Your child has been thinking about Halloween for months. All the meticulous planning for the costume, the last minute makeup adjustments, and the yearlong anticipation are all poised to erupt as they reach for the first doorbell of the night, ready to yell ‘Trick or Treat’.

Yet there’s a threat to your child so small, you can’t even see it coming. That threat is nanotechnology in food products. Though not entirely new, mounting evidence demonstrates that this largely unregulated technology is creeping into more and more places, including your children’s Halloween candy.

To bring light to this issue, Center for Food Safety has a new interactive database that shows common food products that contain nanomaterials, including Mentos, Skittles, M&Ms, gum, and sour candies.

Nanotechnology is a new wave of chemical engineering with some scary repercussions. We cover that more here and here, but in short, materials on the nano-scale are really small, highly reactive particles that can pass through the body’s blood brain barrier, into bone marrow, lymph nodes, and the heart.

These products are untested, and we don’t know the health implications of ingesting them.

Health risks of nanotechnology

So what does that mean for your child on Halloween? Let’s look at one of the most common engineered nanomaterials found in candy – titanium dioxide.

According to Dr Paul Westerhoff, a professor at Arizona State University whose lab has conducted a number of analyses on the presence of nanoparticles in food, titanium dioxide is a food additive used as a whitener, as an anti-caking agent, to make surfaces shinier, and to add texture to certain products. It accounts for 70% of the total production volume of pigments worldwide.

Westerhoff’s lab also recently tested 14 products and found nanomaterials in all of them, including nano-titanium dioxide in M&Ms. Among the M&Ms and other candies your child might collect, there are serious health risks from nanomaterials that US regulatory agencies have not properly examined. According to studies, the risks of nano-titanium dioxide include:

• pathological lesions of the liver, spleen, kidneys, and brain;
• lung tumors (studies have shown these in rats);
• inflammation, cell necrosis, and dysfunction in the kidney.

This all happens because nanomaterials are so much smaller and much more reactive than other types of substances. They can get to places in the human body that other materials can’t and cause more damage when they do.

The EU Parliament this week voted to include “engineered nanomaterials” in a forthcoming Regulation on ‘novel foods’. These are defined as “any intentionally produced material that has one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less.”

Under the terms of the regulation, says the EU Parliament’s press release, “The new rules would subject novel food to a safety evaluation and authorisation at the EU level. If there was a possibility a new food could affect people’s health, then the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) would have to carry out an assessment.”

However this is not yet law – the proposed Regulation will only come into force following approval by the EU’s Council of Ministers. And in the US, nanotechnologies used in food have yet to face any real regulation at all.

Nanotechnology remains unregulated in US food

Food producers and manufacturers delight in the fact that most nanotechnology products have a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) designation. But that designation is easier for companies to get than it is for a trick-or-treater to fill their pillow sack.

According to the FDA, any substance that is intentionally added to food is subject to premarket review and approval unless it has adequately been shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive.

Since there is no nano-specific regulation, companies can claim GRAS designation for nanomaterials based on the properties of their larger, non-nano counterparts.

In its 2014 ‘Guidance for Industry: Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, Including Emerging Technologies‘, the FDA said going forward a company should not use GRAS to approve its nano additives, but did nothing to remove existing products that contain unapproved nano additives from the market.

More importantly, while an advisory guidance is a positive step, consumers would be better protected if the FDA actually made it binding.

The other agency that should be held responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), yet they too fall short. Because of the novel properties of nanomaterials, their manufacture poses unique environmental risks as these materials are small enough to escape from the manufacturing loop.

For example, a number of studies show that consumer products, including food contact products like plastic food containers, shed nano-silver particles into the environment and have turned up in wastewater and sewage sludge.

‘Strong encouragement’ is not enough!

Despite legal action by Center for Food Safety, EPA still has not committed to regulating currently commercialized nano-products. Instead, the agency has responded to the lawsuit by saying it will seek enforcement against current unregistered products at its discretion, and will be “strongly encouraging” all manufacturers to seek pesticide registration of their nanotechnologies. This is clearly not enough.

Lastly, there is rising concern over prospects of nanomaterials seeping into organic foods. Nanomaterials are synthetic, can be toxic, and have little resemblance to the source material from which they were derived. They are not found in nature and they certainly don’t belong in organic.

Against widespread agreement from the wider organic community that nanotechnologies and materials should be prohibited in organic, the US Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (USDA/NOP) has issued a guidance allowing companies to petition their use on a case-by-case basis.

It’s a devilish idea. Don’t be scared to tell the National Organic Program to carve out a nano prohibition now!

What we can do about it

We know that weak regulation means untested nanotechnologies are used in far more products than originally thought. Companies like Mars even have patents for nanotechnologies applicable to some of their most common products: M&Ms and Skittles (here) and Snickers and Milky Way (here.)

Even though many studies show the risks associated with nanotechnology, it is still remarkably easy for companies to use nanomaterials with impunity.

This Halloween, consider offering alternatives to these untested candies. While fruit and healthy options won’t always make you the most popular house on the block, they are a good place to start. Other options like, fair trade chocolates or other organic candies will make your house the place to stop and won’t have any nanomaterials.

We need to press for more research and for stronger regulations on nanotechnology in the US – if the EU can do it, so can we! Share this post so people know what’s coming and make sure you check out our inventory cataloging the different foods with nanoparticles on the market already.

Jaydee Hanson is Senior Policy Analyst and Evan Bromfield is Sustainable Food Associate at the Center for Food Safety.

This article was originally published by the Center for Food Safety. This version includes additional reporting by The Ecologist with news of developments taking place in the EU this week.

The cost of solar energy continues to fall, so it is no surprise that more people are adopting solar.

This rapid growth of rooftop solar, however, has led many electric utilities to try to apply the brakes. A number have lobbied to change the ‘net metering’ policies that credit consumers for the excess solar power they generate. Does this make sense?

Solar net metering works akin to a bank account. You ‘deposit’ unused energy (kilowatt-hours) generated by your system during the day onto the electric grid – that is, during those times when your solar panels generate more power than your home consumes. You then ‘withdraw’ energy at night or when your system is not generating enough electricity.

Also like a bank account, your deposited energy is not just sitting in a vault – other utility customers who need electricity use your excess solar power at the time of deposit. When you withdraw the energy, it is generated by a power plant for you.

As simple as this process sounds, it has generated a huge debate within the electric power industry.

Utilities claim: ‘solar pushes up prices for other customers‘

The electric industry makes an appealing argument that utilities should charge net metering customers for all these energy deposits and withdrawals. In promoting a change to the net metering law in Minnesota, for example, State Representative Pat Garofalo said solar customers are “able to use the grid without charge and this means higher rates for other consumers.”

On the other side of the argument, there is a compelling case that says utilities should let solar customers use the grid at no charge or even that utilities should provide incentives to solar customers. After all, solar photovoltaic systems produce the most during long sunny summer days when the demand for electricity is high and it costs more money to generate power.

Thus, according to this argument, the excess solar generation deposited onto the grid during the day is more valuable than the electricity withdrawn at nighttime.

So which logic is more compelling? Is net metering a burdensome requirement or is it beneficial to everyone?

Last year I heard the president of a midwestern utility speak about this burden solar created, and his logic seemed very good. So I looked at the electricity production data that were automatically collected by my own rooftop solar panels and compared it to the peak and off-peak electric rates that I pay.

I then decided to systematically dig into the numbers for a large region in my home state of Pennsylvania and do a more scientific analysis – and the results surprised me.

Varying price for electricity

Pennsylvania has a deregulated market in which utilities distribute electricity, rather than produce it. Most customers choose and pay a separate supplier for the generation of electricity from a power plant. When customers don’t make this choice, then utilities will purchase wholesale power – the cost that utilities pay to power generating companies – and then resell this power to consumers at a retail price.

During times of high demand, the price for power on the wholesale market goes up due to supply and demand. It can even go up by over 1,000% within the same day or week.

Utilities and electric suppliers make daily predictions for the amount of energy needed by all customers so that electricity can be generated, purchased and placed onto the grid. A very hot summer day, for instance, will require more energy to meet high air conditioning loads. Using short-term weather forecasting, one can also project the impact of solar energy on the overall demand for electricity on the day-ahead market.

I looked at the hourly price data for the day-ahead market for wholesale energy in the Pittsburgh region. And then I looked at solar production data for many photovoltaic arrays for this same region.

Using these data and a few assumptions about when a solar customer uses electricity, I found that the wholesale price for electricity deposited onto the grid is 20% greater than the wholesale price of electricity withdrawn from the grid at night or on bad weather days. In other words, solar energy allows suppliers and utilities to realize savings and increase profit margins, even though the solar customers are purchasing less electricity overall.

True value of solar?

But how would we quantify the full value of solar? The best way is to analyze the impact of solar that is not already priced into the market.

First, we assume that the price for a given demand remains constant. Then create a scenario or model in which a large amount of solar energy is placed onto the grid. This would create a noticeable decrease in the current daytime demand for electricity and a corresponding decrease in the price of electricity during these daytime hours.

For example, based on 2013 data, if Pennsylvania had solar energy provide 5% of all its electricity, a utility and its associated electric suppliers would see, according to my research, savings of US$60 million per year for a region of 600,000 customers. (Five percent is quite a large amount of solar for Pennsylvania, where solar energy provides about 0.1% of electricity now.)

At the same time, the utility and suppliers would see a decline in retail revenue of $45 million since solar customers would not be paying as much for their electricity. Amazingly, the savings are greater than the lost revenue.

For a typical utility or supplier, the net savings, according to my calculations, are $25 per customer per year. This is savings for every customer, not just solar customers. The few solar customers would be responsible for lowering the cost of electricity for all customers.

These savings are based only on the generation of electricity. There are additional similar savings for the distribution of electricity that I have not yet addressed. Just as it costs more to generate electricity when the demand is high, it also costs more to distribute electricity when the demand is high. In fact, sometimes it can cost so much more that utilities are willing to pay customers not to use electricity.

I should stress that even with solar energy, we need utilities and power generators. There will always be an infrastructure that needs to be supported and thus utilities and generators need to maintain a dependable revenue. However, as long as solar provides more savings than the decrease in revenue, there should be no problem for the electric industry.

In fact, the electric industry could reinvest these additional profits to make the infrastructure more suitable for even larger amounts of solar.

Solar to the rescue?

If solar energy were adopted nationwide to 5%, 10% or even higher levels, consumers will need to rethink their use of electricity. Now, regulators create policies in many states to encourage customers to lower their use of power during peak hours, shifting it instead to the evening. Instead of shifting electric use to nighttime hours, consumers would be encouraged to shift their use to late morning and midday hours.

Rather than be most expensive, power would be cheapest during the day. At that time, generators and utilities would then have a new complaint: “Solar energy provides only the least valuable energy during the day, and we have to give back electricity to these customers at high nighttime rates, how unfair!”

When that time comes, generators and utilities will need to be reminded that their daytime costs would have been astronomically higher if not for solar energy, and even nighttime rates would have been higher if not for solar.

Richard Flarend is Associate Professor of Physics, Pennsylvania State University.

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

The government plans to cut tax reliefs for community energy schemes to build new renewable power capacity such as solar and wind.

The move will deal a further blow to the UK’s embattled renewables sector, green campaigners have warned.

The Treasury is to remove tax reliefs of 30% or more for community energy schemes that reduced the risk for investors and encouraged private capital to help build new energy capacity.

The move, which emerged this week during the finance bill’s third reading, had not been expected. It means that investors in community energy projects will not be able to benefit from the so-called Enterprise Investment Schemes, the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme or the Social Investment Tax Relief, making such investments much less attractive.

It comes on top of previous subsidy cuts and proposals by the government to cut subsidies for domestic solar installations – so called feed-in tariffs – by 87%.

‘Too much negativity’ being thrown at renewables

Jan-Willem Bode, the managing director of Mongoose Energy, one of the largest green energy groups in the UK, said: “Many [shareholders] feel like pulling the plug right now because it is just too much negativity thrown at the sector.”

Bode said a typical green energy launch project will have 400 to 600 members – “a significant number for a green energy group” – with a minimum investment of £200 in shares. He said Mongoose Energy was aiming for 10,000 investors by March 2016.

Cuts to the feed-in tariff would “definitely be a blow to the green image of the government”, said Bode. “But with the latest announcement it has become clear there has been no desire at all to have a vibrant renewable energy sector and especially a community energy sector.”

Mongoose Energy, to be chaired next month by Ed Davey, the former energy secretary, with a confirmed pipeline of 100MW of renewable energy, has a £110m portfolio of projects to bring into community ownership such as ground-mounted solar rays in farms, roof-mounted solar panels at schools as well as a hydropower mill. Some of the projects are still under construction or in the process of being funded.

90% of community energy projects already at risk – before these cuts

A survey earlier this month of 80 community energy groups with membership totalling 11,000 people, revealed 90% of groups said their developing projects were completely or partially at risk due to the proposed cuts.

The industry has warned the cuts to subsidies would lead to the loss of 27,000 jobs, with 1,000 jobs already lost as solar firms go out of business. The new research suggests it would also threaten approximately £127m in investment.

The report found 38 Community Energy England (CEE) groups had received £7.4m in feed-in tariff subsidies since the scheme began in 2010, which had brought in £50m of private investment and generated £45m for local economies.

Projects at risk from the cuts include community solar and hydro projects in Cumbria, which will lead to the county losing at least £750,000 in investment.

A purely political choice

Barbara Stoll, a Greenpeace energy campaigner, said the subsidies added just £6 a year on people’s bills and solar was moving towards becoming subsidy free. She accused the government of making a “political choice, not an economic necessity”.

Emma Bridge, of CEE, said: “Community energy reduces energy bills, provides energy efficiency advice, develops skills, generates revenue in the local economy … and delivers value for money and this value for money will increase as the sector matures.”

She added: “The government’s proposed changes to the feed-in tariffs will seriously damage this vibrant and growing sector, making it far more difficult for communities to take control of the energy they use.”

Andrea Leadsom, the energy minister, told senior MPs at an energy committee meeting the government remains as committed as ever to meeting emissions reduction targets. Earlier this month she told the parliamentary energy and climate change committee the new government had been forced to implement urgent measures to address an overspend in subsidies to protect bill payers from rising costs.

Several solar companies have blamed the planned subsidy cuts for their closure, which has caused more than 1,000 job losses. Leadsom accepted the plans had caused uncertainty. But she said it was a short-term issue and that future announcements about an energy policy “reset” would be aimed at giving investors certainty.

Aisha Gani is a Guardian reporter on the news desk. She has also worked on the features desk and with the interactive team. Follow her on Twitter: @aishagani

This article was originally published on the Guardian Environment and is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

Several weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and the UK marched to protest the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a massive planned new trade deal between Europe and the US.

They were rightly sounding the alarm as TTIP will greatly reduce the ability of local governments to spend public money for local development, impose new limits on the right of governments of all levels to regulate on behalf of their citizens and environment, endanger public services and jeopardize Europe’s higher standards on labour, food safety and social security.

TTIP also includes Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a provision that will allow American corporations to sue European governments for laws and practices that threaten their bottom line. There are now over 3,200 bilateral ISDS agreements in the world, and foreign corporations have used them to sue governments over health, safety and environmental laws.

For example, cigarette maker Phillip Morris used ISDS to challenge Australian rules around cigarette packaging intended to promote public health. A Swedish company, Vattenfall, is suing Germany for a reported €4.7 billion relating to Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power. ISDS is profoundly anti-democratic and threatens the human rights of people everywhere.

A warning from Canada – 35 ISDS actions from the US

But people in the UK and Europe should be paying attention to another deal that has had way less attention. CETA – the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada – is equally disturbing and way further along in the process.

I’m coming on a speaking tour of the UK to share a powerful story of Canada’s experience that is relevant for two reasons.

The first is that we Canadians have lived with ISDS for 20 years. It was first included in NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico, and has been used extensively by the corporations of North America to get their way.

As a result of NAFTA, Canada is now the most sued developed country in the world. Canada has been sued more times than either the US or Mexico. Of the 77 known NAFTA investor-state claims, 35 have been against Canada, 22 have targeted Mexico and 20 have targeted the US.

We have already paid out over over $200 million (~€135m) to American corporations. Foreign investors are seeking another $2.6 billion (~€1.75 bn) from the Canadian government in new cases. Even defending cases that may not be successful is expensive. Canada has already spent over $65 million (€45m) defending itself from NAFTA challenges.

The US government has won 11 of its cases and never lost a NAFTA investor-state case or paid any compensation to Canadian or Mexican companies.

Two-thirds of the claims involve challenges to environmental protection or management of our own resources, issues that should reflect the democratic will of the people of Canada. No surprise, the US has never lost a NAFTA case. In this game, the big guys generally win.

Canada – the back door for US corporations to sue the EU

The other reason people of the UK and Europe should care about Canada is that the CETA is a ‘done deal’, meaning that, even though it has not been ratified politically, the negotiations are finished and they contain ISDS provisions. CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.

There is a great deal of opposition to ISDS in TTIP, so much so, that many think either ISDS will have to come out of the deal or be radically modified, or it will be defeated in Europe. Already, the European Commission has proposed ISDS ‘reforms’ to TTIP that would set up a new European Investment Court that would be more transparent and accountable, although still unacceptable to most of us.

But all an American agriculture, energy, mining or drug giant would have to do to take full advantage of ISDS is use its existing subsidiary in Canada, or set one up, and sue European governments through CETA. American corporations would have as much access to challenge Europe’s higher standards under CETA as if TTIP with a full ISDS had been signed.

In fact, one Canadian gold mining company has already done something similar – setting up a UK subsidiary in order to sue Romania for $2.56 billion under a UK-Romania trade and investment deal after a mining permit was refused at Rosia Montana.

Canada’s losing ISDS cases

• Ethyl, a US chemical corporation, successfully challenged a Canadian ban on imports of its gasoline that contained MMT, an additive that is a suspected neurotoxin. The Canadian government repealed the ban and paid the company $13 million (approximately €8.8 million) for its loss of revenue.
• S.D. Myers, a US waste disposal firm, challenged a similar ban on the export of toxic PCB waste. Canada paid the company over $6 million (approximately €4 million).
• A NAFTA panel ordered the Canadian government to pay Exxon-Mobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, $17.3 million (approximately €11.6 million) when the company challenged government guidelines that investors in offshore exploration in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador – where the company is heavily involved – must invest in local research and development.
• New Jersey-based Bilcon Construction is demanding $300,000 (approximately €200,000) in damages from the Canadian government after winning a NAFTA challenge when its plan to build a massive quarry and marine terminal in an environmentally sensitive area of Nova Scotia and ship basalt aggregate through the Bay of Fundy, site of the highest tides in the world, was rejected by an environmental assessment panel.
• Chemical giant Dow AgroSciences used NAFTA to force the province of Quebec, after it banned 2,4-D, a pesticide that the Natural Resources Defence Council says has been linked in many studies to cancer and cell damage, to publicly acknowledge that the chemical does not pose an ‘unacceptable risk’ to human health, a position the government had previously held.
• The Canadian government paid American pulp and paper giant AbitibiBowater $130 million (approximately €88 million) after the company successfully used NAFTA to claim compensation for the ‘water and timber rights’ it left behind when it abandoned its operations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador after 100 years, leaving the workers with unpaid pensions. This challenge is particularly disturbing because it gives a foreign investor the right to claim compensation for the actual resources it used while operating in another jurisdiction.
• Mesa Power Group, an energy company owned by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, is claiming $775 million (approximately €523 million) in a challenge to the province of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which gives preferential access to local wind farm operators.
• Lone Pine, a Canadian energy company, is suing the Canadian government through its American affiliate for $250 million (approximately €152 million) because the province of Quebec introduced a temporary moratorium on all fracking activities under the St. Lawrence River until further studies are completed. This challenge is concerning because it involves a domestic company using a foreign subsidiary to sue its own government.
• Eli Lilly, a U.S. pharmaceutical giant, is suing Canada for $500 million (approximately €337 million) after three levels of courts in Canada denied it a patent extension on one of its products. This case is particularly disturbing because it challenges Canadian laws as interpreted by Canadian courts and represents a new frontier for ISDS challenges

‘An attack on the very essence of sovereignty’

Truth is, there’s very little in these ‘trade’ deals that is actually about trade. They’re much more about handing over frightening new rights to corporations that fundamentally challenge the way that governments legislate on behalf of ordinary people.

It’s no wonder that a UN expert on human rights recently referred to ISDS as “an attack on the very essence of sovereignty and self-determination, which are founding principles of the United Nations.”

Trade and investment agreements such as NAFTA, CETA and TTIP give transnational corporations incredible new rights to impose their will on governments. But they are probably just the tip of the iceberg because many new laws or changes to laws never come to light because of the ‘chill effect’ of prior restraint.

The Canadian government adopted a new policy soon after NAFTA was adopted whereby all new laws and any changes to existing laws have to be vetted by trade experts to ensure they are not challengeable under ISDS rules.

People in the UK should learn from our experiences in Canada and understand that this new generation of trade deals poses a terrible threat to health of their people, the resilience of their communities, the fate of their public services, and the protection of their natural resources.

Maude Barlow is National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a citizens’ advocacy organization with members and chapters across Canada. She is also the co-founder of the Blue Planet Project, which works internationally for the human right to water.

Speaking tour: Maude Barlow is coming to the UK on a speaker tour called ‘Stop the Transatlantic Trade Deals‘ alongside Yash Tandon and Nick Dearden. From 1-9 November they will be appearing in Dundee, Leeds, Manchester, London, Oxford, Cardiff and Dublin. See here for more info.

This article is a synthesis of two articles by Maude Barlow originally published by Global Justice Now.

European beekeepers have filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice to cancel the authorization for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, sulfoxaflor is a ‘fourth generation’ neonicotinoid chemical categorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The EFSA’s assessment of the pesticide also identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible.

The few field studies provided by Dow indicate acute risk to bees but important information is missing on brood toxicity, sublethal (orientation) toxicity or long term toxicity. Further, no studies on wild pollinators such as bumble bees were made.

This information is mandatory, according to EU law (Regulation 283/2013). But the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) chose to overlook the evidence showing sulfoxaflor is toxic to bees and the lack of toxicity data, and in July 2015 authorised the insecticide for 10 years.

Why the change?

In contrast, in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA – which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment – led to an EU-wide ban on using the three pesticides in seed coatings on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Juncker Commission was established.”

He adds that sulfoxaflor’s physico-chemical and toxicological specificities make it a neonicotinoid – but Dow managed to have it classified as a Sulfoximine insecticide, “probably for reputation reasons.”

Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. Like other neonics, sulfoxaflor acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects.

The complaint was filed by Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, citing the EFSA’s negative assessment.

US registration revoked

The move follows a recent US federal court decision that cancelled the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) earlier unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, citing inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees.

In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

On 10th September 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. As a result sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the US.

The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked increased environmental harm. Sulfoxaflor was registered in the US for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and other crops.

Several comments had been submitted to the EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

US pollinator strategy fails to address bee-toxic pesticides

Bees in the US and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade – losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time.

In the US, farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s lead and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.

Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and proposed to place a temporary prohibition on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees.

The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides.

States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

Petition: ‘Ban all bee-killing insecticides, including Dow’s deadly sulfoxaflor!‘

Sources:

• Beyond Pesticides.
• PAN Europe Press Release.

European beekeepers have filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice to cancel the authorization for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, sulfoxaflor is a ‘fourth generation’ neonicotinoid chemical categorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The EFSA’s assessment of the pesticide also identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible.

The few field studies provided by Dow indicate acute risk to bees but important information is missing on brood toxicity, sublethal (orientation) toxicity or long term toxicity. Further, no studies on wild pollinators such as bumble bees were made.

This information is mandatory, according to EU law (Regulation 283/2013). But the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) chose to overlook the evidence showing sulfoxaflor is toxic to bees and the lack of toxicity data, and in July 2015 authorised the insecticide for 10 years.

Why the change?

In contrast, in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA – which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment – led to an EU-wide ban on using the three pesticides in seed coatings on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Juncker Commission was established.”

He adds that sulfoxaflor’s physico-chemical and toxicological specificities make it a neonicotinoid – but Dow managed to have it classified as a Sulfoximine insecticide, “probably for reputation reasons.”

Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. Like other neonics, sulfoxaflor acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects.

The complaint was filed by Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, citing the EFSA’s negative assessment.

US registration revoked

The move follows a recent US federal court decision that cancelled the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) earlier unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, citing inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees.

In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

On 10th September 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. As a result sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the US.

The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked increased environmental harm. Sulfoxaflor was registered in the US for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and other crops.

Several comments had been submitted to the EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

US pollinator strategy fails to address bee-toxic pesticides

Bees in the US and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade – losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time.

In the US, farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s lead and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.

Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and proposed to place a temporary prohibition on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees.

The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides.

States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

Petition: ‘Ban all bee-killing insecticides, including Dow’s deadly sulfoxaflor!‘

Sources:

• Beyond Pesticides.
• PAN Europe Press Release.

European beekeepers have filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice to cancel the authorization for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, sulfoxaflor is a ‘fourth generation’ neonicotinoid chemical categorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The EFSA’s assessment of the pesticide also identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible.

The few field studies provided by Dow indicate acute risk to bees but important information is missing on brood toxicity, sublethal (orientation) toxicity or long term toxicity. Further, no studies on wild pollinators such as bumble bees were made.

This information is mandatory, according to EU law (Regulation 283/2013). But the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) chose to overlook the evidence showing sulfoxaflor is toxic to bees and the lack of toxicity data, and in July 2015 authorised the insecticide for 10 years.

Why the change?

In contrast, in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA – which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment – led to an EU-wide ban on using the three pesticides in seed coatings on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Juncker Commission was established.”

He adds that sulfoxaflor’s physico-chemical and toxicological specificities make it a neonicotinoid – but Dow managed to have it classified as a Sulfoximine insecticide, “probably for reputation reasons.”

Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. Like other neonics, sulfoxaflor acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects.

The complaint was filed by Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, citing the EFSA’s negative assessment.

US registration revoked

The move follows a recent US federal court decision that cancelled the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) earlier unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, citing inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees.

In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

On 10th September 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. As a result sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the US.

The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked increased environmental harm. Sulfoxaflor was registered in the US for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and other crops.

Several comments had been submitted to the EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

US pollinator strategy fails to address bee-toxic pesticides

Bees in the US and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade – losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time.

In the US, farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s lead and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.

Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and proposed to place a temporary prohibition on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees.

The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides.

States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

Petition: ‘Ban all bee-killing insecticides, including Dow’s deadly sulfoxaflor!‘

Sources:

• Beyond Pesticides.
• PAN Europe Press Release.

European beekeepers have filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice to cancel the authorization for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, sulfoxaflor is a ‘fourth generation’ neonicotinoid chemical categorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The EFSA’s assessment of the pesticide also identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible.

The few field studies provided by Dow indicate acute risk to bees but important information is missing on brood toxicity, sublethal (orientation) toxicity or long term toxicity. Further, no studies on wild pollinators such as bumble bees were made.

This information is mandatory, according to EU law (Regulation 283/2013). But the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) chose to overlook the evidence showing sulfoxaflor is toxic to bees and the lack of toxicity data, and in July 2015 authorised the insecticide for 10 years.

Why the change?

In contrast, in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA – which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment – led to an EU-wide ban on using the three pesticides in seed coatings on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Juncker Commission was established.”

He adds that sulfoxaflor’s physico-chemical and toxicological specificities make it a neonicotinoid – but Dow managed to have it classified as a Sulfoximine insecticide, “probably for reputation reasons.”

Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. Like other neonics, sulfoxaflor acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects.

The complaint was filed by Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, citing the EFSA’s negative assessment.

US registration revoked

The move follows a recent US federal court decision that cancelled the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) earlier unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, citing inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees.

In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

On 10th September 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. As a result sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the US.

The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked increased environmental harm. Sulfoxaflor was registered in the US for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and other crops.

Several comments had been submitted to the EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

US pollinator strategy fails to address bee-toxic pesticides

Bees in the US and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade – losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time.

In the US, farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s lead and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.

Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and proposed to place a temporary prohibition on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees.

The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides.

States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

Petition: ‘Ban all bee-killing insecticides, including Dow’s deadly sulfoxaflor!‘

Sources:

• Beyond Pesticides.
• PAN Europe Press Release.

European beekeepers have filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice to cancel the authorization for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, sulfoxaflor is a ‘fourth generation’ neonicotinoid chemical categorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The EFSA’s assessment of the pesticide also identified crucial toxicity data gaps, which according to the beekeepers, makes a proper risk assessment for bees impossible.

The few field studies provided by Dow indicate acute risk to bees but important information is missing on brood toxicity, sublethal (orientation) toxicity or long term toxicity. Further, no studies on wild pollinators such as bumble bees were made.

This information is mandatory, according to EU law (Regulation 283/2013). But the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) chose to overlook the evidence showing sulfoxaflor is toxic to bees and the lack of toxicity data, and in July 2015 authorised the insecticide for 10 years.

Why the change?

In contrast, in 2013, a similar analysis of three neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) prepared by EFSA – which found high risk to bees, many data gaps to carry out a proper risk assessment – led to an EU-wide ban on using the three pesticides in seed coatings on bee-attractive crops.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s honey bee project coordinator explains, “In 2013, DG Sante made a positive step towards a better protection of bees and the environment in general. This U-turn is not acceptable. We put it in parallel with other negative developments in the pesticide area since the Juncker Commission was established.”

He adds that sulfoxaflor’s physico-chemical and toxicological specificities make it a neonicotinoid – but Dow managed to have it classified as a Sulfoximine insecticide, “probably for reputation reasons.”

Neonicotinoids, including sulfoxaflor, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. Like other neonics, sulfoxaflor acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects.

The complaint was filed by Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination, the Italian National Beekeeping Union (UNAAPI), and PAN Europe, citing the EFSA’s negative assessment.

US registration revoked

The move follows a recent US federal court decision that cancelled the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) earlier unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, citing inadequate and flawed review of the science on the chemical’s toxicity to bees.

In 2013, in response to EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, beekeepers filed suit against EPA, citing that the insecticide further endangers bees and beekeeping, noting that their concerns were not properly addressed by EPA before registration was granted.

On 10th September 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honey bee colonies. As a result sulfoxaflor may no longer be used in the US.

The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because, given the precariousness of bee populations, allowing EPA’s continued registration of sulfoxaflor risked increased environmental harm. Sulfoxaflor was registered in the US for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and other crops.

Several comments had been submitted to the EPA by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.

However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies.

US pollinator strategy fails to address bee-toxic pesticides

Bees in the US and Europe have seen unprecedented losses over the last decade – losses attributed to widespread pesticide use, especially neonicotinoids which gained popularity during the same time.

In the US, farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the European Union’s lead and suspend the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market.

Thus far, EPA has amended neonicotinoid product labels to make clearer the hazards posed to bees, placed a moratorium on new neonicotinoid products, and proposed to place a temporary prohibition on the foliar application of pesticides acutely toxic to bees.

The plight of bees was recognized by the Obama Administration, which has since directed federal agencies to find solutions to reverse and restore healthy pollinator populations. The federal report, released May 2015, outlines several measures including public education and habitat creation, but little to nothing on bee-toxic pesticides.

States are also encouraged to develop pollinator plans to help mitigate risks to bees, but many including beekeepers believe these do not go far enough.

Petition: ‘Ban all bee-killing insecticides, including Dow’s deadly sulfoxaflor!‘

Sources:

• Beyond Pesticides.
• PAN Europe Press Release.

Does anyone really understand what happened at last week’s UN climate talks in Germany? Did the stormy atmosphere blow a hole in the potential for a new global deal – or are countries still on course to reach a historic agreement?

If anyone should know, it’s Christiana Figueres – the super-savvy Costa Rican diplomat who is in charge of bringing the talks to a successful conclusion in December.

This is what she had to say, after a tetchy week that saw a large group of developing countries reject a slimmed-down version of the draft treaty – and a new, much longer text emerge.

“We now have a text that is owned by parties and balanced. I cannot over-emphasise how important that is. It is longer and more contradictory in some ways – but it is manageable.”

At first sight, this upbeat assessment seems contradictory. How can the situation have improved if the text has got longer and the options multiplied? The answer lies in the balance between trust and clarity which is central to these complex negotiations.

The first rule of climate diplomacy: keep everyone on board

The nine page short draft was indeed relatively easy to read. But the diplomats who drafted it had left out proposals which many countries felt were vital to their national interests. As a result, countries didn’t feel ownership of the draft and were not prepared to use it as the basis for progress.

This is a familiar hazard for diplomats trying to produce a draft that is simple enough for politicians to understand and make decisions about – but broad enough to represent a wide range of views.

If they get it wrong in the run up to a big summit, negotiators exercise their right to go back to the drawing board. This is frustrating, but it is the very essence of multi-lateral diplomacy.

The real problem comes if the text expands so much that there isn’t time to get it back on track before leaders roll into town. If that happens, it usually results in a short, ‘lowest common denominator’ package, cobbled together because the bosses won’t agree on anything more substantial when they are up against the clock.

There is of course always a risk that some countries will instruct their negotiators to slow things down because this is precisely the outcome they want. But most of those I spoke to in Bonn last week recognised that the draft text didn’t survive because it was too vague and weak in critical areas.

Most prominent were the text on climate finance, and the paragraphs setting out a pathway towards much tougher pollution cuts in future.

The original draft had very little to say about how richer countries would deliver on their promise to provide $100 billion of climate finance annually by 2020; or how this would be scaled up in the years afterwards. Nor did it paint a convincing picture of how to ‘shift the trillions’ of dollars of private sector capital currently flowing into high carbon projects.

Much participation – insufficient commitment

So far 155 countries have tabled national climate action plans, signalling their willingness to participate in the new agreement. Many of these are developing countries struggling with the extreme weather whilst simultaneously seeking to build schools, hospitals and clean energy systems.

This level of participation in the deal is truly remarkable. But for the promised action to become a reality, these countries need investment, technology and capacity-building. Universal participation requires universal access to resources. It’s that simple – and the draft agreement didn’t include enough concrete proposals to make it happen.

Also, whilst the numbers of countries involved is really encouraging, it’s clear that the action proposed by countries so far will not be enough to keep temperature rises to manageable levels.

This makes it vital that there is a strong shared commitment to do better, including a goal to decarbonise the global economy by the middle of this century; and a process to drive new actions every five years, until that goal is achieved.

Positive proposals on global decarbonisation emerged from a recent meeting hosted by the UN Secretary General – but didn’t find their way into first Bonn text. Nor did wording that would bring countries back to the negotiating table in 2020 with more ambitious national plans. These options were duly inserted during the week that followed, along with improved language on climate finance.

Putting the common good first – will it happen?

So, perhaps it’s time to say goodbye Bonn, and thanks for all the text. The new draft agreement is too long, it has many options in it that will not survive, it reflects some countries’ hobby-horses. But it also contains the potential for a better deal than was possible when the Bonn session started.

It is now the responsibility of negotiators to avoid playing the worst kind of climate games – the ones that put a strong outcome at risk – and to settle on a set of options that allow leaders to choose the future we need.

The last word should go to Christiana Figueres, who has a message for all those coming to December’s summit (inside and outside the formal negotiating process):

“Come to Paris. Participate. But participate responsibly. Because I am telling you very clearly, that irresponsible participation – anything that delays action and undermines common ground – is unacceptable. This is not a game. It is our planet and our future that is at stake.”

Ruth Davis is a writer, campaigner, political analyst and conservationist. From 2009 to 2015 she was Political Director at Greenpeace UK, where she helped develop and implement campaigns on climate and energy, fair and sustainable fishing and the protection of the Arctic. Ruth writes extensively about the philosophy, politics and practice of environmentalism, and was awarded an MBE for services to the environment in 2014.

This article was originally published by Greenpeace Energydesk.