Farming payment shakeup ‘to reward environmental protection’

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Farming payment shakeup ‘to reward environmental protection’

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Farming payment shakeup ‘to reward environmental protection’

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Farming payment shakeup ‘to reward environmental protection’

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Farming payment shakeup ‘to reward environmental protection’

Legislation to enshrine a new system of farm payments that will pay farmers for “public goods” were laid in Parliament yesterday.

The system will replace direct payments made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which bases payments on the amount of land they farm.

These payments are skewed towards the largest landowners, with the top 10 percent of recipients currently receiving almost 50 percent of total payments, while the bottom 20 percent receive just two percent, according to the environment department (Defra).

A wish-list

The new system is due to begin next year. The government has previously pledged to maintain the level of funding for farming at current levels till 2022, but has not said what will happen after that. The lack of clarity on long-term funding has been criticised by environmentalists.

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas MP said: “This agriculture bill has been injected with warm words about protecting our environment – but its failure to commit to long-term funding and strong enforcement powers means it reads more like a wish-list than a plan of action.”

Martin Harper, conservation director at the RSPB, said that he was pleased with the overall direction of the bill. But he added: “The resources made available to back up the new policy will ultimately be the key test as to whether this bill is a success or failure.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

Persistent rise in global hunger highlights links with conflict

The number of chronically undernourished people in the world is estimated to have increased to nearly 821 million people – five million more than in 2017, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s latest annual food security report.

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018 report also states that 492 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian aid, and confirms global violence and conflict as one of the leading causes of the rise in global hunger, which has returned to a level last seen a decade ago.

Juliet Parker, director of operations at Action Against Hunger, explained: “Six out of ten hungry people live in a conflict affected country. Climate change is also driving the growth in hunger and in many cases – 14 out of 34 recent food crises – conflict and climate change occur together, compounding the impacts that both have on driving hunger”.

Weapon of war

Parker continued: “There has been a marked growth in the use of hunger as a weapon of war via the systematic siege of civilians, attacks on basic water and livelihood infrastructures, and the blocking of humanitarian aid. There is also an upward trend in conflicts.

“Wars destroy markets and livelihoods and produce huge population displacements that in turn trigger an increased risk of acute malnutrition. Food insecurity and competition for natural resources or food are also a major cause of the 46 active conflicts currently in the world today.

“Resolution 2417, adopted by the United Nations Security Council in May 2018, recognised the close links between war and hunger, and Action Against Hunger’s experience of nutritional interventions in more than 45 countries has given us abundant evidence of this.

“We call for the urgent development of measures to implement this resolution on the ground, in order to avoid the use of hunger as a weapon of war and to guarantee direct access to victims of humanitarian aid.

“We also need to see governments around the world commit to going well beyond the demands of the resolution, and to support agricultural systems that are sensitive to conflict and climate change, and to insure that our own security responses to conflict do not exacerbate tensions between groups.

“One further key measure we are calling for is a tripling of investment into the prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition which is estimated to affect 50 million children – one in twelve – within six years.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story was based on a press release from Action Against Hunger

Tourism in Mexico threatens to wipe out one of the earliest lifeforms on earth

The magical Laguna Bacalar, on the southern coast of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, is truly a spectacle of nature. 

Enchantingly known as the Lagoon of Seven Colours, visitors are treated to myriad shades of blue, crystal clear waters as sunlight reflects off an endless bed of limestone and sparkling white sand.

Yet, unsung to many of those who vacation on its shores each year, the wonder of Bacalar extends far beyond its ocular beauty.

Ecological disaster

The lagoon, stretching 50km through the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, is also home to the world’s highest concentration of stromatolites, coral-like organisms found in only a handful of places around the globe and considered among the earliest lifeforms on earth.

In recent years Bacalar’s popularity has soared, catapulting visitor numbers and drawing attention from far and wide. The lagoon has been heralded by some as the ‘next Cancun’ – a nod to the saturated playground for hotel holidaymakers a few hours up the coast.

But unregulated development, inefficient sewage treatment and hapless waste management are putting the lagoon – and its pre-historic natural treasures – under severe pressure, threatening to destroy the unique ecosystem and transforming Bacalar into, as campaigners say, just another lagoon in Mexico.

Like reefs, stromatolites are extremely delicate formations and major providers of oxygen. They are created by bacteria that gathers together over thousands of years. 

Sadly, their existence at Bacalar hangs by a thread as commercial ventures spell ecological disaster in this pristine corner of Central America.

While explosive, the magnified interest in Bacalar, which has doubled the population of the town (also Bacalar) in five years, does not come as a surprise. According to Euromonitor International research, Cancun was the strongest growing city throughout the Americas in 2017.

Tourism industries 

According to residents, Bacalar – which comes from the Maya ‘Bakhalal’, meaning ‘surrounded by reeds’ – was always a sleepy little place. Over the last few years, it has quickly woken up.

Across the region, the Yucatan’s rich Maya history and its ruins, its proximity to the second largest coral reef system in the world, and its endless labyrinth of caves and magical sinkholes called cenotés, have boosted its position towards the top of globetrotters’ wish-lists in recent years.

Hotels and resorts have multiplied to accommodate the demand, sweeping through towns such as Playa del Carmen and Tulum, and snapping up land in between and beyond. 

The surge in tourism has skyrocketed living costs for Mexicans and led to the privatisation of beaches – as well as the shores around Bacalar. Local people are not only struggling to keep up with the price hikes, they’re being left with limited access to the nature on their doorstep.

Nationally, the tourism industry in Mexico is outpacing global averages. The country has climbed from being the fifteenth most visited in 2012 to the eighth, with an average growth of 10% each year. In 2017 Mexico welcomed over 40 million visitors, with a good proportion of them bound for Quintana Roo.

Precarious future

With a tourism boom in full swing, the future of Bacalar rests on a knife-edge. There are positives of course – tourism can bring economic benefits for local people and celebrate the marvel of nature. But tourism can also be extremely destructive and cause irreversible damage. Land is being torn apart for development without suitable planning and, in some cases, the omission of conservation from the agenda.

There is a sense of irony that the things attracting people to Bacalar – the colours, serenity and, to an extent, the stromatolites, could be devastated by their arrival.

Local initiative Agua Clara Bacalar, a committee working for the protection of the lagoon, is concerned that time is running out if development projects don’t change their focus and put the environment first.

Nicole Oberg, Project Manager at Agua Clara Bacalar, said: “Reckless human pollution, through damaging agricultural practices and negligent sewage treatment, is threatening to destroy Bacalar, and the wonderful Laguna of Seven Colours.

“The stromatolites are extremely fragile, living things that exist here because of the unique composition of the water.  As the water becomes contaminated, the future for the stromatolites becomes ever more precarious. We have reached a tipping point, and, without change, these communities of ancient organisms will soon be gone forever.”

Arduous task

The biggest challenge faced by organisations such as Agua Clara Bacalar is the damage caused by inefficient sewage treatment, with harmful and even toxic bacteria making its way into and polluting the lagoon.

The natural alkalinity, and low levels of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorous in the water, helps the stromatolites to survive, as well as creating the spectacle of colour. If the water consistency changes, the stromatolites and colours go too. 

A sprawling landfill on the edge of the town and an absence of recycling are causing further havoc, while unsustainable agricultural practices, including the use of deadly chemicals, constitute another serious threat.

If that wasn’t enough, swathes of the mangrove rainforest surrounding the lagoon are being ripped down at an alarming rate, spelling disaster for the wildlife that calls it home.

In truth, the lagoon is being attacked from all sides, and conservationists face an arduous undertaking to preserve its future. 

Conscientious travellers

On the water itself, there are scores of activities to appeal to visitors of different persuasions. On one hand, there are boat tours with ecological themes, but some enterprises play a less responsible role.

One section of the lagoon, known as Pirate Canal, is visited daily by party boats. There are regular instances of swimmers carelessly damaging the stromatolites, while sun creams and boat cleaning chemicals spread more grease and grime.

Still, local committees and residents, as well as scientists and universities, are determined to preserve the lagoon in all its natural glory. There have been campaigns to clear up plastic, documentaries and photography exhibitions about the stromatolites, and clampdowns and fines on businesses that have failed to comply with environmental standards.

For the more conscientious traveller, an ever-growing number of eco-friendly tourism options are also available, with solar power, grey water filtration and composting toilets. Whether their ethical and environmental sensitivity rubs off on the peremptory hotels looking to descend on Bacalar, only time will tell.

A 2015 subterranean study of the lagoon revealed a stark increase of nitrates and phosphates in the water, affirming what scientists and conservationists had feared. Without immediate action and tighter regulation, Bacalar, as we know it, will pass into history.

Fragile environment

Dr. Luisa Falcon, of the Institute of Ecology at the Universidad Autónoma de Mexico in Mexico City, has been working on the Laguna Bacalar stromatolites since 2004. She said: “Bacalar is a fragile, tropical lagoon, that has been oligotrophic (an environment with low levels of nutrients) throughout its history. It will not adapt to a sharp increase in organic matter from human activities.

“Already, we’ve recorded an increase in dissolved nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) in the water, blooms of picocyanobacteria that change the colour of the water from clear blue to green, and areas of injured stromatolites caused by boats and swimmers.

“There’s also a slimy material composed of diatoms covering parts of the lagoon floor and growing on the stromatolites.”

Suitable waste and water treatment systems are essential to safeguarding the lagoon’s future, while tour operators and visitors have their own roles to play. Further regulations could include limiting tourist activities to certain areas while more extreme proposals include banning boats and swimmers altogether.

Dr Falcon added: “Growth and development are possible, but if the current approach doesn’t change, the ecosystem will be devastated by eutrophication (the over-enrichment of water by nutrients which kills fish and grows harmful algae), pollution and a loss of diversity.”

Bold ambitions

Mexico recently voted Andrés Manuel López Obrador as its new President, in what was dubbed the country’s biggest ever election.  López Obrador has promised to transform Mexico by uprooting the violence and corruption that has plagued its recent history.

For conservationists, AMLO, as he widely known, was also the candidate with the best and most dynamic environmental agenda. His programme, NaturAMLO lays out bold ambitions on issues such as water, biodiversity, climate change, sustainable living and environmental justice.

Underlying its objectives, NaturAMLO calls on Mexicans to ‘abre mas los ojos (open your eyes more), which is something that could be well adopted by the less eco-friendly projects at Bacalar.

Of course, politics has a central role to play in the protection of the lagoon, though the onus will be as much on people following regulations, as it is on those drawing them up.

I, like all of those working to protect its future, was bewitched by Bacalar. The crystalline waters, surrounding mangroves and jungle, squawking parrots in the trees and immediate sense of wonder. And that was before I knew what lay beneath the surface.

In determining the future of the lagoon – and its ancient occupants – people have a golden opportunity to put the environment first. To make changes to a place and enable people to enjoy it, while giving unconditional priority to nature. I truly hope that comes to pass.

This Author

Harry Shepherd is a writer interested in conservation and sustainability. He has worked for a variety of charities and non-profit organisations and has travelled extensively across Latin America. He tweets at @HarrySheph. Agua Clara Bacalar is a non-profit organisation that promotes sustainable water management and balance between ecosystems and sustainable development. Follow them on Twitter: @AguaClaraQRoo.

Young children use the same gestures as chimpanzees and gorillas

Children aged one to two years old on the cusp of learning language use many of the gestures observed in great apes, according to new research from the University of St Andrews.

The study, published in Animal Cognition, showed that the children used 52 gestures to communicate, over 95 percent of which are shared with chimpanzees and gorillas.

Scientists from the University of St Andrews, University of Neuchatel, University of Göttingen and University of Hamburg studied young children and chimpanzees.

‘Great ape dictionary’

The team used the same method of recording gestures for both species: chimpanzees were observed in their habitat, the Budongo Forest in Uganda, and young children were observed in their nursery and home environments.

Wild great apes use over 80 different gestures, and the scientists have recently completed a ‘great ape dictionary’ to investigate what they mean

Senior author Dr Catherine Hobaiter, from the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews, said: “Wild chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orang-utans all use gestures to communicate their day-to-day requests, but until now there was always one ape missing from the picture – us.

“We used exactly the same approach to study young chimpanzees and children, which makes sense – children are just tiny apes.”

The scientists were surprised by just how many gestures the children had in common with our ape cousins.

Dr Hobaiter said: “We thought that we might find a few of these gestures – reaching out your palm to ask for something or sticking your hand up in the air – but we were amazed to see so many of the ‘ape’ gestures used by the children.”

‘Gestural heritage’

The scientists found that like young apes, the young children used these gestures in a similar way: combining them together to ask for different things.

They also found some differences – young children use pointing gestures far more than young apes, and waving your hand (to say hello or goodbye) seems to be uniquely human.

First author Dr Verena Kersken, University of Göttingen, said: “Since chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor around 5-6 million years ago, we wanted to know whether our evolutionary history of communication is also reflected in human development.”

While humans developed language, it appears that we still have access to this shared ancient gestural heritage – and gestures continue to play an important role before language is fully developed.

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Clinton confronted by oil-funded climate denial

The 1993 election of President Bill Clinton in the US heralded a new era in climate policy. And, in turn, the oil industry lobbyists would intensify their attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Clinton appointed the accomplished and charismatic British climate scientist Dr Robert Watson as an adviser to the White House. Watson was also promoted to co-chairman of one of the three working groups within the IPCC.

The industry campaign was, at this time, still relatively transparent, with lobbyists Don Pearlman of the coal-funded Climate Council and John Shlaes, executive director of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), receiving funding directly from the coal and oil industries respectively.

Pearlman had previously worked at the Department of Energy under Reagan and Bush Snr. As the first chairman of the IPCC, Bert Bolin recounts: “Lobby organisations were being formed, still primarily in the USA, with financial support from some industrial groups and with the aim of systematically countering the assessments by the IPCC.”

Exploit the Mistakes

The American Petroleum Institute, one of 54 members of the GCC, paid $1.8 million during a single year to Burson-Marsteller, a leading public relations firm celebrated by some for its defeat of a proposed tax on fossil fuels.

The lobbyists scrutinised every move of the IPCC and every mistake was exploited remorselessly.

Shlaes and Pearlman submitted a letter, co-signed by six major industrialists, to US delegates, claiming that a mistake in a press release proved that some scientists were “trying to use the IPCC to persuade policymakers and the public of their personal views concerning climate change science and policy issues.”

The Pearlman and Shlaes double-act also attacked the IPCC as it prepared emission scenarios for the Climate Convention to be held in March 1995.

The lobbyists claimed that “the terminology was ill-defined, that the IPCC procedures were violated, and a grave departure had been made from the work schedule agreed in 1993 resulting in a lack of a comprehensive, fair, and balanced discussion of whether the IPCC 1992 scenarios are valid, appropriate and useful.”

Oil Nations

National governments whose economies were entirely dependent on oil were also attacking the IPCC process.

Around this time, a “fierce argument had broken out between scientists crafting the report and government delegates representing Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and some other major oil exporting nations,” according to professor Michael Mann, an IPCC contributor.

But it was not just its enemies that were causing serious headaches for Bolin. “The sceptics, who did not accept the reality of an ongoing human-induced climate change…believed that the IPCC assessments exaggerated the risks of a human-induced climate change, which scared the public,” he wrote.

“They provided, however, few if any references to specific parts of the report that would support such views.”

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

‘Suffragettes’ confront Theresa May over fracking of local democracy

Rotherham Borough Council has for the second time turned down an application from the shale oil hopeful INEOS, to drill at Woodsetts on planning grounds.

Yet when I joined anti-fracking protectors at the proposed Tinker Lane, near Retford, and Misson, near Doncaster, sites on Monday, there was little celebration.

For we’ve long since learned that while Lancashire said no to fracking, as did Rotherham and Derbyshire, neither the fracking companies, nor the government in far-off Westminster is likely to take no for an answer.

Six-year battle

“Oh, INEOS will appeal,” the locals said, and history shows they are likely right.

There was more cheer, however, in events at Tinker Lane. I’d been asked to return there because credible reports suggested that a drilling rig might be arriving on Monday.

It’s the subject of an injunction, one of the many attacks we’re seeing on democracy and right to protest around the country, both by frackers and others (hello Sheffield’s Labour City Council).

But that hasn’t deterred people coming out to protest and show their opposition to the rig, and on an autumnal weekday, about 35 people came out prepared to demonstrate their opposition.

No rig appeared – and that was a victory, one more small one in this now six-year battle to stop fracking in England. (It has already been blocked in Wales and Scotland, not to mention France, Germany and Bulgaria.)

Small village

And those small victories have added up to something big. Back when fracking was aiming to get started in Balcombe, the expectation was that there would be an entire industry operating by now, but instead public opposition has grown and grown, protests have slowed and prevented activity.

The very weak arguments made then about gas being needed as a “bridging fuel” until renewables came on line have entirely evaporated as renewables have come online far faster, and at far lower prices, than predicted.

Huge credit is due to the many thousands of people who’ve given up their time and energy to show their opposition, and keep a close check on what the industry is doing – what their importation of the cowboy culture of US fracking looks like at close hand.

After Tinker Lane, I visited the protection camp at Misson, where Ineos’s activity had visibly, although chaotically, stepped up.

The protectors told me that three times in the one day vehicles had breached the traffic management plan. Vehicles are supposed to enter and leave the site not through this small village, with its school, nursery, and tightly bending road but from the other direction. The security guards were at one stage not wearing their proper identification.

Overheated planet

Police on the gate – there were two standing there and at least four more sat in a van around the corner – were frustrated at their inability to get information about what the company was planning. “Well there was supposed to be a lorry at 2pm, but it hasn’t turned up so it probably won’t now,” was all the gate guard could say, with a shrug, about 3.30pm.

I heard from local people here just how traumatic the whole issue has been for them – lack of sleep and stress is clearly having a significant health toll.

But one of the things that struck me about this visit, as to my recent one to Preston New Road, is about how conversation on the frackers’ gates has moved on.

Of course we’re still talking about the certainly local environmental impacts – the lorries, the water use, and the noise and light pollution – “don’t worry about the gas flaring I heard a Lancashire planning officer say, “you can always get blackout blinds” – and the risks of spills and contamination.

And about climate change – how we need to be moving away, fast, from fossil fuels – the carbon stored in the grounds over aeons being left there, instead of lifted into the atmosphere of our already overheated planet.

Take control

But the top topic of conversation these days in democracy. “We thought this was a free country,” is a common sentiment.

Most of the people working day after day, week after week, on the anti-fracking effort are not longtime political activists. They’re small business people, grandmas, parents, workers taking days off when they can, who’ve been horrified by what is being done to their communities. And by their lack of ability to take control of what’s happening.

At Tinker Lane it was striking since my last visit how many more passing locals have clearly been alerted to the fracking attempt, and the issues around it. Toots and waves of support come thick and fast, from lorry drivers, from people in suits, from parents ferrying their children.

Tinker Lane, Misson, Woodsetts, and many other communities threatened by fracking have made up their mind against it. The British public has come out in clear and obvious opposition to it.

But we have a government that wants to press on regardless, and an industry using the courts to seek to draconianly end peaceful protest.

Power doctrine

When history is written, there’s a good chance the fight against fracking will be seen as an important part of the awakening to determination for parliament to reflect the will of the people. It certainly doesn’t now – with 68 percent of votes not really counting in 2017.  This is a fight to stop resources, money and control being seized by Westminster – while the rest of the country has politics done to it.

Reflecting that, today Theresa May will be confronted outside parliament by 100 women dressed in the costumes of 100 years ago, as the suffragettes and suffragists were dressed, many of them travelling down from Lancashire.

Their message is simple: “Let communities decide on fracking, without the top-down power doctrine of central government.”

One hundred years on from some women getting the vote, there are growing numbers of women and men determined to complete the work of the campaigners then – to end the astonishing centralisation of power in London, and take back control of their communities.

This Author

Natalie Bennett is a member of Sheffield Green Party and former Green Party leader.