Lord Lawson began his public relations attack on climate science in earnest on 8 March 2007 when he appeared alongside the distinguished cast of oil-funded deniers on the Channel Four programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Lawson used the platform to try and undermine Margaret Thatcher’s legacy as the politician who had placed climate change at the centre of global political debate, claiming her support was just a Machiavellian counterattack against coal workers and the National Union of Miners.

The programme was directed by Martin Durkin, a former Marxist who had become close friends with Julian Morris and the radical free market Institute of Economic Affairs. Durkin told me that Morris, then at the International Policy Network, was very much the inspiration for the show.

Provocative programme

‘Swindle’ was a deliberately provocative polemic and Durkin was entirely at ease with editing interviews – on at least one occasion – so that the participants appeared to be saying exactly the opposite of what they had in fact proposed. He claims that global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists.

Sir David King, then chief scientific advisor to the UK Government, complained to Channel Four about how his own contribution had been manipulated. After the show aired there were more than 260 further complaints from viewers. Professor Chris Rapley, then head of the British Antarctic Survey, described the programme as “a tissue of lies”.

Bob Ward from the Royal Society, who had previously taken on ExxonMobil, drafted a 180 page report for the broadcast regulator, accusing the programme of “displaying erroneous or artificially manipulated graphs, and presenting incorrect, misleading, or incomplete opinions and facts on the science of global warming and the related economics.”

Ward told me: “I thought it was outrageous. I thought: how is it possible that this has been allowed to be broadcast, because it’s so blatantly full of demonstrably false information? What I decided to do was to organise a joint letter by a group of climate scientists to complain about it.”

Not impartial

Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, indeed ruled that Channel Four had broken impartiality guidelines and had misrepresented statements by King. They found the programme’s representation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unfair, as was its treatment of Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT.

There were several contributors who had no complaints about the programme – indeed, they only had cause of celebration. Many of them had become familiar faces to those scrutinising ExxonMobil’s and the Koch brothers’ funding of climate denial.

Fred Singer was asked to give an expert opinion, with no reference to the fact that he had previously worked as a consultant to major oil companies including ExxonMobil. Tim Ball, also funded by fossil fuels, was interviewed, as were Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Patrick Michaels.

Among those supporting the programme was Christopher Booker, the ever-eccentric Sunday Telegraph columnist.

He celebrated the broadcast “as unashamedly one-sided in putting the sceptical objections to the theory of man-made global warming as innumerable BBC programmes had been in conveying the ‘consensus’ view.”

Political spin

Stewart Dimmock – described as a 45-year-old lorry driver and school governor from Kent – apparently took it upon himself to take the Labour Government to court to prevent the distribution of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to schools. He claimed the “political spin” should be balanced by the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ being sent out at the same time.

“I care about the environment as much as the next man,” Dimmock was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying. “However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom”.

Much of the charm of Dimmock’s David-and-Goliath assault on Al Gore – and support for Martin Durkin – was the fact that he was not a political animal. Yet, it was not long before Viscount Monckton, the Tory peer, revealed himself as among those bankrolling the legal battle.

Monckton also threatened to send out his own film, Apocalypse No!, with the financial support of Fred Singer and his Science and Public Policy Institute, which was once housed with the Atlas Foundation, set up by Antony Fisher and supported with plumes of tobacco funding.

Lawson lent considerable gravitas to ‘Swindle’, but was shrewd enough to distance himself from Monckton’s headline-grabbing antics. It was also shortly after his appearance on Channel 4 that he began to unwind his investments in a consultancy company working closely with Polish coal, oil and gas companies.

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. 

World Vegan Day is a time to recognise how far the vegan movement has come and to raise awareness of the many benefits of a vegan lifestyle. It is commemorated through exhibitions, seminars, public debates and workshops.

The day presents a perfect opportunity for anyone looking to adopt the vegan lifestyle – and the Vegan Society has today launched an innovative new app to help people switch.

There are now more vegans than ever, with recent polling suggesting that the number of UK vegans has quadrupled in the last four years alone – there really is no better time to try out the lifestyle for yourself.

VeGuide app

The first World Vegan Day was celebrated in 1994, and since then 1 November has attracted greater significance and international recognition every year.

Plant-based food ranges are expanding and are a far cry from the typical hummus and veg sandwich you were lucky to find in a café a few years ago, or the sad reality of having to order chips and an undressed side salad when out for dinner with friends. Quite the opposite – options are becoming more creative, flavourful and exciting than ever before.

VeGuide is perfect for anyone considering transitioning to a vegan lifestyle. If you’d like to give plant-based living a go but you’re not quite sure where to start, VeGuide has you covered – simply download the app to follow our easy 30-day programme.

Each day, you will be treated to a short video covering the most common topics that arise in the early days of going vegan. You can also select your personal reasons for going vegan to receive regular encouraging boosts along the way, especially tailored to you!

Get involved

VeGuide features recipes, shopping tips and nutritional information, and is brought to life by video content featuring our friendly vegan presenters.

We currently have a UK and a US version of the app, with advice customised to include resources and products available in each area of the world, with plans to expand to include more countries in the future.

If you are not yet vegan, then World Vegan Month presents an opportunity like no other to give it a go. You could try downloading the app and see how you get on over the course of your month, or if that feels like too big a step then simply try experimenting more with vegan food over November.

You could organise a vegan potluck and invite your friends to all bring over a different vegan dish. This is a great way to familiarise yourself with vegan cooking while having fun and trying something different.

There are also many easily accessible documentaries on veganism which you can access online or through a Netflix account. World Vegan Month would be the ideal time to find out a bit more about veganism, from whatever angle takes your fancy – whether that be the environmental benefits of a plant-based lifestyle, the hard-to-ignore animal rights angle or motivations related to health and wellbeing.

There are so many reasons to find out more about veganism, and World Vegan Day and Month could be the little nudge you need. We would love to hear about your adventures in veganism throughout November – please tag #WorldVeganDay and #WorldVeganMonth on social media and let us know how you’re getting on.

This Author 

Elena Orde is communication and campaigns officer for the The Vegan Society. 

Liam Fox’s plans for post-Brexit trade deals were dealt a blow by the Scottish Parliament yesterday as Holyrood’s Finance and Constitution Committee advised MSPs not to give consent to the controversial Trade Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords.

Nick Dearden, the director of Global Justice Now, also told MPs on Westminster’s International Trade committee that the Department for International Trade was failing to allow either the public or MPs basic information which would allow them to prevent a disastrous trade deal with Donald Trump’s USA.

Dearden told MPs that it was impossible for the public or MPs to debate or hold the government to account on trade deals when no detail at all was provided on the government’s strategy or objectives.

Freedom of information

Dearden pointed to official statistics which show that in the last quarter of freedom of information requests submitted to Dr Fox’s department 48 percent of requests were completely rejected and only 27 percent of requests were met in full.

Meanwhile the department holds the record for being the least punctual – 34 percent were not answered in the permitted time period in the last quarter. 

Dearden said: “We have had the most basic information requests turned down – like when and where do Liam Fox’s trade working groups meet with other countries. What can possibly be the justification for withholding such information?

“It bodes extremely ill for our ability to hold Fox to account for post-Brexit trade deals, and means we could easily walk into a ‘race to the bottom’ deal with Trump. The government must understand that trade deals are not corporate deals, discussed behind closed doors. They affect all of us – our food quality, our NHS, how we treat the banks.

“Transparency is vital if we’re not to repeat the disaster of TTIP.”   

Scotland has the right to withhold consent for Fox’s Trade Bill, which lays out a process for agreeing some post-Brexit trade deals. Yesterday’s cross-party Holyrood committee brought that reality one step closer.

Testing devolution

While the decision would not necessarily scupper the bill, it would set up a constitutional battle between Holyrood and Westminster, and drain the government’s trade strategy of much needed legitimacy.

Importantly, the Holyrood committee has also stated that it is essential that the devolved institutions are involved at all stages of the trade negotiation process and is also challenging the UK government to publicly respond to that.

Liz Murray, head of Scottish campaigns at Global Justice Now said: “It’s clear that the UK government’s trade bill is really testing the devolution settlement and raising important questions about where the power lies over trade deals that the UK government makes after it leaves the European Union.

“For many months, we’ve been calling for Scotland and the other devolved nations of the UK to be given a formal say over post-Brexit trade deals since the impacts of those deals will be felt across the UK. In their report today, Holyrood’s finance and constitution committee are absolutely right to recognise that trade agreements include a wide range of issues that fall within devolved areas.  

“The extent of modern trade deals is so far reaching that this includes not just the obvious devolved areas of food safety, farming and fishing, but also public services such as health, water provision and even education.  It’s absolutely vital that members of the Scottish parliament get a say in post-Brexit trade deals before, during and after their negotiation.  The best way that we have to make sure this happens is for the UK trade bill to be amended.”

The Trade Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords in September and is awaiting a date for committee stage. At least six trade democracy amendments have so far been tabled. 

A UK Government spokesperson said:

“The Trade Bill is about ensuring continuity for businesses and consumers across the UK and our international trade partners, ensuring that the essential legal structures that will enable the UK to operate an independent trade policy are in place.

“Additionally, the UK Government is committed to seeking the input of the Devolved Administrations on future trade policy, recognising the role they will have in developing and delivering it.

“Last year, the Department for International Trade published a White Paper preparing for the UK’s future trade policy, in which the Government’s commitment to the transparency and inclusiveness in future trading arrangements was set out. Also, the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority, a vital new agency to safeguard UK industry as the government prepares for an independent UK trade policy, will protect the interest of industries across the UK.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Global Justice Now. 

Ever since Blue Planet II hit our screens last winter, plastic – and plastic packaging – has been at the forefront of the national and international policy debate. Indeed, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) research suggests as many as 88 percent of people want to reduce their consumption of plastic packaging.

One of the great questions in the quest to reduce waste plastic is whether paper or card offers a solution to the plastic crisis. We know some products need to be packaged in plastic for food safety reasons, to increase shelf life or for ease of transportation. But for those items that don’t need plastic, do paper or card offer a credible alternative?

Morrisons recently announced it was bringing back the traditional brown paper bag for groceries in an effort to save an estimated 150 million plastic bags every year.

Completely illogically

Despite public concern about single use plastic, the decision was met with some scepticism by the Environment Agency and WRAP, the industry body for waste management. Indeed, many packaging producers have rushed to the defence of plastic as the sensible packaging solution for many products.

Some of the arguments against paper packaging are well-known – that it’s bulkier, heavier and takes more energy and water to make and transport. In other words, the carbon footprint of paper and card is actually greater than that of plastic.

These arguments ignore the work being done by some of the world’s leading cardboard manufacturers to increase levels of renewable energy use, recycle the non-fibre elements of processed wood to generate heat and electricity on site and dramatic reductions of the water used in their processes. Arguments also ignore the wider, long-lasting issues with plastic.

Soil Association Certification Forestry, as one of the biggest forest management and chain of custody certification bodies in the UK – certifying to both FSC and PEFC standards – is well positioned to inform this debate.

Plastic is designed to last – over 500 years! Yet, completely illogically, 50 percent of them are single use. An estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean each year, including the great South Pacific Garbage Patch, estimated to be three times the size of France.

Cardboard production

While some plastics may break down into much smaller pieces over time, these tiny pieces become micro pollution that leech into waterways and the food we eat.

Researchers at the University of Manchester recently found that a British river has the highest levels of microplastic pollution recorded anywhere in the world. Most ocean plastic is at plankton level – alarming given that plankton provide 50 percent of all the oxygen we breathe. 

‘Compostable’ plastics – seen by many as a possible packaging solution – largely require industrial composting and can pollute the recyclability of ‘normal’ plastics if they get into the regular recycling stream.

While these plastics may one day provide a solution, the current lack of clarity on methods of disposal is a major hindrance to efforts to reduce the plastic that ends up as waste and in the environment.  

In contrast, the wood fibre used to produce paper, card and cardboard production is highly recyclable, with packaging materials having the highest recycled content of any consumer products.

Carbon sinks

The paper recycling rate in Europe reached a near theoretical maximum of 71.5 percent in 2015, up from just 50 percent in 1998. In contrast, figures released earlier this year show plastic recycling on the continent is languishing at 40.9 percent, despite global concern.

The paper industry has been a driving force in achieving this high recycling rate. Since 2000, the European paper value chain has been committed to increasing recycling, in part by joining efforts to remove obstacles that had previously hampered paper recycling in Europe.

These efforts to create a paper fibre loop offer the current EU-level discussions on the Circular Economy a clear and workable model to be followed. 

Forests managed responsibly are, of course, not just sources of a raw material. When managed to internationally-recognised schemes like FSC or PEFC they can deliver beautiful landscapes, clean water, and habitats for a range of wildlife.

They support tourism and well-being. They also act as carbon sinks, trapping more carbon within them than nearly all other landscapes. All things that fossil-fuel derived alternatives cannot do.

Recycled, certified

As demand for paper and card products increase in the wake of world-wide concern about plastic, the economic value of productive forests will increase.

Certified forests that meet independently verified standards on social, environmental and economic factors will become more important to reduce irresponsible loss of natural forests. Shoppers who want to purchase timber, paper and packaging products that are responsibly sourced should look for the FSC or PEFC logos for reassurance.

A shift away from plastic packaging is essential, and while such system change can seem daunting, with a supportive policy environment major shifts can happen quickly.

The landfill tax in 1996 and plastic bag levy in 2015 are good examples of this. In the meantime, timber and plant-based solutions from recycled, certified and responsibly managed sources can be a solution to much of the packaging we currently create from plastic.

This author

Kevin Jones is head of forestry for Soil Association Certification Forestry and is responsible for their global forest certification programme, certifying to FSC and PEFC forest management and chain of custody standards. For more on our work as a timber certification body, visit its website. 

The UK government has submitted a voluntary commitment to step up its efforts to tackle air pollution across the country at the final High Level Action Day of the conference today.

The first-ever international air pollution conference organised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) brought together government officials and health experts from more than 100 countries to place the issue on the global agenda. At least 18 other national governments, eight cities and 20 NGOs also submitted individual commitments.

Air pollution is the fourth biggest threat to public health in the UK, after cancer, obesity and heart disease.

Roadside hotspots

The launch of a Clean Air Strategy in May by environment secretary Michael Gove already indicated the reduction of air pollution has become a priority for the UK government. The WHO estimates that the UK Clean Air Strategy will reduce the costs of air pollution to British society by £1 billion every year by 2020.

In Geneva today, the UK government has further committed to take action in bringing down particulate matter in the country, the most harmful air pollutant, promising to halve the number of British people living with concentrations of particulate matter above the WHO guideline of 10 μg/m3 by 2025.

Dr Thérèse Coffey MP, the under secretary of state for the environment confirmed in a written statement to the Global Air Pollution conference that her government will start legislation for a new Environment Act by early 2019.

First generation

The new Environment Act will give local governments more powers to take decisive action in areas with an air pollution problem and will put stricter standards in place for domestic fuels and stoves.

The UK’s commitment for Clean Air in Geneva today also highlighted the commitment of a £3.5bn government investment to reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at roadside hotspots, including £1.2bn to improve provision for walking and cycling and £475 million to help local authorities develop and implement local air quality plans.

“Governments cannot do this alone. That is why [our air pollution measures] have collaboration at their heart, working with businesses, farmers, industry and households, to develop innovative new solutions to reduce emissions,” MP Thérèse Coffey stated.

“We are committed to being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.”

This Author

Arthur Wyns is a tropical biologist and science journalist who writes about climate change, environment and migration. He tweets from @ArthurWyns

Lord Monckton hoisted himself into centre stage of the denier circus in November 2006 with a double-page feature in the then respectable Sunday Telegraph, in which he claimed climate science was “a Sci-Fi panic”.

The eccentric Scottish peer would boast: “In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph’s website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week’s article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun’s role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming.”

The newspaper article represented a remarkable return after illness to the media spotlight for a man apparently addicted to publicity and the adoration of the crowd. As the satirical magazine Private Eye reported at the time, the article was “largely incomprehensible”.

Untidy Factoids

Tim Lambert, of the Deltoid science blog, was even more dismissive. “The main problem with his article is that he doesn’t know what he’s writing about it. He offers up an untidy pile of factoids, some of which are true but out of context, some of which are not at all true, and some of which he seems to have conjured up out of thin air.”

Prior to this news splash, the viscount had appeared in the press in 2000 as the inventor of the Eternity puzzle and the man who promised £1m to the first person to find its solution. Two Cambridge mathematicians were quick to claim the prize. Monckton at first claimed the payout forced him to sell his 67-room mansion – and then later that he had lied to get more publicity for the puzzle.

Many years earlier, Monckton had worked as a junior advisor in Margaret Thatcher’s highly politicised Number 10 Policy Unit, and claimed to have introduced the first computer to government.

He also claimed to have been the first to persuade the PM to take the issue of climate change seriously. It may have been this remarkable and totally unsubstantiated claim that persuaded Patience Wheatcroft, the then editor of the Sunday Telegraph, to take his rambling feature seriously.

However, he failed to get a mention in the former prime minister’s autobiography years later.

As it would happen, Monckton’s sister Rose is married to Lord Lawson’s eldest son Dominic. But both men deny that it was Lawson who had persuaded his in-law to adopt the well-worn and tragic claims that scientists had conspired to construct an international conspiracy in order to support the case for a Communist global government.

Monckton’s Denial

So how exactly did it come to be that Lord Monckton should become the spokesperson for the more eclectic climate deniers – flown around the world by ExxonMobil-funded think tanks like the ominous sounding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) – to attack scientists?

This is how Monckton himself takes up the story: “Well, I didn’t decide. It was all accidentally; I was rung up by the chief executive of a boutique finance house.”

According to Monckton, the mystery chief executive said: “Look, all our investors want to pile in on this green investment stuff but I want to know: is there a problem with the climate?”

Monckton replied: “Oh yes, I advised Margaret Thatcher on it 25 years ago and it was quite clear then that the scientists were worried and I recommended to find out more.”

CEO: “[We] would like you to find out more.”

Monckton, he says, “spent a month on his dime” investigating the science and sent the investor a 40-page report. It concluded that climate change did not represent a serious threat.

The man called a few days later and demanded: “Why should I pay any attention to this?”

Monckton: “Well, you asked me to do this, I gave it my best shot, you’ve got all my evidence there.”

CEO: “I’ve consulted a dozen people, all of them more eminent than you…”

Monckton: “Well, thank you very much.”

CEO: “And they all tell me that this is a real problem, this is the worst problem humanity has ever faced and we have to do everything we can to stop this and you’ve said: ‘no problem at all’.”

Monckton: ‘Well I don’t say there is no problem at all, I say it’s not likely that there is much of a problem and even if it were it would be cheaper to let it happen.”

CEO: “Well, we are going to go with you and not the other 11.”

Monckton: “Why is that?”

CEO: “You’re the only one who provided any evidence, and you’ve provided 40 pages of it. The others all told me that I had to believe: I didn’t get where I am today by believing stuff.”

Generous Financier

Monckton has always refused to give up the name of the financier who paid him generously to investigate climate science who and set him on the path of attacking scientists in talks in the United States and Australia ever since.

However, my investigation established that the mystery man is Edgar Miller, a right-wing American who claims to have significant influence in the Conservative Party and who boasts of having made a fortune from early investments in shale gas development.

Miller was born in Bailey County, Texas, but moved to Britain almost 40 years ago. He is a serial investor and entrepreneur, having directed companies with names like Palladian Software Limited, Maxwell Espinosa and UK Israel Business.

The climate denier is a political animal, claiming to have met Margaret Thatcher “on several occasions.” He is also close to Peter Lilley MP and Andrew Tyrie – the unsung hero of Tory climate denial.

“I used to be more connected to the Conservative Party. I used to work up in there with policy but I quickly learnt that it’s a mug’s game because most politicians are not interested in anyone’s help,” he told a female journalist over dinner.

Moderately Wealthy

“When you are talking to these people, they are either so ignorant that they didn’t understand what you were saying or they were just so ego driven, or both, that they figured they know all the answers.”

Miller is moderately wealthy, having bought a London townhouse in Notting Hill for £725,000 in 2000. He used to drive an E-Type Jag until he had an accident, apparently attempting to impress a female passenger.

Miller will become significant again in our history of climate denial – supporting Lord Lawson at the Global Warming Policy Foundation and speaking candidly about his falling out with the new Conservative leadership.

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.

How do you fancy being plunged into the grim abyss of the latest climate science only to be politely asked if you are interested in going to jail?

Hundreds of people across the UK have recently had this experience while attending talks about the Extinction Rebellion.

Led by the group Rising Up, Extinction Rebellion is breaking the mould of traditional communication about ecological crisis. It argues that it’s time to tell people the truth and ask them to act accordingly.

‘Biological annihilation’ 

Scientists are increasingly breaking ranks to emphasise the existential threat we are facing.

Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research for twenty years and a senior advisor to  the European Union, said: “Climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action and accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.” 

The Extinction Rebellion is urging people to face up to this hellish reality, particularly the “biological annihilation” of this mass species extinction event.

We acknowledge the grief and fear this can cause. But our experience suggests that working through those painful feelings can lead to a new determination to do whatever it takes to make this a lesser catastrophe and to save what we can.

So what does it take? We don’t lack imagination or ideas – there are many policy solutions out there – but what do we lack is political will in a democracy captured by the interests of profit.

Conscientious protetors 

We can turn to the social sciences for information on how to generate political will. The evidence is overwhelming: change comes when people are willing to commit acts of peaceful civil disobedience.

They must be disruptive and sacrificial and whilst a critical mass is needed, it is a relatively low number of people. Fifty people in jail for a short time, such as a week on remand, is likely to bring the ecological crisis into the public consciousness.

A few thousand arrests in a short space of time could cause a political crisis. Just a tiny percent of the population in active support of a rebellion would probably see an end to this destructive political system.

Consider the power this would give to individuals. We can choose to be one of a relatively small number of people who are willing to stand up in a principled way and help decisively change the  direction of humanity.

Peaceful civil disobedience can be a dignified way to express your dissent. Actions could involve peacefully spray chalking buildings or blockading transport infrastructure, while being willing to face the consequences of being a Conscientious Protector.

Stepping forward 

The Extinction Rebellion talk is online. We are presenting evidence and a plan. We are asking you to please watch it and then ask yourself if you are willing and able to offer your service.

Dr Kate Marvel from NASA’s Goddard Institute said: “To be a climate scientist is to be an active participant in a slow-motion horror story.

“As a climate scientist, I am often asked to talk about hope […] Audiences want to be told that everything will be alright in the end […] The problem is, I don’t have any. We need courage, not hope.”

I hope enough of us find our courage.

This Author 

Gail Bradbrook is a member of Extinction Rebellion. 

Our societies have mostly been organised to maximise capitalist accumulation for the benefit and privilege of elites and corporations. In the parallel exploitation of women and nature, both are seen as infinite and elastic resources – free, readily available, to be appropriated without resistance.

This historical and ongoing exploitation is possible through the reproduction of mutually-reinforcing structures of oppression: patriarchy, capitalism, class oppression, racism, (neo)colonialism and heteronormativity. 

Patriarchy is the system that benefits men as a social group through the oppression and exploitation of women. It is founded on the sexual division of labour and nurtured by the biological determinism of socially constructed gender roles. 

Women’s work 

The sexual division of labour organises women’s work in the private sphere (home) and also in agricultural and urban production and markets.

Women workers are concentrated in areas of work that are an extension of care – such as health and education – and that are low paid, precarious and informal, or for which they are paid less than men for the same work. 

Patriarchy relies on women’s time, energy and (re)productive capacities to ‘make up’ for the destruction and privatisation of nature. 

Nature and the commons are commodified, privatised and extracted on a scale that is catastrophic to the environment, natural cycles and ecological functions, and the communities whose livelihoods depend on them. This is especially true in times of crises and austerity, when women’s unpaid physical and emotional labour is essential for family and community.

In the same way that transnational corporations, industrial agriculture and dirty energy systems control and exploit nature and our territories, so too are women’s rights over their bodies, lives and work controlled by regressive laws, traditional practices and societal institutions (including education, family, religion and the judiciary). 

Frontline resistance 

Due to their perceived “natural” role, women are disproportionately affected by social and environmental injustice and the multiple interconnected crisis, such as climate change and hunger. This is especially so for women of colour, peasant and indigenous women, migrants, working class and LBTQ women.

We have to work harder and longer hours to produce sufficient food, maintain livelihoods, and protect our territories. Women’s wisdom and our potential role as food producers and practitioners of agroecology are attacked and denied by the capitalist system. 

Despite this, women are fighters, not victims. Largely as a consequence of our historical connection to the production and reproduction of life in the territories in which we live and struggle, women are collectively taking the lead in grassroots environmental justice struggles to challenge unjust economic models.

Women are standing at the frontline of resistance to defend nature. We are protagonists in the defense of our territories and the fight for autonomy over our work, lives and bodies – our primary territory.

For Friends of the Earth International, the fight to dismantle patriarchy and all structures of oppression within our own organisations, structures and societies is crucial to the system change needed to face the current deep-rooted and interconnected social and environmental crises affecting climate, food, and biodiversity. 

Radical transformation 

System change means creating societies based on peoples’ sovereignty and environmental, social, economic and gender justice. 

We seek freedom from patriarchy and all forms of oppression that exploit and devalue women, peoples and the environment. We are working towards a radical transformation of our societies, of relationships between people, and of the relationship between people and nature. 

We believe that grassroots, anti-capitalist feminism is key to this transformation, both as a conceptual-ideological-political framework and as collective praxis and movement.

We aim to show in practice that feminism can and is constructed from the grassroots up, that it is relevant to all women and men who resist oppression, and that it is representative of regional diversity and different realities.

Our grassroots, anti-capitalist feminism has a class perspective and is rooted in women’s collective experience in societies in which our bodies are marked by mutually reinforcing oppressions.

Powerful alliance 

We have a strong and holistic political vision of justice and system change, and we build solutions together as women, as peoples, as an international federation and with our allies, including La Vía Campesina and World March of Women. 

We are proactively supporting women’s leadership and protagonism in our structures, as well as spaces for women to build their collective power.   

We are challenging power structures in a world in which violence and the threat of violence are used to control women who challenge their socially constructed responsibility for unpaid, invisible care and domestic work.

In this same world, women’s millennial knowledge of ecological cycles, of seeds, of medicinal plants, of how to nurture biodiversity and the forests is unrecognised and ignored.

We are supporting each other to collectively recognise the power relations that we reproduce and, in this way, to transform our federation and our societies, together with our allies. We are fighting together for a just world on a living planet. 

These Authors

Dipti Bhatnagar is climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth international. Syeda Rizwana Hasan is chief executive of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (Friends of the Earth Bangladesh). Both authors are members of the Friends of the Earth’s International Gender Justice Dismantling Patriarchy Working Group.

The UK government has been lobbying to weaken new EU rules designed to reduce toxic emissions from waste incinerators, less than a year before it is set to exit the union, leaked notes show.

Unearthed understands that it’s not yet been decided whether the new rules will apply in the UK following Brexit, as it will be subject to negotiations. UK incinerators have been heavily criticised for driving local air pollution.

Leaked notes taken by a delegate and seen by Unearthed state that the UK led a successful push in negotiations to retain a loophole in the draft regulations on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), the pollutant linked to the dieselgate scandal.

The loophole

The EU is debating new rules that would force incinerators to reduce dangerous NOx emissions by 25% by 2024. Current legal limits allow daily average NOx emissions of 200mg/Nm3. Member states will vote on the proposed rules early next year.

While the UK supported a 10 percent emissions reduction, representatives pushed an extra clause that will allow many existing incinerators to meet a standard that is 20 percent higher than the new proposed limit (180 mg/Nm3 rather than 150mg/Nm3) if one of the technologies used to reduce toxic emissions is not “applicable” to the plant. 

The extra clause refers to so-called selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a technology not currently used by most EU incineration plants, including all plants in the UK. It gives plants the opportunity to exempt themselves from meeting the stricter standard by arguing they cannot install this particular technology. It is not yet known how widely this loophole will be used.

One expert told Unearthed that plants “will always find arguments” for why they can use the loophole, which won’t apply to new facilities.

The UK also opposed tighter monitoring rules for toxic mercury emissions, the notes state. However, other member states were in favour of the stricter monitoring, which is included in the final draft conclusions.

Weaken standards

Responding to the notes, shadow environment minister David Drew MP said: “We seem to be going in completely the wrong direction. Instead of working to secure cleaner air for public health and better recycling for the sake of the environment, the government is increasing our reliance on incinerators and therefore the noxious particulate matter that is released into the atmosphere.”

A government official denied the new clause amounted to a weakening of standards.

Speaking to Unearthed, a spokeswoman for the environment department (DEFRA) said: “It is categorically untrue to claim that the UK has been lobbying to weaken new EU rules on toxic emissions from waste incinerators.”

At the meeting in Spain in April, which brought together 90 experts from across the EU, the UK’s opposition was largely based on economic concerns, sources said.

One delegate, speaking to Unearthed on condition of anonymity, said: “The UK were being quite forthright and persistent and talked a lot about economics. Most of the time they were either speaking to weaken the standards or they were silent.”

Energy-from-waste

A source from a different delegation, who agreed that the UK had opposed the NOx and mercury measures, told Unearthed: “We know that lower NOx levels can now be reached – well below 180 [mg/Nm3; the level agreed] – but the UK just wanted less ambition.

“In some cases, such as with mercury monitoring, there were even few objections from industry.” The source also requested anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

Some experts believe that forcing incinerators to fit the new SCR technology can increase greenhouse gas emissions. It can also be very expensive.

Others believe that plants can meet lower emissions standards without SCR technology, by instead using SNCR, the technique used by most European plants.

The use of incinerators – otherwise known as energy-from-waste plants – to burn rubbish and create energy has surged in recent years. Almost 40 percent of the UK’s local authority waste is now burned, increasing to 80% in parts of London.

Plastic waste

Incineration is now predicted to overtake recycling in England, with councils burning three times as much waste as in 2010. Last year it generated 6,187GWh, around two percent of the UK’s energy.

One major waste firm recently publicly backed the practice, amid concerns about shrinking landfill space and the risk that Brexit could leave the UK struggling to export the 3.5m tonnes of waste it currently sends to Europe as fuel.

The rise in incineration comes as the industry gets to grips with a global waste crisis, following a decision in January by China – previously the biggest importer of the world’s plastic waste – to close its doors to most household recycling.

An Unearthed investigation has since shown that British packaging is now ending up in illegal dump sites on the other side of the world, as the industry struggles to find new destinations for waste.

The government is considering launching an incineration tax in the Budget on Monday, as part of a raft of measures to tackle plastic waste, following a consultation that drew an unprecedented 162,000 responses this summer.

Cross-party MPs also raised concerns about air pollution and recycling over the summer.

NOx loophole

Nine months ago Theresa May launched the government’s 25 year environment plan, which pledged to cut pollution from industry and reduce the environmental impact of waste.

The plan pledged to halve the effects of air pollution on health within 12 years and meet legally binding air pollution targets, including for NOx. It also pledged to cut terrestrial emissions of mercury in half by 2030.

EU member states will vote on the new rules early next year, and if passed they will be phased in by 2024.

The regulations will be part of a Best Available Techniques Reference (BREF) document, which sets out environmental performance standards for plants under the Industrial Emissions Directive.

The NOx loophole could only be used by existing waste incinerators, where SCR technology is not used. Most plants in the EU use a different technology, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).

Very seriously

Environmental consultant Peter Gebhardt, who was also present at the talks in April, told Unearthed: “I think in cases where an operator use SNCR at an existing plant, they will always find arguments that SCR is not applicable.

“This is why I think that no plant will change the abatement system from SNCR to SCR due to conclusions in the new WI BREF.”

He added: “With the SNCR technique even values below 100 mg/m3 [NOx emissions] are achievable”.

The UK’s waste trade body said that using SCR is very expensive and can lead to higher carbon emissions.

Libby Forrest, policy and parliamentary affairs officer for the Environmental Services Association told Unearthed:  “The UK EfW sector takes emissions reduction very seriously.

Expressed wishes

“Most plants operate well below the NOx limit. The SNCR technology used to control NOx emissions is generally associated with higher NOx emissions than SCR technology, but leads to increased thermal efficiency.

“Higher efficiency means you get more energy, which increases the carbon benefit of EfW because you’re displacing a greater amount of non-renewable baseload power.”

Back in 2015, when the EU was agreeing new BREF rules for large coal plants, the UK also voiced opposition to stronger standards on NOx, mercury and sulphur dioxide, but ultimately voted in favour.

Anti-incineration campaign group UKWIN told Unearthed: “It is clearly outrageous that, at a time when citizens are demanding better air quality, our representatives have been going against the expressed wishes of the people they are meant to represent and acting to the detriment of the environment they are tasked with protecting.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

London, Birmingham, Bangor, Coventry and Edinburgh will be among 115 cities around the world taking action on climate change today as part of  European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Climate-KIC’s annual Climathon. 

The event is an award-winning 24-hour hackathon that unites students, entrepreneurs, big thinkers, technical experts and app developers in tackling the defining climate challenges of their cities.

City-level action is needed to address climate change at speed and scale. Cities are already contributing over 70 percent of global carbon emissions and are growing rapidly, with 70 percent of the world’s population expected to live in cities by 2050. Together, cities hold the world’s biggest lever for slowing down global warming

Sustainable design

Teams hosted by local authorities, universities and NGOs from across the world including Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, Sydney, Edinburgh and London will bring people together to solve local climate challenges – from sustainable food in Paris, to air pollution in Coventry, waste-management in Lagos, and smart mobility in Shanghai.

London teams will work on the problem of plastics. A major issue for the UK capital, attendees will be challenged to use sustainable design principles to help eliminate single-use plastic in London. A bold but achievable task.

Awareness is growing that unless we recast the role of plastics in our lives our seas will have more plastic than fish by 2050, which among other things, will reduce the ability of oceans to act as carbon sinks.

It is less well known that on current trajectories, petroleum-based plastics could contribute 15 per cent of global CO2 emissions by 2050 – overtaking aviation. Many businesses are looking at the opportunities that come with solving these problems. Up to 95 percent of material and energy value is lost in Europe, through single-use.

Climate-KIC already supports several London-based start-ups focused on plastics, including Skipping Rocks Lab, makers of the ubiquitous Ooho! seaweed-based water bottle ‘bubbles’ whose crowdfunding campaign went viral. The start-up has just teamed up with Just Eat to trial seaweed-based packaging for fast food packaging.

Innovative solutions

Another, Chrysalix Technologies, has developed a patented sustainable alternative to the petrochemicals that go into making plastics – a solution that has the potential to generate £25 billion of value for every 100M tonnes of unwanted, unrecycled waste wood that is used in their process.

In London last year one team developed a wearable device called ‘Co-Pilot’, initially aimed at cyclists providing real-time information on connected vehicles around them while another group devised an accommodation search engine enabling the user to determine their ideal area to live – based on sustainable transport provisions.

Other solutions developed in previous years have included a Cork-based transport app that awards citizens discounts in local stores based on the carbon savings they make and sustainable drainage systems to avert floods in Manchester.

Elliot Bushay from Climathon London said: “We are all very excited to see what teams come up with this year. We have had some amazing ideas grow and develop from Climathon and I have no doubt we will get some innovative ideas to solve the single-use plastic issue here in London during the day.”

Climathon, which had its first hackathon in the run up to the historic COP21 negotiations in Paris, has since grown to be the biggest international climate change hackathon in world history.

Climate crisis

In 2017, more than 100 cities in 44 countries across 6 continents hosted Climathons worldwide, with a total reach of 33 million people.

Winning Climathon 2017 teams from across the UK were invited to present their ideas to Minister of Climate Change and Clean Growth Claire Perry earlier this year.

Kirsten Dunlop, CEO, EIT Climate-KIC said: “The recent IPCC report has thrown down the gauntlet to governments and cities across the world. The challenges of meeting a 1.5 degree target are so immense that it is difficult to comprehend the scale and scope of collective transformation required.

“We have ten years to set radical changes in motion definitively across all sectors and, most crucially, in our own minds and everyday choices.”

Mark Watts, executive director, C40, a key partner of EIT Climate-KIC said: “For more than a decade, mayors of the world’s greatest cities have been working together to deliver the boldest possible climate action to help create the sustainable, low carbon and prosperous cities of the future. But they can’t do it alone. The solutions to the climate crisis will be forged in cities, by citizens, start-ups, community groups, families and neighbours. 

Future generations

Watts continued: “It is crucial to find new and innovative ways to connect these citizens with each other and with city halls. The EIT Climate-KIC Climathon offers an innovative approach to deliver that and ensure new ideas and commitment to a better future for the next generation will be nurtured by mayors, city leaders and businesses.

“Only by working together will we deliver on the highest ambitions of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from EIT Climate-KIC. Follow the Climathon from 26 October 2018 on social media via the #Climathon hashtag on Twitter and Facebook.