Air pollution crisis needs ambitious health campaign

Experts are warning that Britain risks sleepwalking into a health crisis unless the government massively invests in public information on air pollution.

Findings released last week by Clean Air Day, the country’s largest air quality campaign, revealed that people respond well when given accurate information and the means to do something about air pollution.

But this is little comfort – according to the charity behind the research – unless the government commits to an information campaign to match the scale of the problem.

No plans

The research was commissioned by Global Action Plan. Chris Large, one of its senior partners, said: “The UK Government knows that children could stop breathing the most dirty air with simple changes to their routine, but it cannot give this basic health advice due to lack of funding.

“When we have needed to fund previous health campaigns such as smoking, drink driving and healthy eating, the government has found the money.

“It’s time that funding was found to educate the millions of people who live in areas of unsafe air pollution.

“Air pollution is an urgent public health issue that’s up there with heart disease, diabetes and cancer. To properly deal with it we need a campaign on a similar scale to no-smoking.”

At present the Department of Health, Public Health England, Defra or any other national body have no plans to run an immediate national public information campaign on air quality. 

Raising awareness

Neither are there plans to provide any training for healthcare professionals so that they can provide urgent advice to patients and the public on how to protect their health from air pollution.

There are also no plans to educate school children and parents on how to limit the extent to which air pollution affects their health.

This year’s annual Clean Air Day campaign, which is backed by leading academics, sixteen medical colleges and other major health bodies, culminated in hundreds of events across the country on 21 June.

It also inspired the UK’s first Clean Air Summit, a gathering of city mayors and other local politicians representing some 20 million people.

The campaign generated more than 1,750 media items and 50,000 social media posts (including those from MPs and ministers) helping to raise awareness of air pollution and what people can do about it.

Indoor pollution

Before- and after campaign polling showed more awareness of air pollution issues following Clean Air Day.

It also revealed a greater public willingness to address problems when people had reliable information to hand.

Findings included more awareness of the dangers of indoor air pollution following the campaign – up by 12 percent to 74 percent of respondents – while 45 percent of people questioned are now aware that cyclists and pedestrians often breathe cleaner air than drivers.

The same findings revealed that 22 percent chose to cycle or walk a route they had previously driven, compared to 16 percent before the campaign – an increase of 37 percent. And 71 percent now open windows for ventilation when they are cooking or cleaning – an increase of 22 percent.

Profound damage

Large said: “These findings are very positive but we’re still only scratching the surface of the problem so far. 

“Hardly a day passes without more evidence of the profound damage that air pollution is having on the nation’s physical and mental health, especially that of the most vulnerable.

“Clean Air Day is urging the government to fund a major public health campaign to help people avoid pollution every day.

“This should be on the scale of no-smoking or, more recently, Change for Life or Be Clear on Cancer health campaigns. An investment of at least ten million pounds per year is needed.

“Surely there is enough evidence now to demonstrate the need for a nationwide public awareness campaign, funded by the government, to protect the health of the public?”

This author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Global Action Plan, an environment charity that is helping people live more sustainable lifestyles.

Who actually wants new oil pipelines?

US Federal Judge Brian Morris has struck a major blow to President Trump’s pro-business, anti-climate agenda of supporting as much new fossil fuel infrastructure as possible

Morris blocked the construction of Keystone XL in response to a lawsuit filed by the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) and North Coast River Alliance.

This is just the latest moment in the rollercoaster struggle against the Keystone Pipeline System and its continuous expansion since it was commissioned in 2010 under the Obama administration.

Fossil frontiers

Obama delayed the XL expansion in 2015 due to a mammoth campaign of resistance led by local Indigenous communities.

One of Trump’s first acts in office was to use executive orders to permit the construction of Keystone XL at the same time as the infamous Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Trump’s approval immediately boosted the shares of the two companies behind the pipelines by 3.5 percent.

Dallas Goldtooth of IEN reported: “Judge Morris has ordered a new [environmental impact survey]” to answer five key questions about the pipeline’s contribution to emissions and Trump’s motivations for reversing Obama’s decision. The judge also ordered a cultural survey to consult Native tribes. This survey could take between six months to a year.

For many, these new pipelines are the frontiers of new fossil fuel infrastructure. They may not themselves do the work of extraction, but they are essential to realising the profitability of fossil fuel companies’ oil and gas reserves.

Pipelines make transporting fuels far more efficient. After they are built, the economy is essentially locked into extracting fossil fuels to pass through them to make the infrastructure financially viable.

Political capital

The companies, banks and governments that invest so much financial and political capital in pipeline approval and construction simply cannot afford for them to lie dormant.

Keystone and DAPL both service the controversial and widely opposed tar sands in Alberta, Canada. New pipelines would increase the capacity of companies profiting from the dirtiest fossil fuels to distribute them across North America.

The battles over proposed oil and gas pipelines spanning North America and now Europe exemplify the depth and complexity of the relationship between fossil capital, private finance and the state.

Alongside Keystone XL and DAPL, TransMountain has become a defining wedge in Canadian politics and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline faces fierce opposition in Southern Italy and across Europe. These pipelines would not be possible without the support of banks and governments globally.

Trans Adriatic Pipeline enjoys the benefits of political and financial backing of the unaccountable European Commission and associated banks including European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

State power

Financiers supporting Energy Transfer Partners’ attempt to construct DAPL included high-street banks Barclays, Wells Fargo and ING. A similar array of banks including Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase back TransCanada who are behind Keystone XL.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal administration is Canada is so committed to making Trans Mountain happen that the Canadian Government spent an incredible 4.5 billion US dollars nationalising the project and taking it out of the hands of private companies and finance.

Grassroots opposition has often brought to light contradictions within the state. At Standing Rock, those protesting DAPL suffered the most widely reported police violence. They faced rubber bullets and water cannons in the freezing night.

State repression of this and other kinds – from FBI spying around Keystone XL protests to placing whole communities on lockdown in Southern Italy – is a feature of the battles over new pipelines.

At the same time, it is other levers of state power that are now proving crucial in the resistance to fossil fuel extraction.

Mass movements 

The courts are upholding basic environmental protections on request of grassroots organisations like IEN, in the face of heavily militarised police and the government’s attempt to force these projects through.

Court orders are unlikely to totally shut down projects like Keystone XL, but leveraging existing law and regulation can win campaigners vital time to exercise other elements of a broad strategy against fossil fuel infrastructure.

Organising for banks to stop financing these projects and the companies behind them must be a key pillar of that strategy.

The Governments of Trump and Trudeau alongside the unaccountable technocrats of the European Commission may be totally committed to the narrow economic interests of fossil capital and private finance so invested in these unnecessary pipelines.

But as long as campaigners build mass movements taking advantage of a diversity of tactics in opposition, we have the power to keep filthy fossil fuels like tar sands in the ground.

This author

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

Hacking the atmosphere

Young European entrepreneurs are participating in the Copernicus AtmosHack – a competition to come up with ideas that could help to reduce people’s exposure to atmospheric pollution and UV radiation. Participants base their innovations on freely available data from the EU’s Copernicus Programme.

This data includes observations from Copernicus and EUMETSAT satellites, ground-based air quality data, and air quality analyses and forecasts produced by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), implemented by ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts).

The hackathon, organised by Ultrahack, takes place in Helsinki on 16-18 November.

Major problem

Reflecting the importance and topicality of the issue of pollution, the winners can look forward to prizes totalling 30,000 euros.

Judges to nominate the winners include Johannes Flemming from CAMS, Mark Higgins from EUMETSAT and Johanna Tamminen from the Finnish Meteorological Institute.

Atmospheric pollution is a major problem around the globe, with WHO’s estimates showing that 91 per cent of the world’s population are exposed to it at least some of the time.

The vast majority of deaths caused by pollution are in developing countries, which have fewer resources available to tackle the problem.

This is why Copernicus is funding the AtmosHack event, which is being organised in collaboration with EUMETSAT, CAMS, the Finnish Meteorological Service (FMI), and the University of Helsinki.

Generous prizes 

Participants are being encouraged to use freely-available data to inform their solutions.

They can decide to develop new mobile or web apps, platforms or other software or hardware solutions; or to add atmosphere-related features to existing platforms. 

Copernicus and its partners will award generous prizes that reflect the importance of the problem of pollution – both today and in the years to come.

For the winners, the award includes a cash prize of €5,000 and acceptance into the Copernicus Accelerator start-up programme with all expenses paid – worth €15,000.

In addition, two teams will win tickets to Slush, a leading start-up event taking place in Helsinki in December. The winning team will also receive free access to WEkEO, the EU’s Copernicus DIAS reference service for environmental data, virtual environments for data processing and skilled user support.

Educational programme

Vincent-Henri Peuch, Head of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, said: “We’re looking forward to being surprised! AtmosHack participants will certainly find new ways to use our CAMS products and kick start the development of innovative business ideas.”

Alongside the AtmosHack hackathon, a free online course about monitoring the Earth’s atmosphere was launched on 5 November 2018.

The Atmosphere MOOC is designed for a general audience and aims to explain atmosphere composition how it is monitored.

Every week, participants can learn from educational videos, interviews with experts in the field of atmospheric science, knowledge-based quizzes and interactive content.

The MOOC is created and carried out by CAMS and EUMETSAT and will run for five weeks.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Copernicus Accelerator. Copernicus Accelerator is an initiative that pairs high-level professionals with young entrepreneurs with innovative Earth observation ideas.

When green is too white

Extracting bitumen from tar sands to make petroleum products like gasoline has been described as the world’s most destructive industry because of the heavy toll it takes on the environment.

As director of the UK Tar Sands Network, Suzanne Dhaliwal has played an important role in opposing the exploitation of tar sands.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

Her work has taken her from standing up for Indigenous communities to challenging racism in the green movement.

Indigenous rights

While tar sands deposits exist globally, Canada’s tar sands are the biggest energy project in the world, currently producing 1.9 million barrels of oil a day.

Tar sands are also the fastest-growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, and deforestation is also a major issue: the tar sands in Alberta stretch across 54,826 square miles, an area bigger than England.

The impact on Alberta’s First Nations communities is devastating: “Tar sands developments scar sacred territories, disturb traditional cultural practices and undermine constitutionally-enshrined treaty rights.” 

The UK Tar Sands Network has been pivotal in internationalising the tar sands issue – Dhaliwal explained: “We were really nimble as a small organisation. Without the restrictions placed on larger organisations, we worked across the spectrum, and used diverse tactics. 

We sowed the seeds for the divestment movement by bringing the frontline voices to BP and Shell to show tar sands extraction was an Indigenous rights and climate disaster.”

WEIRD attitudes

Front cover
Out now!

But over time, Dhaliwal said, it became apparent that there were issues with working in this way, as people weren’t used to taking direction from Indigenous leadership:“As the sole person of colour often organising in climate spaces, it was difficult”.

Dhaliwal uses the acronym ‘WEIRD’ – Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (coined by Joseph Henrich et al. in an article published in 2010) – to describe a particular attitude she says she would come up against.

She said: “You can’t talk about the race issue, about the privilege issue, let alone expect people to take direction from frontline communities.”

Dhaliwal has worked for Indigenous rights for over a decade, beginning with Doctors Against Borders, moving on to Survival International and later joining and organising more grassroots campaigns.

As a Sikh, Dhaliwal talks about how the concept of seva, or selfless service, for spiritual growth and contributing to the community is, for her, entwined with the fight of Indigenous cultures and the way she was trained by the Indigenous Environmental Network in climate justice organising.

Toxic structures

Dhaliwal said that a big challenge – one that precipitated the closing down of the UK Tar Sands Network in April this year – was when Greenpeace Canada did a tar sands action outside Canada House with a post on social media saying, “Today, the resistance against tar sands pipelines went international.”

Dhaliwal called this “erasing the history of Indigenous tar sands activism”. She continued: “Directed by Indigenous leadership we internationalised tar sands and supported frontline resistance in Alberta and this is now the environmental justice issue of our generation.”

In their statement following Dhaliwal’s depart­ure, the UK Tar Sands Network said: “We are using this occasion to break away from toxic organising cultures and drawing a line at the white supremacy in our organising spaces.”

The organisation now exists as No Tar Sands, while Dhaliwal decides where to redirect her energy.

In a response to Dhaliwal’s comments, Areeba Hamid, deputy programme director at Greenpeace UK, said: “We’re grateful to the UK Tar Sands Network for the issues they’ve raised about our pipelines action at Canada House. We’re listening carefully to their concerns and are determined to take them on board.”

Overhauling structures 

Hamid continued: “As a large organisation campaigning on multiple issues, we still have much to learn from grassroots groups that have spent years doing the heavy lifting in areas of work that we are new to.

“This is especially true at a time when many smaller NGOs, often representing marginalised communities, are struggling to secure funds. We’re determined to learn from our mistakes and strive to be better allies to the organisations campaigning in the same space.

“The UK Tar Sands Network has worked tirelessly for years on one of the crucial climate issues of our time, and we would very much like them to continue to do so. Tar sands developments are a major threat to our climate – it’s vital that we build the widest and strongest possible movement to stop them.”

Dhaliwal is calling for an overhaul of the non-profit system: “If we look at what has recently happened with Save the Children and Oxfam in a sector-wide context, we see the need for accountability and transparency across the charity sector.”

If we truly believe in fighting for environmental justice, then we need to look at organisations and ask: how many of you are women? How many are people of colour? Also, what protection is there for these voices in the movement?

Indigenous organising

So, I ask her, how do we move forward? “Accountability and anti-oppression need to go hand-in-hand with environmental activism,” she replied.

Organisations need to focus on creating a safe space to start the conversation. She continued: “Keep talking about things. We need a model of Indigenous organising, a diversity of voices and approaches for solutions for the planet. The climate movement has to represent the wider movement.”

Although very little tar sands oil is currently flowing through UK petrol pumps, large amounts of investment are coming from UK banks and corporations, and NGOs have a role to play in the movement.

Ways forward include empowering those fighting on the ground, tackling the uneven distribution of resources between them and larger, more prominent organisations, and ensuring that their voices are not buried or stolen in the process.

This isn’t about finding Indigenous peoples a seat at the table any more, but about forging a new table based on a deeper understanding of environmental justice in the UK.

Decolonising environmentalism 

So what’s next for Dhaliwal? “I speak less about white supremacy now and am focusing more on creative strategies for decolonising our movement.

“I work as a consultant to organisations and brands that want to do things in an intersectional way. I am also working on an exciting podcast dedi­cated to lifting the strategies and voices of women of colour in the climate movement. Stay tuned!”

As for the wider fight, she said: “Like with fascism, we’ve been too nice. Environmental justice must be on the agenda. We need a model of organising that is a mirror of the world that we are trying to create.” Whether it can be done remains to be seen, but it is crucial to the wellbeing of our planet.

Since this article was written, Greenpeace have been in touch with Suzanne  Dhaliwal to apologise for the events that occurred. They are now working with her to help support her anti-racism work in the UK.

This Author

Zion Lights is the contributing editor of JUNO magazine, TEDx speaker and author of The Ultimate Guide to Green Parenting. The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

The men behind Britain’s climate denying charity

Lord Lawson in 2008 was congratulated in private for his pamphlet attacking climate science and policy by a handful of peers and MPs – mostly from the Tory party. Some even suggest he set up a new foundation to take the fight against climate mitigation to the government of the day.

There was then an intimate groups who were furious that the Climate Change Act had become law. My investigation has shown that almost all had some relationship to Exxon and Koch funded think tanks in the United States, and were accepting funding from British oil and tobacco companies.

David Henderson, a member of free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs’ (IEA) academic advisory council, regularly attended meetings about climate change, and was often found lobbying Richard Ritchie, the political apparatchik for British Petroleum (BP).

Climate Denier Meetings

Henderson resurrected his climate denier meetings for economists and policy wonks at Westminster Business School. Among the regular attendees was Julian Morris, the director of the fatally damaged International Policy Network, and alumni of the IEA environment unit.

Henderson recruited Sir Ian Byatt, who he knew at Oxford as a bright undergraduate, to the climate denial cause over a series of lunches at a private members’ club in London.

“I see him as the impresario, the intellectual Diaghilev who brought together the stars – in Diaghilev’s case Stravinsky, Nijinsky and Picasso, in David’s case Lawson, Lindzen and McKitrick,” Byatt told me.

Dr Benny Peiser, an obscure academic with a keen interest in asteroids and the human fascination with catastrophe, was also among this circle. His newsletter, CCNET, had transmuted to a conference bulletin about asteroid destruction, to a bulletin of the latest news articles casting doubt on climate change science.

Peiser declared “the death of global manmade warming theory” to the newsletter subscribers in November 2007, reporting that rising temperatures could be attributed to a strange bacteria on the seabed.

The scientific paper he was promoting, and the journal that published it, were part of a transparent hoax. And CCNET issued a rather embarrassing retraction.

The following year, Peiser spoke at the Heartland Institute climate change conference in the United States, not for the first time enjoying complimentary flights, hotel room and a generous £1,000 fee for a 30-minute presentation.

Heartland at the time was funded by ExxonMobil and foundations supported by the oil billionaire and free market cash cow Charles Koch.

Tarring Scientists

The IEA, still receiving funding from BP and British American Tobacco, was also tarring climate scientists with the now predictable claims that they were rent seekers falsifying their results and exaggerating the threats to secure government funding.

The think tank produced Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists. The pamphlet was penned by Morris, Henderson, Alan Peacock and Byatt, all free market advocates who were fearful that climate science might prove the need for ‘socialist’ regulation and state planning.

“One of their principal concerns is that large-scale centralised action to combat the supposed ‘threat’ of global climate change is likely to be misdirected and could itself become a threat to freedom and to prosperity,” the IEA reported.

Morris was among the first to promote the argument that climate change action would impact on the poor. He claimed “government attempts to reduce emissions drastically are likely to slow rates of economic growth, thus inflicting harm and reducing the capacity to adapt, particularly in low-income countries”.

Political Mavericks

Lawson, Peiser, Henderson and Chris Horner of the American ExxonMobil-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) were all invited speakers during April 2007 at the European Parliament for the event Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses charged by the then Tory MEP Roger Helmer. Helmer has since defected to UKIP, where he survived being shamed by The Sun for visiting a massage parlour.

There were only loose connections between these mavericks and the cabal of Tories in Parliament who had become increasingly upset at the Climate Change Act being passed into law.

Lord Lawson met with Peter Lilley and also had lunch with Tory MP Andrew Tyrie who discovered, for the first time, that the former chancellor was now a key anti-science ally.

Tyrie told our researcher: “I worked with Nigel at that time. Nigel discussed with me on numerous occasions how best to create such a body and, indeed, developed from a suggestion I originally made to Nigel that he should not try and carry on on his own but needed some support.

“My original suggestion was that he try and find enough resources to employ a young economist or two to assist him and that developed, I suppose, in his mind to the idea of a think tank. I had considerable interest both in its design, its shape and funding and overhang and was very closely involved in its creation, very closely involved.”

Relying on Deniers

There was some difficulty finding academics willing to go against the almost universal understanding of the climate science. Lawson made contact with economists, but when it came to climate scientists, he had to rely on the reliable American deniers, almost all of whom had some association with oil companies – almost always Koch and ExxonMobil.

Lord Christopher Monckton, already known for being eccentric to the point of incomprehensible, also claims to have been among those Lawson (to whom he is related by marriage) approached for advice about climate science. Monckton has been supported by CFACT, which has been funded by ExxonMobil.

I asked Monckton why he was not a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He said: “I work very closely… I don’t belong to them but I go to their meetings, I receive their material, Benny Peiser in fact has been sending me his wonderful summary of events for years long before he even went to the GWPF – partly at my suggestion.

“I know Nigel [Lawson] quite well and he told me he was setting it up, and he said, ‘who should we get to direct it’ and I said, ‘oh, Benny Peiser’. So of course I am not on their academic board – I am not an academic. I am dealing mainly with climate science, and they are dealing mainly with climate economics.

“And besides, they know that if they want to try and argue this in the UK, having someone like me there makes it look as though this is just another organisation that is doing some kind of political campaigning, but it isn’t. Neither am I – but the Left has spent a lot of time and money adjusting my image, mainly on the internet.”

He added: “I communicate with Nigel Lawson from time to time, with Benny Peiser quite regularly on various matters…”

Lawson and Singer

Lawson was, during this period, in almost weekly contact with S Fred Singer, the grandfather of US climate denial, according to the latter. Singer spoke alongside Lawson at the Centre for Policy Studies in June 2008 after Lawson had persuaded Thatcher’s old think tank to attack climate science.

Lawson himself had some housekeeping to deal with. He had recently stepped down after the maximum nine-year term as president of the British Institute of Energy Economics, a charity funded by BP and Shell to form links between the oil industry, politicians, civil servants and academics.

The former chancellor, known for simplifying the British tax system, also sold his shares in a company called Central Europe Trust (CET) to an offshore shell company registered to an office of a tax avoidance specialist with its directors and owners hidden from public scrutiny.

CET was established just before the fall of the Berlin Wall as a consultancy to Western corporations keen to buy and strip the assets of companies in the former Soviet Union. By the time Lawson sold out, CET had worked for many of the major oil companies, including the Polish state-owned coal monopoly, and had aggressively sought work among tobacco companies.

The challenge was bringing these fiercely individualistic and iconoclastic individuals together, and presenting climate deniers as considered and well-informed contenders rather than a bunch of eccentrics with no experience of climate research. This was the challenge Lawson chose to accept.

Horner’s Idea

In 2005, Horner, the CEI attorney, set out plans for a new European think tank attacking climate change. He proposed the group be called the Sound Climate Policy Coalition. But his secret plan, set out in an apparent funding proposal to energy companies, was exposed.

So the name would never be used. Lord Lawson, some three years later, came up with an entirely different name for his entirely unrelated initiative: the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

However, Dr Peiser, now director of the GWPF, has a very different and sometimes contradictory understanding of the history of his own charity. He has denied the IEA played a role in its formation.

And he denied S Fred Singer was influential at the beginning. “Fred Singer is not involved with the GWPF. He is not one of our advisors. We’re not taking any advice, so I don’t know what you’re trying to establish but there is no link. Absolutely zero link,” he told me.

“You see, he is more into the science. We are more into the policy. That was not… and we have different views on a lot of issues anyhow. So he was not involved and we didn’t ask him, we didn’t look for his advice and, to my knowledge, this claim that he was somehow communicating with Lord Lawson is nonsense.”

Singer later spoke alongside Lawson at the IEA event where he announced the founding of the GWPF.

Peiser also argues that Lord Monckton was not involved in the GWPF. “Yes, but you know from what we do that we don’t deal with Christopher Monckton, and we never have, and so you should know there is no relationship.” He added: “Lord Monckton has had no, absolutely no, contact with me or Lord Lawson. Zero.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Towards a ‘Global Deal for Nature and People’

A combination of growing awareness, an emerging movement for change and the prospect for political breakthrough all signal that the world is waking up to the scale of the threat.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

It is not only among activists and campaigners that there is an emerging sense of urgency, but also in the boardrooms of major consumer goods companies, multi-billion-dollar investment houses and among some governments.

All this not least because of the growing realisation that properly functioning natural systems are vital for people’s health, wealth and security.

Environmental restoration 

Here in the UK, public demand is also growing. For example, the political think tank Bright Blue published a report in the wake of the UK’s 2017 general election setting out how one reason the governing Conservative party did poorly among younger voters was its apparent lack of commitment to environmental causes.

Out Now!
Out Now!

These findings help explain the subsequent very welcome rise in profile of environmental issues in politics, laying the foundations for stronger cross-party consensus.

This shift in the public mood offers a rare opportunity to build a new movement for Nature, one that could create a bigger political and public space for action.

The information and research telling us what governments and companies need to do has been in existence for years. What’s been missing is the public demand for action, and the political will to deliver it.

But just as in 2008 there was a polit­ical moment that allowed the passage of the Climate Change Act, the public mood is shifting in favour of change.

Ambitious agenda

We need to grasp this moment to deliver strong new environmental laws at home, in the form of a new environment act requiring the recovery of Nature, alongside new farming policies that promote environmental restoration.

National leadership in key countries, including the UK, would help take forward proposals for a Global Deal for Nature and People, to be agreed in 2020.

This would be a commitment from heads of state when they meet at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, spelling out how it is no longer rational or acceptable to degrade Nature, and instead placing us on a path toward the restoration of the natural world.

Underpinning this would be a series of agreements forged in 2020 in a series of important summits, including new national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It would also involved a renewed ambition for the Paris Agreement on climate change, a strengthening of the environmental commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals, and a new agreement on the conservation of wildlife in the high seas.

Join together

This is an ambitious agenda, and needs to be. With sufficient public support and political will, we can halt the long-term decline of Nature and begin restoring the planet that sustains us.

Whether world leaders rise to the challenge is a matter of choice, including in individual countries, such as the UK, which if it wished could show the kind of leadership needed.

The scale of human impacts on the Earth is now utterly unsustainable.

The question now is not whether the world is under threat, but rather whether we will act in time. We need to join together in a movement to demand that the world take action and give us a Global Deal for Nature and People.

This Author

Tony Juniper is Executive Director for Advocacy and Campaigns at WWF-UK. This article first appeared in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine, which is out now!

MPs’ anger over solar ‘daylight robbery’

The government has recently announced plans to axe the ‘export tariff’ for new solar installations – in what for many was a surprise move.

Twenty two MPs took part in a pitch-black photo shoot to illustrate this ‘daylight robbery’ and the threat to new solar homes next year.

Participants included Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis, Shadow Energy Minister Alan Whitehead, Conservative MP David Amess, Green MP Caroline Lucas and SNP energy spokespeople Drew Hendry and Alan Brown.

Fair rates

The export tariff is a fair market payment for clean power exported to the grid from solar homes and buildings.

If these plans go through, householders, schools, churches and other public buildings undertaking new solar projects will be forced to effectively donate the excess clean electricity they generate to big energy companies for free.

The proposal runs counter to new EU laws which requires governments to ensure people are paid ‘at a fair market rate’ for the clean power they contribute to the grid.

A recent YouGov poll by campaign group 10:10 shows over 70 percent of people want to see the UK Government follow suit and continue to pay people fairly for the clean power they produce.

The campaigners, which include the Solar Trade Association, 10:10 Climate Action, UK Youth Climate Coalition, NFU, ECA and Community Energy England, are calling on the government for fair treatment of rooftop solar with a fair export tariff guaranteed after March 2019.

Clean energy

Max Wakefield lead campaigner at 10:10 said: “What the government proposes is daylight robbery – literally. Like a vampire this move threatens to suck the life out of the solar industry.

“We urge every one of our lawmakers to get behind our campaign for basic fair treatment for solar homes and communities.

“Action on climate change, solar jobs and clean power for ordinary households, businesses and community organisations is at stake.”

Sir David Amess MP added: “The solar industry has taken the UK from near zero to over a million installations in just 8 years. In doing so solar costs have come tumbling down – but it stands to reason even cheap energy still needs payment for the power it provides.

That’s why I’m backing this campaign to ensure fair treatment for new solar households and businesses. The clean energy and jobs of tomorrow are at stake”

Nonsensical barriers

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The British public love solar – nine out of ten people back it, and three out of every 5 would like to install solar panels themselves.

“The government’s bizarre plans to stop homes and businesses being paid for the clean power they produce will make this all but impossible.

“I’m calling on the energy minister Claire Perry to bring government policy in line with the public’s desire for clean energy at a fair price.”

Leonie Greene, new markets director at the Solar Trade Association added: “We are very grateful for the support these MPs have given.  It is extraordinary & very sad that we are having to fight for basic fair market treatment for people who want to install solar power in future.

“Solar is now very affordable so it is vital that Government doesn’t create new nonsensical barriers to people & communities all over the UK who want to go solar.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from 10:10. You can read more about their Daylight Robbery campaign here

Towards a ‘Global Deal for Nature and People’

A combination of growing awareness, an emerging movement for change and the prospect for political breakthrough all signal that the world is waking up to the scale of the threat.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

It is not only among activists and campaigners that there is an emerging sense of urgency, but also in the boardrooms of major consumer goods companies, multi-billion-dollar investment houses and among some governments.

All this not least because of the growing realisation that properly functioning natural systems are vital for people’s health, wealth and security.

Environmental restoration 

Here in the UK, public demand is also growing. For example, the political think tank Bright Blue published a report in the wake of the UK’s 2017 general election setting out how one reason the governing Conservative party did poorly among younger voters was its apparent lack of commitment to environmental causes.

Out Now!
Out Now!

These findings help explain the subsequent very welcome rise in profile of environmental issues in politics, laying the foundations for stronger cross-party consensus.

This shift in the public mood offers a rare opportunity to build a new movement for Nature, one that could create a bigger political and public space for action.

The information and research telling us what governments and companies need to do has been in existence for years. What’s been missing is the public demand for action, and the political will to deliver it.

But just as in 2008 there was a polit­ical moment that allowed the passage of the Climate Change Act, the public mood is shifting in favour of change.

Ambitious agenda

We need to grasp this moment to deliver strong new environmental laws at home, in the form of a new environment act requiring the recovery of Nature, alongside new farming policies that promote environmental restoration.

National leadership in key countries, including the UK, would help take forward proposals for a Global Deal for Nature and People, to be agreed in 2020.

This would be a commitment from heads of state when they meet at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, spelling out how it is no longer rational or acceptable to degrade Nature, and instead placing us on a path toward the restoration of the natural world.

Underpinning this would be a series of agreements forged in 2020 in a series of important summits, including new national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It would also involved a renewed ambition for the Paris Agreement on climate change, a strengthening of the environmental commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals, and a new agreement on the conservation of wildlife in the high seas.

Join together

This is an ambitious agenda, and needs to be. With sufficient public support and political will, we can halt the long-term decline of Nature and begin restoring the planet that sustains us.

Whether world leaders rise to the challenge is a matter of choice, including in individual countries, such as the UK, which if it wished could show the kind of leadership needed.

The scale of human impacts on the Earth is now utterly unsustainable.

The question now is not whether the world is under threat, but rather whether we will act in time. We need to join together in a movement to demand that the world take action and give us a Global Deal for Nature and People.

This Author

Tony Juniper is Executive Director for Advocacy and Campaigns at WWF-UK. This article first appeared in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine, which is out now!

MPs’ anger over solar ‘daylight robbery’

The government has recently announced plans to axe the ‘export tariff’ for new solar installations – in what for many was a surprise move.

Twenty two MPs took part in a pitch-black photo shoot to illustrate this ‘daylight robbery’ and the threat to new solar homes next year.

Participants included Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis, Shadow Energy Minister Alan Whitehead, Conservative MP David Amess, Green MP Caroline Lucas and SNP energy spokespeople Drew Hendry and Alan Brown.

Fair rates

The export tariff is a fair market payment for clean power exported to the grid from solar homes and buildings.

If these plans go through, householders, schools, churches and other public buildings undertaking new solar projects will be forced to effectively donate the excess clean electricity they generate to big energy companies for free.

The proposal runs counter to new EU laws which requires governments to ensure people are paid ‘at a fair market rate’ for the clean power they contribute to the grid.

A recent YouGov poll by campaign group 10:10 shows over 70 percent of people want to see the UK Government follow suit and continue to pay people fairly for the clean power they produce.

The campaigners, which include the Solar Trade Association, 10:10 Climate Action, UK Youth Climate Coalition, NFU, ECA and Community Energy England, are calling on the government for fair treatment of rooftop solar with a fair export tariff guaranteed after March 2019.

Clean energy

Max Wakefield lead campaigner at 10:10 said: “What the government proposes is daylight robbery – literally. Like a vampire this move threatens to suck the life out of the solar industry.

“We urge every one of our lawmakers to get behind our campaign for basic fair treatment for solar homes and communities.

“Action on climate change, solar jobs and clean power for ordinary households, businesses and community organisations is at stake.”

Sir David Amess MP added: “The solar industry has taken the UK from near zero to over a million installations in just 8 years. In doing so solar costs have come tumbling down – but it stands to reason even cheap energy still needs payment for the power it provides.

That’s why I’m backing this campaign to ensure fair treatment for new solar households and businesses. The clean energy and jobs of tomorrow are at stake”

Nonsensical barriers

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The British public love solar – nine out of ten people back it, and three out of every 5 would like to install solar panels themselves.

“The government’s bizarre plans to stop homes and businesses being paid for the clean power they produce will make this all but impossible.

“I’m calling on the energy minister Claire Perry to bring government policy in line with the public’s desire for clean energy at a fair price.”

Leonie Greene, new markets director at the Solar Trade Association added: “We are very grateful for the support these MPs have given.  It is extraordinary & very sad that we are having to fight for basic fair market treatment for people who want to install solar power in future.

“Solar is now very affordable so it is vital that Government doesn’t create new nonsensical barriers to people & communities all over the UK who want to go solar.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from 10:10. You can read more about their Daylight Robbery campaign here

Towards a ‘Global Deal for Nature and People’

A combination of growing awareness, an emerging movement for change and the prospect for political breakthrough all signal that the world is waking up to the scale of the threat.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

It is not only among activists and campaigners that there is an emerging sense of urgency, but also in the boardrooms of major consumer goods companies, multi-billion-dollar investment houses and among some governments.

All this not least because of the growing realisation that properly functioning natural systems are vital for people’s health, wealth and security.

Environmental restoration 

Here in the UK, public demand is also growing. For example, the political think tank Bright Blue published a report in the wake of the UK’s 2017 general election setting out how one reason the governing Conservative party did poorly among younger voters was its apparent lack of commitment to environmental causes.

Out Now!
Out Now!

These findings help explain the subsequent very welcome rise in profile of environmental issues in politics, laying the foundations for stronger cross-party consensus.

This shift in the public mood offers a rare opportunity to build a new movement for Nature, one that could create a bigger political and public space for action.

The information and research telling us what governments and companies need to do has been in existence for years. What’s been missing is the public demand for action, and the political will to deliver it.

But just as in 2008 there was a polit­ical moment that allowed the passage of the Climate Change Act, the public mood is shifting in favour of change.

Ambitious agenda

We need to grasp this moment to deliver strong new environmental laws at home, in the form of a new environment act requiring the recovery of Nature, alongside new farming policies that promote environmental restoration.

National leadership in key countries, including the UK, would help take forward proposals for a Global Deal for Nature and People, to be agreed in 2020.

This would be a commitment from heads of state when they meet at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, spelling out how it is no longer rational or acceptable to degrade Nature, and instead placing us on a path toward the restoration of the natural world.

Underpinning this would be a series of agreements forged in 2020 in a series of important summits, including new national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It would also involved a renewed ambition for the Paris Agreement on climate change, a strengthening of the environmental commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals, and a new agreement on the conservation of wildlife in the high seas.

Join together

This is an ambitious agenda, and needs to be. With sufficient public support and political will, we can halt the long-term decline of Nature and begin restoring the planet that sustains us.

Whether world leaders rise to the challenge is a matter of choice, including in individual countries, such as the UK, which if it wished could show the kind of leadership needed.

The scale of human impacts on the Earth is now utterly unsustainable.

The question now is not whether the world is under threat, but rather whether we will act in time. We need to join together in a movement to demand that the world take action and give us a Global Deal for Nature and People.

This Author

Tony Juniper is Executive Director for Advocacy and Campaigns at WWF-UK. This article first appeared in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine, which is out now!