I am angry to the depths of my soul that the earth has been so injured while we were all bemused by supposed monuments of value and intellect, vaults of bogus cultural riches… Sellafield, which pours waste plutonium into the world’s natural environment, and bomb grade plutonium into the world’s political environment. For money.

So wrote US author Marilynne Robinson in Mother Country in 1989, a few years after the 1983 discovery by Yorkshire TV (video embed below) of the child leukemia excess (ten times the expected number) at Seascale, a village next to the Sellafield nuclear site.

In the documentary, presented by a young David Dimbleby, we see the evidence and a debate between Professor Ed Radford (who started me out on my radiation enquiry in 1991) and a young Wilks on one side, and two men from British Nuclear Fuels.

Despite the Black Inquiry [1], a court case (Reay and Hope vs BNFL), several reports from the National Radiological Protection Board NRPB and their Alice in Wonderland Mirror, COMARE, no one pointed out that the science behind all the protestations of innocence is bogus.

The court case was lost for the same reason. Martyn Day the solicitor was advised to use the fathers’ exposures and genetic risk as a strategy – a mistake that cost them the case. It was the direct exposures from the beaches that were the cause of the child leukemias, not the fathers.

So all BNFL had to do to win, was to show that there were leukemia children whose fathers did not work at Sellafield. Which there were.

There is no single measure of ‘radiation’

The essential problem was that everyone assumed that there was a valid scientific way of measuring radiation which applied equally to all kinds of exposure, and that it produced a number, called the ‘dose’ which could be used to quantify biological damage (and therefore child leukemia).

BNFL argued that the fact that there was a lot of plutonium on the beach and in the houses at Seascale was not enough. To get enough ‘dose’ from plutonium, the children would have had to eat some kilograms of house dust. Accepting this nonsense, the late Prof Gardner (and the court case) attempted to get around this by arguing that it was a genetic effect delivered by the fathers’ sperm.

A mistake, as I wrote to Martyn Day at the time, and also to Gardner. But Gardner (aged 50, not a smoker) went into hospital with lung cancer just after I sent my letter, and never came out.

The 1984 Black Inquiry was less easily fooled. Sir Douglas Black recommended two new independent outfits to investigate the problem. They were the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, (COMARE).

COMARE was quickly infiltrated by the nuclear industry faithful, and produced one biased report after another exonerating Sellafield as a cause of the child cancers. It used the same ‘dose’ argument as BNFL in the documentary, as did NRPB’s evidence to Sir Douglas.

Initially COMARE toyed with the idea of population mixing and an unknown virus as the cause, but conceded there was no population mixing at Sellafield. However, its latest 17th Report, published last year, finally gave way and decided that it was population mixing after all.

Contamination of the seashore? What contamination?

This seashore contamination has, since 1983, spread to the coast of north Wales where it is measured and where there was a 18-fold child cancer excess by 2004, and to Carlingford in Ireland (see Wolves of Water, Busby 2007) with similar effects.

Well, what is the fuss about? What should the locals and holidaymakers be afraid of?

Video: ‘Windscale – The Nuclear Laundry’, first broadcast on Yorkshire TV, 1st November 1983.

I was sent a scanning electron microscope (SEM) photograph by Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) the local anti-nuclear NGO. A sample from the tidal estuary of the river Esk near a popular coastal path. I was asked to comment. I show the SEM picture in Figure 1 (above right).

It was collected by CORE for Arnie Gundersen during his brief visit to Cumbria and given to Dr Marco Kaltofen from Boston MA, USA who measures particles. Marco told me on the phone that there were many such particles found in this mud sample. His machine also uses X-ray fluorescence, and can identify the elemental composition of any particle. The XRF spectrum is inset. It shows that the particle is made from Plutonium and Americium.

I knew already that the mud in that area was highly contaminated with plutonium. CORE had sent me samples in the 1990s which I still have and which I use to calibrate my gamma spectrometers. One of those had 22,000Bq/kg Plutonium-239 together with about the same amount of Cs-137 and a host of other nasty isotopes.

Killer isotope of the future: Americium 241

But this is the first time I had seen the villain of the piece, the hot particle. You need some fancy gear for that. Plutonium-241 is a major effluent from Sellafield, a beta emitter with a half-life of just 14 years turning into the alpha emitter Americium-241 with a half-life of 432 years.

For this reason, the concentration of the Am-241 in the Irish Sea sediments is increasing, even if they shut the pipeline tomorrow. Waves of this material reached the Irish coast in the late 1990s and by now has contaminated the beaches near Dublin and will soon (or may have already) reached Waterford. It has been along the coast of Wales since the 1980s, building up in the Menai and on a big tidal sediment bank called the Lavan Sands.

Marco used gamma spectrometry to show that the bulk sample had a radioactivity of 390 kBq/kg (390,000) with signals from Caesium-137 and Americium 241. A Becquerel is one disintegration per second. One click on a Geiger counter.

So what about the individual particles? The one in the picture is about 50 microns diameter. Marco says the XRF suggests about 50% Americium and perhaps 20% Plutonium. I can use these figures to calculate that the activity of the particle itself is about 150,000 Bq of alpha radiation and about 500,000 Bq of beta radiation.

This is a single particle of diameter slightly smaller than the average human hair, invisible to the naked eye. Such a particle is easily resuspended in the air by wind, and indeed will automatically fly itself into the air as a result of the electrostatic charge it builds up as it emits charge in the form of beta and alpha radiation.

That such material is brought ashore over kilometre distances by ‘sea-to-land’ transfer was discovered by scientists from Harwell in the 1980s. Plutonium from Sellafield has been measured in childrens’ teeth right across England [2].

Radiation levels on Sellafield beach 50 times inland levels

We can get some idea of the general level of contamination here. CORE have a Geiger counter which they have used for a long time to astound journalists, school parties, students and campaigners. The meter jumps from a background inland of 5 to 10 to 200 to 300 counts per Second in the area where the sample was taken.

This equates to a dose rate of about 3 microSieverts per hour (uSv/h) over the contamination. That fits reasonably well with Marco’s result for the bulk sample. Prof Imanaka from Kyoto University visited the area in 2014 and took some samples back to Japan: he found Cs-137 and Americium-241, but at lower levels, around 1,000 Bq/kg.

In passing, there are some odd results in the official data, the annual Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries RIFE reports. They seem to be misreporting the dose rates over the contamination. In the latest 2015 report we see 500 Bq/kg of Cs-137 and 1,200 Bq/kg Am-241. If we assume a depth of 50cm, this translates into a surface activity of about 400 kBq/m², which is roughly what Prof Sanderson found in his 1990 aerial gamma survey.

It is technically straightforward [3] to turn this surface contamination into a gamma dose rate at 1 metre above the ground. We get 1.9 uSv/h. So this roughly agrees with CORE since my calculation is only for the Cs-137. But RIFE reports around 0.1 to 0.2 uSv/h.

Perhaps they took their gamma readings at high tide? Reducing measurements by 90%

So although RIFE contamination levels agree with the independent measurements, the official dose rates (including Prof Sanderson’s) are about 10 to 20 times too low. Of course, at estuary high tide, all this gamma activity is covered by water and the dose rate will fall by a factor of 10. Maybe RIFE only get out their gear when the water has covered up the contamination?

What do all these numbers mean to the non-scientist? Well, the Geiger counter dose rate of 3 uSv/h tells us that the area contamination is about 900 kBq/m2 in that tidal area of the River Esk. The particle analysis tells us that the radioactivity is mainly in Plutonium and Americium hot particles with some Caesium-137.

This hot particle scenario is the same as in the inner Chernobyl contamination zones. The dose rate is about equal to the level of contamination in the 30km zone of the Fukushima reactors shortly after the disaster.

Recently, BBC reporter Rupert Wingfield Hayes measured 3 uSv/h in the Fukushima exclusion zone; the clip being where radiation expert Geraldine ‘Gerry’ Thomas made her classic arithmetical gaffe.

The United Nations developed a contamination classification scheme after Chernobyl. Its definition of contaminated land was 37-185 kBq/m2. The Chernobyl Zone of Permanent Control was set at 185-555 kBq/m2 [4]. So we can say that the estuary is ‘radioactively contaminated land’ and should be a ‘zone of permanent control’ under the United Nations definition.

Suppressing the inconvenient truth

A number of questions arise in the mind of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

First, how is it that it took a TV company to draw attention to the dead bodies of the children, rather than the health authority?

Second, how is it that it takes the investigation of a sample obtained by ordinary people and a helpful scientist in America to show a picture of what there is in the sand and mud down there? Why wasn’t this done by COMARE, NRPB, BNFL, Harwell, and so forth?

Third, how is it that none of the authorities there have measured the radioactivity and the particles and fenced it all off?

This would happen in the Soviet Union, it would happen in the USA. CORE have consistently complained to the local authorities and the Sellafield Environmental Health watchdog Group about these contaminations, but have been ever ignored or fobbed off. They tell me that one Sellafield PR response was that it did not matter as people usually wore gumboots.

Finally, how is it that no one connected the hot particles with the childhood cancers and calculated the huge doses that even one of these particles, inhaled and internalised, would deliver to local tissue in organs of the body?

Well the answer is simple. It is that the nuclear military complex, lobby, mafia, however you describe it, it is powerful and real, and continues to keep a death grip on the scientific picture of radiation and health. And COMARE, like the other ‘independent’ scientific agencies and committees that provide the governmental theatricals, are populated with idiots, placemen and dodgy characters.

COMARE was intended by Sir Douglas Black, at the Seascale Inquiry, to provide investigative research independent from NRPB. But they share the same site at UK Atomic Energy Research Harwell. One of the first secretaries, John Cooper, went on to become Director of NRPB, now called Public Health England, though he disappeared rapidly when the German sea-dumping documentary caught him out on TV (below).

Death in a grain of dust

On COMARE there’s Richard Wakeford, ex BNFL. Any conflict of interest there? None reported. And there’s Frank de Vocht, who writes for Sense about Science and attacks all my published papers.

SAHSU, the epidemiological wing of this cover-up (now known in epidemiology circles as the ‘cluster-busters’) is no better: it spent its energy (and government money) developing epidemiological tools to prove the childhood leukemia clusters like Seascale, were due to random chance. I wrote a poem about this in 2003 entitled ‘Paul Elliott’ after its Director.

At Sellafield, along that coast,
Out of the corner of your eye
You’ll maybe see a little ghost
A girl who didn’t have to die
If you’re lucky, you may see her dance
Sadly along that altered shore
It’s certain she’s only there by chance
That’s what I’m told: I can’t say more.

So let’s look at the overall picture. Sticking with poetry, TS Eliot’s line, “I will show you fear in a handful of dust” seems the most appropriate summary. Only it’s worse: death on Sellafield beach is lurking in a single grain of dust so tiny as to be invisible, yet spitting out 650,000 alpha and beta particles every second.

And Sellafield, the largest legitimized source of radioactive pollution in the world, has turned that beautiful coast into Eliot’s Waste Land.

But there are no United Nations warning notices at the beaches and estuaries near Sellafield.

The areas should be fenced off. The coastal villages must be evacuated.

Chris Busby is an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation. He qualified in Chemical Physics at the Universities of London and Kent, and worked on the molecular physical chemistry of living cells for the Wellcome Foundation. Professor Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels and has edited many of its publications since its founding in 1998. He has held a number of honorary University positions, including Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health of the University of Ulster. Busby currently lives in Riga, Latvia. See also: chrisbusbyexposed.org, greenaudit.org and llrc.org.

References

1. Black D. Report of the Independent Advisory Group. Chairman: Sir Douglas Black. HMSO: London; 1984. Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria.

2. Busby C (2007) Wolves of Water. A Study constructed from Atomic radiation, Morality, Epidemiology, Science, Bias, Philosophy and Death. Aberystwyth: Green Audit. Available from Amazon UK.

3. Handbook of Radiological Protection. London HMSO 1972

4. Savchenko VK (1995) The Ecology of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Paris: UNESCO p11.

The Great East Japan earthquake and its aftermath made agricultural land in Fukushima difficult to farm. The effects of the tsunami and nuclear disaster left soil with a high concentration of salt, which made it hard to grow traditional food crops. However, cotton is resistant to this type of pollution and grows healthily in salt-rich terrains.

Recognising this, business union Otento Sun made it their mission to begin harvesting cotton on abandoned farmland and to give farmers back the ability to grow crops and produce an income.

The Bicchu Brown cotton the Fukushima farmers grow is native to Japan. The safety of the cotton is unquestionable. Every crop harvested in Fukushima has to go through radiation tests, and only crops below the standard radiation level can be distributed. This year marks the fifth harvest of the bespoke cotton.

But the cotton grown by the farmers in Fukushima is about more than the disaster. The farmers and union members believe in keeping the age-old tradition of Japanese Bicchu Brown Cotton alive, as well as reducing the widespread use of pesticide in cotton production.

Director of Otento SUN Emiko Yoshida said: “Cotton is one of the most environmentally unfriendly crops on this planet. At the same time, it is one of the crops we use most in our everyday lives.”

Although you may not realise it, cotton is everywhere – whether it’s in the clothes we wear, the sheets we sleep on, or the bags we use to carry our goods. But, although we come into contact with cotton every day, most people know very little about the way it is produced.

Cotton is considered one of the dirtiest crops in the world because of the amount of pesticide that is used in its production. As well as growing their cotton on Fukushima land, Otento Sun prove cotton farming does not have to involve heavy use of pesticides by using organic, non-GMO native seeds to create high-quality, safe cotton.

The Bicchu-brown cotton grown by Otento Sun has been used in Japan since the Heian Era (794-1185). Unlike western cotton and as its name suggests, it produces a brown material. The short length of Japanese cotton fibres means weaving it is more labour intensive than white cottons. It is more difficult to spin, and it requires artisanal skills to shape it into strong, resilient threads and fabrics.

Otento Sun mixes brown Japanese cotton and white Western cotton to create beautiful, soft, cream-coloured threads. This traditional cotton has not only helped to regenerate land and livelihoods in Fukushima, but has helped to improve the quality of cotton production in Japan.

What’s more, the venture has encourage communities to work together and create relationships and connections with each other.

Regeneration is still ongoing in the area, but projects like Otento Sun make it possible for people to create a secure and happy future for themselves and their families.

Emiko says: “We hope our organic cotton will be used across the world. Our aspiration is for the reconstruction and regeneration of Fukushima.

“This may be a small first step, but we believe that it can be realised by us all making a small change in our daily lives. It can start from this furoshiki.”

Following the accident at the Fukushima power station and under EU Regulation no 351/2011, all food imported from Japan to the EU needs to meet criteria surrounding radionuclide levels. This same approach is being taken with this cotton, and samples have been tested in the UK, where no radiation was detected at the laboratory’s Limit of Detection (LOD).

This article is part of a new content-sharing arrangement with the LUSH – the ethical cosmetics company that also works to support sustainable farming practices across the Globe

The Government recently announced new measures to the Housing White Paper, which improves the protection given to our rapidly disappearing ancient woodland.

Following pressure by groups such as the Woodland Trust, and the formation of a Government All Party Parliamentary Group for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, the recommendation is to toughen national policy (through clarifying Footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to give these endangered habitats the same protection afforded to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Planning Advisor for the Woodland Trust, Victoria Bankes Price writes on the organisation’s blog: “For years, we have called for the wording in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be altered so as to make it clear that any loss of ancient woodland or special trees should be ‘wholly exceptional’.

“This would give them protection comparable with heritage assets, like historic buildings, battlefields and monuments. The current wording in paragraph 118 of the NPPF leaves a serious loophole that often results in planning decisions which allow irreplaceable ancient woods to be permanently damaged or completely destroyed.

“The Government has now made it clear that it wants better protection for ancient woodland too, proposing changes to give them protection equivalent to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and designations like Green Belt. This will mean closing the loophole in paragraph 118 by getting revised wording that delivers strong, clear and effective protection.”

Presently just 2% of the UK’s land mass is classed as ancient woodland and due to the loss of most of our ancient trees, the UK has seen at least 45 rare species disappear over the past 100 years.

Chair of the APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, Rebecca Pow MP, said: “The complex eco-systems created by ancient woodland takes thousands of years to develop, which is why it is so devastating that barely any of this remains.

“It is not just the trees themselves that we have been fighting to protect, but the soils underneath these areas of woodland. These have built up over centuries and this is something that cannot simply just be recreated. Soils containing genetic material and the means to support whole groups of species, to produce life-saving treatments or combat pests making them so important and when we lose the trees, we lose the soils.

“Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are as precious as the rainforest and it is a travesty that so few remain. I have long advocated for greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats and I am delighted that the Government has listened to my calls. The Woodland Trust is currently dealing with 709 threats to ancient woodland, the highest number in its history. Hopefully the proposed new measures will help bring this number down.”

With the Government putting pressure on building more homes it is imperative that this shouldn’t be at the expense of our ancient woodland. The changes in the Housing White Paper show a commitment to creating sustainable development with minimal impact on nature.

The Woodland Trust and The Ancient Tree Forum are two organisations working to protect the remaining ancient woodlands of the UK, and both have been calling for changes in policy framework for years.

Now there will be consultations on the proposals in the Housing White Paper and hopefully these good intentions become policy which offers robust protection to these trees.

The Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign is fighting to save our irreplaceable ancient woodland. Sign the petition to show your support.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a UK based reporter

@WordsbyBriggs

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

The Government recently announced new measures to the Housing White Paper, which improves the protection given to our rapidly disappearing ancient woodland.

Following pressure by groups such as the Woodland Trust, and the formation of a Government All Party Parliamentary Group for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, the recommendation is to toughen national policy (through clarifying Footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to give these endangered habitats the same protection afforded to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Planning Advisor for the Woodland Trust, Victoria Bankes Price writes on the organisation’s blog: “For years, we have called for the wording in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be altered so as to make it clear that any loss of ancient woodland or special trees should be ‘wholly exceptional’.

“This would give them protection comparable with heritage assets, like historic buildings, battlefields and monuments. The current wording in paragraph 118 of the NPPF leaves a serious loophole that often results in planning decisions which allow irreplaceable ancient woods to be permanently damaged or completely destroyed.

“The Government has now made it clear that it wants better protection for ancient woodland too, proposing changes to give them protection equivalent to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and designations like Green Belt. This will mean closing the loophole in paragraph 118 by getting revised wording that delivers strong, clear and effective protection.”

Presently just 2% of the UK’s land mass is classed as ancient woodland and due to the loss of most of our ancient trees, the UK has seen at least 45 rare species disappear over the past 100 years.

Chair of the APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, Rebecca Pow MP, said: “The complex eco-systems created by ancient woodland takes thousands of years to develop, which is why it is so devastating that barely any of this remains.

“It is not just the trees themselves that we have been fighting to protect, but the soils underneath these areas of woodland. These have built up over centuries and this is something that cannot simply just be recreated. Soils containing genetic material and the means to support whole groups of species, to produce life-saving treatments or combat pests making them so important and when we lose the trees, we lose the soils.

“Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are as precious as the rainforest and it is a travesty that so few remain. I have long advocated for greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats and I am delighted that the Government has listened to my calls. The Woodland Trust is currently dealing with 709 threats to ancient woodland, the highest number in its history. Hopefully the proposed new measures will help bring this number down.”

With the Government putting pressure on building more homes it is imperative that this shouldn’t be at the expense of our ancient woodland. The changes in the Housing White Paper show a commitment to creating sustainable development with minimal impact on nature.

The Woodland Trust and The Ancient Tree Forum are two organisations working to protect the remaining ancient woodlands of the UK, and both have been calling for changes in policy framework for years.

Now there will be consultations on the proposals in the Housing White Paper and hopefully these good intentions become policy which offers robust protection to these trees.

The Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign is fighting to save our irreplaceable ancient woodland. Sign the petition to show your support.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a UK based reporter

@WordsbyBriggs

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.