The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

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.

Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

Images of activists, heads in the sand, bottoms in the air, went viral last month in a ‘salute’ to governments’ policy on climate change and increased industrialisation along the Great Barrier Reef.

North Queensland Conservation Council environmentalists came up with the idea for the Get-Up! Global Day of Climate Action. Townsville organiser and local filmmaker, George Hirst says ‘salute’ was key to the idea:

“Salute was the word to hang it on, to ironically say quiet a lot, and it’s a pretty Aussie thing too. We’re not big ones for saluting anyone or anything, so we thought we’d salute the government this way.”

Getting the image right took both method and practice, added Hirst. “To make a one off image that really hits quickly and works well, firstly you had to see the shape of the body with the head going into the sand. So we set up a grid pattern to give perspective.”

Social media sends image viral

Social media sent the image viral when Australian cartoonist, Andrew Marlton (@firstdogonthemoon) and 350.org Founder Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) both retweeted the image.

Hashtag headinthesandsalute received worldwide attention, “the biggest impact was on Buzzfeed, it was the top story on Buzzfeed for well over 24 hours, then Mashable and others”, says Hirst.

“Even South African Playboy used the image, as did the British Journal of Medicine for an article on climate change as a significant medical problem.”

Hirst and 350.org advised campaigners Eden Tehan and Rex Walsh for Sydney’s Bondi Beach event ahead of the G20 summit, also New Zealand environmental group, Coal Action Network Aotearoa‘s nation-wide ‘salute’ for COP20, Lima, Peru.

Image events as protest

The Bondi Beach images, shot from a drone, had one objective – to elevate the campaign – says renewable energy entrepreneur and organiser Eden Tehan:

“There’s something about that image, yes sure it’s humorous. I find it powerful to step back and think the guys running the show may actually have their heads stuck in the sand on climate change and it’s scary … and hopefully the visual image will catch on. It’s also why we chose to not have signage or banners on the day.”

Activists found the action a sobering experience, Tehan adds. “I believe it’s an emotional statement, a strong statement, there’s nothing more hopeless than the action of doing that … there was some cheering on the day when everyone did it.

“When, I and others were there, with our heads in the sand, there was a sombre energy about it, because it’s a sad situation.”

Activism to artivism: Protest as performance art

Bondi Beach is to date the largest single #headinthesand salute, with just over 400 people taking part; and sees a growth in protest as artivism -art and activism.

#headinthesand salute captures campaigners disillusioned with marches and rallies, unwilling to risk arrest through non-violent direct action, have family or work commitments, yet still want to make a statement.

Going to beach after work, is typical Aussie behaviour, and Tehan and Walsh enticed people with the lure of a free beer from local pub sponsor to make a political statement, as Eden Tehan explains.

“I tried to get away from the protest word. When dealing with the cops we were saying it’s an attempt at public art, and I do believe that I think that image, especially the aerial one, it’s is art, it is public art with a message.”

Bondi organiser Rex Walsh added, “It’s a real return to old fashioned form of protest, in a very Australian way, where people can do it, be individual in it, but there’s collectivism as well …

“This is novel, fun, different and not going to alienate people, and that’s its strength, it has the ability to polarise itself in a sense, it’s not destructive to our way of being, there’s something connected.”

Artivism played an important role in the New Zealand and Lima protests, with around a thousand people on 12 beaches across New Zealand sending a similar message on oil and coal exports.

Organisers Coal Action Network Aotearoa media spokesperson Tim Jones says artivism offers an “element of street theatre … to the extent that we are looking for things that will both seize the imagination, and participants and also get media interest so they are visual, and artivism has that.”

CANA adapted the idea with heads in a box, at COP20. Activist Cindy Baxter tweeted: “Doing the best we can to support the Heads in the Sand campaign over here at the conference in Lima! Unfortunately, there’s no sand onsite.”

There are plans for a short documentary to keep the pressure up by inspiring more ‘salutes’ to government’s climate change policy, Hirst added.

“Hopefully the concept will carry on its own meaning on inaction and heads in the sand salute. We aim to encourage people to go to their sand pit in the backyard, or the beach, dig a hole, do it, take a photo, and send it to the Prime Minister.”

Dr Maxine Newlands is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Arts, Education & Social Sciences School of Arts & Social Sciences of James Cook University. Her research focuses on environmental politics from emissions trading, carbon tax to environmentalism, activism, protest, social justice, journalistic practices and occasionally sportsmedia. She tweets @Dr_MaxNewlands.

Hashtags: #headinthesand / #headinthesandsalute artivism raises awareness of climate change.

On 15th July the European Commission refused to accept a European Citizens Initiative (ECI) to end talks over the the TTIP and CETA, contentious trade and investment initiatives with the US and Canada.

The petition, organised by Stop TTIP, was signed by over a million citizens and passed all the Commission’s criteria for a valid ECI – except one.

The Commission didn’t like having ‘little people’ telling them what to do, specially on a project so dear to their hearts as stripping back social, environmental and health safeguards across Europe and letting US corporations rip.

So they made up a flimsy package of legal obfuscation to justify rejecting it, which they formally did on 11th September – claiming that an ECI may be formulated only positively, working towards the enactment of a legal act, not towards preventing an enactment.

Happy Birthday Mr Juncker!

But today – on Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s 60th birthday – Stop TTIP was back with a second million signature petition described as a ‘self-organised ECI’, handed to him by Stop TTIP representatives in Brussels.

John Hilary, a member of Stop TTIP’s Citizens’ Committee commented: “Stop TTIP has collected more than a million signatures in record time.

“This is especially embarrassing for the European Commission as it has tried repeatedly to block any citizens’ involvement in the way these treaties are being negotiated and what the outcome should be. Jean Claude Juncker should listen to the growing opposition and stop both treaties immediately.

“Politicians are always calling for citizens to get actively involved in European politics, and here are more than a million people who have done just that.

“On his 60th birthday, Juncker should blow out the candles on these massively unpopular and undemocratic trade deals that are opposed by people across Europe. One million signatures is just the beginning. We will continue our protest until TTIP and CETA are history.”

And don’t forget the lawsuit

In fact the required million signatures had all been collected by last Wednesday at 11.37pm – in a record time of less than two months. So by the time it was handed over today it had gathered a further 101,000 signatures!

In the process of mobilising all the signings Stop TTIP has grown into a fast-growing coalition of more than 320 civil society organisations, trade unions and consumer watchdogs from 24 EU Member States.

It has also launched a formal complaint to the European Court of Justice, pointing out that the European Citizens’ Initiative (regulation 211/2011) gives citizens the right “to participate by means of a European Citizens’ Initiative in the democratic life of the Union”.

“There is not a syllable which indicates that only constructive, i.e. positively formulated, ECIs are to be possible”, says Stop TTIP. “The instrument of an ECI is intended to enable lively participation at EU level by citizens – it is available to the citizens as a motive force or as a brake.”

The massive support for the campaign reflects the underlying agenda of TTIP and CETA, which is  would give unprecedented power to international corporations and thus threaten to overrule democracy, the rule of law as well as environmental and consumer protection.

In particular, the treaties would allow governments to be sued by corporations before private arbitration boards if their laws or policies damage the company’s profits.

We cannot let them get away with it!

With its decision on the ‘Stop TTIP’ ECI, the Commission is indicating how it envisions citizen participation at the European level: purely as an arrangement for applauding decisions which have already been made.

“In forward-looking questions, this means the following for its citizens: we have to stay outside”, says Stop TTIP. “We cannot just acquiesce to this. So the action before the European Court of Justice is about more than the registration of the Stop TTIP ECI.”

“The Commission is attempting to create a precedent in order to prevent further Citizens’ Initiatives relating to international contracts, and to give the EU institutions almost total negotiating freedom. That is a free ticket to the dismantling of democracy.”

Support TTIP with funds for its campaign and lawsuit.

Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

Images of activists, heads in the sand, bottoms in the air, went viral last month in a ‘salute’ to governments’ policy on climate change and increased industrialisation along the Great Barrier Reef.

North Queensland Conservation Council environmentalists came up with the idea for the Get-Up! Global Day of Climate Action. Townsville organiser and local filmmaker, George Hirst says ‘salute’ was key to the idea:

“Salute was the word to hang it on, to ironically say quiet a lot, and it’s a pretty Aussie thing too. We’re not big ones for saluting anyone or anything, so we thought we’d salute the government this way.”

Getting the image right took both method and practice, added Hirst. “To make a one off image that really hits quickly and works well, firstly you had to see the shape of the body with the head going into the sand. So we set up a grid pattern to give perspective.”

Social media sends image viral

Social media sent the image viral when Australian cartoonist, Andrew Marlton (@firstdogonthemoon) and 350.org Founder Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) both retweeted the image.

Hashtag headinthesandsalute received worldwide attention, “the biggest impact was on Buzzfeed, it was the top story on Buzzfeed for well over 24 hours, then Mashable and others”, says Hirst.

“Even South African Playboy used the image, as did the British Journal of Medicine for an article on climate change as a significant medical problem.”

Hirst and 350.org advised campaigners Eden Tehan and Rex Walsh for Sydney’s Bondi Beach event ahead of the G20 summit, also New Zealand environmental group, Coal Action Network Aotearoa‘s nation-wide ‘salute’ for COP20, Lima, Peru.

Image events as protest

The Bondi Beach images, shot from a drone, had one objective – to elevate the campaign – says renewable energy entrepreneur and organiser Eden Tehan:

“There’s something about that image, yes sure it’s humorous. I find it powerful to step back and think the guys running the show may actually have their heads stuck in the sand on climate change and it’s scary … and hopefully the visual image will catch on. It’s also why we chose to not have signage or banners on the day.”

Activists found the action a sobering experience, Tehan adds. “I believe it’s an emotional statement, a strong statement, there’s nothing more hopeless than the action of doing that … there was some cheering on the day when everyone did it.

“When, I and others were there, with our heads in the sand, there was a sombre energy about it, because it’s a sad situation.”

Activism to artivism: Protest as performance art

Bondi Beach is to date the largest single #headinthesand salute, with just over 400 people taking part; and sees a growth in protest as artivism -art and activism.

#headinthesand salute captures campaigners disillusioned with marches and rallies, unwilling to risk arrest through non-violent direct action, have family or work commitments, yet still want to make a statement.

Going to beach after work, is typical Aussie behaviour, and Tehan and Walsh enticed people with the lure of a free beer from local pub sponsor to make a political statement, as Eden Tehan explains.

“I tried to get away from the protest word. When dealing with the cops we were saying it’s an attempt at public art, and I do believe that I think that image, especially the aerial one, it’s is art, it is public art with a message.”

Bondi organiser Rex Walsh added, “It’s a real return to old fashioned form of protest, in a very Australian way, where people can do it, be individual in it, but there’s collectivism as well …

“This is novel, fun, different and not going to alienate people, and that’s its strength, it has the ability to polarise itself in a sense, it’s not destructive to our way of being, there’s something connected.”

Artivism played an important role in the New Zealand and Lima protests, with around a thousand people on 12 beaches across New Zealand sending a similar message on oil and coal exports.

Organisers Coal Action Network Aotearoa media spokesperson Tim Jones says artivism offers an “element of street theatre … to the extent that we are looking for things that will both seize the imagination, and participants and also get media interest so they are visual, and artivism has that.”

CANA adapted the idea with heads in a box, at COP20. Activist Cindy Baxter tweeted: “Doing the best we can to support the Heads in the Sand campaign over here at the conference in Lima! Unfortunately, there’s no sand onsite.”

There are plans for a short documentary to keep the pressure up by inspiring more ‘salutes’ to government’s climate change policy, Hirst added.

“Hopefully the concept will carry on its own meaning on inaction and heads in the sand salute. We aim to encourage people to go to their sand pit in the backyard, or the beach, dig a hole, do it, take a photo, and send it to the Prime Minister.”

Dr Maxine Newlands is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Arts, Education & Social Sciences School of Arts & Social Sciences of James Cook University. Her research focuses on environmental politics from emissions trading, carbon tax to environmentalism, activism, protest, social justice, journalistic practices and occasionally sportsmedia. She tweets @Dr_MaxNewlands.

Hashtags: #headinthesand / #headinthesandsalute artivism raises awareness of climate change.