Misael Luis Soccora is a leader of a Wayúu community, in La Guajira, Colombia. The Wayúu are an indigenous community whose ancestral lands have been carved up by Cerrejón, a vast opencast coal mine that has devastated local communities.

Today Misael finds himself in Newcastle, UK, telling an audience of environmental activists about the forced displacement, coal dust pollution, and death threats that he and his people suffer as a consequence of the mine.

He then gives the floor over to his ‘companero’ Aldo Amaya. Aldo enlarges an image of the Cerrejón mine, its crater dwarfing the dinosaur-like machines within it. He points to the biggest one: ‘This is the machine I operate.’

In solidarity

Misael and Aldo seem like unlikely allies at first. Aldo, his voice rough with decades of coal dust, explains: ‘When mining first came to the region in the 1990s, we were so keen for the jobs, we didn’t pay any attention to the effects of the mine.

“We were young and uneducated. We built the strength of our union and won many victories for the workers. We know that the company takes advantage in order to make more profit whenever it can. In time we became conscious of how they were making communities and the ecology suffer.’

On a visit to North East England with the Coal Action Network this October, the pair are accompanied by Rosa Maria Mateus Parra from CAJAR, a lawyers’ collective in Colombia.

Rosa explains that the community activists and the Colombian mineworkers’ union Sintracarbon, of whom Aldo is the General Secretary, have been officially working in solidarity for over a year to stop the expansion of Cerrejón.

This is a mine so enormous that you can still make out its grey smear if you zoom out to view the whole of Colombia on google earth.

Neo-colonialism

The lawyers’ collective works to expose the wrongdoing of the mining company in a region in which the Colombian state are at best absent and at worst complicit with the mining company’s misdeeds.

The two regions represented in the room, Northern Colombia and the North East of England, share a common history and a common present.

When coal mining was violently withdrawn from the UK’s North Eastern coalfields in the 1980s and 1990s, it was violently imposed onto Northern Colombia with the support of paramilitaries.

What manifested as class struggle in the UK manifested as neo-colonialism in Colombia, as multinational companies centralised ownership of coal extraction by appropriating land.

During the 1984-85 miners’ strike and every year since there has been a significant percentage of coal imported to the UK from La Guajira.

Phase out

At times this was as much as 30 percent of the UK’s coal use, to compensate for the closure of the deep pit mines, which used to support entire communities and local economies, many of which are still in recovery today.

What remains in both locations is privatised, opencast coal extraction, where the land is opened up to extract coal in vast quantities using explosives and heavy machinery.

On a brisk morning, Misael, Aldo and Rosa walk together around the UK’s newest opencast coal mine, ‘Bradley’, in the Pont Valley, County Durham, with some of the residents who held off the project for over 30 years until it finally opened in June 2018.

The community are now fighting to get the mine closed. The site is a fraction of the size of Cerrejón. Nonetheless, Misael surveys the terrain with a heavy gaze; the beginnings of the coalworkings eating into the diverse green landscape amidst a backdrop of villages and rolling countryside.

‘Opencast mining is bad wherever it takes place. It’s like a monster which grows and grows’, says Misael. Indeed, Banks Group are seeking to open two other open-casts in the North East, undeterred by the UK’s ‘coal phase out’.

Spiritual displacement

I ask Misael if he is surprised by how close people’s homes are to the mine. ‘No. I am surprised by how close the mine is to people’s homes’, he replies.

In La Guajira, the train line which takes the coal to the port to be exported to the UK, Europe and elsewhere, has sliced Misael’s community in two. Heavy coal trains pass by his village 24 hours a day, spewing coal dust and creating all but ceaseless noise.

Misael explains what this does to the ‘spiritual health’ of the people there. ‘As a people, we are dreamers,’ he says.

‘We dream every night and our dreams guide us in our waking life. But because of the noise at night we cannot sleep deeply, so we cannot dream deeply.’

As a consequence, the Wayúu are in an increasing state of ‘spiritual displacement’, in addition to being physically displaced and threatened.

Routinely deny

Shortly before he left for the UK, a death threat directed at Misael was posted in public places around a village he was passing through. For this reason he chose not to have his photograph appear in this article.

Coal mining companies operating in the UK are eager to point out the human rights abuses in Colombia in order to justify fossil fuel extraction in the UK instead.

But Misael and Aldo appear deeply troubled by what they see in Pont Valley. ‘I have never seen a mine this close to homes’, says Aldo, who is keen to share with the Pont Valley residents his insider knowledge of coal workings.

He explains that the risks to their homes and their health is worse than Banks Group claim. Homes near to opencast mines can fall apart due to underground subsidence caused by blasting away the earth to get to the coal, something which coal companies routinely deny.

‘They lie.’ Misael adds, ‘It doesn’t matter where you are in the world; mining companies lie. They don’t know what it does to communities. Only communities can know that.’

Health and safety

Banks Group argue that jobs brought by the mine will benefit the community. Aldo squints through the binoculars at the rumbling machines pitching black dust into the crisp air, ‘This is a small team. A very small team’.

The UK’s opencast mines are operated by a tiny workforce. Around 130 people work in opencast mining, despite providing around 30% of the coal burned in UK coal-fired power stations.

The Bradley opencast supports 20-30 jobs. The privatisation of the coal industry is now widely acknowledged to have been a deliberate attempt to crush power of the unions as part of a neoliberal agenda – fewer workers, more machines, more profit and less trouble.

Aldo’s union Sintracarbon, by contrast, is at the top of it’s game. Their achievements in less than three decades against three of the world’s biggest mining companies are impressive (Cerrejón is owned by BHP Billiton, Anglo American and Glencore).

These range from improved working hours and health and safety standards, to scholarships for children of coal workers so they can seek a new industry after the closure of the mine, which is set at 2034.

Active solidarity

With a strong presence throughout the supply chain, Sintracarbon possesses the formidable power to shut down Colombia’s coal exports from pit to port.

Aldo seems very much at ease with their position against the expansion of the mine, despite the fact that it supports his members’ jobs. He knows that coal mining is not forever, even though it may well have a longer life in Colombia than in the UK.

The alliance between Sintracarbon and the Wayúu is proof that it is possible for an industrial union to hold a meaningful pro-workers agenda, as well as standing against the expansion of the fossil fuel industry that they are part of.

It also holds a lesson for the climate movement in the UK; the more power the union movement has, the more confidently it can take a position against fossil fuel extraction.

To be able to do this, UK union struggles need active solidarity from all sectors of civil society. In the UK’s ‘coal phase-out’ plans there is no comprehensive vision for workers at the end of coal.

End to coal

It’s time for those of us who want to see an end to fossil fuels to take our cue from Misael and Aldo, to seek justice from coal companies for both workers and communities.

Isobel Tarr is a campaigner with the Coal Action Network, a grassroots campaigning organisation which works to end open-cast coal mining and burning coal for electricity in the UK.

Coal Action Network works in solidarity with communities affected by open-cast coal mining and pollution, both in the UK and internationally, towards a just end to coal now.

This Author

Anne Harris is an activist with the Coal Action Network. Read about and donate to the Pont Valley residents’ ongoing legal battles to stop Banks Groups’ opencast coal projects in the North East of England, online. To learn more about battles against Cerrejon in Colombia visit this website.

The commercial space company, Moon Express, has announced that it was setting up Moon Express Canada in order “to leverage Canadian space science and technology in the exploration of the Moon and its resources”.

What surprised me about this revelation was that Moon Express Canada is apparently planning to mine the moon with its partner companies on board.

Micro and nano space technology company Canadensys Aerospace Corporation, geological imaging company Gedex, LiDar systems developer Teledyne Optech, and mining technologies and robotics company Deltion Innovations, which has been outspoken about making Canada a leader in space mining.

Rights violation 

As I read the reports, I shook my head wondering how Canadian mining companies have been permitted to amass so much damage to the earth and human rights, much less now being enlisted to destroy the moon.

Canada is no stranger to ecological destruction in its mining practices, within the country and also in Latin America. The Mexican Network of Mining Affected People (REMA in Spanish) has been outspoken in recent years over the problems of Canadian mining on indigenous lands.

It has also criticised the use of the Canadian diplomatic corps to negotiate deals between Canadian mining companies and local leaders who violate the rights of the people to property, safe environment, open consultations with public consent, lawfulness and legal security.

One company which has effected enormous damage on Mexican land is Goldcorp, which has broken national laws in purchasing collectively owned property in Carrizalillo, Guerrero and in Mazapil, Zacatecas.

The encroachment of Canadian mining companies in Mexico today shows them operating 65 percent of the mining projects around the country, amounting to 850 mining projects at various stages of development from exploration through to construction and extraction.

Manipulate and abuse

These mining projects have resulted in serious health issues, environmental contamination and destruction, the criminalisation of social protest, as well as the use of threats, harassment, smear campaigns, surveillance, arbitrary detentions and the assassination of political leaders and activists who speak out against these mines. 

Mariano Abarca was murdered after he opposed a Canadian mine in Chiapas where he was detained in 2009. In 2014 in Guerrero, Mexico, 43 students from the Raúl Isidro Burgos Rural Teacher Training College in Ayotzinapa, disappeared with no trace of their whereabouts, except for the remains of 19-year-old Alexander Mora Venancio.  

Many believe that the recent and nearby inauguration of Torex Gold’s El Limón-Guajes gold mine in Cocula, Guerrero is related to these students’ disappearance and murder, given that a mine manager had already been murdered, workers kidnapped, and communities protesting over broken promises, contaminated water, and health problems.

Similarly the Honduran leader, Beta Cáceres, was murdered in her home on 3 March 2016 after recent protests against the construction of the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam in Río Blanco and various schemes to grab land from the people against which Cáceres was fully mobilised.

It is common to find these companies levelling criminal charges at the protestors – including sabotage, terrorism, rebellion, conspiracy, and incitement to commit crime.

Open-pit mine

Because of the money these companies attract to the local economy, their power within the community is tremendous – and this includes their ability to manipulate and abuse the local laws and collaborate with organised criminals.

In addition to human rights violation, there is grave ecological and biological damage produced by these Canadian mining  companies.

For instance, there is strong evidence of serious health impacts in Carrizallillo, Guerrero which was presented at the International People’s Health Tribunal in 2012 in connection with Goldcorp’s Los Filos mine, one of the largest gold mines in the world.

These impacts  included, but were not limited to, a high incidence of eye, skin, respiratory, and gastrointestinal problems, as well as a significant increase in premature births and malformations in newborns – and that’s just the shortlist.

Mining within Canada is no less controversial. It was recently announced that Gahcho Kué, an open-pit mine, is expected to produce between 6.6 million and 6.9 million carats of diamonds in 2019, and each year thereafter through the end of 2021. 

Disastrous effects

Gahcho Kué is one of the world’s largest new diamond mines which opened in September 2016 on a remote mine site on the Canadian tundra just on the edge of the Arctic Circle, and is jointly operated by De Beers and Mountain Province Diamonds.

While diamond mining is not Canada’s primary industry, Canada is the fifth largest diamond producer in the world and the ecological damage produced by diamond mining are well known.

Uranium levels in nearby Kennady Lake are expected to increase by a factor of 11,000 during the mine’s operation due to acid mine drainage which causes damage to the ecosystem.

Other common problems associated with diamond mining include erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and the contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water by chemicals from mining processes.

Badly executed diamond mining has caused serious problems ranging from soil erosion, deforestation, and the forced migration of local populations. There are also many cases of diamond miners having re-routed rivers and constructed dams to expose riverbeds for mining, all with disastrous effects on fish and wildlife.

Consuming less

Just over the last few weeks, we have seen Canadian mining companies continue their expansion into Western Australia,  India, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Guinea, and into Yukon and Nunavut.

While there seems to be little that individuals can do to stop these powerful companies, we need to address that the common denominator between mining and humans is our consumption.

With this knowledge in mind, it is imperative that we push back against mining, conduct a mental inventory of what we purchase and consume, and that we ask ourselves which objects which do we absolutely need to live and which items can we live without.

In the absence of an ecological revolution, the future of our planet depends on our ability to consume less. 

This Author 

Julian Vigo is an independent scholar, filmmaker and activist who specialises in anthropology, technology, and political philosophy. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). You can follow her on Twitter at @lubelluledotcom. 

Ella Daish started the campaign to ‘Make all Menstrual Products Plastic Free’ in February this year. Her petition has received an overwhelming response, with over 106,000 signatures to date.

Ella, a postal worker, became aware of just how many problems there are surrounding menstruation through the fantastic campaigning of inspiring individuals and groups working in this field. 

These issues range from the taboo that keeps people from talking about periods, to the environmental impacts of the plastic in our period care, to period poverty.

Period poverty

Period poverty has a huge impact. According to Plan UK, one in ten girls between the ages of 14 and 21 cannot afford menstrual products and a shocking 137,000 have missed school because of this. Period poverty also affects those who are homeless, refugees and simply those that cannot afford sanitary products.

It saddened Ella that in 2018 there are so many individuals out there who do not have access to these essentials – she wanted to address this by taking action.

After seeing reverse advent calendars last year in aid of food banks, Ella felt compelled to set up a similar project in aid of period poverty. That is why this year, rather than giving gifts to family and friends for Christmas, Ella is putting an eco-friendly item into her Eco Period Box each day throughout December. The box will then be donated to a period poverty charity at the start of the New Year.

Ella is an individual doing this and would love it if as many people as possible would support Eco Period Action for Good this December by joining in and taking positive action. 

You can join in by donating an item, sharing the Eco Period Box video, setting up a box at work or at home, encouraging others to get involved and by sharing what you are doing on social media using the hashtag #ecoperiodbox!

Get involved

Eco Period Box started on 1 December and ends on December 31st. 

You can get eco-period products from local health food shops and supermarkets. If your time is limited then there are multiple online stores that you can buy from and get your order sent directly to your chosen charity by using their address in the delivery details. 

You can donate to period poverty charities like the Red Box Project, Bloody Good Period, Freedom 4 Girls and local food banks such as the Trussell Trust.

Anything you do or donate is truly appreciated, remember to post your donation pictures on social media using the #ecoperiodbox to help spread the word and encourage others to get involved!

For more information check out Ella’s blog post here, and follow her on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for regular updates.

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a commissioning editor for The Ecologist.

Some banks have already begun making changes to their fossil fuel financing – but overwhelmingly their action is too little and too slow.

Banks must exclude all fossil fuels from their corporate and project financing quickly and responsibly. Right now, though, positive change to energy policy is incremental, falling short of the systemic shifts necessary to avoid climate breakdown.

Some banks undertake periodic reviews of their policies. HSBC do this yearly. Others are less regular. However, campaigners on both sides of the argument can speed up this process by forcing a policy revision sooner than planned that could either weaken – as in the case of Suncor shunning HSBC over their tar sands exclusion – or strengthen the bank’s position on fossil fuels – as in the case of People and Planet’s intervention at Barclays’ AGM this year, which worried Standard Chartered enough to rush out a policy excluding some project finance for tar sands and the Arctic before their own AGM.

The review process might involve the bank’s Environmental and Social Risk team reaching out to stakeholders, including campaigning NGOs, for input. Sometimes NGOs get advanced warning of policies’ content. Ultimately, though, final decisions lie higher up the bank and they have no formal accountability to campaigners.

Banks’ decision-makers responsible for shaping policy on fossil fuel finance are accountable to the Board of Directors who are in turn usually accountable to shareholders – those investing in the bank. Even this is contingent on the culture of the bank, however.

Piecemeal exclusions

One key obstacle to campaigners asking banks to make ambitious improvements to their energy policies is where banks look to for guidance.

Many base their fossil fuel finance strategies on the scenarios and projections of the International Energy Agency, which consistently falls short of offering a pathway for staying below 1.5oC and projects continued future demand for oil and gas.

Banks also take cues from Governments in their major markets. If Governments want more fossil fuel infrastructure, despite the need to triple efforts to cut emissions even below just 2oC, then banks will often follow suit. Just one example of this is French bank Societe Generale’s continued support as financial advisor for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline across Europe, despite popular opposition.

Under this process, no bank has been bold enough to exclude all financing for a whole sector of the fossil fuel industry, let alone exclude all fossil fuel finance. Instead, we have seen a mishmash of piecemeal policy commitments from various banks.

In this, it is clear that there is no overall strategy for systematically reducing financing to the fossil fuel industry from any specific bank, let alone across the sector.

Offshore oil

They might exclude specific projects with a bad reputation, but continue to finance the companies responsible for them. They might exclude projects based on efficiency standards or geography, or only for extraction projects, but not for transportation infrastructure that makes the extraction worthwhile, such as with tar sands.

Too often, this piecemeal exclusions are used to bolster the bank’s green image while it continues to finance the majority of the rest of the fossil fuel industry.

One example is Barclays’ recent coal policy where they shifted from having ‘no appetite’ for direct finance for new coal power plants in developing countries to including the expansion of existing coal plants in developing countries. Tiny steps, incommensurate with the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.

Similarly ING’s policy excludes finance for Arctic offshore oil exploration but not for extraction and transportation, onshore oil or Arctic gas.

Societe Generale only exclude offshore oil but allow onshore oil and all gas. These nuances are especially important given the strong possibility of oil and gas development beginning soon in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Banks must not finance this expansion.

What do they need to do?

Banks must ensure their exclusions of financing different fossil fuels form part of a comprehensive strategy to exit the entire fossil fuel industry.

The industry must be conceived holistically including exploration, extraction and transportation.

The recent IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees stated that emissions must be net zero by 2050, which means that the use of fossil fuels must be phased out sooner than 2050. Banks must aim to end their finance to the industry well within the next three decades.

How should they do it?

In practice, excluding the fossil fuel industry cannot mean banks should immediately cut loose every fossil fuel client. A just transition will ensure support for workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry, and this must be planned, not haphazard, with banks playing their role. An exit from fossil fuel finance requires two steps, as demanded by a new global campaign, Fossil Banks, No Thanks!

STEP 1: Given how close we are to triggering climate breakdown, there are no excuses left for financing new fossil fuel projects. A just transition does not require it – in fact, it will undermine this transition by creating new dependencies on fossil fuel infrastructure in places that could otherwise have developed renewable energy capacity.

Nor can the climate cope with any new infrastructure. So banks should immediately end all direct finance for fossil fuel projects as a first step, and refuse to finance clients planning new fossil fuel projects.

STEP 2: Next, banks should publish clear plans to phase out financing for the rest of their fossil fuel clients. This can mean giving those clients deadlines, compatible with holding warming to 1.5 degrees, by which they must have fully withdrawn from operations involving the extraction, burning, or transportation of fossil fuels, or else the financial relationship will end.

For coal, this must happen sooner than for oil and gas, but oil and gas must also be rapidly phased out. It can also mean cutting ties with clients that show no willingness to change their business model to become compliant with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

These authors

Chris Saltmarsh is Co-Director: Climate Change Campaigns for People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh. Claire Hamlett is Climate Campaigner at BankTrack.

Councils lack resources to enforce regulations designed to keep the public and the environment safe from hazardous chemicals, including those that damage hormone systems, organs and aquatic life.

This was the conclusion of analysis of responses to Freedom of Information requests by UK-based environmental charity CHEM Trust, which asked 164 council trading standards departments across the UK how much they spent on monitoring consumer products for hazardous chemicals in the past five years, how many products were tested, and how many of those were found to breach legal limits.

The results revealed an under-resourced, fragmented approach to consumer health and environmental protection. Out of 88 UK councils that tested products for chemicals, 52 percent found hazardous chemicals over legal limits, and nearly a quarter (23 percent) of samples were found to contain hazardous chemicals.

Certain chemicals

These included cadmium – known to cause damage to organs and genetic defects to unborn children – in jewellery samples; phthalates – associated with disruption of the hormone system and metabolic diseases – found in toys; and lead – which can impact brain development – found in lipsticks.

It is clear that risks exist in everyday products. Despite this, 35 percent (58 councils) did not test any products at all for hazardous chemicals. From London boroughs to Welsh valley councils, not a penny was spent on sampling products for chemicals. Others carried out very little, with 31% testing less than ten products over five years.

The extent of action on hazardous chemicals by trading standards officers varied widely between councils. The highest spend in the whole of the UK was in the London Borough of Enfield, which spent £33,917 on testing 18 products over five years, followed by the London Borough of Southwark, which spent £20,290 testing 285 products.

This was followed by Birmingham City Council, which spent £15,733 on products tests. In Wales, the highest spending council was Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, which spent £4,854 testing 42 products. The most spent in Scotland was £2,000 by Midlothian Council, while in Northern Ireland, Belfast City Council spent £3,000.

Environmental campaign groups fought for years for the introduction of chemicals through the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. Other regulations are linked to REACH, including the Toy Safety Regulation and Cosmetics Product Regulation, which restrict use of certain chemicals in these products.

Improve collaboration

REACH is the most advanced system in the world for controlling chemicals. But consumers in the UK are not benefitting from this protection because it is simply not being enforced at a local level.

Council budget cuts have taken their toll on trading standards departments, and hit their ability to proactively protect the public. Overall council budgets have decreased by 23.5 percent between 2010-11 and 2015-16, according to government spending watchdog the National Audit Office. This has led budgets for trading standards services to call from £213 million in 2009 to £105 million in 2018, and the number of enforcement officers has dropped by 56 percent over this time.

Regulation of products containing potentially deadly chemicals is one of many areas competing for an ever-decreasing pot of money in local authorities.

Trading standards officers have responsibility for enforcing over 260 pieces of legislation, including those on rogue traders, preventing scams and keeping dangerous products that injure consumers off the market. With fewer staff and less money available for investigations and prosecutions, which can be extremely complex for chemicals, councils are having to make hard choices on enforcement priorities.

We were shocked by the results of our investigation. We are asking the government to increase funding for trading standards services across the UK, improve collaboration between the government and local councils on hazardous chemicals, and develop and publish a comprehensive review of the UK’s enforcement of chemical regulations, with an effective strategy to protect the public.

This Author

Kate Young is Brexit and chemicals campaigner at the CHEM Trust.

Using eco-friendly products can help you to reduce your impact on the environment. Many of these green products are also purported to be healthier. But how do you know which products are truly green? Exploring how environmentally friendly products are made can help. Consider the following six factors when looking for products that are truly eco-friendly and healthy.

1. Reduce

One way to reduce your environmental impact is to look at how you purchase and use products. The best way to minimise your impact is to reduce your consumption. Consider whether you actually need a new appliance or try using less of a cleaning product. Only running the dishwasher when it’s full, for example, will help save you detergent and water. You can also make many cleaning products using ordinary household substances.

If you’re looking for a new appliance or another type of item, you could also choose to purchase a used or recycled item rather than a new one. Older machines often, however, use more energy than newer ones. You’ll need to determine whether energy use or the resources used to make the new product will have a more significant environmental impact.

2. Lifecycle Approach

The greenest manufacturers use a lifecycle approach when determining how to produce items sustainably. Sometimes, when a company says a product is green, they are only referring to its useful life. While this is important, goods also have environmental impacts throughout manufacturing, shipping and disposal. Genuinely green products will minimize these impacts through every stage of the product’s life.

Some companies may be able to provide you with information from environmental lifecycle assessments. For others, you may have to estimate. Consider, for example, whether the company used electricity from renewables or from fossil fuels to manufacture it. Also, think about whether you can recycle the item when you’re done with it.

​​​​​​​3. Product Contents 

So, what makes a product environmentally friendly throughout its lifecycle? Many different factors come into play. Attributes that make an item eco-friendly include:

• Minimal presence of potentially harmful substances, such as known or likely human carcinogens, corrosive substances, ozone-depleting compounds and regulate hazardous materials
• Minimal emissions of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants
• Durability, long life and minimal maintenance
• The use of recycled or salvaged materials
• The use of materials obtained locally
• The use of biodegradable materials

You may not be able to find all of these qualities in one product. A product may be made with recycled materials but also contain a corrosive chemical, while a similar product has the opposite attributes. You’ll need to weigh the importance and severity of each quality when choosing between products.

4. Packaging and Shipping

The way in which a product is packaged and shipped is another critical factor influencing its environmental impact. Green shipping practices include minimizing the number of materials used for packaging and packing, as well as using recyclable packaging made with recycled materials. Purchasing products in bulk also reduces the number of shipments required, which decreases the emissions associated with shipping.

Any potentially hazardous substances should also be shipped with the appropriate packing and handling safeguards in place. The packaging for these kinds of items should be clearly labeled.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​5. Environmental Performance

Even if you can’t get information about a particular product, looking at the environmental performance of an organization as a whole can help you to estimate how green their products are. See what information a company has on their website about sustainability and make sure they have details to back up their claims. They may use renewable energy for a certain percentage of their operations, for example, or donate to environmental charities.

Check whether the organization has any certifications, such as ISO-14001, which focuses on having an environmental management system, and ISO-9001, which ensures they have a quality management system in place to ensure consistent product quality.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​6. Certifications and Greenwashing

ISO certifications are reputable and internationally recognized. Many other environmental certifications for specific products can also help to back up a company’s claims. Some of these certifications include:

• ENERGY STAR: Administered by the U.S. EPA and DOE, ENERGY STAR is a rating system for the energy efficiency of products.

• Safer Choice: The Safer Choice logo verifies that a product is made with safer chemicals.

• WaterSense: Managed by the EPA, this program verifies products as water-efficient.

• Forest Stewardship Council: A certification from the Forest Stewardship Council verifies that a product came from a sustainably managed forest.

• Green Seal: The Green Seal evaluates whether a product is safe for people and the environment.

• Cradle to Cradle: This program evaluates products based on their impact on people and the environment and helps companies improve them.

The way a product is made determines how environmentally friendly it is. A truly green product minimizes the negative impacts it has on people and the environment and may even have positive effects. To determine whether a product is eco-friendly, look at its entire lifecycle and consider the aspects listed above.

This Author

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

In the week that the first oil from the Clair Ridge field west of Shetland was produced, DeSmog UK completed our series on the ‘Just Transition’ — exploring how Scotland could shift wholesale from fossil fuels into green and renewable energy, and in doing so create new jobs and a new future.

Working as an environmental journalist is sometimes like a walking nightmare. As we survey the global response to the IPCC’s shocking report – that we only have 12 years left to limit a temperature rise to 1.5°C – the oil giant BP declares it hopes to be able to get 640 million barrels of oil from the Clair Ridge, with production expected to peak at 120,00 barrels a day.

Despite this, and without exception, the media in Scotland reported the new field as an unquestionable good, faithfully reciting BP’s press releases.

Radical alternatives

But rather than descend into despondency it’s time to look at the radical alternatives and opportunities that face us.

We commissioned a talented writer and photographer to team up and document the potential for deep change as we face the reality of climate breakdown.

Christopher Silver and Alan McCredie have spent a few weeks travelling across Scotland to interview workers and communities embedded in the fossil fuel industry, and question them about their future.

Their work has a historical depth, looking back for examples and models of radical change, and forward to the potential for a green future for Scottish energy.

This series starts from the basis of understanding that current lifestyles are dependent on oil and plastic, and that we are all to some degree complicit and integrated into the present system. It looks at how the UK can achieve the immediate, transformative and radical changes to the economy and society necessary to address the climate crisis. And it addresses this transformation through the perspectives of the communities that will be most affected.

Kingdom of Coal

In part one, The Kingdom of Coal, we examine the prospects for the future. Silver writes: “Since winning power in Scotland in 2007, the SNP has self-consciously sought to position itself as a leader on climate change. After 10 years of working within the limits of its devolved powers in office and setting world-leading emissions reduction targets, the current SNP government recently announced a Just Transition Commission headed by Professor Jim Skea.

“The potential for an unprecedented step-change, preserving jobs and skills, aligned with calls for a global ‘Green New Deal’, could open the next, and indeed final, chapter on Scotland’s centuries-long relationship with carbon capital.”

Surveying the region of Fife, pockmarked with abandoned mines and desolate ex-mining commmunities the stark evidence is of a model for how NOT to do energy transition. When Thatcher’s government pulled the plug on the mining industry, in what was an explicitly political choice, and it left many towns facing mass unemployment with no alternatives.

The ongoing issue of the Mossmorran plant at Cowdenbeath flaring stands as a beacon to Scotland’s unregulated post-industrial landscape that blurs the rural and industrial and often treats communities with contempt.

The scale of the challenge to create a viable just transition process is immense. As Silver notes:

“For Scotland to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, it can only emit a total of 300 million tonnes more carbon dioxide – meaning it has to cut emissions by at least ten percent every year. Whichever way you look at it, this will be the greatest challenge faced by Scottish industry for a generation.”

Aberdeen: City of Oil

In the second part of our series we looked at Aberdeen, the country’s energy capital. While the amount of profits from North Sea oil is a phenomenon in itself, dig a little deeper and the reality is one of exploitation. How can it be that in Aberdeen, the city of oil, there are foodbanks?

Jake Molloy, the Aberdeen based Regional Organiser for National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) said: “All the work that’s getting done on renewables, and in decommissioning, is being done by vessels which carry Filipino, Malaysian crews, exploited on slave labour rates.

“The North Sea has become a dumping ground, literally a dumping ground, for workers to be exploited on appalling rates, in appalling conditions….” 

Last year, this quiet controversy over the use of foreign-flagged vessels, some with crews on as little as £2.70 an hour, was brought dramatically to the fore. In a debacle that lasted for over a year, the 12-man crew of the Malaviya Seven was left stranded without pay in Aberdeen Harbour, after its Indian owner GOL went into liquidation.

The vessel had been chartered by BP and had previously been hired by other big oil companies such as Dana Oil, the Wood Group and Premier Oil. The exploitation and poverty is not confined to sections of the industry.

Poverty in the city has moved higher up the agenda — “oil rich Aberdeen” now has more foodbanks than any other Scottish city and there is a 17 year gap in life expectancy between the most deprived and most affluent communities in the city.

This is the story of a city in transition, without enough thought, planning or attention to how this can be done justly for its residents.

Centuries of Shale 

In part three we looked at the sprawling Grangemouth plant and its role at the very heart of Scotland’s gas and oil industry, and in the final section we looked at the history of hydro in the highlands.

Amongst all of the obstacles to the change we need – a chronic lack of ambition, bedded-in vested interests, a worldview that still clings to North sea oil as a ‘liberator’ and lack of funds and lack of political levers of power – there is still hope.

Looking back at the experience of the extraordinary transformations that took place through the development of hydro power in the 1950s is inspirational

Under the strategic vision of Tom Johnstone, Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, by 1965, 54 main power stations and 78 dams had been built, providing a total generating capacity of over 1,000 megawatts. As Silver writes:

“To put this in perspective, that amounts to roughly the same capacity as one of Scotland’s two large nuclear power stations today. To achieve this, 300 kilometres of rock tunnel had to be excavated and a similar length of aqueducts and pipelines constructed. In addition, 32,000 kilometres of electricity network would be required to distribute the electricity throughout the north of Scotland.”

This baseload energy system has actually given Scotland a strategic advantage that has allowed it to make great strides in developing its own climate change targets.

New opportunities

Nor is hydro at full capacity. Wind pump storage technology has meant that power plants like Ben Cruachan have increased their capacity and unlocked one of the deficiencies of wind power, that it cannot be ‘stored’.

Three huge opportunities seem to present themselves from our research. All of them are predicated from us having the scale of ambition witnessed by the hydro pioneers in the 1950s and 60s.  

First, the opportunity for decommissioning the north sea oil industry and transitioning into offshore wind is an opportunity for coastal towns and job creations but it needs investment and coordination on a scale that is currently absent.

Second, the opportunity for municipal district heating systems – of the kind pioneered by the Glasgow firm Star Renewables and currently being installed in towns and cities across Norway –  would be a huge jobs boost in construction and give our urban hubs a jump start in the energy transition process.

Community renewables

Third, the opportunity for community renewables is laid out. As Silver writes: “In comparison to 150 megawatt Sloy, the new Arrochar Community Hydro Scheme, opened in May 2018 provides a relatively modest 125 kilowatts. But Duncan, who is Chairman of the Arrochar and Tarbet Community Development Trust, remains enthused about its potential as a community asset.”

“Up a steep hillside above the shore of Loch Long, not far from where her older big sister sits at Sloy, the scheme, which runs a turbine off a fast-flowing burn, lies just a matter of metres away from power lines that link into the national grid. It is projected to generate £76,000 each year, and its 402,000 kilowatt hours will provide enough power to meet the equivalent demand from 130 medium use households annually.”

Small-scale decentralised community owned schemes can be at the heart of the transition process, offering resilience and keeping resources within a local economy.

Fourth, the potential for the promised Scottish Energy Company to be a publicly owned green energy company could be the game-changer offering affordable energy to those suffering fuel poverty and a clean energy future.  

All of this requires a change of mindset, a step-change in levels of ambition and an ability to do joined-up thinking and ‘big scale’ strategic infrastructure development that is a challenge to a small devolved nation. But it is possible, and we now know there is no alternative.

This Author 

Mike Small is a freelance writer, activist and publisher working along the fault line of Social Ecology and self-determination. He is the Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK and the Editor of Bella Caledonia. You can read the full Just Transition series here.   

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness. 

There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health. Materials can be  harmful to individuals  if they are simply inhaled, ingested, or mishandled.

One of those many hazardous materials is asbestos. With scientific evidence proving the substance causes disease over time and many real-life examples to prove this case, scientists and health professionals alike have come out to say that asbestos is a dangerous carcinogen.

Most nations have taken this warning seriously and have banned it completely, but countries like the United States still allow for legal asbestos use within their nations borders. 

What is asbestos?

Asbestos has been used in many different types of housing insulations as well as other consumer products, but do you know what it really is?

Asbestos is made of six natural fibers that have heat resistant, fire resistant, and electricity protecting properties, all of which makes the material a versatile resource. 

In the mid-twentieth century it was discovered that asbestos was a cancer causing agent. If broken or disturbed, it can become airborne which then poses serious threats to the body. Due to its fibrous nature, inhaled or ingested asbestos can cling to the tissue inside the lung or abdomen.

Around thirty years after exposure, asbestos can cause serious ailments including pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma.  Workers in fields such as construction, automotive repair, and commercial product manufacturing are at risk if and when exposed to disrupted asbestos. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, however there are some 30 million pounds of asbestos used in the U.S. every year. While there is no ban in the US, more than 50 countries, including Australia, India, and all 28 countries of the European Nations have banned asbestos. 

Regulating asbestos

Protection of workers from the potential harms of asbestos fall onto the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

OSHA controls and oversees working conditions in the US, ensuring that employees are safe and protected by implementing and managing workplace standards. The EPA is responsible for protecting state and local employees who may be exposed to any form of hazardous material, through the Toxic Substance Control Act. This protects those who were not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations asbestos regulations.

The NIOSH is a federal agency that runs research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. 

Even though there are restrictions, the US is one of the few major industrialised nations without a ban currently in place.

While there have been many warnings and scientific evidence that proves that that asbestos in fact causes disease there are only acts that restrict the use of asbestos. These include laws like the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Rule, and the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. 

Legal requirements 

Here is a further explanation of some of the rules:

– Asbestos Information Act 

This law requires that companies making certain types asbestos containing products be required to identify themselves and report production to the EPA.

– Clean Air Act (CCA)  

This law explains the EPA’s role in protecting and improving air quality in the U.S. It also states that the EPA is responsible to set standards for dangerous air pollutants. Asbestos is among those air pollutants. 

– The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title II)

This law states that the EPA is required to ensure that the local schools are checking their buildings for any material containing asbestos. From there, schools are required to prepare plans for asbestos removal and/or management. It also explains that the EPA is responsible for providing model plans for those conducting asbestos inspections in schools.

– Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

This law oversees the working conditions of U.S. employees by implementing and overseeing safety and health standards for workers.

– EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule

This regulation states that the EPA is required to protect workers on the state and local government employee level that were not covered by OSHA.

– Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule

Rule issued by the EPA on July 12, 1989, that banned most asbestos-containing products. However, in 1991 this rule was overturned and as a result only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. The goal is to phase-out the remaining products.

Around the world

Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries worldwide, but not in China, Russia, India, Canada, or the United States. Countries that have banned the product include those such as, France, Turkey, Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and the Netherlands to name a few. 

– China

While there are so many countries that have taken action on the ban on asbestos, China being a major country has not. China is the world’s largest consumer of asbestos in the world, due to the rapid growth of industrialization in the nation.

China is also the second-largest producer of asbestos and according to the China Chrysotile Association, record amounts of the material have been used in the past decade. While the US hit its peak use of asbestos in the 1973, China on the other hand has hit its peak use numbers in recent years  as they started using asbestos frequently in the late 1970s.

– Russia

For years, Russia has been the a lead producer in worldwide asbestos mine production. Since Russia is one of the few nations still mining and exporting the natural substance, the U.S. purchased asbestos from a Russian production company.

Shortly after pictures appeared on the the exporters Facebook page showing a faux stamp of approval featuring Trump’s face which read, “Approved by Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.” 

– Canada

The Canadian government has made great strides when it comes to asbestos related laws. The government recognizes that asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases, but there is no official ban on the substance entirely.

As of October 2018, the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations are in place, which prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos, including the manufacturing and use of asbestos containing products.

Although Canada is taking steps in the right direction, there still needs to be more regulations about current asbestos already in use to protect Canadian workers and homeowners. 

Further action 

There are many ways in which the US legislation is changing the way asbestos is used. However there are no rules that completely ban this deadly material that is affecting the lives of many citizens  and their families.

In order to make a bigger impact, the US needs to rework laws and enact a complete ban on the  use of asbestos in homes, schools, and existing products. As of June, the EPA proposed a “significant new use rule,” that could allow asbestos back into certain products with historic use deemed to be unthreatening.

During the Obama administration, in 2016, the EPA was required to constantly reevaluate harmful toxins and in fact reviewed 10 chemicals due to an amendment added to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under the new Trump administration, the EPA is approaching evaluating chemicals in a new way.

NBC News said: “The agency now focuses on how chemicals potentially cause harm through direct contact in the workplace, not taking into account improper disposal or other means of contamination that could greatly affect the public.”

In response, asbestos-related disease advocacy groups are rebelling and have argued that this rule is providing more loopholes to use this inexpensive toxin at the expense of the health of United States citizens . 

Once new asbestos cannot be introduced, it is important we take the proactive procedures to abate and dispose of known asbestos sites still hidden behind walls and across state lines. The only way the government can make sure that no one is affected by this harmful chemical, is to ban it from the United States completely.

This Author 

Emily Walsh is a community outreach director from New York. Her background is focussed on heightening awareness and advocacy for community health. Walsh is currently specializing in rare cancer research, specifically mesothelioma, one of the only known cancers that is completely preventable. 

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness.