More than 867 strikes took place across the world for the second Fridays For Future International School Strike for Climate last month. In the Netherlands, students from over 22 cities have skipped school since the beginning of the year.

For the second edition of the global strike, young people met up not far from a plastic whale at Utrecht’s train station, heading for a climate march and a rally in a local park.

The sun illuminated their commitment: some youngsters had travelled more than two hours on crowded trains to participate. Tens of hundreds were carrying their placards and flags, with or without the support of their schools. 

Common goals

Coming from Portugal, where Matilde Alvim and her folks were back on the streets of Lisbon, I decided to join the young protesters on my way to Schumacher College’s alumni gathering.

I didn’t know any protesters when I arrived in Utrecht and as I started walking in search of the march, I was lucky to bump into a group of like-minded young women. One of them would be singing at the park’s stage in twenty minutes. 

Walking and talking to 17-year old Wijs De Groot, I discovered that some groups were striking weekly, sometimes on different weekdays, while others organised events and discussions.

Wijs told me that her mother didn’t want her to be there. She loves her art school, and has a special interest in materials, which is connected to her enthusiasm for sustainable fashion – all that combined with a clear trust that climate action is something worth fighting for. 

Students from other establishments have been punished for missing school, but Wijs’ teachers supported their pupils, only asking them for a proof of their participation in the self-organised political actions.

Real education

Colourful, creative  banners proved to me and to other supporters that younger generations have been doing their homework – they are committed to being co-responsible for our common future.

That inspiring Friday lecture left me with a voluntary assignment: reflect on how I want to spend my Fridays (For Future).

Inspired by Greta Thunberg’s speech, I have recently forsaken my plan to start a PhD related to climate change. Thunberg, at 16 years old, encouraged me to stop studying and instead do what I can to block this path of no return.

Greta will be striking on Fridays until countries like Sweden are fully comitted to the Paris Agreement. According to her, “there is no point in studying for a future that soon will be no more”.

With this sentence, she also denounces the enormous gap between theory-based education and the reality of not being schooled to lead: “our house is on fire”.

Deep reflection

The task requires empathy and meaningful participation – the era of education for the sake of well-paid jobs is over. We need a shift in collective perception right now.

Business as usual ignores climate change and the living planet. The planet’s ability to self-regulate, life on Earth, and the rights of all living beings to existence are at stake. All of us should be striking on Fridays – at the least. 

The CEOs of fossil fuel corporations should take this day off to ask themselves what to tell their grandchildren.

Presidents could practice deep reflection on Fridays to consider the rights of those most affected by climate breakdown and those yet to be born, and remember indigenous cultures that teach us to act only if decisions will benefit seven generations ahead. 

I dream of chiefs of state joining Extinction Rebellion. Hopefully, we will see parents joining their kids on Fridays, asking themselves where their work is taking them, and what kind of education kids need to shrink human levels of apathy, inertia, and greed. Shouldn’t all of us be striking on Fridays?

Positive change

Another 17-year old – whose name means “springtime” in Dutch – told me on my flight back that she is also trying to stop flying. 

Lente said that she became vegan in response to her increasing concerns about western lifestyle, as most of her friends had done too.

To stop is not the same as doing nothing, it is an important action. Without a foot on the break, our society is incapable of opening space for fresh ideas, learn with past experience without fearfully recreating the past, and observe what nature and the youth can teach society. 

The youth’s message is to stop resisting a shift in climate-consciousness – rather embrace it, learn with it. We, the younger generations know that the crisis cannot be addressed with same thinking that created it.

Despite many leaders’ sadness and desperation, we have the energy and will to drive positive change. After many school years learning concepts like to reuse, recycle, conserve nature, protect animals, respect others and live sustainably, we are the ones daring to ask, what do we want to sustain?

This Author

Rafaela Graça Scheiffer is a Brazilian biologist who recently concluded her MSc in Holistic Science at Schumacher College. She is based in Faro, Portugal, where she investigates the local connection between water, community, and climate.

Eleven hazel dormice released into an undisclosed woodland location near Retford, in Nottinghamshire.

The People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) State of Britain’s Dormice 2016 report confirmed that hazel dormice had disappeared from 17 English counties since the end of the nineteenth century, and that recent records reveal populations have probably fallen by a third since 2000.

Loss of woodland and hedgerow habitat, as well as changes to traditional countryside management practices, are all factors which have caused this decline.

Dormouse stronghold

The release of 11 dormice this week will bolster the existing reintroduced populations of hazel dormice already in the area by increasing genetic diversity and therefore helping the long-term survival of this endangered species.

The release follows three previous reintroductions which took place in 2013, 2014 and 2015. These three woodlands are all owned by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and are located within a five-mile radius of each other.

Ian White, Dormouse & Training Officer at PTES explains: “This week’s release is the next phase of a wider landscape project, as this site was where we released 40 dormice. Over the last five years, we’ve reintroduced over 100 hazel dormice into this part of the county, in three different woodlands.

“By releasing more dormice again this year, we hope to achieve our aim of connecting the three separate populations and increasing the gene pool, consequently creating a dormouse stronghold in the region.”

Ian continues: “Since the previous reintroductions, dormice have become well dispersed throughout all three woodlands, which is fantastic as it shows they have adapted and settled into their new surroundings.

“To ensure these populations continue to thrive, each woodland will require ongoing woodland management, which is something our colleagues at the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and Nottinghamshire Dormouse Group have been doing successfully since 2013.”

Smooth transition

This release and previous reintroductions would not be possible without weeks of hard work by partners PTES, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, Nottinghamshire Dormouse Group, Natural England, ZSL (Zoological Society of London), Paignton Zoo and the Common Dormouse Captive Breeders Group. Each are involved in the different stages of the dormouse reintroduction:

All dormice being released this week are captive bred by members of the Common Dormouse Captive Breeders Group

Prior to release, the dormice undergo a nine-week quarantine period at ZSL London Zoo and Paignton Zoo in Devon, during which vets from both institutions conduct a full health examination to check they are in tip-top condition and to reduce the risk of them passing on non-native diseases, so that they have the best chance of forming a healthy population in the wild

Once all dormice have been given the green light, they are carefully transported to the reintroduction location, where staff from PTES, Natural England and members of Nottinghamshire Dormouse Group, will be on hand to ensure the smooth transition from travel nest-boxes to their new woodland home

New home

Tony Sainsbury, Senior Research Fellow, ZSL and lead Disease Risk Analysis and Health Surveillance (DRAHS) Project (NE and ZSL) explains: ”The health of all species being translocated needs careful management and monitoring both before and after the release. 

“The effects of squirrelpox virus on red squirrel populations in England, and the chytrid fungus on amphibians worldwide, provide warnings of the dangers of unplanned translocations.

“At DRAHS we are pleased to have been monitoring the health of reintroduced dormice throughout England for nearly 20 years.”

After the reintroduction, the dormice spend the next 10 days in large release cages, which are checked daily and are connected to trees containing natural foliage, food and water to help the dormice become acclimatised to their new surroundings.

After this, a small door in the cages are opened, leaving the dormice free to explore their new home. Eventually, the release cages are removed once the dormice have settled into the wood.

Great success

Lorna Griffiths, Chair of the Nottinghamshire Dormouse Group adds: “Not only have the dormice dispersed throughout their original release sites, but also populated nearby woodlands, increasing their stronghold in the wider landscape.”

Michael Walker, Reserve Management and Monitoring Officer at Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, says: “The introductions in Nottinghamshire have been a great success and these extra animals will help to ensure that their future is secure as they venture out into the wider landscape.”

A second release is also taking place in Lincolnshire this week, where another 11 dormice will be released. This follows a previously successful reintroduction in 2002, so this addition will also strengthen the local dormice population in this area.

These reintroductions play an important role in the long-term conservation of this endangered species and are part of the Species Recovery Programme supported by Natural England.

This year’s two releases are the latest in the programme, which has run for over 25 years, releasing almost 1,000 hazel dormice (the majority of which were bred by the Common Dormouse Captive Breeders Group) back into 12 English counties where dormice once existed, in an effort to rebuild lost populations.

Healthier population

Dr Peter Brotherton, Director, Specialist Services and Programmes, Natural England concludes: “We have seen great success in reintroducing hazel dormice to Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire though our Species Recovery Programme, and today’s release will mean their numbers can grow.

“This project is helping to maintain woodlands and the links between habitats to allow our dormouse communities to breed and create a healthier population.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the People’s Trust for Endangered Species. 

A colonial attitude remains pervasive among those who defend the trophy hunting of elephants. They argue that ‘the west’ must stop lecturing Africans about how to manage their elephants.

But it was Western hunters who shot elephants out to the point where they had to establish reserves, dispossessing and crowding out local communities in the process. 

Fortress conservation and green militarisation are direct functions of these past colonial activities that created a ‘white hunter/black poacher’ narrative.

Imperial saviours

A major part of the reason that local communities are so upset at being excluded from national parks has much to do with how they were established in the first place – largely by colonial authorities creating hunting playgrounds.

Public relations efforts to paint western trophy hunters as the imperial saviours of poor African communities are therefore difficult to countenance. As with colonialism and slavery, the hunting of elephants for sport will eventually be abolished. 

The hunting of elephants for sport is morally dubitable, with hunters arguing that they kill the animals they love for the sake of conservation. In reality, the conservation value of hunting is being questioned, and its direct revenue contributions are rapidly declining. 

The ostensible indirect benefit through monetary and bushmeat contributions to communities remains questionable in light of governance concerns. 

Woodlands

Botswana, which has a growing elephant poaching problem, reintroduced hunting on the premise that an exploding elephant population had exceeded its carrying capacity. But even Ron Thomson, having defended hunting his entire career, agrees that hunting is not a population-control method and “will have no ecological impact whatsoever on the elephant over-population problem that certainly exists.”

He argues that elephant management in Botswana has nothing to do with hunting or poltics but everything to do with establishing a “management solution to a population of elephants that is very obviously grossly in excess of its habitat’s sustainable carrying capacity.’”

Thomson cites no science in support of his view that carrying capacity has been exceeded. Conversely,  24 scientists contributed to: The Return of the Giants: Ecological Effects of an Increasing Elephant Population, published in Ambio, a scientific journal, in 2004. 

The article states: “Much of the Chobe elephant problem has concerned the role of elephants in the disappearance of the riverine Acacia woodlands on the elevated alluvial plains along the Chobe River.

“As we have shown, these woodlands were probably a transient artefact, caused by artificially low densities of large herbivores following rinderpest and excessive hunting of elephants about 100 years ago, creating a window of opportunity for seedling establishment.

Carrying capacity

“Now that these woodlands have all but disappeared, their re-establishment would require drastic reductions in herbivore populations, including not only elephants, but also smaller browsers like impala.

“Our studies have confirmed that the ecosystem along the Chobe riverfront has changed profoundly since the 1960s, probably reverting towards a situation somewhat similar to the one before the excessive hunting of elephants and the rinderpest panzootic [a virus].

“There is, however, little evidence of a reduction in the carrying capacity for other large herbivores, in fact the dominating species of browsers, grazers and mixed feeders have increased in numbers concurrently with the elephants.

“We do not, however, see any ecological reason to artificially change the number of elephants in Chobe National Park, either through culling or opening new dry season ranges by providing extra water from boreholes.”

Habitat complexity

Further to this, 16 scientists co-authored a piece in Science Advances in 2015 that demonstrates that what pro-cullers refers to as ‘destruction’ is more appropriately understood as conversion: “African elephants convert woodland to shrubland, which indirectly improves the browse availability for impala and black rhinoceros.

“By damaging trees, African elephants facilitate increased structural habitat complexity benefiting lizard communities.

“Predation by large predators (for example, lions) on small ungulates is facilitated when African elephants open impenetrable thickets. African elephants are also great dispersers of seeds over long distances.”

Insisting on ‘carrying capacity’ as the primary factor to determine elephant population size betrays Thomson’s worldview that “there is nothing ‘natural’ about wildlife management”.

His view is that the natural order is there mainly to serve man. That attitude subverts the call to steward responsibly to one of mere domination.

Diversity protection 

Thomson laments that “today, all over southern Africa, our national parks are being managed as ‘elephant sanctuaries’ – at great cost to biological diversity” and that we should all be ashamed of ourselves for having allowed this.

Thomson views culling as the only serious ‘management solution’. He is furious that “governments will not cull even the most excessive of elephant populations” and blames biological diversity destruction on this decision alone.

Against all science, reverting to the view that wildlife management is akin to managing an agricultural establishment, Thomson says the optimal carrying capacity in southern Africa is “in the vicinity of one elephant per 5km2”.

Therefore, Botswana on its own may be able to sustainably carry “infinitely less than 50,000”. And, of course, we shouldn’t fear because elephants in rejuvenating habitats will double their population every 10 years and have to be culled again.

His lust for culling on the altar of some utopian notion of species diversity protection is telling. 

Gene depletion

Thomson endorses hunting because “it will provide many benefits to the local rural folk’, again emblematic of colonialist language. But he really believes in mass culling as the only sustainable solution.

Culling is deeply questionable on every level. Elephant populations in Africa are declining at the hands of poachers. Hunting will only amplify the negative effect of poaching, as it also targets large tuskers.

The removal of prime males from elephant families causes social havoc and gene depletion, and culling makes everything worse. 

Added to this, culling actually creates a population problem rather than solving it. In the subsequent 20 years to the Kruger culling of 1994, the elephant population increased non-linearly from about 8000 to 15000 individuals and has continued to grow exponentially.

Perhaps it is most important for Thomson to understand that the culling of the past, much of it overseen by him, has caused irreparable damage to elephants and other species.

Unexpected consequences

It has been found that abilities to process information on social identity and age-related dominance are severely compromised among African elephants that experienced separation from family members and translocation decades previously. 

Professor Don Ross writes: “For a number of years, southern African wildlife managers culled [elephant] herds to prevent over-population from threatening habitat sustainability.

“Typically culls would focus deliberately, though not exclusively, on older bulls who had already made substantial genetic contributions. In consequence, in two South African reserves in the 1990s young bulls were relocated to constitute new bachelor herds, without any older bulls to provide leadership.

“This had dramatic unexpected consequences. The young bulls displayed recurrent, atypical, lethal violence against rhinoceroses, and were occasionally observed forcing copulations with them.”

Thomson really should be aware of these studies that provide detail of the negative effects of culling and the loss of older bull males for elephant herd sociology.

Poaching epidemic

In the context of a poaching epidemic, it simply does not make sense to allow the trophy hunting of older bulls, let alone to cull.

Older bulls’ tusks grow exponentially larger towards the end of their lives and their musth cycles suppress the musth cycles of younger bulls and therefore prevent premature breeding and violent behaviour.

Large tuskers are in severe decline, and must be heavily protected from trophy hunting and poaching, as Dr Michelle Henley has noted.   

Furthermore, trophy hunting of elephants, never mind culling, raises serious moral questions. Thomson’s language is crudely utilitarian – elephant hunting and culling are seen as a means to an end, that end being a utopian bushveld garden free from vegetation transformation or ‘too many elephants.’

The means are justified and rationalised on those grounds, typically with an appeal to ‘stick to the facts’ or to keep emotion out of the equation. 

Governance challenges

Arguments that communities have called for hunting to return are not to be ignored. But to unthinkingly claim that only Western armchair critics are opposed to the practice is to ignore the fact that the whole trophy hunting endeavour (of elephants especially) is imperialistic and morally questionable.

Aside from the moral questions and the conservation consequences of culling and hunting, it’s not clear that governance challenges associated with managing hunting have been solved.

Will local communities get a fair share of hunting revenue (which is globally declining)? How will that money be distributed in a way that genuinely serves community members and incentivises them to drive conservation-driven development?

If bushmeat is what communities are asking for, are there not feasible alternatives to trophy hunting? 

I’m highly sympathetic to the voice of communities, and have written extensively on the topic, but I am not sympathetic to elephant hunting as a solution unless the governance challenges are properly addressed and the science that shows how the extermination of 400 older males a year – in the midst of a poaching crisis – can be ‘sustainable’ when the number of large tuskers are dwindling.

Disrupting sociology

The entire population is also likely in decline. Elephant-themed revenue creation projects, being pioneered on the ground by excellent outfits such as Eco-Exist, which aim to drive down human and elephant conflict, are surely the way forward. 

It is not scientific or objective to divorce the material psychological consequences of culling and hunting elephants from necessary ecological management.

The science shows us that disrupting elephant sociology is inextricably linked to negative conservation consequences.

Increased aggression among elephants due to culling, hunting and poaching will only increase human and elephant conflict. We have to pursue co-existence and shared benefits rather than a crude utilitarianism that wilfully endorses cruelty.     

This Author 

Ross Harvey studied a B.Com in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT), where he also completed an M.Phil in Public Policy. At the end of 2018, he submitted his PhD in Economics, also at UCT. Ross is currently a freelance independent economist who works with The Conservation Action Trust.

Follow him on Twitter: @Harvross

Student protestors at the University of Manchester were denied access to toilets, water, and internet access whilst occupying a building on campus.

The occupation coincided with the annual conference of the Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges.

The occupation was intended to put pressure on the University to remove its £11.3 million of investments in the fossil fuel industry as part of the People & Planet campaign.

Divestment

The group set up camp outside the office of the Vice Chancellor, Dame Nancy Rothwell, at 9:30 on the morning of Wednesday the 19 June.

At 12:15 campus security had declared that nobody from outside the occupation was allowed to join them or bring them additional supplies. At 14:56 they told the students that they would not be able to walk to the toilets which were on the same corridor without being blocked from returning to the protest. In the evening WiFi in the building was switched off. 

The protestors have maintained that they were consistently peaceful and not disrupting the working day of any of the staff in the building.

Their demands were to meet with the VC or members of the Senior Leadership Team, but these were denied whilst the leadership continued to instruct security to restrict their access to basic facilities. 

Manchester People & Planet members have been campaigning for fossil fuel divestment for 4 years. In February they entered a meeting of the Board of Governors to deliver an open letter calling for divestment. 

Mental wellbeing

The students have said: “The University have ignored us and tried to brush us under the carpet for years. Their awful response to this is just more evidence of how undemocratic senior leadership is at Manchester University”. 

Due to concerns for the physical and mental wellbeing a number of protestors had to leave after 13 hours of occupation, seven of which were without access to toilets.

Staff from the Students’ Union were campaigning for the students to have access to toilets, although they managed to deliver bottles of water their requests were denied. 

The University told the student newspaper, The Mancunion: “The University of Manchester supports the right of any student to protest peacefully and legally. However, our responsibility as a University is to ensure that we do everything we can to minimise disruption to other students and to our staff.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist‘s content editor. This article is based on a press release from People and Planet at the University of Manchester. 

The UK looks set to host major international climate talks in 2020 after reaching a deal with Italy over rival bids to hold the UN meeting, the Foreign Office has said.

Under the proposal, the UK will host the Conference Of the Parties 26 meeting which is due to be in Europe next November, while Italy will host an “pre-Cop” event in the run-up to the talks.

Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary,  said: “Today, through great joint diplomacy, we have agreed a bid for a UK Cop26 presidency in partnership with our friends in Italy. Together, through our continued commitment to work across Europe and internationally, we will build a better world for our children.”

Partnership

The meeting is the most important round of talks since the global Paris Agreement to tackle climate change was secured in two weeks of negotiations in the French capital in 2015.

Next year’s talks mark the full adoption of the Paris Agreement and the date by which countries are expected to come forward with stronger emissions cuts to meet the goals of the deal.

Plans submitted so far by countries are putting the world on a pathway towards more than 3C of warming, though the Paris Agreement commits them to curb temperatures to 1.5C or 2C above pre-industrial levels in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Scientists warn that larger temperature rises will spell more damaging impacts including extinction of species, more extremes such as heatwaves and drought and sea level rises.

Sergio Costa, Italian Minister for the Environment, Land and Sea Protection, said: “This partnership between Italy and the UK sends a strong signal of determined and informed cooperation on climate change, which is a theme that requires a change of paradigm and which will dominate our agenda and that of future generations.”

Scientists

The proposal will be voted on by western European nations and several other countries including Australia and Canada, with the final sign-off by the UN at this year’s annual conference in Santiago, Chile.

The UK and Italy had both been vying to host the talks, as is Turkey, but the deal now means it is expected the conference will be in the UK.

It comes after the UK sought to show leadership on the issue of climate change by announcing plans to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

For the fortnight of talks, delegations from more than 190 countries will descend on the UK – along with campaigners, scientists, business leaders and the media.

At stake

Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid’s International climate lead, said: “The UK was the right choice to host the most important COP since the Paris Agreement was signed.

“It has the diplomatic capacity and historical alliances to secure an outcome that reflects the climate emergency we are in. The UK is very proud of its international connections, especially through the Commonwealth and its world-leading aid budget.

“Cop26 provides a unique platform for it to make a huge difference to those countries that are on the front lines of climate breakdown. Considering what is at stake for those communities, hosting next year’s summit is a grave responsibility.

Zero

“Developing countries will be expecting not only significant emissions reductions to ensure we limit global heating to 1.5C, they will also need to be provided with the technological and financial support to help them adapt to a severely altered climate.”

Rosie Rogers, climate campaign lead at Greenpeace UK, said: “Hosting the next major climate summit will bring the eyes of the world squarely onto the UK. The question is what does the government want the world to see?

“We can be proud of some real progress made and we are making headline commitments to be world leaders, but can we really show a country truly taking the lead in tackling the climate emergency? For example, the government is still allowing oil rigs to drill new wells in British waters and new airport runways to be built.

“If the UK government won’t take the hard decisions on a real zero carbon economy, any claim to leadership will ring hollow.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent. 

The shocking scale of greyhound deaths in the racing industry has been revealed by new figures released this week.

Animal welfare charities the League Against Cruel Sports and Greyt Exploitations are renewing their calls for an end to greyhound racing in the UK as a result.

The figures, released by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, show a total of 932 racing greyhounds died or were destroyed last year – and of those a total of 242 died or were put down at the racetrack.

Essentially unsafe

The figures also report 4,963 injuries were sustained by racing greyhounds last year.

Chris Luffingham, director of Campaigns at the League Against Cruel Sports, said: “With approximately 14,000 greyhounds racing every year, these figures show the proportion dying or suffering injuries is appallingly high.

“Greyhound racing is essentially unsafe and cannot be reformed – it needs to be phased out and the greyhounds found good homes where they can live long and healthy lives.”

Many greyhounds were killed for ‘economic reasons’, including 175 destroyed because of high treatment costs, and 144 that were labelled as having ‘no viable option’ away from the racecourse.

The figures show how and why the greyhound died or were put down: 242 euthanised at track side on ‘humane grounds’; 324 for which treatment was deemed too expensive, there was ‘no viable option’ away from the racecourse or no home was found; 190 were killed due to being ‘unsuitable for homing’; 72 died from ‘sudden death’.

Welfare commitments

The 932 greyhounds that were destroyed or died make up 12.1 percent of the greyhounds leaving the industry last year.

Chris added: “Injuries have increased since the industry first published injury and retirement data last year – greyhounds continue to suffer injuries in their thousands despite repeated promises by the industry to act.

“The time for minor reform has long since passed, as the many hundreds of dogs dying at the hands of the industry illustrates.”

Greyhounds leave the industry aged between two and three years old so should have a long life ahead of them.

Trudy Baker, coordinator of Greyt Exploitations, said: “No amount of ineffective ‘window dressing’ welfare commitments will address the suffering and deaths of thousands of dogs racing on dangerously configured tracks.”

Commercial environment

Trudy also questioned the GBGB’s definition of retirement for the greyhounds: “The truth is hundreds of dogs listed as ‘retired’ by the GBGB still remain in a commercial environment.

“This can mean they are confined to trainers’ kennels that have failed to comply with an agreed British Standard Institute specification – either used for breeding, forced to routinely donate blood or simply awaiting rehoming.

“Hundreds more are sold or given away again for breeding, to be raced abroad or on independent tracks, or used for research and dissection.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the League Against Cruel Sports. 

The gravity of a black hole is so strong that light itself cannot escape. The boundary that separates where light is able to escape and where it is pulled in is called the event horizon. Consider this metaphor: we are nearing the event horizon for the irreversibly destructive impacts of climate breakdown.

We need to stop pretending that the “greening” of business is working if we are going to avoid triggering negative feedback loops.

We’ve reached a point where the very notion that business is in some way working hard to address our environmental and social challenges is laughable. To the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that the greatest efforts of corporations is to maintain the status quo.

Rigged system

Another absurd narrative is that billionaires are somehow big-brained problem solvers who are graciously bringing their special skills to the table to address our social and environmental challenges — this is nonsense.

Billionaires are simply good business people who got lucky with a trend and who benefit from a rigged system that allows them to legally avoid paying taxes. 

They certainly don’t deserve the esteemed status that society places upon them. The ability to grow a business does not qualify them to lead solutions to the Earth’s biggest social and environmental challenges.

Throwing big dollars around that should have been paid as taxes should not be a pathway to influencing public policy; like everyone else, influence should arise from democratic channels. 

Can we agree that corporate elites and billionaires are not our saviours for progressive change? In fact, quite the contrary, through their direct and indirect lobbying efforts and subtle influence as “elites” business leaders have delivered a unique form of climate-destroying and wealth-hoarding capitalism that is sending us straight into an existential and climate crisis.

MarketWorld

But elites are a sensitive bunch and they dislike bad press almost as much as they enjoy a good money making scheme.

Enter “MarketWorld” – another status-quo-protecting strategy that Anand Giridharadas explores in his book, Winners Take All. 

This approach is an idea cooked up by the winners of the current system, allowing them to engage with social and environmental problems with so called “win-win” solutions. That is, solutions that further enrich the elites by dictating that solutions can only be acceptable if they find a way to kick something upstairs to the corporate elite and billionaire class.

While “MarketWorld” can bring some good to small groups — it doesn’t begin to deal with the structural problems that lay at the core of our broken system.

Greening business though CSR, Impact Investing, and Profit with Purpose appear to be a cover for corporate elites and billionaires that distract the public while they continue to plunder the planet and add to their billions.

Corporate sustainability

Let’s face it, the “elites” have done everything except tell us directly that they don’t want change.

Those of us who work hard, pay our taxes and follow the rules will find our lives more onerous and precarious as a climate “bomb” sweeps across the planet. But fear not for the billionaires, they will be spared from the coming social collapse.

Private estates and bunkers equipped with industrial-sized greenhouses, water purification systems, giant solar arrays, a small farm with animals and a guarded perimeter will keep the elites and their friends nice and safe while the system that they helped to create implodes.

We can say with our heads held high that until now our desire for leadership and solutions has been so strong that we accepted some pretty far-fetched ideas about business and it’s desire to reverse course and protect the planet.

Perhaps we were a little naive or maybe it was out of pure desperation that we took corporations and their puppet politicians at their word, but in the end, corporate sustainability never delivered.

Dangerous trend

The excitement of energy savings and a few quick eco-friendly cost reductions was short-lived and soon the initiatives began to stall – after all, the “business case” can only take you so far without some clear regulations to standardize a new way of doing business.

One thing that did not slow down, however, was the continued decline of every major ecosystem on the planet.

The picture that I’ve painted is harsh. Some of you will be frustrated by what you read and it might make you angry — I might even become the target of that anger. If that’s the case, I would challenge you to do some reflection as to what is really upsetting you.

Others may find themselves in agreement with my depiction of corporate sustainability and as you read this, you may feel a sense of relief that someone understands your frustration.

At some point during the last three or four years I stopped being able to defend the good work being done in the realm of corporate sustainability. It felt like I was just beyond the reach of making meaningful change.

I felt like my work was doing nothing of consequence to reverse a dangerous trend and that I was implicitly being asked to defend the indefensible. Before long, I began to realise just how awkward and illogical my arguments had become: something had to change.

Devastating harm

I suspect that many environmental advocates who work for companies causing devastating environmental harm either feel like I do right now, or they will eventually find that they too can no longer believe that their employer is challenging the system in a meaningful way, in order to prevent our planet from entering a full blown climate crisis. 

At some point the cognitive dissonance (conflicting beliefs) becomes too much to bear and it leads to a sense of mental anguish. It is only by changing your beliefs or by removing the conflicting attitude or behavior, that a sense of harmony can return.

With the conflicting notion that business is working hard to solve our environmental challenges lifted from my shoulders, I was free to take an objective look at the issue of business and the environment.

Enough time had been wasted — I decided to implement the thinking of Occam’s razor. This is the problem-solving principle that states that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

The corporate sustainability movement is rigged; it’s controlled by the “winners” of capitalism to complicate, stonewall and resist progressive change. Ask yourself, why is it that when an environmental crisis is identified and change is deemed necessary, the first goal of government policy seems to be about maintaining the status quo and the profits of business even when doing so would clearly be an inadequate response to the crisis? 

A simple example is plastic pollution and how we can’t seem to get to a regulation that stops the production of a wide variety of plastic containers. (I explore this in more in my article, “Why Fake Leadership is Dangerous…”)

Held accountable

Besides maintaining the profit gravy train, perhaps an even more pressing concern exists for the corporate elites and billionaires. There’s a little issue out there that is hanging over them — it’s called responsibility and I suspect that they are terrified that it could possibly enter the mainstream conversation.

Imagine if they were held accountable both morally and financially for the devastating harm that they caused during the last 40 years by shifting environmental (climate change) and societal harm (increasing poverty) onto government and taxpayers. They effectively stole billions from average citizens during that time.

It’s no accident that the wages of average Americans haven’t risen in years, health care isn’t provided for tens of millions, life-saving drugs are a fortune, maternity leave is barely offered and that the oil and gas industry continues to receive 4 billion in subsidies every year. (Globally this number is closer to 400 billion and some put the number closer to 5 trillion based on a variety of factors).

It’s becoming a lot easier to see why climate change has become a political issue.

New narrative

Companies are opting to spend a few million here and there to buy politicians who then muddy the issues, ensuring that that money won’t be channeled back to society for retooling a new climate protecting economic system.

To those corporate elites, Wall Street executives, fossil fuel companies and billionaires who crafted and maintained our current form of climate destroying capitalism: your windfall is not the end of the story.

We will get a handle on this challenge and don’t be surprised if you foot the bill. But first we must demand the truth and stop accepting the narrative that business is helping.

Going forward, the concept of the “greening of business” should only be used as a storytelling tactic, a warning about just how desperate we had become when government abdicated its responsibility to protect its citizens; a warning as to what can happen when a faulty cultural narrative is relentlessly pushed.

In my next article I will explore what an honest narrative might look, how the time for moderate thinking as passed and what meaningful metrics and real corporate change might look like.

This Author 

Brad Zarnett is a sustainability strategist, thought leader and speaker. He is athe Founder of the Toronto Sustainability Speaker Series (TSSS). You can follow Brad on twitter: @bradzarnett, LinkedIn: Brad Zarnett and now Medium. This article was first published on Medium. 

A survey of 13 UK rivers has found they all contain microplastics – and one is more polluted than the “great Pacific garbage patch”, Greenpeace said.

Research released by the environmental group found the 13 rivers tested across the UK from the Exe in south-west England to the Lagan in Northern Ireland, found they all had tiny pieces of plastic measuring less than 5mm.

Greenpeace is calling for the Government to introduce “bold” new plastic reduction targets and create an independent watchdog with powers to enforce them.

Garbage

Scientists and campaigners, including Harry Potter star Bonnie Wright, sampled points along the rivers Exe, Thames, Severn, Great Ouse, Trent, Mersey, Aire, Derwent, Wear, Conwy, Wye, Clyde and Lagan.

Analysis of the samples by Greenpeace scientists at the University of Exeter using an infrared detector found microplastics were in 28 out of 30 locations tested.

A total of 1,271 pieces of plastic ranging from fragments of straws and bottle tops to tiny microbeads less than 1mm across in size were caught in a specially designed net by the survey team.

The highest concentrations were in the River Mersey, where 875 pieces were captured in half an hour.

This makes the waterway, at the time it was sampled, proportionally more polluted than the great Pacific garbage patch, considered by scientists to be one of the most plastic-polluted expanses of water on Earth, Greenpeace said.

Wake-up

The research also found that microbeads, tiny spherical pieces of plastic often used in cosmetic and household products, were found in five rivers despite being partially banned in 2017.

Seven locations turned up plastic pellets known as “nurdles”, which are used in the production of plastic products.

The most numerous instances of microbeads and nurdles were found in the River Mersey.

More than four fifths of the polymers found by Greenpeace were polyethylene, polystyrene and polypropylene, which are used to make products such as food packaging, milk and water bottles and carrier bags.

Fiona Nicholls, ocean plastics campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “This study is a wake-up call for Government. Fiddling around the edges of the plastic pollution problem by banning straws simply doesn’t cut it.

Waterways

“We need to see bold new plastic reduction targets in the upcoming Environment Bill, and aim to at least halve single use plastic production by 2025.”

Steve Backshall, wildlife expert and TV presenter, said: “Greenpeace’s study has discovered that the River Mersey is even more polluted than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – surely this will galvanise us all into doing something about this.

“Plastic pollution isn’t just a domestic issue, its impacts are seen on wildlife and humans all over the world. For the sake of nature and for the sake of future generations we need to stop producing so much of it – it’s the only way forward.”

A spokesman for the Environment Department (Defra) said: “The UK is a global leader in tackling plastic pollution and is already making great strides – banning microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, taking fifteen billion plastic bags out of circulation with our 5p carrier bag charge, and announcing plans to introduce a deposit return scheme for single use drinks containers.

“We know there is more to do, which is why we are funding ground-breaking research into how microplastics enter waterways and working with the water industry to find new methods to detect, measure and remove microplastics from wastewater.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

Conservationists in parts of the world claim that free-ranging cats pose such an urgent and serious risk to biodiversity and public health that they’re actually dropping poisoned sausages from the sky to facilitate their demise.

Clark University Research Scientist William S. Lynn calls this panic “unwarranted.”  Lynn is lead author of “A moral panic over cats,” published in Conservation Biology.

The article is authored by Lynn and an interdisciplinary team of scientists, ethicists, and veterinarians. It challenges the dominant narrative that free-ranging cats must be eliminated from the landscape.

Collaborative approach

The article exposes the faulty reasoning that equates this challenge with science denialism, shows the evidence that cats pose a threat is uncertain, calls attention to the ethical and policy questions that must still be fully explored, and supports a more nuanced, dialogic, and collaborative approach to how people, cats, and biodiversity are understood.

Professor Lynn said: “We cannot kill our way back to biodiversity. We should embrace the intrinsic value of all animals, wild and domestic, and work towards win-win solutions that protect native wildlife without scapegoating cats.” 

According to Lynn and his colleagues, the dominant narrative envisions profiling millions of cats world-wide for removal “by any means necessary” which is code for killing them through poisoning, hunting and trapping.

This is already a matter of public policy in Australia, where plans are already in place to use poison bait to kill upwards of two million cats by 2020. Lynn says his co-authors all “share a commitment to the conservation of biodiversity and wild nature” but “argue profiling cats is wrong as a matter of both science and ethics.”

Compassionate conservation

Lynn is a research scientist in the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark University. The focus of his work is the ethics of sustainability with an emphasis on animals and alternative paradigms of conservation (eg. compassionate conservation, rewilding, social nature). Schooled in ethics, geography and political theory, Lynn’s interdisciplinary approach examines why and how we ought to care for nature and society.

In the early 2000s Lynn was the ethicist who helped design and lead the ethics review of an experimental removal of barred owls for the benefit of northern spotted owls. This was the first use of an ethics process by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Its final report was an “ethics brief” for the making of environmental policy.

Lynn is also a proponent of “rewilding with compassion.” This is a process that increases the presence of natural habitats to as much as 50 percent of the earth’s surface, with an eye to improving our quality of life, meeting the challenges of global warming and the sixth extinction, and respecting the lives and well-being of the other animals with whom we share the earth.

His article “Setting Aside Half The Earth For ‘Rewilding’: The Ethical Dimension,” originally published on the popular news analysis site “The Conversation” in August of 2015, received widespread media attention.

The mission of the Marsh Institute is to investigate “what is and ought to be our relationship with nature.” The Institute brings together scholars to study human transformation of the environment and responses to this change, and promotes collaborative, systems-based research to address some of the most pressing challenges facing today’s world. 

The coauthors are Francisco Santiago-Ávila (a PhD candidate at the Nelson School of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison), Professor Joann Lindenmayer (Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine), John Hadidian (Center for Leadership in Global Sustainability, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Research Fellow Arian Wallach, Ph.D. (Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney), and Professor Emerita Barbara J. King (Anthropology, College of William and Mary).

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Clark University. 

A series of proposals aimed at ending the era of throwaway fashion have been rejected by Theresa May’s government, a cross-party group of MPs has said.

The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) accused the Tory government of being “out of step with the public” and claimed urgent action is needed to make retailers take responsibility for the waste they create.

In a report, the MPs recommended a raft of measures, including charging fashion producers a penny per garment to raise £35 million for better clothing collection and recycling – but all proposals were rejected, the group said.

Impacts

The government said action is already being taken to deal with the issue of so-called fast fashion and plans are in the pipeline for the future.

But Labour’s Mary Creagh, chairwoman of the committee, said: “Fashion producers should be forced to clear up the mountains of waste they create. The government has rejected our call, demonstrating that it is content to tolerate practices that trash the environment and exploit workers, despite having just committed to net zero emission targets.

“The Government is out of step with the public, who are shocked by the fact that we are sending 300,000 tonnes of clothes a year to incineration or landfill. Ministers have failed to recognise that urgent action must be taken to change the fast fashion business model which produces cheap clothes that cost the earth.”

The committee’s report, entitled Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption And Sustainability, was published in February and recommended “clear economic incentives” to encourage retailers to “do the right thing”.

It suggested the government reform taxation to reward companies that design products with lower environmental impacts and penalise those that do not.

Forced labour

The MPs proposed extending the tax on virgin plastics, due to come into force in 2022, to synthetic textile products to encourage the use of recycled fibres. And they called on ministers to explore how they can support hiring, swapping or subscription clothes services.

The group also urged the government to change the law to require companies to perform due diligence checks across their supply chains to ensure their products are made without child or forced labour.

They pointed to labour exploitation in the UK, and said the “Made in the UK” label should mean workers are paid at least the minimum wage.

Ms Creagh said: “We presented the Government with the evidence that it has failed to stop garment workers in this country being criminally underpaid, despite its claim that the number of national minimum wage inspectors has increased.

“The public has a right to know that the clothes they buy are not produced by children or forced labour; however, the Government hasn’t accepted our recommendations on the Modern Slavery Act to force fashion retailers to increase transparency in their supply chains.

Policy

“This is plain wrong. The EAC will be closely monitoring steps that the Government claims it is taking to address the problems exposed in our report.”

The government addressed each of the committee’s recommendations in its response and pointed to its voluntary Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (Scap), which sets industry targets for reducing carbon emissions, water and waste. “The Scap along with other actions in our Resources and Waste Strategy reflect the Government’s plans in relation to the sector,” it said.

“The Resources and Waste Strategy also outlines our plans to review and consult on measures such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) for five new waste streams, including textiles, so that producers are responsible for the full net costs of managing their products at the end of their useful life, encouraging greater reuse and recycling.”

It said it had “noted” the committee’s recommendation to charge producers one penny per garment and would consider it as they developed the EPR schemes.

A government spokesman said: “It simply isn’t true to say we are not accepting the committee’s recommendations – we are tackling the environmental impacts of ‘fast fashion’ and much of what the committee would like to achieve is already covered by government policy.”

This Author

Ellie Cullen is a reporter with the Press Association. Image from ‘JamieLondonBoy‘ via Flickr.