Extinction Rebellion activists are launching legal action against the police over a London-wide ban on their protests.

The move comes amid growing criticism of the ban, made under public order legislation already used to restrict the action to Trafalgar Square.

Activists continued protests in the capital in defiance of the police order, targeting the Department for Transport and locking themselves to a caravan on Millbank, prompting more arrests.

Necessary

Human rights lawyer Tobias Garnett, working for Extinction Rebellion, said the group would be filing a High Court claim challenging the ban on the grounds it is “disproportionate and unlawful”.

The group was planning to file a claim on Tuesday afternoon, and was seeking an expedited hearing.

On Tuesday evening, Mayor Sadiq Khan – who oversees the Metropolitan Police, said he had asked officers to find a way for those who wanted to protest to be able to do so legally and peacefully.

He said he had “received assurances that Extinction Rebellion are not banned from protesting in our city”, adding: “Neither I nor the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime was informed before the Metropolitan Police took the operational decision to impose a Section 14 order on Extinction Rebellion Autumn Uprising last night.

“I’ve met with senior officers today to seek further information on why they deemed this necessary.”

Unacceptable 

Mr Garnett said the police order limiting protests “risks criminalising anyone who wants to protest in any way about the climate and ecological emergency that we face”.

Under the current order, any assembly – classed as a gathering of two or more people – linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ in London is unlawful.

Lawyers have questioned the legality of ban, aimed at halting further protests after more than a week of disruption by the environmental activists in London, while a number of politicians expressed outrage over the move.

Responding to the ban, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted: “If standing up against the climate and ecological breakdown and for humanity is against the rules then the rules must be broken.”

Protect

Anti-Brexit barrister Jo Maugham QC claimed the move was a “huge overreach” of police powers, human rights lawyer Adam Wagner called it “draconian and extremely heavy-handed”, and Allan Hogarth from Amnesty International said it was “unacceptable”.

Jeremy Corbyn, speaking about the London-wide ban of Extinction Rebellion protesters by police on Monday night, said: “Concerns have been expressed about this.

“Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon are contacting the Metropolitan Police to discuss this, as indeed Sadiq Khan has as the Mayor of London.

“I think it’s important to protect the right of free speech, and the right to demonstrate in our society – obviously in a non-violent way.”

The Labour leader said Mr Khan had no involvement in the “operational decision” by police to remove the protesters.

Risk

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said: “This ban is completely contrary to Britain’s long-held traditions of policing by consent, freedom of speech, and the right to protest.”

Green Party MEP Ellie Chowns, who was arrested in Trafalgar Square, Green MP Caroline Lucas and shadow policing and crime minister Louise Haigh also spoke out against the move.

But Home Secretary Priti Patel backed the police in a tweet, saying: “Officers from around the country have done a fantastic job policing XR protests. Supporting our Police is vital.

“Labour support the law breakers who have disrupted the lives and businesses of Londoners. They cannot be trusted in Downing Street or the Home Office.”

Police moved in to clear Trafalgar Square on Monday evening, telling protesters to leave the site by 9pm or risk arrest.

Location

On Tuesday, Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said the protest ban was brought in after “continued breaches” of the condition limiting the demonstration to Trafalgar Square.

He said: “I want to be absolutely clear, the conditions put in place yesterday afternoon do not in any way ban protests from London, nor do they ban the activities of Extinction Rebellion as a group.

“These conditions specifically state that any assembly linked to Extinction Rebellion’s ‘Autumn Uprising’ must now cease.

“The decision to impose further conditions was made in order to help us get London moving again. It is a lawful decision which we felt is entirely proportionate and reasonable to impose after nine days of sustained, unlawful assembly and protest by Extinction Rebellion.”

The Met said that using Section 14 to limit the location and duration of protest action was “not unusual”.

Arrested

Extinction Rebellion activists defied the order and on Tuesday morning, the group’s co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, was arrested after action to target the Department for Transport in Westminster over HS2 and airport expansion.

Police also dealt with a road block near Baker Street and told a number of protesters camped in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens to move on or risk arrest.

Protesters locked themselves to a caravan parked by Millbank tower in central London, with police spending more than two hours trying to free them using electric saws.

The protest outside the MI5 headquarters aimed to highlight the issue of food security.

Ilya Fisher, a fine art photographer from Cornwall, said she was taking part despite never having been arrested before.

Highway

She said: “I’m doing this because I want other people to see ‘why is such a boring ordinary person doing this?’ and they will look into the climate science.

“The government isn’t protecting us. If we wait until 2050 for the carbon emissions to be reduced it’s way too late.”

By Tuesday afternoon, police said 1,489 people had been arrested in connection with the “Autumn Uprising”.

And 92 people had been charged for offences including failing to comply with a condition imposed under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, criminal damage, and obstruction of a highway.

These Authors

Emily Beament, Margaret Davis and Tom Pilgrim are reporters with PA.

Extinction Rebellion activists are launching legal action against the police over a London-wide ban on their protests.

The move comes amid growing criticism of the ban, made under public order legislation already used to restrict the action to Trafalgar Square.

Activists continued protests in the capital in defiance of the police order, targeting the Department for Transport and locking themselves to a caravan on Millbank, prompting more arrests.

Necessary

Human rights lawyer Tobias Garnett, working for Extinction Rebellion, said the group would be filing a High Court claim challenging the ban on the grounds it is “disproportionate and unlawful”.

The group was planning to file a claim on Tuesday afternoon, and was seeking an expedited hearing.

On Tuesday evening, Mayor Sadiq Khan – who oversees the Metropolitan Police, said he had asked officers to find a way for those who wanted to protest to be able to do so legally and peacefully.

He said he had “received assurances that Extinction Rebellion are not banned from protesting in our city”, adding: “Neither I nor the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime was informed before the Metropolitan Police took the operational decision to impose a Section 14 order on Extinction Rebellion Autumn Uprising last night.

“I’ve met with senior officers today to seek further information on why they deemed this necessary.”

Unacceptable 

Mr Garnett said the police order limiting protests “risks criminalising anyone who wants to protest in any way about the climate and ecological emergency that we face”.

Under the current order, any assembly – classed as a gathering of two or more people – linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ in London is unlawful.

Lawyers have questioned the legality of ban, aimed at halting further protests after more than a week of disruption by the environmental activists in London, while a number of politicians expressed outrage over the move.

Responding to the ban, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted: “If standing up against the climate and ecological breakdown and for humanity is against the rules then the rules must be broken.”

Protect

Anti-Brexit barrister Jo Maugham QC claimed the move was a “huge overreach” of police powers, human rights lawyer Adam Wagner called it “draconian and extremely heavy-handed”, and Allan Hogarth from Amnesty International said it was “unacceptable”.

Jeremy Corbyn, speaking about the London-wide ban of Extinction Rebellion protesters by police on Monday night, said: “Concerns have been expressed about this.

“Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon are contacting the Metropolitan Police to discuss this, as indeed Sadiq Khan has as the Mayor of London.

“I think it’s important to protect the right of free speech, and the right to demonstrate in our society – obviously in a non-violent way.”

The Labour leader said Mr Khan had no involvement in the “operational decision” by police to remove the protesters.

Risk

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said: “This ban is completely contrary to Britain’s long-held traditions of policing by consent, freedom of speech, and the right to protest.”

Green Party MEP Ellie Chowns, who was arrested in Trafalgar Square, Green MP Caroline Lucas and shadow policing and crime minister Louise Haigh also spoke out against the move.

But Home Secretary Priti Patel backed the police in a tweet, saying: “Officers from around the country have done a fantastic job policing XR protests. Supporting our Police is vital.

“Labour support the law breakers who have disrupted the lives and businesses of Londoners. They cannot be trusted in Downing Street or the Home Office.”

Police moved in to clear Trafalgar Square on Monday evening, telling protesters to leave the site by 9pm or risk arrest.

Location

On Tuesday, Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said the protest ban was brought in after “continued breaches” of the condition limiting the demonstration to Trafalgar Square.

He said: “I want to be absolutely clear, the conditions put in place yesterday afternoon do not in any way ban protests from London, nor do they ban the activities of Extinction Rebellion as a group.

“These conditions specifically state that any assembly linked to Extinction Rebellion’s ‘Autumn Uprising’ must now cease.

“The decision to impose further conditions was made in order to help us get London moving again. It is a lawful decision which we felt is entirely proportionate and reasonable to impose after nine days of sustained, unlawful assembly and protest by Extinction Rebellion.”

The Met said that using Section 14 to limit the location and duration of protest action was “not unusual”.

Arrested

Extinction Rebellion activists defied the order and on Tuesday morning, the group’s co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, was arrested after action to target the Department for Transport in Westminster over HS2 and airport expansion.

Police also dealt with a road block near Baker Street and told a number of protesters camped in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens to move on or risk arrest.

Protesters locked themselves to a caravan parked by Millbank tower in central London, with police spending more than two hours trying to free them using electric saws.

The protest outside the MI5 headquarters aimed to highlight the issue of food security.

Ilya Fisher, a fine art photographer from Cornwall, said she was taking part despite never having been arrested before.

Highway

She said: “I’m doing this because I want other people to see ‘why is such a boring ordinary person doing this?’ and they will look into the climate science.

“The government isn’t protecting us. If we wait until 2050 for the carbon emissions to be reduced it’s way too late.”

By Tuesday afternoon, police said 1,489 people had been arrested in connection with the “Autumn Uprising”.

And 92 people had been charged for offences including failing to comply with a condition imposed under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, criminal damage, and obstruction of a highway.

These Authors

Emily Beament, Margaret Davis and Tom Pilgrim are reporters with PA.

We move one step closer to our worst-case climate catastrophes with every passing year that countries and transnational corporations put economic profits over people.

I’m from the Philippines but currently based in Germany, where extended heatwaves caused drought and forest fires last summer. Elsewhere, the impacts are much more severe – from supertypoons to snow storms. 

Climate change impacts women and members of structurally-disadvantaged communities more severely. Oftentimes women are the ones in charge of the household, child-rearing, and care-giving for elders, as well as outsourcing their domestic work for wages. 

Women find themselves in scenarios of not only struggling to find shelter, food, and clean drinking-water, but also desperate to evade the higher risk of sexual violence during a state of emergency.

Environmental defenders

Indigenous peoples, too, are on the frontline of climate action in the Global South, but also in the Global North. Canadian prime minister Trudeau violently evicted activists and protectors from the Wet’suwet’en Nation from their land in the way of the TransMountain oil pipeline this January.

I have spoken at rallies in Berlin against the North Dakota access pipeline, too. In many of these movements, it’s the women who are leading the resistance to protect the Earth.

While Brazil and the Philippines are under strongman leadership by macho-fascists, they are also the countries with the highest and second-highest rate of murders to environmental defenders in the last years.

The United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Kankana-ey-Igorot), and several other Indigenous Filipinas are women who have found themselves placed on national terrorist lists, as enemies of the state for protecting their land from environmental destruction.

Environmental defenders literally risk their lives in the face of land grabbing by agribusinesses.  For example, a local woman asked the president about shutting down the quarry that was likely to have caused a deadly landslide in the Philippines caused over 60 deaths. She was forced into hiding for having openly criticized him.

Disaster

Mining corporations bring a lot of male aggression into regions were women and children become the targets of violence, trafficking, and prostitution, if not outright murder – as is the case in North America’s Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (#MMIW).

In November of 2013, Supertyphoon Haiyan ravaged the islands of Samar and Leyte in the Philippines, to date with more than 6000 human fatalities and 1000 still missing.

Warming oceans caused a stronger typhoon than the typical ones that hit the region during typhoon season. The seawater rose in the low-pressure system of the eye of the typhoon and caused a storm surge that the population hadn’t been warned about or prepared for.

This storm surge was well over two stories high, rolling across infrastructure in the city of Tacloban where my uncle, aunt, and cousin live. They were presumed to be among the dead in the hardest-hit area – the peninsula the city’s airport was on – cut off from any communication. They were found after three days, when another relative connected to the military had made his way there from a neighbouring province.

The reason I mention the storm surge is also because women in the Philippines are discouraged from learning how to swim. They don’t stand a chance to survive sudden-onset flooding in an archipelago of over 7,100 islands.

Colonialism

The same racist forces of American colonialism and neocolonialism that the Philippines has been under since 1898 are why Flint still doesn’t have clean drinking-water, why Puerto Rico is still rebuilding after Hurricane Maria while many residents have migrated to the US mainland.

Colonialism is why the US Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas – within the path of the same typhoons that regularly hit the Philippines – still has residents living in shelters and tents after Typhoon Mangkhut and Supertyphoon Yutu destroyed their homes in September and October 2018.

While some governments and their politicians are still denying climate change, a handful of global corporations are responsible for causing the majority carbon emissions and pollution.

Climate justice demands funding poorer nations and communities already impacted by climate change. In addition to resources with which to adapt, these communities must also see a just transition away from fossil fuels and compensation for loss and damage.

We must consider the long-term consequences of our energy supply, while protecting our labour force. 

System change

By contrast, unjust and imperialist solutions take away more Indigenous lands for palm oil plantations, and promote nuclear energy as a safe alternative to fossil fuels only to dispose of the waste near marginalized communities.

It’s affecting us all globally, but at a different speed and intensity.

Postponing a collective system change – from profit to people – is still seen as a worthwhile gamble in the global North, while others in the global South and in Indigenous territories are already losing their homes, livelihoods and lives to an insatiable and imperialist greed.

This Author 

Karin Louise is Filipino-German academic, Indigenous rights and climate justice activist and PhD candidate in American Studies. 

This text is adapted from a speech given at the Women’s March 2019 in Berlin, first published on Medium.

A cold October morning and a stage is being built on the Mall for the start of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests.

The theme of the talks was ‘the future is here’ and it was inspiring to be invited to share a space for people to talk about positive, practical actions they could take to accelerate our path to a Net Zero world.

Inspiring also to meet so many people prepared to take a stand for a better world. 

Vote for the future

I have written before about how we are all impact investors by default and that our money is often working at odds with our values. That won’t change unless we are proactive and do something about it – rather than leaving it to banks or pension funds to make our decisions for us.  

My message on that Monday to the XR audience was that our money makes a difference in the world and investing is a political act almost as powerful as a vote or a protest. This message prompted lots of questions which I hope will lead to plenty of letters and meetings for pension fund trustees and employers, and perhaps some new investors too. 

The power of investment is that your decisions have an impact that lasts many years into the future; it is not about the coffee cup you just saved from landfill, it is about what companies will be doing decades from now.

An investment is a vote for the future you want to see. Since the launch of auto-enrolment pensions, every month every employee is an investor, whether they realise it or not. 

As investors we are all very likely to be shareholders in oil and gas companies too. By default rather than design, but most of our pensions are oil-fired rather than solar-powered. When you invest in a pension your money goes into shares and the way those shares are chosen tends to reflect the various indices which organise stock exchanges.

The biggest shares get the biggest proportion of our money and that means, because they need a lot of money, carbon-based companies. 

Green finance 

I was asked directly about this on the following Tuesday by MPs on the Treasury Select Committee who are leading an inquiry into decarbonising the economy, in particular the role that green finance can play in delivering that goal. You can watch the video here.

One of the main points we kept returning to was what to do about the companies that are the ‘uncooperative crusties’ of the stock market. Moving money away from them might lower their share prices but is not guaranteed to accelerate the move away from carbon. 

Should these companies (and their employees) be afforded a ‘just transition’ or should the market (and consumer choice) dictate their fate, as they have done for countless companies in the past. Where is the mitigation for Thomas Cook, or Woolworths or Kodak before them?

Investors in companies like IBM and Nokia know the power that markets have to change the value of their investments. Either capitalism works in your favour, or it doesn’t, but you don’t get to choose socialism when it suits you.

Investing 

It is not that the fossil fuel companies (and banks that lend to them) are immune from criticism. 

They care about what others think about them (which is why they sponsor museums and theatres) and perhaps at an individual level their bosses care what their children think about what they do for a living.  

But it is hard to hear them saying ‘change takes time’ when history shows that markets punish those who fail to change with the times. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the XR protests is a crisis of a different sort. A crisis about the sort of economy we choose to have, in the true meaning of the word from the Greek “krisis” or “decision”. 

Money gives you choices, and those choices are much bigger than those we make as consumers. As investors we get to have a say in the way the world works and what sort of world we live in.

This Author 

Bruce Davis is managing director of Abundance Investment, which advertises with The Ecologist.

Researchers based in Lima, Peru, today launched a bid to shine a light on climate change in the Andes Mountains to better understand how to adapt to a warming world.

Home to many indigenous superfoods – from grains like amaranth and quinoa to lupine pulses and maca roots – the Andes is described as the “richest hotspot of agrobiodiversity” in the world.

Mountain regions also play a critical role in downstream water supplies, with the Andes providing as much as 50 per cent of the water for the upstream Amazon’s river basins through glacial melt.

Agrobiodiversity

Yet changing temperatures and weather patterns have resulted in extreme droughts, hailstorms and frost, which is impacting food production and agriculture at altitude in the Andes and beyond.

Ginya Truitt Nakata is director of Latin America and the Caribbean at the International Potato Center (CIP), which launched the initiative at this year’s World Food Prize event.

Nakata said: “The Andes is one of the last rich hotspot of agrobiodiversity, and the birthplace of many nutritional crop varieties that are vital for meeting the global need for a diverse diet.

“All of this makes the Andes a petri dish for climate change, and we overlook its importance at our own peril.”

The initiative to accelerate climate research in the Andes will focus on agrobiodiversity, climate change and healthy diets, and will include a new network of laboratories to study extreme frosts, hailstorms, excess rain and droughts.

Researchers will also develop a tool for assessing changes in land use, and support farmers with new markets for superfoods.

Indigenous crops

One understudied area of climate research to be addressed is the significance of high-altitude below-ground carbon stocks, and the risks associated with unsustainable land use in the Andes.

Stef de Haan, senior scientist at CIP, said: “The volume of carbon stocks per area unit in peatlands in the High Andes are comparable to those in the Amazon.

Yet the role of the Andes as a carbon reservoir has received little attention from researchers and policymakers while there is increase evidence that land use change rapidly driving the agricultural frontier upwards.

“By dedicating climate research to this vital region, we stand the chance of being able to protect indigenous families, rural incomes and nutritious diets while also adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change.”

CIP already spearheads several projects to protect biodiversity in the Andean region, including in-situ conservation with smallholder farmers and repatriation programs returning lost agrobiodiversity to indigenous communities.

CIP researchers also work with communities to improve diets using improved indigenous crops.

Living laboratory

Jesus Quintana, is head of the Andean and Southern Cone Sub-regional Hub at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), one of the co-hosts of the World Food Prize side event. 

Quintana said: “Through our strategic partnership and collaboration, we will support and progress vital work in the Andean region, which is experiencing the impacts of climate change with a greater intensity than anywhere else in the world.

“This living laboratory of climate science and agrobiodiversity can offer valuable lessons for tropical mountain regions and vulnerable areas worldwide for climate resilience.”

This Article 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the International Potato Centre.

Image: David Stanley, Flickr. 

You’re already familiar with the issue of plastic microbeads poisoning our oceans and choking our wildlife. There’s good news and bad news.

The bad news is that plastic microbeads aren’t the whole story, even with the world approaching a consensus on banning them. The good news is that eco-friendly personal care products, right down to the packaging, have emerged as a flashpoint of interest and innovation.

Below are some of the reasons why this is a conversation worth having and a change that’s long overdue.

Degradable packaging

Plastic water bottles have earned our ire over the years. However, unsustainable packaging trends in the personal care industry have become an urgent problem too.

Some estimates say product packaging waste is as much as one-third of the refuse that ends up in landfills. Once it’s there, some of that plastic can take up to a millennium to break down. During that time, it poses a significant risk to wildlife and leaches toxins into our water supplies and soil.

Think of the many millions of products sold annually, each one wrapped in cellophane and contained in a plastic tube, tub or bottle. This has been a difficult habit to break. One relatively straightforward change cosmetics companies can implement immediately is to create more practical shapes for their product packaging.

The more tightly packed our shipments of these goods become, the smaller their transportation footprint. The packing and distribution process also is more efficient. Regular shapes like squares and rectangles tend to use less raw material than round ones, too. Some companies have slimmed down their packaging in other ways, such as eliminating corrugated layers or forgoing product leaflets.

Cosmetics and personal care products sometimes have specific requirements with respect to their shelf life. The packaging must be airtight or otherwise designed to help them last as long as possible. Even with those limitations, materials that degrade more quickly in nature can be used. “Nano-clays” and PLA-based plastics — with some inorganic fillers to account for cosmetics products’ inherent instability — have shown promise.

Sustainable products

With more attention paid to packaging, cosmetics and personal care companies can begin making changes to the formulation of these products.

As we noted above, the U.S. and some other countries have acted on the plastic microbeads issue. 2015 saw the American Congress amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to ban the manufacture of microbeads. You’ve likely seen these in facial scrubs and other products, where they provided the abrasion necessary for exfoliation.

In the absence of microbeads, many hygiene-minded individuals have learned to scrub with a washcloth and water, which does the trick just as well for most people and skin types. Chemical exfoliants aren’t going anywhere, though. Neither are the complex and proprietary chemical formulations that line cosmetic aisle shelves. However, the time has come for more earth-friendly formulations, proprietary or not.

For a start, consider how useful the compound glycerine can be. Glycerine appears in all vegetable and animal matter on Earth, but not all of it has the same influence on the planet. Natural glycerine is produced through the hydrolysis of fats, and synthetic glycerine requires the processing of chlorine, propylene or petroleum. Both kinds are useful in cleansers, moisturizers, toners, soaps, facial masks and an abundance of other products many of us use regularly.

Deforestation is another one of the most urgent issues today, and it’s thanks to the ubiquity and demand for palm oil. In 2018, Americans used some 72 million tons of palm oil — likely because we don’t have to witness the fallout personally. In Borneo alone, palm oil cultivation has been responsible for 47% of the nation’s deforestation since 2000.

What’s next?

Can we save the Earth’s forests from our runaway demand for palm oil in self-care and beauty products?

Thankfully, even the World Wildlife Fund says it’s possible. The RSPO label — issued by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil — is becoming more common. It signifies the company engages in sustainable harvesting and manufacturing processes when it sources palm oil.

Achieving LEED certification and making other energy-conscious choices in manufacturing plants and distribution centers are additional ways to commit to more sustainable practices in this industry. LEED certification indicates a structure has taken significant steps to reduce its energy expenditures and carbon footprint.

It’s a little cruel that so much of the onus here rests on the average consumer and how well they’ve educated themselves on these issues. However, it’s heartening to know that some of the biggest names in personal care products in the world today are taking small but decisive steps to make their operations more sustainable. They’re heeding the call, slowly.

In the meantime, consumer education is still paramount. We all could stand to learn a little more about the origins of our favorite products and why and how they threaten the stability of the natural world. If we can’t vote with our wallets, we can revisit our hygiene habits. Most of us can easily get away with bathing less often, and in so doing, eliminate some of the noxious chemicals or threatened plant compounds we invite into our homes from afar.

This Author 

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

Environmental legislation to improve air and water quality, tackle plastic pollution, restore habitats, all overseen by an independent watchdog were announced yesterday in the Queen’s speech.

The speech returns to Parliament key pieces of legislation on agriculture, fisheries and trade that were dropped due to the new government being formed. Campaigners hope that the new versions will be stronger than those that preceded them.

On fisheries, they want to see binding commitments not to fish above scientifically recommended sustainable levels and measures to tackle fishing-related deaths of protected species, while for farming, many want certainty for funding and guidance for farmers and land managers to enable them to invest in the natural world.

Greener farming

Import standards were also needed to safeguard farmers from imports produced to low environmental and welfare standards, they said.

Draft plans for the environmental watchdog were published earlier this year, but came under fire for being too weak. Under current arrangements, the European Commission can fine governments for not complying with environmental law, but the watchdog will not have this function.

Many campaigners had been concerned that climate change had not been included in the watchdog’s role. But the government today confirmed that its remit would include all climate change legislation, including the target to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of 54 environmental charities, said that the legally-binding targets were “a fantastic step forward”, and could usher in a new era of environmental improvement, but only if the targets deliver a major dose of ambition, backed by credible plans.

Animal welfare

“We will be watching for the critical clauses needed for nature’s recovery. The agriculture bill must guarantee sufficient funding for greener farming for at least a decade. The fisheries bill must include legal limits on catches to restore our seas. The environment bill must match aspirational targets with ambitious action,” he said.

New measures to improve animal welfare are also being brought forward, including tougher sentences for crimes of animal cruelty and a requirement for government departments to give full regard to animal sentience and welfare in all policy. Imports of trophy hunting will be banned, in a victory for campaigners.

However, Friends of the Earth said that the trade bill had been “completely watered down” since it was last debated by Parliament, which was of “huge concern” given that the UK was days away from leaving the EU.

Sue Hayman, the Labour shadow secretary of state for DEFRA, said: “Boris Johnson is threatening our environment with reckless new trade agreements that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards.

“The government must legislate to ensure that the UK won’t fall behind the EU on environmental standards and that the Office for Environmental Protection is fully independent and resourced. 

Judged

“The government’s air quality plans have already been ruled unlawful multiple times. Tory cuts have stopped government agencies from protecting our environment and left councils struggling to tackle fly tipping and littering.”

Dave Timms, Head of Political Affairs at Friends of the Earth said: “Despite some improvements from previous proposals, it’s extremely disappointing that the Environment Bill won’t protect existing environmental safeguards from being watered down – something ministers have repeatedly promised.

“We’re facing a climate emergency – and while the new environmental watchdog will at least have power to hold government to account on climate change, its independence is still not guaranteed. And it’s speed of progress hardly suggests the blue lights are being switched on.

“It’s encouraging to see headline commitments on issues such as plastics, air pollution and natural restoration, but it remains to be seen if the frameworks set out in this ‘flagship’ bill will have the clout to fulfil the government’s ‘world leading’ ambitions.

“The climate crisis is the biggest threat we face – the government’s commitment to tackling it will be judged on its action, not words.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for The Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

When the idea of the level playing field emerged from the Brexit talks many environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief.

As Barnier presented this agreement to us in the European Parliament, I remember realising that even if we were to go ahead with Brexit, the inclination of the Brexit regulation burners to trash social and environmental standards would be restrained.

Theresa May agreed to this condition as part of the withdrawal negotiated agreement, but very worryingly Boris Johnson has eliminated it from the proposals he presented to Brussels last week.

Species

It’s a typical piece of Brussels jargon but in simple terms the level playing field means that our future relationship with the EU will be based on the understanding that our environmental standards can only build on those of the EU and not undercut them.

It skilfully eliminates the possibility of Singapore on Thames.

In terms of the environment this really matters. It’s been frequently repeated that 80 percent of our environmental law comes from the EU.

Although the Withdrawal Act translated this into British law, without the level playing field there is nothing to stop GM enthusiast Owen Paterson persuading his friend Theresa Villiers to allow genetically modified crops into Britain.

Or any of the Tories pro-development paymasters removing protections of species under the Habitats Directive and then letting development rip up protected sites.

Damage

There is much talk amongst pro-environment Tories like Zac Goldsmith about the provisions of the Environment Bill that appeared to disappear when prorogation happened. Now it has a new lease of life as a centrepiece of the Queen’s speech.

However, vague long-term plans to deliver environmental improvements, ‘enabling’ local authorities and ‘promoting’ resource efficiency amount to little when compared with the European law it intends to replace.

The proposed Bill seeks to establish new long term domestic environmental governance ‘based on environmental principles’.

But notably absent when it comes to principles is the precautionary principle. This is the basis on which genetically modified organisms are kept out of the European market, for example, as we simply don’t know what harm they might cause and so it is safer to wait until we do.

This principle is problematic in terms of a future trade deal with the US, where the environmental protection works on the principle of waiting for damage to occur and then taking retrospective legal action à la Erin Brockovich.

Inspiration

Given that the corporations who cause environmental destruction are rich and powerful and citizens are not, I know which legal regime I would rather be living under.

Finally, we come to the very important issue of monitoring and enforcement. The budgets of both the Environment Agency and Defra have been slashed under the Conservative government, so who would be able to protect citizens if legal protections on the environment are not upheld?

As European citizens we have access to the European Court of Justice, and in the repeated legal action on air pollution, ClientEarth has shown how effective such cases can be.

The proposed replacement in a British regime would be an Office for Environmental Protection, effectively a part of government even if at arm’s-length. There is no proposal for a separate court or any system of independent arbitration other than judicial review.

Given that the inspiration for Brexit amongst many corporate interests was precisely ripping up the ‘red tape’ that has protected our countryside, waterways, and natural habitats for decades, to have no route to independent legal redress would be a source of considerable concern.

Standards

Indeed, Johnson seemed to confirm exactly this point in his statement about the Queen’s Speech heralding leaving the EU as “a defining opportunity… to tear away bureaucratic red tape”.

As the Brexit rollercoaster rolls on, moving from hope and despair about a deal on an hourly basis, we should not be distracted from the real reasons why any Brexit is worse for the environment than continuing as a member of the EU.

The loss of the level playing field will be a serious blow to those of us who depend on European law to protect our natural places and the other species we share them with.

As an MEP I will be voting on any withdrawal agreement, and rest assured, I and a vast majority of my fellow MEPs will not vote for a deal that does not include the level playing field on environmental standards. 

This Author 

Molly Scott Cato is a Green MEP for the South West of England. 

We are witnessing an historic international rebellion, an overwhelmingly rapid rise in the numbers, tactics and impacts of environmental campaigners.

To ‘protest’ – as defined by the 15th century French origin of the word – is not just to challenge power, but also ‘to make a pledge, a solemn declaration’ and to drive change.

And this rebellious pledge, this conviction to a noble cause, has marched great movements and struggles to victory for centuries.

Disruption

The Peasants Revolt, the French Revolution, the Luddites, Suffragettes, the US Civil Rights movement, South African anti-apartheid struggles and now – one hopes inevitably – a good outcome for today’s Extinction Rebellion (XR) and climate strike actions.

XR activists are clinging to historical evidence of such protests to conclude their non-violent rebellion just needs to win over 3.5 percent of the population, in order to succeed.

But lawyers and rights groups monitoring Extinction Rebellion [XR] protests that continue to disrupt 60 cities around the world for the second week of their ‘Autumn Uprising’ are concerned by a threat that lurks at the heart of this quest to speak truth to power and demand accountability and change. 

How much are freedoms and rights being encroached? How much is enough, especially bearing in mind the backdrop of a recent UN report warning that the climate crisis is the “greatest ever threat to human rights”.

Where are the lines drawn with reasonable disruption? Although XR champions ‘peaceful civil disobedience’, revolutions do not happen by asking for permission.

Containment

While the arrests and other personal sacrifices made this week by the XR protestors, along with the cost of disruptions they are causing, have been described by activists as mild compared to the catastrophic future costs, impacts and deaths from climate warming made by scientists, not everyone is seeing it that way yet.

Police, politicians and XR activists remain resolute in their opposing views of what is enough.  

A few high profile critics have used their media platform to complain that the methods activists use are too disruptive and will lose public goodwill.

Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, even tried to dismiss XR’s thousands of supporters as ‘hemp smelling,” “uncooperative crusties”.

Across the world, the state and the rebels have taken aim at each other’s battle lines, to dismantle the other side – with XR strategies including ‘moving like water’ and popping up across cities to undermine police efforts at containment.

Laws

The activists are using the power of numbers and rapid communication networks including secret and open social media channels to achieve an efficient, ever moving peaceful ‘army’.

Look to nature and you can see the effectiveness of this: it is reminiscent of the highly successful, organised and unstoppable colonies of social insects such as the humble ant, where the power of each one is sustained and grows by using shared intelligence and cooperation.

XR also uses surprise, and endless replacements of resources including, so far, seemingly limitless numbers of arrestable protestors, tents and other equipment.

By comparison, the Metropolitan Police seems somewhat restricted. Last week, police Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, pointed to the huge cost of XR on the police, businesses and people, and called for a review of protest laws.

The April uprising cost the police £16m. Ephgrave wants banning orders for rebels who repeatedly break the law: “The legislation around public order was drafted in a different era and it’s not particularly helpful because it wasn’t designed for what we’re dealing with now,” he said.

Pepper spray

“Were we to allow unlawful protest to be tolerated it would encourage others to do the same sort of thing and it’s difficult to see where that would end. It’s not our job to worry about their motivation, we just have to deal with the situation as we see it and try to get the balance right.

“We will police this within the law, fairly but firmly,” he added. “Our intention is that London stays open for business throughout this period and we will take whatever measures we can to make that happen.”

London’s Metropolitan Police had imposed a condition on London protestors on Tuesday under the Public Order Act 1986, stating that the rebels must restrict their assembly to Trafalgar Square.

“The Met believes that this action is necessary in order to prevent the demonstrations from causing serious disruption to the community. Anyone who fails to comply with the condition is liable to arrest and prosecution,” a statement read.

Of course, XR wants a high arrest count for civil disobedience. By Monday, 14 October 2019, the Met Police had obliged by arresting 1,405 protestors in London; around 500 were arrested in Belgium at the weekend where police used water canons and pepper spray, and an estimated 1,500 more internationally.

Proud

The Met claimed some activists posed a security and safety threat at London City Airport where they had blocked and glued-on to buildings, a train station and a British Airways plane. A spokesperson said: “Targeting an airport and inconveniencing travellers in this way is wholly unacceptable and irresponsible.”

Across London, police cleared many of the 12 main London rebel encampments and seized their tents, equipment and food. XR supporters complained the police were being ‘intimidating, provocative and violent’ towards them and shared videos of belongings being forcefully seized.

Some shared videos claiming they were ‘violently arrested’ and that police were using ‘pain and compliance’ tactics. Many more, however, appeared to remain peaceful and even sang during arrests.

It has prompted police actions to be scrutinised and criticised by protestors, politicians and lawyers. Green Party deputy leader Amelia Womack said police “swooped in” and removed staging and equipment when she was about to speak to protestors last Wednesday.

She praised XR for raising public awareness of the climate emergency, adding: “The right to protest is crucial in any democracy to enable people to show their unhappiness when important matters are being ignored. We have a proud history of using acts of rebellion to start debates where other methods haven’t yielded results.

Zealous

“If our government want to see Extinction Rebellion stop their peaceful protest, then they must listen and take immediate action to tackle the climate emergency. Our country, and its citizens are demanding it.”

The police confiscation of vital ramps, wheelchairs and accessible toilets was also criticised by disabled protestors, who said they had spent months planning the event to ensure the protests were accessible and inclusive and safer for them.

The climate crisis charity Plan B has written to the Metropolitan Police complaining of numerous instances of alleged human rights violations in the policing of XR protests and of ignoring good policing guidance.

Tim Crosland, the Plan B director and member of Extinction Rebellion, said: “Extinction Rebellion activists are being treated as criminals. Their ‘crime’, let’s remember, is to demand the action required, according to science, to prevent the ultimate humanitarian catastrophe.”

High profile barrister Jolyon Maugham QC of The Good Law Project, told The Ecologist: “Our politics is in disarray. The media is flooded with Brexit. At times like this it’s even more important that we zealously guard the few remaining spaces where people can be heard. Good Law Project is very keen to take forward some test cases to protect the right to peaceful protest.”

Right

Human rights lawyer, Kirsty Brimelow QC, agreed the right to peaceful protest is protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “However, it is a qualified right. This means that it doesn’t trump all other rights,” she said. “But the right to protest is a significant consideration when the police decide about the reasonableness of any protest obstruction such as tents.

“Camps may be an eyesore or a literal mess but the nature of protests includes elements of unruliness. There has to be a careful balancing exercise between competing rights and regulations before peaceful protests are interfered with by the police.”

She added: “History has shown that many peaceful protests have been right. Here protestors are uniting behind science, in particular the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In this context – the future of the planet – the State should be expected to exercise a high degree of tolerance when dealing with protestors.”

A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said: “Sadiq strongly supports the democratic right to peaceful and lawful protest and has backed the climate strikes over recent weeks and months.

Freedom

“However, he will not support illegal action, which causes major disruption to Londoners or risks public safety. Such action is counter-productive to this crucial cause, and puts further pressure on our already over-stretched police force who need to be focused on tackling violent crime.”

XR has pledged its peaceful disobedience actions will continue all this week across the world. One thing is clear from the history of environmental campaigning: they are not going to achieve a revolution by writing emails, signing petitions or waiting for permission.

This rising fight for environmental justice is a protest true to the French meaning of the word: a pledge, a solemn declaration and a demand for change, it is rooted in civil disobedience, it has emboldened an escalating mass movement and now it is defining its own battle lines, regardless of the law.

It echoes Martin Luther King Jr’s historic message from an earlier protest movement: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

This Author

Alex Morss is a freelance writer, author and ecologist. She tweets @morss_alex.

Extinction Rebellion protest action is continuing in London despite police ordering activists to end their gatherings across the capital or risk arrest.

On Tuesday morning, the group’s co-founder, Dr Gail Bradbrook, climbed on top of the entrance of the building in central London and “lightly” hit the glass with a hammer, said she was taking action for trees threatened by HS2.

She said: “I do this in fierce love of the 108 ancient woodlands threatened by HS2, this climate crime of a project. Imagine the good we could do with HS2’s anticipated cost to rapidly accelerate towards our demands to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

Rebels

“If the Government is serious about plans to meet the net zero target they need to stop funding destructive projects such as HS2 and airport expansions.”

Extinction Rebellion said other protesters had glued themselves to the building. It said activists were calling on the government to explain its plan to meet a net-zero emissions target within the carbon budget of the UK.

The protesters’ latest actions came after the Metropolitan Police imposed conditions under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, requiring any protest assembly in the capital to cease by 9pm on Monday.

The force said this was to “prevent serious disruption to the life of the community”. On Monday evening, activists were cleared from Trafalgar Square, where many had lawfully congregated for the past week.

In response to the police action, an Extinction Rebellion (XR) statement said its “rebels” would take “a moment to pause and remember why we are here”.

Breaches

It added: “Extinction Rebellion will let the Trafalgar Square site go tonight. The International Rebellion continues.”

On Twitter, XR’s London branch labelled the clearing of protesters from the square as “an outrage”.

It also tweeted: “Today, an unprecedented, political, decision has been taken to shut down peaceful protest calling out the government for inaction in the face of crisis.”

As of 5pm on Monday, police said there had been 1,445 arrests in connection with the eight days of XR protests in London.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said conditions were being imposed on protesters due to “continued breaches” of previous police orders and “ongoing serious disruption to the community”.

Peace

He added: “We have made significant progress in managing Extinction Rebellion’s activity at sites across central London over this past week.

“Officers have begun the process of clearing Trafalgar Square and getting things back to normal.”

Mr Taylor said officers had made more than 90 arrests on Monday as protesters targeted the City of London, the capital’s financial district.

He added: “The policing operation continues, and we will continue to take action against anyone engaged in unlawful protests at locations targeted by Extinction Rebellion.”

On Monday night in Trafalgar Square, four people in a so-called peace tent, who had locked themselves together, were cut out of their locks with machinery.

Generations

Pam Williams, 71, glued herself to the spot where her tent stood as police arrived to take it.

Speaking to the PA news agency, she said: “I’m refusing to leave and I’ve glued myself to the ground. My husband has taken away the tent, the police haven’t got it. I shall stay here until I’m arrested.”

Ellie Chowns, a Green Party MEP, said she was arrested after “standing in solidarity” with protesters in Trafalgar Square.

At 11.30pm, only around 50 protesters remained in Trafalgar Square and the majority of the activists’ infrastructure had been removed.

Activists had previously said they planned to launch “XR Grandparents”, an initiative focused on older generations, on Tuesday afternoon.

This Author

Tom Pilgrim is a reporter with PA.