Media and climate activists have concluded a successful 48-hour vigil and protest outside the London HQ of the Daily Mail in Derry Street, South Kensington.

The aim of the protest was to draw attention to the role of just five media-owning billionaires – proprietors of the Mail, Sun, Times, Express, and Telegraph – in setting a ‘climate change sceptic’, and anti-renewable energy agenda in public and political discourse, so paving the way for the government’s disastrous energy policies.

“While modest in numbers, this weekend’s Occupy the Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil was big in effect”, said co-organiser Donnachadh McCarthy.

“We successfully established a tented Occupy and maintained it for the promised 48 hours over three days, with no arrests! Over 1,500 copies of the ‘Occupied Daily Mail’ were handed out to Daily Mail staff and members of the public.

“An amazing number of Daily Mail staff were very positive about the protest, saying that they fully agreed with us and that the Mail’s climate denialism was awful. One staff member who took the Occupied Mail, came back later to say it was brilliant and a number of staff had posted it up on their office walls!

“Another staff member reported that the senior management were forced by the Occupy Vigil to email all staff to claim that they were taking climate change issue responsibly!”

Private meeting with Mail’s managing editor

As a result of the protest the Managing Director of the Daily Mail, Charles Garside, invited McCarthy and Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, a speaker at the event, into a private meeting to discuss the paper’s coverage of the climate crisis, together with the Mail’s environment correspondent Colin Fernandez.

During the meeting the two presented evidence of misleading and unscientific headlines, which the newspaper staff undertook to respond to. A candlelit silent vigil later followed to remember the people killed by climate change – which the UN currently estimates is nearly 500,000 a year.

“We believe this to have been an historic first time the managing editor of any national newspaper has invited Occupy to a direct meeting”, said McCarthy.

“We also believe it is even more historic in that we believe it was also the first time any national party leader has met with the editor of any national newspaper to urge them to be pro-active and responsible in their coverage of the climate crisis.”

Next – a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’

On the final evening the ‘general assembly of protestors agreed that Occupy The Media Billionaires would continue staging actions tackling the billionaire owned press.

They also resolved to establish a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’ to tackle the corrupt climate denialism endemic in all the newspapers owned by the five extremist right wing billionaires.

McCarthy’s concluding message: “The media are crucial in the run-up to the crucial Paris climate crisis summit in December. The fossil fuel lobbyists, oil corporations and corrupt politicians are destroying any hope of meaningful climate crisis action in Britain with impunity, behind the protection of the right-wing media billionaires.

“We therefore desperately need the editors / owners of the big four corporate media corporations to support urgent action on the climate crisis to save Britain and the wider global environment.”

“Huge thanks to everybody who helped organise and support and attend the Vigil, and especially to those who camped over-night and helped hold the space, in quite difficult circumstances. Yes We Did!! Yes We Can!!”

Video report by IndyRikki Media – ‘sporadic independent radical journalism from London’.

Facebook: Occupy The Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil and Occupy The Media Billionaires.

Media and climate activists have concluded a successful 48-hour vigil and protest outside the London HQ of the Daily Mail in Derry Street, South Kensington.

The aim of the protest was to draw attention to the role of just five media-owning billionaires – proprietors of the Mail, Sun, Times, Express, and Telegraph – in setting a ‘climate change sceptic’, and anti-renewable energy agenda in public and political discourse, so paving the way for the government’s disastrous energy policies.

“While modest in numbers, this weekend’s Occupy the Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil was big in effect”, said co-organiser Donnachadh McCarthy.

“We successfully established a tented Occupy and maintained it for the promised 48 hours over three days, with no arrests! Over 1,500 copies of the ‘Occupied Daily Mail’ were handed out to Daily Mail staff and members of the public.

“An amazing number of Daily Mail staff were very positive about the protest, saying that they fully agreed with us and that the Mail’s climate denialism was awful. One staff member who took the Occupied Mail, came back later to say it was brilliant and a number of staff had posted it up on their office walls!

“Another staff member reported that the senior management were forced by the Occupy Vigil to email all staff to claim that they were taking climate change issue responsibly!”

Private meeting with Mail’s managing editor

As a result of the protest the Managing Director of the Daily Mail, Charles Garside, invited McCarthy and Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, a speaker at the event, into a private meeting to discuss the paper’s coverage of the climate crisis, together with the Mail’s environment correspondent Colin Fernandez.

During the meeting the two presented evidence of misleading and unscientific headlines, which the newspaper staff undertook to respond to. A candlelit silent vigil later followed to remember the people killed by climate change – which the UN currently estimates is nearly 500,000 a year.

“We believe this to have been an historic first time the managing editor of any national newspaper has invited Occupy to a direct meeting”, said McCarthy.

“We also believe it is even more historic in that we believe it was also the first time any national party leader has met with the editor of any national newspaper to urge them to be pro-active and responsible in their coverage of the climate crisis.”

Next – a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’

On the final evening the ‘general assembly of protestors agreed that Occupy The Media Billionaires would continue staging actions tackling the billionaire owned press.

They also resolved to establish a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’ to tackle the corrupt climate denialism endemic in all the newspapers owned by the five extremist right wing billionaires.

McCarthy’s concluding message: “The media are crucial in the run-up to the crucial Paris climate crisis summit in December. The fossil fuel lobbyists, oil corporations and corrupt politicians are destroying any hope of meaningful climate crisis action in Britain with impunity, behind the protection of the right-wing media billionaires.

“We therefore desperately need the editors / owners of the big four corporate media corporations to support urgent action on the climate crisis to save Britain and the wider global environment.”

“Huge thanks to everybody who helped organise and support and attend the Vigil, and especially to those who camped over-night and helped hold the space, in quite difficult circumstances. Yes We Did!! Yes We Can!!”

Video report by IndyRikki Media – ‘sporadic independent radical journalism from London’.

Facebook: Occupy The Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil and Occupy The Media Billionaires.

Media and climate activists have concluded a successful 48-hour vigil and protest outside the London HQ of the Daily Mail in Derry Street, South Kensington.

The aim of the protest was to draw attention to the role of just five media-owning billionaires – proprietors of the Mail, Sun, Times, Express, and Telegraph – in setting a ‘climate change sceptic’, and anti-renewable energy agenda in public and political discourse, so paving the way for the government’s disastrous energy policies.

“While modest in numbers, this weekend’s Occupy the Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil was big in effect”, said co-organiser Donnachadh McCarthy.

“We successfully established a tented Occupy and maintained it for the promised 48 hours over three days, with no arrests! Over 1,500 copies of the ‘Occupied Daily Mail’ were handed out to Daily Mail staff and members of the public.

“An amazing number of Daily Mail staff were very positive about the protest, saying that they fully agreed with us and that the Mail’s climate denialism was awful. One staff member who took the Occupied Mail, came back later to say it was brilliant and a number of staff had posted it up on their office walls!

“Another staff member reported that the senior management were forced by the Occupy Vigil to email all staff to claim that they were taking climate change issue responsibly!”

Private meeting with Mail’s managing editor

As a result of the protest the Managing Director of the Daily Mail, Charles Garside, invited McCarthy and Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, a speaker at the event, into a private meeting to discuss the paper’s coverage of the climate crisis, together with the Mail’s environment correspondent Colin Fernandez.

During the meeting the two presented evidence of misleading and unscientific headlines, which the newspaper staff undertook to respond to. A candlelit silent vigil later followed to remember the people killed by climate change – which the UN currently estimates is nearly 500,000 a year.

“We believe this to have been an historic first time the managing editor of any national newspaper has invited Occupy to a direct meeting”, said McCarthy.

“We also believe it is even more historic in that we believe it was also the first time any national party leader has met with the editor of any national newspaper to urge them to be pro-active and responsible in their coverage of the climate crisis.”

Next – a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’

On the final evening the ‘general assembly of protestors agreed that Occupy The Media Billionaires would continue staging actions tackling the billionaire owned press.

They also resolved to establish a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’ to tackle the corrupt climate denialism endemic in all the newspapers owned by the five extremist right wing billionaires.

McCarthy’s concluding message: “The media are crucial in the run-up to the crucial Paris climate crisis summit in December. The fossil fuel lobbyists, oil corporations and corrupt politicians are destroying any hope of meaningful climate crisis action in Britain with impunity, behind the protection of the right-wing media billionaires.

“We therefore desperately need the editors / owners of the big four corporate media corporations to support urgent action on the climate crisis to save Britain and the wider global environment.”

“Huge thanks to everybody who helped organise and support and attend the Vigil, and especially to those who camped over-night and helped hold the space, in quite difficult circumstances. Yes We Did!! Yes We Can!!”

Video report by IndyRikki Media – ‘sporadic independent radical journalism from London’.

Facebook: Occupy The Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil and Occupy The Media Billionaires.

Media and climate activists have concluded a successful 48-hour vigil and protest outside the London HQ of the Daily Mail in Derry Street, South Kensington.

The aim of the protest was to draw attention to the role of just five media-owning billionaires – proprietors of the Mail, Sun, Times, Express, and Telegraph – in setting a ‘climate change sceptic’, and anti-renewable energy agenda in public and political discourse, so paving the way for the government’s disastrous energy policies.

“While modest in numbers, this weekend’s Occupy the Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil was big in effect”, said co-organiser Donnachadh McCarthy.

“We successfully established a tented Occupy and maintained it for the promised 48 hours over three days, with no arrests! Over 1,500 copies of the ‘Occupied Daily Mail’ were handed out to Daily Mail staff and members of the public.

“An amazing number of Daily Mail staff were very positive about the protest, saying that they fully agreed with us and that the Mail’s climate denialism was awful. One staff member who took the Occupied Mail, came back later to say it was brilliant and a number of staff had posted it up on their office walls!

“Another staff member reported that the senior management were forced by the Occupy Vigil to email all staff to claim that they were taking climate change issue responsibly!”

Private meeting with Mail’s managing editor

As a result of the protest the Managing Director of the Daily Mail, Charles Garside, invited McCarthy and Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, a speaker at the event, into a private meeting to discuss the paper’s coverage of the climate crisis, together with the Mail’s environment correspondent Colin Fernandez.

During the meeting the two presented evidence of misleading and unscientific headlines, which the newspaper staff undertook to respond to. A candlelit silent vigil later followed to remember the people killed by climate change – which the UN currently estimates is nearly 500,000 a year.

“We believe this to have been an historic first time the managing editor of any national newspaper has invited Occupy to a direct meeting”, said McCarthy.

“We also believe it is even more historic in that we believe it was also the first time any national party leader has met with the editor of any national newspaper to urge them to be pro-active and responsible in their coverage of the climate crisis.”

Next – a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’

On the final evening the ‘general assembly of protestors agreed that Occupy The Media Billionaires would continue staging actions tackling the billionaire owned press.

They also resolved to establish a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’ to tackle the corrupt climate denialism endemic in all the newspapers owned by the five extremist right wing billionaires.

McCarthy’s concluding message: “The media are crucial in the run-up to the crucial Paris climate crisis summit in December. The fossil fuel lobbyists, oil corporations and corrupt politicians are destroying any hope of meaningful climate crisis action in Britain with impunity, behind the protection of the right-wing media billionaires.

“We therefore desperately need the editors / owners of the big four corporate media corporations to support urgent action on the climate crisis to save Britain and the wider global environment.”

“Huge thanks to everybody who helped organise and support and attend the Vigil, and especially to those who camped over-night and helped hold the space, in quite difficult circumstances. Yes We Did!! Yes We Can!!”

Video report by IndyRikki Media – ‘sporadic independent radical journalism from London’.

Facebook: Occupy The Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil and Occupy The Media Billionaires.

Media and climate activists have concluded a successful 48-hour vigil and protest outside the London HQ of the Daily Mail in Derry Street, South Kensington.

The aim of the protest was to draw attention to the role of just five media-owning billionaires – proprietors of the Mail, Sun, Times, Express, and Telegraph – in setting a ‘climate change sceptic’, and anti-renewable energy agenda in public and political discourse, so paving the way for the government’s disastrous energy policies.

“While modest in numbers, this weekend’s Occupy the Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil was big in effect”, said co-organiser Donnachadh McCarthy.

“We successfully established a tented Occupy and maintained it for the promised 48 hours over three days, with no arrests! Over 1,500 copies of the ‘Occupied Daily Mail’ were handed out to Daily Mail staff and members of the public.

“An amazing number of Daily Mail staff were very positive about the protest, saying that they fully agreed with us and that the Mail’s climate denialism was awful. One staff member who took the Occupied Mail, came back later to say it was brilliant and a number of staff had posted it up on their office walls!

“Another staff member reported that the senior management were forced by the Occupy Vigil to email all staff to claim that they were taking climate change issue responsibly!”

Private meeting with Mail’s managing editor

As a result of the protest the Managing Director of the Daily Mail, Charles Garside, invited McCarthy and Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, a speaker at the event, into a private meeting to discuss the paper’s coverage of the climate crisis, together with the Mail’s environment correspondent Colin Fernandez.

During the meeting the two presented evidence of misleading and unscientific headlines, which the newspaper staff undertook to respond to. A candlelit silent vigil later followed to remember the people killed by climate change – which the UN currently estimates is nearly 500,000 a year.

“We believe this to have been an historic first time the managing editor of any national newspaper has invited Occupy to a direct meeting”, said McCarthy.

“We also believe it is even more historic in that we believe it was also the first time any national party leader has met with the editor of any national newspaper to urge them to be pro-active and responsible in their coverage of the climate crisis.”

Next – a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’

On the final evening the ‘general assembly of protestors agreed that Occupy The Media Billionaires would continue staging actions tackling the billionaire owned press.

They also resolved to establish a ‘Climate Crisis Media Project’ to tackle the corrupt climate denialism endemic in all the newspapers owned by the five extremist right wing billionaires.

McCarthy’s concluding message: “The media are crucial in the run-up to the crucial Paris climate crisis summit in December. The fossil fuel lobbyists, oil corporations and corrupt politicians are destroying any hope of meaningful climate crisis action in Britain with impunity, behind the protection of the right-wing media billionaires.

“We therefore desperately need the editors / owners of the big four corporate media corporations to support urgent action on the climate crisis to save Britain and the wider global environment.”

“Huge thanks to everybody who helped organise and support and attend the Vigil, and especially to those who camped over-night and helped hold the space, in quite difficult circumstances. Yes We Did!! Yes We Can!!”

Video report by IndyRikki Media – ‘sporadic independent radical journalism from London’.

Facebook: Occupy The Daily Mail – Climate Crisis Vigil and Occupy The Media Billionaires.

Last month, the European Commission proposed reforms to the controversial investor-state dispute mechanism (ISDS), part of the EU-US trade deal known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

ISDS mechanisms, including the Commission’s ‘reformed’ ISDS proposal, let foreign investors sue the EU and Member State governments. These cases take place in front of specialised courts only open to foreign investors, where claims for compensation can run to billions of euros.

ISDS has important implications for the daily lives of people in the EU. ISDS, for example, can be used by foreign investors to challenge the revocation of a fracking permit following protests and new environmental studies.

This is a disconcerting development, especially because a US trade agreement containing ISDS would expose Europe to law suits from the country that uses ISDS the most. The same goes for the EU-Canada CETA treaty.

Considering the important implications ISDS has for Europe, its people and its trade partners, it is essential that governments ask themselves whether ISDS is legal in the first place. We have severe doubts that ISDS is compatible with EU law, as we show in our new study.

ISDS discrimates against EU companies and workers

Investor State Dispute Settlement is a discriminatory legal tool. It creates an alternative court system in which unaccountable corporate lawyers act as judges, that allows foreign investors to sue governments and the EU over any government action affecting their investments.

In doing so, ISDS allows foreign investors to sideline national courts and the European Court of Justice when suing governments over decisions based on EU law, and gifts businesses with a quick route to enormous legal damages.

At the same time, the mechanism discriminates against European citizens, workers and businesses as only foreign investors can use it in Europe. This is deeply unfair, and undermines the proper functioning of the EU and its internal market.

Moreover the decisions ariving out of the ISDS courts often defy justice. A number of such cases have now been assembled on a dedicated website, ISDS Corporate Attacks – and one of the most extraordinary is the 2006 case of US’s Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) against Ecuador.

Ecuador’s government terminated an oil concession after Oxy illegally sold 40% of its production rights without government approval – although the contract stated that sale of production rights without government pre-approval would terminate the contract.

Oxy then sued in an ISDS tribunal. It agreed that Oxy had broken the law, that Ecuador’s forfeiture of the firm’s investment was lawful, and that Oxy should have expected that response. But the tribunal then concocted a wholly new obligation for the government to respond proportionally to Oxy’s legal breach as part of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ requirement.

It therefore ordered Ecuador to pay Oxy $2.3 billion compensation based on its estimate of the full amount of future profits that Oxy would have made, including from as yet undiscovered resources.

A simple check

If the EU proceeds with ISDS provisions in its trade agreements, not only does it and its member states risk judgments such as this one at massive cost to citizens, it also risks breaking its own laws protecting fair competition and the integrity of the European Single Market.

A simple legal check is readily available to avoid this looming threat. Under Article 218 (11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Court of Justice can be asked to determine whether an envisaged agreement or treaty is legal under EU law – and if it’s not, it may not enter into force:

“A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised.”

This simple procedure has already been used 24 times to stop the EU getting into trouble with other countries after an agreement has been signed. It is therefore very important to the United States and other EU trade partners as well.

A legal check is all the more the essential for the EU institutions, because they are legally bound to respect each other’s powers. Since the Commission, the Council and the Parliament are proposing to take away important powers from the European Court of Justice, it is vital that they consult judges on the legality of ISDS.

A pocketful of mumbles such are promises

The President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, promised that he will not accept “EU courts’ jurisdiction to be limited by special regimes that limit parties access to national courts or that allow secret courts to have the final say in disputes between investors and states.”

What’s more, the European Parliament wants “the jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States [to be] respected.” It is time for these institutions to live up to their promises and make their words credible by checking the legality of ISDS.

The request can also be made by EU member states – but it would take a bold state indeed to do this, and so arouse the ire of other powerful EU nations and institutions, especially the Commission itself.

Notably EU citizens and organisations like ClientEarth do not have the right to make such a request themselves – and so ensure that EU law is upheld. And when you stop and think about that is both astonishing and unjust. The law is not just there to be applied by the powerful as and when it suits them – but to protect all citizens even the most humble, and to hold even the most powerful to account.

EU leaders must assure us that they want to comply with the rule of law – and protect the interests of people over big business – by making a request on ISDS to the Court on our behalf.

The report: ‘Legality of investor state dispute settlement under EU law‘ is published by ClientEarth.

Laurens Ankersmit is a lawyer at ClientEarth.

More information: ISDS Corporate Attacks.

This article is an extended version of one originally published by ClientEarth.

Pregnant goats fed with genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have offspring who grow more slowly and are shorter, according to a new Italian study (Tudisco et al., 2015).

Publishing in the journal of Small Ruminant Research, the researchers were testing the results of supplementing the feed of female goats with Roundup Ready GE soybeans.

Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup and are sold by agribusiness giant Monsanto. They are some of the most widely grown soybeans in the world.

The reduced growth of the goat kids was attributed by the researchers to their observation that the milk of the GE-fed mothers was significantly less nutritious and contained less of the IgG antibodies important for early growth.

“This was a carefully conducted study“, commented Dr Judy Carman, Director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia. She was not involved in the research, but told Independent Science News:

“The differences in the composition of the colostrum between the mothers fed the GE soy and the non-GE soy were particularly striking. The colostrum from the GE-fed mothers contained only 2/3 of the fat, 1/3 of the protein and close to half of the IgG of the mothers fed the non-GM soy.”

GE-fed milk: less milk, fat, antibodies; presence of GE DNA fragments

To carry out these experiments the researchers divided pregnant female Cilentana goats into four groups, 60 days before kidding. Two of the groups were fed goat food containing GE Roundup Ready soybeans (at two different concentrations). The other two groups were fed conventional (non-GE) soybeans, also at two different concentrations.

After the mothers gave birth all offspring were fed only with their mother’s milk for 60 days. The growth of these kids was measured twice. After both 30 days and 60 days the kids of GE-fed mothers were approximately 20% lower in weight and shorter in stature. Both these differences were statistically significant.

Lower offspring weights were not the only unexpected findings. The researchers also found that the milk of GE-fed goats was lower in protein and fat. This difference in milk quality was large (6% protein in both GE-fed groups versus 18% in both non-GE fed groups) for the first few weeks after birth but gradually disappeared-even though the mothers continued to be fed the GE soybeans.

Additionally, the researchers also found that the colostrum produced by GE-fed mothers had low amounts of IgG antibodies. These antibodies are important for growth and for healthy immune development.

A third difference noted by the researchers was that transgenic DNA could be detected in the colostrum of most (10/16) of the GE-fed goats. No transgene DNA was detected in the milk of goats fed non-GE soybeans. This is not the first time that transgene DNA (or non-transgenic DNA) has been found in the milk of ruminants, however.

The problem expresses in the milk

Interestingly, the researchers found that all of the kids were of similar size at birth, regardless of whether their mothers ate Roundup Ready GE soybeans or not.

The researchers therefore proposed that the stunting of the offspring of GE-fed mothers reflected a milk deficiency – presumably either the lower nutritional value of the colostrum and milk of GE-fed mothers or the colostrum antibody differences that were observed.

The authors noted that low IgG antibody levels in colostrum are correlated in other ruminants with slower growth and also that IgG antibodies are known to have a role in nutrient absorption because they promote gut development in newborns.

The researchers did not discuss whether the transgene DNA fragments found in the milk played a role in altering kid development.

This result is the strongest demonstration so far of altered growth and development in offspring of GE-fed mothers. The same researchers in 2010 showed altered activity of the lactic dehydrogenase enzyme in kids fed milk from mothers that ate GE Roundup Ready soybeans. In that previous study however, no additional effects on goat offspring were detected (Tudisco et al., 2010).

“It is already known that Roundup Ready soybeans have various defects including a Manganese deficiency“, said Dr Allison Wilson of The Bioscience Resource Project.

“Yet regulators and GMO developers have continuously dismissed credible reports of GMO crops causing apparent harm to animals, from many different research groups. Hopefully they will not ignore yet another study.“

Dr Jonathan R. Latham is editor of Independent Science News, where this article was originally published.

The papers

• R. Tudisco, S. Calabrò, M.I. Cutrignelli, G. Moniello, M. Grossi, V. Mastellone, P. Lombardi, M.E. Peroa, F. Infascelli (2015) ‘Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance‘, Small Ruminant Research 126: 67-74.
• Tudisco R., V. Mastellone, M. I. Cutrignelli, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, N. Mirabella, G. Piccolo, S. Calabrò, L. Avallone and F. Infascelli (2010) ‘Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings‘, Animal 4: 1662-1671.

Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom has been accused of “talking nonsense” by small solar companies in her constituency after she appeared to suggest that Conservative plans to cut subsidies for the industry were supported by “small solar companies in her constituency”.

Speaking to MPs last week, the energy minister indicated that firms may see the cuts as useful because they will “focus the industry on the most fruitful areas”. She told the Energy and Climate Change Committee: “I too have small solar companies in my constituency, I’ve been to see a few of them as well.

“My local companies are saying, they would argue that there is a very strong business case for solar almost anywhere as a result of the subsidy and what in fact cuts will do is to focus the industry on the most fruitful, the areas where there’s the greatest irradiation, the areas on perhaps commercial roofs where the electricity generator can be used by the company itself.

“So in other words what some of – not all of – my local companies that I’ve spoken to are saying is actually putting pressure on the subsidies forces you to focus on the best outcome.”

‘She’s talking through her orifice’

But companies in Leadsom’s own South Northamptonshire constituency told Energydesk the minister had “no idea what she is talking about” if she thought companies supported the cuts.

Kevin Spice, from Daventry-based Lazenby Energy, said: “Cutting subsidy will cost the homeowner more in the long run as prices rise. Along with thousands of jobs to be lost.

“The only way any company could support such subsidy cuts was if they were to want an unregulated industry which would find itself overcome with cowboys and unscrupulous traders. Andrea Leadsom has no idea what she is talking about.”

Paul Flynn, electrician director at Northamptonshire firm LP Solar and Electrical, was similarly dismissive of Leadsom’s comments: “No we don’t support Leadsom’s stance. Not in the slightest. There will be a lot of jobs lost. The government should have cut gradually. They should have given companies more time to get new technology in. I expect every company will feel the same way.”

Energydesk has asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the list of solar companies Leadsom claims to have met with, and will update this piece if it provides one.

A growing barrage of criticism

The government’s policy on renewables has been roundly criticised by environmental groups, while auditors EY (formerly Ernst & Young) released a report last month claiming Conservative policy had undermined investor confidence in the energy sector as a whole.

Leadsom, in fact, told an audience at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month that energy policy changes have “very regrettably damaged investor confidence”.

More than 1,000 jobs have been lost since solar panel installer Mark Group entered administration just over two weeks ago – efficiency firm Climate Energy went bust soon after, Southern Solar quickly followed suit and then Elon Musk-backed Solar City pulled out of the country late last week.

All of these companies said cuts to green energy subsidies were at least in part responsible for their closures.

US solar giant SunEdison, for instance, recently told Energydesk it is was pulling out of the UK because the cuts would “essentially eliminate the solar PV market.” Planned community energy projects across the country are also under threat, a new report has found.

Kuki Dattani, operations director at the Coventry-based firm Synergy Power, told Energydesk he “feared for the future” of his company: “The government said it was going to revolutionise the solar industry. So it seems like they’ve made a massive u-turn. Leadsom is talking nonsense.”

Joe Sandler Clarke is a UK-based journalist specialising in investigative and public interest stories. He is currently working at the Guardian on the Global Development Professionals Network and Greenpeace Energydesk.

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

Vultures are nature’s garbage disposers.

They’re perfectly adapted to keep the environment clean and healthy by efficiently locating and consuming carcasses, recycling energy through the food web and preventing the spread of diseases.

It’s an unpaid role. However it’s about time we did start repaying vultures for their services, by giving them the protection they deserve.

A new study published in the journal Genome Biology illustrates just how finely-tuned these birds are. The researchers perform a whole genome analysis of the Eurasian cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) and reveal a unique genetic make-up that explains vultures’ strongly acidic digestive system and their ability to resist infection from pathogens present in the rotting carcasses on which they feed.

It’s even possible vultures are able to exploit the flesh-eating properties of some bacteria to aid with the digestion of soft tissues and bones, while the secretion of corrosive gastric acids and specialised immune responses allow them to resist infection from, and potentially even destroy, highly infective pathogens such as anthrax and brucellosis.

Yet they are all too vulnerable to man-made toxins

This unusual tolerance of natural toxins doesn’t protect vultures from man-made contaminants however, which explains why 69% of vulture and condor species are listed as threatened or near-threatened, most of which are classed as ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’.

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), for instance, was declared extinct in the wild in 1987 when the last remaining individuals were removed and placed in captivity to protect them from lead poisoning from ingesting shot and bullet fragments from hunted carcasses.

Although captive-breeding and release programs have allowed the wild population to increase to more than 200 individuals, lead poisoning continues to cause fatalities.

Across Asia the big problem is accidental poisoning by diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory used to treat cattle. In vultures and some eagle species, tiny traces of the drug can lead to fatal kidney failure within 48 hours. In just 15 years, cow carcasses contaminated with diclofenac nearly wiped out three of Asia’s vulture species.

This had a big knock-on effect. With less competition at carcass disposal dumps, where people once let vultures pick dead animals clean, India’s feral dog population exploded. This caused higher rates of rabies transmission at an estimated additional cost of US$34 billion to the country’s healthcare between 1993 and 2006.

Although some populations have started to recover following the ban of diclofenac in India in 2006, a logic-defying 2013 approval to licence the drug for use in Europe now threatens vultures there too, particularly in Spain and Italy.

In Spain, replacing the natural carcass disposal service provided by vultures with vehicle transport to processing plants would result in the equivalent of an additional 77,344 metric tons of CO₂ being emitted to the atmosphere and US$50m of additional payments to insurance companies each year, according to a 2014 study in Nature.

In Africa, vultures are also suffering

The situation in Africa is just as grim – “another continental vulture crisis“, as one group of researchers described it earlier this year. Populations of seven species have declined by more than 80% in three generations, giving rise to calls for six of those to be listed as ‘critically endangered’.

Once again man-made toxins and illegal activities are to blame. Poisoning accounts for 61% of vulture deaths, 29% are attributed to the trade in vulture heads and brains for local cultural beliefs# and 9% of fatalities are caused by electrocution or collision with power lines.

Widespread poisoning is certainly the most immediate threat. Usually this happens after farmers target lions, leopards or hyenas that have been attacking their livestock. Vultures consume the poisoned predators or the baited carcass itself and subsequently become secondary, inadvertent victims.

However the booming illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is also bad news for them, as poachers don’t want hundreds of circling vultures pointing authorities towards recently-killed elephants or rhinos. Poachers are therefore deliberately targeting the birds by lacing carcasses with poisons – even after they’ve left with the tusks or horns.

More than 500 vultures were poisoned at a single poached elephant carcass in Namibia in July 2013, and the recent discovery of at least 26 elephants poisoned at cyanide-laced water holes in Zimbabwe will also likely result in many vulture deaths.

Vultures make the world cleaner and healthier

Why isn’t this a bigger scandal? After all, as many, if not more vultures are being killed in southern Africa each year as rhinos or elephants. Perhaps these big, bald, flesh-eating birds are perceived as sinister and lacking enough ‘cute factor’.

But while vultures don’t share the good looks of penguins or puffins, the ecosystem services they provide are irreplaceable. They compete with – and control – populations of blowfly larvae, rats, feral dogs and other scavengers, many of which are disease vectors. They ultimately make the world cleaner and healthier.

In fact, the ecological niche occupied by today’s vulture species is so specialised that two unrelated groups evolved on opposite sides of the world to become the primary scavengers in their ecosystems.

‘Old World’ vultures from Eurasia and Africa and ‘New World’ vultures and condors from the Americas might look and act the same but as the latest study highlights they don’t share a recent common ancestor, having diverged in evolutionary terms more than 60m years ago.

This is a classic example of ‘convergent evolution’ – while Old World vultures share a common ancestry with eagles and New World species are more closely related to storks, they independently evolved similar specialisations to fulfil the important role of recycling carrion.

It’s time for us to appreciate these unique and highly-specialised birds. We must restrict harmful veterinary drugs, control illegal poisoning, provide uncontaminated sources of food and reduce the impact of power lines and wind farms.

This must happen immediately to avoid a worldwide vulture crisis – and all of the negative implications for our own health and well-being.

Louis Phipps is a Conservation Biologist at Nottingham Trent University.

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

Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom has been accused of “talking nonsense” by small solar companies in her constituency after she appeared to suggest that Conservative plans to cut subsidies for the industry were supported by “small solar companies in her constituency”.

Speaking to MPs last week, the energy minister indicated that firms may see the cuts as useful because they will “focus the industry on the most fruitful areas”. She told the Energy and Climate Change Committee: “I too have small solar companies in my constituency, I’ve been to see a few of them as well.

“My local companies are saying, they would argue that there is a very strong business case for solar almost anywhere as a result of the subsidy and what in fact cuts will do is to focus the industry on the most fruitful, the areas where there’s the greatest irradiation, the areas on perhaps commercial roofs where the electricity generator can be used by the company itself.

“So in other words what some of – not all of – my local companies that I’ve spoken to are saying is actually putting pressure on the subsidies forces you to focus on the best outcome.”

‘She’s talking through her orifice’

But companies in Leadsom’s own South Northamptonshire constituency told Energydesk the minister had “no idea what she is talking about” if she thought companies supported the cuts.

Kevin Spice, from Daventry-based Lazenby Energy, said: “Cutting subsidy will cost the homeowner more in the long run as prices rise. Along with thousands of jobs to be lost.

“The only way any company could support such subsidy cuts was if they were to want an unregulated industry which would find itself overcome with cowboys and unscrupulous traders. Andrea Leadsom has no idea what she is talking about.”

Paul Flynn, electrician director at Northamptonshire firm LP Solar and Electrical, was similarly dismissive of Leadsom’s comments: “No we don’t support Leadsom’s stance. Not in the slightest. There will be a lot of jobs lost. The government should have cut gradually. They should have given companies more time to get new technology in. I expect every company will feel the same way.”

Energydesk has asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the list of solar companies Leadsom claims to have met with, and will update this piece if it provides one.

A growing barrage of criticism

The government’s policy on renewables has been roundly criticised by environmental groups, while auditors EY (formerly Ernst & Young) released a report last month claiming Conservative policy had undermined investor confidence in the energy sector as a whole.

Leadsom, in fact, told an audience at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month that energy policy changes have “very regrettably damaged investor confidence”.

More than 1,000 jobs have been lost since solar panel installer Mark Group entered administration just over two weeks ago – efficiency firm Climate Energy went bust soon after, Southern Solar quickly followed suit and then Elon Musk-backed Solar City pulled out of the country late last week.

All of these companies said cuts to green energy subsidies were at least in part responsible for their closures.

US solar giant SunEdison, for instance, recently told Energydesk it is was pulling out of the UK because the cuts would “essentially eliminate the solar PV market.” Planned community energy projects across the country are also under threat, a new report has found.

Kuki Dattani, operations director at the Coventry-based firm Synergy Power, told Energydesk he “feared for the future” of his company: “The government said it was going to revolutionise the solar industry. So it seems like they’ve made a massive u-turn. Leadsom is talking nonsense.”

Joe Sandler Clarke is a UK-based journalist specialising in investigative and public interest stories. He is currently working at the Guardian on the Global Development Professionals Network and Greenpeace Energydesk.

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.