In September 2015, during the XIV World Forestry Congress, thousands of people took to the streets in Durban, South Africa, to protest against the problematic way in which the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), insists on defining forests [1].

The FAO definition considers forests to be basically just ‘a bunch of trees’, while ignoring other fundamental aspects of forests, including their many other life-forms such as other types of plants, as well as animals, and forest-dependent human communities.

Equally, it ignores the vital contribution of forests to natural processes that provide soil, water and oxygen. Besides, by defining ‘forests’ as only being a minimum area of land covered by a minimum number of trees of a minimum height and canopy percentage, FAO has actively promoted the establishment of many millions of hectares of industrial tree plantations, of mainly alien species, especially in the global South.

As a consequence, only one particular sector has benefitted: the tree plantation industry. Industrial tree plantations have been the direct cause of many negative impacts on local communities and their forests; which have been well-documented [2].

The protest march that took place in Durban in 2015 had people holding up banners saying “Plantations are not Forests!”, and ended in front of the venue of the World Forestry Congress, which was organised by the FAO.

FAO cliongs stubbornly to outmoded, misleading definition

In response to a call from civil society leaders at the march, a WFC official left the Congress building to receive a petition that had been signed by over 100,000 individuals and groups from around the world. The petition called on the FAO to urgently change its forest definition and to define forests by their true meaning. But once again, the FAO did not change its definition.

Nevertheless, something new did happen: Unlike the silence in response to previous demands for the FAO to change its flawed forest definition, this time FAO reacted to the protest, and sent a letter in response. One point in the FAO letter is particularly interesting. It stated:

“There are, in fact, over 200 national definitions of forests that reflect a variety of stakeholders in this matter….“, and goes on to say, “…to facilitate the reporting of data … a globally valid, simple and operational categorization of forests is required” in order that it can “enable consistent comparisons over longer periods of time on global forest development and change“.

In writing this, the FAO attempts to convince us that its role is merely one of harmonizing the 200-plus different definitions of forests that different countries have.

But is it really true that the existing FAO forest definition did not influence the way the 200 national definitions of forests were formulated in the first place? And is the FAO correct when it claims that the many different national forest definitions are a result of the reflections of a variety of stakeholders in these countries, again playing down its own influence?

We believe the opposite to be true. First of all, FAO´s forest definition was adopted a long time ago, in 1948. According to a recent joint analysis by different authors of forest concepts and definitions, “FAO´s definition, agreed on by all its [UN] members, is the first to be used by all countries for harmonized reporting; the definition adopted by FAO remains the most widely used forest definition today” [3].

Serious consequences to forest policies around the world

A good country to use as an example to see if the FAO definition is being used, is Brazil, the country with the highest forest cover in the global South, and according to official sources, almost 8 million hectares of industrial tree plantations, mostly eucalyptus monocultures.

In its 2010 [4] publication ‘Forests of Brazil‘ the Brazilian Forest Service (SBF), under the national government Ministry of Environment and responsible for forest-related issues “considers as a forest the woody vegetation types that come closest to the forest definition of the Organization of the United Nations for Food and Agriculture (FAO).”

As a logical progression from basing its definition on what FAO already defined, it states that “Brazil is a country … of natural and planted forests“, where “planted forests” refers to the 8 million hectares of mostly eucalyptus monocultures.

How the Brazilian government defines a forest is therefore not the result of a process that “reflects a variety of stakeholders in this matter”. On the contrary, it is rather a result of what the FAO had already determined.

But the influence of the FAO’s forest definition goes beyond just determining national forest definitions. In these times of climate change, the FAO’s definition has been the main point of reference to define what a forest is under the UN climate change convention (UNFCCC).

UNFCCC’s mandate for forest destruction

By adopting the FAO’s narrow wood-based definition, the UNFCCC has also promoted a view of forests being an area of land containing only trees. For the UNFCCC, it’s mainly the trees in a forest that matter because of their capacity to store carbon as they grow, and not forest-dependent communities.

Such affected communities are most negatively impacted by restrictions placed on their use of forest resources by ‘forest carbon offset projects’, also often referred to as REDD+ projects [5].

A forest definition only focused on trees opens the door to including ‘planted forests’ – read: industrial tree plantations – a completely false way of ‘reducing deforestation and forest degradation’, as an option under the climate change convention through which carbon can supposedly be sequestered from the atmosphere and permanently stored.

In practice this is just another money-making opportunity for the tree plantation industry, and a major threat to communities affected by the trend of expanding “carbon sink” tree plantations.

Following the latest UNFCCC negotiations, countries have recently been revising their forest legislation, in the hope of attracting so-called ‘climate finance’. Unsurprisingly, the definitions used are largely based on the FAO´s forest definition.

In Mozambique, for example, at a workshop on REDD+, a consultant proposed a new forest definition for the country. Just like the FAO´s definition, it is also based on the presence of trees saying that a forest is an area with “Trees with the potential to reach a height of 5 metres at maturity”.

Also in Indonesia, the Ministry of Environment and Forests submission to the UN Climate Conference in 2015, stated that it had “adjusted the FAO forest definition” in order to define its forests. Once again a definition that defines and values a forest only through its trees, and that divides ‘forests’ into a number of different categories including ‘natural forest’ and something called ‘plantation forests’ [6].

The FAO’s forest definition also influences the actions of the financial and development institutions promoting wood-based activities such as the industrial logging of forests, industrial tree plantations, and REDD+ carbon offsets.

World Bank ‘borrows’ FAO definition for 100 million Ha of Africa

The main example is the World Bank (WB) which as part of the United Nations conglomerate has been partnering with the FAO for decades in a number of forest-related initiatives. They again joined forces in one of the most ambitious plans launched during UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris, the so-called ‘African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative’ (AFR100) [7].

AFR100 aims to cover 100 million hectares of deforested and so-called ‘degraded’ lands in different African countries with trees. The World Bank will make $1 billion available for this plan. But to understand what the World Bank views as ‘reforestation’, it is crucial to see how the Bank itself defines a forest.

Unsurprisingly, its definition is also borrowed from that of the FAO, describing a forest as “An area of land … with tree crown cover of more than 10% that have trees” [8].

By defining forests in this way, the World Bank opens the door wide for tree plantation companies expanding their large-scale monoculture tree plantations over community territories in Africa to be part of the ambitious ‘restoration’ plan it is promoting together with the FAO and other partners.

The AFR100 proposal strongly resembles the failed Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) from the 1980’s, which was also dreamed up by the World Bank in collaboration with the FAO.

Revision desperately needed for the sake of forests and forest peoples

There is an urgent need for the FAO to stop misrepresenting industrial tree plantations as ‘planted forests’ or ‘forestry’, because national governments, other UN institutions, and financial institutions, as well as the mainstream media will then follow its inappropriate example.

This deliberate confusion of tree plantations with forests is misleading people, because forests in general are viewed as something positive and beneficial. After all, who could be opposed to ‘forests’?

Above all, the FAO should take full responsibility for the strong influence its ‘forest’ definition has over global economic, ecological and social policies. The 2015 petition that was presented to the FAO in Durban states that it portrays itself in its founding principles as being a “neutral forum where all nations meet as equals”.

To live up to this claim requires, among other things, that the FAO must urgently revise its forest definition from one that reflects the preferences and perspectives of timber, pulp / paper, rubber, and carbon trading companies, to one that reflects ecological realities as well as the views of forest-dependent peoples.

In contrast to the existing dominant influence of wood-based industries over the FAO, a transparent and open process to establish new and appropriate definitions for forests and tree plantations must also engage effectively with those women and men who directly depend on and therefore protect forests.

The original of this Open Letter is on the WRM website.

Sign: If your organization has not yet signed, we invite you to support the letter. Please send an email to fao2017@wrm.org.uy and include your organization’s name and country. See also Signatures as of March 16, 2017.

Notes

1 – “Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent and area of more than 0.5 hectares (ha). The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters (m) at maturity in situ.”

2 – See more in http://wrm.org.uy/browse-by-subject/tree-plantations/

3 – Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Laestadius, L. et al. Ambio (2016). doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y. ‘When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration’ (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y)

4 – http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sfb/_arquivos/livro_portugus_95.pdf

5 – See more in http://wrm.org.uy/books-and-briefings/redd-a-collection-of-conflicts-contradictions-and-lies/

6 – http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/seasia/Indonesia/pdf/FREL_Report.pdf

7 – http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/AFR100/about-afr100

8 – http://tinyurl.com/hsb6cwy

Japan’s atomic power establishment is in shock following the court ruling on Friday that found the state and the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant liable for failing to take preventive measures against the tsunami that crippled the facility.

The reason for the shock is the ruling has wide-ranging implications for Japan’s entire nuclear power industry and the efforts to restart reactors throughout the country.

Judges in the Maebashi District Court in Gunma prefecture ruled that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) and the government were aware of the earthquake and tsunami risks to the Fukushima Daiichi plant prior to the 2011 triple reactor meltdown, but failed to take preventative measures.

The decision was welcomed by the 137 Fukushima citizens who filed the lawsuit in 2014. What needs to be remembered is a further 28 civil and criminal lawsuits in 18 prefectures across Japan are pending. They involve more than 10,000 citizens and include a shareholder claim seeking compensation of ¥5.5 trillion ($49 billion).

Tepco is already a de facto bankrupt, has been effectively nationalized and now faces the unprecedented challenges of how to remove three melted reactors at the Fukushima plant.

Six years after the disaster it still faces unanswered questions about the precise causes of the accident, questions that have generated public opposition to Tepco restarting reactors at another plant in Kashiwazki-kariwa in Niigata prefecture, on the opposite coastline to Fukushima.

Tepco and government ‘foresaw’ dangers but did nothing

Beside the court ruling being yet another blow to Tepco’s efforts to recover from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the judgement will be highly disruptive to plans by the government and utilities to restart nuclear reactors in Japan.

In the court ruling, the judges found that science-based evidence of major risks to the nuclear plant was “foreseen” but ignored and not acted upon by Japan’s government and Tepco.

The evidence included a 2002 government assessment that concluded there was a 20% risk of a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake off the coast of northeastern Japan within 30 years. This includes the sea bed area off the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Further, the plaintiffs cited a 2008 internal Tepco report ‘Tsunami Measures Unavoidable‘ which included the likelihood of a potential 15.7 meter tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear site.

The court ruled that if the government had used its regulatory powers to make Tepco take countermeasures, such as installing seawalls, against such an event, the nuclear disaster could have been avoided.

Japan’s rubber-toothed nuclear regulator

While the judges in Gunma prefecture have concluded that ignoring evidence of risk can have devastating consequences, that does not seem to be the approach of the nuclear utilities or the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA).

Over the last four years, the NRA has demonstrated a tendency to ignore evidence of risks to nuclear plants that have made applications to restart reactors shut down after the Fukushima disaster, and to bend to the demands of the nuclear power companies and the government.

A total of 26 reactors have applied for NRA review, of which seven have passed and four more will likely be approved this year.

In each case, the NRA has failed to apply a robust approach to assessing risks. It has chose to screen out seismic faults that threaten nuclear plants, failed to follow recommendations from international safety guidelines, and accepted selective evidence on volcanic risks.

In the case of the three 40-year old reactors at Takahama and Mihama, the NRA approved the reactors, while granting the utility an exemption from demonstrating that the reactors primary circuit can meet the 2013 post Fukushima revised safety guidelines, until a later date.

All of these safety issues have the potential when things go wrong – see Fukushima – to lead to severe accidents, including reactor core meltdown.

Now Japanese courts are filling the regulatory void

District courts have issued injunctions against reactor restarts in Fukui prefecture, and in a historic ruling in March 2016 a court in Shiga prefecture ordered the immediate shutdown of the Takahama 3 and 4 reactors.

An appeal court is scheduled to rule on the above in the coming weeks and while it is anticipated that the reactor owner Kansai Electric will likely win, the prospects of further legal action remains.

Next month, for example, the former deputy chair of the NRA, Kunihiko Shimazaki will testify in a lawsuit against the operation of the Ohi reactors owned by Kansai Electric in western Japan.

Shimazeki, emeritus professor of seismology at Tokyo University and the only seismologist to have been an NRA commissioner, has challenged the formulas used by the regulator in computing the scale of earthquakes, which he believes underestimates potential seismic impact by factor of 3.5. Last July the NRA dismissed Professor Shimazeki’s evidence.

Six years after the start of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, only 3 of Japan’s reactors are currently operating out of the 54 available in 2011.

The end of nuclear power in Japan?

For any business that runs the risk of its principal cash-generating asset being shut down at any point and for an extended period through legal challenges, the future does not look bright – unless you are granted approval to disregard the evidence.

The utilities are hemorrhaging money and therefore run the risk of following the same path as Tepco prior to 2011 in prioritizing cost savings over safety. Such an approach directly led to the bankruptcy of Tepco, one the worlds largest power companies, and liabilities of at least ¥21 trillion.

The nuclear industry and current government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe understand that to allow robust evidence of safety risks, in particular seismic, to determine the future of operation of reactors would mean the end of nuclear power in Japan.

Citizens from Fukushima with their lawyers and now supported by the judges, have moved Japan one step closer to that eventual scenario.

Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace Germany. He has worked on nuclear issues worldwide for more than three decades, including since 1991 on Japan’s nuclear policy. sburnie@greenpeace.org.

This article was originally published here on Asia Times.

In the 46 years since I was born, Britain has become one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. 

More than one in ten of our native species are now threatened with extinction and many others have seen their populations plummet by two thirds since 1970.

 Deforestation, industrial farming, building development and climate change are having a hugely destructive impact on wildlife habitats across the nation.

The fate of the badger has become a lightning rod issue about the future of our green and pleasant land and the wildlife that inhabits it.

In Britain today despite being a protected species, thousands of badgers are illegally snared, gassed, shot, baited with dogs or have their setts destroyed. If this tidal wave of cruelty and destruction was not enough, the badger has now also become a political pawn in the future of our livestock and dairy industry.

Over the past four years over £40 million of public money has been spent killing just under 15,000 badgers in England in an attempt to lower bovine TB in cattle. None of the badgers killed have been tested for TB. (Why not? That’s a story in itself, but maybe those who decided preferred not to know how few badgers were infected.)

Many have taken over five minutes to die of multiple bullet wounds, blood loss and organ failure, as the result of a free shooting method which is considered cruel and ineffective by the government’s independent expert panel and the British Veterinary Association.

Where is the evidence?

Despite this huge destruction of a protected species, the government has provided no evidence to prove that killing badgers is having any impact on lowering bovine TB in or around the badger cull zones.

They also refuse to accept a growing mountain of scientific research, which indicates that badgers largely avoid any interaction with cattle in pasture areas or farm yards and that it is very difficult for a badger to transmit bovine TB to a cow.

I wrote Badgered to Death to shed light on the incompetence, negligence and deceit at the heart of the badger cull policy. Its tells the story of disastrous mistakes in livestock disease control policy, the manipulation of science for political purposes and the danger of demonising wild animals for short term political and economic interests.

The book is also a story about the caring compassionate British public who have taken the campaign to protect the badger to the streets of our towns and cities into the fields and to the steps of the High Court.

Since the book was published in August 2016, it has become one of the best selling wildlife books in Britain. I have travelled the length and breadth of the country talking to hundreds of people about the important issues it raises, from schools and colleges, to conferences, exhibitions and book shops.

Wherever I go, I encounter people of all ages and backgrounds who are united by a common anger and despair over how the badger is being killed for no scientific or animal welfare justification and what this means for the future of our wildlife and countryside.

A copy for every MP in Westminster

When I approached my publisher with the idea of launching a crowd fund to send a copy of Badgered to Death to every MP ahead of the Westminster Hall debate on the badger cull policy on the 27th March, he was very sceptical about being able to raise the £4,000 needed in the three week period before the debate 

I had no such doubts – and within five days all the money needed had been raised as a result of the generous support of hundreds of wildlife protectors across the country.

Despite the badger cull policy being a clear failure on scientific, cost and humaneness grounds the government is planning a major extension of the policy in 2017. This year we could see over 20,000 badgers killed and this figure could rise to well over 100,000 by 2020. This widespread destruction could result in extinction of badgers from broad areas of England where they have lived for thousands of years.

As every MP from the Prime Minister down now receives a copy of Badgered to Death, I will leave the last word on this issue to one of the nation’s leading naturalists and wildlife broadcasters, Chris Packham, who wrote the foreword:

“The book you have in your hands is evidence. Factual evidence that this cull is inhumane, ineffective, unscientific and expensive. What we finally and urgently need is an evidence-based decision – not a another fallacious political one.

“History will judge you on this so please use the facts to demonstrate to your grandchildren that you understood and cared for the health and wellbeing of our countryside and its wildlife.”

Dominic Dyer is CEO of the Badger Trust and Policy Adviser to the Born Free Foundation and author of ‘Badgered to Death The People and Politics of the Badger Cull’.

Action: MPs are debating the badger cull in a week’s time on 27th March. Please write to your MP very soon to draw their attention to the copy of Badgered to Death they have received, and ask them to read it and act on the irrefutable scientific evidence it presents.

Event: Dominic will be speaking about writing the book and the politics of wildlife protection at home and abroad with Mark Jones from the Born Free Foundation at the Capitol Theatre in Horsham on Thursday 23 March at 7.30pm. Booking details.

I am angry to the depths of my soul that the earth has been so injured while we were all bemused by supposed monuments of value and intellect, vaults of bogus cultural riches… Sellafield, which pours waste plutonium into the world’s natural environment, and bomb grade plutonium into the world’s political environment. For money.

So wrote US author Marilynne Robinson in Mother Country in 1989, a few years after the 1983 discovery by Yorkshire TV (video embed below) of the child leukemia excess (ten times the expected number) at Seascale, a village next to the Sellafield nuclear site.

In the documentary, presented by a young David Dimbleby, we see the evidence and a debate between Professor Ed Radford (who started me out on my radiation enquiry in 1991) and a young Wilks on one side, and two men from British Nuclear Fuels.

Despite the Black Inquiry [1], a court case (Reay and Hope vs BNFL), several reports from the National Radiological Protection Board NRPB and their Alice in Wonderland Mirror, COMARE, no one pointed out that the science behind all the protestations of innocence is bogus.

The court case was lost for the same reason. Martyn Day the solicitor was advised to use the fathers’ exposures and genetic risk as a strategy – a mistake that cost them the case. It was the direct exposures from the beaches that were the cause of the child leukemias, not the fathers.

So all BNFL had to do to win, was to show that there were leukemia children whose fathers did not work at Sellafield. Which there were.

There is no single measure of ‘radiation’

The essential problem was that everyone assumed that there was a valid scientific way of measuring radiation which applied equally to all kinds of exposure, and that it produced a number, called the ‘dose’ which could be used to quantify biological damage (and therefore child leukemia).

BNFL argued that the fact that there was a lot of plutonium on the beach and in the houses at Seascale was not enough. To get enough ‘dose’ from plutonium, the children would have had to eat some kilograms of house dust. Accepting this nonsense, the late Prof Gardner (and the court case) attempted to get around this by arguing that it was a genetic effect delivered by the fathers’ sperm.

A mistake, as I wrote to Martyn Day at the time, and also to Gardner. But Gardner (aged 50, not a smoker) went into hospital with lung cancer just after I sent my letter, and never came out.

The 1984 Black Inquiry was less easily fooled. Sir Douglas Black recommended two new independent outfits to investigate the problem. They were the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, (COMARE).

COMARE was quickly infiltrated by the nuclear industry faithful, and produced one biased report after another exonerating Sellafield as a cause of the child cancers. It used the same ‘dose’ argument as BNFL in the documentary, as did NRPB’s evidence to Sir Douglas.

Initially COMARE toyed with the idea of population mixing and an unknown virus as the cause, but conceded there was no population mixing at Sellafield. However, its latest 17th Report, published last year, finally gave way and decided that it was population mixing after all.

Contamination of the seashore? What contamination?

This seashore contamination has, since 1983, spread to the coast of north Wales where it is measured and where there was a 18-fold child cancer excess by 2004, and to Carlingford in Ireland (see Wolves of Water, Busby 2007) with similar effects.

Well, what is the fuss about? What should the locals and holidaymakers be afraid of?

Video: ‘Windscale – The Nuclear Laundry’, first broadcast on Yorkshire TV, 1st November 1983.

I was sent a scanning electron microscope (SEM) photograph by Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) the local anti-nuclear NGO. A sample from the tidal estuary of the river Esk near a popular coastal path. I was asked to comment. I show the SEM picture in Figure 1 (above right).

It was collected by CORE for Arnie Gundersen during his brief visit to Cumbria and given to Dr Marco Kaltofen from Boston MA, USA who measures particles. Marco told me on the phone that there were many such particles found in this mud sample. His machine also uses X-ray fluorescence, and can identify the elemental composition of any particle. The XRF spectrum is inset. It shows that the particle is made from Plutonium and Americium.

I knew already that the mud in that area was highly contaminated with plutonium. CORE had sent me samples in the 1990s which I still have and which I use to calibrate my gamma spectrometers. One of those had 22,000Bq/kg Plutonium-239 together with about the same amount of Cs-137 and a host of other nasty isotopes.

Killer isotope of the future: Americium 241

But this is the first time I had seen the villain of the piece, the hot particle. You need some fancy gear for that. Plutonium-241 is a major effluent from Sellafield, a beta emitter with a half-life of just 14 years turning into the alpha emitter Americium-241 with a half-life of 432 years.

For this reason, the concentration of the Am-241 in the Irish Sea sediments is increasing, even if they shut the pipeline tomorrow. Waves of this material reached the Irish coast in the late 1990s and by now has contaminated the beaches near Dublin and will soon (or may have already) reached Waterford. It has been along the coast of Wales since the 1980s, building up in the Menai and on a big tidal sediment bank called the Lavan Sands.

Marco used gamma spectrometry to show that the bulk sample had a radioactivity of 390 kBq/kg (390,000) with signals from Caesium-137 and Americium 241. A Becquerel is one disintegration per second. One click on a Geiger counter.

So what about the individual particles? The one in the picture is about 50 microns diameter. Marco says the XRF suggests about 50% Americium and perhaps 20% Plutonium. I can use these figures to calculate that the activity of the particle itself is about 150,000 Bq of alpha radiation and about 500,000 Bq of beta radiation.

This is a single particle of diameter slightly smaller than the average human hair, invisible to the naked eye. Such a particle is easily resuspended in the air by wind, and indeed will automatically fly itself into the air as a result of the electrostatic charge it builds up as it emits charge in the form of beta and alpha radiation.

That such material is brought ashore over kilometre distances by ‘sea-to-land’ transfer was discovered by scientists from Harwell in the 1980s. Plutonium from Sellafield has been measured in childrens’ teeth right across England [2].

Radiation levels on Sellafield beach 50 times inland levels

We can get some idea of the general level of contamination here. CORE have a Geiger counter which they have used for a long time to astound journalists, school parties, students and campaigners. The meter jumps from a background inland of 5 to 10 to 200 to 300 counts per Second in the area where the sample was taken.

This equates to a dose rate of about 3 microSieverts per hour (uSv/h) over the contamination. That fits reasonably well with Marco’s result for the bulk sample. Prof Imanaka from Kyoto University visited the area in 2014 and took some samples back to Japan: he found Cs-137 and Americium-241, but at lower levels, around 1,000 Bq/kg.

In passing, there are some odd results in the official data, the annual Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries RIFE reports. They seem to be misreporting the dose rates over the contamination. In the latest 2015 report we see 500 Bq/kg of Cs-137 and 1,200 Bq/kg Am-241. If we assume a depth of 50cm, this translates into a surface activity of about 400 kBq/m², which is roughly what Prof Sanderson found in his 1990 aerial gamma survey.

It is technically straightforward [3] to turn this surface contamination into a gamma dose rate at 1 metre above the ground. We get 1.9 uSv/h. So this roughly agrees with CORE since my calculation is only for the Cs-137. But RIFE reports around 0.1 to 0.2 uSv/h.

Perhaps they took their gamma readings at high tide? Reducing measurements by 90%

So although RIFE contamination levels agree with the independent measurements, the official dose rates (including Prof Sanderson’s) are about 10 to 20 times too low. Of course, at estuary high tide, all this gamma activity is covered by water and the dose rate will fall by a factor of 10. Maybe RIFE only get out their gear when the water has covered up the contamination?

What do all these numbers mean to the non-scientist? Well, the Geiger counter dose rate of 3 uSv/h tells us that the area contamination is about 900 kBq/m2 in that tidal area of the River Esk. The particle analysis tells us that the radioactivity is mainly in Plutonium and Americium hot particles with some Caesium-137.

This hot particle scenario is the same as in the inner Chernobyl contamination zones. The dose rate is about equal to the level of contamination in the 30km zone of the Fukushima reactors shortly after the disaster.

Recently, BBC reporter Rupert Wingfield Hayes measured 3 uSv/h in the Fukushima exclusion zone; the clip being where radiation expert Geraldine ‘Gerry’ Thomas made her classic arithmetical gaffe.

The United Nations developed a contamination classification scheme after Chernobyl. Its definition of contaminated land was 37-185 kBq/m2. The Chernobyl Zone of Permanent Control was set at 185-555 kBq/m2 [4]. So we can say that the estuary is ‘radioactively contaminated land’ and should be a ‘zone of permanent control’ under the United Nations definition.

Suppressing the inconvenient truth

A number of questions arise in the mind of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

First, how is it that it took a TV company to draw attention to the dead bodies of the children, rather than the health authority?

Second, how is it that it takes the investigation of a sample obtained by ordinary people and a helpful scientist in America to show a picture of what there is in the sand and mud down there? Why wasn’t this done by COMARE, NRPB, BNFL, Harwell, and so forth?

Third, how is it that none of the authorities there have measured the radioactivity and the particles and fenced it all off?

This would happen in the Soviet Union, it would happen in the USA. CORE have consistently complained to the local authorities and the Sellafield Environmental Health watchdog Group about these contaminations, but have been ever ignored or fobbed off. They tell me that one Sellafield PR response was that it did not matter as people usually wore gumboots.

Finally, how is it that no one connected the hot particles with the childhood cancers and calculated the huge doses that even one of these particles, inhaled and internalised, would deliver to local tissue in organs of the body?

Well the answer is simple. It is that the nuclear military complex, lobby, mafia, however you describe it, it is powerful and real, and continues to keep a death grip on the scientific picture of radiation and health. And COMARE, like the other ‘independent’ scientific agencies and committees that provide the governmental theatricals, are populated with idiots, placemen and dodgy characters.

COMARE was intended by Sir Douglas Black, at the Seascale Inquiry, to provide investigative research independent from NRPB. But they share the same site at UK Atomic Energy Research Harwell. One of the first secretaries, John Cooper, went on to become Director of NRPB, now called Public Health England, though he disappeared rapidly when the German sea-dumping documentary caught him out on TV (below).

Death in a grain of dust

On COMARE there’s Richard Wakeford, ex BNFL. Any conflict of interest there? None reported. And there’s Frank de Vocht, who writes for Sense about Science and attacks all my published papers.

SAHSU, the epidemiological wing of this cover-up (now known in epidemiology circles as the ‘cluster-busters’) is no better: it spent its energy (and government money) developing epidemiological tools to prove the childhood leukemia clusters like Seascale, were due to random chance. I wrote a poem about this in 2003 entitled ‘Paul Elliott’ after its Director.

At Sellafield, along that coast,
Out of the corner of your eye
You’ll maybe see a little ghost
A girl who didn’t have to die
If you’re lucky, you may see her dance
Sadly along that altered shore
It’s certain she’s only there by chance
That’s what I’m told: I can’t say more.

So let’s look at the overall picture. Sticking with poetry, TS Eliot’s line, “I will show you fear in a handful of dust” seems the most appropriate summary. Only it’s worse: death on Sellafield beach is lurking in a single grain of dust so tiny as to be invisible, yet spitting out 650,000 alpha and beta particles every second.

And Sellafield, the largest legitimized source of radioactive pollution in the world, has turned that beautiful coast into Eliot’s Waste Land.

But there are no United Nations warning notices at the beaches and estuaries near Sellafield.

The areas should be fenced off. The coastal villages must be evacuated.

Chris Busby is an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation. He qualified in Chemical Physics at the Universities of London and Kent, and worked on the molecular physical chemistry of living cells for the Wellcome Foundation. Professor Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels and has edited many of its publications since its founding in 1998. He has held a number of honorary University positions, including Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health of the University of Ulster. Busby currently lives in Riga, Latvia. See also: chrisbusbyexposed.org, greenaudit.org and llrc.org.

References

1. Black D. Report of the Independent Advisory Group. Chairman: Sir Douglas Black. HMSO: London; 1984. Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria.

2. Busby C (2007) Wolves of Water. A Study constructed from Atomic radiation, Morality, Epidemiology, Science, Bias, Philosophy and Death. Aberystwyth: Green Audit. Available from Amazon UK.

3. Handbook of Radiological Protection. London HMSO 1972

4. Savchenko VK (1995) The Ecology of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Paris: UNESCO p11.

The Great East Japan earthquake and its aftermath made agricultural land in Fukushima difficult to farm. The effects of the tsunami and nuclear disaster left soil with a high concentration of salt, which made it hard to grow traditional food crops. However, cotton is resistant to this type of pollution and grows healthily in salt-rich terrains.

Recognising this, business union Otento Sun made it their mission to begin harvesting cotton on abandoned farmland and to give farmers back the ability to grow crops and produce an income.

The Bicchu Brown cotton the Fukushima farmers grow is native to Japan. The safety of the cotton is unquestionable. Every crop harvested in Fukushima has to go through radiation tests, and only crops below the standard radiation level can be distributed. This year marks the fifth harvest of the bespoke cotton.

But the cotton grown by the farmers in Fukushima is about more than the disaster. The farmers and union members believe in keeping the age-old tradition of Japanese Bicchu Brown Cotton alive, as well as reducing the widespread use of pesticide in cotton production.

Director of Otento SUN Emiko Yoshida said: “Cotton is one of the most environmentally unfriendly crops on this planet. At the same time, it is one of the crops we use most in our everyday lives.”

Although you may not realise it, cotton is everywhere – whether it’s in the clothes we wear, the sheets we sleep on, or the bags we use to carry our goods. But, although we come into contact with cotton every day, most people know very little about the way it is produced.

Cotton is considered one of the dirtiest crops in the world because of the amount of pesticide that is used in its production. As well as growing their cotton on Fukushima land, Otento Sun prove cotton farming does not have to involve heavy use of pesticides by using organic, non-GMO native seeds to create high-quality, safe cotton.

The Bicchu-brown cotton grown by Otento Sun has been used in Japan since the Heian Era (794-1185). Unlike western cotton and as its name suggests, it produces a brown material. The short length of Japanese cotton fibres means weaving it is more labour intensive than white cottons. It is more difficult to spin, and it requires artisanal skills to shape it into strong, resilient threads and fabrics.

Otento Sun mixes brown Japanese cotton and white Western cotton to create beautiful, soft, cream-coloured threads. This traditional cotton has not only helped to regenerate land and livelihoods in Fukushima, but has helped to improve the quality of cotton production in Japan.

What’s more, the venture has encourage communities to work together and create relationships and connections with each other.

Regeneration is still ongoing in the area, but projects like Otento Sun make it possible for people to create a secure and happy future for themselves and their families.

Emiko says: “We hope our organic cotton will be used across the world. Our aspiration is for the reconstruction and regeneration of Fukushima.

“This may be a small first step, but we believe that it can be realised by us all making a small change in our daily lives. It can start from this furoshiki.”

Following the accident at the Fukushima power station and under EU Regulation no 351/2011, all food imported from Japan to the EU needs to meet criteria surrounding radionuclide levels. This same approach is being taken with this cotton, and samples have been tested in the UK, where no radiation was detected at the laboratory’s Limit of Detection (LOD).

This article is part of a new content-sharing arrangement with the LUSH – the ethical cosmetics company that also works to support sustainable farming practices across the Globe

The Government recently announced new measures to the Housing White Paper, which improves the protection given to our rapidly disappearing ancient woodland.

Following pressure by groups such as the Woodland Trust, and the formation of a Government All Party Parliamentary Group for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, the recommendation is to toughen national policy (through clarifying Footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to give these endangered habitats the same protection afforded to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Planning Advisor for the Woodland Trust, Victoria Bankes Price writes on the organisation’s blog: “For years, we have called for the wording in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be altered so as to make it clear that any loss of ancient woodland or special trees should be ‘wholly exceptional’.

“This would give them protection comparable with heritage assets, like historic buildings, battlefields and monuments. The current wording in paragraph 118 of the NPPF leaves a serious loophole that often results in planning decisions which allow irreplaceable ancient woods to be permanently damaged or completely destroyed.

“The Government has now made it clear that it wants better protection for ancient woodland too, proposing changes to give them protection equivalent to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and designations like Green Belt. This will mean closing the loophole in paragraph 118 by getting revised wording that delivers strong, clear and effective protection.”

Presently just 2% of the UK’s land mass is classed as ancient woodland and due to the loss of most of our ancient trees, the UK has seen at least 45 rare species disappear over the past 100 years.

Chair of the APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, Rebecca Pow MP, said: “The complex eco-systems created by ancient woodland takes thousands of years to develop, which is why it is so devastating that barely any of this remains.

“It is not just the trees themselves that we have been fighting to protect, but the soils underneath these areas of woodland. These have built up over centuries and this is something that cannot simply just be recreated. Soils containing genetic material and the means to support whole groups of species, to produce life-saving treatments or combat pests making them so important and when we lose the trees, we lose the soils.

“Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are as precious as the rainforest and it is a travesty that so few remain. I have long advocated for greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats and I am delighted that the Government has listened to my calls. The Woodland Trust is currently dealing with 709 threats to ancient woodland, the highest number in its history. Hopefully the proposed new measures will help bring this number down.”

With the Government putting pressure on building more homes it is imperative that this shouldn’t be at the expense of our ancient woodland. The changes in the Housing White Paper show a commitment to creating sustainable development with minimal impact on nature.

The Woodland Trust and The Ancient Tree Forum are two organisations working to protect the remaining ancient woodlands of the UK, and both have been calling for changes in policy framework for years.

Now there will be consultations on the proposals in the Housing White Paper and hopefully these good intentions become policy which offers robust protection to these trees.

The Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign is fighting to save our irreplaceable ancient woodland. Sign the petition to show your support.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a UK based reporter

@WordsbyBriggs

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

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

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

The Government recently announced new measures to the Housing White Paper, which improves the protection given to our rapidly disappearing ancient woodland.

Following pressure by groups such as the Woodland Trust, and the formation of a Government All Party Parliamentary Group for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, the recommendation is to toughen national policy (through clarifying Footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to give these endangered habitats the same protection afforded to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Planning Advisor for the Woodland Trust, Victoria Bankes Price writes on the organisation’s blog: “For years, we have called for the wording in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be altered so as to make it clear that any loss of ancient woodland or special trees should be ‘wholly exceptional’.

“This would give them protection comparable with heritage assets, like historic buildings, battlefields and monuments. The current wording in paragraph 118 of the NPPF leaves a serious loophole that often results in planning decisions which allow irreplaceable ancient woods to be permanently damaged or completely destroyed.

“The Government has now made it clear that it wants better protection for ancient woodland too, proposing changes to give them protection equivalent to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and designations like Green Belt. This will mean closing the loophole in paragraph 118 by getting revised wording that delivers strong, clear and effective protection.”

Presently just 2% of the UK’s land mass is classed as ancient woodland and due to the loss of most of our ancient trees, the UK has seen at least 45 rare species disappear over the past 100 years.

Chair of the APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, Rebecca Pow MP, said: “The complex eco-systems created by ancient woodland takes thousands of years to develop, which is why it is so devastating that barely any of this remains.

“It is not just the trees themselves that we have been fighting to protect, but the soils underneath these areas of woodland. These have built up over centuries and this is something that cannot simply just be recreated. Soils containing genetic material and the means to support whole groups of species, to produce life-saving treatments or combat pests making them so important and when we lose the trees, we lose the soils.

“Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are as precious as the rainforest and it is a travesty that so few remain. I have long advocated for greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats and I am delighted that the Government has listened to my calls. The Woodland Trust is currently dealing with 709 threats to ancient woodland, the highest number in its history. Hopefully the proposed new measures will help bring this number down.”

With the Government putting pressure on building more homes it is imperative that this shouldn’t be at the expense of our ancient woodland. The changes in the Housing White Paper show a commitment to creating sustainable development with minimal impact on nature.

The Woodland Trust and The Ancient Tree Forum are two organisations working to protect the remaining ancient woodlands of the UK, and both have been calling for changes in policy framework for years.

Now there will be consultations on the proposals in the Housing White Paper and hopefully these good intentions become policy which offers robust protection to these trees.

The Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign is fighting to save our irreplaceable ancient woodland. Sign the petition to show your support.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a UK based reporter

@WordsbyBriggs

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

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

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.

Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding.

Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.

Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub.

But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change.

At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at greenwashing. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to put the environment and local well-being ahead of Heathrow’s growth.

An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between more planes and more pollution, or fewer planes and cleaner air.

In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of ‘sustainable aviation’ under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its ‘have your cake and eat it’ narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.

‘Decoupling aviation growth from climate change’ – really?

Nonetheless, such arguments pepper Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility.

Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of the ideology of sustainable aviation.

Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and ‘polluter pays’ policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.

But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a ‘noise envelope’ to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets.

Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.

Where is the government?

As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.

Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field.

A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the government for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport.

The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.

Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new ‘post-sustainable’ aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled.

The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges.

In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.

David Howarth is Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex.

Steven Griggs is Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort University.

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

Conflict of interest declaration: A trustee of the Resurgence Trust, Tony Juniper, acted as a paid consultant to Heathrow 2.0. This has not influenced The Ecologist’s coverage of UK aviation policy or the Heathrow third runway.