Tag Archives: over

Save our farmers with fair trade milk! Updated for 2026





I have recently been listening to the bad news about the price of milk while actually milking cows, as my herdsman took a break over Christmas and the New Year.

Experiencing at first hand the economic impact of the climate in which dairy farmers are operating gives the issue a whole different meaning.

It seems to me that nothing could better illustrate the institutionalised madness that prevails in the world of globalised, industrialised, commodity-style food production than its impact on the price of milk and dairy farmers in Britain.

As with so many matters connected with food, the root of the problem lies in the distorted economic system.

I’ve just been down to my local Tesco store in Bristol, which, along with most of the major British supermarkets, is now selling milk very cheaply, in this case four pints of conventional whole milk for 89 pence (£0.89).

Apologies for dancing between pints and litres, but four pints of milk is 2.27 litres, so divide that into 89 pence and you get just over 39.2 ppl (pence per litre). This is theoretically the total amount of money that has to be divided between the farmer, processor and retailer.

The conventional milk did not appeal to me, so I purchased two pints of organic milk for £1.14 instead. Doing the same maths, that makes the retail price of the organic milk almost exactly £1 per litre, more than twice the price of the conventional product.

Down on the farm, things are getting desperate

That is what’s happening in the shops, but what about back on the farm? Well, for conventional milk production at least, it’s a pretty horrible story. About a year ago the farm gate milk price was around 37 ppl – the best for years and good enough to make a reasonable profit.

Farmers responded by vastly increasing their milk production, mostly by expanding their herd sizes and further intensifying production, with the very large industrialised farms getting even bigger.

The phrase ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind. Now imagine this happening all over the world, combined with a good growing season for dairying weather-wise. The inevitable consequence has been a serious over-supply of the milk market.

To cap it all, Russia then banned imports of dairy products from the European Union in response to EU sanctions over Ukraine, which precipitated a catastrophic downward slide in farm gate milk prices. Ironically there are a number of parallels with the dramatic fall in the price of oil.

As a result, most producers are only receiving just over half the price they received about a year ago; currently as little as 22 ppl for conventional milk, which is well below the cost of production.

There is only so long that any farmer can lose serious money on every litre of milk, and needless to say it is the small, so-called ‘inefficient’ family dairy farms (which represent the backbone of rural culture in England, Wales and Scotland) that are being forced out of business the fastest.

With support from their banks the biggest farms will survive by intensifying further and growing bigger still – something that has negative implications for the environment, animal welfare, rural communities and milk quality.

Last week, the total number of dairy farms in England and Wales dropped below 10,000 for the first time and all the signs suggest that the exodus will continue.

This is a kind of cultural cleansing by price, with the farmers giving up quietly without fuss as their bank managers politely tell them that they have nowhere to go and had better quit milking while they still have some equity in their business.

Are there any rays of hope on the horizon of this bleak landscape?

Well, it is slightly better for organic producers. At the time of writing this, the West Wales farmers co-op that supplies organic milk to Rachel’s Dairy, now owned by Lactalys, a French company with a tradition of looking after its producers, are paying a base price of 40 ppl. That’s double the conventional price, though I suspect this too will drop in the near future.

Otherwise, the prospects for non-organic dairy farmers are bleak indeed, with the leaders of the farming industry still advocating that we have no choice but to continue to ride the roller-coaster of global prices, as they foolishly believe that this is the most efficient means of regulating supply and demand.

In practical terms, this means that only when a sufficient number of dairy farms have gone out of business will the market turn and prices pick up again. A jargon label has even been invented to make the phenomenon more legitimate: it’s called ‘price volatility’! Prices will go up, there will be another surge of intensification, prices will slump, and so on and so forth.

As a result, there will be ever-fewer dairy farmers, with the industrial-style survivors producing vast quantities of commodity milk from permanently housed cows that are fed on genetically modified grains and never allowed out to pasture. This is a story that, if you knew it, would probably discourage you from wanting to buy milk at all.

A solution: fair trade milk!

The BBC’s Today Programme has covered this twice over the last few days. In the first discussion I heard Meurig Raymond, President of the National Farmers Union, and David Handley, Chairman of Farmers for Action (a French-style blockade-the-supermarkets group), bemoaning this bleak situation.

But when the presenter asked them what could be done about it, neither of them really had an answer, apart from blaming the supermarkets for the ongoing price wars. But is there the slightest chance that the supermarkets will change their practices when they too are engaged in a struggle for the survival of the ‘fittest’ – in this case currently Aldi and Lidl?

I thought not, so after the programme I rang up the editor and suggested that the only way to improve the financial fortunes of dairy farmers will be through the emergence of some kind of public contract, perhaps based on the principles of fair trade, where consumers can buy milk and dairy products knowing the price the farmer has been paid is equitable and fair.

Interestingly they ran another piece on the Today Programme in which fair trade was mentioned, but there was no clear call for action. So here’s what I think could be done: why not introduce a fair trade label for milk?

I’d be very interested to know what the UK Fairtrade Foundation thinks about this idea. Since about 10 years ago, when I was at the Soil Association, we did try to develop a fair trade organic label, but when we approached the Fairtrade Foundation we received a clear message which I can roughly summarise as:

“Fairtrade is about tea, coffee and bananas produced by peasant farmers in developing countries, not featherbedded, heavily subsidised, rich European producers!”

At the time, we backed off – mistakenly in my view, with the benefit of hindsight – as we didn’t want to pick a public fight with those guys.

Fair trade should begin at home

But it still seems to me that fair trade should start at home and that means using our purchasing power right now to support all those beleaguered small family dairy farms on the edge of a precipice, through the introduction of a fair trade milk scheme which gives them a guaranteed fair price, providing their production systems are ethical.

If we don’t do this the family farms will disappear simply to be replaced by ever-larger industrialised farms where the cows are put under ever-more pressure to produce milk yields beyond their metabolic limits. So, let’s challenge the various certification organisations to introduce a fair trade milk label, with some conditions for entry!

In my opinion the scheme should be restricted to farmers with herds of fewer than 400 cows. That’s because the cows should be required to graze pastures during the summer season and larger herds need more land to graze, which means the distances they have to walk night and morning become excessive. There would also be other restrictions that would ensure the story behind the fair-trade mark met with customer expectations.

In parallel with the introduction of such a label, there needs to be a proper investigation into the true cost of environmentally and socially sustainable dairy farming.

That way we can come up with an objective price for milk production that avoids damaging environmental and human health consequences, while at the same time preserving natural capital, avoiding pollution and promoting public health.

This is a project that the Sustainable Food Trust will champion as part of our True Cost Accounting initiative.

But in the meantime, it should be relatively simple to come up with a minimum price based on existing research on the cost of production and linking this to any agreed ethical, welfare and environmental criteria.

 


 

Patrick Holden is the founding director of the Sustainable Food Trust, working internationally to accelerate the transition towards more sustainable food systems. He is also Patron of the UK Biodynamic Association and was awarded the CBE for services to organic farming in 2005.

This article was originally published by the Sustainable Food Trust.

Photo: Steph French.

 




389304

Greens overtake UKIP and Libdems – over 4,000 new members in 2 days! Updated for 2026





Massive media exposure over the televised debates for the 2015 election has propelled Green Party membership forward by 4,043 people in 48 hours to reach a total of 44,713.

This now puts membership of the UK’s three Green parties ahead of both UKIP, which claimed 41,514 members on Monday this week, and the LibDems, who claimed 44,576 members as of November 2015.

Back in April 2014 the LibDems reported a “membership surge” with numbers rising by about 1,000 a year – but now the Greens have gained four as many members in two days.

The Green Party of England and Wales now has 36,687 members, and (this morning’s figures) the Scottish Greens have 8,026 members and the Green Party in Northern Ireland has 322 members.

The Greens defeated the LibDems in the 2014 Euro-elections and are now polling at their highest levels ahead of a General Election since 1989, a breakthrough year in which they won 15% of the vote in the Euro-elections.

TV debate debate works to Green advantage

The #Greensurge gathered new momentum as the political controversy over Green participation in the pre-election TV debates ran as yesterday’s top Westminster story on the BBC and other news outlets.

Last week Ofcom made a provisional decision to exclude the Green Party from the general election debates. However the Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the decision as unjust and pledged that he would not participate so long as the Greens were excluded.

Cameron and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, clashed on the issue at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Miliband accused Cameron of making a “pathetic excuse” for not participating: “He has run out of excuses, he is running scared of these debates and in the words of his heroine Margaret Thatcher ‘he is frit’.”

But Cameron retorted: “You cannot have two minor parties taking place without the third minor party … Why’s he so chicken when he comes to the Greens? … When he looks at the Green Party, why’s he so scared?”

The argument carries conviction since the Greens are committed to a number of left-wing policies – including the return of private public service monopolies such as railways to the public sector, and the launch of a reflationary ‘Green New Deal’ – which most Labour supporters would love to see Miliband adopt.

Miliband evades the real debate

Miliband also refused to discuss the substantive question of whether the Greens should be in the pre-election debate, despite being challenged to support the Greens by their leader Natalie Bennett.

“Staging the debates without the Prime Minister might score a point but would not serve the public, who rightly expect the political parties and the broadcasters to find a format that is acceptable to all concerned”, Bennett wrote to the three party leaders.

“As a substantial majority of the British public would like to see the Green Party included in the debates, an alternative way forward would be for you to agree to this. This is the way forward which serves both democracy and the electorate best.”

On 13th January YouGov revealed polling that puts the Green Party of England and Wales at second place among 18-24 year-olds, tied with the Conservatives on 22% – comfortably ahead of both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

Its polls have also shown the Green and LibDems roughly tied for fourth place for voting intention for several months, with the latest poll putting the Greens at 7% compared to the LibDems at 6%. YouGov polling also shows strong public support for the Greens joining the debates

The Green Party of England and Wales is standing candidates in at least 75% of seats in May 2015 – 50% up on 2010.

 


 

Join the Green Party of England & Wales.

 




389101

Shell finally pays out £55 million over Nigeria oil spills Updated for 2026





Six years after two oil spills destroyed thousands of livelihoods in the Bodo area of the Niger Delta, legal action in the UK has driven Shell to make an out-of-court settlement of £55m to compensate the affected community.

The £55m will be split between £35m for 15,600 individuals and £20m for the community.

The  compensation is an important but long-overdue victory for the victims of corporate negligence, said Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development:

“While the pay-out is a long awaited victory for the thousands of people who lost their livelihoods in Bodo, it shouldn’t have taken six years to get anything close to fair compensation”, said Audrey Gaughran, Director of Global Issues at Amnesty International.

“In effect, Shell knew that Bodo was an accident waiting to happen. It took no effective action to stop it, then it made false claims about the amount of oil that had been spilt. If Shell had not been forced to disclose this information as part of the UK legal action, the people of Bodo would have been completely swindled.”

Mutiu Sunmonu, Managing Director of Shell’s operating company in Nigeria, said: “From the outset, we’ve accepted responsibility for the two deeply regrettable operational spills in Bodo. We’ve always wanted to compensate the community fairly and we are pleased to have reached agreement.”

But the pollution remains today

The wait has taken its toll on Bodo residents, many of whom had their fishing and farming livelihoods destroyed in the spill. Throughout this time they have had to live with the ongoing pollution and, without compensation, many have faced grinding poverty.

“The compensation is a step towards justice for the people of Bodo”, said Styvn Obodoekwe, Director of Programmes of the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD).

“But justice will be fully achieved when Shell properly cleans up the heavily polluted creeks and swamps so that those who rely on fishing and farming for their income can begin to rebuild their livelihoods”

Shell has always accepted that the two 2008 Bodo oil spills were the fault of failures on the company’s pipeline at Bodo, but publically – and repeatedly – claimed that the volume of oil spilt was approximately 4,000 barrels for both spills combined, even though the spills went on for weeks.

But in 2012 Amnesty International, using an independent assessment of video footage of the first oil spill, calculated that the total amount of oil split exceeded 100,000 barrels for this spill alone.

Shell is “fully committed to the clean-up process”, said Sunmonu. “Despite delays caused by divisions within the community, we are pleased that clean-up work will soon begin now that a plan has been agreed with the community.”

Court action forces Shell to disclose the ugly truth

During the legal action in the UK, Shell had to finally admit that its figures were wrong and it had underestimated the amount of oil spilt in both of the Bodo cases. However Shell has still not confirmed how much oil was actually spilt.

During the legal process Shell was also forced to reveal that it had been aware, at least since 2002, that most of its oil pipelines were old, and some sections contained “major risk and hazard”. In a 2002 document Shell stated that outright replacement of pipelines was necessary because of extensive corrosion.

As far as Amnesty International and CEHRD are aware, Shell took no action despite having this information years before the Bodo leaks. Shell repeatedly blames illegal activity in the Niger Delta for most oil pollution but its claims have been discredited in research by Amnesty International and CEHRD.

An internal Shell email from 2009 revealed that Shell knew it was exposed over spills in Ogoniland – where Bodo is situated; the email stated “the pipelines in Ogoniland have not been maintained properly or integrity assessed for over 15 years”.

“I am very happy that Shell has finally taken responsibility for its action”, says Pastor Christian Kpandei, a Bodo fish farmer, whose fish farm was destroyed by the oil spill. “I’d like to thank the lawyers for compelling Shell to make this unprecedented move.”

But thousands more people remain at risk of future oil spills because of Shell’s failure to fix its ageing and dilapidated pipelines. Hundreds of oil spills from Shell’s pipelines occur every year.

Background

Two oil spills occurred at Bodo in the Niger Delta in 2008, the first in August and the second in December. Amnesty International and CEHRD have worked on the Bodo spills case since 2008, supporting the community to secure compensation and clean up.

In 2011, the people of Bodo, represented by UK law firm Leigh Day, began court proceedings in the UK against the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria.

“Oil pollution in the Niger Delta is one of the biggest corporate scandals of our time”, said Audrey Gaughran. “Shell needs to provide proper compensation, clear up the mess and make the pipelines safer, rather than fighting a slick PR campaign to dodge all responsibility.”

But Sumonu insisted: “Unless real action is taken to end the scourge of oil theft and illegal refining, which remains the main cause of environmental pollution and is the real tragedy of the Niger Delta, areas that are cleaned up will simply become re-impacted through these illegal activities.”

 


 

Principal source: Amnesty International.

 




388690

MH17 investigation – geopolitics triumphs over truth and justice Updated for 2026





On 17 July 2014 Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine.

Although the precise circumstances were at that point unknown the western media were quick to blame Ukrainian ‘rebels’. The means by which MH17 was destroyed, the media alleged, was a surface to air BUK missile supplied to the ‘rebels’ by Russia.

For a host of reasons it was almost certainly not a BUK missile that caused the crash. The stage was set however, for a demonization of Russia in general as the alleged supplier of the missile, and President Vladimir Putin in particular.

The relentless propaganda enforcing this view has continued unabated to this day, although the evidential foundation for the allegations remains at best remote.

First the verdict … and hide the evidence

The Russians produced an initial denial of involvement. Four days after the tragedy however, as anti-Russian hysteria was escalating to extreme levels, the Russian military held a press presentation. The fact of this presentation was barely reported in the western media. The content, more importantly, was either ignored or misrepresented.

The Russians disclosed, inter alia, their radar and satellite data. These data showed that MH17 had been diverted from its scheduled route so that it flew directly over the war zone in eastern Ukraine. They asked for an explanation but one has never been forthcoming.

These data also showed that MH17 had been shadowed during its last minutes by two SU25 fighter jets, a model flown by the Ukrainian air force. Again the Russians asked why this had happened.

The main response was a claim that the SU25 could not fly above 10,000 metres. Not only is this untrue, as an examination of military resources readily demonstrates, but the Wikipedia entry on the SU25 had been altered days before the shoot down to claim that the SU25’s operating ceiling was only 7,000 metres. Again the western media ignored this obvious alarm bell.

The Russians further disclosed that at the precise time of the shoot down an American spy satellite was directly overhead the scene and would have recorded the sequence of events.

The Russians invited the Americans to share these data with the official investigation that had been launched, but to date the Americans have failed to do so. Again, the western media are singularly incurious as to the reason for this lack of cooperation.

IATA rules misapplied to excldue Malaysia

Under IATA Rules, the parties responsible for the investigation would be the Malaysians, as owners of the plane and home country of the airline, and the Ukrainians over whose territory the atrocity occurred.

It was the Dutch however, who took the lead role, citing two facts: the plane had departed from Amsterdam; and they had suffered the largest number of their nationals as victims.

The Malaysians were initially excluded from the inquiry for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained. They were finally invited to join the Joint Inquiry on 2 December 2014.

Instead, the initial inquiry group consisted of Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium. The Australians suffered the third largest loss of life but had no standing to be one of the investigatory nations, and certainly less of a claim than the Malaysians.

The Australian Prime Minister and some other politicians had been at the forefront of making extreme allegations against Russia and President Putin. Why Belgium was included remains a mystery.

Secret agreement gives Ukraine a veto on the findings

On 8 August 2014 these four investigating nations signed an agreement that the results of the investigation would not be published unless all four countries agreed.

This gave one of the prime suspects in the atrocity, Ukraine, an effective veto over any investigations result that attributed blame to them. This is an astonishing situation and probably without precedent in modern air crash investigations.

More significantly however, is that the existence of this secret agreement was not announced by the Australian government, nor to the best of my knowledge has any report about the existence of the agreement or its extraordinary terms, been published in any mainstream publication.

The Dutch magazine Elsevier, under Dutch Freedom of Information laws, sought a copy of the agreement. On 19 November they announced that the request had been refused on the grounds that it “could endanger the relations with other countries involved.”

An Australian citizen (name redacted) wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss) seeking a copy of the agreement. By letter dated 15 October 2014 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) replied on behalf of the Minister, refusing the requester a copy of the agreement as its contents were “classified”.

The present writer wrote to DFAT on 21 August 2014 seeking a copy of the agreement of 8 August 2014 under the Freedom of Information Act. The department declaimed responsibility and said that they had passed my request on to the Attorney-General’s Department.

Australia’s federal police refuse FOI request

This was odd, but even odder was advice from the Attorney General that my request had been passed in turn to the Australian Federal Police who were the responsible body.

This must be the first time in Australian history since 1901 that negotiations and agreements between sovereign nations had been conducted on Australia’s behalf by the Federal Police.

On 2 December 2014 the Australian Federal Police finally gave their decision on the FOI request. It was declined on the basis that disclosure of the document (which they acknowledged existed) under section 33 would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:

  • (i) the security of the Commonwealth; or
  • (ii) the defence of the Commonwealth; or
  • (iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth

The refusal also relied upon section 37(1)(a) of the Act which exempts a document if it could reasonably be said to prejudice the conduct of an investigation.

Thirdly, the Federal Police relied upon section 37(1) (c) where disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a person.

The fourth ground of refusal was under section 37(2)(b) which exempts disclosure where it might reasonably be expected to prejudice an investigation by disclosing methods of investigation or detection of unlawful activity.

In the circumstances of this case it is very difficult to see how any of those provisions would apply. The agreement, it should be remembered, is to give any one of the four investigating countries a veto over publication of the results. A final report would be entitled to withhold details of the investigation that would truly prejudice matters of national security.

An investigation of a crash of an aeroplane is however, carried out under IATA Rules and its procedures are well established and well documented. Whose life or safety might be endangered by releasing the agreement is unspecified.

Geopolitics trumps justice

One is left with the conclusion that 33 (iii) is the real ground and the ‘international relations’ referred to are the difficulty Australia and other nations have got themselves into by prematurely blaming Russia when all of the emerging evidence points squarely at Ukraine.

Given the existence of this agreement it is difficult to see how anyone can have any confidence in whatever final report is published by the Dutch. The preliminary report was careful not to apportion blame or even state the cause of the crash other than to say that the plane was hit a by a large number of “high velocity objects” which were undefined.

Another major question is why have the mainstream media kept up a barrage of misinformation up to and including the recent G20 debacle, when they know, or ought to know that the investigation is a sham?

It is also difficult to see how the continued demonization of Russia and Mr Putin for manifestly geo-political reasons (and the probable reasons for the shoot down in the first place) represents any form of justice for the families of the 298 victims and in particular the 37 who were Australian citizens or residents.

It is clear that the Government’s professed support for Security Council Resolution 2116 (2014) for a “full, thorough, and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines” is no more than window dressing for a much wider geopolitical agenda.

 


 

James O’Neill is a former academic who has practiced as a barrister for the past 30 years. He has a special interest in international human rights issues. He may be contacted at j.oneill@bigpond.net.au

 

 




388399

All over the world, renewables are beating nuclear Updated for 2026





With many of the UK’s old nuclear power plants off-line due to faults and prospects for their ultimate replacement looking decidedly shaky, it is good that the renewable energy alternatives are moving ahead rapidly.

In 2013 nuclear supplied around 18% of UK electricity but in the third quarter of 2014, nuclear output fell 16.2% due to outages, while renewable output, which had reached 16.8% of electricity in the second quarter of 2014, was up 26%, over the previous year.

Indeed, there were periods in 2014 when wind alone met up to 15% of UK power demand, over-taking nuclear, and it even briefly achieved 24%.

What next? The financial woes of French developers Areva and EDF may mean that their £24 billion 3.4 GW Hinkley nuclear project, despite being heavily subsidised by British taxpayers and consumers, will get delayed or even halted, unless China or the Saudis bail it out.

Meanwhile, wind has reached 11GW, with 4GW of it offshore, solar is at 5GW and rising, with many new projects in the pipeline. By 2020 we may have 30GW of wind generation capacity and perhaps up to 20GW of solar.

Renewables get cheaper, nuclear gets more expensive

It’s true that this will require subsidies, but the technology is getting cheaper and by the time Hinkley is built, if it ever is, the Contact for a Difference (CfD) subsidy for on-land wind, and maybe even for solar, will be lower than that offered to the Hinkley developers (£92.5/MWh).

Indeed some say solar won’t need any subsidies in the 2020s. While offshore wind projects could be going ahead with CfD contracts below £100 / MWh, and without the £10 billion loan guarantee that Hinkley has been given.

The simple message is that renewables are getting cheaper and more competitive, while nuclear remains expensive, and its cost may well rise – requiring further subsidies.

The completion of the much delayed EPR at Flamanville, similar to the Hinkley design, has been put back by yet another year, to 2017, putting it even more over-budget.

The EPR being built in Finland, work on which started in 2005, and which was originally scheduled to go live in 2009, is now not likely to be completed until late 2018. It’s now almost twice over budget.

It’s hardly surprising then that most of the major EU power companies and utilities have backed away from nuclear, including SSE, RWE and Siemens, and most recently E.ON, in favour of renewables.

And globally it seems clear that renewables are winning out just about everywhere. They now supply over 19% of global primary energy and 22% or more of global electricity. By contrast nuclear is at around 11% and falling.

Country by country, renewables are taking over the world

Looking to the future, there are scenarios for India, Japan, South Korea, the USA and the EU, looking to renewables to supply most of their electricity, with Germany and Denmark of course already acting on them – Germany is aiming to get at least 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2050, Denmark 100%.

For example, a WWF report says China could get 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2050, at far less cost than relying on coal, and enabling China’s to cut its carbon emissions from power generation by 90% without compromising the reliability of the electric grid or slowing economic growth. And with no need for new nuclear.

Although renewables are not as developed as in China, India has been pushing them quite hard, with wind at nearly 20GW, on top of 39GW of existing large hydro. PV is at 2.6 GW grid-linked so far, but Bridge to India is pushing for 100GW by 2020.

Funding problems and policy changes have bedeviled the development of renewables in India, as have weak grids, with some saying that off-grid or mini grid community projects ought to be the focus.

The new government in India certainly faces some challenges. But WWF / TERI have produced an ambitious ‘near 100%’ by 2050 renewables scenario, with over 1,000GW each of wind and solar, plus major biomass use.

The US has now gets near 15% of its electricity from renewables, with wind power projects booming, and Obama’s policy of cutting emissions from coal plants by 30% by 2030 should speed that up. The US National Renewable Energy Lab has developed scenarios showing that the US could potentially generate 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2050.

In Japan renewables had been given a low priority, but following Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan is now pushing ahead with some ambitious offshore wind projects, using floating wind turbines, and a large PV programme.

Overall, Japan has given the go-ahead to over 70 GW of renewable energy projects, most of which are solar. Longer term, a ‘100% by 2050′ ISEP renewables scenario has around 50GW of wind, much of it offshore, and 140GW of PV.

Rapid progress is being made in South America, although less so as yet in most of Africa. But the International Renewable Energy Agency says that Africa has the potential and the ability to utilise its renewable resources to fuel the majority of its future growth.

Yet the UK remains firmly stuck in a 1950s vision of the future

Back in the UK though, we have our large nuclear programme, with EDF one of the main backers. It can’t build any plants in France (which is cutting nuclear back by 25%), but the UK seems to be willing to host several – and pay heavily for them!

Similarly, Hitachi and Toshiba stand no chance of building new plants in Japan, but the UK is offering significant long-term subsidies and loan guarantees for their proposed UK projects. A far better deal than being offered to renewables.

Here the main focus seems to be on why we can’t afford offshore wind, or accept on-land wind, or live with large solar farms.

We struggle on – now generating over 15% of UK electricity from renewables, but far behind most of the rest of the EU, and especially the leaders, with some already having achieved their 2020 targets, nearly all of which were set higher than that for the UK.

In fact, despite having probably the largest potential of any EU country, we are still only beating Luxembourg and Malta.

It’s embarrassing …

 


 

David Elliott is Emeritus Professor of Technology Policy at the Open University.

Book: David’s latest book, ‘Renewables: a review of sustainable energy supply options’ is available from the Institute of Physics and the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment.

 

 




388356

Over 268,000 tonnes of ocean plastic – neglect it at our peril Updated for 2026





There are at least 268,000 tonnes of plastic floating around in the oceans, according to new research by a global team of scientists.

The world generates 288m tonnes of plastic worldwide each year – just a little more than the annual vegetable crop – yet using current methods only 0.1% of it is found at sea.

The new research illustrates as much as anything, how little we know about the fate of plastic waste in the ocean once we have thrown it ‘away’.

Where does it go? Into the food chain …

Most obviously, this discarded plastic exists as the unsightly debris we see washed ashore on our beaches.

These large chunks of plastic are bad news for sea creatures which aren’t used to them. Turtles, for instance, consume plastic bags, mistaking them for jellyfish.

In Hawaii’s outer islands the Laysan albatross feeds material skimmed from the sea surface to its chicks. Although adults can regurgitate ingested plastic, their chicks cannot. Young albatrosses are often found dead with stomachs full of bottle tops, lighters and other plastic debris, having starved to death.

But these big, visible impacts may just be the tip of the iceberg. Smaller plastic chunks less than 2.5mm across – broken down bits of larger debris – are ubiquitous in zooplankton samples from the eastern Pacific.

In some regions of the central Pacific there is now six times as much plankton-sized plastic are there is plankton. Plankton-eating birds, fish and whales have a tough time telling the two apart, often mistaking this plastic – especially tan coloured particles – for krill.

The smaller the pieces, the worse they get

However, even this doesn’t quite tell the whole story. For technical reasons Eriksen and his team weren’t able to consider the very smallest particles – but these may be the most harmful of all.

We’re talking here about tiny lumps of 0.5mm across or considerably less, usually invisible to the naked eye, which often originate in cosmetics or drugs containing nanoparticles or microbeads.

Such nanoparticles matter as they are similar size to the smallest forms of plankton (pico and nano plankton) which are the most abundant plankton group and biggest contributors in terms of biomass and contribution to primary production. There’s a lot going on when you zoom right in.

We don’t yet know precisely how plastic nanoparticles interact with marine fauna but we do know that they can be absorbed at the level of individual cells.

And what’s worse is they’re very efficient carriers of organic molecules such as estradiol, the drug used for birth control and IVF that finds it way through our sewage system into the sea.

Indeed, this efficiency is one of the reasons nanoparticles are being explored for drug delivery – they’re a great way to get the right medicine absorbed into the right cells.

Therefore it isn’t just the plastic itself that should concern us. We need to look at what it’s carrying, as substances clinging to nanoparticles of plastic could badly damage marine ecosystems.

A problem we neglect at our peril

Nasty endocrine disrupting chemicals can be concentrated a million times more than background levels on the surfaces of plastic particles. These can then be ingested by organisms and the chemicals absorbed leading to disruption of the reproductive process – some species such as bivalve mussels have even seen males turned into females.

Floating chunks of plastic can also be colonised by organisms including potential bacterial pathogens such as cholera, and marine insect sea skaters which need a hard surface to lay their eggs on – plastic in the sea increases their numbers and range.

The fact that floating plastic debris is novel and persists for longer than most natural flotsam could make them ideal vehicles for the introduction of invasive species with potentially devastating consequences.

Plastic pollution of the marine environment is the Cinderella of global issues, garnering less attention than its ugly sisters climate change, acidification, fisheries, invasive species or food waste but it has links to them all and merits greater attention by the scientific community.

 


 

Magnus Johnson is Senior Lecturer Environmental Marine Biology at the University of Hull.

Melanie Coull is a PhD researcher in Environmental Marine Biology at the University of Hull.

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

The Conversation

 




384974

Move over big power – the micropower revolution is here! Updated for 2026





There is no shortage of shouting and dire warnings about the state of the climate and our need to phase out fossil fuels. But there is a more silent revolution happening too – in micropower.

Small-scale electricity generation is slowly replacing big fossil-fuel driven power plants, which are currently the world’s single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

These micro-electricity producers are relatively small scale, inexpensive, and most importantly, produce little to no carbon emissions. Last year micropower contributed to around a quarter of the world’s electricity, up from 10% in 2000.

What is micropower?

Rooftop solar may be the first thing that springs to mind, but micropower is much more than just solar panels on roofs. The definition of micropower can sometimes be confusing. Amory Lovins and his coauthors discuss this in The Economist‘s 2002 book of the year Small Is Profitable and define micropower as all renewables except big hydro.

This definition of micropower thus includes wind farms, even though these can be quite large, because of the scalable (you can plant more or less wind turbines), rapidly deployable, and distributed nature of the individual units.

It does not, however, include hydropower plants larger than 50 megawatts or nuclear power plants, even though these are low- or no-carbon.

Most recently, the Rocky Mountain Institute has included industry sales data of cogeneration power plants in its analysis of micropower trends.

Cogeneration on the rise

In essence, cogeneration uses energy twice – once to produce electricity, and a second time as heat. It is often referred to as combined heat and power. By producing heat for buildings and houses, cogeneration is much more efficient than even thermal plants, which only generate electricity.

Cogeneration has risen dramatically in the past 15 years, but is often overlooked in estimates of energy production. It comes in a variety of forms and can even use waste gases from agriculture and industrial production.

An even more efficient process is sometimes called trigeneration, producing both heating and cooling. Have you ever seen those mysterious plumes of steam rising from manhole covers in New York, in films like Martin Scorcese’s Taxi Driver? Much of that steam comes from New York’s steam system, which is used to heat and cool buildings in Manhattan.

Trigeneration can convert as much as 93% of fuel into useful energy.

Although many cogeneration plants still rely on natural gas for power, they produces roughly 40% less greenhouse gas than a coal plant. While many environmentalists advocate an immediate switch to renewables, others argue that natural gas is providing a lower-carbon ‘bridge’ while the use of renewables can be scaled up.

Grids are going micro too

It’s not just power plants that are going micro. Micro-grids are being built all over the world, both to increase energy efficiency and to provide adaptable and resilient power in the case of major storms or natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy. This is particularly important as extreme weather events are likely to increase due to global warming.

These micro-grids, which typically incorporate renewables and cogeneration, are designed to be able to operate independently of the main power grid. If disaster strikes, they can produce islands of power to critical facilities such as police, fire services and hospitals.

While more than 260 such projects are planned or operating in the United States, Connecticut has become the first state to role out a statewide pilot. Micro-grids aren’t just helpful during natural disasters – they avoid long-distance transmission, so can reduce line energy losses which can reach as high as 20%.

Cities, and the way they are powered, will undoubtedly play a huge role in the transition to a sustainable and resilient energy future. New York has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% since 2005. This is partly from an increased use of cogeneration and natural gas, and upgraded city operations using cleaner vehicles.

In fact, while ‘going green’ often conjures up images of Arcadian off-grid living, New Yorkers have the smallest carbon footprint in America. They generate less than 30% of the average national emissions. Compact cities are more energy efficient for a host of reasons, and as many have pointed out, the way to a green future isn’t urban sprawl.

The central power plants that dominated the 20th century energy landscape are seeing their market share in energy generation fall rapidly. New power plants are becoming smaller, scale-able and more efficient, as renewables and cogeneration continue to increase their production share.

The past and future of micropower

In many ways the rapid growth of micropower is a back to the future scenario.

In 1882, Thomas Edison’s famous Pearl Street plant began generating heat and electricity for lower Manhattan. Natural Geographic has a wonderful explorable infographic about the way “power pulses, information flies, and steam flows” below the streets of New York.

Thomas Edison envisioned similar systems to provide local power and heat into the future. Power grids and centralised power plants changed all that, and the 20th century seemed to prove Edison wrong.

But clearly things have changed since then, as micro-power’s market share pushes upwards. Technological innovation, changes in energy production and extraction, and public concern over climate change and natural disasters have helped power the revolution.

We certainly aren’t in the clear yet, and the world desperately needs a global climate agreement. The future may still be cloudy, despite the groundbreaking deal between the US and China.

But the micropower revolution bodes well for a resilient, secure, and low-carbon energy future. Perhaps every cloud does have a silver lining.

 


 

Morgan Saletta is a Doctoral Candidate in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne. A trained anthropologist and historian of science, his research interests include the Neolithic transition in Europe, transnational environmental history (particularly in the Pacific and Indian Ocean worlds), as well as the many interactions between science, technology and society. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

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

The Conversation

 




383794

Hinkley C hit by surprise treble whammy – is it all over for EDF? Updated for 2026





I am beginning to feel a bit like the Kremlinologists of old, who used to try to work out what was really going on in the heart of the massive Soviet empire – the Kremlin – from the crumbs of news or gnomic statements that emerged from the edifice.

Except the focus is (as the Financial Times christened it) the biggest and most controversial infrastructure project in Europe, Hinkley Point C nuclear power project.

Given UK consumers are on the hook for an undiscounted £37billion of subsidy to this project, you’d think democratic principles would require that all developments were subject to full public scrutiny.

But no – it’s all happening behind closed doors and we have to do the Kremlinology thing. 

A few new scraps of information have emerged that do suggest the project is far from going swimmingly. There are three main points.

The EPR – a turkey that may never fly

First, the reactor design, the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR) isn’t very good. A nuclear engineer now affiliated to University of Cambridge recently described it as unconstructable.

Further understanding of the weakness of the EPR design come from the actual experience of trying to build it. The French project in Flamanville has announced further delays and will now take a decade to build instead of the original timetable of five years.

The other EPR under construction in Europe is in Finland at Olkiluoto. Construction started in 2005 was originally scheduled complete in 2009, but earlier this Autumn it was announced it will now be almost a decade late in 2018, if there are no more delays. It’s not easy building an EPR.

Secondly, the other observation the Cambridge engineer had was that the Chinese – who are experimenting with building several models of reactor – appear to have rejected it for their future nuclear programme.

This is a little hard to square with what the Chinese view of the Hinkley project is, because the Chinese state-backed companies China General Nuclear and China National Nuclear Corporation reportedly want a greater share of the supply chain contracts.

Presumably because they anticipate the skills that would be developed would be transferrable to other nuclear designs / engineering, but if anyone can shed any light on this thinking I’d be glad to know.

The Chinese are playing sufficiently hard-ball that an industry source has told The Times “We are desperate. The Chinese are not going to invest in Hinkley Point unless they get a supply chain.”

However a key justification (presumably) for the French Government in standing behind the companies EDF and Areva who are developing and deploying the EPR is getting some employment in the French nuclear sector. They cannot be happy about the Chinese wanting to pinch some of those jobs as part of the funding negotiations.

So in turn this means that EDF are turning to other potential investors such as Saudi Arabian state-controlled Saudi Electric. Presumably having other investors and reducing the Chinese stake means more leverage in the negotiations about where those valuable supply chain jobs land.

Jobs – yes, but don’t expect them to be in the UK!

This leads to a couple of conclusions. One is that if you’re based in UK looking for some high value contracts from the Hinkley project, don’t bet the farm on getting any – the destination of those jobs will be stitched up alongside the funding arrangements, with the UK likely to lose out.

The other conclusion is around engineering standards. Questions have already been raised about the how an independent regulator would police standards with Chinese company involvement.

With the Chinese companies clearly wanting supply chain manufacturing jobs, that issue becomes more than a notional one. The challenge to the UK regulator, the Office of Nuclear Regulation, when some of the problems at Olkiluoto emerged from the production of components, is obvious. 

Thirdly, a minor investor but a significant player in the Hinkley project (10% of funding) are Areva, the reactor vendor. They are in considerable financial trouble and still face the possibility of their shares being downgraded to junk bond status by ratings agency Standard and Poor.

So the prospect of them finding around £2.4bn to fund their 10% of the project – in order to show off a design that clearly isn’t that good – has to remain in doubt, even though the French state is standing behind them.

In fact it turns out that without telling anyone, the UK government has been quietly questioning whether Hinkley will go ahead after all, or worrying if it does go ahead that it might be years late (that Kremlinology thing again).

EDF: ‘Hinkley C  will be completed on time – because I say so’

The only thing that guarantees a prompt arrival for an (allegedly) critical piece of UK energy according to The Times is “Vincent de Rivaz, EDF chief executive, providing his word that it will be on time”.

This is the same bloke who promised that Hinkley would be cooking Christmas turkeys in 2017, when now even under best case it will barely be started by then. You’d have thought the UK government would want a guarantee with slightly more teeth, but apparently not.

And in case anyone is thinking that other models of reactor might be a lot better, the first AP1000 being built in USA appears to be coming in at a cost of $6,360/kW, compared to Hinkley’s $7,600/kW, which is obviously less.

Except that notably price comparisons (although difficult) tend to show most forms of power are significantly cheaper to deliver in US than in UK, so there is good reason to think those AP1000 prices would be significantly higher this side of the Atlantic.

For all the trumpeting of a nuclear renaissance, Hinkley still looks to be as distant and expensive as ever.

 

 


 

Doug Parr is Scientific Director at Greenpeace UK.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk blog.

 




387056

Mystery drones are buzzing around French nuclear plants – should we be worried? Updated for 2026





Mysterious, seemingly coordinated, drones have appeared in the past month over a number of nuclear power stations in France. We don’t know what these flights are for or who is behind them.

But perhaps the most crucial question they raise is whether this now widespread technology poses a threat to nuclear facilities.

Drone flights were first reported over at least 13 nuclear facilities in October.

The flights have taken place mostly at night, involving drones of different sizes and capability, from smaller models that would need to be operated within the immediate vicinity to larger ones around two meters in size, which could be controlled from kilometres away.

Flights have been carried out both in isolation and concurrently, with drones flown simultaneously over nuclear facilities hundreds of miles apart.

Violating 2.5km ‘no fly’ zones with impunity

It is difficult to assess the risk posed by the recent drone flights as at this point it is unclear who is behind them and crucially what their intentions and capabilities are.

The fights are in breach of the 2.5km no-fly zones, which protect the air space around French nuclear power plants. However, nuclear operator EDF has been quick to down-play the potential threat noting, “these objects are not capable of damaging anything if they fall, nor is any object they might drop.”

Since the 1980s, French nuclear regulation has considered the risk of light aircraft crash, dictating that certain nuclear power plants had to be able to withstand a collision by an aircraft of 5.7 tonnes (the size of a small private jet).

Following 9/11 the French authorities will undoubtedly have revisited the issue. However drones themselves are relatively light and slow: a nuclear plant should easily brush off the impact of a crash.

More worryingly, drones could be used to carry explosives for detonation close to the reactor or other sensitive parts of a nuclear site, although there have been no reports to date that these drones have been carrying a malicious cargo.

Is the camera more dangerous than the gun?

Although this may seem alarming, the use of explosives to cause a radiological release or disruptive plant operations will have been assessed by nuclear operators when designing onsite security systems.

A typical reactor design includes a high strength steel pressure vessel at least a foot thick to contain the reaction and a concrete containment structure several feet thick. While this is mostly in place for safety reasons, it also brings benefits in terms of security.

That said this specific attack route – involving drones as a delivery vehicle – may not have been considered as the wide availability of this technology is a recent phenomenon.

If so France and other countries will no doubt be in the process of updating their Design Basis Threat, a restricted document that outlines the capabilities and intentions of potential adversaries and serves as a guide against which physical protection systems are designed and evaluated.

Drones could also have other malicious uses. When mounted with small cameras, they could be used to conduct reconnaissance or to test security provisions before carrying out a follow-up attack by other means.

Or they could be potentially used to drop equipment onsite to help out a malicious insider. A recent case in Belgium involving the sabotage of non-nuclear systems of a power station by an employee highlights that insiders can pose a real threat.

Greenpeace: ‘it wasn’t us!’

The malicious use of drones – although unlikely – is certainly a threat worthy of consideration. However, the actors and intentions behind the French cases still remains a mystery.

A group of three model aeroplane enthusiasts were arrested and questioned by French authorities in early November. They were allegedly about to launch a basic drone (costing around €100) in the vicinity of a power plant.

However, following their arrest the mysterious flights have continued, with reports suggesting those arrested were either copycats or just pursuing their hobby in an unfortunate location.

More likely than a malicious group being behind the flights is that they are the work of anti-nuclear pressure groups. There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving protesters breaking in to nuclear facilities to highlight inadequate security and nuclear ‘risks’.

These include a break in by more than 60 people earlier this year at a facility in France, a break in at a Swiss plant in March, and three break ins to Swedish nuclear plants over two years up to 2012.

A bumpy ride.

In 2012 a Greenpeace activist flew into the secure area surrounding a French reactor using a motorised paraglider. But a spokesperson for Greenpeace – which has denied any connection to the recent drone flights – stated at the time that “we wanted to illustrate an external danger, like a fall of an aeroplane” onto nuclear facilities.

Perhaps the use of drones represents the work of another group of activists seeking to highlight the risk that readily available drone-technology could pose to nuclear facilities.

Huge costs could be inflicted by forced shutdowns

The drone flights, as with other breaches of security involving terrorists, spies or protesters, can have important implications for the nuclear industry.

While a radiation release caused by a malicious act at a nuclear facility is unlikely, incursions and other breaches of security can impact in other ways. Events leading to outage or plant shutdown can be hugely costly.

The sabotage at the Belgian power plant, for example, along with the unrelated shutdown of two other reactors is costing the operator €40m a month.

More broadly, the reputation of operators, regulators and the whole industry is at stake when security weaknesses are highlighted.

It is for this reason that – whoever is behind the mysterious flights – it is in the interests of the nuclear industry and the French authorities to get to the bottom of the issue as soon as possible.

 


 

Christopher Hobbs is Co-Director, Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) at King’s College London. He receives funding from the UK and US Governments.

Daniel Salisbury is a PhD Student and Research Assistant at King’s College London. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

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

The Conversation

 




387036

Join us on Saturday to demand Roads Fit For Humans! Updated for 2026





A truly unique and dignified protest event will take place this Saturday on Oxford Street – The National Funeral for the Unknown Victim of Traffic Violence.

November marks the first anniversary of last year’s awful spate of six barbaric cyclist killings in London. These deaths led to a massive peaceful ‘Die-In’ protest organised by a new spontaneously formed grassroots pressure group called Stop Killing Cyclists, outside Transport for London’s HQ.

The event was broadcast all over the world. Despite this, Boris Johnson, local councils and the government have failed to make any meaningful investment in Britain’s cycling or pedestrian safety since then.

The UK spends a pathetic £2 per person on cycling safety, compared to the £28 spent per annum per person by the Dutch government.

A funeral procession for the 26,000 dead on our roads in 10 years

Stop Killing Cyclists is marking the anniversary by taking the protests to a national level, by taking a coffin mounted on a horse-drawn hearse, in a funeral procession from Bedford Square down Oxford Street to Marble Arch. (Full details below)

There, the coffin will be placed on a catafalque and the protesters will then lie down on the ground surrounding it, to represent the millions of UK pedestrians, cyclists and motorists who have been violently killed, maimed or poisoned over the last 10 years by our lethal motorised traffic culture.

This will be followed by a rally, where victims, doctors and grass-root safety campaigners will address the crowd. A coalition of pedestrian, environmental and cycling safety groups is endorsing the event.

While over 26,000 cyclists, pedestrians and motorists have been killed in UK traffic collisions over the last decade, the real death toll from our motorised traffic culture is far higher.

Transport CO2 emissions are also killing people, by their contribution to the 4 million people, as the UN estimates, that have died over the last decade due to climate change.

A litany of health damage and premature death

The NHS estimates that 50,000 people were killed by traffic pollution alone and Professor Garthwaite, from University of London, calculates that up to 400,000 may have died through physical inactivity due to lack of cycling infrastructure.

Hundreds of thousands more people across the UK are living with disabilities, lung and heart diseases caused by traffic pollution.

And finally, there is a national obesity epidemic with over 25% of adults clinically obese and 30% of children overweight or clinically obese, as millions are afraid to cycle to work or school due to the lack of cycling infrastructure.

This litany is clearly intolerable in a civilised country. There is hardly a family that the toll of death and disease from our motorised transport culture has not touched.

A report in the Lancet estimated that 4,500 lives could be saved in London alone every year if we moved to a pro-walking and cycling culture like they have in Holland. Extrapolated across the 60% of the UK that is urbanised, this would result in about 21,000 lives saved every year!

Another 60,000 people in London would be saved every year from living with disabilities. Breast cancer, heart diseases, depression and even dementia would be radically reduced.

Making roads safer for people to cycle or walk also has major equality implications. Over 50% of poorer households, 65% of pensioners and 40% of working single people do not have a car.

Whilst car-running costs have come down, public transport costs have consistently risen higher than inflation for the last decade, forcing more working people into transport poverty. Cycling and walking can help people escape such poverty, as well as increasing health and longevity.

Our demands are reasonable

The National Funeral & Die-In protest’s full 10 demands are:

  1. Stop the killing of children – set up national, multi-billion pound programme to convert residential communities across Britain into living-street Home Zones to abolish dangerous rat-runs.
  2. Stop the killing of pedestrians – establish a national programme to fund pedestrianisation of our city and town centres, including the nation’s high-street, Oxford Street.
  3. Stop the killing of pensioners from excessive speed – introduce and enforce speed limit of 20 mph on all urban roads, 40 mph on rural roads/lanes and 60 mph on all other trunk roads.
  4. Stop the killing of cyclists – invest £15 billion in a National Segregated Cycle Network over the next 5 years.
  5. Stop the killing by HGVs – ban trucks with blind spots by making safety equipment mandatory and strictly enforce current truck-safety regulations, to reduce levels of illegally dangerous trucks down from estimated 30% to less than 1%.
  6. Stop the killing without liability – introduce a presumed civil liability law on behalf of vehicular traffic when they kill or seriously injure vulnerable road-users, where there is no evidence blaming the victim.
  7. Stop the killing from lung, heart and other diseases caused by vehicular pollutants – make it mandatory for particulate filters that meet latest EU emission standards to be fitted to all existing buses, lorries and taxis.
  8. Stop the killing at junctions – introduce pedestrian crossing times long enough for elderly disabled to cross. Legalise filtered junction crossings by cyclists with strict legal priority for pedestrians and carry out urgent programme of physically protected left-hand turns for cyclists.
  9. Stop the Killing from Climate Crisis caused by CO2 emissions – all transport fuels to be from environmentally-sustainable, renewable sources within 10 years.
  10. Focus on Life! Transport governance must make safety and quality of life the top priority. Reform all council transport departments, the Department of Transport and Transport for London into Cycling, Walking and Transport Departments with formal pedestrian and cyclist representation.


The National Funeral of the Unknown Victim of Traffic Violence
is a clarion call to people across the UK to unite to bring this carnage and environmental destruction to an urgent end. It is being organised by grassroots activists and so is dependent on grassroots support.

Please help spread the word about Saturday’s protest and help make our roads fit for humans once again.

 


 

Action:

  • Please sign up on the Facebook event page to let organisers know how many people are coming.
  • If readers are members of any environmental, road safety, community groups, trade-unions, student-unions, pensioner groups etc, please ask them to email their members about the protest.

Event:

  • Gather at Bedford Square London WC1 from 12.00 noon on Saturday 15th November. WE will set off at 1pm, proceeding west along Oxford Street to Marble Arch.
  • Full details on the website: www.stopthekilling.org.

Safer Oxford Street Campaign: saferoxfordstreet.blogspot.co.uk/

Donnachadh McCarthy is a Co-founder of Stop Killing Cyclists and Co-organiser for Stop The Killing. He is a freelance eco-consultant and journalist and long-time campaigner on a range of eco-issues. His latest book is The Prostitute State.

 

 

 




366780