James Thornton is not what you expect from a New York lawyer. He has a soft lyrical voice; each statement he makes is carefully balanced and deeply considered; he practices Buddhism, is gay, and drinks green tea.

But he is fierce. This one man poses the greatest threat to polluting companies operating in Europe. Is this hyperbole? Well, the founder of ClientEarth was presented with the Financial Times’ Special Achievement Award at the Innovative Lawyer Awards in 2016, and has been named as one of ten people who could change the world by the New Statesman. He has been working with high ranking Chinese officials to revolutionise environmental law across one of the world’s biggest economies. These and grander accolades fill his Wikipedia entry.

ClientEarth is a not-for-profit environmental law firm that now has offices in London, Brussels, Warsaw, Berlin and Beijing. Thornton is perhaps best known for the Clean Air Campaign, in which he brought the UK Government to the Supreme Court for “failing to protect its citizens against air pollution”. Aspects of the case were taken up by the Court of Justice of the EU leading the way to further suits against companies across the continent.

Transforming practice

Thornton’s aim is, simply, “to save civilisation”, he told me during an interview at his modest office in Hackney, east London. His method is fundamentally transforming the practice of environmental law in the UK. And, in this, he is succeeding.

He is fighting to get the UK government to accept in full the European Aarhus Convention. This would ensure our rights as citizens to access justice without it being prohibitively expensive. In particular, environmentalists who lose cases brought against polluters would not be buried under millions in legal costs.

“My view of the world is – as the Chinese say – crisis / opportunity. The crisis is now more clear than it has ever been. We have seen the emerging crisis – as I did when I was at university, which is a long time ago now. With each passing year it becomes more obvious.

“When you have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying we have 12 years to make a serious shift if we want to save civilisation essentially – that’s a turning point in culture. I now feel that the job is really saving civilisation. If you want to save civilisation you have to take care of the environment, because civilisation depends on the environment. It’s the most obvious thing.”

Transforming civilization

Thornton goes on: “The crisis is more clear because things have got much worse since I began, in terms of climate change, loss of biodiversity has accelerated enormously in the last 30 years. I try and carefully monitor the science in all these areas as much as I can. I have been watching the earth warm and these species die my entire adult lifetime.

“How can you go on – and the answer is that you can go on if you dedicate yourself to saving civilisation. And then, ‘is it possible to do that’?”

This tireless campaigning has placed James at the intersection between those members of the public most concerned about the environment, corporate power and the government, and its legal system.

His high-level strategic approach and exhaustive knowledge of the detail of UK law means there are perhaps few who understand the interplay of power in the UK today as well as he does.

Brexit and China

James has commanded a front row seat as the theatre of Brexit has unfolded, and his review is damning. He is keen to share what he has learned about Brexit with anyone keen to learn.

He also holds a particular interest in China, and has spent a considerable amount of time working with Chinese officials and legal professionals in implementing what the Chinese Communist Party has called the Ecological Civilisation through the reform of its legal system. There is much to be gained from comparing Brexit UK with China in terms of how each country is acting on the existential threat of climate breakdown.

Let’s begin at home. The unfolding calamity of Brexit has already had profound and long lasting impacts on environmental regulation in the UK, and we are only just at the beginning of this process. James begins by expressing dismay: “My greatest sadness is that a great country is leaving the stage.

“Britain has had an enormously positive and powerful impact in Europe even though it has always had this love-hate relationship in terms of environmental regulation. And one of the successes of the European project has been environmental regulation. The standards today are much higher than if the countries had made it on their own. The ambitions set were very high. Britain, even when it has resisted new regulation, is often better than other countries at following the rules – its part of the national character.”

Environmental protections

The fear is that if Britain continues with Brexit, it will no longer be beholden to European regulations and our air, our rivers, are farmland and our cities will be damaged as a result.

Brexit will inevitably have a profoundly negative impact on environmental regulations in the UK, he warns. “Even with good intentions there will be so much chaos in terms of law and rule making in the UK that environmental regulation will not be the main focus and that the environment will therefore suffer”. Further, “the big industrial players will always argue for reduced regulation.”

The direct threat of Brexit is that the act of transferring vast swathes of EU regulation into British law will allow corporations – incumbent economic actors – with little regard for environmental concerns to gut these rules from the inside. This can be clearly understood with reference to the work ClientEarth has done on clean air.

“The negative economic consequences will make it harder to protect the environment. Will the government do what it says in retaining environmental standards? There is an opportunity – we could do even better. But there is a risk that the attention will be attention will be elsewhere, the focus will not be on protecting the environment.

“The government isn’t really coping even with the negotiations, let alone the reality. When the reality hits, will there be strong focus be on protecting the environment. One can hope so, one can argue how things could be better. But I doubt it. It is going to take a lot of work by citizens demanding environmental protection.”

Clean air

James confirms that Britain leaving the negotiating table could also mean that the more progressive European countries will lose an important ally in protecting and enhancing EU-wide regulations. Britain has, for example, been “one of the leading voices for good, strong Common Fisheries Policy that would allow for sustainable fishing. So there will be arguments where [Britain’s] absence will make a difference.”

The argument that Brexit will be an opportunity for business to undermine government regulation has been articulated by environmentalists almost since the referendum. But James is able to provide clear and compelling evidence of how this will play out.

He cites the work around forcing the government to meet EU regulations on clean air, particularly in London where traffic pollution is harming people’s physical and mental health.

“UK citizens are now really clear that they want clean air, and do not want to die from air pollution. I think it would be hard to reduce legal requirements. But the wrong government might well try, and the wrong government might well succeed. And in doing that, would they try and take away a citizen’s right to enforce the law against a UK government? They might well try, and they could well succeed. These issues of how the law settles are completely open.

“The way that all laws are being taken over from European law into the corpus of law in the United Kingdom is that some of it becomes primary legislation. There will be an air quality law. But the key provisions of this air quality law that will determine whether a child is exposed to air pollution – what is the level of air pollution that is allowed – it looks like that will be coming over as secondary legislation.

“Secondary legislation is easily amended and Parliament gets little or no scrutiny. So the fear – and it is quite a correct fear – is that environmental legislation, labour legislation, could be brought over and the key operative parts that determine what the impact the legislation has on real human beings could be put into secondary legislation – and then some midnight Tuesday operation could go on where suddenly you find it’s all much more lax than you thought.

Shock doctrine

“Such a government could claim they have all the same laws, and they are meeting those same laws, but it just so happens that the level of requirements has gotten much lower. And that is enormous. It requires huge vigilance – and how will you interest the public in that when only geeks like us care? It has a big impact – more kids getting asthma, and those with asthma getting worse.”

He adds: “All these laws were built up over decades, and they took lots of work over decades and decades. So for them to all come over, and to have to potentially start over on all of them – in one country when the great efficiency of the EU is that they apply to every country – is an enormous ask.

“For a hypothetical government with bad intentions this is an enormous opportunity to make all of the standards worse. It’s rather like Shock Doctrine. If you have a government that is ill disposed to environmental regulations and protecting its citizens…you can see the results.”

Rough trade

The second major area of contention around Brexit is trade. The most vociferous advocates of leaving the EU argue that this will allow for free trade agreements with countries all around the world – increasing exports for British industry and creating jobs while also importing cheaper produce and reducing prices at the till.

Both these ‘benefits’ are predicated on EU produce being more expensive – because of the high environmental and labour regulation which has been introduced. The promise of free trade agreements has not come to pass – but do UK shoppers really want meat and other foods from deregulated producers?

“If we leave, under whatever arrangement, that allows us to have entirely separate trading arrangements the naïveté of current government actors will be exposed and we will find that out that it has not been easy to get even better trading relationships with the rest of the world, quite the opposite.

“We will then be extremely vulnerable to the United States forcing [its produce into the market] – the short hand is chlorinated chicken. The Agriculture Secretary in the United States has made it clear that ‘if you want a trade deal you will have to take all our farm produce the way it is’ – and it is a very different set of standards to the EU.”

He also confirmed that there was a “genuine threat” that the UK would have to accept imports of food and other goods that only confirm to the standards of the originating country, and not those of the UK. This is a trojan horse that will deliver chlorinated beef and hormone injected beef from the US, Australia and other trading partners to our supermarket shelves.

Black hole

“If we get what the people who love Brexit love to call sovereignty, the sovereignty to have our own trade deals – what they do not seem to understand is that trade deals are done on the basis of power entirely. It always comes down to power. ‘The rules are going to be set the way we want them because we are powerful’. That’s the way it is.

“Is the US more powerful than the UK in these terms? Well most countries are – certainly the big blocs are. The US is, the EU will be, China is, Russia is. You may be driven to take the lowest common denominator. It’s not what people say they want. But they may be forced into that position. It’s a genuine worry.”

Whether we leave or not, Brexit has already caused enormous damage. The momentum for environmental regulation – think of the Climate Change Act – which was built up by decades of hard work by campaigners across the UK has been lost. There has been almost no parliamentary debate, news coverage or national conversation about the environmental threats – large and small – that we must address. Extinction Rebellion taking over central London occupied a few days between years of Brexit debate.

“The other thing that is really upsetting about Brexit is it has been just a colossal black hole in everyone’s time and attention,” James said. “And it’s not going to stop. If May’s proposals to go through, there is another two full years of negotiations.

“As since the UK government has not said peep about what it actually wants, you will have the same arguments for another two years. It’s been three years. In that case, it will be the government in complete standstill for five years, not accomplishing anything at all…It’s a tremendous amount of more nonsense before you get to the end of the process, including renegotiating all these laws, on environment, labour, everything else.

“And this is the time when we have 12 more years to make a huge change if we are going to save civilisation. At the most crucial time in human history to save civilisation for future generations, Britain has decided to take itself off into a crazy, self regarding, destructive, downward spiral and focus on nothing meaningful.”

He added: “There were very negative players. Russia had a very big impact on Brexit. Russia – and Trump – had an interest in the EU collapsing, because the EU is a very progressive project. For both, Putin and Trump, the disintegration of the EU to whatever extent possible removes a beacon of hope from the whole world, and an alternative power bloc.”

Incumbents

The farce of Brexit is at its essence a conflict of beliefs about who is the perpetrator, who are the victims and who is the rescuer – to use the language of Stephen Karpman’s drama triangle.

The Brexiteers believe business is vital and benevolent – creating wealth and jobs – while the state is authoritarian, limiting, dangerous. Remainers seem to feel that the state is necessary, protective, benevolent – and that the big state of the EU is better placed than the UK government to hold back the tide of multinational corporate power. But for both, the citizenry is placed in the position of victim – needing business or government to meet its needs.

The story that James tells is, to me, far more compelling because it is the citizen that is given the role of hero – more in the school of Joseph Campbell – and it falls to us citizens to challenge power: and the malevolent force in this story is the ‘incumbents’ of corporate monopolies who inhibit innovation in the major industries. This is very much in keeping with Adam Smith’s attack on monopoly power in all its forms. The victims, here, are the small companies bringing renewable power to the market. But it falls to us to slay the dragons.

“The car companies are a good example of this. There was an announcement recently of an investigation by the EU into what appears to be – the EU thinks – collusion between car companies to prevent the introduction of pollution reduction systems. They created a cartel – in this case a complex monopoly – to prevent the introduction of pollution technology that they knew would save lives, and to delay it for as long as possible. Astounding.

“They did not start out with bad intentions. Diesel engines look like a good idea: they are efficient and they last a long time. And, by the way, they make a lot of money. So let’s ignore the bad news about them, and then we go a few more feet into badness by preventing pollution control because we will save quite a bit of money. We will be able to run it this way for five more years, because that will generate this much profit.”

Killing the dragons

“It does not start out with evil intentions, but you end up with this banality of evil accounting which turns their actions into the actions of monsters. They think they are making rational decisions – they are making rational decisions, but they are making immoral decisions, sometimes unlawful decisions.

“What do we do to shake them up? Back to this idea of the incumbents, so you have incumbents in the car industry, and in the energy industry. You have new companies that come in who can deliver clean transport, who can deliver clean energy. But the companies that are inventing that stuff, they are entrepreneurial, they are small, generally. They have the cool technology.

“But they do not have the wherewithal to fight the incumbents in court, they do not have the money. They do not have the expertise. The governments do not have any interest in doing this because the incumbents have so much influence.

So Germany looks like a green country, but as you begin to understand more deeply and as the Green party will tell you, ‘we are in some ways Green but we are also run by the car companies’, the influence of the car companies are so enormous that the country is beholden to them.

“So who is going to do it? The incumbents are sitting in the middle of the roadway, like dragons. And if you cannot move them, then the good solutions are not going to flow through. The markets for the first time can deliver this stuff, but the markets on their own are not going to because you have these dragons sitting in the middle of the roadway. So who is going to kill the dragons? Citizens have to do it. But then you need sharp weapons. And that is where litigation comes in.”

ClientEarth

James here explains the role of ClientEarth. It is not the hero, but instead a weapon in the arsenal of the citizenry in confronting its nemesis – polluters and vested interests. But just when we need this weapon most, as we are about the confront the final ordeal of climate breakdown, Brexit threatens to blunt this axe.

Brexit poses a direct threat to the work that ClientEarth does. This includes further uncertainty in relation to an application for EU funding to support environmental NGOs in China. James argues that the space for NGOs to work in China is now opening up, even as it closes down in European countries where right wing parties are coming into power. “This will be thrown into question by Brexit, with our HQ then being in a non-EU country.”

The charity currently has 90 lawyers practicing in courts across the EU, with 100 cases coming on in member state courts or the higher European courts. This work is “entirely unaffected”. But Brexit has sent shockwaves through its London offices.

James estimates that 40 percent of the UK-based staff are EU citizens, and there remains deep uncertainty about their status after Brexit. This means young families having to move countries, severing ties with family and community.

“Where will our employees be able to live? We do not know the honest answer. We have had to bring lawyers in, to advise them on their rights, so they can begin to understand where they might apply, and where there will be problems.”

Ecological civilisation

The potential breakdown in British environmental regulation during Brexit is placed in dramatic relief when James compares it to recent events in China. We take great pride in being an open, democratic, free market society which we compare favourably with the autocratic quasi-Communism in ‘the East’. The reality is more complex. James has spent the last five years working with high ranking Chinese officials to reform the law – giving insight which is incredibly rare.

China has instigated its transformation into an ‘ecological civilisation’. This promises to fundamentally change all aspects of Chinese national and civic life. “This is a deep, positive and powerful concept, which has given me a lot of hope,” James tells me. “They mean it. I have had conversations with a variety of senior people and ecological civilisation is a meaningful concept – it is not a slogan.”

He adds: “It’s quite clear that from the top on down in China they need no convincing, they understand the science, they completely get it, and they are trying to turn their whole country around as fast as possible on the environment – and they are very very clear about it. Here you have the Rupert Murdoch influenced media in the English language world sowing discord, and you have ExxonMobil and its peers sewing discord so that otherwise intelligent people are confused about these things.

“That does not happen in China. The politicians are also engineers – on the Politburo there are a lot of engineers – so if they see there is a problem, what an engineer says is, ‘how do we solve that most efficiently’. And it is a completely different mindset. They are saying, how do we solve this efficiently? That’s where we come in, we and other Western experts, or foreign experts are being brought in as advisers.

There are eight dimensions, including economics, regulations, agriculture, industrial policy – and the legal system. “They are throwing hundreds of their best intellectuals at this. This is very remote from anything that is going on anywhere in the world.”

Planning horizon

The leadership in China is well aware that its own power may not extend out of the major cities – with the popular saying ‘yes, but the Emperor is rivers and mountains away’. So they are leveraging change by rewiring the legal system and giving populations on the ground new legal enfranchisement.

James has been working with the higher echelons of Chinese society to fundamentally transform how the law operates. Here too, the citizen (or community) is cast as hero, not the lawyer, or the leader, or the corporation.

It feels almost uncomfortable to write anything positive about China when the human rights abuses are shocking, including its treatment of journalists. James is not naive about China. He understands concerns in the US and the UK about the development of this global power. He cites for example the fact that only China rivals the US in the development of artificial intelligence. He is also acutely aware of the issues around what we understand as human rights. “What China is up to in some regards – I can understand people being concerned about.”

Permits which allow companies to operate are now being drafted by lawyers so that companies can be sued for damaging the environment. For the first time Chinese citizens are now empowered and actively encouraged to sue companies – and local governments.

ClientEarth has been providing advice to the Supreme Court in China so NGOs can sue polluting companies. It has also been training prosecutors – and judges – to work on this novel environmental legislation. “We now every year have training for hundreds of Chinese judges, bringing global experts on legal decisions. This is fundamental. It is a highly intentional shift,” he argued.

“When you speak to senior officials, they say, ‘we are very clear that we have polluted air, soil, food that is already affecting the economy – we intend to still be here in 2,000 years with healthy people, healthy economy, healthy environment. We have a long planning horizon, and we need to be addressing these issues immediately. We think we also have to get the people involved – because the people are also very angry. We are trying to root out corruption in the system, if we allow NGOs and prosecution to be allowed in enforcement we will have a different regime’. I can only applaud this.

Mobilising citizens

“We have been working with them in a dedicated way now for seven years to build a regime of enforcing the law. It’s a fascinating inquiry. What do we need now so that every company in China knows that there are laws – because there are – saying there needs to be pollution control, and every company knows they are not allowed to ignore them, because in the past they were allowed to ignore them. This is a big shift. You get a different world.”

The threat of climate breakdown confronts each and every person on this planet, as does the collapse in biodiversity and the continued industrial pollution of both urban and rural landscapes. Every community, every nation, needs to respond in the same way.

James has been able to mobilise a positive and effective response to these threats, and has learned some important lessons along the way. The single most important for me is that it is you and I -citizens and communities – that can and will affect change. Corporations and governments will only act when we force them to. James has shown that this remains possible.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This story was first published on OpenDemocracy.

Artificial reefs are man-made, underwater structures installed to provide a substrate and shelter for organisms. For centuries, they have been used to increase local fish populations and their ability to replicate natural environments means they can be used to mimic globally declining natural reefs.

The Grand Anse Artificial Reef Project (GAARP) is a grassroots project based in Grenada, a small island in the south Caribbean. Six years ago, the small team launched their first concrete pyramid – a stack of breeze blocks – into the Caribbean Sea off Grand Anse beach. GAARP’s project lead explains: “around the world, reefs which have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years to reach maturity are dying. I want to think of a way to boost start them.”

Now numbering 30, the concrete reef supports marine wildlife which relies on an increasingly threatened natural environment. This unconventional but successful method could provide coastal managers with a way to alleviate some of the problems facing coral reefs and coastal communities. 

Coral reefs

Coral reefs are some of the most spectacular and diverse ecosystems in the world. These marine oases, often thousands of times more productive than the open sea, nurture complex habitats by providing refuge from predators and environmental stressors. 

Human activity directly threatens an estimated 50-70 percent of coral reefs. In the Caribbean, average hard coral cover has decreased about 80 percent since the early 1980s. 

Coral decline has natural and human causes: extreme events can flatten reefs and recent Caribbean hurricane seasons have been some of the most active on record. Marine herbivores, which reduce competitors like algae, have been lost through disease and overfishing. 

Humans have over-exploited reefs, caused physical damage e.g. by dropping anchors and caused eutrophication through run-off of terrestrial chemicals like pesticides. Mass coral bleaching as a result of warmer seas has resulted in significant global coral loss. 

Experts believe the unprecedented and persistent changes to Caribbean coral reefs could mean that human activity has irretrievably compromised their health. Losing these environments has serious consequences for wildlife, ecosystem functioning and environmental services. 

GAARP

Phil Saye owns beachfront dive shop ‘Dive Grenada’ and is the mastermind behind GAARP. He explains that building the artificial reef is part of his conservation and philanthropic work: “I wanted to give back and see what would work for marine conservation. Around the world, there are lots of reefs dying so I thought about building an artificial reef.”

A delivery of concrete blocks to the adjacent hotel was the unlikely inspiration for GAARP, Phil explains. “I sat there like a small boy with Lego and built a pyramid. The shape is perfect: the design is stable and doesn’t negatively impact the marine environment.”

Phil built the first two pyramids on wooden pallets on the beach. He launched them in 2013 and sank them about 200 hundred yards off the coast in a desolate, sandy area. 

After three months, long spine sea urchins, herbivorous ‘housekeepers’, colonised. Species richness grew and Phil made a surprising discovery: “I was told very forcefully that coral would never grow on there. After two years, I saw a tiny piece of coral the size of a fingernail. Coral polyps had found the pyramids in their first year and started to grow. There are corals – many different types – growing all over them now.”

Six years on, the cluster of 30 pyramids has become a tourist attraction: “People have got to know about it and they absolutely love it. They can’t believe that something so shallow – it’s only 3m deep – is working so well”. The pyramids now support over seven coral and 30 fish species.

Thinking bigger

Phil admits there is a long way to go until the pyramids can replicate the variety of wildlife found on a natural reef, but conservation is only part of his mission: “I started with orphanages and children’s homes. I bring children down, swim out with them and educate them very softly on marine conservation. I see it as my job to switch the light on; in the future they might be in a position to make a difference.

“I want to create something which is transferrable around the world. You could scale the pyramids up, produce them cheaply, plant them near your community and if you’re smart, you can have a sustainable fishery. It’s not just about producing artificial reefs – we’re also making sustainable fisheries and livelihoods for the local community.”

GAARP gained formal government permission to sink the pyramids in 2017. Like many governments in small developing countries, the Grenadian government must balance sustainable coastal management with creating opportunities and maintaining livelihoods. 

Peter Thomas, Assistant Director of Grenada’s Science and Technology Council, explains that although climate change is high on the government agenda, lack of manpower, equipment and political drive hinders action – but he is confident this is gathering momentum.

A significant milestone in coastal management came a decade ago when sand mining was outlawed. Despite early warnings, the lucrative business continued until its negative impacts were impossible to ignore. Mr Thomas explains the conflict between making money, providing jobs and preserving Grenada’s coastline: “you say no to sand mining because the island is disappearing, but others say yes because they are making money.”

The future?

Vigilance and the input of schemes such as GAARP mean that in many areas, Grenada’s coastline is successfully recovering from human degradation. Mr Thomas says this has led to the “beefing up” of social and economic activity in coastal regions, including tourism and fishing. 

Ilana Zalmon, a professor of marine biology at the State University of Northern Rio de Janerio, explains that artificial reefs are “excellent instruments for…management of fisheries, maintaining coastal habitats, aquaculture, tourism locations and conservation of biodiversity.” 

Citing examples from Australia which compare artificial and natural reefs, Professor Zalmon says: “These publications have showed artificial reefs as important zones for species attraction and also as strategic areas for natural reef conservation…artificial reefs have the potential to fulfill many of their intended purposes.”

Stressing the importance of careful planning, monitoring and continual management, Professor Zalmon explains that “artificial reefs may help to protect coastal areas and increase biodiversity.”

Despite the success of projects like GAARP, artificial reefs cannot identically replicate fully functioning natural reefs. As one of the most vulnerable marine environments, coral futures rely on understanding and addressing the chronic causes of mortality and developing effective management strategies which complement adaptive projects.

This Author

Steph Andrews is a Geography graduate from the University of Cambridge.

CBD has exploded in popularity in the last decade or so, causing all sorts of speculation on the effects and benefits of marijuana’s sister-drug.

From oils, to creams to vaping, CBD is everywhere nowadays. Companies claim that it can help treat or cure everything from psoriasis to cancer, but what’s the truth? What is it that this drug can actually do for you?

Professor of anatomy and neurobiology, Diele Piomelli said: “Maybe cannabis will be useful to some people, but it will be disappointing to most. Cannabis will not be a panacea. Nor will it be as dangerous as some people think.” CBD isn’t some cure-all, miracle drug, but its health benefits aren’t all fabricated. CBD can prove very useful in treating joint pain, arthritis, insomnia, and other conditions. 

What is CBD?

Let’s start with the basics, what actually is CBD? CBD is derived from cannabis, the plant known most commonly as the source of marijuana. Marijuana contains compounds known as cannabinoids, the two most abundant of which are THC and CBD. 

CBD is the non-psychoactive component of cannabis. It won’t cause you to feel stoned, but it can cause you to feel relaxed. If you take it in addition to smoking or taking THC, it can increase the high feeling.

CBD is extracted from cannabis and can then be made into an oil, cream, tincture, and a whole world of other great products. It can be taken orally, applied topically, smoked, or vaped. 

The CBD products you can buy in stores aren’t FDA tested, approved, or regulated. This emphasizes the importance of your researching the product and the company that makes it thoroughly before consuming it. 

CBD is also commonly referred to as hemp oil, cannabis oil, and cannabidiol. It comes in a variety of forms and dosages. For CBD to be sold in most states, it has to contain less than 0.3 percent THC. 

Medical benefits

If you scour the internet, you’ll find article after article claiming the miraculous medical benefits CBD has to offer. Unfortunately, a lot of these claims are just that: claims; they aren’t supported by actual fact. 

During a National Academy of Medicine panel, Piomelli said: “We found conclusive evidence that cannabis can reduce nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy.” 

She went on to say that there is “substantial” evidence that cannabis can help with multiple sclerosis by modestly reducing involuntary muscle spasms the disease causes and can help reduce chronic pain.

The other many benefits companies claim CBD can have may or may not be true. There are few studies available to prove or disprove these claims. Piomelli stated: “There are a lot of possibilities for CBD, but they require controlled clinical trials. The smoking gun isn’t there yet.” 

Dr. Ryan Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, said: “People are throwing CBD at every condition under the sun at random doses and expecting it to work.”

CBD risks

Many people claim there are minimal to no risks to using CBD, but that’s not exactly accurate. CBD can actually affect the way your body metabolizes medications. 

Vandrey commented: “We know that CBD can affect the metabolism of drugs, though the extent to which that happens is still not well understood.”

CBD can interfere or interact with medications your taking, including but not limited to statins to help lower cholesterol, antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers that are used to treat high blood pressure, among other conditions.

It’s highly recommended that you consult with a doctor or bare minimum a pharmacist before you start taking CBD. It’d be terrible if you started taking something that not only didn’t help you but also stopped your other medicines from working, giving you even less medical benefit from CBD.

CBD can also cause you to test positive for marijuana, as it does contain a tiny bit of THC. One hit of CBD oil likely won’t affect these tests, but prolonged use will. If your job requires you to submit to random drug screenings, you’re going to want to opt for one of the few brands that truly has zero percent THC.

If you choose to smoke or vape CBD, you introduce the additional risks of inhaling hot vapor or smoke to your lungs and body. Introducing high temperatures, butane, and other known carcinogens to your throat and lungs can increase your risk of developing cancer.

CBD dosage

Without federal regulation, CBD dosage is typically left up to the patient. There’s little to no studies available indicating how much CBD a person should take, though it’s typically recommended to start small and increase your dosage as you feel necessary.

There are many contributing factors to how much CBD you should take or how frequently you should use products like lotions or balms which include but aren’t limited to weight, diet, other conditions, amount eaten at the point of consumption, etc.

If you have any questions about the correct dosage of CBD for you, consult with your regular physician or pharmacist.

While CBD has grown in popularity, it’s not necessarily the magical cure-all people are claiming it is. Until further testing is done and research conducted, many of the claimed benefits of CBD will remain unproven. Due to the new and largely unregulated nature of CBD, you have to do your research into the product, the company making, and the proper dosage for you to consume. 

Many will find that the treatments they were looking for out of CBD doesn’t exist or are only caused by the placebo effect. However, that doesn’t mean that CBD is unuseful. CBD has been proven to help treat MS, epilepsy, and chronic pain.

Your take-away shouldn’t be to doubt all the healing powers of CBD, but to approach the drug with a healthy dose of skepticism.

This Author

Jamie Wilson is editor of The Weed Republic. 

Climate activist Greta Thunberg set sail for New York from Plymouth, England, on Wednesday afternoon on a zero-carbon racing yacht.

She is embarking on a climate tour of the Americas, during which she will join large-scale climate demonstrations on September 20 and 27 and speak at the United Nations Climate Action Summit, hosted by Secretary General António Guterres in New York City on September 23.

“I am one of the very few people in the world who actually can do this, and I think I should take that chance,” Thunberg told reporters amid the humming of drones shortly before she boarded the boat.

Suffering

When asked if she was worried about the reaction she might get from climate deniers in the United States she said she was not. “What I’m concerned about is whether we will do something or not, whether the people in power will react and act with necessary force.”

The boat, Malizia II, is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines to generate electricity on board the vessel. The journey will take two weeks.

“I expect it to be challenging sometimes,” Greta said. “I will have to manage that. It’s not a lot. Many people in the world are suffering a lot more than that.”

Role models

She is taking board games and books to pass the time and a toy rabbit a friend gave her. Greta will be joined on board the boat by her father Svante Thunberg and filmmaker Nathan Grossman of B-Reel Films, who will document the journey.

Waving her off from the harbour were a group of supporters from Extinction Rebellion. Among them was Ben Isbell who works at a school in Plymouth. “I brought my three-and-a-half-year-old daughter here.

She’s at an age where I look for young women who are role models for her and Greta is right up there,” he said. “The nice thing about Greta is she’s getting on with it whatever. She’s just doing what
she wants to do.”

This Author

Marianne Brown is editor of Resurgence & Ecologist. 

A coalition of organisations that collectively represent tens of thousands of people want Wales to be a globally responsible nation in line with our seven well-being of goals. 

Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, UNISON Cymru, NUS UK, CAFOD Wales, Oxfam Cymru, University and College Union Cymru, Sustrans Cymru and British Lung Foundation Wales have come together in an open letter to urge Local Authority Pension Funds, the new Wales Pension Partnership, the Assembly Member Pension Scheme and the Welsh Government pension fund to commit to truly ethical investment policies.

The open letter explains: “It is the poorest people, both here in Wales and globally, that are least responsible and yet most affected by climate change. We must divest from fossil fuels now to help support more vulnerable countries where people are already experiencing the front line impacts of climate change.”

Unethical funds

Friends of the Earth Cymru spokesperson Bleddyn Lake said: “If you invest money in a business you are supporting them. The record temperatures across Europe over the last week are just the latest reminder that climate change is happening here and now.

“The public sector in Wales must stop funding the companies responsible for the climate crisis.  

“Divestment – that is taking money away from unethical funds – is a powerful way of showing the fossil fuel industry that we’re taking the climate emergency seriously. After all, we can’t fight climate breakdown while funding the very companies driving it. 

“In Wales so far, Monmouthshire and Cardiff councils have passed votes to divest their pensions from these companies. Other councils such as Swansea are also taking encouraging steps but others are very resistant and have voted down similar divestment motions. We need to see greater urgency of action. 

“We urge all public sector bodies in Wales to join those companies, councils and organisations around the world who have already divested. If we don’t act now, then when?” 

Art of the Possible 

Sophie Howe, Future Generations Commissioner for Wales said: “In the past month we have seen the pace of progress to tackling climate change gather speed here in Wales; from Welsh council’s voting to divest from fossil fuels to local people taking direct action to highlight the serious threat to our health and planet as we experience some of the hottest days of the year so far across Europe. 

“Decision-makers in Wales need to be taking immediate action and one strategic commitment they can make to contributing to a globally responsible Wales is by making the right financial decision for the well-being of our future generations. 

“This is one of the recommendations highlighted within my Art of the Possible programme which provides practical information for public bodies to take bolder steps on their journey to realising the aims and ambition of the Well-being of Future Generations Act.” 

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth Cymru. 

Image: Sophie Howe. UN Division for SDG, Flickr. 

Beef burgers have been banned by a university as part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

Goldsmiths, University of London said it is to remove all beef products from sale from next month as the institution attempts to become carbon neutral by 2025.

Students will also face a 10p levy on bottles of water and single-use plastic cups when the academic year starts to discourage use of the products.

Emissions

The college’s new Warden, Professor Frances Corner, said staff and students “care passionately about the future of our environment” and that “declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words”.

But the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) told PA the move was “an overly simplistic approach” and said there was a “lack of understanding or recognition between British beef and beef produced elsewhere”.

Goldsmiths Students’ Union has backed the ban with president Joe Leam saying that the university has a “huge carbon footprint” and that the promise to eradicate this in the next few years is needed.

As well as the beef ban and 10p levy on single-use water bottles and plastic cups, there are plans to install more solar panels across the college’s New Cross campus in south-east London and switch to a 100% clean energy supplier as soon as possible.

Officials said Goldsmiths will also continue to invest in its allotment area and identify other places where planting could help to absorb carbon dioxide, and will review how all students can access modules which cover climate change and the role of both individuals and organisations in reducing carbon emissions.

Challenges

Prof Corner said: “The growing global call for organisations to take seriously their responsibilities for halting climate change is impossible to ignore.

“Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.

“Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words. I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use.”

NFU vice-president Stuart Roberts told PA that the union has been encouraging public bodies, such as universities to back British farming and source locally-produced food. “Tackling climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time but singling out one food product is clearly an overly simplistic approach,” he said.

Footprint

“The main issue with this is the lack of understanding or recognition between British beef and beef produced elsewhere. Our standards of beef production in the UK are among the most efficient in the world, with British livestock grazing in extensive, grass-based systems – meaning a greenhouse gas footprint 2.5 times smaller than the global average.

“Anyone wanting to play their part in helping our planet amid the current climate change challenge we’re all facing should buy British, locally produced beef reared to some of the highest and environmentally sustainable standards in the world.

“The NFU has for years been encouraging public bodies such as schools and universities to back British farming and source their produce locally wherever possible. This makes more sense and keeps the choice to eat tasty, sustainably-produced meat firmly on the menu.”

Figures show that Goldsmiths emits around 3.7 million kg of carbon emissions each year, the college said.

Referring to the statistic in a blog, Mr Leam said: “It is clear our university has a huge carbon footprint. The promise to have ended this by 2030 at the latest, with the hope of doing so by 2025, is one which is needed.

Plastic

“Whilst this plan/action is only the beginning, and much work is yet to be done, it is fantastic to see Goldsmiths taking responsibility and responding to its impact on the climate.”

Invoking the words of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, “Our house is on fire”, Mr Leam added: “I believe Frances Corner and the university management are realising this and making these changes to put their part of the house fire out.

“The SU will be a part of this process every step of the way to make sure this stays true, seeking to speed the process up wherever possible and will keep the college community updated throughout.”

Rosie Rogers, climate emergency campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s encouraging to see an institution like Goldsmiths not simply declaring a climate emergency, but acting on it.

“From energy use, to food sales and plastic pollution – all universities and organisations with campus sites can make changes across their facilities that are better for our planet.

“We call on others to urgently follow suit, and to include cutting all ties from fossil fuel funding in their climate emergency response.”

This Author

Alison Kershaw is the PA education correspondent.

Four years is a long time in politics: the Green Party of England & Wales has changed a lot since 2015.  The party that used to be respected for flying the flag of environmentalism in British politics has lost its niche and is undergoing an identity crisis.

Caroline Lucas MP’s latest attempt at headline grabbing has underlined her party’s aimlessness of recent years. In an article for The Guardian framed as a letter to a number of fellow MPs, Lucas proposed an emergency all-female cabinet to block no-deal Brexit by bringing “a different perspective”.

Social media immediately noticed that Lucas’ proposed cabinet members were exclusively white. She claimed they merely reflected the leadership of parties and parliamentary groupings across Westminster, but the absence of socialist, black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) leaders like Diane Abbot was striking.

Brexit

Lucas is naive to reduce the UK’s historic constitutional crisis manifesting around Brexit to the gender composition of the cabinet. Though the Greens are committed to constitutional reform in principle, it is telling that Lucas’ intervention seeks to only tinker with who’s in the room, rather than changing the rules of the game.

This stunt was a shot in the dark for Lucas, and it failed, signalling both the Greens’ general lack of strategy around Brexit which sits in abrasive parallel to their newfound focus on it. The Greens’ identity crisis is best represented by their pivot from anti-austerity activists, environmentalists and democrats to single-minded People’s Vote obsessives.

Many used to see the Greens as a party with principles. A referendum on EU membership was in their 2015 general election manifesto alongside commitment to remain and reform. This recent history has been conveniently erased as their leadership judge ‘centrist Remainia’ as the most strategic space from which to fight.

Politically and strategically, the Greens have never recovered from Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in September 2015. At the time they had a decision to make. Should they continue to position themselves to the left of Labour, even if doing so distinctively meant being really rather left? Should they stay to the right but hammer home the environmentalism? In the end they did neither. That internal debate never happened and the Greens subsequently haemorrhaged left-wing, socialist and anti-austerity members picked up in the green surge of early-2015.

The Greens now find themselves in a political no man’s land between their environmentalist roots, the anti-austerity positions they adopted in opposition to the 2010 coalition government, and the issue of the day – Brexit. They are not delivering in any of these regards.

Climate Breakdown

At the time when climate breakdown is a more salient issue than it has ever been in British politics, the Greens are nowhere to be seen. Their messaging relies on their reputation as environmentalists rather than new ideas or a compelling vision for the future.

Proposals for a Green New Deal have articulated a climate future based on prosperity and abundance. Labour has proposed a Green Industrial Revolution to speed-up the clean energy transition and revitalise post-industrial communities. The Greens have only been able to rehash tired climate-austerity politics which has alienated the general public from environmentalism for a generation.

In January 2019, Lucas urged Parliament to consider a “meat tax”. Sian Berry, the Greens’ co-leader, in May suggested limiting Britons to one flight per year. In June, a Green councillor in Sheffield proposed banning Mr Whippy ice cream vans to reduce air pollution. The Greens’ headline climate policies continue to focus on what climate breakdown means we have to give up, rather than how climate action can materially improve lives.

You might expect the Greens at this time to incubate the most radical climate policies and act as a platform for climate activism. Instead, Labour is facing up to the scale and urgency of the climate crisis by fulfilling both of these roles. Labour is proposing measures like nationalising the National Grid and making technology produced in the UK available for free or cheap to the Global South. Grassroots campaign groups like Labour for a Green New Deal are driving the party even further in ambition.

The Greens don’t know what they are any more. Lucas’ bizarre call for an all-white woman’s cabinet is just the latest example. Its only a matter of time that the supporters the Greens cling onto wake up and realise that the substance of a once principled party is quickly fading away, exactly when you’d expect it to thrive.

This author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-director of Labour for a Green New Deal and Co-Director: Climate Change Campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh. 

The indigenous Waorani communities that live along the riverbanks of the Ecuadorian Amazon have been mired in a symbolic legal battle to protect their ancestral lands.

The Waorani territory and people have experienced pressures from development and resource extraction. 

The Ecuadorian Provincial Court’s decision in favor of the Waorani permanently protects 500,000 acres of the Amazon Jungle. A sense of victory is felt among the Waorani, and a global symbol resonates for other regions experiencing similar pressures from potential resource extraction.

Not for sale

Luis Muños, the co-founder of the restoration group Amisacho, received an invitation to return to a Waorani community, where he had helped install solar panels one year prior. We travelled to Akaro, one of the most remote Waorani communities. 

Traveling South, we stayed in Puyo, Ecuador. On this day we saw the Waorani march through the city streets demanding the legal right to their ancestral land, and demonstrating the importance that this land embodies for them.

Among them is Memo, one of the Waorani contacts Luis made in the community of Akaro. Memo is the founder and “grandfather” of Akaro. And on this day in Puyo he was joined by some 200 other Waorani, Cofan, and other Amazonian indigenous people, some with spears in hand.

Their voices were strong and message portrayed in chants and signs reading, “La Selva no se vende!” or “The jungle is not for sale”.

The March ended at the Ecuadorian Provincial Court, where members of the Waorani, accompanied by their lawyer, handed over the official legal documents to sue the Ecuadorian government for leasing the Waorani Territory to foreign oil companies.

Storytelling

The area in jeopardy, some 500,000 acres of jungle, received the bureaucratic name of Block 22.

Memo’s community of Akaro is in Block 22. He came out of his community to join others in sharing their message.

Memo accompanied us as we embarked from Puyo on a three-hour dirt road that ended at the banks of a braiding Amazonian river, Rio Villano, where we began a two day canoe trip to the community of Akaro.

Standing tall, with engine throttle in hand, Memo skillfully navigated the canoe loaded with gear and people around the curves of the low flow river. While making our dinner over fire, Memo told stories of his childhood, of the first time he saw an airplane, a time before he had seen a white person or amenities such as metal pots. 

Modern jungle

The next day, some of our party, including myself, walked the second half of the journey through the jungle to Akaro. Memo’s son-in-law, Carlos, accompanied us on a trek into the Waorani territory, harvesting wild cacao and other edible plants along the way.

It was on this hike we were first shown the immense breadth of usable knowledge the Waorani have of plants and animals within the jungle. The traditional techniques that the Waorani use to hunt toucans and other animals is a blow dart gun with poison-tipped arrows. The darts are tipped with poison derived from a lianna that is found throughout this region of the Amazon.

Though as we walk, we are told that traditionally abundant plants, such as the lianna used for the poisoned darts, are becoming more and more difficult to find. 

Early the next morning while at Akaro, Memo enters the living area of the main house with a large sajino, or wild pig, on his back. Memo is one of the best hunters in his community, and without our knowing, he had left earlier that same morning to hunt.

Memo enters the largest house at Akaro with the sajino worn like a backpack, with each of the pig’s lifeless legs tied together with vines around his chest. As a much-welcomed arrival of sustenance, this sajinomakes a weighted entrance as Memo heavily drops the animal on the wooden floorboards next to the cooking area. 

Decisive message

In the following week, while far beneath the jungle canopy and canoeing atop the coffee-colored river, Memo and his family at Akaro imparted a deluge of knowledge regarding the surrounding flora and fauna.

From the depths of the dense foliage and endlessly weaving rivers, it was difficult to assume that a place as remote could have been in such danger.  

On April 27th, 2019, the court verdict came in in favor of the Waorani to permanently protect 500,000 acres of their ancestral lands from resource extraction. However, following this court decision, the Ecuadorian government motioned to appeal and overturn this decision. 

As of July 1, the Ecuadorian Provincial Court upheld the decision to maintain protection of the half a million acres of Waorani land. 

Fostering solidarity

Leading up to this legal victory Memo and many other Waorani have been very active in voicing just how important it is for them to keep their land from being exploited.

Calmly, yet forcefully, sitting atop the floorboards of the same room he dropped the wild pig a few days prior, Memo explained the importance of his cause – that the land his ancestors lived upon and now he and his grandchildren depend on cannot fall into the hands of oil companies.

On our final night in Akaro before disembarking by canoe the next morning, Memo gave us a message to spread, that the Waorani land is not for sale.

By protecting their land, the Woarani have cultivated a symbol of power and potential for motivated individuals to stand up and arise victorious to the pressures of the behemoth oil industry.

Fostering solidarity, this victory of the Waorani can set a precedent for other areas in jeopardy from extraction such as the neighbouring seven million other acres of the Amazon Basin or the distant Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

This Author     

Eliot Headley, age 25, lives in Lake Tahoe, California. Working as a tour guide there, he enjoys sharing a deepening connection with nature. 

The CEO of the world’s largest sustainable travel company is calling for Bristol Airport controversial expansion plans to be scrapped.

Justin Francis, CEO of Responsible Travel, believes air travellers should fly less and make sure each journey contributes to conservation and local communities, and that allowing the regional airport to expand to carry twelve million passengers annually – and eventual rise to 20 million the should be vetoed.

Mr Francis said: “Zero tax on aviation fuel and cheap flights are a disaster for the environment. Expanding Bristol Airport to accommodate will vastly add to pollution.”

Tourism impacts

Mr Francis also welcomed the Government inquiry to address tourism problems – a parliamentary scrutiny that is investigating the environmental impacts of tourism in the UK and abroad both of which Mr Francis say will be exacerbated if the regional airport expands.

The inquiry will consider whether the UK government should play a leading role in offsetting the damage caused by the tens of millions of Britons taking holidays abroad and focus on the hefty carbon footprint of aviation and cruise companies.

Mr Francis commented: “It remains to be seen how committed global governments are to taxing aviation, but this is essential if we are to reduce the numbers of that people fly.”

Responsible Travel was one of the first travel agencies to introduce carbon offsetting – allowing supposedly guilt-free flying if you made up for pollution with green deeds.

This policy has now been dropped. “We simply need to fly less – travel by train, take holidays closer to home, or fewer holidays with flights and staying longer, as well as making carbon reductions in lifestyles,” Mr Francis added.

Air pollution

If Bristol Airport is allowed to expand it could mean 97, 373 aircraft movements in a twelve-month calendar period: a flight almost every three minutes and an average of 9,500 extra vehicle movements every day.

To cope with this, permanent airspace change proposals could be set to follow and a greater number of communities across Somerset and Bristol may be flown over by thousands more planes, while millions more cars will pour through the region, widely affecting South West.

Wrington-based environmental consultant, Dr Adrian Gibbs, questioned the airport’s ability to offset its carbon footprint. His website Insomnia.co.uk states that to mitigate the extra emissions of CO2, Bristol Airport would have to reforest an area the size of North Somerset ever four months.

A recent UK landmark study also showed that exposure to air pollution is linked to the stunting of babies’ brain growth during pregnancy. A smaller gestational birth size is associated with conditions later in life, including, coronary artery disease, type two diabetes and asthma.

Study lead, Paediatrician, Professor Steve Turner stated that nobody knows the baseline of the amount of pollution that can cause harm and has called for legislation, taxation and someone to champion cleaner air.

The advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recently stated the UK’s planned increase in aviation needs to be curbed to restrict harmful CO2 levels which contribute to global warming.

This Author

Melanie Greenwood is a freelance journalist. 

Thirty six leading environmental, transparency and other organisations have urged the government to drop a secrecy provision from draft legislation to improve environmental protection after Brexit. 

The organisations say the prohibition on disclosure “is wholly at odds with the public’s right to information” under existing UK legislation.

The draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill would establish the Office of Environmental Protection (OEP). One of its functions would be to investigate complaints of serious failure by public authorities to comply with environmental laws. This is intended to replace Europe’s environmental scrutiny functions after Brexit.

Onerous restriction

Although the OEP would normally have to reveal that it was investigating a particular authority or had found that it had breached environmental law, most other information would be withheld:

The OEP would be prohibited from disclosing information obtained from a public authority under investigation unless the authority consented, and the public authority being investigated would be prohibited from disclosing correspondence or formal notices from the OEP unless the OEP consented.

In addition, the OEP would be required to copy its correspondence with a public authority to the relevant minister, but could not disclose the minister’s reply without the minister’s consent.

The OEP could publish its final investigation report if it chose to – but the public would have no right of access to it.

In a joint letter to the Environment Secretary, Theresa Villiers, the 36 organisations say this “would impose a  degree of secrecy which does not apply to any other UK environmental regulator”.

The restriction is “even more onerous” than that applied by the European Commission to information about investigations into breaches of EU environmental laws.

Freedom of information 

The letter points out the public has a right of access to environmental information under the UK’s Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).  These allow information to be withheld if disclosure would ‘adversely affect’ an investigation. But the information must still be released if the public interest favours disclosure.

The authority also has to apply a ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’. The letter says none of these important conditions would apply under the draft bill.

The letter, which has been co-ordinated by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, adds: “If the OEP, public authority or minister (as the case may be) did not wish the information to be released, it would be withheld.

“There would be no need to show that disclosure would be harmful. The public interest in the information would be irrelevant. This would reverse decades of progress in opening up environmental information.”

The 36 organisations call on the government to omit this “damaging and unjustified restriction on the public’s right to environmental information”.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is content editor of The Ecologist.

Signatories 

Amnesty International UK Section

ARTICLE 19

Bat Conservation Trust

Biofuelwatch

Buglife

Bumblebee Conservation Trust

Butterfly Conservation

Campaign for Freedom of Information

Campaign for National Parks

Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

Campaign to Protect Rural England

Clean Air in London

ClientEarth

Compassion in World Farming

Friends of the Earth

Global Justice Now

Global Witness

Good Law Project

Greenpeace

Guy Linley-Adams Solicitor

Law Centres Network

MySociety

National Union of Journalists

News Media Association

Open Rights Group

Renewable Energy Foundation

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Salmon and Trout Conservation UK

Sustain

The Brexit Civil Society Alliance

The Ramblers

Transparency International UK

Trees for Cities

Unlock Democracy

Whale and Dolphin Conservation

Wild Justice