What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

What is the relationship between inner and outer, mental and physical, subjective and objective experience? If they are all part of one continuous process, how can this be visualised?  

What are the metaphors offered by science, as well as those underlying scientific ideas about the mystery of form coming into being and the whole process of embodiment?

Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of more than 85 scientific papers and 12 books, speaks on ‘Science and Spiritual Practices’ for the next Resurgence Talk in London on 25 April 2018.

Digitally mediated

These are just some of the questions internationally celebrated artist Susan Derges considers in her work using the pioneering technique of cameraless photography, 

She said: “The photographic image parallels the scientific gaze in the way that it can slice up the world for scrutiny and as evidence, but it also has the potential to cultivate a subjective response – by which the world is experienced as a whole and in which intrinsic value and mutual respect are possible.”

Speaking at the Resurgence Talks about one of her earlier works, The Observer and the Observed, Susan says : “You have the camera and then the lens separating you as the maker from what’s in front. And this separation also takes place within our own biology. We have the illusory sense that we are separate entities from the outside world.”

Much of Susan’s work has dealt with this relationship –  of separation and connectedness with the natural world.  She says removing the camera allows an almost alchemical transformation, to extraordinary and powerful effect.

The natural world, in particular the landscapes near Susan’s home on Dartmoor, continue to influence and inspire her work and in the digitally mediated world in which we now find ourselves, she says reconnecting with nature has never been so important.

This speaker

Susan Derges began her career as a painter working in London and Berlin in the 1970’s and moved to Japan in 1980 where she developed the cameraless approach to photography for which she has become internationally renowned. She is a visiting professor of photography at the University of Plymouth.

After Donald Trump won the presidential election, hundreds of volunteers around the U.S. came together to “rescue” federal data on climate change, thought to be at risk under the new administration.

“Guerilla archivists,” including ourselves, gathered to archive federal websites and preserve scientific data. But what has happened since? Did the data vanish?

As of one year later, there has been no great purge. Federal data sets related to environmental and climate science are still accessible in the same ways they were before Trump took office.

Disappearing data

However, in many other instances, federal agencies have tampered with information about climate change. Across agency websites, documents have disappeared, web pages have vanished and language has shifted in ways that appear to reflect the policies of the new administration.

Two groups have been keeping a watchful eye on developments. We both belong to the Environmental Data Governance Initiative, the organisation behind the data rescue events. The initiative now monitors tens of thousands of federal websites with the help of specialized tracking software. In January, the group published a report that describes sweeping changes to federal web resources.

Meanwhile, Columbia University’s Silencing Science Tracker documents news stories about climate scientists who have been discouraged from conducting, publishing or otherwise communicating scientific research.

These groups have documented four ways that climate-related information has become less accessible since Trump took office.

Documents are difficult to find

Documents on existing international environmental treaties and national climate policy have been buried or removed from departments’ current websites.

The State Department’s Office of Global Change, for instance, no longer publishes Climate Action Reports, which the US is obliged to produce under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The reports can no longer be found at their former addresses. Instead, they are archived at new addresses in the Department’s Obama-era web archive, making the reports more difficult for the public to access.

In another instance, the Environmental Protection Agency removed links to the Climate Change Adaptation Plan documents, which offer guidelines on climate change mitigation. While the web pages still exist on the EPA server, links from key access points on the site have been removed or redirected to a “This Page is Being Updated” notice.

Web pages are buried

Some administrative pages have disappeared from agency sites and can be accessed only from the Obama-era web archive.

The Bureau of Land Management’s climate change page – which discussed the agency’s climate-friendly approach to land planning – now exists only in archival form. State Department pages describing the Montreal Protocol, a global effort signed in 1988 to protect the ozone layer, are similarly displaced.

The EPA appears to have been hit the worst. Two hundred of the original 380 web pages on climate and energy resources for state, local and tribal governments are now accessible in archival form only. What’s more, the word “climate” is no longer in the official website’s title.

The EPA also removed the website for the Clean Power Plan, a signature Obama-era regulation that the current administration hopes to repeal.

Language has been altered

Departments have scrubbed websites of environmental terms. The term “climate change,” for instance, no longer exists across certain web pages of several agencies, such as the White House, the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Interior.

Within the Department of Energy, the Clean Energy Investment Center removed the term “clean” from its title. The Government Accountability Office deleted an online warning that “oil and natural gas development pose inherent environmental and public health risks.”

In other cases, language has been changed to reflect the new administration’s agenda. For example, the Bureau of Land Management removed “Clean and Renewable Energy” from its list of national priorities, adding “Making America Safe Through Energy Independence” and “Getting America Back to Work” instead.

Science has been silenced

But website changes and deletions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Columbia’s Silencing Science Tracker records 116 instances when scientists have been obstructed. The list includes budget cuts, staff cuts, unfilled positions and suspended funds. Climate-related research projects have been canceled and climate fellowships rescinded. In some cases, advisory boards and research centers have been dismantled entirely.

For instance, as of Dec. 31, 2017, the administration had filled only 20 science-related positions out of the 83 total. That pace falls short of both the Obama administration, who had appointed 63, and the Bush administration, who had filled 51, at the same point in time.

The silencing suggests that the administration values “pro-growth” policies over environmental goals and stands with industry, no matter the cost.

Why it matters

In most cases, it’s not possible to know who ordered and administered these changes, whether agency staff working independently or the Trump administration itself.

History shows us how public information on government activities has changed to reflect the policy directives of different administrations. The Bush era saw a similar chilling affect on scientific research and environmental regulation. Several scientists at the time came forward to accuse the administration of censoring public awareness efforts about climate change.

In recent years, the U.S. has reduced its own greenhouse gas emissions. And the Obama administration invested in combating climate change and making related information more available to the public. Now that information is being stifled, but climate change continues, whether it’s documented or not.

These changes are not just damaging to those trying to address climate change. In our view, burying climate science diminishes our democracy. It denies the average citizen the information necessary to make informed decisions, and fuels the flames of rhetoric that denies consensus-based science.

These Authors

Morgan Currie is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Digital Civil Society Lab, Stanford University, Stanford University and is affiliated with the Environmental Data Governance Initiative. Britt S. Paris is a Ph.D. Student in Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles and is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. This article originally featured on The Conversation.

Alien species are taking over nature. Rogue rats, predatory jellyfish, wild boar, Japanese knotweed – all are headed for an ecosystem near you. These biological adventurers are travelling the world in ever greater numbers, hitchhiking in our hand luggage, hidden in cargo holds and stuck to the bottom of ships.  

Our modern, human-dominated world of globalised trade is giving foot-loose species many more chances to cruise the planet and set up home in distant lands.  Some run riot, massacring local species, trashing their new habitats and spreading diseases.  

Environmental campaigners in March claimed the invaders cost the British economy alone £2 billion a year.

Foreign species

We all like a simple story with good guys and bad guys.  So the threat of alien species invading fragile environments and causing ecological mayhem instantly gets our attention.  Conservationists have for half a century been in the forefront of the battle to hold back the alien tide. 

Me too.  As an environment journalist, I have written my share of stories about the carnage they can cause.  

Some of it is true. But do we fear the invaders too much?  Do the grey squirrels, American signal crayfish, Himalayan balsam and the rest do as much damage as is claimed?  And what about the thousands of other visitors that fit in without trouble?  Himalayan balsam is now vital for honeybees, and rhododendrons for nightingales.  

Who now remembers that rabbits were brought to Britain to be farmed? Or the fears of ecological meltdown that followed the arrival of the American muskrat in Europe a century ago.

Is our fear of newly-arrived foreign species a kind of green xenophobia? Most of us don’t treat foreign humans as intrinsically dangerous. Yet the orthodoxy in conservation is to stigmatise foreign species in just that way. Native is good, and alien is bad.

Often hilarious

I believe it is time for a rethink — time to consider whether aliens can sometimes be the good guys, and whether nature’s go-getters are sometimes actually rebooting ecosystems damaged by human activity.

While researching my book The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation, I found numerous places where biodiversity is increasing, and nature is recovering, thanks to aliens. And many more where interlopers that were once regarded as arch environmental villains are now quite at home and causing no lasting harm. Just like most human migrants.

I also found that many of the scary numbers attached to the economic cost of alien species are, to say the least, far-fetched. Yes, of course the damage caused by crop or tree pests can be huge. But what about Japanese knotweed?

The new report from the Wildlife and Countryside Link puts its cost to Britain at over £200 million a year. But nobody actually spends anything like such sums. The figure turns out to be an extrapolation to the entire country of theoretical eradication costs in Swansea, a uniquely infested city.

Global estimates of the damage from alien species are often hilarious. They assume, for instance, that every time a domestic cat kills a bird the bill is $30. This is the economics of the madhouse. And ecologists who should know better are party to it.

Transient and accidental

But this is about bad ecology as well as bad economics.  There is a dogma about aliens that lurks in our often outdated and ill-founded ideas about how ecosystems work.

We often think of rainforests, wetlands and other ecosystems as pristine and perfected biological machines in which every species has evolved to occupy a unique niche. So, the theory goes, losing a native species or gaining a disruptive alien can only be bad, and could be disastrous.

Conservation becomes a ceaseless task of keeping out the interlopers and maintaining nature’s presumed balance.

But fewer and fewer ecologists believe that this is how most of nature actually works. Yes, nature does have some amazing synergies. But they are the exception.

New ecological thinking holds that most ecosystems are much more random, transient and accidental.  They are constantly being remade by fire, flood, disease – and species are forever coming and going, adapting and evolving.

Damage to nature

In this new vision of nature, change is not the enemy of nature, but its essence. And ecosystems are neither fragile nor finely tuned.  They are temporary, versatile, resilient and adaptable. 

When invaded by foreign species, most ecosystems don’t collapse, and few natives go extinct.  Often, they prosper better than before, with the new arrivals forming new alliances with natives in evolving ecosystems.  Co-evolution is constant.

That is why North America has many more plant species than it did before Europeans showed up, and only a handful of native extinctions.  And why San Francisco Bay, America’s most invaded marine ecosystem, is healthy enough to have just got accepted by the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international importance.

If, as most ecologists argue, more species is good for an ecosystem, making it more resilient against climate change or other threats, then most alien invasions deliver just that.  And there is surely no scientific basis for the common practice of ignoring alien species when biodiversity is being assessed.

None of this say conservation doesn’t matter.  On the contrary, the world’s ecosystems are in crisis.  Humans have done huge damage to nature, and in the 21st century we urgently need to turn that round.  But we will never do it by trying to recreate our vision of a pristine past.  We must give nature room to recolonise as it will.  To create a “new wild”.

And alien species will sometimes have a critical role in that.  Nature’s desperados, carpetbaggers, go-getters, innovators and colonists are often its best chance of rebounding from the havoc caused by our chainsaws and ploughs, our pollution and climate change.

They can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  True environmentalists, I believe, should be applauding the aliens.  The old wild is dead; but welcome to the new wild.

This Author

Fred Pearce will be speaking at The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation at Edinburgh International Science Festival at 6pm 12 April 2018. Find more information on the show and book tickets online. The New Wild by Fred Pearce is published by Icon Books, £8.99.

What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? What happens when values collide – when empathy for an indigenous population in crisis conflicts directly with empathy for the pilot whales they hunt, butcher and eat.

This is the seemingly intractable paradox at the very heart of The Islands and the Whales, from the director Mike Day and released in cinemas in the UK tomorrow. The small, close knit population of the Faroe Islands has for thousands of years hunted down and killed whales, eating the blubber and meat. They had for most of that time largely ignored the outside world – and in turn been ignored by us.

But the realities of our modern post-industrialised existence have like a tempest crashed against the rocks of the island – and changed everything about their lives. At first, this was welcomed.

Whale meat

This newness arrived in the form of roads in the 1950s, followed by street lighting, fridge-freezers, SUVs, television, rock concerts and the world wide web. The new motorboats and mobile phones make whale hunting more efficient, even more deadly to both quarry and hunter.

Then came a new understanding of the world. The mythical huldufolk – who lived in the shadows and only appeared occasionally to offer wisdom and warnings – have been scared away. With them has disappeared an ancient appreciation of the “bigness” and the power of nature, and humanity’s place within it.

Today, we have a much deeper understanding of the pilot whale itself: this sophisticated, majestic animal with a capacity for empathy which rivals our own, and complex family and social relations. With this knowledge comes pain – the pain at watching such beautiful animals butchered on the beach.

And with that comes animal rights protesters. We know their empathy for the anima. But we also witness their apparent failure to emotionally connect with the indigenous population, which in this case proves self defeating: it only galvanises the local community in their identity as whale hunters.

Finally – and fatally – the modern world brings pollution. This takes the form of toxic mercury leaching into the global oceans from the burning of coal for electricity – the power which made the manufacture of the television and powerboat possible. The mercury enters the food chain, rising up to the pilot male and in turn to its hunter.

Delight and entertain

The knowledge that modern science brings causes further anguish. Pal Weihe, the chief medical officer – a local hero, has been conducting a longitudinal study of the local community through hair and blood tests. These show, beyond doubt, that the mercury from the whale meat is poisoning men, women and children. They are warned it will hamper brain development and later cause problems like Alzheimer’s.

The Islands and the Whales provides a gentle insight into how an intelligent, compassionate community with a strong identity based on traditions of bird and whale hunting struggles to deal with the shock of the new. Slowly, it becomes clear that their fate is also our fate, in microcosm.

There is no voice over, no clunking agenda or ideology imposed. The cinematography is spellbinding, which greatly enhances the deep empathy that it is possible to feel both for the screaming whales and for the people who eat them. The Islands and the Whales is a deeply enchanting film.

There is in this universe no immovable objects – we swirl around in constant flux. There are no absolutes: fixed moralities have been torn apart in our complex modernity. Yet against all the odds we need to return to our empathy – and develop an ethics that accepts and connects.

The population of the Faroe Islands will in time come to terms with the dangers of eating whale meat, and at the same time are likely to develop a new understanding and connection to the breathtaking nature all around them. The whales will delight and entertain in a very different way. Perhaps also, the huldufolk will return along with the wisdom of the darkness.

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. The Islands and the Whales is released in UK cinemas 29 March 2018: http://theislandsandthewhales.com/screenings

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, was today “wholeheartedly congratulated” for his decision to introduce a nationwide deposit return system (DRS) for plastic and glass bottles by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – which had been campaigning for the policy for a decade.

The conservation charity argues that the introduction will help boost recycling rates and combat the plague of litter blighting our countryside. It claimed this was is a watershed moment for recycling in the UK, given that similar systems around the world produce extremely high results.

The long-awaited decision came following a call for evidence in October last year which investigated how the littering of plastic, metal and glass drinks containers could be reduced, as well as the recycling of them increased.

Finally accepting

The evidence submitted was examined by retail giants such as Coca-Cola and Tesco, alongside other members of the Voluntary and Economic Incentives Working Group, for which CPRE provided the secretariat.

The CPRE has campaigned for the introduction of a DRS for 10 years, and are “absolutely delighted by the announcement”. There has been increasing pressure from environmental organisations, the media and the public for more action to be taken against the tide of waste that is polluting our natural environments – with single-use drinks containers being a huge contributor.

Samantha Harding, Litter Programme Director at the Campaign to Protect Rural England said: “This is a brilliant and significant decision by Michael Gove. I am thrilled that we will finally see the many benefits a deposit system will bring to England, not least the absence of ugly drinks containers in our beautiful countryside.

“What’s significant is that producers will now pay the full costs of their packaging, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and setting a strong precedent for other schemes where the polluter pays. This really is a bold and exciting step by the Government.”

Bill Bryson, author and former President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said: “I wholeheartedly congratulate Michael Gove for his wisdom in finally accepting the case for a deposit return system in the UK – I never thought I would see this in my lifetime.

Boosting recycling

“Future generations will look back on this decision as a piece of supremely enlightened policymaking, and one that raises the prospect of the world’s most beautiful country becoming free from drinks container litter at last. My most profound gratitude goes to the tireless campaigners and heroic litter pickers of CPRE who, for the past decade, have kept the issue alive in the minds of our politicians, press and public.”

Emma Bridgewater, President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said: “This landmark announcement is the breakthrough we have been waiting for. CPRE have been campaigning for the introduction of a DRS for almost 10 years – it has been a long battle, but this significant victory is an enormous leap forward in the war against waste.

“Our countryside, oceans and wildlife have long since been the victim of our obsession with single-use bottles and cans, with the UK producing billions of them year after year. Many end up damaging our natural environments and killing our wildlife – and is also a shocking waste of valuable materials. The proven success of DRS in other countries means that now most of these bottles and cans will be captured and recycled – we congratulate the government on their decision.”

Deposit systems are already successfully operating in 38 countries around the world, producing average recycle rates for collected materials of 90 percent – reaching as high as 95 percent in Norway. The concept is simple – consumers will pay a small deposit on top of the cost of any drink that they buy. This is then returned to the customer when the container is returned to a retailer.

Economic incentives such as these are proven to be the best driver of behaviour change when it comes to boosting recycling and reducing waste. The consumption of plastic bags has gone down by more than 80 percent in England since the 5p charge was introduced.

This Author

Catherine Harte is a contributing editor to The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from Campaign to Protect Rural England.