The future of trade policy in the UK has come under renewed scrutiny as Brexit dominates the headlines. Boris Johnson is clearly treating the UK’s exit from the European Union as an opportunity to form a new trade pact with the United States.

But civil society groups fear that such an agreement would undermine food standards, push the NHS further towards privatisation, and prevent the UK from taking necessary steps to combat the climate crisis – all without requiring approval from Parliament.

Meanwhile, Parliament’s International Trade Committee recently launched an inquiry into how trade policy can support “positive environmental outcomes” – an admirable goal, to be sure, but one which would require a drastic change of attitudes towards trade among politicians of all parties.

Global economy 

As of yet, that change of attitudes has yet to occur. The connection between trade and the climate crisis runs deeper than practically any prominent politician has been willing to acknowledge.

Imagine a world where food routinely gets shipped thousands of miles away to be processed, then shipped back to be sold right where it started.

Imagine cows from Mexico being fed corn imported from the United States, then being exported to the United States for butchering, and the resulting meat being shipped back to Mexico, one last time, to be sold.

Imagine a world in which, in most years since 2005, China has somehow managed to import more goods from itself than from the USA, one of its largest trading partners.

This may sound like the premise of some darkly comic, faintly dystopian film, but it’s no joke – in fact, it is the daily reality of international trade in our global economy.

‘Re-importation’

The above examples are all instances of ‘re-importation’ – that is, countries shipping their own goods overseas only to ship them back again at a later stage in the production chain. And these are far from the only instances of this head-scratching phenomenon.

In the waters off the coast of Norway, cod arrive every year after an impressive migratory journey, having swum thousands of miles around the Arctic Circle in search of spawning grounds.

Yet this migration pales in comparison to the one the fish undertake after being caught: they’re sent to China to be fileted before returning to supermarkets in Scandinavia to be sold.

This globalisation of the seafood supply chain extends to the US as well; more than half of the seafood caught in Alaska is processed in China, and much of it gets sent right back to American grocery store shelves.

Compounding the insanity of re-importation is the equally baffling phenomenon of redundant trade. This is a common practice whereby countries both import and export huge quantities of identical products in a given year.

To take a particularly striking example, in 2007, Britain imported 15,000 tons of chocolate-covered waffles, while exporting 14,000 tons. In 2017, the US both imported and exported nearly 1.5 million tons of beef, and nearly half a million tons of potatoes. In 2016, 213,000 tons of liquid milk arrived in the UK – a windfall, had not 545,000 tons of milk also left the UK over the course of that same year.

Free trade

On the face of it, this kind of trade makes no economic sense. Why would it be worth the immense cost – in money as well as fuel – of sending perfectly good food abroad only to bring it right back again? The answer lies in the way the global economy is structured.

‘Free trade’ agreements allow transnational corporations to access labour and resources almost anywhere, enabling them to take advantage of tax loopholes and national differences in labour and environmental standards.

Meanwhile, direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels, on the order of $5 trillion per year worldwide, allow the costs of shipping to be largely borne by taxpayers and the environment instead of the businesses that actually engage in it. In combination, these structural forces lead to insane levels of international transport that serve no purpose other than boosting corporate profits.

The consequences of this bad behavior are already severe, and set to become worse in the coming decades. Small farmers around the world have seen their livelihoods undermined by influxes of cheap imported food, or forced to export their food instead of selling locally. Meanwhile, their climate-resilient agricultural practices are actively discouraged by the WTO and ‘free trade’ agreements.

Food processing and packaging – both critical for food that’s going to be shipped a long way from where it was produced – account for a significant proportion of the global food system’s greenhouse gas emissions.

And even after that packaging has been thrown into the nearest recycling bin, it typically undergoes yet another long-distance journey before being processed. Before China stopped allowing foreign waste imports in 2018, British companies alone had shipped more than 2.7m tons of plastic wasteto China and Hong Kong since 2012 – two-thirds of the UK’s total waste plastic exports. With the ban now in place, most of Britain’s plastic waste is simply being shipped elsewhere. 

International transport

Accruing unnecessary miles of shipping is not a feature unique to food or plastic waste. The components of a typical smartphone, for example, have traveled a collective half-million miles – touching down on three continents – before landing in your pocket.

This sprawling globalisation of the supply chain has grown alongside trade liberalization, to the point where now roughly 30 percent of the value of global exports comes from foreign inputs – up from 25 percent in 1990.

This kind of excessive trade in materials is why carbon emissions from international transport are growing nearly three times faster than emissions from other sources. At current rates of growth, international trade by sea and air will, by 2050, emit about as much CO2 as the entire European Union does today.

The link between liberalised trade policies and carbon emissions is clear and straightforward. A recent study from Japan’s Kyushu University found that when countries reduce or eliminate their tariffs – particularly on resource-intensive industries like mining and manufacturing – they see corresponding increases in the amount of carbon emissions associated with imported goods.

This is due in large part to the carbon cost of global transport, but there are other factors at play as well, tied to the trade and investment treaties that have been a prominent feature of the global economy since the mid-20thcentury.

Future profits

These treaties often include Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, which give corporations the right to sue national governments for, among other things, introducing environmental regulations that might curb future expected profits.

For example, the UK-based fossil fuel company Rockhopper is currently suing Italy for US$350 million in damages and “lost future profits”, because Italy banned new offshore drilling operations in 2015 due to sustained public pressure.

This is just one among many instances of the ISDS system leading to corporate abuses of power at the expense of planetary health. Indeed, environmental regulations are the fastest-growing trigger for ISDS cases being filed, and mining and energy companies are now the most frequent users of ISDS mechanisms.

Essentially, ISDS clauses in trade treaties have created a parallel court system in which conflicts of interest are rife, arbitrators are heavily incentivised to side with corporations (including fossil fuel companies) over the public interest, and decision-making happens largely outside the public view.

But in addition to producing corporate-friendly rulings, the ISDS system contributes to climate chaos in an even more sinister way, through what’s called ‘regulatory chill’. Countries that have signed treaties containing ISDS clauses often feel pressured not to implement new environmental laws and regulations, simply because of the threat of being sued in an ISDS tribunal.

For example, a proposed law that would have phased out oil and gas extraction in France was watered down beyond recognition after a Canadian fossil fuel company threatened to sue France in an ISDS court. And in a story that broke during the writing of this piece, German company Uniper threatened to bring an ISDS case against the Netherlands for deciding to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2030.

Climate policy

In this way, the number of cases brought before ISDS tribunals actually understates the impact of trade treaties on climate policy. Who knows how many potential regulations have never seen the light of day due to the threat of Big Oil taking countries to court?

With climate policy still largely in its infancy – with many necessary regulations not yet ‘on the books’ worldwide – the chilling effect of ISDS is a serious obstacle.

The upshot of all this is that if countries are going to effectively combat the climate crisis, they will have to pay close attention to trade policy. Specifically, they’ll need to change it so that unrestricted, unlimited ‘free trade’ is no longer an option.

But policymakers currently have little incentive to reduce international trade because, bizarrely, emissions from global trade do not appear in any nation’s carbon accounting. There are plenty of ways to fix this – for example, emissions from trade could be assigned to countries on the basis of where goods start out, where they end up, or where the ships and planes transporting them are registered.

All that countries would have to do is agree on a standard. But at the moment no country is assigned responsibility for these floating emissions. The result is a situation in which policymakers promise to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously working to expand global trade through treaties and liberalisation – even though these two goals are wholly incompatible.

Peoples’ movements

With policymakers continuing to drag their feet, the impetus for real change in the way we conduct global trade will have to come from peoples’ movements working together to make their voices heard. We must call for an end to the deregulatory ‘free trade’ and tax policies that make practices like re-importation and redundant trade profitable.

One of the most critical steps towards sanity would be the removal of subsidies for fossil fuels. When taxpayers stop paying part of the cost of global transport, transnational corporations will have to radically reconsider the way they operate.

These changes will be vigorously opposed by big global businesses, which means that generating momentum for trade policies that promote community health and ecological stability won’t happen overnight.

But the first step is raising awareness of trade as a climate issue, and overcoming the unwillingness of most major media outlets, politicians, and think-tanks to discuss it critically.

To that end, Local Futures has released a new factsheet and tongue-in-cheek short film on ‘insane trade’ and its consequences.

We hope they can help draw attention to the absurdity of the current system, point to healthier alternatives, and make the issue of global trade approachable and understandable for a wide audience. So please, share them with people you know, and start a conversation around this critical topic.

This Author 

Sean Keller is a member of the Local Futures core team.

Three hundred MPs are calling on the trustees of the £700m Parliamentary Pension Fund to take the financial risks of the climate crisis seriously and end investments in fossil fuel companies.

The cross-party initiative, backed by the leaders of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP as well as senior Conservatives, follows Parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency in May earlier this year and puts pressure on the trustees of the fund as they prepare to announce a new “Climate Change Investment Policy” in November.

The fund’s largest single holding is £11.6 million of shares in BP Plc, and it also holds £10.9 million in Royal Dutch Shell. If the trustees agree to the MPs’ demands it will be a powerful symbolic boost for the global movement to divest from fossil fuels, which has now been backed by more than 1000 funds worth over $11 trillion. 

Showing leadership

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, who has championed the initiative, said: “The climate emergency requires that we keep fossil fuels in the ground.

“I’ve been calling for fossil fuel divestment for well over five years and am encouraged by the huge number of MPs who now agree that we must move our investments away from the polluting industries of the past, and instead support policies that will bring about a clean energy future”. 

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, said: “Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is probably the single most urgent challenge we face if we are to avoid a really unmanageable climate crisis in the next few decades, with all the human cost this will entail.

“Parliamentarians of all parties have the opportunity to show real leadership on this question and to make our existing national commitments more of a reality. Divestment will send a positive and hopeful message to the people of this country – and to those in vulnerable communities across the globe who will be most immediately affected by climate-related disasters.’ 

The Divest Parliament Pledge has been signed by 300 current MPs, including Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn; Liberal Democrat Leader Jo Swinson; SNP Westminster Leader Ian Blackford and Conservative Culture Secretary Nicky Morgan. It has also been backed by 30 former MPs including Lord Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, and Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

Responsibility

The pledge states: “Unmitigated climate change threatens to undermine our economy, shared environment and global security. Under the UK’s Climate Change Act and the Paris Agreement, the UK is committed to limiting warming to well below 2C and to aim for no more than 1.5C.

“This requires leaving the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves unburnt, creating the real possibility of fossil fuel assets becoming stranded – with profound implications for the global economy.

“We believe Members of Parliament have a responsibility to act on climate change, and a unique opportunity to show leadership on climate action, responsible investment and the management of climate risk through addressing the practices of our own pension fund.

“As MPs past and present, and members of the Parliamentary Pension Fund, we call on the Trustees to uphold their fiduciary duty and take the financial risks of climate change seriously. We ask they quantify, disclose and review the fund’s investments in carbon-intensive industries, engage in a dialogue with fund members and managers on responsible investment, and commit to phasing out fossil fuel investments over an appropriate time-scale.”

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, the Environmental Audit Committee, and major global fund managers have warned that ordinary people’s pensions are now at risk because they are exposed to overvalued carbon assets as the world moves quickly towards cheaper, greener renewables, and governments legislate for net-zero emissions. 

Climate crisis

As the global climate crisis worsens, pressure is mounting on leaders at international, national and local levels to take tangible action. If the trustees of the Parliamentary Pension Fund follow the call for divestment, the fund would join the Irish National Infrastructure Fund, the Greater London Authority’s Pension Fund, the New York City Pension fund, local authorities including Southwark and Islington, and two thirds of UK universities, who have all ended investment in fossil fuel companies.

David Warburton, Conservative MP for Somerton and Frome said: “Parliament is fully committed to our net zero emission target and to get there we must invest billions into renewable infrastructure, energy efficiency and zero carbon technology.

“Pension funds have an exciting role to play in financing the transition to a net zero future, and it is really positive to see such a large group of cross party MPs coming together to pressure our pension fund trustees to phase out carbon intensive investments, and to ramp up positive investments into a green and prosperous future.” 

Helen Hayes, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood said: “Local authorities like Southwark and Lambeth, and the Mayor of London are showing the political leadership required to tackle the climate crisis by divesting their pension funds from fossil fuels.

“Parliament must now follow suit, and bring forward policies that are compliant with net zero emissions and the scale of the climate crisis. This requires keeping fossil fuels in the ground, and introducing long term policies that ensure clean energy can flourish.”

Patrick Killoran, UK Organiser at 350.org, said: “While our climate begins to unravel with fatal heatwaves and devastating floods, BP and Shell continue to invest billions in fuelling this crisis. At a time of climate breakdown, it is unacceptable for political leaders to be investing in or supporting policies that promote the fossil fuel industry.

“We are encouraged that MPs from across the political spectrum are backing up the ‘Climate Emergency’ rhetoric with action to divest from fossil fuels. We hope the pension fund Trustees hear these loud calls for fossil fuel divestment and produce a new investment strategy that will help bring about a fossil free future”.

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is content editor of The Ecologist. This article based on a press release from Divest Parliament. 

The districts of Surguja and Surajpur in northern Chhattisgarh, India, are rich in bio-diversity. They are home and migratory corridor for several species of wildlife, including elephants.

The catchment area of the Hasdeo Bango barrage irrigates four lakh hectares of prime agricultural land. The region is also home to Adivasis and other traditional forest dwellers, and sustains and supports their livelihoods and cultural exchange.

Due to the essential features of this rich area, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change declared the entire region as a ‘no-go area’ for mining in the year 2009. 

State machinery 

In 23 June 2011, the then Union Minister for the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) Shri Jairam Ramesh granted forest clearances to three coal blocks – in Tara, Parsa East and Kante Basan – but promised that no further clearance would be given to any other coal mining projects in this region.

Even this forest clearance was later set aside by the National Green Tribunal following Section two of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 for diversion of 1898.328 hectares of forest land at Parsa East and Kante-Basan captive coal blocks, in favour of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.  

On 30 June 2011, Jairam Ramesh wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regarding proposed clearances to the Morga II coal block allotment and strongly objected to any further mining activity in the proposed region.

The Union government in 2014 neglected the earlier position and started giving clearances to mining projects, thereby paving the way for the destruction of one of most important forest regions of the state. 

The auction/allotment of coal blocks is to be done by the Union government, but the state government is mandated to determine the procedures and lays down rules for forest and environment clearance and land acquisition.

The assessment and analysis for the loss of forest life, water sources, flora and fauna, environment changes and impact of these projects on the culture and livelihoods is to be done by the state government.

The state machinery is also responsible and empowered to raise any objections in this matter. It is also imperative to ensure implementation for PESA, 1996 and FRA, 2006 before initiating processes for land acquisition and giving forest clearances. and record the (lack of) consent from Gram Sabhas. 

Industrial lobby

The experiences of the last fifteen years have shown us that these processes are not only ignored, but also violated at the behest of corporate groups. The ill-impacts of these decisions has put the interests of the state at stake and today we are facing cathartic consequences. 

Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti hopes that the state government led by Shri Bhupesh Baghel will address the constant terror created by the industrial lobby and address the needs of the communities living in the state who are solely dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, culture and dignity.

We also hope that the state government would work further to conserve the environment and address the problems faced by the communities in the Hasdeo region. 

Demands

We urge the state government to consider the following demands, submitted to the Chief Minister on 21 October, 2019: 

Scrap the land acquisition process undertaken in the villages of Salhi, Hariharpur and Fathepur in the Parsa coal block: Surguja and Surajpur districts fall as under the Schedule V region. It is mandatory to secure written consent letters from Gram Sabhas for land acquisition for any project – as per the rules of the PESA, 1996. In the three villages of the proposed coal block, the acquisition process was carried out without securing the consent of concerned gram sabhas, which is a clear violation of PESA, 1996 and Section 41(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Hence, the land acquisition process should be readily cancelled. 

Cancel the Stage-I Forest Clearance given to Parsa Coal block: As per the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the letter dated 30th July, 2009 from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, any diversion of forest land is to precede with announcing the settlement of all claims as the FRA mandates, and with the written consent letter of the concerned Gram Sabhas. In the  affected villages of Salhi, Hariharpur, Fatehpur and Ghatbarra, the settlement of individual and community resource rights is still pending. There has also been no consent taken from the gram sabhas as per constitutional provisions. Hence, the Stage-1 clearance should be cancelled.  

Cancel the environment and forest clearance and land acquisition process in the Paturia, Gidhmuri and Madanpur South coal blocks: The 20 gram sabhas of Hasdeo Aranya passed a unanimous resolution in 2015 to oppose all future auction/allotment of coal blocks and mining, and submitted those to the then Chief Minister and the Prime Minister. In violation of the rights of Gram Sabhas recognized under Schedule V of the constitution and PESA rules, the allotments of 5 coal blocks were made. Hence, we demand that the environment, forest clearance and land acquisition process in Paturia, Girmudi and Madanpur South coal blocks.  

In addition, the MDO (Mines Developer cum Operator) agreement between Adani group and Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company (which was allotted the Paturia and Gidhmuri coal block) should be cancelled. 

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Let India Breathe. 

Singer Ellie Goulding said her young fans come to her for answers about the climate crisis, at an international environment summit on Wednesday.

The chart-topping British songwriter said her fans are “struggling to find answers (on climate change) from parents and school” at One Young World conference.

Ms Goulding, who has been an environmental ambassador for the UN since 2017, said: “previous generations have failed to act” and commended younger people for taking action against climate change.

Obsessed

The 32-year-old said: “Over the last 12 months the clear-eyed focus of young people has created an unstoppable force of change.

“When I first met Greta Thunberg at Davos last year, the school climate strikes were a relatively recent phenomenon.

“Climate crisis is the era that we inhabit. It forms the backdrop to our lives, a constant soundtrack which will only get louder.”

Speaking about her own childhood, she said: “From a very early age I have been motivated by anger about injustice.”

She said growing up in rural Herefordshire instilled in her a love of nature, and since becoming a climate ambassador has become “obsessed” with combating climate change through “communication”.

Emergency

The singer told the audience: “I am acutely aware of the power of songs to communicate messages.

“And it is important to remember when we communicate our message about the Earth that it is just as important to connect with people on a human level as it is to communicate the facts.”

“They give us an emotional workout. This type of connection is the point, the power of music.”

The singer added: “When I am not doing something which directly addresses the climate emergency or homelessness I feel really guilty.”

These Authors

Mike Bedigan and Laura Parnaby are reporters with PA. Image: Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media TV. 

Agriculture could hold the key to tackling the climate emergency and meeting the Government’s net zero goals, the head of an environment-focused industry body says, but political uncertainty is holding the industry back.

Read: The farms attempting to reverse wildlife decline

Martin Lines, chairman of the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN), said farmers had received “plenty of warm words” from the government but no long-term funding guarantees for projects to help them capture carbon and reverse habitat loss.

Speaking to the PA news agency, he said: “When it comes to tackling the climate emergency, farmers on the ground can react the quickest.

Rewilding

“We are calling for additional support and more money to direct towards those that can deliver the climate change mitigation opportunities.”

Founded just two years ago, the NFFN has over 1,000 members and is growing all the time as more farmers look for cost-effective ways to combat issues such as declining soil quality and erosion.

But it is still tiny when compared to the rest of UK agriculture, which is comprised of an estimated 220,000 holdings operated by around 120,000 businesses and accounts for 70 percent of all land.

The NFFN thinks the quickest way to mobilise the rest of the industry to fight climate change is a clear system of payments for helping implement the Government’s environmental policies.

Private projects such as rewilding farms and country estates have met with resistance from farmers, but the NFFN wants to see policy that empowers them.

Transition

“Many of the projects for rewilding are top down, if we can go from the bottom up and get farmers engaged and delivering, then things happen quickly,” Mr Lines said. “Farmers don’t like being told how to manage their farms or that they are doing things wrong.”

The NFFN supports the Government’s mooted £3 billion “public money for public goods policy” that would see farmers rewarded for projects such as carbon capture and flood mitigation.

But Mr Lines said political uncertainty – particularly the future of Brexit and the likelihood of a general election in the near future – is making farmers hesitate.

“We get many warm words from the Government but we know this Government might not be in place for the duration set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act – we need long term funding guarantees,” he said.

In its latest report published on Thursday, the NFFN found 90 percent of its members think the industry is under-resourced to transition to sustainable food production at scale.

Capital

A further 54 percent did not trust the Government to deliver on the public money for public goods policy, while 49 percent did not think the £3 billion earmarked for the policy would be enough.

Accelerating climate change is also a barrier to investment as farmers are unsure how best to future-proof their businesses.

Mr Lines said: “Many are aware that the system they are farming in for the long term will not be sustainable, but they are unsure in which direction to go.

“We have the uncertainty of future funding but also we have the big uncertainty of climate change and the question of what kind of system we need to put in place.”

He added: “We have limited amounts of capital investment available, and we need certainty and direction to invest our money and also the public’s money in delivering the climate mitigation, the wildlife improvement and that future food security that we need.”

Climate

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “We know farmers are crucially important stewards of our natural environment and have a key role to play in helping the UK reach our tough net zero target.

“That’s why we’re reforming agricultural policy and allocating millions to support our hard-working farmers for taking action that locks up carbon and cuts emissions.

“This includes a £15 million fund to invest in new innovative technology to help them meet the daunting job of feeding the nation while coping with the effects of our changing climate.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter with PA.

The idea of banning fracking isn’t new. But, as calls increase around the world for fossil fuel divestment, bans on hydraulic fracking have entered the political mainstream as a very real election issue both in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Putting fossil fuels behind us for good, despite the now-well-publicised urgency of doing so, has proven an uphill battle. Entrenched interests in the oil and gas community have doubled down on fracking as a way to “pivot” to renewables. The practice is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases compared to coal, but it also keeps us dependent on fossil fuels.

It would be good if fracking did help us lower carbon emissions compared to previous levels, but it brings potential trouble of its own, including earthquakes and water and air contamination. Maybe fracking really is the “coal killer” people say it is. But are renewables the “fracking killer”?

Fracking advantages

Fracking is one method of obtaining natural gas. Per unit of energy, natural gas yields in the United States roughly half the carbon emissions as burning coal. Fracking also doesn’t require the level of visible destruction that open-pit mines and mountaintop removal procedures do.

With natural gas cheaper for utilities to deploy and more efficient in generating power, it’s easy to see why natural gas has filled out the areas in America’s energy portfolio where coal used to reside. Coal-based power plants cannot realistically compete any longer.

Natural gas power plants perform capably during periods of high demand in a way that nuclear and coal plants cannot. As solar and wind production ebb and flow, natural gas-based power plants can come online very quickly and fill in any supply shortfalls.

For these reasons, fracking and renewable energy generation have enjoyed simultaneous growth over the last several years. Over a decade, renewable electricity capacity in the US doubled even as natural gas investments continued. Natural gas has helped us divest from coal and its huge carbon footprint, and it seems to provide a solution for renewables’ few apparent shortcomings.

However, saying that investment in fracking today “encourages” investment in renewable energies like solar and wind is a little disingenuous.

Fracking downsides

One of the big arguments against fracking is that it keeps us dependent on fossil fuels. At a time when scientists say there is a literal ticking clock counting down to the end of farming and the apparent heat-death of planet earth, many argue it’s time to put fossil fuels behind us for good. Investing here feels increasingly like a backward-looking endeavor.

Fracking is seen as a net positive because it helps keep oil and gas prices manageable while we shift away from coal. But it’s also a huge problem for those same reasons: Low oil and gas prices mean there’s little profit motive in finding more efficient automobile technology and improved batteries.

Indeed, as fracking has grown in popularity, automotive conglomerates have increased, rather than decreased, lobbying to keep mile-per-gallon regulations low for American cars and emissions regulations high. If fracking was at any point intended to be a measure to “buy ourselves time” as we solve the transportation emissions and electric car problems, it seems that mission has been entirely subverted by industrialists.

Moreover, researchers are sounding alarm bells about wastewater production in the oil and gas sector and the remarkable speed with which fracking activities can reduce or dangerously deplete local water tables. Some 17 million Americans live within a mile of a fracking site. Proximity to wells correlates with low-birth-weight babies and other health problems.

Estimates also say fracking in the U.S. is single-handedly responsible for around half the global increase in methane emissions and leaks over the past decade. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and another one that industries don’t want regulated. Even as it helps reduce the greenhouse gases in our energy portfolio once emitted by coal, it’s doing damage of its own in other ways.

Controversy continues

Will renewables ever replace fracking? The U.S. produced more electricity using natural gas than it did using any other method in 2018, with 34 percent of the energy portfolio. In 2018, nuclear energy stood at 19 percent and renewables stood at 20 percent. But even among industry insiders, there are worries that the low energy prices supported by fracking are “artificially” low and that they can only increase from here.

Moreover, the balance may already have shifted. In Los Angeles’ Power and Water department made the decision to build a solar farm with battery storage instead of a natural gas power plant. Making the decision to embrace renewables will mean Los Angeles can produce electricity for half the cost of natural gas. When our electric grids become capable of storing as much electricity in batteries (for high-demand, low-supply periods) as would be supplied by natural gas, we will have no practical need for fracking any longer.

The cost-effectiveness of renewables may not be uniform everywhere right now. But we can say with some certainty that the average cost for renewables will only fall, while the average cost to spool up a new natural gas plant can only increase. There is also ample evidence that renewable energy projects enjoy far more support from the population than fracking projects — sometimes fully twice as much support.

According to climate scientists, the planet cannot afford new oil and gas projects if we’re to realize our collective climate goals. Fracking came along at an important moment and helped us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and get close to divesting ourselves of coal.

Now, renewables and fracking share a mutually beneficial relationship. Shortly, however, we’re likely to look back at fracking as the “booster rocket” we needed that got us to something better. In this case, the “something better” is a future powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

This Author 

Emily Folk is a regular contributor to The Ecologist, a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

Intensive agriculture is among the factors blamed for the steep decline in wildlife native to the UK and Ireland since the 1970s, but the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN) is determined to reverse the trend. Here are some of the farms doing their bit.

Read: Agriculture ‘key in meeting net zero carbon targets’

Charlie Cole, Broughgammon Farm, Moyle, Northern Ireland – “We have species-rich acid grasslands which we graze sensitively to ensure optimal conditions for plants and wildlife.

“We’ve restored a network of hedges and pockets of woodland around the farm. We’re in the process of establishing a farm rotation through our good fields to benefit soil health and contribute to carbon storage.”

Holistic

David Lord, Earls Hall Farm, Essex – “Arable farmers are seeing huge benefits from using cover crops in between cash crops.

“In the intervening six-month period between harvesting our wheat crop and sowing our next crop, we grow a diverse mix of plant species which pulls carbon and nitrogen from the air, improves soil health and provides a great habitat for wildlife, including wading birds, lapwings and curlews.”

Sorcha Lewis, Troedrhiwdrain Farm, Mid-Wales – “We’ve planted a Ffridd habitat for the Welsh Clearwing moth, introduced fruiting trees for the wintering birds and installed a pond which is home to water voles.

“We have peat bogs which capture carbon and our stock is grass fed all year round which reduces our carbon footprint.”

Lynn Cassells, Lynbreck Croft, Cairngorms National Park, Scotland – “We take a holistic approach to farming and avoid chemicals: that means no fertilisers, no pesticides and no herbicides.

Fertiliser

“We use regenerative grazing practices to improve the health of our soil and ensure we only have breeds that are suited to our land.”

Gethin Owen, Nant-yr-Efail, Abergele, North Wales – “We have implemented a mixed farming approach, trying to be as self-sufficient as possible.

“Growing red and white clover minimises the amount of fertiliser we need to buy and protects the soil.”

Michael Meharg, Fortfarm, County Antrim, Northern Ireland – “We’ve planted over 5km of hedges and around 1.5 hectares of woodland with 2,000 trees.

“We manage our grasslands with zero artificial fertiliser input and delay cutting to protect the Irish hare. Recently we’ve incorporated a 20kw solar farm to generate clean energy.”

Lapwing

Neil Heseltine, Hilltop Farm, north Yorkshire, England – “We have created hay meadows, which support a rich mixture of flowers and grasses and provide valuable nesting habitat for birds.

“We make sure we leave sufficient time before we mow to allow the ground nesting birds to lay eggs and give the fledglings time to fly away. Perhaps the most noticeable change has been the growth of plant life on the farm.

“There were plants that I didn’t even know existed until we started putting some of our nature friendly practices in place.

“These plants provide a habitat for invertebrates, allowing birds to follow. We regularly see red-listed species including curlew, lapwing and skylark.”

Adopting

Polly Davies, Slade Farm, St Brides Major, South Wales – “Through the provision of overwintered stubbles for birds, red clover fields for bees and wild mouse drips for small mammals, we support farmland wildlife so it can flourish.

“The farm is organic so we don’t spray pesticides or herbicides and we reduce our impacts by managing nutrients through farm land manure and green waste.

“By managing hedgerows on a two-year cycle, the red-listed yellowhammer populations have increased significantly.”

Nick Rau, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The NFFN is showing how agriculture can help fix the climate emergency, reverse nature decline and produce high quality food.

“By adopting nature friendly solutions such as more trees on farms, less intensive and better quality meat and dairy we can work towards a farming system that is better for the planet.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter with PA.

The government’s plan to establish the UK shale gas industry through the controversial process of fracking is taking longer than expected, a new report has said.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report comes amid ongoing public concern over the effects of fracking on the environment and public health.

Fracking is the process of extracting gas and oil from shale rock wells by using highly pressurised water, sand and chemicals.

Costs

In 2016, the Cabinet Office said it expected that up to 20 wells would have been fracked by mid-2020, but only three have been fracked to date.

Site operators have said the system to protect against the risk of earthquakes is stricter than that used internationally and claim that this has hindered their ability to develop the industry, the report said.

The NAO also found that operations have proved costly for local authorities and police forces, which manage anti-fracking protests, traffic disruption and general public safety at the sites.

The report estimated that at least £32.7 million had been spent by public bodies since 2011, although the full costs are not known.

Three local forces have incurred costs; Lancashire Constabulary, North Yorkshire Police, and Nottinghamshire Police.

Untested

Lancashire Constabulary reported that between 25 and 100 officers were “directly involved” in the policing of fracking sites every day between January 2017 and June 2019, at a cost of £11.8 million.

Public concern about fracking operations centres around greenhouse gas emissions, groundwater pollution and fracking-induced earthquakes.

Francis Egan, the chief executive of Cuadrilla, the only company to have fracked a well in the UK, said it was right that the government invests in a “major national resource”. But he recognised that the industry needs to work on building public support.

In August this year, a tremor measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale was detected at a Cuadrilla fracking site near Blackpool, the largest ever recorded at the site. Fracking has been indefinitely suspended since.

The report states that landowners may ultimately be liable for the decommissioning costs of fracking sites, should an operator be unable to cover them, but arrangements are “unclear and untested”.

Ban

Following its publication, shadow business and energy secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, condemned the fracking operations.

“The Tory-Lib Dem coalition and now the Tory government have wasted millions pushing an industry that is unpopular across the UK and fiercely opposed locally,” she said.

“Fracking threatens air and water quality, and it contributes to the climate crisis. And as this report reveals, the Government’s plan for making fracking sites safe after they’ve been used is unclear and untested.

“Well let me be crystal clear, Labour will ban fracking immediately.”

Safe

The report added that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) felt that climate change objectives could be met while developing shale gas, but that the necessary technology had not yet been developed.

Greenpeace UK chief scientist Doug Parr said the government has “wasted well over £1 per UK household propping up a pointless and divisive pursuit of a fossil fuel that our commitments to decarbonisation mean we can hardly use”.

A spokesman for BEIS said: “The government has always said shale gas exploration can only proceed as long as it is safe and environmentally responsible.

“The Oil and Gas Authority will soon publish a finalised scientific assessment of recent industry data and we will set out our future approach as soon as we have considered the findings.”

This Author

Mike Bedigan is a reporter with PA.

The winner of England’s Tree of the Year contest has been announced as the “spectacular” Allerton Oak in Liverpool.

The tree in Calderstones Park received more than 34 percent of the 11,000 votes cast in the annual competition, run by the Woodland Trust.

Members of the public were asked to nominate trees with fascinating stories.

Unique

The Colchester Castle Sycamore, growing on the walls of the Essex stronghold, came second while the mythical Dragon Tree on the Isle of Wight was a “close third”.

There are separate winners from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but judges confirmed the Allerton Oak will represent the UK in the European Tree of the Year contest which begins in February.

So far no British tree has scooped the top prize at European level, although Wales’s Brimmon Oak has come close, earning second place in 2017.

Award-winning horticulturist and TV personality David Domoney, who has supported the competition throughout, said: “Working with the Woodland Trust on its Tree of the Year campaign is a real pleasure.

“The entrants this year have been outstanding and illustrate perfectly the unique nature of our native trees. I wish the tree the best of luck as it enters the European Tree of the Year competition. Please vote for the British tree.”

Greener

The tree has a colourful history – it is mentioned in the Domesday Book and local legend tells of a medieval court, known as a Hundred Court, that met under its branches as local officials had no courthouse.

Liverpool City Council is working in partnership with the Mersey Forest to preserve the Allerton Oak. The council has already invested around £70,000 this year, but the value of the tree is “conservatively estimated” at more than £500,000.

Adam Cormack, Woodland Trust head of campaigning, said: “The Allerton Oak is a spectacular example of a city tree.

“Trees are an important part of the urban landscape helping to make our towns and cities better places to live. We are keen to increase understanding of their value and promote their protection.

“We are currently working with partners to help increase tree cover in the city and make Liverpool a greener place to live.”

This Author

Mike Bedigan is a reporter with PA.

Sir David Attenborough, president emeritus of The Wildlife Trusts, has made a short film with the charity to provide answers to the State of Nature partnership’s latest warnings of continued, devastating wildlife declines in the UK.

In the film, Sir David calls for powerful new laws to ensure the UK’s wild places can thrive once more and for a Nature Recovery Network.

Sir David Attenborough says in the film: “A wildlife-rich natural world is vital for our wellbeing and survival. We need wild places to thrive.” 

Recovery network 

Attenborough continues: “Yet many of our systems and laws have failed the natural world. We now live in one of the most nature depleted places on the planet.

“Nature urgently needs our help to recover – and it can be done. By joining up wild places and creating more across the UK we would improve our lives and help nature to flourish – because everything works better when it’s connected.

“Now is the time to tell our politicians that we need a Nature Recovery Network set in law. A legally binding network for nature would mean that wildlife is prioritised when managing our land and planning our towns. Powerful new environmental laws can ensure habitats are expanded and reconnected meaning all life will thrive once more.

“It’s time to turn things around. Nature is capable of extraordinary recovery but we must act now! Tell your politicians now is the time to put nature into recovery. Everything works better when it’s connected.”

The film urges people to take action for a wilder future. It follows on from an earlier film created by The Wildlife Trusts, also narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which retold the children’s tale The Wind in the Willows to highlight the problems faced by UK wildlife. This new film goes one step further by providing a tangible solution.

Recover and thrive

Nikki Williams, director of campaigns and policy at The Wildlife Trusts, said: “Nature is in big trouble but we know how to bring it back. Local action is already making a real difference and now the government needs to play its part.

“We need a Nature Recovery Network established in law – one that is locally developed and nationally connected – this would help join up our last remaining wild places by creating vital new habitats.

“It’s time to make nature a normal part of childhood again and restore wildlife so it can recover and thrive across urban jungles and the countryside once more – where it can be part of people’s daily lives.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Wildlife Trusts.