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. 

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. 

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. 

With COP24 brimming with big talk, glossy posters and greenwashing, a group of indigenous activists and leaders have travelled the distance from the Peruvian Amazon to deliver passionate speeches.  

These activists are revealing contradictions at the heart of current climate funds that coexist with destructive industries and governmental corruption. 

Richard Rubio Condo, Vice-president of AIDESEP, said: “We come with the voices of the people from our communities, and we are very worried. Previously they said nothing could be done because there was no money. Now there is money. What is being done?”

“Incoherent and corrupt”

Condo took aim at the Forest Investment Program (FIP), financed by the World Bank. Fifty million dollars allocated to Peru in 2013 has not trickled down to people living on the ground, but has instead become locked into slow bureaucratic handling and lost into spaces of corruption. 

Roberto Espinoza of APRI-SC said: “There are new computers, offices and buildings, but we are still suffering.”

Investment projects from banks, the UN Redd+, and the Joint Declaration of Intent (JDC) on forest emissions have so far secured 100 million dollars, but that money flies into the hands of a government that either endorses or is complicit in plantation projects, illegal gold mining and road construction. There’s no mechanism for allowing indigenous people to channel or manage the funds. 

Climate funds tend to bend towards huge industrial projects such as hydroelectric dams that force displace indigenous communities, clear forests and flood biodiverse ecosystems in the name of climate change mitigation, such was the case in Honduras.

“This is a problem,” weighed in Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples in a side event. “Climate funds need to help the efforts of the indigenous people on the ground. They play a crucial role and their policies need to be included in the climate funds.”

Indigenous knowledge 

Proposals from indigenous people are ignored despite reports about the valuable knowledge that these groups have accumulated throughout centuries about the surrounding environment, as highlighted in the recent IPCC report and even in a Green Climate Fund evaluation. This knowledge is fundamental to halting climate change. 

Zoila Merino, representing Eastern Peruvian indigenous peoples through ORPIO exclaimed: “They do not listen to us because they do not see us as fully intelligent humans. We know how to think! They are putting measures in, but we are the ones protecting the forests.”

Newly quantified scientific evidence has been released showing the net carbon density change in the Amazon basin over the years in different South American nations, comparing what is happening with deforestation within titled indigenous territories and outside them. 

This initiative began after a plea from Juan Carlos Jintach of COICA to the scientific community in COP15 to track just how much carbon is stored in the forests as proof that indigenous peoples are key actors in conservation.

Dr. Wayne Walker of WHRC  displayed the new graphs and said: “Evidence shows that in all areas inside indigenous territories, the net average effect of carbon storage is basically in balance, while on the outside of them there is much loss.

“Where there is loss within indigenous territories and protected areas, this is due to illegal mining and natural disasters. Indigenous territories are responsible for avoiding forest loss compared to outside them.”

Discrimination and racism 

Esteban Morales Cama of AIDESEP explained that climate funds don’t always abide by the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights: “As we are asking for financing for strategies to reduce mining, mining companies go ahead with their projects despite our ‘no’ during the consultation process.” 

Proposals brought by indigenous people are based on the ‘Plan de vida’, a concept of a sovereign community living in harmony with Mother Earth on secured land, a kind of social planning against the extractivist economy their government and the investors are part of. 

This highlights the deep contradiction that COP24symbolises. It is a conference financed by coal industries and gas companies greenwashing their way into pavilions while glossy posters of ‘change’ are hung onto walls. 

Much of the speech, however  focussed on what needed to be done to change the structure of climate finance in order for it to be relevant and useful. 

Mr. Lifeng Li, support programme’s coordinator for GCF, said: “We fully agree that we need to build our capacity and hype the national entity’s focal points that manage the funds, to speak and negotiate with indigenous people about their allocation. GCF is not our fund, it is your fund that will help us work together to halt climate change”.

Innovative alternatives

The FIP-Peru was also discussed. It should to become a public investment fund, ratified into law, with its emphasis on land titling, management and territorial governance. 

The UN-Redd+ needs to strengthen indigenous monitoring and patrolling strategies such as drone surveillance, with preferably a switch to Amazon Indigenous Redd+ (RIA) as an innovative alternative to the current Redd+ dependent on the carbon market. 

The JDC needs to be corrected in order to include indigenous strategies, and all climate initiatives related to Amazonian land should have a direct channel to indigenous communities. Many COP participants are making this point in order to bring better accountability and monitoring.

Morales said: “With the way things are going with the corruption around climate finance, it’s essentially land trafficking with climate funds.”

As overbearing corporpations use COP to greenwash their practices, alarm bells rung by the delegates from the Peruvian Amazon show time again the valuable leadership, courage and concrete solutions that indigenous groups offer. 

This Author

Temo Dias is a journalist and researcher in East Asian political affairs, environmental issues and governmental corruption.

The 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) has failed to adopt its own report, commissioned from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, on the impacts of a global temperature rise of 1.5oC.

The move at the Katowice event – convened by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – bewildered many participants and observers. It was at the insistence of a power-block comprising Saudi Arabia, the USA and Russia. 

It so happens these are the world’s top three oil producing states, with around 40 percent of global production. They could be viewed as having a very direct self-interest in derailing any move towards reducing, or eliminating, fossil fuels and thereby addressing dangerous climate change.

Supply and demand

It is well understood that cheap oil prices crush the development and production of biofuels as a fossil fuel substitute.  Cheap oil prices also undermine the development of renewable energy sources and also the introduction of electrified transport.

At the time of COP21, in Paris in 2015, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated that low fossil fuel prices were hindering the fight against climate change.

Traditional economic models would have us believe that global oil price is dictated by supply and demand.  Demand is influenced by factors such as economic growth, also by weather of course. 

However, demand is heavily manipulated by speculators, or futures traders.  It is estimated that only 3 percent of transactions result in the purchaser eventually taking possession of the product; every barrel of crude oil is traded multiple times before actually being used. 

These intermediaries are very aware of the market psychology that can have a very big influence on manipulating the buy and sell prices at various points in a cycle.  

Manipulating the market

Legal cases have been successfully brought in the USA against companies which manipulated oil prices by artificially creating shortages and then using futures and options to push up prices.  Overall market sentiment seems volatile and readily distorted.

Supply is in the hands of relatively few very large businesses.  There are seven multinational corporations that dominate all stages from exploration, through production, refining and distribution.  Russian oil companies are very close to Government and Saudi Aramco is state-owned.

There is also the global cartel, known as OPEC, which controls around 40 percent of market supply. Recently Russia has been joining the regular OPEC meetings as a non-member.  These suppliers can turn the taps up or down relatively easily. 

Within the past few months, the Saudi energy minister Khalil Al-Falih said that he was optimistic OPEC could reach a consensus on production policy which, in collaboration with Russia, would release more oil onto the market and depress prices.

Supply is also influenced by storage, about which operators are very secretive.  Total global oil supply is round about 33 Bn barrels per year, while it is estimated that there is storage capacity of around 6 Bn barrels. Filling or draining of this storage can have significant and rapid impacts on the market price.

Lobbying power

Recent reports have revealed that the top seven global corporations that can be shown to be strongly antagonistic to climate and energy policies addressing climate change are respectively ExxonMobil, Phillips 66, Chevron, Valero Energy, Koch Industries, Southern Company, and Berkshire Hathaway.  

Six of these are either totally, or very substantially, involved in the fossil fuel industry.  More specifically, it has been revealed that, even in the past year, ExxonMobil – the world’s largest publicly traded oil company – donated $1.5M to eleven think-tanks and lobby groups that reject climate science. 

So, it appears there are mechanisms available and also motivations to distort the market place for the benefit of fossil-fuel vested interests.  

It might, perhaps, be expected that such influence would be brought to bear to undermine and deviate the one global mechanism in place to reduce the world’s fossil fuel dependency and mitigate the growing risks of climate change – that is the annual COP meetings.

Plotting interest

The graph below shows two plots (see below for detail of the methodology):  one is an indicator of global public interest, and hence of political interest, in each of the 24 COPs since the first in 1995.  

This level of interest has, of course, waxed and waned. As expected, a few COPs stand out: Kyoto (COP3), Copenhagen (COP15) and Paris (COP21) particularly.  Others have had little public impact, such as Nairobi (COP12), Poznan (COP14) and Lima (COP20).  The other plot is of global oil price fluctuation.

It is immediately apparent that the two parameters seem to vary inversely.  An increase in public interest in the climate change conference in any year generally results in a decrease in the oil price, while a reduced level of interest appears to result in a higher oil price.  

Statistically, this inverse relationship has a correlation coefficient of 0.41, which means it is 98 percent certain that such a relationship is real and not just due to random chance.

This analysis would seem to suggest that various vested interests, either nation-state or global corporation, or a synergistic alliance – working either independently or in collaboration around the world – manipulate the oil price downwards in advance of particularly important global climate change conferences in order to influence the debate. 

Such action would serve to undermine the potential commitment of global politicians to fiscal, regulatory or policy interventions to reduce fossil fuel usage and to promote sustainable alternatives.

This would potentially damage climate change action and further escalate the serious risks to every one of us who intends to continue living on Planet Earth.

A fair COP?  No, it looks like it certainly isn’t. 

This Author 

Professor James Curran was previously chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.  He researches, writes and talks on climate change and sustainability. 

Methodology 

There have been 25 COP meetings since the first in Berlin in 1995.  The latest is happening in Katowice, Poland, and is known as COP24.  The numbering anomaly is caused by there being two named COP6, held in November 2000 in The Hague with a follow-on meeting in Bonn in July 2001.  Otherwise meetings occur annually and nearly always in November or December.

Google was used to search for on-line interest in each of the COP meetings by undertaking a standardised search – for example: climate change “COP15 ” OR “COP 15 “, followed by using the Google tool to set a date filter comprising the period from one day after the opening, in this case, of COP14 to  the opening date of the COP15, which in this case is 2 December 2008 to 7 December 2009.  The results returned ranged from only 9 entries for COP1, 117 for COP3 (Kyoto), 6900 for COP15 (Copenhagen), 55100 for COP21 (Paris) and 552000 for the latest COP24 (Katowice).  Clearly this is reflective of the exponential growth of information upload and download from the internet.  The number of internet users has grown from 16 million in 1995 to over 4 billion in 2017, a factor of 260 times.  A log(e) transformation is applied to the number of Google entries to account for this growth factor.  Subsequently a linear detrend is applied to remove an underlying upward trend.  This allows for a correlation to be undertaken with similarly detrended oil prices taken from: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=300

The oil price is taken from 2 months in advance of the opening date of the relevant COP.  So, for COP15, which was held in December 2009, the oil price is taken for the month of October 2009.

The two plots of internet interest in COPs (multiplied by factor 10 simply to ensure the scales are comparable) and 2-month advance oil price are shown in Figure 1.

The correlation coefficient between the two plots is -0.41 which, with n= 25, suggests a p-value of 0.02.  This indicates that it is 98% probable that there is an inverse relationship underlying the data.  It is therefore very likely that global oil price changes in advance of a particular COP, in relation to how much global publicity there is in the run-up to the COP.  Notable COPs, such as Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris have experienced a significant advance drop in oil price, whereas low-key COPs such as Bali, Poznan and Lima have exhibited maintenance of relatively high advance oil prices.

Migration in the context of climate change is a justice issue. Those countries that have contributed most to climate change have a responsible the vulnerable communities forced to migrate due to climate change. 

Climate justice is a matter of determining the rights of those communities and the responsibilities of high polluters toward them. 

However, public discourses on climate change induced migration are moving backwards in terms of posing the question of justice, when they should be asking: how come certain people and communities are more vulnerable to climate change impacts; don’t high polluters owe redress to these groups? 

Climate injustice 

Wildfires in California have been exacerbated by climate change, and have destroyed hundreds of homes and displaced thousands of people. Huge numbers of homeless are sleeping on the streets.

At the other end of the scale, a recent report rom the UK Committee on Climate Change found that accelerating rising sea levels would claim coastal areas in the country and local communities would have to move inland. 

These two cases are indicative of human mobility in the context of climate change, an issue that has for long been troubling people and communities in the global South.

Cross-border mobility is an immediate effect of rising seas in the Pacific island nations. The fact is that those most vulnerable in terms of socio-economic status will be most affected no matter which country they live in.

A distinction is usually made between internally climate-displaced people and those crossing borders, but the lines between them may be blurred in practice: although most displaced people remain within their own country, some of them cross borders to reach safety in another country.

Just recently, the former US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at a Guardian event and warned Europe of migration chaos if immediate actions are not taken to effectively address climate change. Muslim and African migrant populations are racialized within these climate security discourses as prone to terrorism or radicalization. This may contribute to policy developments that are detrimental to people’s ability to relocate.

Failure to act

International policy tools also come up short with regards to climate change induced migration.

The UN’s Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts was established in 2013 to address – amongst others – migration in the context of a changing climate.

However, it lacks a coordinated framework for addressing the multiple challenges of mobility due to climate change, including the implications for the human rights of the residents and different types of movements, as impact scenarios vary substantially by geographic location.

The UN’s recent, non-binding Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration refers to climate change induced migration but does not provide specific protection to climate displaced people. Moreover, traditionally migrants’ host countries like the US and Australia have withdrawn from the adoption process.

In the absence of government action to address climate change induced human mobility, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can play important roles, both raising awareness of climate change induced migration and advocating for policy reforms on this issue.

Security threats

With a few notable exceptions, most environmental and humanitarian NGOs have encouraged actions to address displacement in the context of climate change through an ethos of individual responsibility or political action, but have promoted those changes in minor ways rather than establishing dedicated campaigns on the issue.

The media holds a central position in framing issues surrounding the integration of migrating people into local communities. However, the media is using strategies of dehumanization.

People migrating in the context of climate change are understood and communicated by news media as victims or security threats, highlighting their otherness and distance from mainstream audiences.

Moreover, displaced people are being spoken about and for but not with, they are not part of the conversation. The voices of people most impacted by climate change are rarely heard in mass media. This means that potentially little of the real situation of climate change effects on local populations is reported. 

We need to pay attention not only to what a news story is about but also how this story is told. How can we create a frame that both supports the story and defines climate change induced migration in a fair and balanced way.

Tailored messages

A climate justice narrative is needed to communicate and enhance public understanding of climate change induced migration. Key components of this narrative must be human rights protection, greater equity in burdens sharing, and participation in decision-making processes. This will also help to break anti-migrant sentiments and xenophobia. 

A recent study  in the UK suggests that the ‘climate justice’ narrative polarises audiences along political lines. In particular, the researchers asserted that a climate justice frame does not resonate well with the center-right.

However, climate injustice was introduced in the research in an abstract way, as a distant issue with no actual impact on the lives of the UK audience (for example, that could have been a storyline about poor people in coastal areas in the UK suffering most by climate change), contrary to the proximity that characterised other narratives tested in the research e.g. the advantages of ‘Great British Energy’ and ‘avoiding waste’. 

Tailored climate justice messages that provide a direct connection of the social aspects of climate change with people’s interests may have the power to reduce skepticism amongst them.

Intergenerational duty

There is evidence that people are significantly concerned about the ethical implications of leaving future generations with the burdens of climate change impacts. Intergenerational duty, expressed by preserving the environment for future generations, is a climate justice demand.

Activists such as the Pacific Climate Warriors  are defending rights to homeland and culture for future generations.

In particular, Pacific islanders would prefer the media to represent them as active ‘change agents’ developing climate change response strategies including ‘migration with dignity.’

Such an approach is essential at a time when hostile attitudes towards migrants and refugees, in general, are prevalent within policy and media circuits.

This Author

Maria Sakellari is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow at the University of Brighton. Her project IKETIS has received funding under the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No 74829).

More than a thousand people marched amidst heavy police presence to demand negotiators and ministers attending the UN climate talks in the southern Polish city of Katowice take more ambitious action on climate change.

Campaigners and activists from around the world took part in the March for Climate, which marked the end of the first of two weeks of global climate negotiations in Katowice.

Protesters chanted “keep the coal in the hole”, urged negotiators to “wake-up”, and demanded “climate justice now” while waving colourful banners and flags. Some were also wearing pollution masks to highlight Katowice’s heavily polluted air due to local coal mining.

Climate campaigners

Katowice is located in the region of Silesia, Poland’s coal heartland. About 80 percent of Poland’s electricity currently comes from coal.

Although the march was overwhelmingly peaceful, it was dominated by the presence of hundreds of riot police holding shields, batons, guns and tear gas canisters.

Police surrounded the march as protesters worked through the city with large groups of officers waiting at each junction and road crossing along the way.

The march was stopped in front of the conference centre where negotiations were taking place after a Polish group of anarchists and anti-fascists walking at the back of the demonstration were kettled by police. No further details as to the reason for this were available at the time of writing.

The heavy police presence did not deter climate campaigners.

Doing nothing

Two huge puppets representing Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro, who threatened to quit the Paris Agreement and roll back environmental protection in the Amazon, and the figure of an indigenous woman rose above the crowd.

Angeline Pittenger, the American artist who made the puppets, said her work stood in solidarity with women’s groups of colour, who will be affected by Bolsonaro’s policies. “I wanted to create a female hero,” she said.

Several anti-coal groups from Poland and Germany were among those to march through the city.

A spokesman from Polish group Oboz Dla Klimatu, who preferred not to be named, said the group wanted to bring the issue of climate justice to Poland, adding that “more and more people are aware of climate change in Poland and are demanding a coal phase-out”.

Sandra Koch, from the “citizens’ initiative for clean air” in the north-western coal region of East Frisia, said: “Germany has signed the Paris Agreement but it doing nothing to reduce emissions and achieve its climate targets.  

Catholic group

Dressed as a plague doctor with a long beak-shaped mask, she added: “Politicians are like plague doctors, they are not helping at all.”

“I understand that coal workers are afraid to lose their jobs. But it is the job of politicians to ensure that the change happens bit by bit. We need a system change, not climate change,” she said.

Wolfgang Eber and Wolfgang Loebnitz, two retired Germans, walked from Bonn to Berlin to demand their government phase-out coal before continuing their journey to Katowice. Along the way, more than 10,000 people and 17 organisations joined them for a part of their journey.

“Walking to the climate talks is symbolic,” said Eber. “And along the way, we were able to talk to people about climate change and give them suggestions and ideas about how to change their lifestyle and take action to try and save our planet.”

Others had come from much further away. Ezekiel Adigbe, from Benin, in West Africa, came to Katowice with a youth catholic group.

Climate activists

“We have come all this way because it is paramount that we work together to protect our environment and preserve it for the future,” he said.

The heavy police presence in Katowice comes after the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki signed an order declaring an ALFA alert — the first of four increasing terrorism security levels — across the entire southern province of Silesia and the city of Krakow for the duration of the climate talks.

The March for Climate had been given permission by the authorities, but a ban on all spontaneous protests continues to apply in Katowice until December 15.  

Earlier this year, DeSmog UK revealed that the Polish Parliament approved a bill that provides a raft of initiatives to “ensure safety and public order” during talks and allows police to “collect, obtain, process and use information, including personal data about people registered as participants”.

Police checks have also been carried out at Poland’s borders and members of the Climate Action Network (CAN) claimed that least 12 climate activists who were due to attend the climate talks have been denied entry at the Polish border or deported.

Border police

In a statement, Human Rights Watch said it was aware of the issue and that all NGO representatives that were prevented to enter Poland had valid visas and UN accreditation.

Stephan Singer, from CAN, said this was “not isolated instances” and described the situation as “extremely worrying”.

“The full and effective participation by civil society [to the climate talks] is entrenched in the UN convention and in fact is imperative in our efforts to urgently transition to a new climate regime,” he said.

This years climate summit, known as COP24, is widely considered to be the most important climate meeting since 2015 as countries aim to finalise the rulebook to implement the Paris Agreement.

At least 20 NGOS, including 350.org, Greenpeace, SustainUS, Oil Change International, Climate Justice Alliance and the Union of Concerned Scientists have supported a statement strongly condemning border police denying entry to climate talks participants.

In a statement, they warned that “ongoing restrictions on civil society will not stop a resilient climate movement.”

This Article

This article – replete with pictures – first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Fires on peatlands in distant Indonesia and Malaysia turned the already noxious Bangkok air into a filthy brown soup each year. I lived in Bangkok two decades ago when these fires were an annual feature. Now this looks like one of the early signs that we have trashed this planet. 

I remember heading one day down Surawong Road into a viciously crimson sun in a sea of faeces-brown air, thinking that this was what the apocalypse looks like.

So I was particularly pleased last week to hear a German expert commenting on Indonesia’s policies today, at a wide-ranging session on peatlands at the climate talks in Katowice.

Extraordinary efforts

Professor Hans Joosten from the Greifswald Mire Centre said that Indonesia’s plans to “rewet” two million hectares of peatland were a beacon of good practice: “Germany and the rest of the EU could learn from them.” 

Diana Kopansky from UN Environment added that Indonesia had not only passed strong legislation defending peatlands that remained in pristine condition, but that it’s environment minister (Siti Nurbaya Bakar) was vigorously using that legislation to defend them.

Also on the panel, Ruandha Agung Sugardiman, director general of Climate Change Control in Indonesia, looked rightly pleased.

It was a rare piece of good news in a session that set out the climate change impacts of human destruction of organic soils, and also the extreme depletion of nature on fragile lands that were once so rich in animals and plants.

We heard from Professor Mark Reed from Newcastle University of how the UK has lost 94 percent of its lowland raised bogs, while Dr Wiktor Kotowski from Warsaw University outlined how Poland had seen 84 percent of its mires drained, a vast area of 1.5 million hectares once similarly rich.

Even the richest of what’s left in Poland – such as the Rospuda Fen – has had to be defended by extraordinary efforts from environmentalists, while frantic efforts are being made to save threatened species like the beautiful aquatic warbler, whose stronghold is the Biebrza marshes in Poland’s east.

Peatland emissions

These lands emit more than 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, as the soils dry out and degrade. Across the EU, 30 percent of agricultural emissions come from peatland, with the Union the second-largest source of peatland emissions after Indonesia.

Yet these are soils that are often productive for a few years, before turning sour fast. Often then they are abandoned as wasteland, continuing to emit carbon even when no longer used for farming.

Professor Joosten said: “As the soil dries out nutrients are released from the organic matter, but then you lose the potassium, then the phosphorus, you get drought problems. For the long term it doesn’t make sense to drain peatlands”.

He added that not all of that land can be returned to pristine natural mire. What’s needed is a transformation of agriculture: “We only have dry farming because the technologies we still rely on were developed in the Middle East millennia ago. We have to learn to farm wet land.”

Despite the damage this is causing, only half of national offers of National Determined Contributions (NDCs – what each country proposed at Paris for cutting its carbon emissions) include measures to save and restore peatlands, the session heard. Important contributors to that include Indonesia, Iceland and the EU, but the list also includes Afghanistan, not, as one speaker noted drily, particularly known for its peatlands.

Disastrous management 

Then there’s the nightmare that made everyone in the room turn pale when it was mentioned: the recently discovered massive peatlands in Congo, which lock in 30 billion tonnes of carbon. Lose a significant slice of them, and it is game over for the climate.

On that kind of scale, the UK’s issues look small, but they’re certainly not in terms of our share of carbon emissions.

Dr Reed pointed out that the Saddleworth Moor Fire near Manchester this year had been calculated to have released 273,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to Katowice.

That was a reminder that arable farming isn’t the only land use that is deeply problematic, indeed I’d say utterly indefensible. None of our few remaining pristine upland bogs in the UK should be managed for the so-called “sport” of driven grouse shooting (not to mention the downstream flooding impacts, and the mass animal slaughter also associated with it). The Saddleworth Fire corresponded very closely with such management.

Indeed, when you look at what damage has been done around the world, and how little is left of these wonderful environments, it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that what we need is a global ban on any further destruction of peatlands that remain in anything like a natural condition.

As Professor Joosten pointed out, drying out these lands is incredibly wasteful of our planet’s resources. It also risks so many species already struggling to survive on this human-wracked planet, and adds significantly to carbon emissions just as the IPCC tells us we have absolutely no alternative but to slash them.

This Author

Natalie Bennett is a member of Sheffield Green Party and former Green Party leader. She is at COP with the Global Economics Institute. If you are interested in following these issues, panellists recommended the Global Peatlands Initiative.