“…Where did that come from? Afterwards, it’s as obvious as daylight. But afterwards is too late.  Afterwards is no bloody use to anyone.”  – Upon the Mathematics of Falling Away, Paul Kingsnorth

For many years Paul Kingsnorth has been an ‘activist’.  From being part of the Twyford Down protests when he was 19, travelling around the world, writing about the rise of the grass roots anti-globalisation movement and the damage to the Earth, to becoming a known voice on environmentalism and using his skill with words on websites, in magazines, on panels – you name it, he did it.

He doesn’t do that any more.  I’ll rephrase that – he doesn’t do that kind of environmentalism any more.  This fascinating collection of essays explains why.

Only one of the essays was actually written for the book; the others, from 2010 onwards, have been published elsewhere. Even though some of them appear on the surface not to be related, putting them together like this charts the progress in his thinking and feelings about how humanity is failing to tackle the damage to the environment and the threat of climate change.

He starts with A Crisis of Bigness.  There is no doubt the world is facing a crisis, and that the current crisis “is a crisis of growth.  Not, as we are regularly told, a crisis caused by too little growth, but by too much of it.”

He quotes Leopold Kohr whose book A Breakdown of Nations sets out Kohr’s belief that “small states, small nations and small economies are more peaceful, more prosperous and more creative than great powers or superstates“.  This is very much the attitude that the American farmer/essayist and poet Wendell Berry takes when he champions the small community’s ability to survive, or indeed the late economist E.F. Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful.

This is not what superpowers and global corporations want to hear. For them the answer is always to grow, no matter how much of the Earth is used up.  For Kingsnorth and some others the Earth comes first.  Humanity is part of the Earth, not outside or above it.  We belong to it in a very real way that has nothing to do with money, or ‘progress’ or man’s anthropocentric belief in his exceptionality.

The problem with current environmentalism, claims Kingsnorth, is that in its efforts to stop or at least affect the actions of global corporations, environmentalists have adopted corporate language, and that has sucked them into the corporate game.  It was, he writes, “perhaps inevitable that a utilitarian society would generate a utilitarian environmentalism.”

As an example (mine, not Kingsnorth’s), despite the anger among Green people at the corporate desire to see everything natural as having monetary value, environmentalists tend to counter that by placing their own values on, say, a piece of woodland which will, in the end, have a part to play in our economy.

There is a huge push from the Green Movement for renewable energy.  Fine.  We’d all like clean carbon-free energy (although no human activity in today’s world is carbon-free), but our demand for energy is so huge that it will turn the wild areas of our green land into industrial sites for solar panels and wind farms.

And Kingsnorth identifies a greater problem in our thinking: somehow we believe that achieving 100% renewable energy will allow us to go on living the way we do now, without giving anything up.  It will be ‘sustainable’, whatever that means. ‘Sustainable’ is not one of his favourite words. To quote from the essay that has the same title as the book:

“(Renewable energy) is an engineering challenge; a problem-solving device for people to whom the sight of a wild Pennine hilltop on a clear winter day brings not feelings of transcendence but thoughts about the wasted potential for renewable energy. It is about saving civilisation from the results of our own actions; a desperate attempt to prevent Gaia from hiccupping and wiping out our coffee shops and broadband connections. It is our last hope.“

If you read no other part of the book, read this essay.  It is a damning indictment of what has happened to the Green Movement over the years, the shift away from trying to protect wild, non-human places for their own sake, not ours. Now our, and only our, interests are central to the argument. The mainstream environmentalists don’t like being called out on this, and Kingsnorth has received a lot of criticism for turning his back – he was ‘a middle class escapist who needed to get real’.

He does point out that his retreat to a small plot of land with his family to live a very low-impact life is his answer to what is happening to the planet. We should be grateful he goes on writing and stirring our thoughts, but we all have to find our own way of living with what faces us – the destruction of our only home and the destruction of our life-friendly climate.

The essay The Bay is a wonderfully personal and emotive piece about Morecambe Bay. In describing how the Bay works, Kingsnorth helps us to understand how uncontrollable the natural world can be, and how our desire to control often simply adds to a dangerous ignorance. And when we have the power and technical capability to control something as wild as Morecambe Bay, we will, inevitably, destroy it.

In The Witness Kingsnorth tackles something which humanity with its dreams of immortality, if not for individuals then at least for the species, does not want to look at. Planet Earth has gone through many extinction events. It is, says Kingsnorth, “an extinction machine. It is not in crisis; we humans are, or see it as a crisis.” It is hard to see the loss of species that we are witnessing now as a natural process. The difficulty with this extinction event is that we humans have caused it. It need not have happened.

The final essay, Planting Trees in the Anthropocene, looks at a future its adherents call the ‘technium’.  The geeks, the digital wonder boys, foresee a time when humans become dominated by technology to the point when we become mechanised. We are already on the way, being so attached to our computers and smart phones we pay no attention to the outer world. But if we are intent on destroying the processes of life on our planet, when we can no longer produce food, live with rising seas or scorching temperatures, what option will humanity have but to become a machine? Quite frankly, the view is terrifying.

This book is full of thoughts that have passed through my own mind over the years: the absolute conviction that humanity is not separate from, above or outside the rest of life, but simply one part of it; that its interests and rights are no more important than those of any other form of life: the long-held conviction that there are simply too many of us wanting more and more of something else’s space; and the belief that we need to return to thinking ‘small’, both in our communities and our individual needs.  How else, regardless of what the future holds, can we be at peace both with ourselves and the planet?

Looking at how we are destroying the Earth we know, recognising that any action on climate change will not stop our inevitable collapse, how do we live with what we have done and are doing in our pursuit of ever more ‘sustainable growth’? 

We have to find a way to live kindly with the Earth, in order to survive as best we can. 

In their joint interview on BBC Radio 4 (broadcast on May 1^st, 2017) both Paul Kingsnorth and Wendell Berry advocated finding a part of the natural world to love and be part of. We cannot ‘save the world’, as Kingsnorth thought he was doing in his early days of activism. But we can each find a little piece of it to love and protect.

Kingsnorth is a talented, engaging writer and this book is a good read, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. Every essay provides food for thought and given a chance, can rearrange the way you view things. It will certainly give you stronger arguments for protecting the wild, of which we are a part.  It could even change the way you decide to live.

This Author

Lesley Docksey is a regular contributor to the Ecologist

Climate change means colder winters, heavy rains and lots of environmental hazards for many people, writes Lina Yassin of Climate Tracker. 

But for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), climate change means uninhabitable weather conditions, forced migration and loss of traditional income. It is a real threat that might make the region uninhabitable. 

The MENA region is considered the world’s driest region: it is the home to six percent of the world’s population yet it contains 12 countries that face extreme water scarcity – including Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Algeria.

According to The World Bank, the MENA region has less than two percent of the world’s water supply.

Climate change is already affecting the MENA region in dire ways, but it is expected that climate change will cause extreme heat to spread across more of the land for longer periods of time.

This will make some countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia uninhabitable because it will create humid heat conditions at a level incompatible with human existence.

It will also play a major role in reducing growing areas for agriculture – which is one of the most important sectors in the region.

The rising temperatures will keep increasing the pressure on crops and water resources, which will eventually lead to an amplified level of migration and risk of conflict.

The MENA region has experienced a tremendous amount of environmental hazards due to climate change effects.

Between 2006 and 2010, Syria experienced extreme droughts that turned 60 percent of the country into dry desert, making large regions to become economically impoverished.

In 2013 heavy and continuous rains in most of Sudan have led to floods that destroyed 25,000 homes and left hundreds of thousands of people with no work, home, or even family.

The UAE has also suffered a lot from climate change effects: in 2008 at least three people were killed and 350 injured in a horrific 60 vehicle pile-up due to heavy fog.

In 2016, Tunisia’s rainfall dropped by 30 percent causing agricultural losses of nearly two billion dinars.

It is clear now that the MENA region has no option but to go “green”. Adaptation along with mitigation measures will be essential to build up the resilience needed to cope with the changes.

There is an urgent need for governments to invest in new clean-energy innovations that will effectively reduce greenhouse gases emission and halt rising temperature.

Morocco has been a good example on this by making climate change adaptation a national priority and setting the country on a path to green growth.

The country made a strategy called Green Morocco Plan which is focused on agricultural adaptation and sustainable water and land management.

Tunisia is another good example of a country that is well on its way, since it recently decided to include the protection of environment in its new constitution.

Bahrain opened its first solar plant factory this year which shows the government interest in renewable energy investments.

MENA’s climate is ideal for renewable energy technologies, the abundant sunshine and open spaces could be a perfect source for sustainable power sources such as solar and wind power.

Some countries in the region are setting good examples and moving forward with their plans for a better environment.

Others are still depending on fossil fuel industries as their main source of energy, with the leading role for this part going to Saudi Arabia, holding a large part of the region from tackling the issue in a proper way.

The people who have little to no contribution in the issue of climate change are the one suffering the most from its effects.

Therefore, tackling climate change should be every countries’ first priority, because by standing up against climate change we are laying the foundations for a more stable future and less poverty.

This is absolutely necessary if we want to make sure the next generation will have a chance to live in a good environment.

This Author

Lina Yassin is Climate Tracker’s MENA Programme Manager. She is a chemical engineering student from Sudan

www.climatetracker.org

If I were a bee I might well buzz off pretty smartish across the channel. That’s because the future for these vital pollinators looks suddenly more rosy in the EU than it does in the UK.

It was Tory MEP Julie Girling – from my own region, the South West, I am ashamed to admit – who sought to block plans by the European Commission to extend current restrictions on three neonicotinoid pesticides.

She failed, due to 42 MEPs on the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voting to support the Commission’s proposal to extend the ban, and only eight siding with Girling to block the ban. Great news for EU bees, but given the Tories’ cosy relationship with the agri-chemical corporate sector, much more worrying if you are a Brexit bee. 

Neonic ban in the nick of time

Neonicotinoids are the world’s most commonly used insecticides, but have been banned on flowering crops in the EU since 2013.

The ban followed the publication of three reports by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) looking at the toxicity risk to bees and other pollinator species of three neonicotinoid pesticides.

Two of these pesticides, clothianidin and imidacloprid, are made by the corporate giant Bayer; the third, thiamethoxam, is made by Syngenta. 

In 2016 the EFSA found that using neonicotinoids on all types of crops poses a high risk to bees. The European Commission responded by proposing a ban on all uses of the insecticides outside greenhouses.

The mounting scientific evidence in support of extending the ban and the vote in the Environment Committee sends a strong message to EU member states that they should support such a ban. But only if you are in the EU of course.

Syngenta, manufacturers of thiamethoxam, has always denied its products have anything to do with bee mortality. The company earns billions of Euros a year selling neonicotinoid “plant protection products” and seed coating products. It has also been at the centre of a multi-million lobbying campaign across Europe.

The company has taken to the internet and placed full page adverts in major European newspapers, to claims that a ban on neonicotinoids is based on flawed science and emotional humbug.

It claims that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to a fall in crop yields of up to 40% and would not save a single bee hive. This has clearly been swallowed hook, line and stinger by the Tories.

Indeed, in 2015, the then Conservative Farming Minister, George Eustice, took out a UK derogation on the EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, implying ‘exceptional circumstances’ for applying for an ‘emergency authorisation’ for the use of the chemicals. He also claimed there was “a lot of ambiguity” about the evidence. 

However, a recent UN report was unequivocally scathing about neonicotinoids and deeply critical of the agri-chemical corporations that manufacture them.

The UN accused Bayer and Syngenta of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”. 

Standing up for bees

The EU is offering the prospect of ridding Europe of these hugely harmful and totally unnecessary pesticides, that have quite clearly had a devastating effect on bee populations.

But the hard Brexit, anti-red-tape brigade inside the Tory party are more keen on ridding us of what they see as interfering rules – those regulations that actually protect our wildlife, including essential pollinators like bees. 

Despite protestations by the agri-chemical industry, farmers and Tory politicians, there is a real alternative to the use of neonicotinoids. ‘Integrated pest management’ is the term used to describe this alternative.

It involves low-pesticide input pest management, prioritising non-chemical methods – working with the ecosystem rather than aiming to ‘control’ it. Integrated pest management is already a goal set out within the EU Directive on sustainable use of pesticides.   

As Brexit negotiations get under way we will need to watch carefully that leaving the EU doesn’t have a nasty sting in its tail for out valuable pollinators.

As Greens, we will do all we can to defend crucial environmental regulations from attack by corporate giants and complicit politicians. 

This Author

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West of England and sits on the European Parliament’s Agricultural Committee

Genetically engineered (GE) bacteria have been found in riboflavin vitamin supplements intended for animal feed use, according to newly published EU tests.

Contamination of food grade or animal feed supplements with GE bacteria is illegal in the European Union. In 2014, however, a German enforcement laboratory alerted EU officials to illegal GE bacterial contamination of a riboflavin supplement intended for animal feed.

Further tests showed that the illegal contaminating strain was not among those the manufacturer claimed to be using. The findings, just published in the journal Food Chemistry, were made by regulators from Germany and Italy who were sampling Chinese imports (Paracchini et al., 2017).

Riboflavin (vitamin B2) is an essential vitamin of vertebrate organisms. It is commonly used as a food additive for humans and animals. Until quite recently, all riboflavin supplements were chemically synthesised. However, riboflavin is now frequently produced by commercial fermentation using overproducing strains of GE bacteria.

According to EU biosafety regulations, no GMO bacterial strain, nor any DNA, is allowed to be present in commercial supplements. However, the contaminated sample of riboflavin contained viable strains of the genetically modified organism Bacillus subtilis.

The researchers cultured and tested the contaminating bacterium and subsequent DNA sequencing showed it to be a production strain. Further testing showed it to contain genomic DNA conferring resistance to the antibiotic chloramphenicol. In addition, the strain contained DNA extrachromosomal plasmids with other antibiotic resistance genes. These conferred resistance to the antibiotics, ampicillin, kanamycin, bleomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin.

Correspondence between German diplomats, Chinese authorities, and the company, subsequently established that these antibiotic resistance genes constituted key differences between the strains the company claimed to be using and what was detected in Germany.

Only the erythromycin and chloramphenicol resistance genes were acknowledged by the producer. Whether the altered strains had been used intentionally or were inadvertent contaminants is still not clear. In 2015 a French testing laboratory found one riboflavin sample also contaminated with what is likely to be an identical bacterial strain, again from China (Barbau-Piednoir et al., 2015).

According to Janet Cotter of the consultancy Logos Environmental, European Food Safety Authority regulations state that antibiotic resistance genes “should be restricted to field trial purposes and should not be present in GM plants to be placed on the market” to prevent them entering the food chain as these antibiotic resistance genes presumably have.

“This incident is the latest in a series of GMO escapes. It highlights the need for a database of detection methodologies for all GMOs used, both in contained use and at the field trial stage, so any escapees can at least be detected without facing the serious analytical challenges identification of this GMO contaminant posed.”

The publication documenting the tests also highlighted various altered properties of the detected Bacillus subtilis strain, including reduced fidelity of its protein translation system which might lead it to produce novel proteins.

References

Barbau-piednoir, E. Sigrid C. J. De Keersmaecker, Maud Delvoye, Céline Gau, Patrick Philipp and Nancy H. Roosens (2015) Use of next generation sequencing data to develop a qPCR method for specific detection of EU-unauthorized genetically modified Bacillus subtilis overproducing riboflavin. BMC Biotechnology 2015 15:103 DOI: 10.1186/s12896-015-0216-y

Paracchini, V., Petrillo, M., Reiting, R., Angers-Loustau, A., Wahler, D., Stolz, A., … & Pecoraro, S. (2017). Molecular characterization of an unauthorized genetically modified Bacillus subtilis production strain identified in a vitamin B 2 feed additive. Food Chemistry, 230, 681-689.

This article originally appeared in the Independent Science News and is reproduced here with permission.

Saving the UK’s meadows and raising public awareness of these vital habitats is the purpose of more than 100 events taking place tomorrow for National Meadows Day, writes Laura Briggs.

With the average meadow offering shelter and food to a vast variety of animal species and home to more than 80 species of wildflowers, the Save Our Magnificent Meadows partnership hopes to demonstrate the fragility and importance of our fast-disappearing Great British meadows.

More than 97% of our wildflower meadows have been lost since the 1930s, but encouragingly people are now showing a desire to learn more about our British fauna.

A recent YouGov survey for Plantlife revealed that 70% of us want to know more about wildflowers and while most people could identify the bluebell, 80% of people didn’t know the name of the common dog-violet which is found across 97% of the UK.

National Meadows Day is dedicated to protecting both the wildflower meadows and the wildlife they support, including endangered species like ragged robin and harebell, and further educating the public about the flora and fauna discovered in these unique landscapes.

Meadows would have developed thanks to farming practices, with many people owning small areas of land, and managing the land by growing through spring and summer, cutting in late summer and grazing in winter.

With the onset of World War II, cereals were planted across great swathes of land, meaning a decline in the diversity of species, and with it the meadows. The future hope is that one day meadows can be an integral part of farming once again.

On July 1 barefoot walks, cycling tours, picnics, scything workshops and wildlife hunts will offer the chance for people to experience these stunning meadows first-hand across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The initiative, spearheaded by Plantlife, is in part thanks to funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Claire Parton, Save Our Magnificent Meadows Project Manager, said: “Beyond being a quintessential sight of summer, meadows’ value to our wildlife cannot be overstated.

“A single healthy meadow can be home to over 80 species of wildflowers, such as cuckoo flower, yellow rattle, orchids, knapweed and scabious, compared to most modern agricultural pasture which typically supports under a dozen species.

“In turn, these flowers support meadow wildlife. Common bird’s-foot trefoil alone is a food plant for 160 species of insects, which support mammals and birds such as skylarks and lapwings.”

There are now only 26,000 acres of classic lowland meadows found across England and Wales and thanks to funding, the Save Our Magnificent Meadows project has managed to create and restore just over 6,000 acres of wildflower meadows across the UK.

Plantlife has also launched the interactive Great British Wild Flower Hunt in response to its YouGov survey.

Dr Trevor Dines, Plantlife Botanical Expert and a meadow owner, said: “The steady, quiet, and under-reported decline of our meadows is one of the biggest tragedies in the history of UK nature conservation. If over 97% of our woodland had been destroyed there’d be a national outcry.

“Without the roar of chainsaws or the sound of mighty oaks crashing to the ground, meadows are being ploughed up at an alarming rate. That is why National Meadows Day is so important – now more than ever it is essential to shine a light on these precious habitats and to begin to reverse their decline.”

Plantlife is the leading organisation working in the UK to protect and conserve wild plants and their habitats. Plantlife identifies and conserve sites of exceptional importance, rescue wild plants from the brink of extinction, and ensure that common plants do not become rare in the wild.

Find out more about National Meadows Day at magnificentmeadows.org.uk

Honeybee colonies in the UK suffered the lowest levels of winter survival when exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides, according to industry-funded research published yesterday.   

Researchers from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) have published the results of a large-scale, field-realistic experiment to assess neonicotinoid impacts on honeybees and wild bees across Europe in the peer-review journal Science.

Louise Payton, Soil Association policy officer, told The Ecologist: “This long-awaited major study was funded chiefly by industry to end this debate. This should now be the final, fatal blow to neonicotinoids.

“With neonics widely polluting farms, and with UK farmers still treating most wheat, an outright ban is needed immediately. But a ban isn’t enough – neonics never should have been cleared for use.

“We also need a rethink of how we regulate all pesticides. Vulnerable wildlife is not being protected. A good next step would be to learn from organic farms, which support around 50% more species of wild pollinators than non-organic farms.”

The experiment – undertaken in the UK, Germany and Hungary – exposed three bee species to winter oilseed rape crops treated with seed coatings containing neonicotinoid clothianidin, from Bayer CropScience, or Syngenta’s thiamethoxam.

Neonicotinoid seed coatings are designed to kill pests such as the cabbage stem flea beetle, but were effectively banned in the EU in 2013 due to concerns regarding their impact on bee health.

The researchers found that exposure to treated crops reduced overwintering success of honeybee colonies – a key measure of year-to-year viability – in two of the three countries.

In Hungary, the colony numbers fell by 24 percent during the following spring. In the UK, honeybee colony survival was generally very low, but lowest where bees fed on clothianidin treated oilseed rape in the previous year. No harmful effects on overwintering honeybees were found in Germany.

Lower reproductive success – reflected in queen number (bumblebees) and egg production (red mason bee) – was linked with increasing levels of neonicotinoid residues in the nests of wild bee species buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) and the Red Mason Bee (Osmia bicornis) across all three countries.

Dr Ben Woodcock, the CEH lead author, said: “The neonicotinoids investigated caused a reduced capacity for all three bee species to establish new populations in the following year, at least in the UK and Hungary.”

He suggests the differing impacts on honeybees between countries may be associated with interacting factors including the availability of alternative flowering resources for bees to feed on in the farmed landscape as well as general colony health, with Hungarian and UK honeybees tending to be more diseased.

In contrast, the hives in Germany happened to be larger, showed little evidence of disease and had access to a wider range of wild flowers to feed on.

Dr Woodcock suggests that this may explain why in this country alone there was no evidence of a negative effect of neonicotinoids on honeybees.

The study – which spanned 2,000 hectares, equivalent to 3,000 full-scale football pitches – took account of bee disease and surrounding landscape quality in addition to colony growth rate, worker mortality and overwinter survival.

Dr Woodcock said: “Neonicotinoid seed dressings do have positive attributes: they target insects that damage the plant, can be applied to the seed at low dosage rates but protect the whole plant and reduce the need for broad spectrum insecticide sprays.

“Their use as an alternative chemical control option is also useful in controlling pests where insecticide resistance to other pesticides is already found, so play an important role to play in food production.”

He added: “There may be opportunities to mitigate negative impacts of neonicotinoid exposure on bees through improved honeybee husbandry or availability of flowering plants for bees to feed on across non-cropped areas of the farmed landscape. Both these issues require further research.

“The negative effects of neonicotinoids on wild bees may also be the result of diverse mechanisms of exposure that include persistent residues of neonicotinoids in arable systems due to their widespread and often very frequent use.”

Professor Richard Pywell, a co-author and the Science Area Lead, Sustainable Land Management at the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, said: “Neonicotinoids remain a highly contentious issue with previous research on both honeybees and wild bees inconclusive.

“This latest field study was designed, as far as possible, to reflect the real world due to its size and scope.

“We therefore believe it goes a considerable way to explaining the inconsistencies in the results of past research, as we were better able to account for natural variation in factors like exposure to the pesticide, bee food resources and bee health for different bee species.

“Our findings also raise important questions about the basis for regulatory testing of future pesticides.”

Bayer CropScience and Syngenta funded the research assessing the impact of neonicotinoids on honeybees. The Natural Environment Research Council funded the analysis of the impact on the wild bees.

The experiment – including design, monitoring and analysis – was scrutinised by an independent scientific advisory committee chaired by Professor Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University. 

With President Trump’s announcement to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, many other countries around the world – and cities and states within the US – are stepping up their commitments to address climate change.

But one thing is clear: Even if all the remaining participating nations do their part, governments alone can’t substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change.

We’ve studied the role of the private sector in addressing climate change, and we’re convinced that the next stage is going to require more than just political agreement. What is needed is a concerted effort to mobilize private action – not just corporations but also religious and civic organizations, colleges and universities, investors and households – to help narrow the gap that remains after the Paris Agreement.

The Paris gap

Under current policies, global emissions are on a path toward a world with temperatures more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures.

The Paris Agreement emphasized the need to keep warming “well below” 2°C and ideally reach a reduction of 1.5°C. The accord includes national pledges to reduce emissions, which are to be updated every five years to move the world closer to the temperature target.

Although the agreement takes a significant first step, without additional steps the world will fall far short of even the more modest goal.

This is the Paris gap – the difference between the goals of the Paris Agreement and what it will actually achieve over the next decade, even if all countries fully comply with their commitments.

A detailed scientific assessment by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency found that by 2030 this gap would reach 12-14 billion tons per year even if all countries including the US meet their targets.

The Paris Agreement sets up a process for countries to add new commitments for the period after 2025, but here’s the catch: The Paris gap is so large that waiting until then brings risks. Although no one can predict all the effects of a global temperature increase of 3°C or more, an increase in this range will almost certainly amplify the frequency and severity of deadly heat waves around the world. It will also increase the likelihood of crossing tipping points that could make the consequences of climate change, such as sea level rise, much worse. Waiting a decade for additional national commitments is a risky option.

So how should we close the Paris gap?

Until now, global climate change efforts have largely focused on actions by national, regional and local governments – all of which will be critical to closing the gap. But governments are not the only actors that can make a difference: corporations, citizens and nonprofits can make an important, and perhaps essential, contribution, even if they cannot solve the entire problem.

We’ve already seen private actors respond to the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. For example, the We Are Still In initiative is a coalition of businesses, colleges and universities, and cities and counties. And on June 20, the Climate Leadership Council – a collection of big businesses, environmental advocacy groups and individuals – launched, calling for policy action on climate change.

Our assessment finds that private actions can close 10 percent to 30 percent of the Paris gap over the next decade. This can reduce the cost of climate mitigation and allow the politic consensus to catch up with the scientific consensus, although it is not a substitute for government action.

Vast potential

Private actors – including corporations, civic and advocacy groups, private citizens, and even the Catholic Church – played an important role in pushing nations to make commitments in Paris, but lobbying for government action is not the only role for the private sector. These private actors are sources of emissions that can reduce emissions directly and independently of government policies.

In an article published in the Columbia Environmental Law Journal, we have shown how private climate efforts can deliver a billion tons of emissions reductions per year over the next decade from the corporate and household sectors.

These reductions are not enough by themselves to limit global warming to 2°C or 1.5°C, but together with national and international efforts, they can improve the odds of preventing catastrophic climate change.

Corporations can make significant reductions in emissions by increasing energy efficiency, investing in research and development, and insisting on emissions reductions from suppliers. For example, Walmart’s recent joint initiative with the Environmental Defense Fund reduced Walmart’s cumulative supply chain emissions over the last five years by 28 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and Walmart recently pledged to reduce its cumulative emissions between now and 2030 by one billion tons, which would be equivalent to the entire emissions of the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry over that period.

At the household level, efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes and provide households with feedback on their energy use, including real-time data on energy use, data in monthly bills and energy efficiency ratings for residential rentals and sales, can make a significant impact on emissions.

As we have shown in an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, within the next 10 years, simple household energy efforts in the United States could reduce annual emissions reductions by more than 450 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is much more than the total emissions by the host country for the Paris Agreement – France.

Speed of essence

Nonprofits, such as churches, colleges and universities, hospitals and civic organizations, are also starting to get in on the effort to close the Paris gap, but they can do more.

For example, Pope Francis has spoken eloquently about the moral and religious imperative of addressing climate change and has supported the national commitments in the Paris Agreement.

We have calculated that the Catholic Church has emissions comparable to a medium-sized country, such as Chile. If the Church made a major commitment to reduce emissions from its own operations, in addition to pushing governments to act, it could make a significant difference on its own.

With or without the United States, the Paris Agreement demonstrates that the international process can take important steps, but it will not yield emissions reductions with the speed and magnitude necessary to achieve its goals.

What is needed now is a new focus on the private sector – a global effort by corporations, citizens and nonprofits.

These Authors

Michael Vandenbergh is the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University. Jonathan M. Gilligan is Associate Professor of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University

*This article has been shared by The Conversation, www.theconversation.com

Despite being one of Africa’s most rapidly developing countries, many Kenyans still face the problem of limited energy access.  The quickest way for these Kenyans to get power is to harness the natural resources of wind and sun that their country has in abundance. It is much quicker and cheaper to erect solar panels and wind turbines than wait for a vast fossil fuel infrastructure to be built, much of which will never reach the remotest corners of the country.  It’s also vital for efforts to curb climate change that the developing nations like Kenya leapfrog the climate warming hydrocarbon fuels of the past.

The Clean Energy Cycling Caravan, consisting of 10 riders, is powering its way through 10 counties covering a total of more than a thousand kilometres. As part of a campaign called The Big Shift, the cyclists have been meeting local government officials, holding community energy cafés powered by solar panels and doing interviews with journalists. Climate change is something that affects the world’s poorest people the most, and if our efforts to tackle it are to be effective they need to be led by grassroots support from the Global South. 

But our actions to tackle climate change must not leave those same people cut off from the energy they need to develop and prosper. If the developed world tries to pull up the drawbridge after getting rich off the back of fossil fuels and don’t provide help to its global neighbours, it will find international efforts to reduce emissions hard to achieve. That’s why it is essential these efforts go hand-in-hand with providing energy access and leap frogging the dirty energy of the past to the clean energy of the future.

In Kenya, 57% of people are connected to the grid but most of that is only to providing lighting and it is neither affordable nor reliable. More than 80% of people still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.   With elections looming it’s the perfect time to make the case for a better and cleaner energy system. 

Polling commissioned by Christian Aid has revealed that 64% of Kenyans would back a party that prioritised more clean energy so politicians can be assured there are votes to be won there.

A forward-looking Kenyan government would be able to make use of the country’s abundant and reliable resources of solar and wind power, as well as renewable biogas and as-yet largely untapped geothermal wells. The danger is that as the Government moves the country away from expensive diesel generators it is turning to coal, proposing a new coal power station on the coastal island of Lamu, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.  Not only will this have pollution implications, locally and atmospherically, it does not make economic sense either. Due to a lack of infrastructure the plant would rely on coal imports from South Africa, likely exacerbating Kenya’s already significant trade deficit. 

Developing home-grown wind and solar makes far more sense, especially as these are starting to compete with fossil fuels on price. A solar project in Kenya’s North-Eastern region of Garissa is generating electricity at just $0.12 per kilowatt hour, the feed-in tariff for geothermal projects is $0.09 pkh and the Lake Turkana wind farm comes it at just $0.08 pkh – the same as the projected prices for Lamu’s coal power.  Add in the fact that renewable prices are heading downwards – India recently scrapped a number of coal power stations due to the falling price of solar – and there’s the chance that the Lamu plant might end up being a dirty white elephant sooner rather than later.

The economics is clear, the ecological case is obvious and voters are in favour of a cleaner, greener energy system for Kenya. Let’s hope these 10 young cyclists working so hard this week to spread the word can help kick-start a widespread African clean energy revolution.

This Author

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a New Voices Contributor for The Ecologist.  He is on twitter at @wareisjoe.  To find out more about the Clean Energy Cycling Caravan visit their facebook page

My country, Kenya, is in an election year and tensions are rising. During the vote in 2007, tribal rivalries spilled over into violence: around 1,200 people died and thousands were displaced or orphaned during the fighting. As we get closer to the August polling day, many people fear something similar will happen again.

This fear is rooted in a political system that often works to aggravate these tribal divides, rather than heal them. There are 42 tribes in Kenya, but since Independence the country’s President has emerged only from the two largest: the Kalenjin (my own tribe) and the Kikuyu. They uphold their position in part through policies that favour their own tribes people, and they incite fear that any candidate from a minority tribe might do the same.

Most people therefore cast their vote along tribal lines, rather than based on the integrity of the candidate. At a government level this creates a status quo of sorts, but at a community level it can create powerlessness, fuel division, erode faith in the political process, and make peace fragile.

I believe the exploitation of tribalism for political gain overshadows the presence of a more positive reality: that each tribe in Kenya possesses strengths and skills unique to them, and which collectively help create the health and wellbeing of our nation. For example, the Kikuyu are known for their entrepreneurial spirit, the Kalenjin for their cash crops, the Luos for their fishing and mechanics, the Maasai for their cattle, goats and herbal medicine, the Gusii for their farming of bananas, avocados and sugarcane, and the Luhya for their poultry and hospitality. Urbanisation and trade is bringing these different tribes together, and in the process, our interdependence becomes more apparent and more important. But this truth gets drowned out in Kenya, let alone internationally.

Beyond tribes, I see interdependence all around me in the natural world, and between humans and the natural world, as we work towards improving conservation efforts in the Maasai and elsewhere.

For Kenya to thrive, we need to encourage the message of interdependence and peace between our tribes. We must address the entrenched tribal division and stifled community voice that corrupt political tactics have brought about. I believe that the development sector can play a key role in making this change happen, and I think that my involvement with a local health and wellbeing network gives some clues as to how we might do this.

In this network, people come together voluntarily from across their community to form what we call a ‘cluster’, because they want to see sustainable, community-led change. A cluster begins by celebrating the different strengths and resources that we have. We then identify a vision for our community, and we use our own strengths and resources to sustainably pursue this vision. We access training and support from outside of our community if we need to, but it is from within the community that we identify solutions, and work to unlock them.

My cluster is in the Kenyan highland town of Kericho, west of the Rift Valley. Here, the trade in tealeaves has brought many different tribes together, and our cluster reflects this tribal mix. With this mix comes a diverse set of skills. Some members are from the creative arts: poets, painters, photographers and actors. Others are from caring professions: youth work, healthcare and social work. Together, we make documentaries, we host community events, and we create art and capture stories to counter harmful and divisive narratives. We also map local skills and resources, so we can link people and organisations to appropriate services, as well as identify particular gaps in community services. As we build relationships across our differences, we can speak on behalf of the whole community to the people who make decisions that impact us

Whilst a glance at Kenya’s political system suggests our tribal differences are only a problem, my experience is that these differences can in fact provide a solution, to help achieve the peace and sustainable development that we all want. But for peace to thrive we need the community to speak louder. If the development sector and others do more to amplify this voice, it can be a big help.

I have learnt that mobilising local collaborative networks can generate great social impact by giving space for connections, by strengthening community voice, and by identifying and harnessing the strengths and differences we all have. It is my hope that if more influential people took this on board then social impact will grow, and perhaps translate into the systemic change we need at the political level too, which ultimately, I believe would encourage peace and understanding in my country and elsewhere.

This Author

Debora Langat is a photographer, videographer and blogger based in Kericho, Kenya. Her passion is storytelling, and she is available for freelance work