Alternative facts, indeed!

Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science.

That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer.

Corporate spin is nothing new. Whether it’s cigarettes or sugar-laden sodas, the companies that make billions from such products employ a variety of strategies to promote the good and bury the bad. Some even outright lie while doing so.

But the tactics being unveiled by Monsanto and surrogates over glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and the lynchpin for the success of genetically engineered crops, are noteworthy for the depths of their deception.

The latest move, the formation of a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, (CAPHR) clearly promotes an agenda opposite to that which its name implies.

In the firing line – WHO and IARC independent scientists

Formed this month by the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes Monsanto and other chemical industry titans, the group’s express purpose is to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization made up of independent scientists.

An IARC scientific team declared in March 2015 that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen after reviewing an extensive body of published research on the subject. Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC ever since through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the US House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC.

The new campaign takes the assault further. On the group’s new twitter account, set up on 25th January, CAPHR has posted a string of insults against IARC scientists, accusing the experts from prestigious institutions around the world of “making sensational claims”, drawing conclusions “that can’t be trusted”, and using “questionable methodologies”.

If CAPHR is to be believed, the public, lawmakers and regulators should not trust the epidemiology experts, toxicologists and other scientists who made up the IARC working group, which was led by an award-winning cancer expert from the National Cancer Institute.

No, they should look for unbiased information about the safety of the industry’s billion-dollar baby from the industry itself. The chemical industry campaigners are insisting that the people making money off chemical sales are more trustworthy than scientists who have made a career studying causes of cancer.

The rationale for the campaign is clear: It’s not about protecting public health, it’s about protecting corporate profits.

Calornia court told: ‘profits before people’

Monsanto said as much last week in a California court as it tried to block the state’s decision to require a warning on Roundup. Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that warning labels would hurt the company’s finances because many people would stop buying Roundup.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan did not seem moved by the ‘profits over people’ message. She still must issue a formal decision, but said that California can require Monsanto to label Roundup as a possible cancer threat.

Protecting glyphosate is critical for Monsanto and other chemical industry giants now. Not only are glyphosate herbicides big sellers around the world, but the industry is in the midst of rolling out new genetically engineered crops designed to be sprayed with combinations of glyphosate and companion weed killers.

Monsanto has developed crops altered so that they tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and dicamba, while Dow AgroSciences has developed crops tolerant of a new herbicide made of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The new biotech crops build on Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant portfolio of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and other crops.

But even as the industry presses ahead with glyphosate-based technology, the chemical is under re-evaluation by both the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency. And calls have been mounting for the chemical to be banned or severely restricted because of the cancer concerns and a range of other health and environmental concerns.

‘Monsanto knew’, say cancer plaintiffs

And there is also the not-so-small issue of the dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto alleging the company has long known Roundup could cause cancer but has hidden the facts from the public.

Those cases, brought by people from across the United States who have cancer or lost a loved one to cancer, have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco where discovery is underway. Monsanto has so far turned over more than 7 million documents through that process.

Court records show that plaintiffs’ attorneys are building their cases around the IARC classification, while Monsanto is counting on the backing of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has stated that glyphosate is “not likely“ to be carcinogenic for people.

Just as Monsanto is trying to tear down IARC, plaintiffs are trying to discredit the EPA findings, saying Monsanto has unduly influenced the agency. On the same day that the chemical industry launched its anti-IARC campaign, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ordered each side in the Roundup litigation to submit briefs on how the work by both IARC and EPA is or is not relevant to the cases. The briefings are due on 8th February.

Clearly not content to allow a federal court to sort out who is right or wrong on glyphosate, the chemical industry’s championing of glyphosate includes a new promotional Twitter campaign #glyphosateisvital with postings proclaiming that the weed killer is essential to “maintain the production of safe, affordable food.” Or as another posting asserts, “Time is running out to lobby to save #glyphosate”.

The campaign is featured on the @glyphosate twitter account established immediately after the IARC glyphosate classification.

Who is really ‘anti-science’?

Embedded in the industry’s truth-twisting tactics is the characterization of anyone who gives credence to scientific research showing problems with glyphosate, or the GMOs that go with it, as “anti-science”.

It’s an effort to reverse reality and detract from the fact that it is industry backers, not industry critics, who deplore the findings of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research. “The pesticide industry recognizes it’s on the defensive”, said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. “It’s doing everything it can to transform reality.”

As the post-truth Trump team looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it’s likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin.

Carey Gillam is a veteran journalist and Research Director for US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer education group. Follow Carey Gillam on Twitter @careygillam.

This article originally appeared on Huffington Post.

The withdrawal from the European Union will shape this country’s future for decades to come.

In the case of the UK farming industry and our rural environment, the consequences could be devastating and permanent.

Theresa May’s commitment to leaving the Single Market will hit UK farmers especially hard. They will be most heavily impacted by two aspects of the Single Market: tariffs and subsidies.

First, because tariffs for agricultural products tend to be far higher than tariffs in other sectors, UK farmers will find it far harder to export their goods to the EU, by far their largest market, after leaving the Single Market.

Second, the level of farming subsidies is likely to be significantly reduced. Although Chancellor Philip Hammond has committed to continue CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) payments until 2020, it is uncertain what will happen to farming subsidies after that point.

Undoubtedly, there will be calls to divert the £3 billion a year our farmers currently receive away from agriculture, especially if the Government is feeling pressure to alleviate the costs of Brexit or to live up to promises made during the EU referendum campaign. Who can forget that infamous Brexit bus with its promise of £350 million a week for the NHS?

Trump trade deal will drive down farming and environment standards

The effects of leaving the Single Market would alone be devastating for rural communities throughout our country. The ‘double whammy’ of increased tariffs and reduced subsidies will likely put huge pressures on our farmers, and some will surely be forced out of business.

However, these consequences are further heightened by the election of Donald Trump as US President. A free trade deal with the US may sound good to some in theory, but in practice it could lead to a reduction in the UK’s farming standards and undercut British farmers.

If we have a free trade deal with the US that allows agricultural exports into the UK under current US regulations, then the EU may not allow UK produce to be imported at all. This is because otherwise US produce could simply be re-exported as UK produce, while not meeting the higher European standards.

Then within the UK, cheap exports from the US (and elsewhere) could undercut UK farmers, making them less competitive both domestically and abroad. More widely, Brexit and Trump pose an even greater risk to farming by threatening our natural environment and our sustainability.

Withdrawing from the European Union means withdrawing from European directives on the environment as well. Some have celebrated this fact. The Farming Minister, George Eustice, has attacked “spirit-crushing” EU directives, including the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This attack has been echoed by many of his Conservative colleagues. I, however, am not celebrating.

What did the EU ever do for us?

EU directives and the associated compliance frameworks have been responsible for huge improvements in UK environmental protection. There are numerous examples in which the UK government was forced to take a stronger approach to climate change and protecting the environment because of the EU.

Recycling targets, for example, were finally adopted by the Government only because of the fines threatened by the European Commission. Similarly, as Alan Andrews of Client Earth points out, the European Commission’s compliance framework was the “main driver” behind the Government’s development of an air quality plan.

Ignoring the environmental impact for a moment, even on a purely economic level, a low regulation approach to the UK economy cannot work outside the EU. This is because the UK will never be able to compete with the lower levels of regulations and cheaper labour costs of developing countries.

And even these countries will find it harder to compete in the future as automation replaces more and more low-skilled jobs. Instead, all that a low-regulation UK economy will achieve is damage to Britain’s and the world’s natural environment.

Beyond that, it is a complete wrong to assume there is a universal cry from either industry or shoppers to cut costs by reducing environmental, animal welfare and safety standards. Many British companies recognise the benefits of high standards and a good reputation. And consumers remain deeply sceptical of US-style industrial agriculture and the quality of the food it produces.

Two governments bent on corporate deregulation

As Secretary of State for the Environment Andrea Leadsom has pointed out, the UK courts will still be able to enforce environmental legislation. However, I am still not convinced. The Conservative Government and the Trump administration have not signalled any willingness to raise the level of environmental protection.

In fact, the opposite is true. Since the Liberal Democrats left Government in 2015, the Conservatives have instituted a series of devastating steps for sustainability and the environment.

This includes cutting subsidies for solar and onshore wind, abandoning Zero Carbon Homes, announcing plans to sell off the Green Investment Bank, and crapping the Green Deal. In addition we have seen scrapping of £1 billion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects, reducing tax breaks for clean cars and allowing fracking under National Parks.

Since Brexit, the Conservative Government has avoided questions about the future of environmental protection. For example, Government ministers were asked seven times if the government would retain EU air quality limits following Brexit. They still declined to make a commitment.

Meeting the climate challenge

Trump, on the other hand, has been very explicit about his plans for the environment, having referred to climate change as a “hoax” cooked up by the Chinese. Trump has pledged to scrap restrictions on the production of American fossil fuels and to cut subsidies for clean energy.

Moreover, a Trump administration may try to weaken the Paris Agreement by withdrawing from it altogether, or by avoiding America’s financial commitments aimed at helping other countries cope with climate change.

More generally, the election of climate change deniers like Trump and his cabinet are bad news for the fight against climate change. The more mainstream these delusional views become, the higher the risk of environmental catastrophe.

It was too easy during the populist campaigns of Brexit and Trump to paint regulations as bureaucratic and costly, while the other side failed to put forward a positive case. This is what we must do now. We need to show how an ambitious climate change and environmental strategy is good for jobs, growth and prosperity across the UK.

We need to call on Theresa May to insist on high environmental, animal welfare, health and safety standards in any potential trade deal with Trump. And we need to show that protecting the environment is vital for our future.

Kate Parminter is the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader in the Lords and Shadow Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During her time in the Lords, Kate has campaigned on a diverse range of issues including the environment, equality, animal welfare and education. Kate successfully campaigned to introduce a 5p charge on plastic bag usage to reduce the over reliance on a product that is incredibly damaging to the environment.

The UN, the EU, the US Armed Forces and all the world’s major scientific bodies all agree that the climate emergency is the greatest threat facing humanity.

Meanwhile over 7 million people across the globe are dying every year from the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

Yet Trump, with (as usual) zero factual evidence, believes that climate change is a “hoax” invented by China – who by the way have announced a $360 billion investment in clean renewable energy.

In a chilling statement on Monday, President Trump’s top environmental transition adviser Myron Ebell declared that the environmental movement is “the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world.”

• So it is not authoritarian Russia;
• it is not communist China;
• it is not Islamic fundamentalist extremism;
• it is not the western corporate takeover of media and democracy;
• it is not global tax-evasion by the wealthiest 1%;
• and it is not the concentration of over half the world’s wealth in the hands of just eight men.

According to Trump’s adviser, all of these are nothing when compared to the threat to freedom posed by … envirionmental NGOs.

According to him, they are our greatest “threat” by working peacefully with civic society and democratic processes to protect people from being poisoned by lead from coal burning, mercury from oil burning, particulates from diesel burning or to protect the what remains of the natural world, with over 60% of it already shamelessly destroyed in just my lifetime.

This is dangerous perverted logic.

But why do I say chilling?

I say it because the oiligarchy of Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers for whom Trump’s adviser is the spokesperson for, now control almost all the levers of power in the US, from the Presidency to Congress to Murdoch’s Fox News and most terrifyingly to the US National Security Council, the State Department and the intelligence services.

If Trump’s fascist propaganda succeeds in making environmental NGOs and peaceful campaigners the public’s top ‘enemy of freedom’, then all the huge resources of the US security services could rain down on them, a tiny taste of which we have seen at the North Dakota Pipeline Protection Camp.

So what aggressive war actions has Trump already taken?

1. Declared he would renege on the USA’s responsibilities to the global Paris Climate Treaty, humanity’s best last hope of averting the worst of the climate disaster.
2. Appointed the head of Exxon Mobil to head up US State Department, meaning that the oil industry now leads US global foreign policy, giving it the opportunity to trash climate action not only in Trump’s USA but across the globe.
3. Appointed a far-right extremist climate science denier to head up the destruction of the Environmental Protection Agency, and already issued a gagging order on all government employed climate scientists and banned any replacements for retiring scientists.
4. Announced he will slash energy efficiency standards for fossil fuel car manufacturers.
5. Removed all climate change references from the White House website.
6. Said he will support a resurgence in the criminally lethal coal industry, the single largest source of fossil fuel pollution and climate destroying carbon.
7. Pledged to renege on all US treaty commitments to fund climate change protection and adaptation funding for developing countries via the UN.

The list goes on …

Make no mistake!

• After the hottest year (again),
• after the hottest decade (again),
• with ice-caps melting before our eyes,
• with the permafrost heating up,
• with wildfires blazing across the world
• and with scientists stating that without truly urgent action, the planet faces temperature rises of up to 6C, which as they say is “incompatible with life as we know it”,

Trump has not just declared war on Muslims, but on humanity itself and the precious fragile remaining damaged ecosystems on which future generations depend.

Do what can we do? Today I would suggest six things to get started with:

1. Commit yourself to living as low a carbon lifestyle as you can practically achieve.
2. Email your MP urgently today, urging them to vote for an amendment today that would grant the British people the final say on Brexit Deal. The UK must stand united with the liberal democracies of Europe, against the Brexit / Trump climate destruction agenda. Really easy to do from this link.
3. Join the Advertising Action on Climate Projects campaigns to stop the climate action blocking media billoinaires climate denialism propaganda.
4. Support in whatever way you can, the peaceful climate activists and protests which are on the frontlines now, on the Keystone XL Pipeline, North Dakota Pipeline, Preston Road Fracking Protest (and others around UK), Risingup Heathrow Protests, Stop Killing Cyclists HM Treasury Protest on February 11th, etc etc …
5. Sign the huge petition calling for refusal of State Visit to war-mongering President Trump.
6. What ever other actions, you personally are moved to undertake.

This is the greatest war threat that humanity has faced. But together, we can take on Trump and the oiligarchies in Russia, US and across the globe and win.

The clean renewable energy industry that we created is now nearly a trillion dollar global industry, slashing costs year after year and now employing more people than the dinosaur fossil fuel criminals, even in the USA.

Yes we can!

Donnachadh McCarthy is an environmental campaigner and author.

Also by Donnachadh on The Ecologist.

Book: ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ is available as an E-book and paper (100% recycled).

Free ebook version of The Prostitute State, which explains in detail how Murdoch and the UK’s five far-right media billionaires are trashing the UK’s democracy, is available to Occupiers, Fractivists, Momentum / Green Party members, students and others who cannot afford to buy a copy by emailing contact@3acorns.co.uk.

Hazel Dormice, once widespread across the country are now restricted to the south and face further threats due to the loss of ancient woodland, climate change, clearance of hedgerows and a lack of coppicing.

As an arboreal species, dormice rarely descend to the ground apart from when they are hibernating and now a new study from Manchester Metropolitan University’s Dr Robyn Grant, Lecturer in Environmental Physiology and Behaviour, has shown how gaps in tree canopies are leaving these endangered creatures unable to cross between habitats using their hypersensitive whiskers.

Dr Grant recorded high-speed videos of dormice and their whisker movements using a camera that captures 500 frames per second, with the videos proving that gaps in the tree canopy are now a major problem for the dormice.

“Although dormice can jump quite large distances, when the gaps between platforms were larger than 10-15cm, the dormice started behaving differently – they would eat less of the food available to them and also spend more time travelling on the floor as opposed to the canopy,” he explained. “This behavioural change would put the dormice in danger as this species is vulnerable to threats on the ground.”

The total adult population of hazel dormice in the UK is now thought to number about 45,000, distributed among a variety of widely fragmented sites. The UK Mammal Society Dormouse Survey in 1984 showed the species has been lost from seven counties in north and east England in the last 100 years. Even in optimal habitats, population densities are less than 10 adults per hectare.

Large numbers still live on the Isle of Wight and although dormice are widely distributed in Wales, individual populations are small, scattered and isolated from each other. Building hedgerows, habitat corridors and dormouse bridges is critical to this species’ survival.

Carried out at the Wildwood Trust in Kent, Dr Grant’s research into this endangered species was published in the Journal of Comparative Physiology, and shows that dormice use active whisker sensing, with footage revealing that dormice actively and purposefully move their whiskers to gather relevant information from their canopy at night.

Like other rodents, dormice move their whiskers back and forth continuously in a motion called ‘whisking’ to navigate small gaps and to explore their environment.

Dr Grant adds: “Dormice are nocturnal and arboreal – meaning they spend most of their time in branches of trees off of the ground. Their movement within this canopy relies on their whiskers. Hearing, vision and smell also play a role in guiding them around their environments.”

The preservation of the dormouse is critical since these rodents are a ‘flagship species’, (meaning that careful management of dormice habitats will benefit a range of other species). They are also important as ‘bio-indicators’ as they are particularly sensitive to habitat and population fragmentation. Their presence should indicate that the area can sustain populations of other sensitive species

Get Involved

There are ways in which you can help to secure the future of the Hazel Dormouse. As they are fully protected by law they should never be disturbed but you could get involved in a local survey.

Total population size can only be estimated, based upon results from trapping, nest box surveys and reintroduction numbers but researchers say they would have a much better idea of how the species is doing if lots of people got involved with official nest box surveys.

The National Dormouse Monitoring Program is coordinated by the People’s Trust for Endangered Species (https://ptes.org/campaigns/dormice/) and training courses for handling are conducted at the Wildwood Trust in Kent (https://wildwoodtrust.org/wildwood-kent/conservation/conservation-courses).

So if you think there are dormice near you, you could start your own monitoring programme.

Dr Grant’s research was carried out in collaboration with the University of Sheffield and is funded by a British Ecological Society (BES) Research Grant. You can see footage from the new research here:

Video 1: Dormice using whiskers to climb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG38zbYAKOk 

Video 2: Successful jump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDSDNUcB90o

  Video 3: Struggling to cross a gap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgnffYYsVAs

You can read Dr Grant’s full study here.

This Author

Laura Briggs is the Ecologist’s UK-based reporter

You can follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

Alternative facts, indeed!

Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science.

That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer.

Corporate spin is nothing new. Whether it’s cigarettes or sugar-laden sodas, the companies that make billions from such products employ a variety of strategies to promote the good and bury the bad. Some even outright lie while doing so.

But the tactics being unveiled by Monsanto and surrogates over glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and the lynchpin for the success of genetically engineered crops, are noteworthy for the depths of their deception.

The latest move, the formation of a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, (CAPHR) clearly promotes an agenda opposite to that which its name implies.

In the firing line – WHO and IARC independent scientists

Formed this month by the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes Monsanto and other chemical industry titans, the group’s express purpose is to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization made up of independent scientists.

An IARC scientific team declared in March 2015 that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen after reviewing an extensive body of published research on the subject. Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC ever since through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the US House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC.

The new campaign takes the assault further. On the group’s new twitter account, set up on 25th January, CAPHR has posted a string of insults against IARC scientists, accusing the experts from prestigious institutions around the world of “making sensational claims”, drawing conclusions “that can’t be trusted”, and using “questionable methodologies”.

If CAPHR is to be believed, the public, lawmakers and regulators should not trust the epidemiology experts, toxicologists and other scientists who made up the IARC working group, which was led by an award-winning cancer expert from the National Cancer Institute.

No, they should look for unbiased information about the safety of the industry’s billion-dollar baby from the industry itself. The chemical industry campaigners are insisting that the people making money off chemical sales are more trustworthy than scientists who have made a career studying causes of cancer.

The rationale for the campaign is clear: It’s not about protecting public health, it’s about protecting corporate profits.

Calornia court told: ‘profits before people’

Monsanto said as much last week in a California court as it tried to block the state’s decision to require a warning on Roundup. Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that warning labels would hurt the company’s finances because many people would stop buying Roundup.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan did not seem moved by the ‘profits over people’ message. She still must issue a formal decision, but said that California can require Monsanto to label Roundup as a possible cancer threat.

Protecting glyphosate is critical for Monsanto and other chemical industry giants now. Not only are glyphosate herbicides big sellers around the world, but the industry is in the midst of rolling out new genetically engineered crops designed to be sprayed with combinations of glyphosate and companion weed killers.

Monsanto has developed crops altered so that they tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and dicamba, while Dow AgroSciences has developed crops tolerant of a new herbicide made of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The new biotech crops build on Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant portfolio of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and other crops.

But even as the industry presses ahead with glyphosate-based technology, the chemical is under re-evaluation by both the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency. And calls have been mounting for the chemical to be banned or severely restricted because of the cancer concerns and a range of other health and environmental concerns.

‘Monsanto knew’, say cancer plaintiffs

And there is also the not-so-small issue of the dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto alleging the company has long known Roundup could cause cancer but has hidden the facts from the public.

Those cases, brought by people from across the United States who have cancer or lost a loved one to cancer, have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco where discovery is underway. Monsanto has so far turned over more than 7 million documents through that process.

Court records show that plaintiffs’ attorneys are building their cases around the IARC classification, while Monsanto is counting on the backing of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has stated that glyphosate is “not likely“ to be carcinogenic for people.

Just as Monsanto is trying to tear down IARC, plaintiffs are trying to discredit the EPA findings, saying Monsanto has unduly influenced the agency. On the same day that the chemical industry launched its anti-IARC campaign, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ordered each side in the Roundup litigation to submit briefs on how the work by both IARC and EPA is or is not relevant to the cases. The briefings are due on 8th February.

Clearly not content to allow a federal court to sort out who is right or wrong on glyphosate, the chemical industry’s championing of glyphosate includes a new promotional Twitter campaign #glyphosateisvital with postings proclaiming that the weed killer is essential to “maintain the production of safe, affordable food.” Or as another posting asserts, “Time is running out to lobby to save #glyphosate”.

The campaign is featured on the @glyphosate twitter account established immediately after the IARC glyphosate classification.

Who is really ‘anti-science’?

Embedded in the industry’s truth-twisting tactics is the characterization of anyone who gives credence to scientific research showing problems with glyphosate, or the GMOs that go with it, as “anti-science”.

It’s an effort to reverse reality and detract from the fact that it is industry backers, not industry critics, who deplore the findings of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research. “The pesticide industry recognizes it’s on the defensive”, said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. “It’s doing everything it can to transform reality.”

As the post-truth Trump team looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it’s likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin.

Carey Gillam is a veteran journalist and Research Director for US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer education group. Follow Carey Gillam on Twitter @careygillam.

This article originally appeared on Huffington Post.

The withdrawal from the European Union will shape this country’s future for decades to come.

In the case of the UK farming industry and our rural environment, the consequences could be devastating and permanent.

Theresa May’s commitment to leaving the Single Market will hit UK farmers especially hard. They will be most heavily impacted by two aspects of the Single Market: tariffs and subsidies.

First, because tariffs for agricultural products tend to be far higher than tariffs in other sectors, UK farmers will find it far harder to export their goods to the EU, by far their largest market, after leaving the Single Market.

Second, the level of farming subsidies is likely to be significantly reduced. Although Chancellor Philip Hammond has committed to continue CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) payments until 2020, it is uncertain what will happen to farming subsidies after that point.

Undoubtedly, there will be calls to divert the £3 billion a year our farmers currently receive away from agriculture, especially if the Government is feeling pressure to alleviate the costs of Brexit or to live up to promises made during the EU referendum campaign. Who can forget that infamous Brexit bus with its promise of £350 million a week for the NHS?

Trump trade deal will drive down farming and environment standards

The effects of leaving the Single Market would alone be devastating for rural communities throughout our country. The ‘double whammy’ of increased tariffs and reduced subsidies will likely put huge pressures on our farmers, and some will surely be forced out of business.

However, these consequences are further heightened by the election of Donald Trump as US President. A free trade deal with the US may sound good to some in theory, but in practice it could lead to a reduction in the UK’s farming standards and undercut British farmers.

If we have a free trade deal with the US that allows agricultural exports into the UK under current US regulations, then the EU may not allow UK produce to be imported at all. This is because otherwise US produce could simply be re-exported as UK produce, while not meeting the higher European standards.

Then within the UK, cheap exports from the US (and elsewhere) could undercut UK farmers, making them less competitive both domestically and abroad. More widely, Brexit and Trump pose an even greater risk to farming by threatening our natural environment and our sustainability.

Withdrawing from the European Union means withdrawing from European directives on the environment as well. Some have celebrated this fact. The Farming Minister, George Eustice, has attacked “spirit-crushing” EU directives, including the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This attack has been echoed by many of his Conservative colleagues. I, however, am not celebrating.

What did the EU ever do for us?

EU directives and the associated compliance frameworks have been responsible for huge improvements in UK environmental protection. There are numerous examples in which the UK government was forced to take a stronger approach to climate change and protecting the environment because of the EU.

Recycling targets, for example, were finally adopted by the Government only because of the fines threatened by the European Commission. Similarly, as Alan Andrews of Client Earth points out, the European Commission’s compliance framework was the “main driver” behind the Government’s development of an air quality plan.

Ignoring the environmental impact for a moment, even on a purely economic level, a low regulation approach to the UK economy cannot work outside the EU. This is because the UK will never be able to compete with the lower levels of regulations and cheaper labour costs of developing countries.

And even these countries will find it harder to compete in the future as automation replaces more and more low-skilled jobs. Instead, all that a low-regulation UK economy will achieve is damage to Britain’s and the world’s natural environment.

Beyond that, it is a complete wrong to assume there is a universal cry from either industry or shoppers to cut costs by reducing environmental, animal welfare and safety standards. Many British companies recognise the benefits of high standards and a good reputation. And consumers remain deeply sceptical of US-style industrial agriculture and the quality of the food it produces.

Two governments bent on corporate deregulation

As Secretary of State for the Environment Andrea Leadsom has pointed out, the UK courts will still be able to enforce environmental legislation. However, I am still not convinced. The Conservative Government and the Trump administration have not signalled any willingness to raise the level of environmental protection.

In fact, the opposite is true. Since the Liberal Democrats left Government in 2015, the Conservatives have instituted a series of devastating steps for sustainability and the environment.

This includes cutting subsidies for solar and onshore wind, abandoning Zero Carbon Homes, announcing plans to sell off the Green Investment Bank, and crapping the Green Deal. In addition we have seen scrapping of £1 billion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects, reducing tax breaks for clean cars and allowing fracking under National Parks.

Since Brexit, the Conservative Government has avoided questions about the future of environmental protection. For example, Government ministers were asked seven times if the government would retain EU air quality limits following Brexit. They still declined to make a commitment.

Meeting the climate challenge

Trump, on the other hand, has been very explicit about his plans for the environment, having referred to climate change as a “hoax” cooked up by the Chinese. Trump has pledged to scrap restrictions on the production of American fossil fuels and to cut subsidies for clean energy.

Moreover, a Trump administration may try to weaken the Paris Agreement by withdrawing from it altogether, or by avoiding America’s financial commitments aimed at helping other countries cope with climate change.

More generally, the election of climate change deniers like Trump and his cabinet are bad news for the fight against climate change. The more mainstream these delusional views become, the higher the risk of environmental catastrophe.

It was too easy during the populist campaigns of Brexit and Trump to paint regulations as bureaucratic and costly, while the other side failed to put forward a positive case. This is what we must do now. We need to show how an ambitious climate change and environmental strategy is good for jobs, growth and prosperity across the UK.

We need to call on Theresa May to insist on high environmental, animal welfare, health and safety standards in any potential trade deal with Trump. And we need to show that protecting the environment is vital for our future.

Kate Parminter is the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader in the Lords and Shadow Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During her time in the Lords, Kate has campaigned on a diverse range of issues including the environment, equality, animal welfare and education. Kate successfully campaigned to introduce a 5p charge on plastic bag usage to reduce the over reliance on a product that is incredibly damaging to the environment.

It’s a very clever trick to bring the dead back to life. Botanical painter Jess Shepherd will be displaying that exact magical alchemy at her upcoming show of 30 beautifully reincarnated leaves; her under-the-microscope watercolour paintings of leaves in varying degrees of decay glow with carefully captured texture, light and life.

The impetus for the exhibition and book that Shepherd calls her Leafscape project began 18 months ago when the botanist picked up a Catalpa leaf from a London pavement. She explains: “At the time I felt that the condition of the leaf reflected my own story – city-bruised and unanchored, and so I decided to paint it larger than life size to capture all its blemishes.”

The UK artist spends half the year painting in Spain, which might go towards explaining the clarity of her work. “The light in Spain is harsh and blue-rich and my work has been affected as a result. It has become sharper and I add dramatic shadows with more confidence than when in the UK. There is something so incredible about the shadows in Spain; they are so dark and black.”

After painting her first London leaf, she felt the urge to try more from further afield. “The leaves I have painted in this exhibition were captured because they caught my eye, often at a time when I wasn’t actually looking for them. I’d just be walking along a footpath and voilá – a leaf would scream out ‘paint me’. Some of the time, when I found a leaf, I would be going through some life event and the leaf would describe how I was feeling at the time.”

The exhibition which runs this month (from the 16th to 25th February) at Abbott and Holder in London is accompanied by a beautifully printed book which has been financed by crowdfunding. The idea has obviously struck a chord with the wider public as it has been oversubscribed. The limited edition books will include a CD of sounds recorded where the leaves were found and then tracks their journey from the East End of London, through the avenues of Hyde Park and Chelsea into the deep rural countryside of Granada in Spain. It is the artist’s way of trying to catapult botanical art into the 21st Century whilst also looking at topics close to her heart such as how we need to look closer at (and listen to) the natural beauty around us.

Shepherd explains, “Many painters have been fascinated by the effects of synesthesia and I believe that some feelings, especially those of a spiritual nature, sometimes can’t be described in paint alone. Sound becomes part of us and is something that happens inside of us. It is deeply personal and this is why I believe it can do things that paint cannot.”

Shepherd works for up to 10 hours a day meticulously layering sometimes as many as 30 translucent washes of watercolour. She usually outlines the leaf, the midrib and the primary veins in pencil but will do a lot of the drawing after this stage in paint with a brush. “This is my way of avoiding graphite, which can dirty the colours when painting with watercolour.” She also learnt from Arthur Harry Church’s work that burnishing the paper helped maintain the vibrancy and luminescence of pigments.

These are the minute details and tiny differences that elevate Shepherd’s work to another level. The accuracy and obvious love and knowledge of her subjects comes from her botanical science degree followed by her MSc at the Royal Botanical Garden Edinburgh which required portfolios of dissected flowers, alongside in-depth study of phylogeography, ethnobotany, phylogenetics, cytology and taxonomy.

Shepherd’s hard-earned education gives the viewer a subliminal trust in the authenticity of her work. To emphasis this further, the titles have a technical tone such as “Leaf 100820151542 Catalpa bignonioides“. Shepherd explains, “Life just seems so incredibly random and yet not. Once I started questioning mankind’s use of scale and measurement to record size and space, I realised that to refer to time as a measurement in the collection was an absolute must. So the titles record the exact time I found the leaf.”

The artist is concerned at how the botanical world doesn’t garner the recognition it deserves and through her collections she aims to bring greater awareness to ‘plant blindness’. The term is defined as ‘the inability to recognise the importance of plants, to appreciate their aesthetic value and the misguided ranking of plants as inferior to animals’. Shepherd says, “Plants provide us with food, shelter, fuel, oxygen, materials and medicine and play a significant role maintaining the climate and improving air and water quality therefore plant blindness is a considerable problem when environmental conservation is so important.”

Care for her subject matter even extends to her use of social media. Although it can sometimes become a mental distraction from the concentration of her work, she fills her popular blog with inspiring messages. “I want to encourage people to stop, think and ponder,” Shepherd says. “I believe the Internet is an excellent tool if used responsibly. It is a question of balance. One of the problematic things about social media in particular is how draining it can be. I believe that this is because it extends our nervous systems, launching us into a world where we don’t need a body or even an identity. The result of this can be very confusing and disorientating for the brain.”

Fortunately, leafing through her new book, Shepherd’s crowdfunding backers will find solace in the intricacy of nature’s most easily overlooked objects of beauty.

The Interview

1. Audio working inspiration: music or radio?

Both. I often paint to Philip Glass. My favourite radio programme at the moment is Short Cuts, but I also tune in to Radcliffe and Maconie and Nemone’s Electric Lady Land on Radio 6.

2. Kew or Wisley?

Neither. There’s too much traffic around both gardens. I’d rather go into the wilderness, or walk around allotment sites. If I had to choose a British garden it would have to be the Chelsea Physic Garden in London.

3. Top environmental tip?

To exist and conduct one’s life responsibly so that the environment doesn’t need protecting.

4. Studio clothes: painting overalls or civvies?

Depends on the weather. Height of summer in Andalucia means a bra and my cotton Pakistani Aladdin trousers. Height of winter is my alpaca wool poncho, Afghan slippers and my Rajasthani scarf.

5. Lark artist or late owl?

Both. I am an early riser, but I notice I can do nights very well. My worst time is in the middle, especially at 3-4 pm, which is when I tend to go for a walk.

6. Do you sketch in pencil or pen?

Both, sketches are in pen then I transfer the image onto the watercolour paper with a pencil.

7. Favourite season for gathering plant reference?

Probably the autumn, I love all that transformation and so much happens in the space of a month. You get fresh leaves with dead leaves, and berries with flowers all at the same time as nature makes it’s last push before the winter sets in.

8. Studio OCD or organised chaos?

OCD

9. Regular breaks or work through?

Depends on what I am working on and the time of year, but I usually work through. The really big pieces require more breaks to be taken.

10. Post-work: bike ride or box set?

Neither really. In the winter I like to sit by the fire listening to music and in the summer I will sit in the evening sun with a cold beer and listen to the birds singing and life happening all around me. My bicycle is usually only taken out when I am working, getting me into the fields quickly.

Jess Shepherd’s Leafscape work can be found at http://inkyleaves.com/leafscape/

The Leafscape exhibition is at Abbott and Holder, London from 16-25 February

This Author

Gary Cook is a conservation artist and Arts Editor for the Ecologist

Online: cookthepainter.com

Twitter: twitter.com/cookthepainter

Instagram: instagram.com/cookthepainter

Society of Graphic Fine Art: sgfa.org.uk/members/gary-cook/

Blog: cookthepainter.com/blog

The Ecologist: tinyurl.com/j4w6zp3

Facebook: facebook.com/cookthepainter

The withdrawal from the European Union will shape this country’s future for decades to come.

In the case of the UK farming industry and our rural environment, the consequences could be devastating and permanent.

Theresa May’s commitment to leaving the Single Market will hit UK farmers especially hard. They will be most heavily impacted by two aspects of the Single Market: tariffs and subsidies.

First, because tariffs for agricultural products tend to be far higher than tariffs in other sectors, UK farmers will find it far harder to export their goods to the EU, by far their largest market, after leaving the Single Market.

Second, the level of farming subsidies is likely to be significantly reduced. Although Chancellor Philip Hammond has committed to continue CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) payments until 2020, it is uncertain what will happen to farming subsidies after that point.

Undoubtedly, there will be calls to divert the £3 billion a year our farmers currently receive away from agriculture, especially if the Government is feeling pressure to alleviate the costs of Brexit or to live up to promises made during the EU referendum campaign. Who can forget that infamous Brexit bus with its promise of £350 million a week for the NHS?

Trump trade deal will drive down farming and environment standards

The effects of leaving the Single Market would alone be devastating for rural communities throughout our country. The ‘double whammy’ of increased tariffs and reduced subsidies will likely put huge pressures on our farmers, and some will surely be forced out of business.

However, these consequences are further heightened by the election of Donald Trump as US President. A free trade deal with the US may sound good to some in theory, but in practice it could lead to a reduction in the UK’s farming standards and undercut British farmers.

If we have a free trade deal with the US that allows agricultural exports into the UK under current US regulations, then the EU may not allow UK produce to be imported at all. This is because otherwise US produce could simply be re-exported as UK produce, while not meeting the higher European standards.

Then within the UK, cheap exports from the US (and elsewhere) could undercut UK farmers, making them less competitive both domestically and abroad. More widely, Brexit and Trump pose an even greater risk to farming by threatening our natural environment and our sustainability.

Withdrawing from the European Union means withdrawing from European directives on the environment as well. Some have celebrated this fact. The Farming Minister, George Eustice, has attacked “spirit-crushing” EU directives, including the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This attack has been echoed by many of his Conservative colleagues. I, however, am not celebrating.

What did the EU ever do for us?

EU directives and the associated compliance frameworks have been responsible for huge improvements in UK environmental protection. There are numerous examples in which the UK government was forced to take a stronger approach to climate change and protecting the environment because of the EU.

Recycling targets, for example, were finally adopted by the Government only because of the fines threatened by the European Commission. Similarly, as Alan Andrews of Client Earth points out, the European Commission’s compliance framework was the “main driver” behind the Government’s development of an air quality plan.

Ignoring the environmental impact for a moment, even on a purely economic level, a low regulation approach to the UK economy cannot work outside the EU. This is because the UK will never be able to compete with the lower levels of regulations and cheaper labour costs of developing countries.

And even these countries will find it harder to compete in the future as automation replaces more and more low-skilled jobs. Instead, all that a low-regulation UK economy will achieve is damage to Britain’s and the world’s natural environment.

Beyond that, it is a complete wrong to assume there is a universal cry from either industry or shoppers to cut costs by reducing environmental, animal welfare and safety standards. Many British companies recognise the benefits of high standards and a good reputation. And consumers remain deeply sceptical of US-style industrial agriculture and the quality of the food it produces.

Two governments bent on corporate deregulation

As Secretary of State for the Environment Andrea Leadsom has pointed out, the UK courts will still be able to enforce environmental legislation. However, I am still not convinced. The Conservative Government and the Trump administration have not signalled any willingness to raise the level of environmental protection.

In fact, the opposite is true. Since the Liberal Democrats left Government in 2015, the Conservatives have instituted a series of devastating steps for sustainability and the environment.

This includes cutting subsidies for solar and onshore wind, abandoning Zero Carbon Homes, announcing plans to sell off the Green Investment Bank, and crapping the Green Deal. In addition we have seen scrapping of £1 billion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects, reducing tax breaks for clean cars and allowing fracking under National Parks.

Since Brexit, the Conservative Government has avoided questions about the future of environmental protection. For example, Government ministers were asked seven times if the government would retain EU air quality limits following Brexit. They still declined to make a commitment.

Meeting the climate challenge

Trump, on the other hand, has been very explicit about his plans for the environment, having referred to climate change as a “hoax” cooked up by the Chinese. Trump has pledged to scrap restrictions on the production of American fossil fuels and to cut subsidies for clean energy.

Moreover, a Trump administration may try to weaken the Paris Agreement by withdrawing from it altogether, or by avoiding America’s financial commitments aimed at helping other countries cope with climate change.

More generally, the election of climate change deniers like Trump and his cabinet are bad news for the fight against climate change. The more mainstream these delusional views become, the higher the risk of environmental catastrophe.

It was too easy during the populist campaigns of Brexit and Trump to paint regulations as bureaucratic and costly, while the other side failed to put forward a positive case. This is what we must do now. We need to show how an ambitious climate change and environmental strategy is good for jobs, growth and prosperity across the UK.

We need to call on Theresa May to insist on high environmental, animal welfare, health and safety standards in any potential trade deal with Trump. And we need to show that protecting the environment is vital for our future.

Kate Parminter is the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader in the Lords and Shadow Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During her time in the Lords, Kate has campaigned on a diverse range of issues including the environment, equality, animal welfare and education. Kate successfully campaigned to introduce a 5p charge on plastic bag usage to reduce the over reliance on a product that is incredibly damaging to the environment.