The first mayor of Kraków to be elected by popular ballot, law professor Jacek Majchrowski is tackling an environmental issue most governors avoid: the electromagnetic pollution in his city.

Following work on air pollution, and in response to growing demand, he is initiating forums for citizens to discuss the growing ‘smog’ of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs).

In a world first he is also initiating the provision of meters to detect radio-frequency (RF) / extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs so people can collect objective data on their exposure.

In December, Majchrowski hosted an international conference on EMF pollution and citizens’ ‘right to information’ – an echo of the new Right to Know law in Berkeley, California (cell-phone sellers must supply safety information).

Speakers included Sławomir Mazurek, a pro-reform Polish minister for the Environment. Majchrowski and his team are now re-zoning mobile-phone masts (cell towers) to reduce EMF exposure levels.

With similar boldness, Argentina’s Lower National Congress proposed a new health law last year to regulate electromagnetic pollution.

Supported by trade unions and NGOs, its radical draft measures included hard-wired networks in schools (also hospitals) – recalling the recent Green-led French law on “electromagnetic sobriety” (2015) and recommendations of the American Pediatrics Society and British Doctors’ Initiative.

A planetary paradox

Across the planet, 2016 had seen a paradoxical trend: anthropogenic radiation from mobile and wireless trends continued to rise rapidly, alongside striking, under-reported findings on its possible bio-risks.

Cell-phone use was still climbing. India alone reached over 1 billion verified subscriptions. But like Wilde’s picture of Dorian Gray, the small screens endlessly sold to us harboured a troubling reality. In May, researchers in the USA’s $25 million National Toxicology Programme released early warnings (later stated in detail). Cell-phone radiation had shown clear tumour-promoting effects in the hearts and brains of the rats under study.

In Britain, meanwhile, neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey published a key peer-reviewed paper (October 2016) that exposed shocking bias in the 2012 report by AGNIR, the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation – a report behind many governments’ take-no-action health policies, including the UK’s. And one which (as she demonstrates) blatantly excludes the peer-reviewed precautionary science.

Long buried by Germany’s government, a report offering a rare window on 878 Russian-language science papers (1960-1997) was finally translated, with updates, into English. Long-term studies on Soviet workers repeatedly charted chronic debilitation from weak EMFs – including pulsed microwaves that have been commercially ‘repackaged’ for today’s telecoms.

Though research protocols differed from those current today, raising potential questions, the author, medical Professor Karl Hecht, persuasively condemns his government – and the West as a whole – for its reliance on short-term studies.

Voices in the wind: unheard cautions

But escalating trends were in train. In July, the USA’s Federal Communications Commission approved unbridled commercial development of 5G, (July), despite serious question-marks about the new electromagnetic radiation being lined up for use, and the spiralling public exposure it would bring.

A parallel trend for hidden transmitters saw more antennae disguised as birdboxes – and now as cables (January 2017) – the polar opposite of ‘right to know’.

Whilst BT ran adverts for “the most powerful WiFi in the world” (UK), newly published papers continued to show DNA or organ damage to WiFi-exposed animals – raising questions about our habitual close exposure to routers / boosters.

And while the ITU (International Telecoms Union) told the United Nations that 95% of the world’s population had mobile phone-mast coverage (July), with added 4G/LTE supplying 53%, a landmark study in Germany (September) revealed progressive harm to trees from the growing microwave radiation. Strongly irradiated trees, even two miles from antennae, died back, often to the point that they were felled.

Similarly troubling, a Greek study of pollinating insects found that many species decreased in step with phone-mast radiation (Lázaro et al). Underground-nesting species fared much better – an imbalance, the authors noted, that could have wide eco-impacts, or affect crops.

Other 2016 peer-reviewed studies on phone-masts (cell towers) found genetic effects in nearby residents. (See also Gandhi 2015) plus lab-demonstrated amputee pain from the pulsing output.)

A study on Antarctic krill (March) found that navigation was disrupted by an exceptionally weak radiofrequency field. Research showing insect cell-death from 6 minutes’ weak wireless exposure added to previous, similar findings (a, b, c) on Bluetooth etc. Both hint at a need to monitor our fast-rising, non-ionising radiation.

Under-age users – a ‘generation zapped’?

In Los Angeles, a young director began filming Generation Zapped, a courageous documentary on smartphone / wireless risks. Now in its late stages of production, it attracted wide support.

Psychiatry professor Nicholas Kardaras, an expert in addiction, published his gripping book Glow Kids: how screen addiction is hijacking our kids (USA). Drawing on his clinical experience of over 1,000 teenagers, he adopted the term “digital heroin“ for interactive small screens.

Sharing evidence for addiction-hallmark brain changes, however, he neglected plausible links with the wireless radiation itself (published RF risks to the prefrontal brain / opioid receptors).

A survey suggested US smartphone ownership began, on average, at age 10. Around the world, research showing children’s cell-phone radiation absorption was higher than adults’ – especially in the brain and bone marrow – continued to be overlooked. As did Russia’s 4-year study on multi-tested cognitive decline in 7 to 12 year-olds using cell phones (2011), a contrast to milder, short-term findings elsewhere.

Cell-phone risks to the blood-brain barrier which shields the brain from toxins – long highlighted by Professor Salford – found support in a new study. Professor Hardell (who called for pulsed RF to be upgraded to a Class 1 carcinogen in 2014) co-published on whether cell-phones might be a possible, hidden factor in the rise of thyroid cancer.

And a review of 21 studies showing RF/cell-phone risks to male fertility (Houston 2016) concluded that free radical damage played a key role.

Lost in the tide: human rights

Outside Sweden, human rights continued to be denied to the rising numbers of adults and children testifying to EHS (severe ‘electrosensitive’ symptoms).

Reviewing up to date biological evidence, the European Academy for Environmental Medicine recommended low pulsed-microwave exposure limits (0.006 V/m) for those affected – far lower than from today’s wireless transmitters – including in schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries.

In July, the Spanish Court of Madrid pronounced a former telecoms engineer permanently disabled by EHS. Meanwhile an appeal judge (UK) awarded Employment and Support Allowance to a claimant, using surrogate terms due to the lack of legal recognition of EHS.

ICNIRP, the controversial regulatory body with newly documented conflicts of interest, now held 5 of the 6 seats in the WHO’s core group on EMFs (2016). As early as 2000, in a 189-page report, environmental professor Neil Cherry concluded ICNIRP neglected evidence “that would have had a chemical declared carcinogenic, neuropathogenic, cardiogenic and teratogenic for humans many years ago.”

Though views would vary widely, by October 2016, 223 EMF scientists from 41 nations had signed the ongoing appeal to the WHO and UN for new safety standards.

The UK’s microwave smart-meter rollout lumbered forward, despite spiralling costs, overseas court claims for health damage, and scientists’ call for worldwide, non-toxic alternatives. TV adverts obscured the meters’ microwave spikes (downplayed by manufacturers) and research on emerging health risks. (See note.)

Installation began to take off in London’s tenanted accommodation. Mel Kelly, reprinted in The Ecologist, had already pointed out that many poorer households (tenants) would face involuntary metering and exposure.

Guarding the troubled gardens of our cells

The interaction of toxic chemicals and electromagnetic fields continued to be neglected. The discovery of EMF-sensitive magnetite in the brain from chemical air pollution (September) did not bode well. Nor did the earlier discovery that weak wireless exposure speeded up rodent body tumours triggered by a chemical carcinogen (Lerchl 2015).

Apple launched its wireless ‘earbuds’, which expose the brain to Bluetooth, just as Professor Pall (winner of eight international awards) published a new paper on wireless risks to our nervous systems and brains (September).

This followed his ground-breaking work on a ‘master mechanism’ of harm: 26 peer-reviewed papers revealed over-stimulation of electrical gates (VGCCs) in our cell walls. This process boosts production of peroxynitrite (see note) – one of the most toxic compounds in the body – an emerging disease risk factor which triggers free radical damage to cells, tissues, mitochondria, and DNA.

Noting 93 papers showing free radical damage from low-level wireless radiation, Yakymenko, et al 2016 concluded it has “a high pathogenic potential”. Associate Professor Havas (November 2016) drew a similar, insightful parallel with weakly ionizing radiation such as X-rays or low energy gamma rays of nuclear origin.

‘Creative steps for low-addiction living’

Overall, 2016’s precautionary findings, added to the accumulating data suggesting bio-risks, raise sensitive questions. Are we placing a covert stress, perhaps, on our exposed trees and pollinators? Could we be failing to safeguard children, teenagers, and those in frail health? What is the growing carbon cost of global, ever-on transmitters?

And as time passes, might profit-driven trends for microwave ‘smart homes’, crammed with devices plus micro-transmitters (IoT), risk a subtle ‘sick building syndrome’, to everyone’s hidden cost? Our care for humanity, and the delicate legacy of DNA, invites us to reflect on such questions.

Can we take inspiration from Krakow, and the French Green law on EMFs? As 2017 unfolds, it seems clean ways forward deserve new thought, alongside creative steps for low-addiction living – a vital complement to going low carbon.

Lynne Wycherley is a nature poet with six published collections. Working in parallel with pioneering doctors, she has been investigating non-ionizing radiation for 5 years.

Also by Lynne Wycherley on The Ecologist:

• ‘Wireless pollution ‘out of control’ as corporate race for 5G gears up‘ (October 2016).
• ‘How the smartphone boom could damage your health and the environment‘ (December 2012).

Notes

French Law Sobriété de l’exposition aux champs électromagnétiques. Main points: A census, and remediation, of worst mobile-phone mast hotspots (> 6V/m). Public map of masts. (Ofcom’s was removed, 2016, with no plans to replace). WiFi banned from nurseries. Wired internet in new primary-school facilities; existing routers switched off when not part of lessons. Public WiFi signage. Government report on EHS. Notice of all proposed / altered antennae to mayors/ residents. Deactivation instructions, plus SARs, with all transmitting products, plus cell-phone safety information supported by awareness campaigns.

The National Toxicology Programme‘s Ron Melnick, who led the study design team, confirmed “after extensive reviews, the consensus is that there was a carcinogenic effect.”

Exposé of AGNIR, open access: Rev Environ Health 2016; 31(4): 493-503. “Decisions about involuntary, continuous and widespread RF exposures in schools, hospitals, workplaces and public and private spaces in the UK and around the world have been made based upon inaccurate conclusions of the AGNIR report.” (AGNIR membership overlaps with ICNIRP: below)

Professor Hecht: the 878 studies reported net “multi-morbid clinical findings and nonspecific regulatory disorders” including fatigue and nervous-system/body clock changes.

Re-packaged “Même ondes pulsées, même fréquences, même symptoms” [the same pulsing waves, same frequencies, same symptoms”]: Dr Pierre le Ruz, a former head of military radar research, interviewed by documentary-maker Marc Khanne (2013)

5G Dr Joel Moskowitz, community-health studies director, University of California: “precaution is warranted before 5G is unleashed on the world.” Trials bouncing mm waves off outdoor surfaces boasted “tremendous reflectivity”: this is troubling if humanity wants to conserve low-wave areas.

WiFi-induced damage (animals) e.g. to kidneys (Kuybulu et al 2016): the authors advise “staying away from EMF source especially in pregnancy and early childhood…may reduce negative effects of exposure on kidney.” 2015 findings included free radical damage to uterus & foetus. Earlier results included pre-diabetic trends from 1 hour’s WiFi for 21 days Salah et al 2013).

Parents may not realise tablets left in WiFi mode transmit continual microwave spikes – above 6V/m in ipads (video), exceeding smart phones’ – even in the absence of a WiFi connection.

Tree damage “The occurrence of unilateral damage is the most important fact in our study” [i.e commencing on the more irradiated side] “This constitutes a danger for trees worldwide.” Waldmann-Selsam C et al, Sci Total Envi 2016. (Microwave field measurements, V/m, reveal similar pollution levels local to, e.g., microcells, new WiFi boosters, and DECT security alarms). A small replication study on seedling failure in strong mast radiation (2016) awaits scaling up.

Genetic effects in residents (masts) “genetic damage evident in the participants of this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk” Gandhi et al (ditto for blurred vision etc. 2014)

Professor Kardaras: “I have found it easier to treat heroin and crystal meth addicts than lost-in-the-matrix video gamers or Facebook-dependent social media addicts.” Recent brain-imaging research shows effects in the frontal cortex matching those seen from cocaine.

Prefrontal brain Seat of ‘executive functions’ including impulse control. ADHD and prefrontal brain damage was found in mice prenatally exposed to mobile phones (Aldad 2012), and higher ADHD (not necessarily causal) in children with prenatal/postnatal exposure (Divan et al 2008).

Opioids ”low-level RF activates both endogenous opioids and other substances in the brain that function in a similar manner to psychoactive drug actions. Such effects in laboratory animals mimic the effects of drugs on the part of the brain that is involved in addiction.” Bio-Initiative Report summary p.13

Cell-phones (children) Russian research: Khorserva et al, 2011. Other published cell-phone risks to children – and adults – include brain-protein/neurotransmitter imbalances e.g. Fragopoulou 2012/Aboul 2013 (re: depression, anxiety, memory, learning). See also Prof H Lai’s overviews 1, 2. Pediatrics found some mobile-device use in a staggering 97% of American 4-year-olds (Nov 2015).

Blood-brain barrier (mammals): 30 minutes’ 2G or 3G radiation from a mobile phone increased its permeability, Sirav & Seyhan, J Chem Neuroanat, Sept 2016; 75 (Pt B):123-7. (Salford found cases of delayed damage from the equivalent of 1.85m from a mobile phone).

Thyroid cancer “The incidence…is increasing in many countries, especially the papillary type that is the most radiosensitive”, Hardell et al 2016. Thyroid cancer risks from ionising radiation in Japan (Fukushima), though dismissed by some specialists, were eloquently highlighted in The Ecologist.

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection. (To date, has upheld industry-friendly safety standards that protect only against high-intensity exposures that ‘cook’ tissue). In 2004, noting ICNIRP was an “unelected” body, Caroline Lucas observed that “much of the science is being ignored, and the precautionary principle … seems not to apply.” Some scientists have appealed for broader representation on WHO’s EMF core group (19 Dec 2016).

Smart meter rollout * Industry whistle-blower Diana Ostermann exposed how manufacturers downplay the house-piercing microwave pulses. Australian GP Federica Lamech testified “I suddenly became sick overnight with palpitations, chest pain, insomnia, dizziness, inability to concentrate, memory loss and fainting spells. I [later] found out it was [when] the smart meters were remotely turned on”(she had to abandon her home). For clinical findings see, e.g. Professor Marino / Dr Dietrich Klinghardt.

Apple wireless earbuds use an ‘ever on’ Bluetooth microwave transceiver that connects to the user’s smartphone. Dr Joel Moskowitz: “We are playing with fire … You are putting a microwave-emitting device next to your brain.”

Professor Pall, 2016: “studies provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/ mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose-response relationships.”

Peroxynitrite is regarded as an emerging key agent in the ‘diseases of civilisation’: cancer, neuro-degeneration, chronic inflammatory conditions, etc. [Prof Pall: strong mains-electric fields can contribute by a similar “VGCC” mechanism]. For RF/ELF oxidative damage, see Prof Georgiou .

Professor Havas: “As usage of microwave-emitting devices increases and is marketed to younger consumer without caution, we can expect a societal increase of certain types of cancers…as well as infertility and other health effects associated with free-radical damage”.

Ever-on, e.g. DECT cordless-phone microwave transmitters (full power 24:7, emerging risks 1, 2).

Tomorrow  (January 12), British MEPs will be among those voting on whether CETA is bad news for the environment, public health and food safety – ahead of a final vote on the deal in February. Liam Fox bypassed parliamentary scrutiny to sign the UK up to the deal under its first stage of ratification.

CETA has already put rocket boosters under runaway climate change by bringing high-polluting tar sands oil into Europe. NASA scientist James Hansen warns that if tar sands oil is exploited as projected it will be “game over for the climate“.

CETA doesn’t merely threaten to undermine the Paris climate commitments. Its very existence is an affront to the fight against climate change; an unholy alliance of corporate lobbyists and US, Canadian and British government pressure ensured CETA derailed the Paris agreement before it took place, making a mockery of former UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s “greenest ever government” spin and Canadian premier Justin Trudeau’s claim that Southern countries “shouldn’t be punished for a problem they didn’t create“.

Secret CETA negotiations only progressed in 2009 after the European Commission shelved crucial climate change legislation. These rules stopped high-polluting fossil from entering Europe, including tar sands oil, which emits 23% more greenhouse gases over its lifetime than traditional fossil fuels. Research shows that 85% of the high polluting fuel must be left in the ground to meet climate change commitments.

Canada has spent more than £24 million lobbying against the rules, securing more than110 meetings in two years. Freedom of information documents reveal that the British government did all it could to support Canadian efforts, with BP “bending the ear” of then transport minister Norman Baker in order to demolish the “regulatory burden”. Then, in June 2014, the first tar sands oil shipment arrived in Europe. As EU trade expert Yannick Jadot – now the French Green Party’s presidential candidate – explained, the legislation: “… effectively vanished into obscurity for close to five years. And the CETA negotiations proceeded.”

It was only after CETA negotiations finished that the now diluted legislation re-surfaced.  “Coincidence?” asked Jadot. “Of course not.”

But importing tar sands oil into Europe is just one way CETA worsens runaway climate change. As with EU-US deal, TTIP, it contains a ‘corporate court’ mechanism granting fossil fuel corporations yet another means to block clean energy transition.

Time and again, this private justice system (investor-state dispute settlement) has been used to block green policies, which would harm Big Oil or energy firm profits. In total, some 35% of cases relate to oil, mining, gas and electricity.

Under these corporate court powers, Germany has been sued by a Swedish energy firm for €4.7 billion for banning nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster; Canada has been sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for passing a moratorium on fracking – were the UK to retract fracking permissions, it too could face similar cases even after Brexit; and Uganda, among others, has faced a secret corporate law suit for daring to levy windfall taxes on oil companies.

As the European Commission told ExxonMobil in a secret TTIP meeting, these deals are about far more than trade between two blocs: their intention is to set a template for the world, one which is “in the interest of the energy sector, and especially globally active companies like Shell or ExxonMobil”.

What Big Oil companies see as “burdensome regulations” are for millions around the world the difference between life and death.

If CETA passes, those politicians who failed to vote against this deadly deal will be complicit in the climate devastation it triggers.

This Author

Mark Dearn is a Senior Trade Campaigner at War on Want and Board Member of the Trade Justice Movement UK

Local farmers and activists in the Romanian village of Rosia Montana – located in the western part of the Carpathian Mountains – gathered for a special celebration last week.

Filling their glasses with palinca, a local homemade spirit, they toasted not the new year, but rather the Romanian government’s decision to sign off on an application requesting that UNESCO make their village a World Heritage site.

If approved, such a status would protect the picturesque commune – a green haven for tourists and travelers alike – from the ecologically and socially-damaging impacts of a gold mining project led by the Canadian firm Gabriel Resources.

It would also cement a victory 15 years in the making, thanks to the efforts of local farmers, environmental activists and Romanian civil society as a whole.

When Gabriel Resources began its plans to exploit one of Europe’s largest gold deposits in 2000, it did so without the consent of the local population and attempted to buy off farmers and town officials, so as to get the necessary permits for the project.

A few families from the village, however, refused to move or accept the company’s money. They instead launched Alburnus Maior – an NGO to represent the resisting farmers in court – and eventually, two years later the campaign Save Rosia Montana.

What followed were years of court battles delaying the project and numerous campaigns trying to convince the local population not to give in to the gold corporation’s promises. For years Alburnus Maior’s lawyers demonstrated in court how Gabriel Resources’ lobbyists were spreading corruption throughout local and national institutions.

A change in the law galvanised nationwide protest

Then, in August 2013, the social democrat-led government – after an intense lobbying campaign led by Gabriel Resources – decided to change the mining law so as to permit the company to start mining.

The government showed poor timing, as the information came out just a few days after that year’s FanFest, an annual awareness festival held in Rosia Montana. Facebook filled with protest events calling for people in Bucharest, Cluj and other major cities throughout the country to take to the streets on September 1 and protest the government’s decision.

Organizers and activists had low expectations since past efforts to organize on social media hadn’t succeeded in drawing people into the streets. But they were soon proven wrong, as tens of thousands of people showed up to support this small village in the mountains.

While the government’s decision to create a special law certainly stoked anger on its own, it’s the work of Alburnus Maior and FanFest (see photo)  that deserves the most credit for inspiring large masses of people to take action.

Since its inception in 2004, the festival brought thousands of activists, tourists and citizens from Romania and abroad to the small but picturesque village of Rosia Montana each year. This helped create a direct bond between them and the people from that community, as well as show that tourism can represent an ecological alternative to mining.

The Uniti Salvam citizen network

In the first few weeks following September 1, 2013, people would take to the streets in the daytime. Every evening they would gather in the squares and block the streets. Since more experienced activists knew this energy would eventually dry up without more organizing. So, they began meeting in bars and talking in secret and public groups on Facebook.

It didn’t take long to create an identity, a banner under which they could rally around. They called it Uniti Salvam, or United We Save. It was a network of experienced activists and citizens who wanted to get involved, and it set the tone for the rest of the protests.

Actions, demonstrations and all other decisions made in the meetings were disseminated through the network’s online platform, quickly making it the most trusted source for Rosia Montana information on the Internet. The network was comprised of people from numerous informal groups, communities and NGOs, and their first order of business was to keep the protests alive.

First, they decided it was important to hold protests only on weekends, so that people would not tire out. Second, they decided they needed to reach people living outside the big cities where the protests had been taking place – especially since the media had been ignoring them.

So they began marching through one of Bucharest or Cluj’s outer neighborhoods every weekend, which proved to be a key decision for the entire campaign. The marches would start with just a few thousand people, but grow to tens of thousands, in Bucharest alone, by the time they reached their endpoint in the city center.

The Victor Ponta led government chose not to intervene with force, waiting instead for things to die down. When that happened, the people’s assembly – under the Uniti Salvam banner – decided to inject the protests with new creativity in order to entice people to stay.

Support for Rosia Montana only increased

On one occasion, this led to a human chain surrounding the Parliament building, while on another thousands of people formed a giant red and green leaf (the campaign’s logo) by synchronizing their bodies in front of the government building.

Gradually, all these actions began attracting more and more supporters. When the government saw the campaign stretch into Spring 2014, they decided not to vote the law into place – despite Gabriel Resources constantly threatening to take the Romanian state to an international arbitration court (which it eventually did in 2015) for blocking their project and causing them losses.

According to Claudia Apostol from ARACIS, one of the oldest NGOs opposing the project alongside Alburnus Maior, “The 2013 protests and the movement that appeared in the process played a crucial role – not only because they defeated the law, but because they were also able to break the media embargo on the subject.”

Mihail Bumbes, a key organizer behind Uniti Salvam, seconded this opinion, saying, “The protests were decisive because they changed the views of an entire country in favor of Rosia Montana.”

A World Heritage Site in the making

While the protests eventually died down, the people from Rosia Montana and Alburnus Maior knew that things could turn around in a flash. So they started to petition for the inclusion of the Rosia Montana region in the UNESCO World Heritage list, a move that would give them the international protection they desired.

Ten successive culture ministers in Victor Ponta’s government ignored the application, again expecting the opposition to fade. But the tragic fire at the Colectiv club in October 2015 forced Victor Ponta and his cabinet to resign. A new government of technocrats led by former European Union Commissioner for Agriculture Dacian Ciolos took office.

Ciolos knew that the Rosia Montana project was a sensitive issue and that the people who brought him to power were the same ones who struggled to save it, so he publicly declared that his government would not back the project and instead send the application to UNESCO. In February 2016 the village and its surrounds were added to the Romania’s ‘tentative list’ for new World Heritage sites.

The online petition remained available throughout 2016, gathering signatures to pressure him to keep his word. As the year progressed, and the December elections neared, the pressure grew strong again. The Social Democrats swept the elections, earning 45% of all the votes and forming a calm majority in Parliament with their coalition of allies from the Liberals and Democrats Alliance.

As Ciolos appeared to be wavering on his pledge, a group of activists took a stand in front of the government building during the last few days of December. They dumped buckets of red and green pens on the street to remind the prime minister of his promise to sign the order to send the application to UNESCO.

Finally, as a last ditch effort, Alburnus Maior sent the petition to the government on January 3, two days before the new government was set to take over. Just as Rosia Montana supporters were beginning to feel demoralized, thinking that they would have to fight the next government all over again, Minister of Culture Corina Suteu announced on January 4 that the application had been submitted, leaving everybody in shock.

A huge victory – but continued vigilance will be necessary

“Taking into consideration the constant political opposition to the [UNESCO] inclusion, the betrayals of certain intellectuals and the gross unprofessionalism of people in the mass media, this is a huge victory”, said Doina Vella from Militia Spirituala, an NGO promoting active citizenship and human rights watchdog.

Claudia Apostol agreed, but added, “We will remain watchful until there is a final decision from UNESCO and the Romanian state fully accepts the development of Rosia Montana along those lines.”

The last-minute decision to submit the UNESCO application came as a surprise for everybody. At first glance, it represents the final step toward ending the struggle once and for all. But ultimate victory remains uncertain.

In their more that 15 years of resistance, the people of  Rosia Montana and their supporters have suffered numerous betrayals. As such, they are determined to keep a constant watch, so as to protect their communities from future threats.

Alexandru Predoiu is a student at SNSPA (National School of Political and Administrative Studies), studying the effectiveness of nonviolent actions applied in democratic countries. A long-time activist for different human rights watchdog groups, he is working to establish Romania’s first nonviolent action training program for activists. See more of his articles here.

More information: Rosia Montana campaign website (English).

This article was originally published by Waging NonViolence (CC BY). This story was made possible by WNV’s members – become one today.

Tom Druitt, managing director of Big Lemon Buses is ecstatic about the delivery of his solar panels which will power a new trio of electric buses – a first in the UK.

“Yes, definitely! We’ve got the panels to power the buses – re-used panels off a nursing home! It’s very exciting and we’re looking forward to seeing how it’ll work out and sharing that knowledge so everyone [in the public transport field] can do it.”

The 120 solar panels, generating enough electricity to boil 1.8 million kettles, will cover the roof of The Big Lemon’s bus depot near the seafront in Whitehawk, Brighton from where it runs its public bus service as well as private hires and festival/campaign runs.

The community interest company (CIC), which featured in the Ecologist magazine back in October 2008, is a pioneering social enterprise running all its vehicles on recycled waste cooking oil from local restaurants.

Since 2007 it estimates that over half a million tonnes of waste cooking oil has been used and that the project has saved over 900 tonnes of carbon dioxide from going up in smoke.

The company won last year’s Environmental Social Enterprise of the Year award at the UK Social Enterprise Awards in London’s, The Grand Connaught Rooms – a competition recognises excellence and outstanding achievements by businesses that reinvest their profits for good, benefitting people and planet.

As well being recognised for its use of recycled cooking oil in the buses, The Big Lemon caught the judges’ eyes for the progress made in pursuing the zero-emissions electric buses project powered by renewable energy.

This latest installation will begin in the New Year. Using an innovative combination of three renewable technologies, the project will generate clean energy during the day, store it in a battery and then charge up the solar buses overnight. The battery is sized to charge a day’s worth of travel for the three solar vehicles – 140 miles.

All being well, the first such bus will be going into service in the spring of 2017 on The Big Lemon’s 52 route between Woodingdean and Brighton, taking in some of Brighton and Hove’s most polluted hotspots which currently breach European pollution regulations.

The city central North Street (B2066) is one of the busiest routes in the UK with nearly all (97%) of the city’s bus routes passing through this thoroughfare. North Street to Western Road has the highest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NOx) in Sussex and currently exceeds the legal limits for these emissions.

On Western Road 66% of NOx comes from buses (Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach company runs the majority of these), 10% from cars, 7% from taxis and 17% from other vehicles including vans and lorries

Brighton & Hove City Council’s latest Air Quality Action Plan prioritises improvements in roadside nitrogen dioxide (NOx) levels and the council welcomes initiatives to reduce NOx emissions from buses.

A council spokesperson said: “We are working towards achieving standards… set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations continue to exceed EU and English standards within several metres of certain roads; a common problem for many local authorities in England and Wales.”

Although The Big Lemon buses use sustainably sourced fuel from waste cooking oils, the current fleet of biodiesel vehicles produce relatively high levels of NOx. Replacing these buses with electric vehicles would reduce the NOx emissions (as well as particulate matter, and CO2) to zero.

The Solar Bus project was one of 199 different applications to the regional M&S Energy Award scheme. Working alongside Brighton Energy Co-op, The Big Lemon won the prize worth £12,500: half the money they needed to keep the project going. £13,325 came through crowd-funding donations making £28,798 in total.

Will Cottrell, founder and Chair of  Brighton Energy Coop said: “We started off with just two organisations and an idea and now have a whole community of people and a number of local businesses [incl. Infinity Foods and Mooncup] supporting it.

“It’s great to be working on this. Brighton Energy Co-op has a lot of exciting projects on the go, but I have to say none have involved covering the roof of a bus depot to power the buses that are housed there!

“This is the first project of its kind in the UK – a very exciting time for us and a project that puts Brighton & Hove at the forefront of renewable energy and transport in the UK.”

What stops this latest departure being rolled out nationally, is cost. The technology is still in its early stages and so it costs twice as much for an electric bus as it would for a diesel: £250,000.

Earlier this year the company raised £250,000 in just a few weeks through a bond issue which is how they’ve been able to invest in the project and identify three buses to convert, with the conversion on one of them already underway. To finish the job they need another £225,000 which they are aiming to get through a share issue.

If you would like to invest in The Big Lemon contact the company at tomdruitt@thebiglemon.com

To see the data on how much CO2 etc the buses will save go to this interactive data visualisation: //datawrapper.dwcdn.net/FNC5p/1/

After more than a decade of unsuccessful efforts to eradicate the genetically modified grass it created and allowed to escape, lawn and garden giant Scotts Miracle-Gro now wants to step back and shift the burden to Oregonians.

The federal government is poised to allow that to happen by relinquishing its oversight, even as an unlikely coalition of farmers, seed dealers, environmentalists, scientists and regulators cry foul.

The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-proclaimed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year hay and grass seed industry at stake.

Hay is Oregon’s number three crop, worth over $604 million a year, while grass seed comes in at number five, with sales of almost $384 million a year. Sales of both commodities could suffer badly if they are contaminated with the GMO grass seeds.

The situation is particularly tense in Malheur County, where Scotts’ altered grass has taken root after somehow jumping the Snake River from test beds in Idaho. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.

“Imagine I had a big, sloppy, nasty Rottweiler, and you lived next door in your perfectly manicured house”, said Bill Buhrig, an Oregon State University extension agent in Malheur County. “Then I dump the dog in your backyard, I take off and now it’s your problem.”

The battle pits farmer against farmer, regulator against regulator, seller against buyer. Scotts spokesman Jim King insists the company has done its part and significantly reduced the modified grass’s territory.

The US Department of Agriculture, which for 14 years had refused to deregulate the controversial grass on environmental concerns, suddenly reversed course last fall and signaled it could grant the company’s request as early as this week.

An international market in non-GM seeds at risk

Many find the prospect alarming. The Oregon and Idaho departments of agriculture oppose deregulation, as does US Fish and Wildlife, which predicted commercialization of the grass could drive endangered species to extinction.

“We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this”, said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”

Some growers and dealers fear it’s only a matter of time before the altered seed reaches the Willamette Valley, the heart of Oregon’s grass business. “That would be a catastrophic event for Oregon’s grass seed industry”, said Don Herb, a Linn County seed dealer. “We don’t need Scotts or others to put our industry at risk.”

Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.

The modified grass has so far been confirmed only in Jefferson and Malheur counties, where it escaped earlier field trials. But The Oregonian / OregonLive has learned that the altered grass has already been grown in the valley. Scotts confirmed that it conducted small-scale field tests in Gervais and Corvallis in the 2000s.

A new and improved grass

Genetic modification dates back to the 1970s and really took hold in agriculture in the 1990s and 2000s. The ability to alter a plant’s genes offered the promise of species that are more productive, more resistant to disease, even immune to herbicides. Today, more than 90% of US soybeans, cotton and corn are genetically engineered.

Scotts hoped gene modification would help it revolutionize the front yard. It invested $100 million to develop a better, more sustainable grass in the 1990s and 2000s largely through the new technology. In partnership with Monsanto, it created a type of creeping bentgrass unaffected by Roundup.

The initial target market was the golf course industry, King said. Creeping bentgrass is commonly used on greens and tees because it can survive being mowed down practically to the dirt.

“It was incredibly attractive to the golf industry”, King said. “Creeping bentgrass is probably as good a playing surface as you’ll ever find in the northern US. But it’s also really subject to infestation from other grasses.”

The allure of the new grass was simple: Golf course greens keepers could use a single herbicide – Roundup – to kill everything but the desired bentgrass. Scotts launched field trials throughout the country, including in Canyon County, Idaho, and Jefferson County, Oregon.

The great ‘escape’

On two occasions in August 2003, hot afternoon winds whipped through the fields north of Madras, scattering the modified seed seed for miles, including into the Crooked River National Grasslands. Signs of the altered grass were found 13 miles away from the test fields, according to federal documents.

The timing couldn’t have been worse for Scotts. It had sought the blessing of the US Department of Agriculture just the year before to sell the altered seed commercially.

It was an extraordinary request. Scotts’ grass was one of the first genetically modified perennials. Unlike annual food crops, perennials typically survive the cold months and can expand via its seeds and the shoots it sends out. Its tiny seed is easily propelled by wind, water and hungry birds.

In 2007, the agriculture department fined Scotts $500,000 for allowing the escape and held Scotts responsible for controlling and eradicating the engineered grass. Then came news the grass had spread further.

In 2010, significant patches of altered grass were found along irrigation canals in Malheur County. No one is quite sure how or when it got there, though it’s believed to have come from a test field in nearby Parma, across the Idaho border. The seed somehow jumped the Snake River and has established itself intermittently from the tiny town of Adrian, north to Ontario and beyond to the Malheur River’s junction with the Snake, a total distance of nearly 30 miles.

The runaways weren’t Scotts’ only problem. US Fish and Wildlife determined that commercialization of the modified grass could actually “jeopardize the continued existence“ of two endangered plant species and would “adversely modify” critical habitat of other endangered species, including Fender’s Blue Butterfly, found only in the Willamette Valley.

There were other unexpected developments. Scientists from Oregon State University and the Environmental Protection Agency found that the modified grass had crossed with feral grasses, passing along its Roundup resistance.

Controversial deal

As chair of the Malheur County Weed Board, Jerry Erstrom has become an outspoken player at the center of the Scotts controversy. The Vale native is a retired Bureau of Land Management employee and still grows hay.

Erstrom says he learned in February 2016 that Scotts had reached a deal with the US Department of Agriculture six months before. Scotts was abandoning its plan to commercialize its altered grass. The waning popularity of golf had convinced Scotts their grass was no longer a viable product, King said.

Erstrom had reason to worry. He sells his hay largely to foreign buyers, who won’t hesitate to find another supplier if there’s any sign of genetically modified material. But what really got Erstrom riled was this $2.8 billion-a-year corporation planning to phase out its lead role in the effort to eradicate the grass. “Instead, they want the good people of Malheur County to clean up their mess”, he said.

That will not come cheap. In its 2014 10-K filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Scotts “recognized $2.0 million in additional ongoing monitoring and remediation expense for our turfgrass biotechnology program.” King said the company’s been spending about $250,000 a year to control the grass.

King contends Scotts has agreed to remain involved in the cleanup for 10 years. But for the latter seven years, Scotts is required only to operate an informational website on how to deal with its grass.

Curiouser and curiouser …

There were other curious developments. Though it was abandoning efforts to commercialize the grass, Scotts still wants it deregulated. And the federal agency, which had refused for 14 years to sign off the new grass, suddenly seemed eager to do so.

Dr. Michael Firko, deputy director of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a department within the US Department of Agriculture, said Scotts’s decision not to bring the grass to market changed the equation. “Based on the 2002 petition, we were anticipating hundreds of thousands of acres of (the altered grass) on golf courses across the country.”

In a move that shocked some in Malheur County’s conservative agricultural community, Erstrom called in the Center for Biological Diversity, a fierce environmental group with an office in Portland best known for its work on endangered species issues. Erstrom hired Lori Ann Burd, director of the center’s environmental health program, as his personal attorney.

Scotts countered by bringing in Paulette Pyle, former director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a pro-herbicide agriculture lobbying group. Pyle, who declined to be interviewed, warned local residents against getting involved with the environmental group, said Erstrom and others.

Dan Anderson, a Malheur County rancher and official with the Oregon Farm Bureau, said the presence of the environmental group escalated tensions. He said the spread of the grass has been blown out of proportion by the critics.

“It’s true, the altered grass’s range now stretches for nearly 30 miles”, he said. But the plants are widely dispersed. “If you take every bentgrass in the county, you could put it on one quarter acre.”

As for Burd, she confirmed her group is considering suing the US Department of Agriculture over its handling of the altered grass and is highly critical of both the agency and Scotts. She said she’s skeptical that Scotts actually will end its effort to sell the new grass. Even if it does, Scotts’ patent on the technology expires in 2023, potentially paving the way for someone else to pick up the effort.

Firko, of the USDA, defended the agency’s handling of the case. “I think we did a great job getting the commitments we did from the company”, he said.

‘This GMO grass must be declared a pest, and eradicated’

In a Kansas City federal courtroom last year, Midwest corn growers launched a massive class-action lawsuit against Syngenta AG, claiming the company’s genetically modified corn contaminated their fields of non-GMO corn, costing them billions of dollars in international sales.

Similar shock waves reverberated through the Northwest wheat industry in 2013 when Asian buyers temporarily suspended purchases after genetically modified grain was detected in locally produced wheat. Officials were at a loss to explain how the contamination occurred.

In 2011, Bayer Crop Science paid $750 million to settle similar complaints filed by Southern US rice growers. In 2006, trace amounts of the genetically modified Liberty Link rice, developed by Bayer but at the time not approved for human consumption, were found in US long-grain rice stocks.

As consumers make their own decisions about genetically modified agricultural products, it is farmers dealing in non-GMO crops that claim the biggest financial losses due to inadvertent contamination.

Until Scotts’ modified grass, Oregon’s grass seed industry was a GMO-free zone, a great comfort to the many European and Asian customers who refused to buy genetically altered products. At the same time, Scotts was an important customer and partner for many of the state’s 1,500 growers.

Herb, owner of OreGro Seeds Inc., called upon state regulators and lawmakers to protect the industry. “We need to get out in front of this”, he said. “This is an invasive weed that in my opinion you can’t control.”

Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.

Jefferson County grass seed growers have already been dealing with contamination. The altered grass has at times sprouted in their fields of Kentucky bluegrass, requiring them to implement laborious seed cleaning processes.

Mike Weber, of Central Oregon Seeds in Madras, said local growers jumped at the chance to try growing the new grass. Scotts was and is a long-time customer and trusted partner. “The growers were enthused”, Weber said. “Maybe we rushed into things. If you asked us now whether we would ever want to get involved again in production of a GMO seed crop? The answer would be no! No way!”

Herb said the state needs to do what the feds refused to do: declare Scotts’ altered grass a plant pest and take steps to eradicate it once and for all.

But can it ever be contained?

Carol Mallory-Smith is a weed scientist at Oregon State University who’s been monitoring the new grass since its initial plantings. It was Mallory-Smith who first confirmed the altered grass had established in Malheur County.

As the issue began to heat up last year, she returned to Jefferson and Malheur counties to see for herself. She found the altered grass in both sites in just hours, which reinforced her view that while Scotts has decreased the number of plants, they are still present in significant volume.

“It was an ‘aha’ moment”, she said. She followed up with a letter to the US Department of Agriculture urging the agency not deregulate the grass, one of hundreds to do so.

“I always had the opinion that if they released it they would not be able to contain it.”

Jeff Manning is an investigative journalist at The Oregonian / Oregon Live, where he has worked since 1994, specialising in ‘watchdog reporting’ and corporate accountability. See more of his stories here.

This article was originally published by The Oregonian / Oregon Live and is reproduced here by kind permission.

“I think it’s time to change my farming system”, said my client. “A switch from dairy to rice paddies.”

Looking at his sodden fields, it wasn’t hard to imagine.

When you work with farmers, conversations about the weather are inevitable. Their livelihoods are intrinsically linked to the climate, and very often they and their animals are at the mercy of the elements.

As a consultant I work with long-term financial projections and business plans. In light of rising global temperatures it would be foolish to overlook the impact that climate change may have on my dairy farming clients in the dampness of West Wales.

The last decade has seen record-setting wet years for Britain, and the risk of flooding and the problems associated with sodden ground look likely to be an increasing challenge for farmers. The Environment Agency state that precipitation in the West of the country is expected to increase by up to 33%, a significant rise for an area that already experiences some of the highest rainfall in the UK.

When the fields are wet it becomes difficult to conserve forage for winter consumption. So in the future may bring problems with lack of good-quality silage, resulting in lower milk yields and poorer cow health.

Another problem on the horizon: the South of England, source of much of the straw that is used to feed and bed Welsh dairy herds, is expected to see drier, hotter weather. This too could negatively impact crop production, putting further pressure on cow nutrition.

Good news as well as bad

Conversely warmer weather, if coupled with sufficient dry periods and if access to fields is not limited, could lengthen the grazing season for grass-fed animals. This would aid sustainable agricultural practices and lower the cost of feeding concentrate feed. And that could be very helpful if there were shortages of imported feed due to desertification and drought overseas.

Warmer weather could also improve grass growth in upland areas, allowing these parts to be grazed with a mixture of species rather than just sheep. This would promote a more diverse range of flora and fauna – provided of course that species variety has not already been lost to climatic stress.

But warmer weather may bring problems too. The bluetongue virus first entered the UK in the mid-2000s. Although its spread cannot wholly be attributed to climate change, warmer weather could certainly have played a role in the proliferation of its Culicoides midge vector. Its emergence is significant because it heralds an age where more and more previously exotic diseases could become endemic in the UK cattle herd.

Vector-borne diseases are the obvious risk when considering that climate change could extend suitable habitats for various biting insects. It is also worth considering that warm, wet conditions are perfect for other already common pathogens and pests. The consequences of climate change could increase fly numbers, increasing the incidence rate of summer mastitis and fly-strike.

All of these health challenges could have serious impacts on herd management and performance. Bluetongue may be just the beginning in an unprecedented change in disease prevalence.

The one certainty – disruption

While paddy fields may be a step too far, climate change may bring the opportunity for some farmers to diversify into new enterprises, and force others to change their system. In some cases, this will be good for individual businesses and for certain sectors, for example an increase in domestic wine production or the lengthening of grazing seasons.

However, it will also necessitate a change in consumption patterns and an upheaval for farmers who have invested heavily in a particular sector.

Climate change overseas could potentially disrupt global supplies of grain, for both human and animal consumption. Droughts, like those seen recently in Australia, may hit important growing regions.

This would increase the price of cattle feed, again forcing farmers to move towards more extensive grass-based systems. In the long term this will provoke more sustainable production systems and possibly mitigate some of the damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

Making farming part of the solution

While agriculture is just one player in the system that has precipitated climate change, it has to take its share of the task of reducing its effects. Resource saving practices and renewable energy sources such as rainwater collection, solar panels, and wind turbines have already cropped up on farms and their use should increase.

Cattle can be fed in ways that minimise methane production. Regular soil sampling can optimise the use of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous, reducing fertiliser bills and environmental impacts.

Innovative pasture management practices like ‘mob grazing’ on herbal leys can deepen plants’ root systems, sequestering carbon in soils, and capturing water and nutrients that would otherwise go to waste. The use of ‘companion planting’ and cover crops can bring similar benefits in arable farming systems, while improving soil structure and fertility, and raising resilience to changing conditions.

Climate change brings extreme challenges to the agricultural sector, along with opportunities that will be exploited by those who feel that the situation won’t be reversed in a hurry. The industry must take responsibility for its emissions and work with stakeholders to minimise them. At the individual farmer level there will be difficulties in adaption.

Farmers feed us all. My job will be to help them continue to do so.

Anna Bowen is an agricultural consultant working mostly with grass- based dairy systems. She has an MSc in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security from the Royal Agricultural College and was the 2013 winner of the Guild of Agricultural Journalists / John Deere Training Award. Her blog can be found at askauntannie.com and covers a range of rural topics. Outside of work she helps on her family’s dairy farm and is a keen side saddle rider and athlete.

Metrology for Earth Observation and Climate (MetEOC-2) is a project led by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) to reduce the measurement uncertainties of Earth observation satellites. The project is part of a broader movement in the European measurement science community to provide ever more accurate Earth observation data to climate scientists. Ultimately, this work will allow the development of more sophisticated climate models, which are used to inform policy and develop strategies to mitigate climate change.

As part of this project, NPL ran a competition encouraging 16 to 25-year-old ‘citizen scientists’ to write about how they think climate change will impact their life and what they think should be done to combat it. They were encouraged to present an evidence-based argument, written with passion and conviction.

This winning piece was chosen based on these qualities as well as its excellent reflection of the current scientific understanding of climate change and the importance of accurate measurement.

Earlier this month, the Indonesian government made a decision which was hailed as a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo’s administration issued a long-awaited revision to regulations designed to protect the nation’s fragile peatlands.

The Washington Post said the move “could help prevent wildfires” and with it stop “billions of tonnes of carbon emissions” entering the atmosphere.

And the news was a welcome relief to the tens of millions of people forced to breathe the smoke from peat fires which follow the clearing and draining of peatland. There were an estimated 100,000 premature deaths resulting across three countries from last year’s devastating Indonesian peat and forest fires.

But others are yet to be convinced. Jokowi’s promise has been undermined by perplexing compromises based on industry-sponsored science.

Simply put, the new regulations won’t fulfil the President’s stated goals – or those of the Paris agreement.

The ‘ban’ that will allow the peatland destruction to continue

Existing plantation licenses for peatland cultivation remain valid under the new regulations, meaning that commercial exploitation can presumably continue for the 30-plus years that land use permits remain valid – with the potential for extensions up to roughly a century.

What’s more, the regulations place only a temporary moratorium on new peat development, lasting a maximum of around two years.

That’s also the longest time allowed before the government must complete its planned ‘peat zoning’ process, which will separate areas to be protected from those that can be drained for plantations.

The regulations require just 30% of each peat system to be zoned for protection, along with any further area in which the peat has a thickness of over 3m. Adopting the industry-supported ‘eko-hidro‘ model, this 30% is to be located over the slightly raised ‘dome’ of thicker peat which occurs in the centre of many peat systems. The remaining area is to be zoned for production, where clearing and drainage are permitted.

This model has been soundly rejected by peat scientists and Indonesian environmental groups alike. The whole peat dome is hydrologically connected, so draining the perimeter will inevitably result in the collapse of the centre in any case. Wetlands International has likened this policy to “allowing smoking in the left side of a plane and forbidding it on the right side”.

Still a risk of fires

Indonesia’s peatlands formed over thousands of years through a process where a continuously high water table prevents the breakdown of organic material, locking carbon into deep deposits.

The regulations allow plantation companies to reverse this process, draining these crucial water tables so that non-wetlands species such as oil palm and pulpwood acacia can be grown in the peat swamps.

The regulations limit the depth of drainage to 0.4 meters below the surface of the peat. Allowing the top 40cm of peat to dry out means millions of hectares of peat will remain at risk of fire. Peat degradation will also continue: experts estimate that the 40cm policy will only reduce the speed of peat subsidence by around 20% compared with unfettered drainage.

As the top layer of drained peat oxidises and collapses, fresh peat is exposed within the 40cm permissible drainage zone, and so it goes on. Over the longer term, essentially the same amount of carbon will be emitted as if unlimited drainage were permitted. Modelling predicts that over a number of decades, drained peatlands will collapse, become flood-prone and unusable for plantations.

Ultimately, the 40cm drainage rule is a flawed compromise. Firstly any drainage will still have the negative impacts above, and secondly, according to industry, oil palm and acacia require deeper drainage to grow in peat soils.

On the plus side

Despite the overall disappointing business-as-usual approach of the regulations, there have been a number of positive initiatives introduced.

The previous regulations prohibited using fire to clear peatlands. Now landholders are expressly prohibited from allowing fires to take place, even if they did not light them. Although landholders’ strict liability for fires is already established under other environmental instruments, it is good to see it reiterated here.

The establishment of a continuous air quality monitoring system and public fire reporting system could also be a boon. Hopefully this will include monitoring of the most dangerous element of pollution, ie PM 2.5 particles, which are currently absent from Indonesian air quality regulations.

We are waiting to hear about government plans for monitoring and law enforcement, and how the regulations will dovetail with the work of the new Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG).

Paris agreement

The Indonesian government is looking to improved forest management to deliver over half of its Paris agreement emission reduction commitment.

Forestry sector reform is expected to deliver over half of the 29% promised reduction against predicted business-as-usual growth in emissions by 2030.

Peatland management, and these regulations in particular, are crucial to achieving that goal. But as they stand now, they have no hope of doing so.

Yuyun Indradi is a Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

After more than a decade of unsuccessful efforts to eradicate the genetically modified grass it created and allowed to escape, lawn and garden giant Scotts Miracle-Gro now wants to step back and shift the burden to Oregonians.

The federal government is poised to allow that to happen by relinquishing its oversight, even as an unlikely coalition of farmers, seed dealers, environmentalists, scientists and regulators cry foul.

The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-proclaimed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year hay and grass seed industry at stake.

Hay is Oregon’s number three crop, worth over $604 million a year, while grass seed comes in at number five, with sales of almost $384 million a year. Sales of both commodities could suffer badly if they are contaminated with the GMO grass seeds.

The situation is particularly tense in Malheur County, where Scotts’ altered grass has taken root after somehow jumping the Snake River from test beds in Idaho. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.

“Imagine I had a big, sloppy, nasty Rottweiler, and you lived next door in your perfectly manicured house”, said Bill Buhrig, an Oregon State University extension agent in Malheur County. “Then I dump the dog in your backyard, I take off and now it’s your problem.”

The battle pits farmer against farmer, regulator against regulator, seller against buyer. Scotts spokesman Jim King insists the company has done its part and significantly reduced the modified grass’s territory.

The US Department of Agriculture, which for 14 years had refused to deregulate the controversial grass on environmental concerns, suddenly reversed course last fall and signaled it could grant the company’s request as early as this week.

An international market in non-GM seeds at risk

Many find the prospect alarming. The Oregon and Idaho departments of agriculture oppose deregulation, as does US Fish and Wildlife, which predicted commercialization of the grass could drive endangered species to extinction.

“We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this”, said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”

Some growers and dealers fear it’s only a matter of time before the altered seed reaches the Willamette Valley, the heart of Oregon’s grass business. “That would be a catastrophic event for Oregon’s grass seed industry”, said Don Herb, a Linn County seed dealer. “We don’t need Scotts or others to put our industry at risk.”

Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.

The modified grass has so far been confirmed only in Jefferson and Malheur counties, where it escaped earlier field trials. But The Oregonian / OregonLive has learned that the altered grass has already been grown in the valley. Scotts confirmed that it conducted small-scale field tests in Gervais and Corvallis in the 2000s.

A new and improved grass

Genetic modification dates back to the 1970s and really took hold in agriculture in the 1990s and 2000s. The ability to alter a plant’s genes offered the promise of species that are more productive, more resistant to disease, even immune to herbicides. Today, more than 90% of US soybeans, cotton and corn are genetically engineered.

Scotts hoped gene modification would help it revolutionize the front yard. It invested $100 million to develop a better, more sustainable grass in the 1990s and 2000s largely through the new technology. In partnership with Monsanto, it created a type of creeping bentgrass unaffected by Roundup.

The initial target market was the golf course industry, King said. Creeping bentgrass is commonly used on greens and tees because it can survive being mowed down practically to the dirt.

“It was incredibly attractive to the golf industry”, King said. “Creeping bentgrass is probably as good a playing surface as you’ll ever find in the northern US. But it’s also really subject to infestation from other grasses.”

The allure of the new grass was simple: Golf course greens keepers could use a single herbicide – Roundup – to kill everything but the desired bentgrass. Scotts launched field trials throughout the country, including in Canyon County, Idaho, and Jefferson County, Oregon.

The great ‘escape’

On two occasions in August 2003, hot afternoon winds whipped through the fields north of Madras, scattering the modified seed seed for miles, including into the Crooked River National Grasslands. Signs of the altered grass were found 13 miles away from the test fields, according to federal documents.

The timing couldn’t have been worse for Scotts. It had sought the blessing of the US Department of Agriculture just the year before to sell the altered seed commercially.

It was an extraordinary request. Scotts’ grass was one of the first genetically modified perennials. Unlike annual food crops, perennials typically survive the cold months and can expand via its seeds and the shoots it sends out. Its tiny seed is easily propelled by wind, water and hungry birds.

In 2007, the agriculture department fined Scotts $500,000 for allowing the escape and held Scotts responsible for controlling and eradicating the engineered grass. Then came news the grass had spread further.

In 2010, significant patches of altered grass were found along irrigation canals in Malheur County. No one is quite sure how or when it got there, though it’s believed to have come from a test field in nearby Parma, across the Idaho border. The seed somehow jumped the Snake River and has established itself intermittently from the tiny town of Adrian, north to Ontario and beyond to the Malheur River’s junction with the Snake, a total distance of nearly 30 miles.

The runaways weren’t Scotts’ only problem. US Fish and Wildlife determined that commercialization of the modified grass could actually “jeopardize the continued existence“ of two endangered plant species and would “adversely modify” critical habitat of other endangered species, including Fender’s Blue Butterfly, found only in the Willamette Valley.

There were other unexpected developments. Scientists from Oregon State University and the Environmental Protection Agency found that the modified grass had crossed with feral grasses, passing along its Roundup resistance.

Controversial deal

As chair of the Malheur County Weed Board, Jerry Erstrom has become an outspoken player at the center of the Scotts controversy. The Vale native is a retired Bureau of Land Management employee and still grows hay.

Erstrom says he learned in February 2016 that Scotts had reached a deal with the US Department of Agriculture six months before. Scotts was abandoning its plan to commercialize its altered grass. The waning popularity of golf had convinced Scotts their grass was no longer a viable product, King said.

Erstrom had reason to worry. He sells his hay largely to foreign buyers, who won’t hesitate to find another supplier if there’s any sign of genetically modified material. But what really got Erstrom riled was this $2.8 billion-a-year corporation planning to phase out its lead role in the effort to eradicate the grass. “Instead, they want the good people of Malheur County to clean up their mess”, he said.

That will not come cheap. In its 2014 10-K filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Scotts “recognized $2.0 million in additional ongoing monitoring and remediation expense for our turfgrass biotechnology program.” King said the company’s been spending about $250,000 a year to control the grass.

King contends Scotts has agreed to remain involved in the cleanup for 10 years. But for the latter seven years, Scotts is required only to operate an informational website on how to deal with its grass.

Curiouser and curiouser …

There were other curious developments. Though it was abandoning efforts to commercialize the grass, Scotts still wants it deregulated. And the federal agency, which had refused for 14 years to sign off the new grass, suddenly seemed eager to do so.

Dr. Michael Firko, deputy director of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a department within the US Department of Agriculture, said Scotts’s decision not to bring the grass to market changed the equation. “Based on the 2002 petition, we were anticipating hundreds of thousands of acres of (the altered grass) on golf courses across the country.”

In a move that shocked some in Malheur County’s conservative agricultural community, Erstrom called in the Center for Biological Diversity, a fierce environmental group with an office in Portland best known for its work on endangered species issues. Erstrom hired Lori Ann Burd, director of the center’s environmental health program, as his personal attorney.

Scotts countered by bringing in Paulette Pyle, former director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a pro-herbicide agriculture lobbying group. Pyle, who declined to be interviewed, warned local residents against getting involved with the environmental group, said Erstrom and others.

Dan Anderson, a Malheur County rancher and official with the Oregon Farm Bureau, said the presence of the environmental group escalated tensions. He said the spread of the grass has been blown out of proportion by the critics.

“It’s true, the altered grass’s range now stretches for nearly 30 miles”, he said. But the plants are widely dispersed. “If you take every bentgrass in the county, you could put it on one quarter acre.”

As for Burd, she confirmed her group is considering suing the US Department of Agriculture over its handling of the altered grass and is highly critical of both the agency and Scotts. She said she’s skeptical that Scotts actually will end its effort to sell the new grass. Even if it does, Scotts’ patent on the technology expires in 2023, potentially paving the way for someone else to pick up the effort.

Firko, of the USDA, defended the agency’s handling of the case. “I think we did a great job getting the commitments we did from the company”, he said.

‘This GMO grass must be declared a pest, and eradicated’

In a Kansas City federal courtroom last year, Midwest corn growers launched a massive class-action lawsuit against Syngenta AG, claiming the company’s genetically modified corn contaminated their fields of non-GMO corn, costing them billions of dollars in international sales.

Similar shock waves reverberated through the Northwest wheat industry in 2013 when Asian buyers temporarily suspended purchases after genetically modified grain was detected in locally produced wheat. Officials were at a loss to explain how the contamination occurred.

In 2011, Bayer Crop Science paid $750 million to settle similar complaints filed by Southern US rice growers. In 2006, trace amounts of the genetically modified Liberty Link rice, developed by Bayer but at the time not approved for human consumption, were found in US long-grain rice stocks.

As consumers make their own decisions about genetically modified agricultural products, it is farmers dealing in non-GMO crops that claim the biggest financial losses due to inadvertent contamination.

Until Scotts’ modified grass, Oregon’s grass seed industry was a GMO-free zone, a great comfort to the many European and Asian customers who refused to buy genetically altered products. At the same time, Scotts was an important customer and partner for many of the state’s 1,500 growers.

Herb, owner of OreGro Seeds Inc., called upon state regulators and lawmakers to protect the industry. “We need to get out in front of this”, he said. “This is an invasive weed that in my opinion you can’t control.”

Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.

Jefferson County grass seed growers have already been dealing with contamination. The altered grass has at times sprouted in their fields of Kentucky bluegrass, requiring them to implement laborious seed cleaning processes.

Mike Weber, of Central Oregon Seeds in Madras, said local growers jumped at the chance to try growing the new grass. Scotts was and is a long-time customer and trusted partner. “The growers were enthused”, Weber said. “Maybe we rushed into things. If you asked us now whether we would ever want to get involved again in production of a GMO seed crop? The answer would be no! No way!”

Herb said the state needs to do what the feds refused to do: declare Scotts’ altered grass a plant pest and take steps to eradicate it once and for all.

But can it ever be contained?

Carol Mallory-Smith is a weed scientist at Oregon State University who’s been monitoring the new grass since its initial plantings. It was Mallory-Smith who first confirmed the altered grass had established in Malheur County.

As the issue began to heat up last year, she returned to Jefferson and Malheur counties to see for herself. She found the altered grass in both sites in just hours, which reinforced her view that while Scotts has decreased the number of plants, they are still present in significant volume.

“It was an ‘aha’ moment”, she said. She followed up with a letter to the US Department of Agriculture urging the agency not deregulate the grass, one of hundreds to do so.

“I always had the opinion that if they released it they would not be able to contain it.”

Jeff Manning is an investigative journalist at The Oregonian / Oregon Live, where he has worked since 1994, specialising in ‘watchdog reporting’ and corporate accountability. See more of his stories here.

This article was originally published by The Oregonian / Oregon Live and is reproduced here by kind permission.

“I think it’s time to change my farming system”, said my client. “A switch from dairy to rice paddies.”

Looking at his sodden fields, it wasn’t hard to imagine.

When you work with farmers, conversations about the weather are inevitable. Their livelihoods are intrinsically linked to the climate, and very often they and their animals are at the mercy of the elements.

As a consultant I work with long-term financial projections and business plans. In light of rising global temperatures it would be foolish to overlook the impact that climate change may have on my dairy farming clients in the dampness of West Wales.

The last decade has seen record-setting wet years for Britain, and the risk of flooding and the problems associated with sodden ground look likely to be an increasing challenge for farmers. The Environment Agency state that precipitation in the West of the country is expected to increase by up to 33%, a significant rise for an area that already experiences some of the highest rainfall in the UK.

When the fields are wet it becomes difficult to conserve forage for winter consumption. So in the future may bring problems with lack of good-quality silage, resulting in lower milk yields and poorer cow health.

Another problem on the horizon: the South of England, source of much of the straw that is used to feed and bed Welsh dairy herds, is expected to see drier, hotter weather. This too could negatively impact crop production, putting further pressure on cow nutrition.

Good news as well as bad

Conversely warmer weather, if coupled with sufficient dry periods and if access to fields is not limited, could lengthen the grazing season for grass-fed animals. This would aid sustainable agricultural practices and lower the cost of feeding concentrate feed. And that could be very helpful if there were shortages of imported feed due to desertification and drought overseas.

Warmer weather could also improve grass growth in upland areas, allowing these parts to be grazed with a mixture of species rather than just sheep. This would promote a more diverse range of flora and fauna – provided of course that species variety has not already been lost to climatic stress.

But warmer weather may bring problems too. The bluetongue virus first entered the UK in the mid-2000s. Although its spread cannot wholly be attributed to climate change, warmer weather could certainly have played a role in the proliferation of its Culicoides midge vector. Its emergence is significant because it heralds an age where more and more previously exotic diseases could become endemic in the UK cattle herd.

Vector-borne diseases are the obvious risk when considering that climate change could extend suitable habitats for various biting insects. It is also worth considering that warm, wet conditions are perfect for other already common pathogens and pests. The consequences of climate change could increase fly numbers, increasing the incidence rate of summer mastitis and fly-strike.

All of these health challenges could have serious impacts on herd management and performance. Bluetongue may be just the beginning in an unprecedented change in disease prevalence.

The one certainty – disruption

While paddy fields may be a step too far, climate change may bring the opportunity for some farmers to diversify into new enterprises, and force others to change their system. In some cases, this will be good for individual businesses and for certain sectors, for example an increase in domestic wine production or the lengthening of grazing seasons.

However, it will also necessitate a change in consumption patterns and an upheaval for farmers who have invested heavily in a particular sector.

Climate change overseas could potentially disrupt global supplies of grain, for both human and animal consumption. Droughts, like those seen recently in Australia, may hit important growing regions.

This would increase the price of cattle feed, again forcing farmers to move towards more extensive grass-based systems. In the long term this will provoke more sustainable production systems and possibly mitigate some of the damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

Making farming part of the solution

While agriculture is just one player in the system that has precipitated climate change, it has to take its share of the task of reducing its effects. Resource saving practices and renewable energy sources such as rainwater collection, solar panels, and wind turbines have already cropped up on farms and their use should increase.

Cattle can be fed in ways that minimise methane production. Regular soil sampling can optimise the use of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous, reducing fertiliser bills and environmental impacts.

Innovative pasture management practices like ‘mob grazing’ on herbal leys can deepen plants’ root systems, sequestering carbon in soils, and capturing water and nutrients that would otherwise go to waste. The use of ‘companion planting’ and cover crops can bring similar benefits in arable farming systems, while improving soil structure and fertility, and raising resilience to changing conditions.

Climate change brings extreme challenges to the agricultural sector, along with opportunities that will be exploited by those who feel that the situation won’t be reversed in a hurry. The industry must take responsibility for its emissions and work with stakeholders to minimise them. At the individual farmer level there will be difficulties in adaption.

Farmers feed us all. My job will be to help them continue to do so.

Anna Bowen is an agricultural consultant working mostly with grass- based dairy systems. She has an MSc in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security from the Royal Agricultural College and was the 2013 winner of the Guild of Agricultural Journalists / John Deere Training Award. Her blog can be found at askauntannie.com and covers a range of rural topics. Outside of work she helps on her family’s dairy farm and is a keen side saddle rider and athlete.

Metrology for Earth Observation and Climate (MetEOC-2) is a project led by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) to reduce the measurement uncertainties of Earth observation satellites. The project is part of a broader movement in the European measurement science community to provide ever more accurate Earth observation data to climate scientists. Ultimately, this work will allow the development of more sophisticated climate models, which are used to inform policy and develop strategies to mitigate climate change.

As part of this project, NPL ran a competition encouraging 16 to 25-year-old ‘citizen scientists’ to write about how they think climate change will impact their life and what they think should be done to combat it. They were encouraged to present an evidence-based argument, written with passion and conviction.

This winning piece was chosen based on these qualities as well as its excellent reflection of the current scientific understanding of climate change and the importance of accurate measurement.