Thousands of people will join a peaceful march through the streets of central London to Downing Street on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May to oppose Theresa May’s plan to hold a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act if she wins the 8th June general election.

The ‘Make Hunting History’ march, which is expected to be the largest public protest of the entire General Election Campaign, aims to persuade May to abandon her deeply unpopular policy to bring back foxhunting, and to warn voters of the consequences to wildlife if she does not.

The march is being organised by an alliance of anti-hunt campaign groups and individuals. Speakers will include actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan and wildlife campaigner and writer, Dominic Dyer and Naturalist and TV presenter Anneka Svenska

“This protest march was planned a number of weeks ago and we have given careful consideration to continuing with the event, following the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena”, said Dominic Dyer, a co-organiser of the protest.

“However we have decided to go ahead with the march with the full support and co-operation of the police and security services, as we strongly believe that terrorists can never be allowed to stop us from exercising our right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, which is of even more importance during a General Election Campaign.

“In response to the fear and hatred of terrorism, we want to show the world that Britain is a caring and compassionate society and a beacon of light when it comes to wildlife protection and animal welfare.”

The Hunting Act must stay!

The march will see thousands of people come together from all walks of life ethnic groups and religions, he continued, “united in a common cause to prevent the repeal of the Hunting Act, which poses such a threat to foxes, hares and stags and leads to increasing levels of wildlife crime against badgers and other species.”

“The event will start with a minutes silence for the victims of the Manchester Arena terror attack, before we march on united in our resolve to make this world a better place for animals and people.”

Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham has also given his strong support to the protest march: “The ugly spectre of a legal return to fox hunting is an insult to democracy and a repugnant stain on the efforts of conservationists everywhere. We like life. We love life. All life.

“And we seek to protect and preserve it, we want as much of it to remain so our children can cherish it. The organised savagery that sees wild animals pursued and pulled to pieces by dogs is utterly incompatible with that.”

Packham added that foxhunting had nothing to do with managing wildlife populations, but only with the perverse enjoyment of participants in a cruel and archaic sport:

“This is not about animal management, about ecological balance, about ‘pest control'”, he said. “This is about killing for pleasure, killing for fun. Killing wildlife for fun is a dying business. Let’s lay it to rest … lets make foxhunting history!”

May’s big mistake must be challenged by voters

Speaking on an ITV Facebook Live event earlier this month, Theresa May sought to justify her decision to give MPs a vote on repealing the 2004 Hunting Act:

“I have always supported fox hunting, but clearly I’m not saying I’m going to bring it back. What I’m saying is we will have a free vote in Parliament so MPs will be able to make up their own mind on this issue.

“Some of the other forms of dealing with foxes can be cruel, so my view is it should be a free vote for Parliament so members of parliament individually should be able to exercise their view on this matter.”

Actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan, who will be speaking at the march, said that with Brexit, “We are about to take a major step regarding our nation’s future, I would like to think it was in better hands, than those who wish to take us backwards, to the most uncivilised, cruel and anachronistic pastimes.”

Beth Granter, Care2 Campaigner, said: “The fox hunt ban must be protected. There should be no vote on its repeal. Hundreds of thousands of Care2 members have signed multiple petitions demanding that foxes be left in peace and that Theresa May drop her calls for a hunting ban repeal vote.” 

The ‘Make Hunting History’ protest will leave Cavendish Square at 1.30pm on on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May, proceeding down Regents Street, Haymarket and around Trafalgar Square before entering Whitehall and finishing at Richmond Terrace opposite Downing Street at around 2.15pm.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Tell Mrs May: Foxhunting must remain illegal!‘

Delegates at the First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru have issued a powerful “statement from the heart“.

They called for the establishment of a “First Nations Voice” enshrined in the Australian Constitution, and a commission to progress treaty-making between governments and Indigenous people.

The Uluru statement reflects long-held Indigenous aspirations. But, in rejecting symbolic constitutional recognition, it puts pressure on Australia’s political leaders. Will they – and non-Indigenous Australians – listen?

The Uluru statement is not a unanimous view. Seven delegates walked out in protest on Thursday, concerned that any reform would lead to a loss of sovereignty. Not all returned.

However, the statement reflects a strong consensus position of Indigenous Australians. It is the culmination of three days of meetings at Uluru, which followed six months of regional dialogues held across Australia.

Grounded in their inherent right to sovereignty, the statement calls for constitutional reform to empower Indigenous people to take “a rightful place in our own country”. The delegates believe this can be achieved through:

• a national representative body with the power to advise parliament on laws that affect Indigenous people; and

• a ‘Makarrata Commission‘ to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations, and undertake a public truth-telling process.

Makarrata is a Yolngu word meaning ‘a coming together after a struggle’. These are long-held aspirations.

A rightful place in their own land – 80 years of demands ignored

Indigenous Australians have long fought for their rightful place in their own country.

In 1937, William Cooper, secretary of the Aboriginal Advancement League, gathered 1,814 signatures in a petition to King George V that called for Indigenous representation in the federal parliament. The petition was passed to Prime Minister Joseph Lyons, but cabinet refused to forward it to the king.

In 1963, the Yolngu people in eastern Arnhem Land sent a series of bark petitions to the parliament. In these they called for recognition of their land, resource and cultural rights, and their sovereignty.

The government had transferred their land to a bauxite mining company without consulting them. The Yolngu people explained that that land “has been hunting and food-gathering land for the Yirrkala tribes from time immemorial”, and the “places sacred to the Yirrkala people, as well as vital to their livelihood are in the excised land.”

They expressed their concern that “their needs and interests will be completely ignored as they have been ignored in the past.”

A few years later, in 1971, more than 1,000 Indigenous Australians signed a petition organised by the Larrakia people. They described themselves as “refugees in the country of our ancestors”, and called for land rights, a treaty, and political representation. Their voices went unheard.

In 1979, the National Aboriginal Conference, an elected Indigenous body advising government, passed a resolution calling for a ‘Makarrata‘. This resolution sparked talk of a treaty within the federal parliament.

Four years later, a Senate committee delivered a report on the idea of a treaty. It recommended constitutional change to implement a ‘compact’. That report was also ignored.

In 1998, the Barunga Statement called on the federal parliament to “negotiate with us a treaty recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedom.”

Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised to negotiate such a treaty by 1990. But no treaty was forthcoming, and it dropped off the political agenda.

This week Indigenous leaders have again called for a voice in their country. The central concern is an oft-repeated one: that, as a small minority, dispersed across the continent of their ancestors, and continuing to resist the legacy of colonialism, Indigenous Australians have almost no say about legislation that affects them.

Treaty now?

A constitutionally enshrined national representative body is an important proposal, but the Makarrata Commission is more significant.

The statement records that a “Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda.” For Indigenous people, it “captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.”

Treaties are accepted globally as the means of reaching a settlement between Indigenous peoples and those who have colonised their lands. They are formal agreements, reached via respectful negotiation conducted in good faith, that recognise an inherent right to some level of sovereignty or self-government.

Treaties have been achieved in the US and New Zealand, and are still being negotiated in Canada. In contrast, no treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has ever been recognised.

Indigenous Australians are willing to negotiate. But are non-Indigenous Australians ready to enter into respectful negotiations? Or will they, once again, ignore the invitation?

Next steps

The Uluru summit was organised by the Referendum Council, a body set up by Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten to advise on the path toward a referendum.

Through the Uluru statement, Indigenous people have invited non-Indigenous Australians to walk together for a better future. The statement is the voice of Indigenous Australians.

Now is the time for non-Indigenous Australians to hear that voice. 

Harry Hobbs is PhD Candidate, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Rights, UNSW,

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

Thousands of people will join a peaceful march through the streets of central London to Downing Street on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May to oppose Theresa May’s plan to hold a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act if she wins the 8th June general election.

The ‘Make Hunting History’ march, which is expected to be the largest public protest of the entire General Election Campaign, aims to persuade May to abandon her deeply unpopular policy to bring back foxhunting, and to warn voters of the consequences to wildlife if she does not.

The march is being organised by an alliance of anti-hunt campaign groups and individuals. Speakers will include actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan and wildlife campaigner and writer, Dominic Dyer and Naturalist and TV presenter Anneka Svenska

“This protest march was planned a number of weeks ago and we have given careful consideration to continuing with the event, following the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena”, said Dominic Dyer, a co-organiser of the protest.

“However we have decided to go ahead with the march with the full support and co-operation of the police and security services, as we strongly believe that terrorists can never be allowed to stop us from exercising our right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, which is of even more importance during a General Election Campaign.

“In response to the fear and hatred of terrorism, we want to show the world that Britain is a caring and compassionate society and a beacon of light when it comes to wildlife protection and animal welfare.”

The Hunting Act must stay!

The march will see thousands of people come together from all walks of life ethnic groups and religions, he continued, “united in a common cause to prevent the repeal of the Hunting Act, which poses such a threat to foxes, hares and stags and leads to increasing levels of wildlife crime against badgers and other species.”

“The event will start with a minutes silence for the victims of the Manchester Arena terror attack, before we march on united in our resolve to make this world a better place for animals and people.”

Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham has also given his strong support to the protest march: “The ugly spectre of a legal return to fox hunting is an insult to democracy and a repugnant stain on the efforts of conservationists everywhere. We like life. We love life. All life.

“And we seek to protect and preserve it, we want as much of it to remain so our children can cherish it. The organised savagery that sees wild animals pursued and pulled to pieces by dogs is utterly incompatible with that.”

Packham added that foxhunting had nothing to do with managing wildlife populations, but only with the perverse enjoyment of participants in a cruel and archaic sport:

“This is not about animal management, about ecological balance, about ‘pest control'”, he said. “This is about killing for pleasure, killing for fun. Killing wildlife for fun is a dying business. Let’s lay it to rest … lets make foxhunting history!”

May’s big mistake must be challenged by voters

Speaking on an ITV Facebook Live event earlier this month, Theresa May sought to justify her decision to give MPs a vote on repealing the 2004 Hunting Act:

“I have always supported fox hunting, but clearly I’m not saying I’m going to bring it back. What I’m saying is we will have a free vote in Parliament so MPs will be able to make up their own mind on this issue.

“Some of the other forms of dealing with foxes can be cruel, so my view is it should be a free vote for Parliament so members of parliament individually should be able to exercise their view on this matter.”

Actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan, who will be speaking at the march, said that with Brexit, “We are about to take a major step regarding our nation’s future, I would like to think it was in better hands, than those who wish to take us backwards, to the most uncivilised, cruel and anachronistic pastimes.”

Beth Granter, Care2 Campaigner, said: “The fox hunt ban must be protected. There should be no vote on its repeal. Hundreds of thousands of Care2 members have signed multiple petitions demanding that foxes be left in peace and that Theresa May drop her calls for a hunting ban repeal vote.” 

The ‘Make Hunting History’ protest will leave Cavendish Square at 1.30pm on on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May, proceeding down Regents Street, Haymarket and around Trafalgar Square before entering Whitehall and finishing at Richmond Terrace opposite Downing Street at around 2.15pm.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Tell Mrs May: Foxhunting must remain illegal!‘

Thousands of people will join a peaceful march through the streets of central London to Downing Street on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May to oppose Theresa May’s plan to hold a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act if she wins the 8th June general election.

The ‘Make Hunting History’ march, which is expected to be the largest public protest of the entire General Election Campaign, aims to persuade May to abandon her deeply unpopular policy to bring back foxhunting, and to warn voters of the consequences to wildlife if she does not.

The march is being organised by an alliance of anti-hunt campaign groups and individuals. Speakers will include actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan and wildlife campaigner and writer, Dominic Dyer and Naturalist and TV presenter Anneka Svenska

“This protest march was planned a number of weeks ago and we have given careful consideration to continuing with the event, following the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena”, said Dominic Dyer, a co-organiser of the protest.

“However we have decided to go ahead with the march with the full support and co-operation of the police and security services, as we strongly believe that terrorists can never be allowed to stop us from exercising our right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, which is of even more importance during a General Election Campaign.

“In response to the fear and hatred of terrorism, we want to show the world that Britain is a caring and compassionate society and a beacon of light when it comes to wildlife protection and animal welfare.”

The Hunting Act must stay!

The march will see thousands of people come together from all walks of life ethnic groups and religions, he continued, “united in a common cause to prevent the repeal of the Hunting Act, which poses such a threat to foxes, hares and stags and leads to increasing levels of wildlife crime against badgers and other species.”

“The event will start with a minutes silence for the victims of the Manchester Arena terror attack, before we march on united in our resolve to make this world a better place for animals and people.”

Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham has also given his strong support to the protest march: “The ugly spectre of a legal return to fox hunting is an insult to democracy and a repugnant stain on the efforts of conservationists everywhere. We like life. We love life. All life.

“And we seek to protect and preserve it, we want as much of it to remain so our children can cherish it. The organised savagery that sees wild animals pursued and pulled to pieces by dogs is utterly incompatible with that.”

Packham added that foxhunting had nothing to do with managing wildlife populations, but only with the perverse enjoyment of participants in a cruel and archaic sport:

“This is not about animal management, about ecological balance, about ‘pest control'”, he said. “This is about killing for pleasure, killing for fun. Killing wildlife for fun is a dying business. Let’s lay it to rest … lets make foxhunting history!”

May’s big mistake must be challenged by voters

Speaking on an ITV Facebook Live event earlier this month, Theresa May sought to justify her decision to give MPs a vote on repealing the 2004 Hunting Act:

“I have always supported fox hunting, but clearly I’m not saying I’m going to bring it back. What I’m saying is we will have a free vote in Parliament so MPs will be able to make up their own mind on this issue.

“Some of the other forms of dealing with foxes can be cruel, so my view is it should be a free vote for Parliament so members of parliament individually should be able to exercise their view on this matter.”

Actor and animal rights activist Peter Egan, who will be speaking at the march, said that with Brexit, “We are about to take a major step regarding our nation’s future, I would like to think it was in better hands, than those who wish to take us backwards, to the most uncivilised, cruel and anachronistic pastimes.”

Beth Granter, Care2 Campaigner, said: “The fox hunt ban must be protected. There should be no vote on its repeal. Hundreds of thousands of Care2 members have signed multiple petitions demanding that foxes be left in peace and that Theresa May drop her calls for a hunting ban repeal vote.” 

The ‘Make Hunting History’ protest will leave Cavendish Square at 1.30pm on on Bank Holiday Monday 29 May, proceeding down Regents Street, Haymarket and around Trafalgar Square before entering Whitehall and finishing at Richmond Terrace opposite Downing Street at around 2.15pm.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Tell Mrs May: Foxhunting must remain illegal!‘

As the leaders of the G7 meet in Italy this weekend and Donald Trump tries to work out whether he’s going to pull his country out of the Paris Agreement or not, the latest new polling shows that the British public are firmly behind two vital pieces of climate change legislation.

Polling by YouGov, published today, (26^th May, 2017) reveals that two thirds (66 per cent) of Brits say that the UK should remain part of the Paris Agreement and even more, 69 per cent, want Parliament to retain the UK’s Climate Change Act – a pioneering piece of law-making which when it was passed in 2008 set the bar for others to follow.

This comes hot on the heels of research conducted by the think tank Bright Blue, which found that Conservative voters were in favour of strengthening or maintaining a number of EU standards on the environment post-Brexit.

Eighty-five per cent of Tory voters were in favour of renewable energy generation targets, 92 per cent wanted the targets on air pollution to be kept or increased while 93 per cent wanted protections for habitats and wildlife to be preserved.

The polls clearly show that concern for the environment and the transition to a low carbon economy is now mainstream and rightly viewed as plain common sense.  Why wouldn’t we want more home grown, clean, renewable energy when it is now becoming cheaper than fossil fuels and when it is also a source of well paying, future-proof, high tech, jobs.

Richard Black, Director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit who commissioned today’s research says: “In the post-EU referendum context we’re hearing a lot about the ‘will of the people’ for Brexit – but interestingly, some of the individuals ploughing that furrow most strongly are also those calling for Britain to pull out of the Paris Agreement and scrap the Climate Change Act.

“But if you back ‘the will of the people’, you must now, after these results, back the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act, because a substantial majority of Britons support both.

“Climate change is going to be centre-stage for the G7 summit this weekend, and one presumes that the Prime Minister will, when she discusses it with President Trump, be highlighting the recently-expressed will of both the British and American peoples to see climate change brought under control.”

The wobbles from the White House over America’s approach to climate change is actually forcing other nations to step into the leadership void left by President Obama. Just this week Canada’s environment minister met with China’s climate envoy and the EU’s climate and energy commissioner to discuss how to maintain the momentum generated by the Paris Agreement.  

The irony is that Trump has spoken as if pulling out of the Paris Agreement would give his country some kind of advantage when actually the opposite is true. There are local environmental benefits from a cleaner energy system such as reduced air pollution and fewer leaky oil pipelines snaking across America’s beautiful natural landscape. 

That energy supply will also be secure, being homegrown, and cheap. The US has an abundance of solar and wind, something a number of Republican-controlled states and cities have already began to capitalise on – were it its own country Texas would be the world’s sixth largest producer of wind power.  

Should the US pull out it will also face a diplomatic backlash and global isolation as other nations express their disgust at Trump endangering the world’s shared biosphere.  For the self-styled ‘deal maker’ it will be much harder for him to get things done internationally if he tries to sabotage the climate efforts of the rest of the world.

Ultimately, climate legislation helps to drive innovation and business, pushing technological breakthroughs and helping to boost the growth of green jobs. Part of the reason for the UK’s prominent clean tech sector is thanks to the Climate Change Act, which gave business and investors the signs they needed to invest. 

It’s no wonder the British public backs it.  And further such signals from Government would no doubt be highly popular with the public from whoever wins the UK General Election on June 8.  

This Author

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a New Voices contributor for the Ecologist. Follow him at @wareisjoe

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70% of the world’s population insisted on adding a ‘conflict of interest’ provision in the negotiating text.

It almost made it – and would have done were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed.

Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change.

Research shows that at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely.

Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle.

However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda.

Big fossil and Big Tobacco: two peas in a pod

This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Taking place on 9th May, the second day of the talks, the strongest intervention came from the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

On the WHO’s behalf, Ms Johanna Gusman spoke about its struggle against a tobacco industry that had “the express intention of subverting the role of government and of the world health organisation in implementing public health policies that combat the tobacco epidemic.”

The WHO found that as long as tobacco lobbyists were allowed access to the negotiating process, ambition remained low.

The fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health policy meant the firewall the WHO eventually erected between policy makers and lobbyists (known as Article 5.3) was the only way to protect the negotiations against vested commercial interests.

Importantly, the firewall also applies to national policy-making within all 180 countries that have ratified the convention. Gusman urged the UNFCCC to “heed the [WHO’s] remarkable example” in tackling vested interests.

The claim: fossil fuel giants are climate change leaders!

Rather than heeded, her advice was angrily dismissed. First by the Australian negotiator, who claimed that Shell and ExxonMobil were leading the way in tackling the climate crisis. Then by employers’ association BusinessEurope and the International Chamber of Commerce, which count both oil majors as members.

The very notion of exclusion goes against decades of industry’s privileged access, both in the UN talks and at national level. A case in point is the European Union’s Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who used to be president of not one but two oil companies while a Member of Parliament in Spain, and is leading the EU at the climate talks.

Research from CEO shows how Big Oil and Gas enjoyed privileged access with the Commissioner since taking office, particularly those in Spain. And in the UK, an investigation last year showed more than a dozen former civil servants now lobby for the oil and gas sector, highlighting the revolving door between government and industry.

The ensuing negotiations following last week’s Bonn workshop proved equally volatile, with the US, EU and Australia trying once more to stop any attempt to address conflicts of interest. While their efforts did not entirely succeed, it will be yet another year until the issue is officially back onto the agenda.

Countries have until January to submit concrete proposals on how to “enhance effective engagement” of stakeholders, which is a stand in for ‘conflicts of interest’ as there was no agreement on mentioning it by name. This will then be discussed in May 2018: same time, same place, another year down the road.

Time is short: why wait another year?

Given the gravity of the crisis, the utter lack of ambition and the reality that time is not on our side, can we wait that long?

Fiji – an island threatened by rising sea levels – is the official President of COP23, also taking place in Bonn. Fiji and other Pacific Islands have already called for a moratorium on new coal mines. But taking down the fossil fuel industry means starving them of influence.

The World Health Organisation’s Johanna Gusman spelled it out: ambitious targets cannot and will not be agreed with industry representatives at the negotiating table. Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from COP23 in November would represent a giant step forward in getting there.

Pascoe Sabido is Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

This article was originally published here on Desmog.uk.

We are fast becoming an urban sprawl and as development takes over our green and pleasant land, we’re having to come up with better landscaping solutions to cling on our tranquil oases and prevent ourselves being stifled by concrete and sky-rise tower blocks.

Walking around the beautiful green spaces at this year’s Chelsea flower show it was easy to forget that I’d just fought my way through traffic and pounded the concrete for what seemed like miles trying not to breathe in the pollution that hung low in the air on an incredibly hot and heavy Monday.

One of the most talked about gardens this year, the RHS Greening Grey Britain garden designed by Nigel Dunnett, focused on meeting the challenges of climate change. Set to a backdrop of a high-rise flats and apartment-block cut-outs, it features pollution-soaking plants, a water-sensitive design and claims to inspire urban development. The show garden certainly met its brief – it was beautiful and sensitive to its surroundings, but I was acutely aware of how many of Chelsea’s displays used the garden to re-green an otherwise desolate landscape. It felt like the garden was secondary to the office blocks and man-made structures. Perhaps these days it is.

The ideas of course are inspiring – low-input, high impact planting is used, with multi-tiered habitats known as creature towers, recycling and composting facilities and edible planting – but it showed how far we have moved away from gardens in their own right. Most of us now have little space or time for gardens, and areas of green are highly prized – so much so that Indoor Garden Design, in co-creation with IKEA, was showcasing how best to bring plants into the home. (Three walk-through rooms highlight the scientifically-proven health benefits associated with having plants indoors.)

Experts understand that plants act as pollution sponges, absorbing carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds released from man-made products, and the science behind horticulture is a big focus at Chelsea again this year. Its Discovery Zone features the power of plants and their cancer-busting properties, the psychological benefits being around plants delivers and of course, the environment.

Sustainable growing technology is demonstrated by AutoPot Global Ltd, with a piece that explored the possibility of putting up greenhouses within or near to refugee camps to help people grow their own food despite those hostile environments. Bioscience International’s CABI exhibit explores the natural solutions to the problem of invasive plants, and Kew spotlights the exciting plant discoveries and the importance of promoting their conservation and sustainable use.

The STEM Surrounds US exhibit from The Animal and Plant Health Agency demonstrated how Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are now being used by Government, businesses and individuals to protect the country from ongoing threats to tree and plant health.

The show garden that really stood out for me was a reflection of where we are all heading in terms of development. The Chengdu Silk Road Garden, by Laurie Chetwood and Patrick Collins demonstrated how the Chengdu Government in China has responded to enormous population growth over the past 20 years.

The Green Walls of China involves the design and build of 20 massive gardens circling the city. Linked by a green linear park, the green wall acts as amenity space for residents and also carries out an important environmental role. As Chengdu is located in a sub-tropical area at the height of summer conditions get humid but by harnessing the prevailing easterly wind and funnelling it through the ‘fins’ of the gardens(see our main image) to the east of the city, wind can be initially cooled as it crosses man-made lakes. The wind speed is increased as it is forced between these narrow ‘fins’ and this helps to clear the air, before it is expelled from the city. This phenomenal concept shows what lengths are needed to clean our cities and how much we need to reconnect with the natural resources we have left.

What concerns me is that we seem less interested in conserving the natural areas we already have, and more focused on recreating new green spaces in our cities and urban areas.

If I’d my pick, I’d have taken home the Poetry Lover’s Garden, by Fiona Cadwallader Designs, inspired by Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s romantic poem This Lime Tree Bower My Prison. No sign of sky-rise flats, not a hint at over-development, instead a piece of wilderness harnessing nature to create a meditative space. The bees loved this garden as much as I did; bean flowers, lime trees, bearded iris and geranium mixed with muted greys and greens made this garden feel for me like the most natural of all.

And hardly surprising then that on leaving the calm, green grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea in London I found myself hurled headlong back into the centre another metropolitan sprawl whilst trying to come up with ideas on how to bring green spaces into my own urban landscape.

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs