As Director of the Human Rights Consortium’s Extreme Energy Initiative, earlier this year I was asked by local residents’ groups to provide expert testimony to the Lancashire County Council (LCC) Development Control Committee (DCC) on the human rights impacts of fracking – the controversial unconventional gas extraction technique.

The invitation came on the back of a co-authored report for the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation into the human rights impacts of fracking, reported on in The Ecologist.

My evidence was requested due to two controversial potential fracking sites, Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood, which were being proposed by fracking firm Caudrilla.

I have been studying the social and environmental impacts of fracking for over five years and I have accumulated a considerable amount of impact data which suggests that the technology and its associated infrastructure poses a significant threat to environmental human rights such as to clean water.

Moreover, the politics of fracking poses significant threats to civil and political rights, freedom of assembly and expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

While the ‘rejection’ outcomes of the Lancashire hearings rightly pleased many in the anti-fracking movement the process up to that point was deeply concerning on a number of levels that do not bode well for future applications.

Specifically, there were key areas where the applicant was clearly favoured at the expense of the views of, and evidence presented, by the local objectors and their expert witnesses.

And the deciding Councillors were effectively threatened with legal action if they refused the application. They were told that to refuse the application would be tantamount to breaking the law, as it would be an “unsustainable” decision lacking evidence, and would expose them to high appeal costs at a time when councils are austerity ravaged.

‘Biased and disrespectful’ – the Planning Officer report

The LCC Planning Officer’s report published by LCC on 15 June 2015, which is meant to provide an unbiased appraisal to assist the DCC reach a decision was, at best, fundamentally flawed and inadequately researched, and, at worst, biased and disrespectful.

Development Control Committee’s give considerable weight to planning officer reports, especially when much of an application concerns material which is both highly technical and hotly debated. Thus, the Planning Officer bears a huge responsibility to evaluate the application, via a reasoned summary of the best available evidence, in an impartial and responsible manner.

Unfortunately, in this case the planning officer reports fell so woefully short of such standards that they raise the obvious suspicion of undue political and/or industry pressure and influence.

When it came to discussing one of fracking’s most notorious issues – the health impacts on local populations – the Planning Officer’s report stated:

“Many representations received by the County Council refer to research conducted in North America and overseas that indicate shale gas extraction is linked to adverse health impacts. While much research exists, and is growing in volume each year, it is difficult to gain an objective view of the veracity of the research.

“Anti-fracking campaigners frequently point to studies that indicate increased health risks (e.g. elevated risks of cancer or birth defects) as a result of shale gas activity in North America. Conversely, pro-fracking campaigners point to numerous methodological flaws in the research.” (Public Reports Pack p.53)

At best, this is an unforgivably lazy summary from a supposedly impartial public official meant to be serving the public interest, at worst it is suggestive of a pro-fracking bias.

It is a relatively easy task to review the evidence and rank in terms of scientific value, academic rigour and independence. When negative public health impact studies appear it is routine tactical propaganda for industry and their supporters to dismiss the findings on the grounds of questionable ‘methodology’, as if it were they who gathered the data and possessed the requisite research training.

Such challenges, unlike their targets for attack, are not peer reviewed, but industry know that mud sticks and reports such as the LCC PO are evidence of that.

The report ignored and downplayed inconvenient evidence

Unfortunately the suggestion of bias just increases the more one delves into the PO’s report. It lauds the approach taken by Public Health England in its June 2014 report on fracking health impact data, citing its reliance on “peer reviewed literature” (is this the same evidence which the PO previously argued was hard to verify?).

I then uses this backing to attempt to dismiss in one fell swoop the findings of other peer reviewed research which concerned local citizens had been highlighting to the DCC in the hearings and written submissions:

‘Much of the research cited in representations to the County Council was reviewed by PHE… (who) highlight significant methodological flaws in the research that has been cited to the County Council.’

Why doesn’t the Planning Officer read the academic material cited in submissions at source rather than rely on another Public bodies’ reading of it? Or at least balance PHE’s spin by considering the obvious ‘methodological flaws’ of its own report by renowned environmental consultant Paul Mobbs, which fail to get a mention in the Planning Officer’s report. It continues:

“Moreover, one study frequently cited by objectors (McKenzie, 2014) has been publically criticised by the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in the USA as follows: ‘we disagree with many of the specific associations with the occurrence of birth defects noted within the study. Therefore, a reader of the study could easily be misled to become overly concerned.’ “

So the public must believe the pronouncements of such officials over peer reviewed academic research? This whole passage reads as is if the author has been trawling the internet looking for any half-baked repudiation of robust academic research or had he been spoon-fed the material to serve an alternative agenda?

This latter possibility seems more plausible the further one delves into the report. Going beyond simple selective reading, the PO report systematically downplayed, and sought to marginalise, the evidence presented by expert witnesses.

Attacking the Medact study

Seemingly in order to protect the definitive status afforded by the report to PHE’s summary, the Planning Officer’s report took aim at the far more rigorous Medact study. The methodology for this attack was twofold:

1) point out the Medact authors did not conduct their own original epidemiological research – which of course neither did PHE, but that wasn’t deemed injurious their report

2) to undermine and question the professional expertise and integrity of two clearly identifiable (although, tellingly, no names were mentioned) expert witnesses, Mike Hill and Dr Frank Rugman:

“The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts.

“Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report’s six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application.

“This has led to questions from some quarters about the report’s objectivity. In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.”

As a statement in a report by a supposedly impartial public official this is truly astonishing in its bias and lack of respect. It is predicated on a wilful ignorance of a researcher’s usual goal: when conducting research it is hoped that the data will in fact allow one to hold “firm views” based on analysis of the data produced when concluding.

Such a result makes it possible to give advice on the best course of action, to have a policy impact and such like. A valid question would be: do the ‘firm views’ flow from the evidence considered? Having read the Medact report, and much of the source evidence it considers, I would say unequivocally yes and so would any unbiased observer in my view.

We can also reasonably ask why an alleged “high profile campaign” by the first contributing expert mentioned (Mr Hill) should “unfortunately” reduce the weight given to his evidence? If Mr Hill feels compelled to speak out in the public interest based on his knowledge and expertise then that is his right and moral duty. Or do we now live in a world where we can only hold ‘firm views’ and speak out if we are blindly following corporate agendas?

Meticulously assembled evidence dismissed as ‘anecdote’

Another expert witness, Professor David Smythe, appalled by this approach, has requested the source of the “questions from some quarters” under Freedom of Information Legislation. Whatever the outcome such statements should not appear in an objective and balanced planning report and only serve to further undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of public authorities.

In a section, counter-factually, entitled ‘Minimal environmental risks’ the detailed, meticulously researched and closely argued 30,000 word submission of Emeritus Professor David Smythe is reduced to the status of mere anecdotal ‘comments’ and described thus:

“Comments that the geology of Lancashire is not suitable for fracking have been provided by a professor who retired 18 years ago and is now living in France running a B&B. Evidence in the US and UK is to the contrary.“

This is no passive, benign summary but intentionally disparaging and erroneous rhetoric. To say that such commentary has no place in a supposedly impartial planning report is a huge understatement. In a subsequent submission to the LCC, objecting to this personal attack Professor Smythe rightly described the comment as “outrageous”:

“I am clearly identifiable. It is a calculated denigration of an expert witness. I took early retirement from the Chair of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow some 16 years ago, and spent around a decade from 2001 onwards consulting for a variety of oil companies.

“Projects lasted from a few weeks to a couple of years, involving studies of onshore and offshore India, Western Australia, offshore Madagascar, southern England (both onshore and offshore), and the UK-Irish margin of the NE Atlantic (during this period my wife, not I, ran a B&B for about three years).

“I have requested information from LCC under FOI legislation to discover the origin of the statement quoted above, as I have been unable to find it elsewhere in the published application documents.”

So the PO report dismissed the health impact data and analysis along with the serious concerns associated with the specific geology of the area. But what of the antecedents of the applicant on their prior sites? Surely that is worth considering in the public interest? Apparently not. The report stated that:

“Some of the objections maintain that planning permission should not be granted in view of the alleged poor track record of the applicant when carrying out operations at other sites within its control. With regard to the applicant’s previous operations and compliance with planning permissions a planning permission goes with the land rather than with the applicant and it is right to assume that the applicant would comply with conditions attached to any planning permission.”

So the public should feel safe in the knowledge that the PO simply assumes the applicant will start behaving.

More pro-fracking bias

When it came to dealing with representations from the public, on the New Road application the PO listed 11,127 letters of objection and only 200 in support. However, the report then deconstructed the objection letters into ‘individual’ (827) and ‘template’ letters, the clear implication being that only individual letters are valid. The same treatment was not given to the support letters. Why, I wonder?

A further example of pro-applicant bias can be seen in the PO report’s consideration of the ‘global warming potential’ of the Lancashire applications.

In the absence of a meaningful decarbonising national strategy we can only hope that planning authorities vet planning applications and pay particular attention to likely application greenhouse gas emissions and seek to protect the public interest.

Indeed, planning decisions must take account of the need to reduce GHG emissions but the fracking applications if they had passed would have increased emissions. The PO report, however, suggested that these emissions are “acceptable”.

Moreover, the report states that GWP figures play an important part in estimating the carbon footprint of the project, including its greenhouse gas emissions. But it then goes on to suggest that basing the GWP potential of the application on figures from out of date IPCC reports is “not unreasonable”.

This is an utterly ridiculous position to take unless of course you wish to assist the applicant in downplaying the likely impact of its proposed development.

It is wholly unreasonable to base the GWP of methane on the 2nd IPCC Report rather than the most recent 5th Assessment. To ignore the latest 5th IPCC report figures in favour of the now grossly out of date 2nd report is more than unreasonable, it is grossly inadequate.

Moreover, as climate scientists acknowledge, the IPCC reports themselves are the product of political watering down of the latest science. If we are to protect the public interest, with evidence based policy, of course using out of date reports is unreasonable. If my students did this with their coursework they would fail.

In short, the Planning Officer’s report on which councillors are meant to place much weight was not just deeply flawed but demonstrably biased in a favour of the applicant. The question is why?

We can only guess at the motivations behind writing a report in this manner but it certainly raises serious concerns about possible industry influence or political pressure or it may be that the door is about to revolve for the author? We shall see.

Legal shenanigans – blown open at the last minute

Aside from the problematic Planning Officer’s report, over the course of the two hearings the politics of fracking was plain to see, from the abundance of pro-fracking corporate rhetoric to the anti-fracking protests outside. What was more opaque, however, was the political intrigue that gave rise to the quite extraordinary scenes of disarray, confusion and contestation in the Council chamber last week.

Indeed, whilst the Roseacre Wood application was fairly straightforwardly rejected on the grounds of adverse traffic impact, the Preston New Road application was a different story.

Following a motion to reject that application proposed by Councillor Paul Hayhurst the DCC hearing was interrupted, apparently so that members could obtain ‘legal advice’ behind closed doors.

On resumption of the meeting the Committee members were clearly agitated and concerned by what they had heard. Councillor Paul Hayhurst later revealed that Council legal officers had put intense pressure on the committee to approve the application:

“We were told we must vote for the application. If we didn’t we would be breaking the law and we would be deemed irresponsible members. If it went to appeal and we lost, costs would be awarded against the authority.” Hayhurst then insisted the DCC publish the legal advice so that the public could see it.

The meeting was then adjourned until the 29th June. But it wasn’t until 10am the next day when the legal advice, written by David Manley QC, was finally published on the Council’s website, and worse still it was toned down and expressly stated that rejecting the application would not break the law.

In response, said Hayhurst, “I am absolutely appalled … This is not in the sort of vein that we were advised yesterday.” In his view, the advice that members were given verbally and in private may have dissuaded some of the committee from refusing the application.

Meanwhile another Councillor (Green) suggested additional legal advice may be needed, which gave the residents groups an incentive to procure independent legal advice before the adjourned meeting took place on the Monday.

However, in correspondence with stakeholders LCC officials suggested no new information would be allowed to be circulated at the Monday hearing. Even so, local residents groups obtained independent alternative legal advice by late Friday afternoon and then sent hard copies to all Councillors to arrive Saturday morning.

Friends of the Earth also sought independent legal advice and, following pressure from the residents groups, eventually LCC officials relented and said that such new legal advice could be circulated at the Monday hearing.

Both sets of new legal advice assured Councillors they were within their rights to reject the application if they felt there was sufficient evidence to do so – they were not bound by the advice of the Planning Officer or Council’s QC.

It was a monumental effort by concerned local citizens, the national anti-fracking movement and interested NGOs, which ultimately provided the beleaguered DCC with the confidence and evidence to reject the application in spite of the PO’s report, LCC’s legal ‘advice’ and the attempts to control the flow of information to the DCC with arbitrary submission cut-off dates and the like.

The infamous redacted DEFRA report on fracking and the rural economy

A few DCC members, at various points in the proceedings, requested to delay the decision until a now notorious DEFRA report into the rural economy impacts has been fully published. The ‘Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts’ report was published in heavily redacted form in March 2014, generating considerable protest.

Just after the LCC decisions on July 1st 2015, the full report was finally published. Despite the report being yet another poorly constructed selective ‘literature review’ it is of course interesting, if unsurprising, to see what parts the Government didn’t want the public or local planning authorities to see.

The report’s redacted sections highlight likely negative impacts which are balanced against the perceived positive benefits. For example, it suggests that losses for businesses which rely on a ‘tranquil environment’ (read non-industrialised) of tourists avoiding the area due to fracking operations may be off-set by increased hospitality to new workers; the extent to which such tourism loss can indeed be ‘offset’ is not even estimated.

The implication in the report, however, is that increased ‘hospitality’ to ‘new’ workers will be relatively minimal while tourism loss could be considerable depending on the nature of the site location.

For example, in this particular application area, one in ten jobs are in the tourist business with approximately 17,000 jobs in tourism on the Fylde with 3.1 million visitors a year generating around £220 million per annum, with around 30,000 jobs in agriculture generating £700 million a year.

Much of this would be jeopardised if fracking were to take hold in the area. It is highly improbable to say the least that the 11 jobs promised by Cuadrilla would compensate for the losses in tourism even at the exploration stage.

When it comes to traffic, of particular concern in the Roseacre Wood application. The redacted sections of the DEFRA report conclude that congestion impacts will be “negative but localised”. But just how local? The report makes it very clear that impacts will be over a relatively wide area (at least five miles) around each site, with as many as 36,735 vehicle movements per site. Far from insignificant.

The same ‘negative but localised’ conclusion is reached regarding house price impact: “House prices in close proximity to the drilling operations are likely to fall. However, rents may increase due to additional demand from site workers and supply chain.”

Again the negative ‘off-set’ potential here is vague to say the least and potentially higher rent for workers is not going to assuage the concerns of local homeowners and their potential to fall into negative equity.

This is the time to keep fighting!

It’s obvious why this section was redacted, but contrary to government propaganda it’s also obvious that house prices would fall near fracking operations due to the inherent impacts the industry will bring.

When it came to discussing specific environmental impacts the report author reached another unremarkable, but for industry and government, unpalatable conclusion (p.15):

“there is a risk that even if contaminated surface water does not directly impact drinking water supplies, it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products and that leakage of waste fluids from the drilling and fracking processes has resulted in environmental damage.”

Going forward, as a taster of a new normal if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership goes ahead, it is deeply concerning that neoliberal austerity-ravaged Councils, such as LCC, will be under immense pressure to permit fracking operations despite the considerable risks of environmental and social harms, because under recent government guidelines if they reject an application and lose an appeal they will have to pay costs.

On the other hand, if other Councils, backed by committed and organised anti-fracking constituents, continue to object it may be that the prospects for a fledgling fracking industry in the UK are bleak.

Based on the evidence of negative social and environmental impacts I have seen over the years I certainly hope so.

Dr Damien Short is director of the Human Rights Consortium at the School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking is driving UK civil and political rights violations‘ by Jess Elliot & Damien Short.

Petition to Amber Rudd, Energy Secretary: ‘Keep your promise to protect our beautiful nature and wildlife sites from fracking. Don’t allow fracking to happen in or under our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest‘ (38 Degrees).

You may have missed it among all the talk of minimum wages and welfare cuts, but as part of its summer budget announcements the UK government also abolished the requirement for new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ from April 2016.

A commitment in place since 2006 and supported through successive governments, now thrown into a bonfire of supposed ‘red tape’ holding back new building projects and the productivity of the UK economy. It’s an appalling act of policy vandalism.

I heard the news on my way back from a big international conference in Paris on Our Common Future under Climate Change, a prelude to the next round of climate negotiations to take place later this year.

Listening to speaker after speaker stressing the urgency of climate action – and the attempts by at least some of those present to be optimistic about what might be agreed – I deluded myself into thinking that maybe the carbon question would now be taken seriously, even in the UK with a government demonstrating at every step its now true-blue ideology.

From praiseworthy ambition to total copout

The zero-carbon homes policy was properly ambitious (at least in its original form). It focused on radically reducing the emissions from housing through a combination of energy-efficient building design and use of low or zero-carbon energy generation, such as solar panels.

More recently forms of carbon offsetting were allowed as part of the ‘zero’ calculation so that carbon could be mitigated away from the immediate development site. The Conservative government has now scrapped both this allowable solutions policy and the increase in on-site energy efficiency standards, taking away the foundations of zero-carbon compliance.

The meaning of the ‘zero’ had already been diluted, stripped of any sense of entailing new ways of ongoing low-carbon living – and the closely-related Code for Sustainable Homes had been got rid of. But even so, at least the zero-carbon requirement was still in place in some form.

Not now. Not after nine years of intensive collaborative work by the Zero Carbon Hub, set up after the obligation was first put in place to work out exactly what the zero would mean, how it would be calculated and to provide guidance to housing industry on all sorts of detailed aspects of compliance.

This is what makes it policy vandalism and a damaging breach of trust that can only undermine attempts at collaborative initiatives in the future.

Raising energy bills, and sending all the wrong signals

It’s not just those trying (increasingly desperately) to make the case for action on climate change that have protested. The British Property Federation, the Chartered Institute of Building the UK Green Building Council and some (but not all) other industry bodies have registered their protest at the loss of a long-term commitment to improving the energy and carbon efficiency of new homes.

The government’s argument is that scrapping the zero-carbon obligation will stimulate house building and help reduce house prices. But the evidence is lacking for both claims, with high house prices in particular far more a function of the dysfunctional way that property markets work in the UK and the lack of a proper regional policy to distribute jobs and growth more evenly across the economy.

More fundamentally, a decision that can only serve to increase our carbon emissions projected into the future sends absolutely all the wrong signals, including to those governments in the Global South that quite rightly point out our historic and contemporary responsibility for carbon accumulation.

Maybe house builders will still take up some of the innovation and capacity for building in new low-carbon ways that have been developed over the past nine years. But without the regulatory push it is hard to imagine that things will not level out at a lower standard.

There is now an open invitation to build less carbon-efficient houses, for profit-making at the expense of our deep moral responsibility to act now to mitigate future climate impacts.

Yes new homes are needed (in some places), but not at this cost, and not in a way that destroys even the limited sense of what ‘zero carbon’ had become.

Gordon Walker is Professor at the DEMAND Centre and Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University.

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

With no debate and only a voice vote, the US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture last week (14th July 2015) passed H.R. 1599, the DARK Act, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs.

Within hours, it was announced that the bill would go straight to the House floor, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. A vote of the full House of Representatives is now scheduled for this Thursday, July 23.

If passed, the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act will overturn Vermont’s GMO labeling law and prevent other states from passing GMO labeling laws.

The same will hold true for local GMO crop bans. The bill would also guarantee the FDA never conducts independent, pre-market safety testing on GMO foods.

If we don’t stop it in the House this week, the fight to stop this ‘Mother of all Monsanto Protection Acts’ will take place next in the US Senate, by early fall.

Bowling for Monsanto

In his opening statement last week, Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) (who shortly after today’s vote said he will co-sponsor H.R. 1599) couldn’t have sounded more like a Monsanto employee if he’d tried.

Conaway nailed the biotech industry’s favorite talking points and mistruths, beginning with this one:

“In testimony before this Committee, multiple representatives of the food and agricultural sectors commented on the cost burden that would be placed on our food system if we were to allow the 50 States, more than 3,000 counties and nearly 20,000 towns and cities in the United States to establish their own laws regulating interstate commerce.”

Time and again, independent experts have stated that the cost of labeling GMO foods and ingredients, to manufacturers, retailers and consumers, would be negligible here in the US, just as it has been in the more than 60 countries that already require labeling.

In fact GMO labels are costless, as pointed out in this Washington Post article. Companies regularly update their food packaging as they come up with new designs or marketing strategies.

GMOs have been ‘proven safe’. Wrong …

And then there was the ultimate lie about GMOs, that they have been “proven safe”:

“We all recognize that the overwhelming consensus within the science community is that these biotech products are safe. We likewise understand that each and every biotech product in the marketplace today has been reviewed thorough a voluntary food safety consultation process at the Food and Drug Administration.”

Wrong. Ever since GMOs were introduced into the food system in the 1990s, without adequate, independent, pre-market safety testing, there have been scientists and an increasing volume of of research indicating that these genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals that accompany them are hazardous to human health and the environment.

The American Medical Association believes GMO foods should be subjected to pre-market safety testing. And there is surely no consensus, as hundreds of scientists worldwide have confirmed, on the safety of GMOs that have already been approved. That is a flat-out lie.

Conaway spoke instead about the US Food & Drug Administration’s ‘voluntary food safety consultation process’ as if that were a valid means of proving safety.

Glaringly absent from Conaway’s statement was any mention of the toxic chemicals used to grow GMO crops, and allowed to remain as residue on GMO foods. Not one word was spoken about the World Health Organization’s recent determination that glyphosate, the chemical used on more than 80% of GMO crops, is a probably human carcinogen.

Corporate gain, public loss

None of these statements, coming from a lawmaker with ties to Big Ag, were particularly surprising.

But what should concern any consumer, voter, citizen or just plain common-sense thinking human being, is that Conaway’s statement clearly focused on how to promote the profits of corporations, rather than on how to protect people from foods that have not been proven safe, and the arsenal of toxic chemicals used to grow them.

It was all about ‘marketing’, and how we need a government program for food producers who want to voluntarily label their products as GMO-free, or containing GMOs.

“USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has long been in the business of assisting producers to develop programs and tools to take advantage of market opportunities. The Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research Subcommittee recently examined the programs of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

“The Subcommittee concluded that the agency has the resources and expertise to develop and administer a robust marketing program for those wishing to notify consumers of the presence or absence of genetically engineered ingredients in their food products.

“What the agency doesn’t have is the law to make it work uniformly across the country like we did 25 years ago when we passed the Organic Foods Production Act.”

Not one word on the devastation to the environment. Not on word on how chemical-intensive, fossil-fuel-intensive industrial agriculture is one of the largest contributors, if not the largest contributor, to global warming – and how if we don’t fix this system, we can’t be serious about averting a climate disaster.

How do we stop this outrageous piece of legislation?

As Pope Francis said recently, on the topic of genetic engineering and its use of toxic pesticides:

It creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further. For example, many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology, they are useful to agriculture itself, and their disappearance will be compensated with another technological intervention that probably will bring new harmful effects …

“Looking at the world we see that this level of human intervention, often in the service of finance and consumerism, actually causes the earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray, while at the same time the development of technology and consumerism continues to advance without limits.

H.R. 1599 is an assault on consumer rights, an assault on democracy and states’ rights. And if passed, it will only escalate the assault on our health, and the health of Planet Earth.

So how do we stop it? By letting every member of Congress know that we, you, all of us, oppose it!

Action: Please help us continue to fight this disastrous and undemocratic piece of legislation. Tell your members of Congress to oppose H.R. 1599 and to protect your right to know! You can reach them by calling (877) 434-0011.

Katherine Paul is director of communications for the Organic Consumers Association.

More information on the Dark Act from OCA.

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association.

A new study led by the RSPB Centre for Conservation Science has revealed that burning has taken place in more than half of the UK’s most highly protected upland moors assessed in the study.

This includes over half of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the EU’s Habitats and Species Directive, and almost two thirds of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated under the EU’s Birds Directive. According to the paper,

“Burning was detected within 55% of Special Areas of Conservation and 63% of Special Protection Areas that were assessed, and the proportion of moorland burned was significantly higher inside sites than on comparable squares outside protected areas.

“The annual numbers of burns increased from 2001 to 2011 irrespective of peat depth. The spatial overlap of burning with peat and protected areas and the increasing number of burns require urgent attention, for the development of policies for sustainable management and reversal of damage to ecosystem services in the UK uplands.”

Burning on moorlands, a mixture of bog and heath habitats valuable to many endangered birs, reptiles and other species, is widely used to increase the numbers of red grouse that are available for recreational shooting.

Burning increased by 11% a year for ten years

This study, published in Biological Conservation, is the first time upland burning has been mapped in detail across mainland Britain. Using aerial photography and satellite images, 45,000 1-km squares were mapped across Scotland, England and Wales, and revealed that burning occurred across 8,551 of these squares.

In the ten year period covered by the study from 2001 to 2011, the number of burns recorded increased rapidly by 11% each year. Other studies have found that the potential number of red grouse shooting days in some areas of Britain has risen over a similar period, and moorland management has also intensified.

“These sites are designated under EU legislation for their conservation importance, and governments are charged with protecting them from damage and ensuring that they are restored to the best condition”, says RSPB.

“However, many SACs and SPAs are in unfavourable condition, with burning identified by governments and statutory agencies as a primary reason for this poor status.”

Burning regulations and advice differs between England, Wales and Scotland, and the discrepancies account for the higher level of ‘unfavourable’ condition Scotland. In England 53% of the total area is ‘unfavourable’, but that rises to 87% of  upland bog features in Scotland.

“These sites are designated under EU legislation for their conservation importance, and governments are charged with protecting them from damage and ensuring that they are restored to the best condition”, says RSPB.

“However, many SACs and SPAs are in unfavourable condition, with burning identified by governments and statutory agencies as a primary reason for this poor status.”

Dr David Douglas, Senior Conservation Scientist at RSPB Scotland and lead author of the study added: “Upland ecosystems are highly sensitive to burning practices. Knowing how much burning takes place and where is crucial to developing sustainable land management policies for these precious environments.”

The UK’s greatest carbon store at risk

In Scotland and England, a third of burning took place on deep peat soils, an important carbon store. The UK has 10-15% of the world’s blanket bog peatlands. Locking in 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon, this deep peat in the uplands is the largest carbon store in the UK.

Upland areas are also a vital water source, supplying around 70% of our drinking water. Burning has been linked to poor water quality in these areas, requiring large sums of money to treat the water.

Martin Harper, Director of Conservation at RSPB said: “Our uplands are amongst our most precious habitats in Britain and home to important wildlife. However, many of our uplands are in poor condition due to intensive land management practices. It’s very worrying that burning is increasing, given the damage it can cause and that it occurs in many of our conservation areas.

“Governments and statutory agencies across Britain need to take action to reduce burning in our uplands rather than allowing them to be increasingly damaged year on year.

“Although their regulations already advise against burning on blanket bog it is often used on these areas with their consent. These regulations need to be strongly enforced so that uplands are properly protected against this damaging practice.”

The paper: ‘Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas‘ by David J. T. Douglas et al is published in Biological Conservation.

As Director of the Human Rights Consortium’s Extreme Energy Initiative, earlier this year I was asked by local residents’ groups to provide expert testimony to the Lancashire County Council (LCC) Development Control Committee (DCC) on the human rights impacts of fracking – the controversial unconventional gas extraction technique.

The invitation came on the back of a co-authored report for the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation into the human rights impacts of fracking, reported on in The Ecologist.

My evidence was requested due to two controversial potential fracking sites, Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood, which were being proposed by fracking firm Caudrilla.

I have been studying the social and environmental impacts of fracking for over five years and I have accumulated a considerable amount of impact data which suggests that the technology and its associated infrastructure poses a significant threat to environmental human rights such as to clean water.

Moreover, the politics of fracking poses significant threats to civil and political rights, freedom of assembly and expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

While the ‘rejection’ outcomes of the Lancashire hearings rightly pleased many in the anti-fracking movement the process up to that point was deeply concerning on a number of levels that do not bode well for future applications.

Specifically, there were key areas where the applicant was clearly favoured at the expense of the views of, and evidence presented, by the local objectors and their expert witnesses.

And the deciding Councillors were effectively threatened with legal action if they refused the application. They were told that to refuse the application would be tantamount to breaking the law, as it would be an “unsustainable” decision lacking evidence, and would expose them to high appeal costs at a time when councils are austerity ravaged.

‘Biased and disrespectful’ – the Planning Officer report

The LCC Planning Officer’s report published by LCC on 15 June 2015, which is meant to provide an unbiased appraisal to assist the DCC reach a decision was, at best, fundamentally flawed and inadequately researched, and, at worst, biased and disrespectful.

Development Control Committee’s give considerable weight to planning officer reports, especially when much of an application concerns material which is both highly technical and hotly debated. Thus, the Planning Officer bears a huge responsibility to evaluate the application, via a reasoned summary of the best available evidence, in an impartial and responsible manner.

Unfortunately, in this case the planning officer reports fell so woefully short of such standards that they raise the obvious suspicion of undue political and/or industry pressure and influence.

When it came to discussing one of fracking’s most notorious issues – the health impacts on local populations – the Planning Officer’s report stated:

“Many representations received by the County Council refer to research conducted in North America and overseas that indicate shale gas extraction is linked to adverse health impacts. While much research exists, and is growing in volume each year, it is difficult to gain an objective view of the veracity of the research.

“Anti-fracking campaigners frequently point to studies that indicate increased health risks (e.g. elevated risks of cancer or birth defects) as a result of shale gas activity in North America. Conversely, pro-fracking campaigners point to numerous methodological flaws in the research.” (Public Reports Pack p.53)

At best, this is an unforgivably lazy summary from a supposedly impartial public official meant to be serving the public interest, at worst it is suggestive of a pro-fracking bias.

It is a relatively easy task to review the evidence and rank in terms of scientific value, academic rigour and independence. When negative public health impact studies appear it is routine tactical propaganda for industry and their supporters to dismiss the findings on the grounds of questionable ‘methodology’, as if it were they who gathered the data and possessed the requisite research training.

Such challenges, unlike their targets for attack, are not peer reviewed, but industry know that mud sticks and reports such as the LCC PO are evidence of that.

The report ignored and downplayed inconvenient evidence

Unfortunately the suggestion of bias just increases the more one delves into the PO’s report. It lauds the approach taken by Public Health England in its June 2014 report on fracking health impact data, citing its reliance on “peer reviewed literature” (is this the same evidence which the PO previously argued was hard to verify?).

I then uses this backing to attempt to dismiss in one fell swoop the findings of other peer reviewed research which concerned local citizens had been highlighting to the DCC in the hearings and written submissions:

‘Much of the research cited in representations to the County Council was reviewed by PHE… (who) highlight significant methodological flaws in the research that has been cited to the County Council.’

Why doesn’t the Planning Officer read the academic material cited in submissions at source rather than rely on another Public bodies’ reading of it? Or at least balance PHE’s spin by considering the obvious ‘methodological flaws’ of its own report by renowned environmental consultant Paul Mobbs, which fail to get a mention in the Planning Officer’s report. It continues:

“Moreover, one study frequently cited by objectors (McKenzie, 2014) has been publically criticised by the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in the USA as follows: ‘we disagree with many of the specific associations with the occurrence of birth defects noted within the study. Therefore, a reader of the study could easily be misled to become overly concerned.’ “

So the public must believe the pronouncements of such officials over peer reviewed academic research? This whole passage reads as is if the author has been trawling the internet looking for any half-baked repudiation of robust academic research or had he been spoon-fed the material to serve an alternative agenda?

This latter possibility seems more plausible the further one delves into the report. Going beyond simple selective reading, the PO report systematically downplayed, and sought to marginalise, the evidence presented by expert witnesses.

Attacking the Medact study

Seemingly in order to protect the definitive status afforded by the report to PHE’s summary, the Planning Officer’s report took aim at the far more rigorous Medact study. The methodology for this attack was twofold:

1) point out the Medact authors did not conduct their own original epidemiological research – which of course neither did PHE, but that wasn’t deemed injurious their report

2) to undermine and question the professional expertise and integrity of two clearly identifiable (although, tellingly, no names were mentioned) expert witnesses, Mike Hill and Dr Frank Rugman:

“The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts.

“Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report’s six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application.

“This has led to questions from some quarters about the report’s objectivity. In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.”

As a statement in a report by a supposedly impartial public official this is truly astonishing in its bias and lack of respect. It is predicated on a wilful ignorance of a researcher’s usual goal: when conducting research it is hoped that the data will in fact allow one to hold “firm views” based on analysis of the data produced when concluding.

Such a result makes it possible to give advice on the best course of action, to have a policy impact and such like. A valid question would be: do the ‘firm views’ flow from the evidence considered? Having read the Medact report, and much of the source evidence it considers, I would say unequivocally yes and so would any unbiased observer in my view.

We can also reasonably ask why an alleged “high profile campaign” by the first contributing expert mentioned (Mr Hill) should “unfortunately” reduce the weight given to his evidence? If Mr Hill feels compelled to speak out in the public interest based on his knowledge and expertise then that is his right and moral duty. Or do we now live in a world where we can only hold ‘firm views’ and speak out if we are blindly following corporate agendas?

Meticulously assembled evidence dismissed as ‘anecdote’

Another expert witness, Professor David Smythe, appalled by this approach, has requested the source of the “questions from some quarters” under Freedom of Information Legislation. Whatever the outcome such statements should not appear in an objective and balanced planning report and only serve to further undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of public authorities.

In a section, counter-factually, entitled ‘Minimal environmental risks’ the detailed, meticulously researched and closely argued 30,000 word submission of Emeritus Professor David Smythe is reduced to the status of mere anecdotal ‘comments’ and described thus:

“Comments that the geology of Lancashire is not suitable for fracking have been provided by a professor who retired 18 years ago and is now living in France running a B&B. Evidence in the US and UK is to the contrary.“

This is no passive, benign summary but intentionally disparaging and erroneous rhetoric. To say that such commentary has no place in a supposedly impartial planning report is a huge understatement. In a subsequent submission to the LCC, objecting to this personal attack Professor Smythe rightly described the comment as “outrageous”:

“I am clearly identifiable. It is a calculated denigration of an expert witness. I took early retirement from the Chair of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow some 16 years ago, and spent around a decade from 2001 onwards consulting for a variety of oil companies.

“Projects lasted from a few weeks to a couple of years, involving studies of onshore and offshore India, Western Australia, offshore Madagascar, southern England (both onshore and offshore), and the UK-Irish margin of the NE Atlantic (during this period my wife, not I, ran a B&B for about three years).

“I have requested information from LCC under FOI legislation to discover the origin of the statement quoted above, as I have been unable to find it elsewhere in the published application documents.”

So the PO report dismissed the health impact data and analysis along with the serious concerns associated with the specific geology of the area. But what of the antecedents of the applicant on their prior sites? Surely that is worth considering in the public interest? Apparently not. The report stated that:

“Some of the objections maintain that planning permission should not be granted in view of the alleged poor track record of the applicant when carrying out operations at other sites within its control. With regard to the applicant’s previous operations and compliance with planning permissions a planning permission goes with the land rather than with the applicant and it is right to assume that the applicant would comply with conditions attached to any planning permission.”

So the public should feel safe in the knowledge that the PO simply assumes the applicant will start behaving.

More pro-fracking bias

When it came to dealing with representations from the public, on the New Road application the PO listed 11,127 letters of objection and only 200 in support. However, the report then deconstructed the objection letters into ‘individual’ (827) and ‘template’ letters, the clear implication being that only individual letters are valid. The same treatment was not given to the support letters. Why, I wonder?

A further example of pro-applicant bias can be seen in the PO report’s consideration of the ‘global warming potential’ of the Lancashire applications.

In the absence of a meaningful decarbonising national strategy we can only hope that planning authorities vet planning applications and pay particular attention to likely application greenhouse gas emissions and seek to protect the public interest.

Indeed, planning decisions must take account of the need to reduce GHG emissions but the fracking applications if they had passed would have increased emissions. The PO report, however, suggested that these emissions are “acceptable”.

Moreover, the report states that GWP figures play an important part in estimating the carbon footprint of the project, including its greenhouse gas emissions. But it then goes on to suggest that basing the GWP potential of the application on figures from out of date IPCC reports is “not unreasonable”.

This is an utterly ridiculous position to take unless of course you wish to assist the applicant in downplaying the likely impact of its proposed development.

It is wholly unreasonable to base the GWP of methane on the 2nd IPCC Report rather than the most recent 5th Assessment. To ignore the latest 5th IPCC report figures in favour of the now grossly out of date 2nd report is more than unreasonable, it is grossly inadequate.

Moreover, as climate scientists acknowledge, the IPCC reports themselves are the product of political watering down of the latest science. If we are to protect the public interest, with evidence based policy, of course using out of date reports is unreasonable. If my students did this with their coursework they would fail.

In short, the Planning Officer’s report on which councillors are meant to place much weight was not just deeply flawed but demonstrably biased in a favour of the applicant. The question is why?

We can only guess at the motivations behind writing a report in this manner but it certainly raises serious concerns about possible industry influence or political pressure or it may be that the door is about to revolve for the author? We shall see.

Legal shenanigans – blown open at the last minute

Aside from the problematic Planning Officer’s report, over the course of the two hearings the politics of fracking was plain to see, from the abundance of pro-fracking corporate rhetoric to the anti-fracking protests outside. What was more opaque, however, was the political intrigue that gave rise to the quite extraordinary scenes of disarray, confusion and contestation in the Council chamber last week.

Indeed, whilst the Roseacre Wood application was fairly straightforwardly rejected on the grounds of adverse traffic impact, the Preston New Road application was a different story.

Following a motion to reject that application proposed by Councillor Paul Hayhurst the DCC hearing was interrupted, apparently so that members could obtain ‘legal advice’ behind closed doors.

On resumption of the meeting the Committee members were clearly agitated and concerned by what they had heard. Councillor Paul Hayhurst later revealed that Council legal officers had put intense pressure on the committee to approve the application:

“We were told we must vote for the application. If we didn’t we would be breaking the law and we would be deemed irresponsible members. If it went to appeal and we lost, costs would be awarded against the authority.” Hayhurst then insisted the DCC publish the legal advice so that the public could see it.

The meeting was then adjourned until the 29th June. But it wasn’t until 10am the next day when the legal advice, written by David Manley QC, was finally published on the Council’s website, and worse still it was toned down and expressly stated that rejecting the application would not break the law.

In response, said Hayhurst, “I am absolutely appalled … This is not in the sort of vein that we were advised yesterday.” In his view, the advice that members were given verbally and in private may have dissuaded some of the committee from refusing the application.

Meanwhile another Councillor (Green) suggested additional legal advice may be needed, which gave the residents groups an incentive to procure independent legal advice before the adjourned meeting took place on the Monday.

However, in correspondence with stakeholders LCC officials suggested no new information would be allowed to be circulated at the Monday hearing. Even so, local residents groups obtained independent alternative legal advice by late Friday afternoon and then sent hard copies to all Councillors to arrive Saturday morning.

Friends of the Earth also sought independent legal advice and, following pressure from the residents groups, eventually LCC officials relented and said that such new legal advice could be circulated at the Monday hearing.

Both sets of new legal advice assured Councillors they were within their rights to reject the application if they felt there was sufficient evidence to do so – they were not bound by the advice of the Planning Officer or Council’s QC.

It was a monumental effort by concerned local citizens, the national anti-fracking movement and interested NGOs, which ultimately provided the beleaguered DCC with the confidence and evidence to reject the application in spite of the PO’s report, LCC’s legal ‘advice’ and the attempts to control the flow of information to the DCC with arbitrary submission cut-off dates and the like.

The infamous redacted DEFRA report on fracking and the rural economy

A few DCC members, at various points in the proceedings, requested to delay the decision until a now notorious DEFRA report into the rural economy impacts has been fully published. The ‘Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts’ report was published in heavily redacted form in March 2014, generating considerable protest.

Just after the LCC decisions on July 1st 2015, the full report was finally published. Despite the report being yet another poorly constructed selective ‘literature review’ it is of course interesting, if unsurprising, to see what parts the Government didn’t want the public or local planning authorities to see.

The report’s redacted sections highlight likely negative impacts which are balanced against the perceived positive benefits. For example, it suggests that losses for businesses which rely on a ‘tranquil environment’ (read non-industrialised) of tourists avoiding the area due to fracking operations may be off-set by increased hospitality to new workers; the extent to which such tourism loss can indeed be ‘offset’ is not even estimated.

The implication in the report, however, is that increased ‘hospitality’ to ‘new’ workers will be relatively minimal while tourism loss could be considerable depending on the nature of the site location.

For example, in this particular application area, one in ten jobs are in the tourist business with approximately 17,000 jobs in tourism on the Fylde with 3.1 million visitors a year generating around £220 million per annum, with around 30,000 jobs in agriculture generating £700 million a year.

Much of this would be jeopardised if fracking were to take hold in the area. It is highly improbable to say the least that the 11 jobs promised by Cuadrilla would compensate for the losses in tourism even at the exploration stage.

When it comes to traffic, of particular concern in the Roseacre Wood application. The redacted sections of the DEFRA report conclude that congestion impacts will be “negative but localised”. But just how local? The report makes it very clear that impacts will be over a relatively wide area (at least five miles) around each site, with as many as 36,735 vehicle movements per site. Far from insignificant.

The same ‘negative but localised’ conclusion is reached regarding house price impact: “House prices in close proximity to the drilling operations are likely to fall. However, rents may increase due to additional demand from site workers and supply chain.”

Again the negative ‘off-set’ potential here is vague to say the least and potentially higher rent for workers is not going to assuage the concerns of local homeowners and their potential to fall into negative equity.

This is the time to keep fighting!

It’s obvious why this section was redacted, but contrary to government propaganda it’s also obvious that house prices would fall near fracking operations due to the inherent impacts the industry will bring.

When it came to discussing specific environmental impacts the report author reached another unremarkable, but for industry and government, unpalatable conclusion (p.15):

“there is a risk that even if contaminated surface water does not directly impact drinking water supplies, it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products and that leakage of waste fluids from the drilling and fracking processes has resulted in environmental damage.”

Going forward, as a taster of a new normal if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership goes ahead, it is deeply concerning that neoliberal austerity-ravaged Councils, such as LCC, will be under immense pressure to permit fracking operations despite the considerable risks of environmental and social harms, because under recent government guidelines if they reject an application and lose an appeal they will have to pay costs.

On the other hand, if other Councils, backed by committed and organised anti-fracking constituents, continue to object it may be that the prospects for a fledgling fracking industry in the UK are bleak.

Based on the evidence of negative social and environmental impacts I have seen over the years I certainly hope so.

Dr Damien Short is director of the Human Rights Consortium at the School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking is driving UK civil and political rights violations‘ by Jess Elliot & Damien Short.

Petition to Amber Rudd, Energy Secretary: ‘Keep your promise to protect our beautiful nature and wildlife sites from fracking. Don’t allow fracking to happen in or under our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest‘ (38 Degrees).

You may have missed it among all the talk of minimum wages and welfare cuts, but as part of its summer budget announcements the UK government also abolished the requirement for new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ from April 2016.

A commitment in place since 2006 and supported through successive governments, now thrown into a bonfire of supposed ‘red tape’ holding back new building projects and the productivity of the UK economy. It’s an appalling act of policy vandalism.

I heard the news on my way back from a big international conference in Paris on Our Common Future under Climate Change, a prelude to the next round of climate negotiations to take place later this year.

Listening to speaker after speaker stressing the urgency of climate action – and the attempts by at least some of those present to be optimistic about what might be agreed – I deluded myself into thinking that maybe the carbon question would now be taken seriously, even in the UK with a government demonstrating at every step its now true-blue ideology.

From praiseworthy ambition to total copout

The zero-carbon homes policy was properly ambitious (at least in its original form). It focused on radically reducing the emissions from housing through a combination of energy-efficient building design and use of low or zero-carbon energy generation, such as solar panels.

More recently forms of carbon offsetting were allowed as part of the ‘zero’ calculation so that carbon could be mitigated away from the immediate development site. The Conservative government has now scrapped both this allowable solutions policy and the increase in on-site energy efficiency standards, taking away the foundations of zero-carbon compliance.

The meaning of the ‘zero’ had already been diluted, stripped of any sense of entailing new ways of ongoing low-carbon living – and the closely-related Code for Sustainable Homes had been got rid of. But even so, at least the zero-carbon requirement was still in place in some form.

Not now. Not after nine years of intensive collaborative work by the Zero Carbon Hub, set up after the obligation was first put in place to work out exactly what the zero would mean, how it would be calculated and to provide guidance to housing industry on all sorts of detailed aspects of compliance.

This is what makes it policy vandalism and a damaging breach of trust that can only undermine attempts at collaborative initiatives in the future.

Raising energy bills, and sending all the wrong signals

It’s not just those trying (increasingly desperately) to make the case for action on climate change that have protested. The British Property Federation, the Chartered Institute of Building the UK Green Building Council and some (but not all) other industry bodies have registered their protest at the loss of a long-term commitment to improving the energy and carbon efficiency of new homes.

The government’s argument is that scrapping the zero-carbon obligation will stimulate house building and help reduce house prices. But the evidence is lacking for both claims, with high house prices in particular far more a function of the dysfunctional way that property markets work in the UK and the lack of a proper regional policy to distribute jobs and growth more evenly across the economy.

More fundamentally, a decision that can only serve to increase our carbon emissions projected into the future sends absolutely all the wrong signals, including to those governments in the Global South that quite rightly point out our historic and contemporary responsibility for carbon accumulation.

Maybe house builders will still take up some of the innovation and capacity for building in new low-carbon ways that have been developed over the past nine years. But without the regulatory push it is hard to imagine that things will not level out at a lower standard.

There is now an open invitation to build less carbon-efficient houses, for profit-making at the expense of our deep moral responsibility to act now to mitigate future climate impacts.

Yes new homes are needed (in some places), but not at this cost, and not in a way that destroys even the limited sense of what ‘zero carbon’ had become.

Gordon Walker is Professor at the DEMAND Centre and Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University.

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

With no debate and only a voice vote, the US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture last week (14th July 2015) passed H.R. 1599, the DARK Act, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs.

Within hours, it was announced that the bill would go straight to the House floor, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. A vote of the full House of Representatives is now scheduled for this Thursday, July 23.

If passed, the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act will overturn Vermont’s GMO labeling law and prevent other states from passing GMO labeling laws.

The same will hold true for local GMO crop bans. The bill would also guarantee the FDA never conducts independent, pre-market safety testing on GMO foods.

If we don’t stop it in the House this week, the fight to stop this ‘Mother of all Monsanto Protection Acts’ will take place next in the US Senate, by early fall.

Bowling for Monsanto

In his opening statement last week, Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) (who shortly after today’s vote said he will co-sponsor H.R. 1599) couldn’t have sounded more like a Monsanto employee if he’d tried.

Conaway nailed the biotech industry’s favorite talking points and mistruths, beginning with this one:

“In testimony before this Committee, multiple representatives of the food and agricultural sectors commented on the cost burden that would be placed on our food system if we were to allow the 50 States, more than 3,000 counties and nearly 20,000 towns and cities in the United States to establish their own laws regulating interstate commerce.”

Time and again, independent experts have stated that the cost of labeling GMO foods and ingredients, to manufacturers, retailers and consumers, would be negligible here in the US, just as it has been in the more than 60 countries that already require labeling.

In fact GMO labels are costless, as pointed out in this Washington Post article. Companies regularly update their food packaging as they come up with new designs or marketing strategies.

GMOs have been ‘proven safe’. Wrong …

And then there was the ultimate lie about GMOs, that they have been “proven safe”:

“We all recognize that the overwhelming consensus within the science community is that these biotech products are safe. We likewise understand that each and every biotech product in the marketplace today has been reviewed thorough a voluntary food safety consultation process at the Food and Drug Administration.”

Wrong. Ever since GMOs were introduced into the food system in the 1990s, without adequate, independent, pre-market safety testing, there have been scientists and an increasing volume of of research indicating that these genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals that accompany them are hazardous to human health and the environment.

The American Medical Association believes GMO foods should be subjected to pre-market safety testing. And there is surely no consensus, as hundreds of scientists worldwide have confirmed, on the safety of GMOs that have already been approved. That is a flat-out lie.

Conaway spoke instead about the US Food & Drug Administration’s ‘voluntary food safety consultation process’ as if that were a valid means of proving safety.

Glaringly absent from Conaway’s statement was any mention of the toxic chemicals used to grow GMO crops, and allowed to remain as residue on GMO foods. Not one word was spoken about the World Health Organization’s recent determination that glyphosate, the chemical used on more than 80% of GMO crops, is a probably human carcinogen.

Corporate gain, public loss

None of these statements, coming from a lawmaker with ties to Big Ag, were particularly surprising.

But what should concern any consumer, voter, citizen or just plain common-sense thinking human being, is that Conaway’s statement clearly focused on how to promote the profits of corporations, rather than on how to protect people from foods that have not been proven safe, and the arsenal of toxic chemicals used to grow them.

It was all about ‘marketing’, and how we need a government program for food producers who want to voluntarily label their products as GMO-free, or containing GMOs.

“USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has long been in the business of assisting producers to develop programs and tools to take advantage of market opportunities. The Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research Subcommittee recently examined the programs of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

“The Subcommittee concluded that the agency has the resources and expertise to develop and administer a robust marketing program for those wishing to notify consumers of the presence or absence of genetically engineered ingredients in their food products.

“What the agency doesn’t have is the law to make it work uniformly across the country like we did 25 years ago when we passed the Organic Foods Production Act.”

Not one word on the devastation to the environment. Not on word on how chemical-intensive, fossil-fuel-intensive industrial agriculture is one of the largest contributors, if not the largest contributor, to global warming – and how if we don’t fix this system, we can’t be serious about averting a climate disaster.

How do we stop this outrageous piece of legislation?

As Pope Francis said recently, on the topic of genetic engineering and its use of toxic pesticides:

It creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further. For example, many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology, they are useful to agriculture itself, and their disappearance will be compensated with another technological intervention that probably will bring new harmful effects …

“Looking at the world we see that this level of human intervention, often in the service of finance and consumerism, actually causes the earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray, while at the same time the development of technology and consumerism continues to advance without limits.

H.R. 1599 is an assault on consumer rights, an assault on democracy and states’ rights. And if passed, it will only escalate the assault on our health, and the health of Planet Earth.

So how do we stop it? By letting every member of Congress know that we, you, all of us, oppose it!

Action: Please help us continue to fight this disastrous and undemocratic piece of legislation. Tell your members of Congress to oppose H.R. 1599 and to protect your right to know! You can reach them by calling (877) 434-0011.

Katherine Paul is director of communications for the Organic Consumers Association.

More information on the Dark Act from OCA.

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association.

A new study led by the RSPB Centre for Conservation Science has revealed that burning has taken place in more than half of the UK’s most highly protected upland moors assessed in the study.

This includes over half of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the EU’s Habitats and Species Directive, and almost two thirds of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated under the EU’s Birds Directive. According to the paper,

“Burning was detected within 55% of Special Areas of Conservation and 63% of Special Protection Areas that were assessed, and the proportion of moorland burned was significantly higher inside sites than on comparable squares outside protected areas.

“The annual numbers of burns increased from 2001 to 2011 irrespective of peat depth. The spatial overlap of burning with peat and protected areas and the increasing number of burns require urgent attention, for the development of policies for sustainable management and reversal of damage to ecosystem services in the UK uplands.”

Burning on moorlands, a mixture of bog and heath habitats valuable to many endangered birs, reptiles and other species, is widely used to increase the numbers of red grouse that are available for recreational shooting.

Burning increased by 11% a year for ten years

This study, published in Biological Conservation, is the first time upland burning has been mapped in detail across mainland Britain. Using aerial photography and satellite images, 45,000 1-km squares were mapped across Scotland, England and Wales, and revealed that burning occurred across 8,551 of these squares.

In the ten year period covered by the study from 2001 to 2011, the number of burns recorded increased rapidly by 11% each year. Other studies have found that the potential number of red grouse shooting days in some areas of Britain has risen over a similar period, and moorland management has also intensified.

“These sites are designated under EU legislation for their conservation importance, and governments are charged with protecting them from damage and ensuring that they are restored to the best condition”, says RSPB.

“However, many SACs and SPAs are in unfavourable condition, with burning identified by governments and statutory agencies as a primary reason for this poor status.”

Burning regulations and advice differs between England, Wales and Scotland, and the discrepancies account for the higher level of ‘unfavourable’ condition Scotland. In England 53% of the total area is ‘unfavourable’, but that rises to 87% of  upland bog features in Scotland.

“These sites are designated under EU legislation for their conservation importance, and governments are charged with protecting them from damage and ensuring that they are restored to the best condition”, says RSPB.

“However, many SACs and SPAs are in unfavourable condition, with burning identified by governments and statutory agencies as a primary reason for this poor status.”

Dr David Douglas, Senior Conservation Scientist at RSPB Scotland and lead author of the study added: “Upland ecosystems are highly sensitive to burning practices. Knowing how much burning takes place and where is crucial to developing sustainable land management policies for these precious environments.”

The UK’s greatest carbon store at risk

In Scotland and England, a third of burning took place on deep peat soils, an important carbon store. The UK has 10-15% of the world’s blanket bog peatlands. Locking in 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon, this deep peat in the uplands is the largest carbon store in the UK.

Upland areas are also a vital water source, supplying around 70% of our drinking water. Burning has been linked to poor water quality in these areas, requiring large sums of money to treat the water.

Martin Harper, Director of Conservation at RSPB said: “Our uplands are amongst our most precious habitats in Britain and home to important wildlife. However, many of our uplands are in poor condition due to intensive land management practices. It’s very worrying that burning is increasing, given the damage it can cause and that it occurs in many of our conservation areas.

“Governments and statutory agencies across Britain need to take action to reduce burning in our uplands rather than allowing them to be increasingly damaged year on year.

“Although their regulations already advise against burning on blanket bog it is often used on these areas with their consent. These regulations need to be strongly enforced so that uplands are properly protected against this damaging practice.”

The paper: ‘Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas‘ by David J. T. Douglas et al is published in Biological Conservation.

As Director of the Human Rights Consortium’s Extreme Energy Initiative, earlier this year I was asked by local residents’ groups to provide expert testimony to the Lancashire County Council (LCC) Development Control Committee (DCC) on the human rights impacts of fracking – the controversial unconventional gas extraction technique.

The invitation came on the back of a co-authored report for the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation into the human rights impacts of fracking, reported on in The Ecologist.

My evidence was requested due to two controversial potential fracking sites, Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood, which were being proposed by fracking firm Caudrilla.

I have been studying the social and environmental impacts of fracking for over five years and I have accumulated a considerable amount of impact data which suggests that the technology and its associated infrastructure poses a significant threat to environmental human rights such as to clean water.

Moreover, the politics of fracking poses significant threats to civil and political rights, freedom of assembly and expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

While the ‘rejection’ outcomes of the Lancashire hearings rightly pleased many in the anti-fracking movement the process up to that point was deeply concerning on a number of levels that do not bode well for future applications.

Specifically, there were key areas where the applicant was clearly favoured at the expense of the views of, and evidence presented, by the local objectors and their expert witnesses.

And the deciding Councillors were effectively threatened with legal action if they refused the application. They were told that to refuse the application would be tantamount to breaking the law, as it would be an “unsustainable” decision lacking evidence, and would expose them to high appeal costs at a time when councils are austerity ravaged.

‘Biased and disrespectful’ – the Planning Officer report

The LCC Planning Officer’s report published by LCC on 15 June 2015, which is meant to provide an unbiased appraisal to assist the DCC reach a decision was, at best, fundamentally flawed and inadequately researched, and, at worst, biased and disrespectful.

Development Control Committee’s give considerable weight to planning officer reports, especially when much of an application concerns material which is both highly technical and hotly debated. Thus, the Planning Officer bears a huge responsibility to evaluate the application, via a reasoned summary of the best available evidence, in an impartial and responsible manner.

Unfortunately, in this case the planning officer reports fell so woefully short of such standards that they raise the obvious suspicion of undue political and/or industry pressure and influence.

When it came to discussing one of fracking’s most notorious issues – the health impacts on local populations – the Planning Officer’s report stated:

“Many representations received by the County Council refer to research conducted in North America and overseas that indicate shale gas extraction is linked to adverse health impacts. While much research exists, and is growing in volume each year, it is difficult to gain an objective view of the veracity of the research.

“Anti-fracking campaigners frequently point to studies that indicate increased health risks (e.g. elevated risks of cancer or birth defects) as a result of shale gas activity in North America. Conversely, pro-fracking campaigners point to numerous methodological flaws in the research.” (Public Reports Pack p.53)

At best, this is an unforgivably lazy summary from a supposedly impartial public official meant to be serving the public interest, at worst it is suggestive of a pro-fracking bias.

It is a relatively easy task to review the evidence and rank in terms of scientific value, academic rigour and independence. When negative public health impact studies appear it is routine tactical propaganda for industry and their supporters to dismiss the findings on the grounds of questionable ‘methodology’, as if it were they who gathered the data and possessed the requisite research training.

Such challenges, unlike their targets for attack, are not peer reviewed, but industry know that mud sticks and reports such as the LCC PO are evidence of that.

The report ignored and downplayed inconvenient evidence

Unfortunately the suggestion of bias just increases the more one delves into the PO’s report. It lauds the approach taken by Public Health England in its June 2014 report on fracking health impact data, citing its reliance on “peer reviewed literature” (is this the same evidence which the PO previously argued was hard to verify?).

I then uses this backing to attempt to dismiss in one fell swoop the findings of other peer reviewed research which concerned local citizens had been highlighting to the DCC in the hearings and written submissions:

‘Much of the research cited in representations to the County Council was reviewed by PHE… (who) highlight significant methodological flaws in the research that has been cited to the County Council.’

Why doesn’t the Planning Officer read the academic material cited in submissions at source rather than rely on another Public bodies’ reading of it? Or at least balance PHE’s spin by considering the obvious ‘methodological flaws’ of its own report by renowned environmental consultant Paul Mobbs, which fail to get a mention in the Planning Officer’s report. It continues:

“Moreover, one study frequently cited by objectors (McKenzie, 2014) has been publically criticised by the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in the USA as follows: ‘we disagree with many of the specific associations with the occurrence of birth defects noted within the study. Therefore, a reader of the study could easily be misled to become overly concerned.’ “

So the public must believe the pronouncements of such officials over peer reviewed academic research? This whole passage reads as is if the author has been trawling the internet looking for any half-baked repudiation of robust academic research or had he been spoon-fed the material to serve an alternative agenda?

This latter possibility seems more plausible the further one delves into the report. Going beyond simple selective reading, the PO report systematically downplayed, and sought to marginalise, the evidence presented by expert witnesses.

Attacking the Medact study

Seemingly in order to protect the definitive status afforded by the report to PHE’s summary, the Planning Officer’s report took aim at the far more rigorous Medact study. The methodology for this attack was twofold:

1) point out the Medact authors did not conduct their own original epidemiological research – which of course neither did PHE, but that wasn’t deemed injurious their report

2) to undermine and question the professional expertise and integrity of two clearly identifiable (although, tellingly, no names were mentioned) expert witnesses, Mike Hill and Dr Frank Rugman:

“The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts.

“Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report’s six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application.

“This has led to questions from some quarters about the report’s objectivity. In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.”

As a statement in a report by a supposedly impartial public official this is truly astonishing in its bias and lack of respect. It is predicated on a wilful ignorance of a researcher’s usual goal: when conducting research it is hoped that the data will in fact allow one to hold “firm views” based on analysis of the data produced when concluding.

Such a result makes it possible to give advice on the best course of action, to have a policy impact and such like. A valid question would be: do the ‘firm views’ flow from the evidence considered? Having read the Medact report, and much of the source evidence it considers, I would say unequivocally yes and so would any unbiased observer in my view.

We can also reasonably ask why an alleged “high profile campaign” by the first contributing expert mentioned (Mr Hill) should “unfortunately” reduce the weight given to his evidence? If Mr Hill feels compelled to speak out in the public interest based on his knowledge and expertise then that is his right and moral duty. Or do we now live in a world where we can only hold ‘firm views’ and speak out if we are blindly following corporate agendas?

Meticulously assembled evidence dismissed as ‘anecdote’

Another expert witness, Professor David Smythe, appalled by this approach, has requested the source of the “questions from some quarters” under Freedom of Information Legislation. Whatever the outcome such statements should not appear in an objective and balanced planning report and only serve to further undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of public authorities.

In a section, counter-factually, entitled ‘Minimal environmental risks’ the detailed, meticulously researched and closely argued 30,000 word submission of Emeritus Professor David Smythe is reduced to the status of mere anecdotal ‘comments’ and described thus:

“Comments that the geology of Lancashire is not suitable for fracking have been provided by a professor who retired 18 years ago and is now living in France running a B&B. Evidence in the US and UK is to the contrary.“

This is no passive, benign summary but intentionally disparaging and erroneous rhetoric. To say that such commentary has no place in a supposedly impartial planning report is a huge understatement. In a subsequent submission to the LCC, objecting to this personal attack Professor Smythe rightly described the comment as “outrageous”:

“I am clearly identifiable. It is a calculated denigration of an expert witness. I took early retirement from the Chair of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow some 16 years ago, and spent around a decade from 2001 onwards consulting for a variety of oil companies.

“Projects lasted from a few weeks to a couple of years, involving studies of onshore and offshore India, Western Australia, offshore Madagascar, southern England (both onshore and offshore), and the UK-Irish margin of the NE Atlantic (during this period my wife, not I, ran a B&B for about three years).

“I have requested information from LCC under FOI legislation to discover the origin of the statement quoted above, as I have been unable to find it elsewhere in the published application documents.”

So the PO report dismissed the health impact data and analysis along with the serious concerns associated with the specific geology of the area. But what of the antecedents of the applicant on their prior sites? Surely that is worth considering in the public interest? Apparently not. The report stated that:

“Some of the objections maintain that planning permission should not be granted in view of the alleged poor track record of the applicant when carrying out operations at other sites within its control. With regard to the applicant’s previous operations and compliance with planning permissions a planning permission goes with the land rather than with the applicant and it is right to assume that the applicant would comply with conditions attached to any planning permission.”

So the public should feel safe in the knowledge that the PO simply assumes the applicant will start behaving.

More pro-fracking bias

When it came to dealing with representations from the public, on the New Road application the PO listed 11,127 letters of objection and only 200 in support. However, the report then deconstructed the objection letters into ‘individual’ (827) and ‘template’ letters, the clear implication being that only individual letters are valid. The same treatment was not given to the support letters. Why, I wonder?

A further example of pro-applicant bias can be seen in the PO report’s consideration of the ‘global warming potential’ of the Lancashire applications.

In the absence of a meaningful decarbonising national strategy we can only hope that planning authorities vet planning applications and pay particular attention to likely application greenhouse gas emissions and seek to protect the public interest.

Indeed, planning decisions must take account of the need to reduce GHG emissions but the fracking applications if they had passed would have increased emissions. The PO report, however, suggested that these emissions are “acceptable”.

Moreover, the report states that GWP figures play an important part in estimating the carbon footprint of the project, including its greenhouse gas emissions. But it then goes on to suggest that basing the GWP potential of the application on figures from out of date IPCC reports is “not unreasonable”.

This is an utterly ridiculous position to take unless of course you wish to assist the applicant in downplaying the likely impact of its proposed development.

It is wholly unreasonable to base the GWP of methane on the 2nd IPCC Report rather than the most recent 5th Assessment. To ignore the latest 5th IPCC report figures in favour of the now grossly out of date 2nd report is more than unreasonable, it is grossly inadequate.

Moreover, as climate scientists acknowledge, the IPCC reports themselves are the product of political watering down of the latest science. If we are to protect the public interest, with evidence based policy, of course using out of date reports is unreasonable. If my students did this with their coursework they would fail.

In short, the Planning Officer’s report on which councillors are meant to place much weight was not just deeply flawed but demonstrably biased in a favour of the applicant. The question is why?

We can only guess at the motivations behind writing a report in this manner but it certainly raises serious concerns about possible industry influence or political pressure or it may be that the door is about to revolve for the author? We shall see.

Legal shenanigans – blown open at the last minute

Aside from the problematic Planning Officer’s report, over the course of the two hearings the politics of fracking was plain to see, from the abundance of pro-fracking corporate rhetoric to the anti-fracking protests outside. What was more opaque, however, was the political intrigue that gave rise to the quite extraordinary scenes of disarray, confusion and contestation in the Council chamber last week.

Indeed, whilst the Roseacre Wood application was fairly straightforwardly rejected on the grounds of adverse traffic impact, the Preston New Road application was a different story.

Following a motion to reject that application proposed by Councillor Paul Hayhurst the DCC hearing was interrupted, apparently so that members could obtain ‘legal advice’ behind closed doors.

On resumption of the meeting the Committee members were clearly agitated and concerned by what they had heard. Councillor Paul Hayhurst later revealed that Council legal officers had put intense pressure on the committee to approve the application:

“We were told we must vote for the application. If we didn’t we would be breaking the law and we would be deemed irresponsible members. If it went to appeal and we lost, costs would be awarded against the authority.” Hayhurst then insisted the DCC publish the legal advice so that the public could see it.

The meeting was then adjourned until the 29th June. But it wasn’t until 10am the next day when the legal advice, written by David Manley QC, was finally published on the Council’s website, and worse still it was toned down and expressly stated that rejecting the application would not break the law.

In response, said Hayhurst, “I am absolutely appalled … This is not in the sort of vein that we were advised yesterday.” In his view, the advice that members were given verbally and in private may have dissuaded some of the committee from refusing the application.

Meanwhile another Councillor (Green) suggested additional legal advice may be needed, which gave the residents groups an incentive to procure independent legal advice before the adjourned meeting took place on the Monday.

However, in correspondence with stakeholders LCC officials suggested no new information would be allowed to be circulated at the Monday hearing. Even so, local residents groups obtained independent alternative legal advice by late Friday afternoon and then sent hard copies to all Councillors to arrive Saturday morning.

Friends of the Earth also sought independent legal advice and, following pressure from the residents groups, eventually LCC officials relented and said that such new legal advice could be circulated at the Monday hearing.

Both sets of new legal advice assured Councillors they were within their rights to reject the application if they felt there was sufficient evidence to do so – they were not bound by the advice of the Planning Officer or Council’s QC.

It was a monumental effort by concerned local citizens, the national anti-fracking movement and interested NGOs, which ultimately provided the beleaguered DCC with the confidence and evidence to reject the application in spite of the PO’s report, LCC’s legal ‘advice’ and the attempts to control the flow of information to the DCC with arbitrary submission cut-off dates and the like.

The infamous redacted DEFRA report on fracking and the rural economy

A few DCC members, at various points in the proceedings, requested to delay the decision until a now notorious DEFRA report into the rural economy impacts has been fully published. The ‘Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts’ report was published in heavily redacted form in March 2014, generating considerable protest.

Just after the LCC decisions on July 1st 2015, the full report was finally published. Despite the report being yet another poorly constructed selective ‘literature review’ it is of course interesting, if unsurprising, to see what parts the Government didn’t want the public or local planning authorities to see.

The report’s redacted sections highlight likely negative impacts which are balanced against the perceived positive benefits. For example, it suggests that losses for businesses which rely on a ‘tranquil environment’ (read non-industrialised) of tourists avoiding the area due to fracking operations may be off-set by increased hospitality to new workers; the extent to which such tourism loss can indeed be ‘offset’ is not even estimated.

The implication in the report, however, is that increased ‘hospitality’ to ‘new’ workers will be relatively minimal while tourism loss could be considerable depending on the nature of the site location.

For example, in this particular application area, one in ten jobs are in the tourist business with approximately 17,000 jobs in tourism on the Fylde with 3.1 million visitors a year generating around £220 million per annum, with around 30,000 jobs in agriculture generating £700 million a year.

Much of this would be jeopardised if fracking were to take hold in the area. It is highly improbable to say the least that the 11 jobs promised by Cuadrilla would compensate for the losses in tourism even at the exploration stage.

When it comes to traffic, of particular concern in the Roseacre Wood application. The redacted sections of the DEFRA report conclude that congestion impacts will be “negative but localised”. But just how local? The report makes it very clear that impacts will be over a relatively wide area (at least five miles) around each site, with as many as 36,735 vehicle movements per site. Far from insignificant.

The same ‘negative but localised’ conclusion is reached regarding house price impact: “House prices in close proximity to the drilling operations are likely to fall. However, rents may increase due to additional demand from site workers and supply chain.”

Again the negative ‘off-set’ potential here is vague to say the least and potentially higher rent for workers is not going to assuage the concerns of local homeowners and their potential to fall into negative equity.

This is the time to keep fighting!

It’s obvious why this section was redacted, but contrary to government propaganda it’s also obvious that house prices would fall near fracking operations due to the inherent impacts the industry will bring.

When it came to discussing specific environmental impacts the report author reached another unremarkable, but for industry and government, unpalatable conclusion (p.15):

“there is a risk that even if contaminated surface water does not directly impact drinking water supplies, it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products and that leakage of waste fluids from the drilling and fracking processes has resulted in environmental damage.”

Going forward, as a taster of a new normal if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership goes ahead, it is deeply concerning that neoliberal austerity-ravaged Councils, such as LCC, will be under immense pressure to permit fracking operations despite the considerable risks of environmental and social harms, because under recent government guidelines if they reject an application and lose an appeal they will have to pay costs.

On the other hand, if other Councils, backed by committed and organised anti-fracking constituents, continue to object it may be that the prospects for a fledgling fracking industry in the UK are bleak.

Based on the evidence of negative social and environmental impacts I have seen over the years I certainly hope so.

Dr Damien Short is director of the Human Rights Consortium at the School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Fracking is driving UK civil and political rights violations‘ by Jess Elliot & Damien Short.

Petition to Amber Rudd, Energy Secretary: ‘Keep your promise to protect our beautiful nature and wildlife sites from fracking. Don’t allow fracking to happen in or under our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest‘ (38 Degrees).

You may have missed it among all the talk of minimum wages and welfare cuts, but as part of its summer budget announcements the UK government also abolished the requirement for new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ from April 2016.

A commitment in place since 2006 and supported through successive governments, now thrown into a bonfire of supposed ‘red tape’ holding back new building projects and the productivity of the UK economy. It’s an appalling act of policy vandalism.

I heard the news on my way back from a big international conference in Paris on Our Common Future under Climate Change, a prelude to the next round of climate negotiations to take place later this year.

Listening to speaker after speaker stressing the urgency of climate action – and the attempts by at least some of those present to be optimistic about what might be agreed – I deluded myself into thinking that maybe the carbon question would now be taken seriously, even in the UK with a government demonstrating at every step its now true-blue ideology.

From praiseworthy ambition to total copout

The zero-carbon homes policy was properly ambitious (at least in its original form). It focused on radically reducing the emissions from housing through a combination of energy-efficient building design and use of low or zero-carbon energy generation, such as solar panels.

More recently forms of carbon offsetting were allowed as part of the ‘zero’ calculation so that carbon could be mitigated away from the immediate development site. The Conservative government has now scrapped both this allowable solutions policy and the increase in on-site energy efficiency standards, taking away the foundations of zero-carbon compliance.

The meaning of the ‘zero’ had already been diluted, stripped of any sense of entailing new ways of ongoing low-carbon living – and the closely-related Code for Sustainable Homes had been got rid of. But even so, at least the zero-carbon requirement was still in place in some form.

Not now. Not after nine years of intensive collaborative work by the Zero Carbon Hub, set up after the obligation was first put in place to work out exactly what the zero would mean, how it would be calculated and to provide guidance to housing industry on all sorts of detailed aspects of compliance.

This is what makes it policy vandalism and a damaging breach of trust that can only undermine attempts at collaborative initiatives in the future.

Raising energy bills, and sending all the wrong signals

It’s not just those trying (increasingly desperately) to make the case for action on climate change that have protested. The British Property Federation, the Chartered Institute of Building the UK Green Building Council and some (but not all) other industry bodies have registered their protest at the loss of a long-term commitment to improving the energy and carbon efficiency of new homes.

The government’s argument is that scrapping the zero-carbon obligation will stimulate house building and help reduce house prices. But the evidence is lacking for both claims, with high house prices in particular far more a function of the dysfunctional way that property markets work in the UK and the lack of a proper regional policy to distribute jobs and growth more evenly across the economy.

More fundamentally, a decision that can only serve to increase our carbon emissions projected into the future sends absolutely all the wrong signals, including to those governments in the Global South that quite rightly point out our historic and contemporary responsibility for carbon accumulation.

Maybe house builders will still take up some of the innovation and capacity for building in new low-carbon ways that have been developed over the past nine years. But without the regulatory push it is hard to imagine that things will not level out at a lower standard.

There is now an open invitation to build less carbon-efficient houses, for profit-making at the expense of our deep moral responsibility to act now to mitigate future climate impacts.

Yes new homes are needed (in some places), but not at this cost, and not in a way that destroys even the limited sense of what ‘zero carbon’ had become.

Gordon Walker is Professor at the DEMAND Centre and Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University.

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