – a life peer in the House of Lords who has been a member of the GWPF’s board of trustees since the group’s foundation – will replace Lawson as the group’s chairman.

Donoughue served as a junior minister for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under Tony Blair’s government and as a senior advisor to Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan. 

Former Prime Minister David Cameron once quoted Donoughue’s objection to the landmark Climate Change Act on cost terms as a reason for the Conservative party to oppose a 2030 decarbonisation target.

Right-wing organisations

The GWPF is based at an office at 55 Tufton Street, near Westminster, which is also home to a host of right-wing liberal organisations and pro-Brexit groups, including the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Leave Means Leave, IFT (previously Institute for Free Trade) and the Centre for Policy Studies.

The GWPF has also announced that economist Ruth Lea will join the group’s board of trustees. Lea also serves as a regulation fellow for the opaquely-funded right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank and sits on the advisory council of the low-tax campaign group the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which was founded by Vote Leave CEO Matthew Elliott.

Martin Jacomb, one of the founding members of the GWPF’s board of trustees, is also standing down from his position.

This Author 

Chloe Farand is a freelance journalist focussing on the environment and foreign affairs. This article was first published by DeSmogUK. 

Campaigners plan to stage a protest day at Bristol Airport today (Friday, 18 January 2018) over proposals for expansion. 

The expansion of the airport would mean a 59 percent rise in aviation carbon emissions this decade – at a time when local authorities have declared a climate emergency and pledged to reduce carbon by 50 percent by 2035.

The action is in response to the airport’s application for planning permission, which is open for consultation, until 26 January.

Reckless decision

The campaigners say the plans would mean the airport’s greenhouse gas emissions increasing from previous (2017) levels of 746.77 to 1,183.87 kilo tonnes of CO2 per year by 2026.

A Bristol spokesperson for the climate change campaign group, Extinction Rebellion, said: “Bristol Airport is trying to expand, accommodating 20 million passengers by 2040. This is a reckless decision, which is not congruent with the action necessary to safeguard our common future.” 

They say that local authorities in the west of England have adopted targets that would otherwise equal or beat national Government targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have warned that the 400+ parts per million accumulation of atmospheric gases from burning fossil fuels are driving global warming beyond a critical and dangerous average level of 1.5C. 

To meet the necessary reduction targets and avoid overshooting that 1.5C rise, there is an ambition by city leaders to reduce carbon emissions in the west of England by 20 percent by 2020; 50 percent by 2035; and by 80 percent by 2050. Bristol has become the first city to pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Bristol and South West regional campaigners are therefore asking people to object to the proposals before the deadline of January 26. 

‘Die-in’

Extinction Rebellion Bristol have announced on their Facebook page that their protest will include staging a ‘die-in’ at the airport this Friday, where large numbers of people will lie on the floor of the airport, hindering access, to represent the numbers of lives they say will be lost or shortened by climate change impacts.

This event follows a series of protests throughout November and December by a network of Extinction Rebellion groups around the UK and more recently overseas too. 

One campaigner, who asked not to be named, said: “The application is for growth to 12 million passengers per annum. Phase 1 of growth to 20 million passengers per annum. This is a 50 percent increase from 2017 when Bristol Airport reached 8 million, and will mean a throughput of 97,373 aircraft movements in a 12 month calendar period, a flight almost every three minutes.” 

The group claims: “Aviation carbon emissions at Bristol Airport in 2026 would increase by 59 percent compared to 2017 levels. This figure could well be higher if the modern, less-noisy fleet of aircraft does not materialise.”

They also say Bristol Airport’s plan to extend low cost car parking would undermine public transport, and add further to the airport’s fossil fuel burden: “Public transport was only at 12.5 percent in 2017. This underscores the lack of ambition by the airport as it is in their interests to retain heavy car usage.”

Global aviation

The group has estimated that 87.5 percent of passengers travel by car to and from the airport, which means more carbon emissions and lower standards of air quality: “The airport’s strategy is one of ‘business as usual’ aimed at retaining high levels of car travel to fuel the airport’s significant reliance and near monopoly on revenue from parking,” added their spokesperson. 

In 2017, Bristol Airport was the ninth busiest in the UK. Its carbon dioxide output from flights has previously been calculated to exceed that of an entire African country, according to the campaign group Global Justice Now, and based on figures for the state of Malawi.

Bristol Airport expansion plans have garnered criticism from various campaign groups for the past 15 years, including Stop Bristol Airport Expansion, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. 

A spokesperson for North Somerset Green Party said: “It seems that the dire warnings from the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPSS) last October have fallen on deaf ears at Bristol International Airport… Global aviation consumes an astonishing 5m barrels of oil every day, pumping 859 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.”

Defenders of the airport’s expansions have argued that aviation accounts for only 2.5 percent of CO2 emissions currently.  

This Author 

Alex Morss is a freelance ecologist, writer, editor and educator and one of Avon Wildlife Trust’s Wildlife Champions.

The eco-tourism movement has continued to impact where people choose to spend their vacations.

Eco-tourism serves to promote increased environmental awareness, sustainable communities, cultural experiences and environmental preservation and conservation.

Yet the inherent nature of tourism demands that there be developments, which haven’t always benefited the environment. Nevertheless, for those planning a sustainable vacation, it’s important to keep eco-tourist considerations in mind.

Eco-tourism benefits

With eco-tourism comes curiosity — about both environment and experience. Instead of going to popular tourist destinations like China, Italy, Spain and Germany, vacationers are expanding their searches and destinations.

More destinations mean more opportunities for employment within indigenous populations of lower-income communities and countries. Locals act as guides, experts, demonstrators, merchants and hosts to visiting tourists. Increased traffic means more money funneling directly back into the community along with a higher standard of living.

Community outreach and tourism allow people from all over the world to come into an impoverished community and restore it by providing services and patronage. In one instance, a vacation could mean volunteering, building or serving in an impoverished community. Another impact would come from immersive experiences in the lives of indigenous peoples that sustain their culture and environment.

Eco-tourism also provides cultural literacy. By incorporating local cultural lodging, food, history and activities, communities can improve their welfare as well as educate a wider population.

Plus, taking some press away from the typical tourist destinations means that some pressure is taken off the surrounding environment and ecosystems. The money that results and is saved from releasing the environmental pressures is put back into conservation and preservation efforts.

​Negative developments

With increased tourism comes increased pressure to develop areas and make them more inclusive and resort-like. Building more accommodation, businesses and amenities within these communities and destinations damages and destroys habitats. By damaging the local environment, you increase the pressure on native species.

Increased competition for resources between invading tourist activity and indigenous populations — both locals and wildlife — means wildlife and certain ways of life disappear. In their place, these cultures and environments take on the same features and characteristics of previous popular sites.

Indigenous cultures are distorted to consumer culture to keep tourists coming, which leads to the exploitation of resources and wildlife that’s currently destroying destinations like the Bahamas and the Philippines.

Not all eco-tourist destinations are what they appear to be. Some eco-tourists book vacations thinking they’re going to have an authentic, sustainable experience when that’s not the case.

Even cycling and hiking close to home can have devastating effects on the environment and wildlife. While vacation should be an enjoyable and memorable experience, the environment is not to be exploited for a stellar photo album.

Thankfully, instances of irresponsible excursions such as reckless mountain biking and enclosing wildlife for display and hunting have diminished.

​​​Vacation impact

Eco-tourism calls on vacationers to redefine what it means to take a vacation — not only where you go and how you get there, but also what you do while you’re there.

This strategy affects how people choose where to stay. With home-sharing sites like Airbnb growing more popular with five million listings worldwide, many people are opting for a more cost-effective, authentic experience for their vacations. (Airbnb has itself been criticised because of its impact on local communities and economies).

There’s also been an increase in the demand for energy-efficient hotels and resorts that benefit the local cultures as well as the environment. Food is something that everyone should consider as well. Trying the local dishes and delicacies is part of every vacation, and you’re supporting the local farmers when you buy from local vendors.

With immersion in the homes and lifestyles of the cultures surrounding you, you can grow to appreciate them and the environment more. It also makes you more curious about what else is out there. With local guides, you’ll realise how many activities are available that wouldn’t be found in a resort.

Eco-tourism is often close to home too. A study of 160 countries found that tourism accounts for eight percent of the world’s carbon emissions and is increasing each year. If you’re worried about the effects of your traveling, consider a low-carbon vacation, which means forgoing the standard airfare travel and road trip in favor of one closer to your own backyard. Instead of staying at a hotel, it can mean camping, climbing, hiking, backpacking or biking.

Eco-destinations

If you already know what you’re looking for, go somewhere that’s likely to give you the right experience. Here are some common goals for traveling as well as corresponding destinations:

• For the community and culture: Cambodia, India, Kenya and Ethiopia
• For the conservationist efforts: South Africa, Belize, Malawi and Thailand
• For the outdoors: Peru, Argentina and the United States
• For the history: Japan, Jordan, Ethiopia and Vietnam
• For the wildlife: Finland, Canada, the Azores, India, Borneo and Uganda

Eco-Tourism Tips

For the best experience with eco-tourism, consider the following tips:

• Do your research: When it comes to taking a sustainable vacation, make sure all the details are spelled out. Do some research into the company you’re staying with, the excursions you’d like to go on and the places you’re visiting.
• Avoid taking more than you need: Whether you’re going abroad or just camping on a local mountain, a light suitcase or backpack will complement a high sense of adventure. When you’re packing for a hike or a flight, remember to keep it quick, easy and light, including the clothes you wear, the tools you use and the food you eat.
• Always keep the environment in mind: As long as you’re keeping the health of the environment in mind when you plan your vacation, you’ll be doing your part as a responsible traveler.

Eco-tourism has had an impact on the way people think about leisure and how they feel about vacation. Fun doesn’t have to be sacrificed for sustainability and a greener planet. In fact, these lifestyles open up more opportunities to see the world and make every vacation an adventure.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

The frontline of shale gas extraction in England moves to Cheshire this week with the beginning of a public inquiry into shale gas flow testing in Ellesmere Port at Chester Town Hall.

Local residents will gather outside the town hall to highlight the continued and overwhelming opposition to fracking in the UK. They will be supported by frack-free groups from across the country.

Cheshire West and Chester council last year rejected plans from oil and gas company IGas to ‘flow test’ for shale gas at a wellsite in Ellesmere Port, following thousands of objections from the public. The public inquiry is being held after IGas appealed against the decision.

Harmful impacts

The public inquiry is significant for the future of shale gas development in the North West. Although several shale gas wells have been drilled in Cheshire, Ellesmere Port would be the first flow test site in the county, if permission to go ahead was granted.

The inquiry, which is scheduled to last for six days, will hear from a range of experts in fields such as climate change, air quality, geology and public health, against the proposal.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth will speak at the inquiry to highlight the harmful impacts the site would have on air quality – with residents of Ellesmere Port already suffering illegal levels of pollution – and its incompatibility with action on climate change.

Helen Rimmer, Friends of the Earth North West campaigner, said: “Thousands of local residents and the local council have clearly said no to shale gas testing in Cheshire, while climate scientists warn that fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“Residents in Ellesmere Port already suffer from poor air – the last thing they need is another polluting industry on their doorstep.

“Instead of forcing dirty fracking on communities, the government should back clean renewable energy which could create thousands of new jobs in Cheshire.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a commissioning editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. 

Hundreds of millions of people watched Liverpool face Real Madrid in the Champions League Final in May 2018. Although they lost on the day, football fans around the world were transfixed by Liverpool’s journey to Kiev where they ruthlessly tore apart reputable opposition including Porto, Manchester City and Roma.

In the same month as the final, Liverpool signed a fresh deal worth 160 million pounds with their primary shirt sponsors: Standard Chartered. That’s £30m a year until the 2022/23 season.

Its unsurprising that non-football fans have little knowledge of Standard Chartered. They are a London-based bank, though they operate primarily in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Climate impacts

They boast of 1,026 branches across 60 markets and of employing 86,000 staff representing 125 nationalities. Claiming online that “we’re here for good”, its hard to tell whether the bank is celebrating its supposed commitment to prosperity through wealth creation and sustainable development, or advancing a more sinister assertion of the bank’s inevitable longevity despite its reckless complicity in social and environmental crises.

The 30 million pounds that Standard Chartered will give to Liverpool this season dwarfs in comparison to the 1.303 billion dollars that they gave to fossil fuel companies in 2017.

748 dollars million went to ultra-deepwater oil; 353 million to coal power; 109 million to liquefied natural gas; 80 million to coal mining; 13 million of this went to tar sands; and 0.5 million to Arctic oil.

In September 2018, Standard Chartered did announce a new policy excluding project finance for new coal-fired power stations. Their policy went further than HSBC’s, but at the time they remained invested in two major Vietnamese coal projects and refused to withdraw corporate finance for the companies behind new coal.

We know that the overwhelming majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change. Standard Chartered’s movements on ditching fossil fuel finance are too few and too slow. It would be easy for them to ditch coal along with many other banks.

True climate leadership would mean abandoning finance for oil and gas projects too, along with the companies behind them.

Climate breakdown

It is especially perverse that Standard Chartered’s primary markets of Africa, Asia and the Middle East are already being hit by the harshest impacts of climate breakdown despite contributing relatively little to global emissions.

As Mount Kilamanjaro’s glaciers retreat, the supply of water becomes increasingly limited in surrounding regions. Higher temperatures in East Africa have intensified droughts killing crops and cattle exacerbating food shortages.

The Middle East has felt similar impacts, with the mass migration following a four-year drought often held partially responsible for the Syrian civil conflict and refugee crisis. While the Vietnamese Government and international banks try to profit from new coal mines there, local activists argue that their country is among the hardest hit by climate change and pollution.

Standard Chartered know that there are far more people regularly watching the Premier League in Asia and Africa than Europe. Over 50 percent of all people in Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand watch the Premier League on TV, compared to just 36 percent in the UK where it is based. Its between 39 percent and 41 percent in Malaysia, Turkey and India.

Standard Chartered aren’t advertising to scousers or UK-based Premier fans. When Mo Salah scores at Anfield and the camera focuses on the front of his shirt as he celebrated, a global audience is exposed to the Standard Chartered brand.

Greenwashing

As Liverpool surpass pre-season expectations in 2018/19, mounting an assured Premier League title challenge, Standard Chartered’s deal is beginning to look like a bargain for the bank.

Liverpool’s superstar players are the perfect unknowing celebrity endorsements with international roots and global appeal: Alisson Becker (Brazil), Virgil Van Dijk (Netherlands), Joel Matip (Cameroon), Fabinho (Brazil), Naby Keita (Guinea), Sadio Mane (Senegal) and Mo Salah (Egypt).

As well as simply attracting new customers for its retail bank, Standard Chartered’s sponsorship effectively normalises itself as a valid participant in global public life. Just as fossil fuel companies like Shell invest hugely in greenwashing PR, by association with Liverpool and the Premier League Standard Chartered seeks to buy social license to profit from climate breakdown and our unequal financial system.

While the divestment movement has held the fossil fuel industry to account with growing success over the last 7 years, banks like Standard Chartered have been let off the hook. This has to end. It may be unrealistic to expect a Premier League club to abandon their sponsor over complicity in climate breakdown. But we should use subvert the profile Standard Chartered borrow from Liverpool to expose the dark side of their business.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at chris_saltmarsh.

The world’s biggest fast-food chains have been placed under the spotlight by a new welfare report from the charity World Animal Protection. And no company receives a grade better than ‘poor’.

The Pecking Order 2018 ­report is the first-ever international ranking on the welfare of chickens raised for meat. Burger King, Domino’s Pizza Group, Domino’s Inc, KFC, McDonalds, Nando’s, Pizza Hut, Starbucks and Subway have all been assessed.

The results are deeply concerning: not one of the companies is taking this critical issue seriously.

Animal welfare

World Animal Protection has launched the ranking as part of its Change for Chickens campaign, which is challenging the fast-food industry to stop the cruelty and suffering in chicken production worldwide by committing to source from higher-welfare farms rather than factory farms.

Companies are assessed through publicly available information on three areas: Interest, via policies (how important the welfare of chickens is to the company); ambition, via objectives and targets (the promises a company has made to improve chickens’ lives); and transparency, via performance reporting (how clear the company is about living up to its promises).

Key findings 

Alarmingly, none of the fast-food chains have a global policy on improving chicken welfare. In most areas, chickens are not even guaranteed a humane slaughter.

Only three of the nine companies – Burger King, Starbucks and Subway ­– have demonstrated interest and ambition in addressing the main problems faced by factory farmed chickens. However, the commitments are all limited to one region or country;

Two companies – Domino’s Inc. and Domino’s PLC – receive a ‘failing’ grade. Four companies – KFC, Nando’s, Pizza Hut and McDonalds – receive a ‘very poor’ grade.

Transparency is universally poor, with all companies providing little or no information to show how they are performing when it comes to chicken welfare.

Policy changes

World Animal Protection’s Change for Chickens campaign urges the fast food industry to commit to global policy changes that will improve the welfare of billions of chickens. In particular, companies are expected to:

Use chicken breeds that grow at a healthier rate; ensure that chickens have the space to behave more naturally. Cages must never be used; give chickens the opportunity to enjoy natural behaviours via enrichment – including perches or platforms and pecking objects – natural lighting and high-quality bedding and ensure that chickens are slaughtered using more humane methods that avoid live shackling and render all animals unconscious before slaughter.

Increasing pressure

Currently, it’s estimated that 40 billion chickens around the world each year are subjected to significant cruelty and suffering in factory farms.

They are given around 40 days to live until they are slaughtered. In that time, in many countries they live in crowded, barren, dark warehouses. Grown with little consideration for them as living, breathing, inquisitive animals, they are genetically selected to develop unnaturally fast, which places huge pressure on their heart, lungs and legs. As a result, they often live their entire lives in chronic pain, suffering from lameness, skin lesions and even heart failure.

Food companies that continue to turn a blind eye to this cruelty are under increasing pressure to change their ways.

World Animal Protection will review The Pecking Order every year to monitor the progress of the major fast-food brands. The organisation hopes that future iterations of the ranking will highlight companies that are truly leading the way when it comes to improving chicken welfare.

Jonty Whittleton, global campaign head at World Animal Protection said: “The scores are in and it’s not looking good for some of the world’s largest fast-food brands when it comes to chicken welfare.

These iconic companies must respond to growing consumer concerns over chicken cruelty, using their immense power to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of animals. Using tools such as The Pecking Order, we will continue to put pressure on these companies to change for chickens.”

Consumer concern

Whittleton continued: “There is no excuse for the pain, fear and stress that a factory farmed chicken feels for much of their life.

“Billions of chickens never get the chance to see sunlight, to grow at a natural rate or behave as they would do in the wild. Major brands, including those featured in The Pecking Order, profit from this pain.

“hey hold the power to turn this situation around and there is a growing consumer concern that they must do so. Chickens are at the very heart of their businesses and deserve the chance to live a happier, healthier life. That’s not too much to ask.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a commissioning editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from World Animal Protection. Read the full report here. 

Japan’s legislature has enacted the most significant reform of its fisheries laws in 70 years.

The new legislation has the potential to signal a meaningful shift in how other countries in the Asia Pacific region manage their fisheries in the future.

Katie McGinty, senior vice president of EDF Oceans, said: “The world should take note of this moment because it signals a transformational shift in how countries are managing their fisheries for the long term, and if done right, has the potential to usher in a new era of sustainability in the region that will have far-reaching positive impacts”.

Landmark moment

The passage of the reform legislation through the Japanese Diet (Japan’s bicameral legislature) marks a landmark moment in the nation’s efforts to reform its fisheries, which has been a high priority for Prime Minister Abe as he continues to restructure Japan’s economy for long-term prosperity.

For more than a year, EDF has provided expert scientific and policy support and advice to government officials, scientists and regulators to help lay the groundwork for the reform effort. 

The legislation’s goal is to ensure long-term productivity of important fish stocks that are at the heart of the Japanese economy, culture and cuisine, and that impact seafood markets across the globe.

The reform package incorporates several recommendations from EDF including expanding stock assessments to cover all commercial stocks and increasing the percentage of catch managed with science-based catch limits.

In addition, the reforms include requiring recovery plans for overfished stocks within 10 years and establishing a system of individual vessel quotas with some transferability.

Sustainable fisheries

McGinty added: “We applaud Japanese Diet members and the Abe Administration for their leadership and will continue to work alongside our partners to ensure the reform effort is implemented in the most effective way possible.” 

While the reforms being passed by the Diet are a meaningful step forward on the road to creating sustainable fisheries in Japan, the implementation phase will be equally important, EDF said.

During that crucial phase, regulations known as cabinet and ministerial ordinances will be drafted by Japan’s Fishery Agency and will shape how the legislation is put in place on the water.

EDF said it is particularly focused on helping refine the reforms during the implementation phase to include a transition financing plan that does not undercut sustainability, including stakeholders more broadly in the management process and improvements in monitoring and accountability.

McGinty concluded: “There can be no doubt that this development to create greater sustainability in Japan’s fisheries is a significant win, but more work needs to be done.

“We must continue to work together in order to achieve Prime Minister Abe’s vision of creating thriving, resilient and sustainable fisheries that provide more food, more prosperity and greater environmental wellbeing for people, their communities and the ocean.”

This Article. 

This article is based on a press release from the Environmental Defence Fund.

Climate change protestors from Extinction Rebellion Canterbury blocked a main road near the Guildhall for seven minutes at a time, allowing traffic to pass every two minutes.

This was done to raise awareness of climate change and to push for council, and government, action to reduce emissions, after the recent IPCC report added a sense of urgency to the issue.

Protestors held signs apologising for the delay, as well as asking drivers to turn off their engines. Emergency services were able to pass through.

Climate justice

The action tool place on Saturday of last week and was peaceful, with local police supervising. No-one was arrested. Protestors told drivers what they were doing and why and the protest ended around 2.30pm.  This is the first action from Kent’s Canterbury XR group – a national week of action is scheduled in March.

Protestors chanted “What do we want? Climate justice. When do we want it? Now!” They demanded that the government, BBC and local council “Tell the truth” about climate change.

Spokesman Nicholas Thurston warned drivers that the consequences of not acting “are beyond imagination, as spelled out in the IPCC report, drought, famine, mass migration, huge loss of land … That is why we’re standing here today, to demand our governments declare a climate emergency”.

The IPCC report gives governments twelve years to drastically reduce emissions to limit climate change. Mr. Thurston also called on listeners to lobby their representatives to adopt climate friendlier policies.

Extinction Rebellion is a fast-growing movement, with around 80 groups in the UK. It demands that the government communicate the seriousness of climate change and end contradictory policies. It advocates for legally binding measures leading to zero carbon emissions, reduced consumption, and monitoring by a Citizen’s Assembly. 

This Author 

Ellie is a student from Canterbury. She is keenly interested in the environment and politics, and is an active member of Greenpeace.