Four Nigerian farmers and Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) have won the right to sue multinational Shell in Dutch courts for oil spills in Nigeria.

It’s a key stage in a legal battle that began in 2008 after repeated oil spills polluted fields and fish farming ponds in the Niger Delta in a densely populated wetland area used for self-sufficient agriculture and fish-farming.

Four Nigerian citizens affected by the pollution – Friday Alfred Akpan from Ikot Ada Udo, Eric Dooh from Goi and Alali Efanga en Fidelis Oguru from Oruma – joined with Friends of the Earth Netherlands (as co-plaintiff) to take Shell to court over the oil spills.

Once proud owners of flourishing farms, they were reduced to poverty and forced to survive on odd jobs, because the oil spills were never properly cleaned up. Their land and fish ponds remain unusable to this day.

Alali Efanga, one of the Nigerian farmers who brought the case against Shell, said: “This ruling offers hope that Shell will finally begin to restore the soil around my village so that I will once again be able to take up farming and fishing on my own land.”

Shell ordered to disclose internal documents to plaintiffs

The plaintiffs demand that Shell cleans up the oil spills, compensates them for their losses and prevents new leakages by ensuring that the company’s pipelines are properly maintained and patrolled.

In January 2013, the courts in The Hague ruled that Shell was guilty of causing pollution on the land of Friday Alfred Akpan, but not that of the other three plaintiffs. Shell appealed the decision in favour of Mr Akpan, while Milieudefensie and the other three Nigerian farmers appealed against the rejection of their claims.

One of Shell’s arguments was the the plaintiffs lacked ‘competence’ to sue in Netherlands courts because the damage occurred in Nigeria – and any legal remedies should therefore be sought in the Nigerian courts.

But the Appeals Court of The Hague has now ruled in favour of the farmers and Milieudefensie on all the question of ‘competence’ and all other procedural issues in the case – which has now dragged on for more than seven years because of legal obstacles raised by Shell which seriously delayed proceedings.

The Court also ruled in favour of Milieudefensie and the Nigerian farmers that Shell should disclose internal company documents to them – a claim that had earler been refused by a lower court.

A landmark ruling

Channa Samkalden, legal counsel for the plaintiffs, said: “This is in every respect a landmark case. This is the first time in legal history that access to internal company documents was obtained in court – an appropriate ruling, because these documents may contain important corroborating evidence regarding the oil spills caused by Shell affecting these farmers’ land and fishing ponds. This finally allows the case to be considered on its merits.”

The ruling is unique, she continued, because it sets a precedent that opens the way for victims of environmental pollution and human rights abuses worldwide to turn to Netherlands courts for legal redress when a Dutch company is involved.

And Shell is surely quaking in its mighty boots at the implications: the four farmers taking this legal action are just a few of tens of thousands of Niger Delta farmers that have been impacted by oil spills associated with Shell’s operations.

The combined impact of the legal claims could be Shell’s ‘Deepwater Horizon‘, costing the company billions in long overdue damages and clean-up costs, much as BP has suffered from its 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to Milieudefensie, “For decades, Nigeria has been the stage of the largest oil spill on earth. Over the years, an amount of oil double to that of the sinking of the Deep Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 has leaked into the environment.”

A 2011 report published by UNEP – the environmental organisation of the United Nations – also shows Shell doing far too little to clean up the leaked oil.

Geert Ritsema, campaigner at Friends of the Earth: “Today’s ruling is a landslide victory for environmentalists and these four brave Nigerian farmers who, for more than seven years, have had the courage to take on one of the most powerful companies in the world.

“This ruling is a ray of hope for other victims of environmental degradation, human rights violations and other misconduct by large corporations.”

More information

• A detailed chronology of the case, including all legal documents.
• More information about the oil spills in Nigeria.
• Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland report.

“Our strategy to eradicate bovine TB is working. I am pleased to report that all three badger control areas – Somerset, Gloucestershire and Dorset – hit their targets this year.

“The Chief Veterinary Officer has made it clear that the strategy is delivering disease control benefits, and that it will help us to eradicate this terrible disease …

“Thanks to our strategy, more than half the country is on track to be officially free of the disease by the end of the current Parliament. The Chief Veterinary Officer has made it clear that licensing of future areas is needed to realise the disease control benefits, and I am determined to pursue that recommendation.”

These are the words in Parliament yesterday of Liz Truss, Environment Secretary, And it can’t get much more certain than that, can it? Just to make sure you didn’t miss it in first reading:

“Our strategy to eradicate bovine TB is working … the strategy is delivering disease control benefits … it will help us to eradicate this terrible disease … more than half the country is on track to be officially free of the disease …“

In what way ‘working’?

So first, exactly what does Truss mean when she says the strategy is ‘working’? Is there a reduction in cattle TB infections in and near the cull zones, for example?

Well, she’s not telling us. All that is ‘working’ is that badgers are being killed. This is reflected in the ‘efficacy summaries’ released yesterday for the three cull areas, West Somerset, West Gloucestershire and Dorset.

They are concerned only with the number of badgers despatched by trappers and marksmen. There’s no information at all as to the effectiveness of the culls in achieving their objective – a reduction in bovine TB.

Now it so happens that the environment department, Defra, released UK figures for cattle TB on 9th December. But as the Badger Trust complains, the figures are not broken down into the geographical detail needed to assess what effects the culls are having.

But here’s what we do know in the two counties where the cull has been taking place for three years. Gloucestershire saw no change in new TB infections between 2014 and 2015. And in Somerset the level of new TB incidents in cattle jumped from 297 to 320 – a 7.75% increase.

Trust Truss? MPs demand: give us the evidence!

But it’s not just the likes of the Badger Trust that are reluctant to believe Truss’s assurances that everything is going swimmingly. Members of the EFRA parliamentary select committee that has oversight of Defra matters are also getting a bit antsy. Here’s what they recently stated:

“Opinions differ strongly over how best to manage threats from diseases such as bovine tuberculosis (bTB). Defra must establish a thorough evidence base for underpinning policy formulation and communicate it in a fully transparent manner to set out clearly the reasons for the policy decisions it takes.

“Defra must publish full data on bTB incidence in areas where badgers have been culled.

“Tackling diseases such as bTB require a holistic approach and we recommend that the Government rolls out at the earliest opportunity all aspects of its strategy which are underpinned by a strong evidence base.

“We further recommend that Defra takes into account approaches by devolved administrations and the evidence as to the effectiveness or otherwise of the different nations’ approaches to managing bTB.”

Alright, it’s all a bit of a mouthful. But what it adds up to, all expressed in the most parliamentary of language, is this: “Do the science and give us the evidence!”

The NFU’s best answer: anecdote

Early risers may have been treated to an interview on the BBC’s Farming Today programme this morning that came from an entirely parallel universe – one as disconnected from reality as Liz Truss’s answers were from the questions put to her in the Commons yesterday.

Naturally no one from Defra wanted to be grilled by the programme’s incisive presenter Charlotte Smith – so instead they got the National Farmers Union’s animal health and welfare advisor Catherine McLaughlin. Smith went straight to the heart of the matter: where’s the evidence that the badger cull is working?

“It was very clear at the start that it would take a least four years to be able to clearly marry both cattle measures and badger culling together and be able to work out where the effects were”, McLaughlin replied.

“Anectdotally we are getting farmers in those areas that have been restricted with TB for years, for 10, 20, 30 years, have suddenly gone clear. So anecdotally we are getting good stories – but it is just anecdote. The scientific evidence will take a lot longer.”

But if it’s just anecdote, pressed Smith, how did McLaughlin know that it’s working? “We do know that it works now. We are getting very clear comments coming through from the Chief Veterinary Officer and the RBCT that badger culling, wildlife control as part of a comprehensive strategy will actually control TB and that is what we are doing.”

McLaughlin’s answer comes down to this. She has had chatted with a few farmers who say it’s all fine and dandy. And she has a some five year old results from the 2010 Randomised Badger Culling Trial that tell her that it must be working. Beyond that, she just knows it’s working, because … she knows.

And given that the NFU is working hand in glove with the government on this, if that’s the best the NFU can come up with, Defra and Liz Truss can’t do any better.

Badger Trust: we back EFRA’s demand

Dominic Dyer, CEO of the Badger Trust, is deeply sceptical that there’s any reduction in TB at all in the cull zones. In fact, he suggests, the refusal to release the information indicatres that the results are at best neutral, and may even show a deterioration:

“The claims by the NFU and pro-cull politicians that badger culling is delivering a significant reduction in bovine TB are looking increasingly bogus and the exact opposite of the truth. £20 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent killing thousands of badgers and yet cattle TB in Somerset is on the rise.

“To put this in context, TB rates in cattle outside of the cull zones have been dropping consistently for five years due to improved testing, bio-security and movement controls.” 

Likewise Peter Martin, Badger Trust Chairman: “The government’s own risk assessments stated before the culls began that there was a high probability that cattle TB rates would rise following the badger culls and this was backed up by the country’s top scientists in the field. The EFRA Select Committee is absolutely right to call on DEFRA to take greater account of the alternative TB reduction strategies of the devolved administrations.

“The Welsh Government’s approach has been far more successful by focusing on improved testing and movement controls in cattle. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the Welsh heard TB free, without killing any badgers.

“Unless the government can prove the culling of badgers is working in terms of lowering TB in cattle, this cruel, ineffective and hugely costly policy must be stopped immediately.”

Quite.

What about TB in the badgers?

But there is another way to look at this: what about the badgers? First, only badgers that have TB can transmit the disease to cattle. So it’s well worth knowing the extent of TB infection in a population of badgers. Moreover it’s an easy thing to measure. All you have to do is to autopsy the dead badgers for signs of the disease.

And indeed, Truss was asked about this yesterday in Parliament by David Hanson, the labour MP for Delyn: “Given that £20 million has been spent on the badger cull so far, and that hundreds, possibly thousands, of badgers have been killed, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of those that have been killed had been tested for bovine TB?”

To which Truss responded: “If we do not get a grip on this terrible disease, we shall end up spending £1 billion on dealing with it over the next 10 years. The fact is that it was the Labour party, in 2010, that left us with the worst levels of the disease in Europe.

“That is why we are having to deal with it now, and I am following the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer, who says that culling is an important part of dealing with it. Why do Labour Members not congratulate the hard-working farmers in Somerset, Gloucestershire and Dorset who have delivered this year, and who are helping us to deal with this terrible disease?”

Did you spot what was missing there? Yes, she didn’t answer the question. In fact, she did not even acknowledge the question. She just went off on some demented rant of her own that was entirely unconnected with what she was asked.

And here’s why. None of the culled badgers have been autopsied for TB. Not one. Not in three years of badger culling. And that is a disgrace: because if the badgers are healthy, there is no point in culling them. They cannot be transmitting TB they do not carry.

This goes beyond merely refusing to release important evidence. It is, rather, the deliberate refusal to gather evidence in the first place – evidence that is of huge scientific importance in developing any ‘comprehensive strategy’ for tackling bovine TB in cattle and badgers.

What this shows us is simple. Truss, Defra and the NFU do not want evidence. They do not like evidence. They do not need evidence. Because they already have the answer. And that answer is to kill badgers, kill more badgers, extend the killing of badgers into new areas, and just keep on killing, killing, killing.

As for evidence, well, that can only get in the way of the real purpose.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

In the wake of the Paris Agreement, pressure has intensified on the Australian government to reject Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine, which will be one of the biggest mines in the world.

In order to stay below 2C, scientists have estimated that more than 90% of known coal reserves in Australia must stay in the ground. Depending on the economics of various coal reserves, this may mean the Galilee Basin is ‘unburnable coal‘.

Yet this mine has already been approved by the federal environment minister Greg Hunt, and on Tuesday Queensland’s Land Court also recommended approval of the mine.

At a federal level the mine has been approved, had its approval set aside, and then been re-approved. There is a final Federal Court challenge to be heard in 2016.

But is it even possible for the Australian government to reject the Carmichael coal mine? Or have we already gone too far down the path of approval?

Broadly speaking, there are three key approvals needed by a proponent to conduct a large mining operation in Queensland:

• a mining lease, issued by Queensland’s minister for natural resources and mines;
• an environmental authority, issued by Queensland’s Department of environment and heritage protection;
• and an approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, issued by the federal environment minister.

Queensland’s tortuous approval process

Queensland’s approval process is somewhat unusual, in that there is a preliminary decision on whether to approve, followed by an opportunity for any objections to be heard by the Land Court. The Land Court then makes a recommendation to the ministers, and a final decision is made.

The Queensland government recommended approval for the Carmichael Mine in May 2014. Land Services of Coast and Country objected to this, on grounds including potential climate change impacts, and impacts on endangered species.

Following a five-week hearing earlier this year, the Land Court yesterday recommended that the Carmichael Mine be approved, subject to additional conditions.

The Land Court recommendation is not binding on government; under the respective Acts, the Environment Minister must “have regard to” the recommendation, and the Mines Minister must “consider” it.

Next, federal approval

Under the federal approval process, the federal environment minister may approve an action. This decision may be judicially reviewed, and the EPBC Act grants standing to environment groups active within the previous two years.

Environment minister Greg Hunt initially approved the Carmichael mine on 24 July 2014. This approval was challenged by the Mackay Conservation Group in the Federal Court. The approval was set aside on 4 August 2015 when it was found that Minister Hunt had failed to consider the relevant conservation advice for the yakka skink and ornamental snake.

It was this decision that sparked the so-called ‘lawfare‘ controversy, with Federal Attorney-General George Brandis announcing a plan to remove the section of the EPBC Act granting standing to environment groups.

Following the Federal Court order, Minister Hunt then considered the relevant conservation advices, and issued a new approval for the project on 14 October 2015.

A fresh application for judicial review has been made by the Australian Conservation Foundation, challenging the Minister’s consideration of the impacts of the project on the Great Barrier Reef, and an endangered species. This case will be heard in early 2016.

Can this mine be stopped?

At the state level, final approvals have not yet been given. There is consequently an opportunity for Queensland’s ministers to reject the proposal. There is no legal precedent for this, as historically mining projects have always been permitted, although subject to conditions. It is unlikely any legal challenge could arise from a refusal at this stage, as no legal right has yet been granted.

At the federal level, there has been a final decision by the Minister, although that is subject to review by the Federal Court. If the Federal Court challenge fails, the only option would be for Minister Hunt to revoke the approval.

The EPBC Act specifies circumstances when an approval may be revoked, including when new information emerges, or if information was withheld by the proponent. The Minister may also consider the environmental history of the proponent. It is not clear whether these circumstances are exhaustive, although the Federal Court has indicated they are not.

Regardless, Minister Hunt may arguably have the new information needed to squarely enliven this power anyway. The Queensland Land Court proceedings brought to light new information regarding the habitat of the endangered black-throated finch, which may not have been available to Minister Hunt at the time of assessment.

Additionally, new information has emerged in recent weeks regarding Adani’s environmental history.

Finally, the Federal Court proceedings in 2016, even if unsuccessful, may reveal new information about the project. These circumstances all suggest that the door is not firmly closed to Minister Hunt revoking Adani’s approval.

Ministers have the power – but will they use it?

Again, there is little precedent for this course of action. Of the 5,364 applications made in the history of the EPBC Act, only 20 have been rejected by the environment minister. There is even less precedent for a project being approved, and then rejected afterwards.

Saying ‘no’ to the Carmichael mine would undeniably be controversial, and a significant departure from Australia’s historical reluctance to reject mining proposals.

Regardless, the legal power does exist for Australian governments to act, both at the federal and state levels, to prevent a project that could be at odds with the renewed global commitment to tackle climate change.

Justine Bell is Lecturer in Law, The University of Queensland.

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

As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has pledged, among other things, to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025.

But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit.

The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad Climate Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013.

In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been raised dramatically. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy.

Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president.

So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?

Going to the Supreme Court?

Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.

The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.

As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a disapproval resolution blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries.

Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election.

Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option.

Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks

A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned.

The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the Supreme Court held that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives.

And when the Supreme Court in 2011 rejected state efforts to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision not to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.

Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the ‘airpocalypses‘ choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US.

Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Post-Paris

The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992.

President Obama believes he already has sufficient legal authority to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.

There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the Minimata Convention on Mercury without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.

For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a joint announcement with the White House.

The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so.

Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.

Robert Percival is Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland.

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

As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has pledged, among other things, to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025.

But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit.

The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad Climate Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013.

In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been raised dramatically. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy.

Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president.

So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?

Going to the Supreme Court?

Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.

The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.

As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a disapproval resolution blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries.

Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election.

Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option.

Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks

A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned.

The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the Supreme Court held that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives.

And when the Supreme Court in 2011 rejected state efforts to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision not to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.

Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the ‘airpocalypses‘ choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US.

Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Post-Paris

The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992.

President Obama believes he already has sufficient legal authority to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.

There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the Minimata Convention on Mercury without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.

For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a joint announcement with the White House.

The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so.

Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.

Robert Percival is Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland.

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

As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has pledged, among other things, to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025.

But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit.

The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad Climate Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013.

In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been raised dramatically. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy.

Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president.

So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?

Going to the Supreme Court?

Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.

The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.

As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a disapproval resolution blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries.

Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election.

Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option.

Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks

A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned.

The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the Supreme Court held that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives.

And when the Supreme Court in 2011 rejected state efforts to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision not to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.

Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the ‘airpocalypses‘ choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US.

Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Post-Paris

The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992.

President Obama believes he already has sufficient legal authority to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.

There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the Minimata Convention on Mercury without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.

For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a joint announcement with the White House.

The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so.

Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.

Robert Percival is Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland.

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

As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has pledged, among other things, to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025.

But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit.

The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad Climate Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013.

In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been raised dramatically. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy.

Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president.

So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?

Going to the Supreme Court?

Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.

The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.

As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a disapproval resolution blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries.

Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election.

Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option.

Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks

A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned.

The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the Supreme Court held that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives.

And when the Supreme Court in 2011 rejected state efforts to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision not to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.

Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the ‘airpocalypses‘ choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US.

Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Post-Paris

The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992.

President Obama believes he already has sufficient legal authority to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.

There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the Minimata Convention on Mercury without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.

For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a joint announcement with the White House.

The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so.

Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.

Robert Percival is Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland.

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

As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has pledged, among other things, to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025.

But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit.

The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad Climate Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013.

In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been raised dramatically. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy.

Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president.

So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?

Going to the Supreme Court?

Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.

The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.

As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a disapproval resolution blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries.

Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election.

Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option.

Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks

A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned.

The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the Supreme Court held that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives.

And when the Supreme Court in 2011 rejected state efforts to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision not to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.

Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the ‘airpocalypses‘ choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US.

Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Post-Paris

The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992.

President Obama believes he already has sufficient legal authority to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.

There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the Minimata Convention on Mercury without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.

For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a joint announcement with the White House.

The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so.

Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.

Robert Percival is Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland.

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

The government today concluded its attack on the UK’s solar sector with a massive 64% cut in support for domestic scale solar power up to a 10kW capacity.

The cut is not quite so serious as set out in a consultation this summer, which proposed an 87% cut. But it’s still plenty deep anough to devastate the UK’s solar industry.

Under the new feed-in tariff (FIT) generators will receive just 4.39p per kWh generated compared to 12p today, plus the price they are paid by their electricity supplier for exported power (currently about 3.4p).

So the combined return on power returned to the grid by solar generators is about 8p – about half what the electricity company will sell it for to the house next door.

In additional move to keep the development of renewables within tight bounds, quarterly limits are to be imposed on the permissible volume of renewables build, defined separately for each technology and each scale band.

Say one thing, do the opposite

The moves follow numerous bullish statements on climate change from both the prime minister David Cameron and Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, who came close to claiming personal credit for negotiating the Paris Agreement.

“The Paris agreement truly marks an historic turning-point”, she told MPs this week. “Nearly every country of the world has committed to take the global action needed to solve a global problem. Of course, it was hard fought and of course it required compromise to bring everyone with us.

“Now we have to set about implementing the commitments made … All parties have recognised that economic and global security requires us to tackle climate change. All have come together to commit to a single goal-net zero carbon emissions by the end of the century. All have agreed to set out plans to curb emissions and to be held accountable for their actions.”

In another attack on solar power last week, the government announced that it would levy the full 20% rate of VAT on solar PV installations, curently charged at 5% – adding about £900 to the cost of a typical system.

A massive blow against jobs and tackling climate change

“Friends of the Earth renewable energy campaigner Alasdair Cameron was quick to show up the gap between Rudd’s rhetoric and her actions: “Less than a week after the UK Government agreed in Paris to keep global temperatures well below two degrees, the government has shown its true colours – and they’re certainly not green”, he said.

“These huge, misguided cuts to UK solar are a massive blow for jobs and the economy, and further undermine the government’s already tarnished credibility on tackling climate change. Massive public opposition to the government’s original proposal may have forced ministers to modify their plans, but this is still terrible news for the for UK and its small-scale renewables industry.

He also attacked the government’s vast subsidies to fossil fuels, estimated by the International Monetary Fund at £26 billion per year, about 1.4% of GDP. According to the Department for Energy and Climate Change the cost of supporting all renewable energy technologies in 2014 to 2015 will total £3.5 billion.

“It’s outrageous that the government continues to hand out billions of pounds in subsidies every year to climate-wrecking fossil fuels, while trying to block the clean energy sources we urgently need to power our homes, hospitals and schools”, said Cameron.
 
“The good news is that the global renewable revolution is unstoppable, and the technology is advancing far faster than government thinking. But that will be scant comfort to the thousands of people whose jobs are under threat as a result of this short-sighted decision.”

Commercial solar out in the cold

In a simultaneous move, the government also announced today the end of support for larger scale solar generation under the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme from 1st April 2016. The largest solar power schemes of over 5MW in capacity were already excluded from the RO last year.

Modest commercial rooftop schemes up to 50kW – the size of a school or small commercial building – will also have to absorb a big cut in their FIT to 4.59p per kWh, slightly higher than that paid to domestic generators.

But the rate will fall sharply for larger schemes. Those up to 250kW will get 2.7p per kWh, up to 1000kW 2.27p, and above that threshold just 0.87p. The effect will be simple – to make medium and large scale solar installations commercially unviable.

“Government has partially listened. It’s not what we needed, but it’s better than the original proposals, and we will continue to push for a better deal for what will inevitably be a more consolidated industry with fewer companies”, said Paul Barwell, CEO of the Solar Trade Association.

“However, in a world that has just committed to strengthened climate action in Paris and which sees solar as the future, the UK Government needs to get behind the British solar industry. Allocating only around 1% of its clean power budget to new solar is too little, particularly when solar is now so cost-effective.

Poor ambition for solar risks missing out on not only our renewable energy targets in the UK, but on the world’s greatest economic opportunity too. The industry will certainly try its hardest but we will be pressing Government to do much more to boost solar power.”

Jan-Willem Bode, chief executive of solar installer Mongoose Energy, added: “By preparing us for the worst possible scenario and then climbing down slightly, it feels like they’re trying to make bad news look good.” 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

There’s no money for schools, no money for social services, no money for the environment.

There is lots of money for speculators, however. A tsunami of money. Money that is measured in the trillions.

The central banks of the United States, Britain, the eurozone and Japan have so far spent US$6.57 trillion (or €6.06 trillion if you prefer) on ‘quantitative easing’ programs. And, for all of that incomprehensibly gigantic sum of money, what mostly has been accomplished is a stock market bubble.

And, as a secondary effect, a boost to real estate prices, making real estate speculation pay off a bit more than it ordinarily does.

Oh no, so much for the overall economy, you say? Hard to argue that point. The world’s advanced capitalist countries are mired in stagnation, structural unemployment and widening inequality, with public investment starved and personal debt a monumental problem.

Surely those staggering sums of money could have been put to better use. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first a quick accounting. Money spent on quantitative easing is as follows:

• Federal Reserve: $4.1 trillion in three programs that ended in November 2014.
• European Central Bank: €600 billion so far; the ECB has committed to spending a total of €1.1 trillion through March 2017.
• Bank of England: £375 billion.
• Bank of Japan: ¥155 trillion so far in two and a half years; the Japanese central bank is committed to spending ¥80 trillion per year with no ending date. (¥122 = $1)

QE is banks buying their own debt – at a premium

‘Quantitative easing’ is the technical name for central banks buying their own government’s debt in massive amounts; in the case of the Federal Reserve it also bought mortgage-backed securities.

The supposed purpose of quantitative easing programs is to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment. Under this theory, a reduction in long-term interest rates would encourage working people to buy or refinance homes; encourage businesses to invest because they could borrow cheaply; and push down the value of the currency, thereby boosting exports by making locally made products more competitive.

In actuality, quantitative easing programs cause the interest rates on bonds to fall because a central bank buying bonds in bulk significantly increases demand for them, enabling bond sellers to offer lower interest rates.

Seeking assets with a better potential payoff, speculators buy stock instead, driving up stock prices and inflating a stock-market bubble. Money not used in speculation ends up parked in bank coffers, boosting bank profits, or is borrowed by businesses to buy back more of their stock, another method of driving up stock prices without making any investments.

Given that banks are bigger and more profitable than ever (the six biggest US banks racked up a composite net income of US$75 billion in 2014) and US corporations spend about $1 trillion per year buying stock to artificially boost stock prices, shoveling still more money to those with far more than can be spent or invested in any rational way is irrational, no matter how many reports are pumped out by think tanks they pay to tell them otherwise.

What else could we have done with it all?

So what might have been done with those quantitative easing trillions thrown at banks instead? The total student debt in the United States, where the costs of higher education has risen more than double the rate of inflation since 1982, is $1.3 trillion as of October 2015.

Printing the money to cover the entirety of the country’s student debt would total less than one-third of what the Federal Reserve spent on inflating a stock-market bubble. That leaves many more needs to be addressed.

The infrastructure of the US is crumbling, and governments are short of money to fix what needs to be fixed. The investment needed to modernize and maintain school facilities is estimated to be at least $270 billion. The foreseeable cost of maintaining water systems in the coming decades in the US is estimated at $1 trillion.

The American Water Works Association arrives at this total by assuming each of 240,000 water main breaks per year would require the replacement of a pipe. Capital investment needs for wastewater and stormwater systems are estimated to require another $298 billion over the next 20 years.

The shortfall of funding to clean up Superfund sites is estimated to be as much as $500 million per year. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one in four United Statesians lives within three miles of a hazardous waste site; more than 400,000 contaminated sites await cleanup. And we can throw in another $21 billion to repair the more than 4,000 dams deemed to be deficient by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.

Jobs instead of speculation

Add up all of the above and we would have spent a total of $3.4 trillion. Instead of throwing money at speculators and banks in the vain hopes they would spend the money productively instead of pocketing it or directing it toward speculation or boosting stock prices, we could have wiped out all student debt, fixed all the schools, rebuilt aging water and sewer systems, cleaned up contaminated industrial sites and repaired dams, and still have $700 billion more to spend on other needs.

If we were to apply that remaining $700 billion to create a federal jobs program, such as was done during the Great Depression, a total of 14 million jobs paying $50,000 and lasting one year could have been created, or three and a half million jobs paying that salary and lasting four years. That is in addition to all the people who could be put to work performing necessary infrastructure repair work if the above projects were carried out.

All of that for no more money than the Federal Reserve threw away on quantitative easing. This same argument can be made elsewhere: The British think tank Policy Exchange estimates Britain’s needs for investment in transportation, communication and water infrastructure to be a minimum of £170 billion. That is less than half of what the Bank of England spent on its quantitative-easing scheme, and dwarfs an estimated £2.5 billion deficit in the National Health Service.

Instead of spending this money on programs that would put people to work and enable them to get on their feet financially, those with more get more. European non-financial companies are estimated to be sitting on $1.1 trillion in cash, or more than 40 per cent higher than in 2008, the Financial Times reports.

The St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve estimates that, in 2011, US corporations were sitting on almost $5 trillion of cash, a total likely to have increased.

This is what class warfare looks like, when only one side is waging it.

Pete Dolack is an activist, writer, poet and photographer, and writes on Systemic Disorder. His forthcoming book ‘It’s Not Over: Lessons from the Socialist Experiment’, a study of attempts to create societies on a basis other than capitalism, will be published by Zero Books in late 2015.

This article was originally published on Systemic Disorder.