Tag Archives: must

College fossil fuel divestment – Yes we must! Updated for 2026





I have taught courses in the energy and environmental sciences at Boston University for 27 years.

For most of that time I have remained ‘above the fray’ when it comes to activism, preferring to let others, including many of my students, engage in the political process.

I can no longer stand on the sidelines. Climate change and other impacts that stem from our reliance on fossil fuels are large, growing and they disproportionately harm the poor in every society.

As a scientist, I conclude that the evidence is unassailable. As a citizen, I am compelled to try and use this information to help steer our energy system to a sustainable future.

Many universities hold large endowments or funds that have significant positions in fossil fuel companies. This investment will increasingly be viewed as an abdication of the university’s treasured position as representing the intelligence of society.

Three years ago, I wrote a letter as then co-chair of Boston University’s Committee on Sustainability urging the university’s Board of Trustees to seriously investigate divestiture. And with my colleagues, I recently started a blog that discusses issues surrounding energy transitions.

I’m not the only academic to get involved in this issue. At least 200 institutions of higher education, foundations, religious organizations, and cities have committed to divestment. This includes about 32 colleges and universities that have pledged some level of divestment; at least an equal number have publicly rejected divestment.

At Boston University, a faculty petition and the student group DivestBU have prompted the University’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing to take up the divestment issue. So pressure by faculty and students has helped make divestiture a front-burner issue.

Why we need to change

This is a multi-faceted problem, but one issue, in particular, motivated me to act. Boston University and many other institutions of higher education have education and research programs that describe the nature of climate change and its impacts on society.

The same institutions have invested considerable effort in ‘greening’ their business operations, including efforts to improve the efficiency of energy and water use, recycling, purchasing and procurement, building and renovation, and outreach to students, faculty, and staff.

But climate change has not been confronted in the boardroom, where endowments have been ring-fenced from transparency and scrutiny. This is what I want to change. Universities face charges of being hypocritical.

What message do you send when you grant degrees with titles such as ‘Sustainability’, ‘Environmental Science’, and ‘Climate and Society’ with one hand, yet with the other hand invest in the activities that drive the very problems those degrees aim to address?

Yet the argument for divestment spans the financial, economic, environmental and ethical domains. One guiding principle is the existence and degree of harm caused by the use of fossil fuels.

As stated by Robert Knox, chair of the Board of Trustees of Boston University, circumstances exist to consider divestment only when “the degree of social harm caused by the actions of the firms in the asset class is clearly unacceptable.”

A prodigious body of evidence indicates that the fossil energy system causes pervasive human health, environmental, and social harm across every society, and that these costs will grow in the absence of explicit measures to address them. Climate change will shave about $1.2 trillion from global GDP this year, and that cost is growing by about 2% per year.

The World Health Organization estimates that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or worsened by climate change. Air pollution from fossil fuel combustion reduces life expectancy by up to 1.6 years in the US and five years in northern China.

These costs will grow if we continue to develop unconventional oil and gas sources such as oil sands, shale gas, and shale oil which have larger ecological footprints than conventional sources.

Fossil fuel risks

The dependence on oil leads directly to violent conflict. In the name of national security, the US military has frequently been used to protect access to foreign sources of oil and to protect key suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from internal revolt and external attack.

Oil revenue channeled through charities, schools, and private donors in some Middle East nations helped create and sustain both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

University endowments face tangible financial risk from their investments in fossil fuels. Material efforts to enforce a carbon budget designed to prevent unacceptable damage from climate change will result in a dramatic loss of value for fossil fuel assets, principally in the form of stranded assets, or energy sources that will left in the ground.

Companies with large amounts of stranded carbon resources could see their stock prices fall, lowering the value of investment portfolios that hold the shares.

Universities also face risk to their reputation. The ability of the university to sell itself to prospective students, faculty and contributors rests on its authority as a source of knowledge vital to humanity. If there is a misalignment of its teaching, research, operational, and financial behaviors, that authority and the institution’s viability, is put at risk.

Failing to act carries a significant reputation risk, as the university’s very existence is defined as a civilizing force. Universities seen to be complicit in destruction will likely lose position, students, faculty and reasons to be proud of what they do.

There is an alternative

Some say divesting from fossil fuels while at the same time using those fuels to run campus operations is hypocritical. But I believe hypocrisy only arises if one’s investment behavior is misaligned with the nature of your research and teaching programs, and with your campus operations.

No one expects to flip a switch and be divorced from fossil fuels. But many universities have expansive research programs that provide elements of the roadmap to a sustainable future.

This includes teaching programs that prepare young adults to navigate life in that future, and campus operations that reduce the institution’s carbon footprint and overall environmental impact. In this situation, there is no hypocrisy in divestment, even if the institution continues to rely on fossil fuels for some time.

Another frequent argument made against divestiture is that low-carbon forms of energy are more expensive than fossil fuels, so ‘forcing’ a transition will impose a significant cost on society. As a blanket statement, this is demonstrably false.

Multiple independent studies and the observation of actual investment patterns unequivocally demonstrate that energy efficiency and onshore wind power are as cheap or cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels in many regions. The cost of electricity from solar sources is plummeting.

The price for solar photovoltaic technologies has dropped from $50-80 per watt in the 1970s to less than $1 per watt today. Lower cost drives adoptions; about 26% of all new electric capacity in the first half of 2014 in the US was solar.

A university’s role in society

There are three takeaway points on divestment. First, addressing climate change is central to the mission of every institution to higher education because it imperils vital aspects of human existence and, therefore, crosses every academic discipline and profession.

Universities have an obligation to their students, facility, alumni and society to understand the nature of, and the risks posed by, climate change. To the best of their abilities, they must see that such knowledge is used in society’s best interest. This obligation holds regardless of whether or not divestment is being considered.

Second, divestment is feasible and, if intelligently implemented, should not threaten the financial health of endowments.

Third, universities do not have to go it alone. There is a rapidly expanding set of informational resources, analytical tools, and institutional partnerships that support the planning and implementation of divestment.

 


 

http://theconversation.com/college-fossil-fuel-divestment-the-view-from-the-lectern-38138

Cutler J Cleveland is Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

This article is adapted from ‘The Path to Fossil Fuel Divestment for Universities: Climate Responsible Investment‘, Cutler J. Cleveland and Richard Reibstein. and was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




391400

Fukushima: an unnatural disaster that must never be repeated Updated for 2026





Four years have passed since the March 11 tragic triple meltdowns began at Fukushima Daiichi. There is no end in sight.

Let’s be clear, the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi was manmade. Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) and indeed the entire nuclear industry worldwide act as if they are the victims of a natural disaster, but in fact the nuclear industry is the perpetrator of this travesty.

When the American nuclear companies, General Electric and Ebasco, built Fukushima Daiichi for TEPCO, they knew that huge tsunamis were a real risk.

Instead of designing for the worst imaginable consequences, which would make nuclear power unaffordable, the industry chose instead to save money, allowing economics to trump safety. The continuing problems at Fukushima Daiichi during the past four years stem from those skewed priorities.

Tokyo Electric, the government regulators in Japan, and the worldwide nuclear industry grossly underestimated the initial radioactive releases, underestimated the magnitude of the disaster, and underestimated the consequences of not taking action. The Japanese people will pay the price for decades to come.

Protecting people? Or protecting the nuclear industry?

Is Tokyo Electric or the Japanese government incompetent? I don’t think so. As I look back at the last four years, I think that TEPCO, Japanese regulators, and worldwide regulatory agencies wanted nuclear power to succeed so badly that they focused on saving Tokyo Electric and forgot about the people they were created to serve.

At each nuclear catastrophe: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and again at Fukushima Daiichi, the companies, governments, and agencies responding to these disasters were not working to protect people, but worked instead to protect the ongoing operation and potential future of nuclear power.

The mishandling of this disaster has shown us that emergency response must be directed by organizations that put people first, not agencies that have a vested interest in perpetuating nuclear power, banking, and industrial interests.

Why have the nuclear industry, its regulators, and governments worldwide attempted to minimize the devastation created by the obvious collapse of the myth of nuclear safety? The answer is money.

Throughout the world, banks and governments are heavily invested in the financial success of the ongoing operation of their nuclear power plants, no matter what health consequences and personal loss is forced upon the people of their nations.

Only nuclear power can destroy a country overnight

Following the Fukushima Daiichi triple meltdown, governments around the world have destroyed their social contracts with their citizens by pressing for costly and risky nuclear power without regard for the health and welfare of generations to come. The social contract between the people in Japan and the Japanese government has certainly been breached, perhaps for decades to come.

The same skewed decision-making process that lead to ignoring the tsunami risk at Fukushima Daiichi in 1965 is still being applied to new nuclear construction and old nuclear operation. The old paradigm has not and likely will not change, despite five meltdowns during the last 35 years disproving the myth of nuclear safety.

Of all the ways electricity is produced, nuclear technology is the only one that can destroy the fabric of a country overnight. In his memoirs Mikhail Gorbachev states that it was the Chernobyl accident that destroyed the Soviet Union not Perestroika.

Five former Japanese Prime Ministers: Kan, Koizumi, Nakazone, Noda, and Hatoyama, who span the spectrum of liberal to conservative, oppose nuclear power. And currently in Europe, former physicist and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is leading her country to be nuclear free by 2022.

Where there is a political will, nations can wean themselves from nuclear power without waiting for yet another nuclear disaster to occur.

And as Naoto Kan, Japan’s prime minister during the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy, said (Crisis Without End, From the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine 2011):

“Considering the risk of losing half our land and evacuating half our population, my conclusion is that not having nuclear power plants is the safest energy policy”,

 


 

Arnie Gunderson is an eminent US nuclear engineer and whistle-blower. He is know to millions via his website Fairewinds.com. He is in the United Kingdom this week to commemorate the tragic triple meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011 by speaking to the House of Commons and several other venues about the disaster.

Event tonight:  Arnie Gunderson and Dr Ian Fairlie, international expert on radiation and health, are both speaking in Keswick, Cumbria, at the Skiddaw Hotel – 7:30 – 9.30pm. Event organised by Radiation-Free Lakelands.

Reference links, books, articles

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21642221-industrial-clean-up-without-precedent-mission-impossible

http://www.fairewinds.org/fukushima-meltdown-4-years-later/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/world/asia/critics-say-japan-ignored-warnings-of-nuclear-disaster.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Crisis Without End, From the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine, The New Press, ISBN 978-1-59558-960-6, 2014

The Ecologist: ‘Fukushima and the institutional invisibility of nuclear disaster‘, Dr. John Downer, December 20, 2014.

The Ecologist: ‘All fouled up – Fukushima four years after the catastrophe‘, Dr Jim Green, 11th March 2015.

The Big Lie, Secret Chernobyl Documents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/16/editorial-fukushima-nuclear-dirty-tricks

http://newsok.com/pge-releases-thousands-of-emails-with-state-regulators/article/feed/790236/?page=1

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/cpi-asks-govt-to-explain-why-it-rushed-into-nuke-agreement_1537199.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/

http://www.fairewinds.org/alone-in-the-zone/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/soviet-leader-chernobyl-nuclear-accident-caused-the-collapse-of-the-ussr.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112760135

 




391148

US tax dollars must not finance $1bn Great Barrier Reef destruction! Updated for 2026





The US Export-Import Bank is on the verge of financing one of the world’s most destructive projects: India-based Adani Group’s massive Carmichael coal mine in Australia’s Galilee Basin.

The project also includes a new railway to carry the coal to a new export terminal at Abbots Point, Queensland, and a new sea ‘canal’ dredged through the Great Barrier Reef to allow the passage of coal freighters.

But a determined coalition of scientists, business owners, Australian elected officials, and civil society groups from the US and Australia have called ‘foul’ in a letter to US Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg.

“The Adani coal project alone is expected to result in an estimated 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifetime”, the letter states. “Damage to the Great Barrier Reef has also resulted from reckless coastal industrial development, such as massive ports and liquefied natural gas complexes that have compelled UNESCO to consider classifying the reef as a ‘World Heritage in Danger‘.

“This includes two liquefied natural gas projects that received nearly five billion dollars in public financing from the Export Import Bank under your direction. In our view, this financing violates US law , as may US government financing for Adani’s coal export project.”

Friends of the Earth US President Erich Pica said: “Chairman Hochberg should refuse to provide financing to any project that would harm the precious Great Barrier Reef. To do otherwise would contradict President Obama’s call to protect this special place for his daughters and grandchildren and his State of the Union address, at which he called climate change the biggest threat to future generations.”

One mine – three countries’ CO2

Aside from the immediate environmental destruction, the project would cause 128 million tons of carbon pollution annually – more than Sweden, Norway, and Denmark combined, contradicting the spirit of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and recent climate progress both in the US and abroad.

A decision to finance the Carmichael project would also undermine US credibility on climate issues at home and abroad, including the including the US-China emissions reduction deal, a $3 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and recent climate and clean energy progress in the President’s FY2016 budget.

And it would infuriate the generations of climate campaigners that were out protesting around the world last weekend on Global Divestment Day, organised by 350.org, which called on investors, pension funds, foundations and financial institutions everywhere to dump fossil fuels.

Three million tonnes of Barrier Reef seabed to be removed and dumped

If completed, coal will be mined and transported by rail to the coast, where it will be shipped overseas through ports expanded by dredging three million tonnes of seabed from the bottom of the Great Barrier Reef.

“The Great Barrier Reef is under considerable threat from a variety of stressors including climate change, crown of thorns sea stars, and runoff from land”, said Dr. Selina Ward, a prominent Queensland Reef scientist at the University of Queensland School of Biological Sciences.

“The Abbot Point port expansion would considerably exacerbate this pressure. This continuing industrialisation of the GBR coastline invites reef degradation, especially from the dredging of the ocean floor, the dumping of the dredge spoil and the enormous increase in carbon emissions from the proposed coal mines.”

The recent January 31 election in the State of Queensland saw the biggest swing against a first term government in Australia since 1955. Many Queenslanders rejected the sitting government due to its support for the Galilee Basin coal mines and associated port facilities and their impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.

The Greens achieved their highest ever Queensland election result, and Labor is now forming a government, after that party pledged to prevent any dredge spoil from being dumped in the World Heritage Area or nearby wetlands and to reverse the billions in tax breaks and tax dollar support the previous government promised Adani.

“Queenslanders clearly do not accept the government’s destruction of the Reef”, said Greens Senator Larissa Waters of Queensland. “The Queensland Government’s plans to industrialise the Reef threaten to destroy one of the most precious places on earth, through dredging, shipping and climate change.

“We call on the US Ex-Im Bank to reject any requests for financing of the Abbot Point expansion or associated rail and mine infrastructure. US taxpayer dollars should not be subsidising the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.”

And it’s an economic disaster too, conclude major banks

And while Ex-Im is considering backing the project, major financial institutions – including Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Credit Agricole, and JPMorgan Chase – have publicly rejected the proposal.

They don’t like the fact that the project would jeopardize the Reef’s World Heritage status. But even more serious for potential financiers, reports show the project is not financially viable.

“The fact is that this disastrous project would damage a world treasure like the Great Barrier Reef while making our climate crisis even worse. The notion that Ex-Im would use American taxpayer dollars to support it is unconscionable”, said John Coequyt, director of the Sierra Club’s International Climate Program.

“If the Export-Import bank puts a single US dollar towards funding this project, it is literally financing the destruction of one of the great natural wonders of the world.”

 


 

Principal source: Friends of the Earth.

 

 




390497

Pickles must protect Rampisham Down SSSI from solar farm Updated for 2026





Ancient grassland at Rampisham could be saved following a government decision to put an ‘hold’ notice on the West Dorset Council’s planning consent for a huge solar farm, writes Martin Harper.

From 1939 until its closure in October 2011, the array of over thirty radio masts at Rampisham Down in Dorset broadcast the BBC World Service.

In these 70 plus years the masts transmitted daily news of a world that was changing dramatically. However, beneath the masts, within the security fences, something precious remained, protected from the changing world outside.

Free from the wholesale farm intensification all around, the grassland around the masts remained untouched save for the attentions of a few sheep to stop it scrubbing over.

And in this ‘unimproved’ state, the grassland remained rich in plant species – species that most of us would nowadays have to make a special journey to find: species with names redolent of an England now passed – sweet vernal grass, sheep’s fescue and hawkweeds, quaking oat grass, pignut and bedstraw.

These sorts of grasslands are often of ancient origin, dating back up to 7,000 years to the times of the first forest clearances. And they come in numerous flavours. At Rampisham botanists describe the grassland as ‘lowland acid grassland’, and ascribe it the code ‘U4’ due to the very particular mix of species. U4, an unappealing title for this plant community, is, to say the least, rare with only 3-4,000 ha in the UK. And Rampisham has one of the largest areas of this type in the country.

A suitable site for 120,000 solar panels?

Rampisham (pronounced ‘Ransom’) was sold by the BBC in 1997 to a management buyout, then sold on in 2001 to Vosper Thornycroft who subsequently were taken over by Babcock International Group.

Then in December 2012 an application was submitted by British Solar Renewables to construct on the Down a “40MW solar park following demolition of 32 of 35 existing masts and towers … “.

The proposal involves the erection of some 119,280 photovoltaic panels mounted on steel frames fixed by short driven piles. These assemblies are to be arranged in rows along an east-west axis, with the panels facing south. It is proposed that approximately 40.5ha of the site (56%) will be covered in this way, leaving 33ha undeveloped.

Unauthorised building work began on site in January 2013, which the local planning authority stopped, but sadly some damage had already been caused to the site.

At the same time, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the site was thoroughly surveyed. As a result, the national significance of the grassland, to date hidden behind security fences, was revealed. It was thus notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest in August 2013.

With this, Rampisham became part of our national network of precious wildlife sites, sites that are as the nature equivalent of protected buildings, the likes of Stonehenge or our great cathedrals. Its designation meant, or at least, should have meant, that it be given special consideration when faced with a threatening development.

The principle, as reiterated in the recently produced National Planning Policy Framework, is crystal clear: “proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest … should not normally be permitted.

“Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.”

While solar panels can even be beneficial for wildlife in places, that’s definitely not the case here. The ‘special interest’ of Rampisham Down arises from the exposed nature of the site, open to wind, rain and the fierce summer sun. The shade and shelter created by the panels would substantially alter the habitat and damage the rare and precious ecosystem.

West Dorset’s disgraceful decision

However, on 15th January 2015, West Dorset Council’s Planning Committee voted to approve the application by British Solar Renewables to build a solar farm on Rampisham Down. Reacting to the news the Wildlife Trusts described the decision as both “astonishing” and “perverse”. Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscapes for the Wildlife Trusts said:

“The protection and recovery of the natural environment should be at the heart of all planning decisions. This Council’s decision goes against the statutory obligations of local authorities to protect important designated wildlife sites for future generations. This is simply the wrong place for this development and Rampisham should be protected not destroyed.”

Although the RSPB had not been directly involved in Rampisham to this point, this would set a terrible precedent for future development and it was immediately clear to us that this decision needed challenge.

As with wind farms the RSPB is in principle supportive of renewable energy developments. But as with wind farms our line is simple – they must be built in the right places, and must avoid damaging sensitive wildlife sites.

So it comes as very welcome news that Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, has made his admirably swift decision to put West Dorset Council’s grant of planning permission on hold, with an ‘Article 25’ notice “not to grant planning permission on this application without specific authorisation.”

This now gives him time to consider whether to call in the application to a public inquiry. And as far as I’m concerned, there’s only one reasonable outcome – of course it has to be called in.

The planning system is not working!

But Rampisham Down is not the only SSSI at risk following a perverse planing decision. Indeed the Rampisham case has remarkable parallels with another case currently close to our hearts – the threat looming over Lodge Hill in Kent. Here too is a site that has what could be described as ‘urban’ elements – though in this case military infrastructure rather than radio masts.

It is a site where the activity of its old owners had historically lent protection. It is a site that was sold off, a site that then had a proposed development, but on investigation linked to the application was found to be of huge wildlife interest, and thus declared a SSSI by Natural England. And it is a site where, despite its newfound protected status, a planning application was approved by the local council – Medway, in the case of Lodge Hill.

Both these cases strike to the core of issues involving the planning system and the protection of our best wildlife sites. As shown above, the planning framework is clear – there should be a presumption against development on SSSIs and development should only proceed when the benefits significantly outweigh the costs.

I am unable to understand how these developments are compatible with the Government’s stated ambition to pass on the natural environment in an enhanced state to the next generation when everyone knows that nature conservation starts with existing protected areas.

Indeed, the Government has a commitment, through its own biodiversity strategy, to improve the condition of our SSSIs – for 50% to be in favourable condition by 2020.

The RSPB believes both of these cases are of national importance, because of what the decisions to date reveal about attitudes towards SSSIs. If they were to go ahead, they would also set a terrible precedent for future development.

As such they should both be called in, and their cases heard at a public inquiry before a decision made by the Secretary of State. This would be consistent with the will of Parliament that just ruled out fracking operations on SSSIs, national parks and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’.

 


 

Urgent action: support the Wildlife Trusts e-action to call on Eric Pickles to ‘call in’ the Rampisham Down planning application. And be quick: we only have until the end of today Thursday 5th February, to make our voices heard.

Martin Harper is Conservation Director of RSPB. He blogs on the RSPB website.

More information: visit the Wildlife Trusts pages, or read more from Tony Whitehead on our Saving Spaces blog. Also Miles King’s blog provides some useful background and an independent view on the decision to approve Rampisham.

This article is an updated version of a post on the RSPB blog.

 

 




389895

Ebola is killing chimps and gorillas too – now we must save them! Updated for 2026





There is a side to the Ebola crisis that, perhaps understandably, has received little media attention: the threat it poses to our nearest cousins, the great apes of Africa.

At this moment in time Ebola is the single greatest threat to the survival of gorillas and chimpanzees.

The virus is even more deadly for other great apes as it is for humans, with mortality rates approximately 95% for gorillas and 77% for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Current estimates suggest a third of the world’s gorillas and chimpanzees have died from Ebola since the 1990s.

As with humans, these deaths tend to come in epidemics. In 1995, an outbreak is reported to have killed more than 90% of the gorillas in Minkébé Park in northern Gabon. In 2002-2003 a single outbreak of ZEBOV (the Zaire strain of Ebola) in the Democratic Republic of Congo killed an estimated 5,000 Western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla).

It’s hard to accurately count such elusive creatures but the WWF estimates there are up to 100,000 left in the wild – so a single Ebola outbreak wiped out a considerable chunk of the world’s gorilla population.

Deforestation link to Ebola transmission

There are of course additional factors behind the declining numbers of Africa’s great apes: illegal trading in wildlife and bushmeat, war, deforestation and other infectious diseases.

The world’s remaining wild apes are being increasingly forced into isolated pockets of forest, which impedes their ability to forage, breed and to hide from hunters.

There is also a growing body of evidence linking deforestation and subsequent changes in climate to the spread of Ebola and other infectious diseases.

Back in 2003 an article on the decline of great apes, written by a team led by primatologist Peter Walsh, predicted that:

“Without aggressive investments in law enforcement, protected area management and Ebola prevention, the next decade will see our closest relatives pushed to the brink of extinction.”

Sadly, this prediction appears to have come true. Since 2008, the IUCN has listed the Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei) as endangered and the Western Gorillas as critically endangered.

If we do not act fast, these may prove to be the last decades in which apes can continue to live in their natural habitat.

We have a safe and effective vaccine – but haven’t used it

Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of political will to implement policies which would bring viable solutions into effect. We need both short-term solutions to halt the spread of Ebola and long-term ones to prevent future outbreaks.

As a short-term strategy, vaccination could prove enormously useful in tackling the Ebola crisis in apes. Unlike for humans, a vaccine for gorillas and apes has been developed which thus far has been proven both safe and effective.

To date though, these trials have not involved ‘challenging’ the vaccinated chimps with the live virus. Across much of Europe, medical research on great apes is either banned or highly restricted because of their cognitive similarity to humans. The question is whether or not we should make an exception in this case.

In the long term, conservation efforts aimed at restoring forest habitat could also help curb the spread of the virus, as larger forested areas would reduce the chances of infected animals coming into contact with one another.

In tandem with forest regeneration, greater protection for apes from hunters and strict laws to control bushmeat consumption would also be hugely beneficial, both for apes and for humans.

 


 

Meera Inglis is reading for a PhD in Conservation Policy at the University of Sheffield.

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

The Conversation

 




389594

Inequality does matter – and we must fight it! Updated for 2026





Since the 1980s, we’ve been told that inequality doesn’t matter. Mainstream thinking has it that you can fight poverty without tackling inequality.

This has been part of an attempt to make poverty eradication easier and more palatable to an increasingly dominant right-wing agenda.

The beauty of separating poverty and inequality is that you can care about ‘the poor’ while not worrying about the need for any of the radical changes which might upset your lifestyle.

You can both be “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, as Peter Mandelson1 said, and also care about very poor people getting less poor.

This embracing of inequality has, unsurprisingly, gone hand-in-hand with soaring levels of it. Today the richest 80 people own almost as much wealth as half the world’s population.

The situation continues to get worse. While most ordinary people endure pay freezes and austerity, the world’s richest 300 people became richer by 16% in 2013.

Those who are unhappy with inequality are accused of pursuing the ‘politics of envy’, or as Margaret Thatcher once put it, of preferring that the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. There are two big problems with this argument.

Inequality matters

The first is that inequality does matter. This is not a matter of serious debate. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF), hardly a progressive voice, has issued a warning that rising inequality is threatening economic growth.

This is firstly because rich people are far more likely to spend money in ways that do not benefit the majority of people, such as on luxury imported goods or simply stashing it away in an account in the Cayman Islands. The idea that if you get enough tycoons buying yachts, the jobs created by the yacht building industry will be enough to feed everyone else is a fiction.

Second, inequality warps democracy. It raises the voices and interests of tiny elites above the rest of society. This can lead to perverse results and greater corruption, with laws and policies tailored to the personal interests of tycoons and to the detriment of wider society.

It’s not just the economy that is affected by inequality. Most of the attributes of a decent society – health, education, crime levels, social cohesion – are most present in more equal societies.

Take the USA and Sweden, two countries with similar levels of wealth in GDP per capita terms. The infant mortality rate in the USA is more than double that of Sweden and the murder rate is over three times Sweden’s figure.

This pattern holds up across the world. The charts (see report) show that, in general, countries with high levels of inequality have higher murder rates and lower life expectancy.

The poor are not getting richer

So it’s no wonder that we find that since the big surge in free market, neoliberal economic policies in the 1980s, while the rich have certainly got richer, the poor have, by and large, stayed poor.

Back in 1981, when the free market revolution was just taking off, there were 288 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living on less than $2 a day (205 million were living on under $1.25 a day). By 2008, this figure had almost doubled to 562 million (386 million on under $1.25 a day).

Of course the region’s population has also increased over this period, but even proportionally, there has been almost no improvement in poverty rates in sub-Saharan Africa since 1981.

Other continents have done a little better but mostly because of the arbitrary measures chosen. Why $1.25? Much anti-poverty work has been geared to getting people from just below, to just above the international poverty line. It has been claimed that if you changed the poverty line from $1.25 to $1.27, most recent poverty reduction gains would be wiped out.

In fact the vast majority of the fall in global poverty since 1981 has come from China, a country that, despite engaging its very own state-led, form of capitalism, has not followed World Bank-led free market policies.

Here in the UK, real wages have fallen since the economic crisis in 2008. But in those same terms, wages hardly rose in the boom years of the 1990s and 2000s either. Almost all of the proceeds of this boom went to a tiny elite. The big winners from this decline in income have been the credit card companies.

Consumer debt has tripled over the last two decades as people borrow in order to make ends meet, reaching £158 billion in 2013. Meanwhile, the proportion of UK income controlled by the top 1% of the population has doubled since 1970 and the top 1% own as much as the bottom 55%.

The corrosive injustice of inequality

Inequality isn’t good for getting people out of poverty, which shouldn’t be surprising. Poverty isn’t about having a certain amount of money, but the lack of those resources we all need for a decent life; food and water, housing and energy, healthcare, education and decent employment.

Poverty is lack of power. And that lack of power is a direct consequence of others having too much power – ultimately too much control over resources. Wealth comes from exploitation of people and the planet’s resources.

This is why even well-intentioned plans to make the poor richer are doomed to failure if they ignore the question of power.

Helping the poor to buy more products or rent more resources from the rich might provide short-term relief, but in the long-term will reinforce the unequal relationship between the two – just as 19th-century American slave owners who decided to treat their slaves better missed the real injustice that they were perpetrating.

The poor will only get richer by radically reducing inequality, which in turn requires confronting power.

 


 

This article is an extract from the report ‘The poor are getting richer and other dangerous delusions‘ by Global Justice Now (formerly the World Development Movement).

 




389192

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026





On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 


 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also:The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026





On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 


 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also:The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026





On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 


 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also:The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026





On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 


 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also:The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962