Tag Archives: about

New Editor: Andrew MacDougall Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

2013-07-06 14.23Welcome to Oikos’ Editorial Board, Dr Andrew MacDougall, University of Guelph. Visit his webpage here. And read more about him below:

1. What’s you main research focus at the moment?
How the co-varying influences of global environmental change transform fundamental processes relating to diversity and function in terrestrial systems

image002

penstemons

rare experiment f2013


2. Can you describe your research career? Where, what, when?
I have been at the University of Guelph since 2006; prior to my PhD, I worked for several years as a government research biologist in eastern Canada.

3. How come that you became a scientist in ecology?
a love of the outdoors, and a curiosity about the workings of the natural world

4. What do you do when you’re not working?
[laughter] being dad, road biking, yoga

About these ads

More roads, more traffic, more misery – how commuting is killing us Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Commuting is always a hot topic. This week, I was invited onto a BBC regional radio station to talk about why we find commuting so stressful: a caller had gone on a rant to producers about local roadworks that were making his daily drive hellish.

The irate caller was typical – 91% of UK workers commute and most find it an ordeal. We Brits do love a moan, so what better to complain about?

In this light, the chancellor’s Autumn statement announcement of £15 billion for road schemes up and down England promises an invitation for even greater commuter disgruntlement. While George Osborne says his investment will ease congestion and link up major urban areas, the very act of commuting is actually bad for us.

By encouraging more commuting, and especially by further deepening the hold of the car system with the presumption for private ownership, we will just see more of the same: a legion of stressed out commuters miserably trudging to work and home again throughout the week.

We are commuting further than ever before, an average of more than nine miles, a trend that reflects the pressure to find and hold down a job in times of austerity.

Not what the doctor ordered

This has predictably negative consequences. Recent research into commuting has shown it makes us unhappy and anxious while lowering our sense of self-worth and fundamentally reducing levels of life satisfaction.

The commuting that more than 80% of workers tolerate at an average of an hour a day adversely affects both our physical and mental health.

Commuting increases incidences of back, joint and neck pain, with two-thirds of drivers blaming their daily travel for such ailments.

As well as suffering from higher levels of insomnia, commuters are less likely to take regular exercise and more likely to forego wholesome home-cooked food in favour of ready meals and take-away.

A study in California found commuting to be the most significant lifestyle factor behind obesity – the amount of miles travelled directly correlating to weight gain. When we are out of shape, our self-image suffers and there is a strong relationship between obesity and poor mental health.

Travelling alone

Commuting also tends to make us more isolated. Every 10 minutes of commuting is said to reduce social capital – the networks of friends and acquaintances we can develop – by 10%. We have fewer people to turn to unburden ourselves.

This is the loneliness of the crowds. While commuting inevitably means being surrounded by others, they are typically strangers at best – or, more likely, rivals to compete with and be antagonised by.

Indeed research suggests a rise in commuting by car has increased social atomisation and supplanted the idea of community with a heightened level of detached individualism.

Commuting is not only implicated in a decline of civic spirit but can even be attributed as a major cause of marriage break-up with those travelling more than three quarters of an hour to get to work 40% more likely to divorce their partner. The lack of control in commuting is another stress factor, as traffic jams and unpredictable weather mean we are constantly on edge.

Some of the worst effects can be found in women. While women tend to work shorter hours and commute less, they are unfavourably impacted by the health issues surrounding commuting.

It has been suggested that this trend may result from the generally weaker occupational position women experience but it seems more likely to result from their having to take on greater responsibility for day-to-day household tasks such as childcare and housework.

In particular, this can be found in a practice labelled ‘trip chaining’ as women tend to make more interim stops along the route of their commute, picking up children from schools or purchasing goods at the shops meaning that they have less flexibility and are under more pressure to squeeze in extra activities.

The future of commuting

A recent study found walking or cycling to work improves mental well-being, as well as the obvious physical benefits. Those who get to work under their own steam are able concentrate better and felt under less strain than when travelling by car.

Even opting for public transport made commuters feel better than driving so the message seems to be to get out of the car if you want to feel better.

Of course, the happiest people are actually those who work at home so, with advances in telecommuting and flexi-time, not going into the office at all would be the ideal.

But for those who must commute, the government’s pre-election inducement to make this easier to do by car might seem like good news but, really, will only tie drivers into a practice that is slowly killing them.

 

 

Daniel Newman is a Research Associate at the Sustainable Places Research Institute at Cardiff University, where he works on issues of transportation, looking at electric vehicles and, in particular, their usage in rural settings and through communal ownership and car sharing schemes.

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

The Conversation

 




387872

A voyage into soil darkness Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

While most people know the aboveground part of forest ecosystems, very few have caught a glimpse of the belowground environment that comprises a highly diverse fauna. The number of species co-occurring on less than a square meter habitat ground (or a cubic meter of habitat volume) exceeds that of the aboveground compartment by far. In consequence, forest soil communities have been called “poor man’s rainforest”. Nevertheless, we still do not know much about the animals living in these “next-door” habitats and the structure of their communities.

beechforest

Impression of a central European beech forest. Much more is known about the aboveground animals and their interactions than about the belowground communities that carry out the critically important ecosystem functions of litter decomposition and nutrient recycling.

 

Why is our knowledge about forest soil communities so limited? Progress in our understanding of soil communities and processes has been hampered by the chronic lack of data for complex soil food webs of high resolution. This is caused by aggregation of populations in coarse functional groups, whose species often span multiple trophic levels from primary to secondary or tertiary predators. In addition, soil is an opaque medium leading to a limited visibility of interactions. Further, detritivores typically ingest a multitude of intermingled resources hampering identification of what the animals actually digest and live on. In the recent years, new molecular methods have emerged providing the possibility to unravel belowground interactions and the complex structure of forest soil food webs.

 

A soil core provides an impression of the complex structure of the belowground habitat. This environment comprises a highly diverse and complex animal community spanning several trophic levels.

A soil core provides an impression of the complex structure of the belowground habitat. This environment comprises a highly diverse and complex animal community spanning several trophic levels.

The special issue “Into darkness” comprises several studies of central European beech forest soil communities. The studies included in this special feature fill employ state-of-the-art methods to unravel general feeding guilds by stable isotopes (Klarner et al.) as well as specific directed feeding interactions by molecular gut content and fatty-acid analyses (Ferlian and Scheu, Günther et al., Heidemann et al.). This allowed the construction of the first highly-resolved complex soil food webs (Digel et al.) and analyses how they respond to external drivers such as the nutrient stoichiometry of the basal litter (Ott et al.) and climate change (Lang et al.). Together, they provide a unique impression of a voyage into darkness.

Ulrich Brose, Editor of the Oikos Issue “Into Darkness”

 

 

About these ads

Extreme Inequality Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In January 2014 Oxfam revealed that the richest 85 people in the world had the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population: over 3 billion people. This attracted global media interest. As usual, our claim was challenged, but not in the usual way. When Forbes magazine updated the data just a few months later, they found that we were wrong. It now took just the richest 69 people to equal the wealth of the poorest half!

The disparities between the rich and the poor are increasing. Just a few feet of wall in Rio separates the have-nots living in slums from the have-it-alls in the penthouse apartments next door. In the UK, newspaper articles on bankers’ billions sit alongside those documenting the rising number of people forced to rely on food banks.

Does this really matter? Some say that economic growth benefits and creates opportunities for all and that this must involve some getting richer than others; that attacking the very rich is an ideological position that helps no one. Oxfam’s interest is not about the rights and wrongs of wealth per se. It is about the fact that extreme inequality of wealth leads to extreme inequalities in all forms of power, policy and wellbeing, so that poor people do not benefit from improved health, education or opportunity, even in an economy that seems to be growing.

Over the last year there has been widespread recognition that increasing inequality of income and wealth cannot go on unabated. President Obama promised in his State of the Union address to tackle inequality of opportunity. Pope Francis tweeted to warn that inequality is “the root of social evil”. Even the global institutions with orthodox economic outlooks – including the IMF and the World Bank – have been warning of the dangers of inequality, and, in the case of the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, quoting Oxfam.

Leaders and institutions are beginning to challenge inequality head-on and people are paying attention to this debate. Not only was Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-first Century, about the link between rising inequality and wealth, a massive publishing success, but it also sparked a flood of soul-searching about the state of modern capitalism (see review page 58). That an economics tome of graphs and data can top best-seller lists on both sides of the Atlantic clearly demonstrates the resonance of this issue.

Why does this matter for development and wellbeing?
Over the last two decades we have seen impressive reductions in poverty and improvements in health, education and other key indicators in many of the poorest countries around the world. The rapid economic growth of emerging economies has seen many countries improve their prospects dramatically. While this is hugely encouraging, looking through the lens of simple averages masks the unequal fate of those left behind. A baby born into a rich family in prospering Nigeria will live a longer life with far greater opportunities than a baby born into a poor family.

Gender inequalities will exacerbate these discrepancies even further, with a boy likely to spend more than 10 years in school, compared to the three years of schooling that a girl can expect. These disparities are not just a phenomenon in developing countries. Here in the UK a child born in leafy Richmond, South West London can expect to live 15 years longer than one born in Tower Hamlets in the east of the city. That is a year of extra life for every mile covered as you travel across London.

Whilst the marginalised are falling behind, the elite are moving further ahead. In the US, the richest 10% have captured over 90% of economic growth since the recession, while the poor have got poorer. Money yields money and power.

This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of a few people presents a significant threat to democracy and wider wellbeing. Those with money can use it to buy power and to set the rules, regulations and policies in their favour, creating a cycle of growing inequality and poverty and undermining opportunity.

Politicians and institutions that should represent citizens and keep inequality in check are instead being influenced by the rich and powerful, resulting in policies and actions that further widen the gap between rich and poor. Society becomes a vicious circle where wealth (income, assets and access to resources) and power (particularly political decision-making) are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, reinforcing the continued marginalisation and exclusion of the many. We saw this in the response to the financial crisis, with the banks and bankers bailed out whilst the poorest in society were left to suffer the costs of their risk-taking.

Everywhere I travel I see evidence of this. Women’s low status in society means that the issue of maternal health is neglected in budget allocations. The wives, sisters and daughters of the rich and powerful give birth safely in sparkling new private hospitals, so policymakers have very little incentive to care about the health-care provisions for the half of all women in sub-Saharan Africa who give birth in unsafe conditions without trained support.

It is clear that to eliminate poverty and achieve social justice we need to look beyond the country-level average and understand and address how resources, wealth, power and voice are distributed.

Breaking the cycle of inequality
We know change is possible when governments make the right choices and are accountable to the many, not the few. Countries like Bolivia and Brazil, for example, have in the last decade managed to grow their economies whilst making them more equal. Brazil has achieved this through targeted policies, including an increase in the minimum wage that has seen the poorest 10% receive an income growth above the national average, compared to the rich, who have had income growth below the average.

Bolivia has seen a much sharper fall in inequality, with its government introducing a range of new progressive spending programmes while, crucially, funding them by renegotiating the country’s oil and gas tax revenue. Conversely, robust growth in Zambia, averaging 4.6% between 2000 and 2006, was almost entirely captured by the richest 10%, who increased their share of the country’s wealth by more than 9% while poverty rates increased by almost 4%. When I visited Zambia last year for the first time in a decade, it had moved from low to middle income status. The economy had grown but there were actually more poor people.

Extreme inequality is not inevitable but is the result of policy choices. Different choices can reverse it: free public health services that help everyone while ensuring the poor are not left behind; decent wages that end working poverty; and progressive taxation so that the rich pay their fair share. Governments also need to ensure that there is space for people to have their voices heard to rebalance the power of political influence.

Whilst the Pope tweets and the World Bank blogs about inequality, and as new data raises even louder alarm bells, governments and policymakers around the world can choose to seize this opportunity and be leaders in challenging inequality and restoring social and economic justice. Governments everywhere must commit to a more progressive agenda for redistribution and for a fairer world. Power and special interests must not be allowed to push us to the alternative of being tipped irrevocably into a world that caters only for the privileged.

 

Mark Goldring is the Chief Executive of Oxfam GB. He will be speaking at the Resurgence & Ecologist Festival of Wellbeing on 11 October 2014 in London. For more information and bookings: Festival of Wellbeing bookings

 

 




384965

British Museum – is BP driving your heavy-handed approach? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




If you visited the British Museum on 15th June this year, you’d have seen quite an unusual sight. At 3.30pm two hundred people, many dressed as Vikings, gathered in the Museum’s huge domed inner court.

They started chanting about how the oil company BP – sponsors of the Museum’s popular Vikings Exhibition – was acting to bring about Ragnarok, the Viking end of the world, thanks to its enormous contribution to climate change.

Seemingly from nowhere, a pop-up longboat (see photo, right) emerged from the crowd, covered in subverted BP logos. The horde of performers then paraded this boat around the Museum, singing mournfully, before “sinking” the ship in order to give BP an unexpectedly moving Viking funeral.

Participants spoke passionately about their disgust that the Museum, through its ongoing sponsorship deal with BP, was allowing itself to be used as a cheap PR tool by such a destructive company.

This Viking-themed ‘flash-horde’ – organised by the performance activist group ‘BP or not BP?‘ – came off successfully and attracted a lot of attention. But despite being a piece of clearly peaceful theatrical protest, it was met with an unprecedented crackdown from British Museum security.

Why did you try to stifle our protest?

Every visitor to the Museum that afternoon was subject to a bag search – creating long queues out into the street – and harmless pieces of costume such as paper helmets and cardboard swords were confiscated.

Several performers (including myself) were recognised from previous performances and refused entry. One man, known as Thor, was even arrested by police after politely asking a security guard why he wasn’t allowed to bring in a cardboard shield adorned with a BP logo. (see photo, above right)

We wrote an open letter to Neil MacGregor, the Director of the British Museum, challenging them on their over-the-top attempts to silence our protests. Published by New Internationalist, our letter demanded some specific answers from the Museum:

“Why did you try to stifle our protest? Was it on direct instruction from BP, or were you acting under your own initiative? Why did you alarm visitors by telling them that the door searches were due to a ‘security threat’ rather than a piece of unsanctioned theatre? And do you condone the behaviour of the police officers who aggressively, and almost certainly unlawfully, arrested a man who had broken no laws?”

Why is this 1% of British Museum funding so essential?

We didn’t really expect a reply. We thought they’d just ignore us. But we were wrong. The British Museum have now replied to us, not just once but twice. The first email from David Bilson, their head of security, can be read in full below.

This email claims that they needed to ramp up their security in order to “protect the public and safeguard the museum”. However this ignores the fact that we have held a number of these performance protests in the past, including another 200-strong flashmob back in 2012. None of these previous protests were met with such an excessive security response.

The Museum’s email also claims that they need BP’s money to run their exhibitions. However, according to oil industry watchdog Platform, BP’s sponsorship makes up less than 1% of the Museum’s annual income.

The Museum seem to acknowledge this by referring specifically to temporary exhibitions like the Vikings, which they claim are only possible “with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.”

Faced with the burning urgency of climate change, it’s absurd to suggest that the British Museum – with all its resources, networks and public profile – cannot fund its exhibitions without involving the fossil fuel industry.

Alternatives abound, for both the short and the longer term; for example, the PCS trade union, which represents 5,000 workers in cultural institutions like the British Museum, has laid out an alternative vision for the sector based on properly-directed public funding, decent pay and fairer management structures, in which corporate sponsorship is not required.

Fake beards and cardboard shields

The Museum’s second email to us is less formal, and invites us to come and take a tour of the Museum and have a chat with the head of security. We replied (see full version below):

“Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither …

“Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge.

“Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

“Your suggestion that there has been ‘a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people’ is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012 (see photo, above right), and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people …

“We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?”

We await their reply with keenest interest.

 

 

Danny Chivers is author of the No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change and a member of the BP or not BP? performance activism group.

Join the group on the People’s Climate March this Sunday September 21st – meet at 12.15pm outside the MacAdam Building, Kings College London, and look out for the pop-up Viking ship!

 

 

 

Correspondence – the first email from the British Museum

Dear BP or Not BP,

Thank you for your comments with regard to the security measures taken to protect the British Museum, the collection, staff and visitors on June 15th.

It is important to us that we are able to present leading exhibitions of objects and new research to our visitors. The British Museum is grateful to BP for their loyal and on-going support which has allowed us to bring world cultures to a global audience through hugely popular exhibitions and their associated public programmes. These have included; Hadrian, Italian Renaissance Drawings, Book of the Dead, Shakespeare: staging the world and Vikings: life and legend, as well as first-class visitor facilities such as the Museum’s dedicated lecture space, the BP Lecture Theatre. Without the support of BP all of this would not have been achieved.

The British Museum believes it is more important than ever to deepen people’s understanding of the world’s many and varied cultures and this is something that can be achieved through the temporary exhibition format. It is only possible to develop and host temporary exhibitions with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.

It is equally important that our visitors can get access to our galleries and exhibitions. You acknowledge that as a group you made no contact with the Museum to make us aware of your intentions or to discuss essential public safety planning. We were obliged to work with uncertain information that we could expect a flashmob crowd and an attempt to bring a longship into the Great Court. Your previous protests have been much smaller and less intrusive for other visitors, especially when there were only about 12 players in the group. There has been a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people. The Museum feels that to conduct such an event without considering public safety issues in a space that is already crowded might be described as irresponsible. We would ask that if you intend to conduct a protest at the Museum in the future, that you notify us in advance to discuss the matter in detail.

The priority for the Museum, in delivering its safety responsibilities in relation to events such as this, is to protect the public and safeguard the Museum and the collection. While we retain the right to ask protesters to leave the Museum, it is our policy to seek to work with organisers of protests who contact us. In this way we can try to facilitate the free expression of views in a safe and pre-planned manner whilst discharging our legal responsibility with regard to safety. When organisers work with us to share their plans, we are more able to find an accommodation that permits entry to the Museum, so that people can make their views known, that also respects the safety of other visitors, who want to enjoy the Great Court.

We understand that you have strongly held views and acknowledge the importance of those views to you. We have no wish to stop you from expressing opinion or to inhibit debate, but we have to balance that against the safety, and wishes, of visitors who want to see the Museum. We hope that you will understand and support our safety and operational requirements in a similar spirit.

With thanks for your comments and interest in the work of the British Museum.

Yours sincerely,

David Bilson

Head of Security and Visitor Services

The second email was very short and informal, and invited members of the BP or not BP? group to come on a tour of the Museum.

 

 

 

Correspondence – our reply in full

We’ve decided to write this as an open letter because we want this to be a public debate; we’d be very interested in thoughts and comments from Ecologist readers!

Dear David Bilson,

Thank you for your reply to our open letter published in the New Internationalist on June 20th. We would like to accept your offer of a tour, so long as the Museum Director Neil MacGregor also joins us. We would like him to share his views on the issues surrounding oil company sponsorship, as until now neither he nor anyone else at the Museum has directly addressed the points we raised in our open letter.

Aside from general questions about the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputation of BP – a company that is actively driving us towards irreversible climate disaster – there are some specific points from our last letter that we are still waiting for you to answer.

Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither. Again, your letter cited health and safety concerns as the reason the museum attempted to prevent our peaceful protest on June 15th, but you know from our past actions that we do not pose any such risks. There has been no harm to any people or exhibits from any of our seven interventions in the Museum, as we are careful to consider public safety when planning our performances. We also aim to be entertaining to the public rather than ‘intrusive’, as you claim in your letter.

Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge. Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

There’s a simple reason why we don’t ask permission to hold our performances: in order to be effective and capture the attention of the public and the media, our interventions need to be lively, free-roaming and surprising, and we suspect that you won’t give us permission for those kinds of events! Your suggestion that there has been “a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people” is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012, and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people. We have not “substantially changed” our tactics since 2012, but you have nonetheless escalated your response.

We can assure you that as lovers of history and culture, we have no intention of putting the exhibits, staff or fellow museum-goers at risk. This seems to be obvious to the majority of your security staff, who have generally not prevented us exercising our right to peaceful protest. We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?

Thanks again for the kind offer of a tour. As we have mentioned, it is precisely our love of public museum space that has led us to protest against the sponsorship of our cultural institutions by oil companies such as BP, and against the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputations of these dirty companies through these alliances. We hope, therefore, that the museum will respond directly to our questions, as well as allowing us a conversation with Mr. MacGregor.

Yours sincerely,

BP or not BP?

 

 




384211

A Yes vote in Scotland could finish Trident Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Much has been made, and quite rightly, about the financial uncertainties for the Scots attached to an independence vote.

But if there is a Yes vote the financial pressures on the UK’s nuclear weapons programme will also bite hard, plunging its future into uncertainty.

Experience so far in the referendum campaign amply demonstrates the inability of the collective Westminster-Whitehall (WW) bubble to accurately assess risk, probability and impact.

As I outlined in a previous post for Open Democracy, Trident will become the subject of negotiation along with other core issues such as currency, the handling of debt and membership of the EU and NATO.

But the bases at Faslane and Coulport will need to move, and within a similar timescale to the introduction of the new submarines.

Even assuming that the political obstacles can be overcome, capital spend on the move will hit at the same point in the cycle as the construction of the submarines, sending costs spiraling.

Trident’s medium term home? Georgia, USA

With any move south of the border the renewal programme would take up well over half the current MoD’s equipment spend throughout the 2020s (it is already set to eat up a third of that budget over this period).

But this is only one half of the double-whammy. The other is that this would happen just when public spending would need to reduce by around 8% as a result of the tax-take from Scotland being removed.

For most government departments, whose spend is relative to the population they serve, this would not be such a big deal beyond the bureaucratic challenge of institutional change.

But the Ministry of Defence will retain just about the same commitments as they have today, and cuts they would have to bear would follow on from major cuts experienced over the last five years.

There is a cost to the rest of the defence establishment beyond which even die-hard pro-nuclear advocates would not tread. Without Faslane, the UK’s only alternative would be to base its Trident submarines at the US’s Kings Bay Trident port on Georgia’s Atlantic coast.

The military community discussing this possibility at present refer to it as a temporary measure, but the political and budgetary costs may force them to consider it a permanent proposition.

But what sort of symbol would that send about Britain’s dependency upon the United States and its capability? It would make a mockery of the claim that they system is operationally independent.

For any member of the public or rational defence planner in London, Scottish independence would surely mean a radical reassessment of Trident.

A new impetus towards global nuclear disarmament?

Any such reassessment, if it leads to disarmament, could be a big shot in the arm for the essential but deeply-troubled global non-proliferation regime upon which we all depend for stability and survival. So far 2014 has been a disastrous year.

Things looked promising in the heady days of 2010, when the US and Russia signed their new START treaty further limiting the numbers of warheads, missiles and bombers, and the NPT Review Conference agreed a comprehensive action plan to pursue disarmament and non-proliferation.

But the rot had already set into any optimism for further progress years before President Viktor Yanukovych was chased out of Kiev at the beginning of this year.

With Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the civil war in eastern Ukraine (now becalmed if not quite over under a peace process), and other major disagreements over missile defence, NATO membership and influence across eastern Europe and the Middle East, the nuclear weapon states are showing no prospects of living up to the cautious agenda they signed up to in 2010.

This leaves next year’s NPT Review Conference and the broader non-proliferation regime in limbo.

Iran hanging in the balance

It also adds a wild card to negotiations with Iran that reopen this Thursday, the same day as the referendum vote.

Just as the Americans and Europeans were hopeful of breakthrough on Iran’s nuclear programme before the deadline in November (though there are still big differences between the negotiating positions), the fragile sanctions coalition could be breaking apart before our eyes.

The Russians are already talking about major deals with Iran that the Americans consider bust the sanctions. If they sense alternatives opening up, it seems highly unlikely that hardliners in Tehran will countenance Rouhani agreeing to tight constraints on the programme. This one silver lining in the dark and foreboding international nuclear proliferation skies hangs in the balance.

If an independent Scotland were to force a rethink on Trident renewal it would be crucial for both governments to see how their choices could best influence this broader context.

If there is a possibility of an established nuclear weapon state taking its arsenal off patrol this must be used to maximum leverage within the broader international diplomatic game to win real moves in a positive direction by other states. This will be an important opportunity for leadership.

In the event of a No

But what of the impact of the only other likely alternative, a close no vote? In this circumstance we are likely to see devolution of many more powers not only in Scotland, but also other parts of the union.

The general assumption within the WW bubble will be that this will not directly affect the trappings of statehood, in particular foreign policy and defence and thereby the nuclear deterrent. There are a number of distinct dangers to this attitude that could reflect more complacency piled on the previous.

When it reported back in July, the Trident Commission, co-chaired by Malcolm Rifkind, Des Browne and Menzies Campbell, pointed to the pressing need for Britain to reconsider its strategy and more effectively lead on achieving multilateral disarmament measures.

There is no room for business as usual whilst strategic international relations deteriorate and the non-proliferation regime faces severe challenges of confidence.

And there is no solution to the contradiction between renewing Trident like-for-like and positively contributing to a stronger non-proliferation regime.

Caution advised – is this a smart way to spend £30 billion?

But back at home our political leaders would be well-advised to be cautious in making their assumptions about London retaining unambiguous control over the existing nuclear weapon infrastructure.

After the referendum it is now clear the nature of the constitutional settlement will change, and could remain fluid and uncertain for some time to come. Demands for change can only grow throughout the union. London may in future struggle to hold the line and prevent further slide towards a break-up of the union as devolution develops.

A close no vote could in the long run simply spell a stay of execution, unless the government more effectively tackles the centrifugal forces driving the home nations apart.

This will need them to go beyond the devolution of certain powers, and radically change the relationship between the WW bubble and the people of Britain.

And Trident has already shown itself to be a significant part of that legitimacy deficit. It is not only the Scots who are sceptical about spending £30bn over the next two decades on the renewal of our nuclear weapons.

If they succeed in convincing the Scots to stay in for now, those interested in saving the union in the longer run may yet come to see Trident and its bases in Scotland as an important political liability that we can ill afford to keep.

 

 

Paul Ingram has been the Executive Director for the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) since 2007. BASIC works in the US, UK, Europe and the Middle East to promote global nuclear disarmament and a transformation in strategic relationships using a dialogue approach.

He was also until recently a talk show host on state Iranian TV promoting alternative perspectives on strategic matters, and taught British senior civil servants leadership skills.

Previously Paul was a Green Party councillor in Oxford and co-Leader of Oxford City Council (2000-2002) and a member of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Group (2002-2006).

This article is based on one originally published by Open Democracy with edits by or agreed with the author. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




384167

Yes or No, we need democratic and constitutional reform Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Only recently, waking up to the possibility of a Yes majority, have UK politicians begun thinking about the implications of Scottish independence for ‘residual UK’ – rUK for short.

Amid speculation about what to do about Westminster MPs representing Scottish seats (who are predominantly Labour), little thought is being given to the great opportunities (and challenges) for the future of British democracy in rUK.

Once the Scottish decision is known, we should push for negotiations on what domestic, national and international roles and institutions UK/rUK needs to put in place for a renewed and sustainable democratic future.

If Scotland votes Yes

As Scotland has done through the referendum debates, we must initiate discussions about what kind of Britain we want for the future. This in itself represents an exciting and unprecedented opportunity for civic engagement and reflection.

Negotiations should aspire – at a minimum – to grant citizens:

  • a written constitution, with a form of proportional representation for Westminster parliamentary seats
  • the right of recall of MPs by constituents;
  • a directly elected Second Chamber to replace the anomalous House of Lords;
  • the option for regions to take up greater regional representation and autonomy through directly-elected assemblies modelled roughly on the Welsh Assembly, probably based roughly on the constituencies used for European Parliament elections;
  • and a citizens’ bill of rights.

Meanwhile, the Welsh should be offered the option of turning their Assembly into a Welsh Parliament.

But such a package, with its list of key democratic reforms, is a bare minimum. Citizens need to be empowered further, in a way that has never yet happened in a Britain of subjects rather than citizens.

Examples of how that might happen include:

  • Enhanced powers for local government (including, to rein in harmful business activity);
  • proportional representation for local government elections;
  • experimentation with more participatory democracy (such as participatory budgeting);
  • and a serious effort to represent and adequately protect unborn future generations.

The negotiation process should involve a range of stakeholders as well as MPs and constitutional lawyers. And it should focus on an inclusive and deliberative Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution should then either be offered to the British public to be adopted by referendum, or should be adopted by the Parliament elected in May 2015 – with an understanding at the time of the election that those being elected were being elected with this as a key, defining task.

The next step would be to adopt an appropriate form of proportional representation to provide fairer and better political and regional representation in Westminster – and in any and all regional or national assemblies and parliaments.

The 2015 Parliament would then be dissolved and new elections held under the new electoral system.

If Scotland votes No?

After insisting on a binary yes-or-no choice, refusing to allow a ‘Devo-max’ option, the UK Conservative-LibDem government together with Labour are now scrambling to give Scottish voters an incentive to vote No by offering some form of ‘Devo-max’ under a reformed UK arrangement.

What precisely would still be on offer if the No vote wins is debatable, though it seems increasingly likely that Wesminster will be held to these promises of ‘Devo-max’, in the event of a No vote, especially a narrow one on a high turnout.

Progressives like the Greens – the only British political party that backs independence both north and south of the border – and Compass (see here and here) need to address Scottish discontent with the status quo – and its causes.

They must also recognise that serious democratic deficits exist elsewhere: in Wales, most if not all English regions, and Northern Ireland. Not to mention local government everywhere.

The ‘West Lothian question’

So there is again a strong case for a Constitutional Convention. The Welsh are pressing this case, and rightly so. Interestingly, it is now being taken up in Scotland too.

Our strong belief is that such a Convention should be deliberative, and not only composed of elites. It should take as a rough model the impressive and inclusive deliberative process that took place in Iceland after the financial crash there.

One key reason why a Constitutional Convention is essential in the event of a No vote is the ‘West Lothian question‘: If a Scottish Parliament decides Scotland’s policies on a host of issues, how come Scottish MPs can vote on the same issues in the UK Parliament, determining policies in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

With Devo-Max in Scotland, this question becomes completely unavoidable. The question should be settled – in a manner that involves the public, and is not merely imposed upon them.

Thus the undeniable need for a deliberative, inclusive, non-elite Constitutional Convention.

Yes or no, we need these reforms

Thus the upshot is that, whether the vote this week is Yes or No, the UK or rUK ought to have a Constitutional Convention. And that Constitutional Convention ought to be citizen-based and citizen-led rather than elite-based.

This is an exciting conclusion, and an inspiring prospect – a unique opportunity to address Britain’s wider crisis of political and democratic legitimacy.

 

 

Rebecca Johnson FRSA is a feminist peace campaigner and academic author. She is the Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, CND Vice-President, and a member of Women in Black.

Rupert Read is Green Party Transport Spokesperson and Chair of the Green House economics think tank.

Website: www.rupertread.net.

Twitter: @GreenRupertRead (political) or @RupertRead (personal).

More articles by Rupert Read on The Ecologist.

 

 




384106

Can viruses alter host behavior?

Leave a reply

How can viruses alter the behavior of the hosts? And to what effect? Find out in the Oikos Early View paper “Virus infection alters the predatory behavior of an omnivorous vector” by Candice A Stafford-Banks and colleagues. If you click on the link below, they will tell you all about it in a short presentation.

 

Candice

Oikos presentation Stafford-Banks

About these ads