Monthly Archives: July 2017

Wendell Berry – poet, essayist, farmer, activist, rural philosopher

‘Look and see’ was the gentle instruction that Berry gave to his young daughter, Mary, as he shared with her the world around them. In 1965, when she was seven years old, Berry returned his family home to Kentucky after living in California, Europe and New York, turning away from the literary and academic path chosen by many American writers to farm, as five generations of his family had done before him. He, with his wife Tanya, began a life of farming, writing and teaching and, in the last half century, he has seen Henry County, like many rural communities across America, become a place of quiet ideological struggle.

In the span of a generation, the agrarian virtues of simplicity, land stewardship, sustainable farming, local economies and rootedness to place have been replaced by a capital-intensive model of industrial agriculture characterised by machine labour, chemical fertilisers, soil erosion and debt – all of which have frayed the fabric of rural communities.

Filmed across four seasons in the farming cycle, Look and See blends observational scenes of farming life, interviews with farmers and community members with beautiful footage of the surrounding landscape interspersed with stills from Kentucky photographer, poet and writer friend James Baker Hall, and archive coverage of Berry speaking at the Agriculture for a Small Planet Symposium on July 1st 1974. It was Berry’s talk at this event that led indirectly to the establishment of the Tilth Alliance – to build an ecologically sound, economically viable and socially equitable food system – and a conference on Alternative Agriculture in Ellensberg, Washington the following November.

In Berry’s poetry collection A Timbered Choir: The Sabbath Poems, he coins the military phrase ‘for the sake of the objective’ to describe a kind of war waged on America’s land by the industrialisation of farming, and this served as something of a lodestar for Look and See‘s director, Laura Dunn, who uses Berry’s narration of his poem in the film: ‘I visited the offices where for the sake of the objective/the planners planned at blank desks set in rows./I visited the loud factories where the machines were made/that would drive ever forward toward the objective./I saw the forest reduced to stumps and gullies;/I saw the poisoned river-the mountain cast into the valley;/I came to the city that nobody recognized because it looked like every other city.

It was in 1974, 12 years after publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and four years after the first Earth Day, that the US Department of Agriculture’s promotion of the industrialisation of farming, advocated by the then Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, drastically changed federal agriculture policy and led to the demise of small, family-run and community-based farms. This policy, based on mass mechanisation of farming and profit-led, changed the profile of American farming forever.

Previously an agrarian nation, with a commitment and attachment to the land – where 45% of the population farmed – today in America that figure is just 4%, and the number of farms has more than halved with 5.65m farms becoming just 2.17m. As Berry notes, all the traditional standards of farming have been replaced by technology ‘whose only standard is profit’ and a rise in soil erosion, toxicity and polluted rivers.

In 1977, disturbed that technology had made the relationship between people and land increasingly irrelevant, Berry wrote his classic work The Unsettling of America, eloquently arguing that good farming is a cultural development and spiritual discipline, while agribusiness takes it out of its cultural context and away from communities. As a result, and even more so today, he argued that America is estranged from the land, its intimate knowledge, love and care for it. For Berry, the words of W B Yeat’s poem The Second Coming were ringing true: ‘the centre cannot hold’.

For Steve Smith, Berry’s son-in-law, it was this book and Eliot Coleman’s 1989 publication, The New Organic Grower, which contributed to his own farming ethos. A contributor to the film, Smith is pragmatic but hopeful and believes that, ‘with a little bit of care, the land will respond’, as he and Mary continue to farm in a way that is sustainable, while also running the Berry Center, custodians for their three daughters and the generations to come.

Described by the New York Times in 1988 as the ‘prophet of rural America’, Look and See pays tribute to Wendell Berry’s philosophy and lifetime commitment to the land, but it is his poetry that may first bring many of us this increasingly relevant conversation captured so lyrically in Laura Dunn’s new film.

Look and See is directed by Laura Dunn, produced by Robert Redford and Terrence Malick and released in the United States in July.

The Unsettling of America, A Timbered Choir: The Sabbath Poems and other works by Wendell Berry are published by Counterpoint Press.

This Author

Harriet Griffey is Cultural Editor at The Ecologist and also editorial consultant to One Hand Clapping magazine.

 

 

 

We need rights of nature legislation now to protect our home planet

The ocean covers over seventy percent of our planet, generates over fifty percent of the oxygen, regulates climate and provides food and jobs for hundreds of millions of people. It is truly the source of life. Current changes to its systems and cycles spread far beyond the deep onto land, generating concerns for the future.

These concerns were expressed at the first United Nations Ocean Conference – which brought together governments, stakeholders, businesses, and civil society representatives worldwide to “reverse the decline in the health of our ocean for people, planet and prosperity.” 

Co-hosted by countries Sweden and Fiji, the conference took place in June this year at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. More than 6,000 people participated and over 1,300 voluntary commitments to conserve and sustainably use our oceans were made.

Issues discussed ranged from overfishing to climate change, to plastic and noise pollution, to deep-sea mining and high seas governance. The coming together to protect and conserve our shared ocean was a truly inspiring and momentous occasion.

Most participants spoke on their work to advance Sustainable Development Goal 14: to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. 

A new paradigm for ocean governance

We at the Earth Law Center (ELC) saw the ocean conference as an opportunity to begin building support for a new paradigm for ocean governance: one that focuses on the ocean’s own well-being and is guided by principles of sustainability, ecosystem health, precaution and interconnectedness.

The Earth Law Center has a long record of working on ocean and coastal issues, and as a result, has experienced firsthand the need to promote a new way forward. Despite international laws and agreements designed to sustain and protect the ocean, marine biodiversity and health is in decline.

This is because current ocean law and policy is largely based on economics, rather than science and the rule of law. We treat the ocean as an infinite ‘resource’, with value derived from human use and utility, when in fact, it is a finite entity with its own limits and intrinsic worth.

Environmental laws have become a result of negotiation, allowing industry to continue to pollute and degrade natural ecosystems with the false assumption that activities that support conservation are costs to our economy. As a result, current ocean law and policy largely focuses on the impacts to humans, rather than the impacts to the ocean or the Earth as a whole.

Take for example the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) was enacted in the United States in 1976 to “prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long- term economic and social benefits and to ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood.”

The MSA at first glance, appears to aim for the conservation and restoration of fish populations, but we are still seeing fisheries collapse; in 2016 NOAA identified nine percent of US stocks on the overfishing list and 16 percent on the overfished list. A further look at the MSA reveals why we cannot fully prevent overfishing.

A stated purpose of the MSA is “to provide for the preparation and implementation… of fishery management plans which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery,” where optimum is defined as the “amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation.”

As a result, fishing quotas are based on “maximum sustainable yield,” which is a theoretical level of harvest that will allow fish populations to replenish themselves. This is why we are getting into trouble. We are basing the management of our activities on sole benefit to ourselves, and on a metric which is known to be “devilishly hard to predict accurately” and that does not take into account other factors affecting fish mortality – other predators, natural events, pollutants, and so on.

Rather than aiming to prevent collapse, why not shift our approach towards aiming to maintain healthy and thriving populations? This is where a holistic and ocean-rights based approach provides a means to an end.

Rather than asking ourselves what level of fishing provides the greatest benefit to us, we start asking what level of fishing provides the greatest benefit to the whole of the Earth community; all systems, species and ecosystems. We shift our approach to ensure the basic needs of all species are fulfilled, now and into the future.

Though not specifically calling for the adoption of ocean-rights based governance, countries and participants at the conference called for the change that an ocean-based approach would provide.

Papua New Guinea recognized the need for a paradigm shift and called on the UN to adopt a ‘Call for Action’ which takes seriously our “collective duty and responsibility” to halt the decline of the health of the oceans and seas.

China reaffirmed the need to “preserve the harmony between man and nature, treating man and nature as equals” and to “achieve development without damaging the environment.”

Belgium, expressed the need to base development on a “holistic and system approach” and reminded us that “we do not possess the ocean.”

The UN Chief António Guterres urged governments and stakeholders alike to “put aside short-term gain” in order to protect the ocean, which “represents the lifeblood of our planet.”

The conference ended with an “intergovernmentally agreed upon declaration in the form of a ‘Call for Action’ to support the implementation of Goal 14.” Though the document does not list adopting holistic and rights-based governance as a measure to conserve and sustainably use the ocean, ELC will continue to garner support and promote this approach within the United Nations and International Treaty Law.

The paradigm ELC is promoting is inherently logical. Human welfare is tied to the welfare of the Earth. Because of this, “development must be based on ‘ecological foundations’ that recognize the integral processes of the biosphere and the need for harmony and balance among all elements of the system.”

Implementing Rights of Nature legislation allows for such a basis, by recognizing that rights originate from existence and that humans are a part of the Earth, not above it. Such is the rule of law. Since we are not above the Earth, our laws should not place us as so. Our laws must respect natural laws. 

We are reversing the tide

By adopting the rights of nature, and in this case the ocean, into our governance systems, we become better stewards, ensuring that our activities do not violate the ocean’s rights to life, to health, to be free of pollution and to continue its vital cycles.

The Rights of Nature and Earth Law movement has seen tremendous success recently. It was listed as a top 10 grassroots movement taking on the world by Shift Magazine in 2015. In 2017 alone, four rivers have been granted legal personhood status, that is, they have been granted the same legal rights as a juristic person. They include the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers in India, and the Atrato River in Colombia.

These successes have largely focused on land-based ecosystems to date, with only Ecuador, the first country to adopt Rights of Nature into its constitution, to manage the Galapagos Islands and marine protected areas within through governing principles. This includes ‘‘[a]n equilibrium among the society, the economy, and nature; cautionary measures to limit risks; respect for the rights of nature; restoration in cases of damage; and citizen participation.”

There is no better time than the present to apply this movement to all Earth’s ecosystems. We are reversing the tide. Many organizations have already begun work with Earth Law Center to create legal rights for marine protected areas or sanctuaries in their respective countries, including Uruguay, Argentina, Costa Rica and Australia. Creating holistic and rights-based laws to protect the ocean will not be easy, and there will be much resistance, but it is a necessary step to not only ensure that we restore the health of the ocean, but protect our future.

About This Author:

Michelle Bender is the Ocean Rights Manager at the Earth Law Center.

 

UK Artists showcase the plight of the disappearing British bee

A newly-restored, 14th-century gallery, perched high on a plateau above the mournful Somerset levels, has been swarmed by bees – fifty of them to be precise.

Like drones returning home, they have followed their Queen, the fibre artist and sculpturist Lydia Needle who is the driving force behind an exhibition of work called Fifty bees: the interconnectedness of all things.

For almost a year, Lydia has delicately crafted 50 almost life-size British bee pieces made with dyed wool, embroidery and fine gold gilding. She explains: “I then invited another fifty artists, makers, writers and musicians to produce one piece in response to the habitat, linked wildlife, ecology, flight or sound of one of those bees.”

The results, on show until 22nd July, in the beautiful light-filled space of the ACE Arts Gallery in the medieval market town of Somerton are captivating. There are 262 bee species in Britain, which include 24 types of bumblebee, 225 sorts of solitary bee, but just the one honeybee. Many are in decline. Needle explains, “I wanted to illustrate how diverse and endangered our bee population is and how pivotal they all are to our ecosystem.

For me, it wasn’t just about having a forum and excuse to make new work. The idea was to ensure that gallery visitors not only saw amazing pieces, but that they were also inspired and enthused to make small changes in their gardens or to spread the word about the plight of our pollinators. For that to happen, we needed artworks that speak to everyone.”

Installation pieces such as Joy Merron’s Flight path of the Shrill carder bee imaginatively fulfill that brief. Merron uses embroidery floss and Japanese net to trace the zig-zagging flight of one of the UK’s rarest bumblebees and produce an ingenious 3D colour map. The artist says: “The stitches follow a series of Zs that echoes the bees’ high-pitched buzz. As they don’t travel far, relying on nearby flower-rich meadows and grasslands, the stitching is dense. Aiming to encompass flight and foraging patterns, I have used seven colours of thread to represent seven areas of the UK where this increasingly rare bee is still found.”

Andrena ferox, the Oak Mining Bee, naturally resonated with graphite artist Paul Newman whose intensely detailed pencil studies feature many trees. In Newman’s immersive depiction Queen of the Woods, the artist was beguiled by the oak’s form and the way the main trunk had split and twisted over time. He says: “This tree is located on the RSPB reserve at Ynys-Hir in Wales. I sat under it for an hour while a raven moved about above me, calling across the salt marsh, which lay below. I kept thinking about scale while working on this piece – the tiny bee moving about the foliage, interconnected and a necessary part of the oak’s life.”

The symbiotic relationship between two types of bee is highlighted in Rowena Payne’s exuberant summer-coloured Bee’s eye view. Payne reveals the sad story behind her joyous watercolour: “My response piece shows ‘my bee’, the Large Scabious Bee, Andrena hattorfiana, prospecting for nectar in a bed of field scabious. It depends upon the nectar of this wildflower but, sadly, this flower is in decline. This means the Cuckoo Bee that is dependent upon the Scabious Bee is also declining. They are both classed as rare/vulnerable and on the ‘at risk register’.”

The thoughtful beauty of the works is a much-appreciated balance to the worrying message behind many of the pieces and, where possible, there are positive notes too. For example, the Tormentil Mining Bee is a subject chosen by Deborah Westmancoat. Her atmospheric piece Ocellus links the close-to-collapse species and its shrinking listed habitat. Westmancoat has created a fascinating textured piece with handmade inks and rainwater collected from a location on Dartmoor in Devon where a sighting of the elusive bee was recently recorded.

Louisa Crispin’s Study of a Bumblebee 013 records the tragic tale of the Short-haired Bumblebee. Once widespread across the south of England, it was declared extinct in the UK in 2000. Crispin exhibits a daintily ethereal depiction of the bee in the equally otherworldly landscape of Dungeness, Kent, where a project is underway to re-introduce a swarm.

Carefully foraged plants that produce rich, natural dyes for hand-spun yarn form the basis of an installation by Helen Hickman. And for additional impact, it is suspended inside a beekeeper’s honey-stained brood frame. It was inspired by the landscape she shares with the brilliantly alliterative Bilberry Bumble Bee. “Surrounded by species-rich heath and peat bogs in the Welsh hills,” Hickman says, “the Bilberry is drawn to plants such as gorse, blackberry and of course, bilberries, which line the banks here.”

While I was in Somerton the interconnectedness of the new ACE Arts gallery and Needle’s campaigning exhibition was clearly having the same effect on a broader level, drawing in people like bees to a honeypot.

ACEarts gallery: www.acearts.co.uk

Lydia Needle: lydianeedle.com

 

This Author

Gary Cook is a conservation artist and the Ecologist’s Arts Editor

Latest coverage: My Antarctic diary published in The Ecologist

 Online: cookthepainter.com

Twitter: twitter.com/cookthepainter

Instagram: instagram.com/cookthepainter

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

Blog: cookthepainter.com/blog

The Ecologist: tinyurl.com/zpkefjc

 

 

‘Executed’ at home: the price one environmentalist couple paid to protect forests

Reported killings of environmentalists globally had reached a record high in 2015 with 185 deaths recorded in 16 countries. The victims included activists and indigenous families and leaders, such as Berta Cáceres. What they had in common is their struggle to defend statutory rights: human rights, indigenous rights and environmental rights.

 

And yet 2016 claimed even more lives in the struggle for environmental justice. The scope of research broadened and studies intensified as each new headline attracted more international attention.  A total of 281 killings of environmentalists has now been documented for the year across 25 countries.

 

The rising tide of violence has even spread to include government officials. Luiz Araújo, the environmental secretary to the Brazilian city of Altamira, in the northern Amazon, was murdered after conducting an investigation into the death of thousands of fish and illegal logging related to the company Norte Energia, which was then fined $11 million for the environmental catastrophes.

 

An environmental victory that cost lives

 

Aysin Buyuknohutcu and her husband Ali were shot dead in their countryside house in southern Turkey. The couple were well-known for their environmental and consumer rights activism. For six years they had led both a civil campaign and a lawsuit against destructive stone and marble quarries in Antalya, a Mediterranean city in southern Turkey.

 

The adverse environmental effects of open pit mining, particularly of those in Antalya, have been reported now and then. Over the course of the campaign, Aysin and Ali managed to have the operations of a marble quarry, operated by the local mining company Bartu Mermer, permanently shut down.

 

The struggle escalated during 2016, when Ali shared photographs and video on social media depicting the deforestation of highly-valued endemic Calabrian pine and cedar tree groves around the open pits, and publicly denounced the company.

 

The company sued Ali, accusing him of defamation. In the end, Ali was acquitted in court, and on top of that the judge cancelled the company’s operating license in the area. The final verdict by the state council in response to the company’s appeal also approved the decision of the regional court – securing an absolute victory for the environmentalist couple.

 

During the press conference following the lawsuit, Ali gave the following speech: “I am fulfilling my duty to protect nature according to the 56th article of constitution. It reads: ‘Protecting nature is the duty of all citizens’ …. [The companies] threatened and daunted the local supporters to stop our campaign …. Yet the final situation became not only a landmark to Antalya but to all our country. Before, citizens were scared to sue companies – now the decision will encourage all environmentalists.”

 

The verdict suggested that the operations of the company were incompatible with environmental regulations. The quarry was located near a site of  unique natural heritage and the state council required any company working in the area to submit a vital environmental impact assessment (EIA) report.

 

However, on this occasion the local government had unlawfully allowed Bartu Mermer to go ahead without the EIA. The circumstances surrounding this decision remain obscure.

 

The verdict in Ali’s case now severely restricts any future mining projects. More importantly, it leads the way for further proceedings against the remaining 13 stone quarries operating in the area, since they have apparently also failed to submit the necessary EIA reports.

 

The verdict was not the end of the struggle for Aysin and Ali. Far from it. A month after the court decision the couple’s dogs were poisoned. Then there was a forest fire close to their home. And two weeks later Aysin and Ali were found shot dead – apparently executed –  at their countryside house. A suspect was soon arrested. He testified that he was responsible for the shooting. He claimed he had been offered 50,000 Turkish Lira – £10,600 – by an anonymous quarry owner.

 

The Republican People’s Party (CHP), the opposition party in Turkey, has recently raised questions about the case during regular parliamentary meetings, requesting a special investigation to involve all stakeholders involved in the case. A member of parliament asked the Minister of Justice: “Are you going to investigate the connection between the murder of Ali Buyuknohutcu and his environmentalist struggle and legal victory?”

 

The criminal investigation is ongoing despite the breakdown of the rule of law in Turkey. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the 69-year-old opposition party leader, has even joined the march for justice from the capital Ankara to Istanbul for the last three weeks. He has been accompanied by thousands of Turkish protesters, several MEPs and a horde of police officers.

 

The crowd is walking up to 12 miles each day with a single motto of a single word: justice. The Justice March represents a shift of the opposition party’s rhetoric from ‘secularism’ to ‘justice’, which, sadly, reflects the increasing number of environmental conflicts in Turkey, as well as the increasing need for justice.

 

A bloody battleground

 

The case of Aysin and Ali is part of a much bigger picture, where the environment is emerging as a bloody battleground for communities and activists. Whenever industries push deeper into new territories we witness local communities taking a stand against the infringers. The Atlas of Environmental Justice has now documented more than 2,100 cases.

 

But we also witness the very same local communities getting rapidly surrounded by state forces, private security companies and – shockingly – targeted at times by contract killers. The calamity that devastated the Buyuknohutcu family proves the vulnerability of environmentalists and environmentalism once again.

 

A-Platform, a large environmental CSO, has now called on the government in Turkey for immediate action to maintain justice and leave no space for a justice gap over the couple’s assassination. It has stated: “Any judicial inertia or impunity at this point would put many lives at stake in future.”

 

Despite a cost of two invaluable lives, the verdict on the marble quarry stands as a great precedent for successors of the environmentalist couple.

 

This Author

 

Burag Gurden is a postgraduate student at Lund University. He is also a freelance writer and contributor to the British ‘International Development Journal’, Turkish ‘Dunya Gazetesi’ and the international ‘Words in the Bucket’ community. Currently he is working at the EnvJustice project.

 

Exposed: The Chinese town at the centre of global ivory smuggling

Shuidong town is home to a network of ivory trafficking syndicates whose reach extends to East and West Africa, including the elephant poaching hotspots of Tanzania and Mozambique.

One syndicate member told undercover investigators that Shuidong is the destination for a staggering 80 per cent of all poached ivory smuggled into China from Africa.

A new report, The Shuidong Connection: Exposing the global hub of the illegal ivory trade, by the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is the culmination of almost three years of painstaking undercover work during which investigators infiltrated one of the leading syndicates. This involved tracking a shipment of more than two tonnes of tusks from northern Mozambique to Shuidong, providing unique insights into the workings of an active ivory smuggling gang.

EIA first encountered the Shuidong smugglers in September 2014 whilst investigating the catastrophic poaching of elephants in Tanzania. In Zanzibar, the main gateway for shipments of tusks flowing out of Tanzania, EIA met with a sea cucumber trader from Shuidong who revealed that a community of his compatriots in Zanzibar was behind the smuggling, with a single group sending out 20 shipments to China in just one year.

They form part of an international network of people from Shuidong supplying the booming Chinese market for sea cucumbers and so with their knowledge of working in Africa and supply routes to China, their presence in strategic coastal towns and their business cover, the Shuidong traders in East and West Africa were ideally positioned to move into the illegal ivory trade.

In April 2016, EIA investigators travelled to Mozambique to ground-truth rumours that ivory traffickers were switching their focus from Tanzania as a result of improved enforcement efforts and prosecutions. In the port town of Pemba, they encountered a group of three Chinese nationals who were conspicuous because of their unique dialect – they were all from Shuidong.

Posing as potential ivory traders and logistics specialists, the investigators gradually gained the trust of the syndicate partners; over the course of more than a year and through multiple meetings, they were able to piece together a detailed picture of the enormous scale and nature scale of the operations, which involves:

  • engagement of trusted Africa-based fixers to consolidate shipments of poached ivory in secure locations
  • key Chinese syndicate players travelling to Africa to inspect tusks for quality and, subsequently, to African ports to remotely observe loading onto vessels
  • bribing key customs and border enforcement personnel as well as freight agents
  • concealing tusks in innocuous-looking shipments of plastic pellets
  • using historically secure smuggling routes dotted with accomplices at every stage, known as ‘owning the road’
  • obscuring the origin of shipping containers of ivory by sending them to be reloaded in transit countries such as South Korea
  • the ability to swiftly diversify into other illegal wildlife products such as pangolin scales, totoaba fish maw and rhino horn as demand and supplies varied
  • continuously re-investing criminal profits into new ivory and other wildlife shipments.

Despite the Chinese Government’s laudable decision to close its domestic ivory market, leading to a fall in price for ivory tusks in the country, the smuggling group was still active as of late June 2017, extending its operations to West Africa to source lucrative tusks poached from forest elephants.    

Mary Rice, EIA Executive Director, says: “The Chinese Government’s decision to shut its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017 is an admirable response to mounting international pressure to end the industrial-scale slaughter of Africa’s elephants. 

“What EIA discovered in Shuidong, however, clearly shows transnational criminal networks are operating with near-total impunity. It is vital that enforcement agencies in Africa and China put these criminals out of business immediately.”

Julian Newman, EIA Campaigns Director, adds: “EIA has shared, in confidence, the detailed intelligence unearthed during the course of the Shuidong investigation with relevant Government departments and enforcement agencies and looks to them to use it. Action is needed to end this huge criminal enterprise which is devastating Africa’s elephant populations.”

www.eia-international.org

 

 

 

 

Nature’s soundscapes: protecting personal and planetary silence

Something urged me up onto Dartmoor the other Sunday night. A combination of incredible weather, the fact I had nowhere to be on Monday morning, and a desire for an earthy, elemental withdrawal. I took a book but needn’t have bothered, because my 12 hours were filled with watching, waiting, listening (and not much sleep). 12 hours of hypnotic wonder and pure joy. The weather was warm and still, the night was quiet and grand. Only by opening my eyes and seeing a sky full of Milky Way above did I really believe I was sleeping in a bivvy bag on Dartmoor.

Stillness settled like a blanket. Daylight gave way to the gloaming, and then to night, like acts of a play. The main players emerged – the joyful trilling of a blackbird handing over to the slow wise call of an owl, the incessant purring of a nightjar, and even the squeaks and snorts of a hare (I learned afterwards that I’d heard hares calling when by chance, a radio programme about hares came on the next day).

I’d felt drawn to spending a night on Dartmoor, paradoxically to feel whole and like ‘me’ again, whilst also wanting to blur into Earth below and galaxy above. I was also simply seeking stillness and silence; it felt essential. A descending quiet followed the animal orchestra, and felt as refreshing as cool water on a hot day. I caught myself frequently grinning, full of joy. The night became a series of gifts – animal calls, sunset, smells, colours, stars and planets, silence and finally, sunrise.

Noise pollution

 But these spaces for stillness and silence, whether experienced individually or globally, feel increasingly rare. We hear – and experience – that the world is getting noisier, and perhaps nowhere shows this quite like the stark, white silence of the Arctic.

Here, as a recent TED talk explains, human activity and climate change is, amongst other things, increasing noise pollution. Melting sea ice is exposing swathes of water, creating a bigger surface for waves to bubble and crash on, and a bigger surface for oil searches, fishing boats, research vessels and tourism to cut through. The noise is harming the communication and navigation abilities of native whales, which use intricate and haunting sonic songs to connect over vast distances. Add to this the pressure from southern ocean species like Orca and blue whales that are heading north because of warming seas, and the environment is becoming busier, cacophonous. Ancient underwater creatures are becoming stressed and lost.

I wonder how noise in our own environment might be impacting our ability to communicate, and to navigate life? Traffic; TV; agendas; words; ‘news’; pictures; insistent pings of phones – we get so used to all this supposedly important noise, that when quiet comes it rings painfully in our ears, or worse, we come to fear and avoid the silences and the space. It becomes a tomblike hole that must be filled, for fear of what might be discovered if we look inside.

Protecting silence, globally and personally

In defending Arctic habitats and the creatures that call them home, solutions include getting ships to slow down, and restricting access in certain seasons and areas that are important to mating or feeding, so as to quiet the underwater soundscape. Of course, we need to stop runaway climate change, which would ultimately protect the Arctic and everywhere else, but I like the intention of a move that will simply make things quieter, protecting beauty and wild things for their own sake.

William Blake spoke of seeing: “…a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower“. On Dartmoor, I didn’t read a single word of the book I took with me because I was entranced by imagined stories of ancient granite rocks; by colours that were created for this place; by the luck of hearing a nightjar; and by seeing Jupiter step out against an indigo canvas, followed by a legion of stars. The ‘entertainment’ was slow, but addictive. I watched (what I think was) a kind of gorse plant produce foam; moorland that turned from gold to brown to purple to grey; I saw birds diving to catch midges and moths (I think they were nightjars again); and when it was dark I saw the silhouette of a big bird hovering above me – cue hairs standing on the back of neck. The wonder forced to me to pay attention, quiet my mind, and simply watch the small things – which really are the truly eternal, vast and wise things.

We must create and protect stillness and silence in our own lives, before – like the Arctic sea creatures – we too become disoriented, stressed and lost, thereby further stressing our planet, for what we do to ourselves we do to our planet, and vice versa. Quakers, contemplatives, Buddhists and others know this and practice, even revere, silence.

How can we seek more stillness in our lives than an hour of yoga (with instructors telling us what to do), or going running (with headphones in our ears)? These things are nourishing, but if possible, physically being still in a wild space – a woodland, a moor, a mountain, a cliff top — seems to accelerate the ability to get out of headspace and into bodyspace, and finally out into wildspace; the world beyond head and body. I think it is there that we find simultaneously the shape of ourselves, alongside an awareness of connection to everything else – where your thoughts become so quieted that you can’t tell where you end and the cosmos and everything in it begins.

My instinct and experience tells me that it is from here that we might hear the small and grand questions and solutions to personal and collective challenges. If the world is in a grain of sand, just imagine what might be in an Arctic ecosystem, a community, or a human being — if only we might bravely create the stillness and silence to meet it and hear it.

For a fascinating look at how silence is used and even revered in culture, art, faith and elsewhere, I highly recommend Graham Turner’s book,’The Power of Silence. To watch the TED Talk about noise pollution in the Arctic Ocean, , see here.

For guidance about where you can wild camp on Dartmoor, see the camping map here.

This Author

Elizabeth Wainwright is the Ecologist’s Nature Editor. She spends her time between Devon and London, and loves wild spaces. She also co-leads a global community development charity.

Twitter: @LizWainwright

www.ElizabethJayneWainwright.com 

 

 

Brexit will have devastating consequences for the environment – and that’s no accident

“Do you try and win votes over the important issues (which means fighting the battle on basically unfavourable ground)? Or do you forget about winning voters over and concentrate on trying to convince them that the unimportant issues (on which they are already on your side) are really important? For a variety of reasons the Tory strategists eventually plumped for the second course. I believe they were right to so do.” 

The ‘Scapegoat’ is Europe

Immigration is in reality an unimportant issue. Immigrants make a “vital” contribution to the UK economy. And yet immigration dominated the Brexit campaign. Brexit in turn dominated the general election with Theresa May demanding a mandate for the negotiations with the rest of the European Union. 

The dog-whistle politics of the Tories and UKIP seemed to deafen swathes of the electorate to the important issues: the government’s responsibility for a moribund economy, chronic housing shortages, fatal cuts to public services, the sell-off of the NHS, and the crisis of climate change. 

The Tories convinced some British white working class voters that immigration was really important because it was an issue on which white politicians appeared to be on the same side. And everybody forgot about the Tory donors and their magic money tree

Crisis in Housing, Health, Employment 

It’s a very old trick. The quote above is from Lord Lawson, the chairman of the Vote Leave campaign. But it does not refer to the recent Brexit crisis. 

It’s Lawson’s contemporaneous analysis of the 1964 general election for the Financial Times. He humbly coined it “Lawson’s law of election campaigning” in his self-serving autobiography, The View from Number 11: Memoirs of a Radical Tory

The Tories convinced many that immigration was the problem. But May as home secretary failed to solve the ‘problem’ of immigration. This allowed the Brexiteers to present Brexit as the solution to immigration, and by implication the crisis in housing, health, employment.

Poisoned Air and Rivers

My investigation for openDemocracy suggests that immigration was only of marginal importance even to those who ran the Brexit campaign. They knew it would win votes.  

What they really wanted was to leave Europe, and leave behind environmental regulations and human rights legislation designed to protect the population from poisoned air and rivers, from dangerously long working hours, and from climate change. 

The key question I attempting to answer in the Brexit Inc. series for openDemocracy is, why hasn’t Britain done more to protect the environment and prevent run-away climate change? The threat is extreme, and very real. 

The Countervailing Force is Business 

Environmental campaigners have since the early 1970s fought hard to force governments around the world to protect their citizens, and the natural environment that is the material substance of their nation. But fight for the environment is far from over, and we’re losing badly. 

Brexit means this conflict will now take place in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay, Stormont (and possibly Dublin) rather than Brussels. But why are the politicians resistant to the pressure of the environmental groups and their supporters? 

The public, the environment charities, those politicians who are seriously concerned about climate change represent a serious force. But the countervailing force is business – micro, small, monopoly and transnational.

Hating Environmental Regulations

What does this look like up close? How did businesses influence the Brexit campaign? Was the business community split? And how did the industrial wing of the Brexit campaign succeed?

Our investigation into the Brexit campaign has established that most of the people publicly involved in the Brexit campaign are small to medium businessmen who see regulation and government as an impediment to profit and success.

The European Union is seen – rightly – as an instrument of regulation and state restrictions on the private sector. It is therefore deeply resented. In particular, the business people involved in Vote Leave and Business for Britain hate environmental regulations and the working time directive.

“Regulation Costs Business”

Business for Britain, one of the two main Brexit campaign groups, raised concerns about regulations designed to reduce emissions, including from the transport sector. Many of those involved work directly or indirectly for companies with high intensity emissions. They made sure their core supporters understood the important issues.

Business for Britain released a press release early in its campaign, headlined “New Research Reveals £12bn Cost of Lisbon Treaty to British Businesses”.

It stated: “Research by Business for Britain, based on official Government data, finds that EU regulation stemming from the Lisbon Treaty has cost UK businesses £12.2bn since December 2009, and currently hits British companies for £6.1bn annually.

“The Steady and Unaccountable Intrusion”

“In 2009, David Cameron correctly warned: ‘The problem we’re facing today… will now be made worse by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty… These problems boil down to the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into nearly every aspect of our lives’.”

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of Business for Britain, was quoted saying: “The Lisbon Treaty was hugely unpopular at the time, and we can now see that it has increased the cost of doing business in Britain.”

There is an extremely strong correlation between supporting Britain leaving the European Union and espousing climate denial. There are very many points of evidence that the same group of people are promoting Brexit and attacking climate science and policy.

“Greater Profitability and Growth”

The same motive – a dislike of regulations – drives climate denial and in particular the attack on the UNFCCC and IPCC process, and the European Union’s role in that process. 

The assumption is that without the European Union the Conservative government would be free to remove regulations, allowing for greater profitability and growth for companies which are carbon intensive or otherwise polluting.

Lawson (yes, him again), argued that “EU regulation is untouchable” without Brexit. Ian Brown was the South East chairman of Business for Britain and works in the carbon intensive construction industry. He attacked the working time directive in the local newspaper.

“Sheer Mountain of Regulation”

Carl Chambers, then Yorkshire chairman of Business for Britain, works for CNG, which is the “largest independent shipper of gas in the UK”. He is also opposed to European Union regulations.

“The European Union has been a very costly exercise for the UK,” he told local media. “We are spending £350m a week and that’s on top of the cost of complying with the sheer mountain of regulation and law which come out of Brussels.

“The reason I have got involved is if you are going to have regulations and laws that affect businesses as well as the general population, those laws should be passed as close to those people as possible…We have got 50 per cent of our laws and regulations coming from Brussels. It’s unrepresentative, it’s unaccountable and it’s costly.”

“Bureaucrats in Brussels”

Nigel Baxter, the East Midland chairman of Business for Britain, runs RH Commercial Vehicles with sites in Cossington in Leicestershire and Alfreton in Derbyshire, and is the boss of a truck hire company in Nottingham.

The local newspaper reported: “He says many small and medium-sized businesses in the East Midlands are fed up with bureaucrats in Brussels imposing oppressive regulations and costs on them, and want to see a fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with Europe.”

The centrality of regulation was largely underreported in the media, but not totally ignored. Perhaps the best example is the following from the Economist, under the headline “Regulation is perhaps the Eurosceptics’ biggest bugbear”. 

Stick to Most of the Rules

“When trying to show how much Britain might gain from leaving the EU, they tot up all the costs of EU regulation, assert that there are no benefits from it and assume that, after Brexit, the whole lot could be scrapped.”

And. Yet. “The OECD club of mostly rich countries has compared the extent of regulation in product and labour markets among its members and finds that Britain is among the least regulated countries in Europe. Indeed, Britain compares favourably with non-EU countries such as America, Australia and Canada.

“And there is little to suggest that, if it were to leave the EU, it would tear up many rules. Moreover, if a post-Brexit Britain wanted to retain full access to the single European market, it would almost certainly have to stick with most of the accompanying rules.”

Greater Anxiety is Yet to Come

The most unpopular claim you can make is that the public has been deceived. The idea that you have been deceived creates too much shame and anxiety to bring into consciousness. It is almost as hard to say publicly that you have changed your mind, you may have been wrong.

This is what makes Lawson’s law of election campaigning so powerful, and so insidious and cruel. The public voted because they do need a “strong and stable” society: security at work, support through hospitals and social care.

We were told that immigrants were taking away those services. That Brexit would stop immigration. That we would have jobs, schools, hospitals. The reality is Brexit means ever greater economic and environmental instability. So far greater anxiety is yet to come. Unless of course…

This Author

Brendan Montague is the new contributing editor of The Ecologist and can be reached at brendan@theecologist.org.

He is also is a regular columnist for openDemocracy in its ‘Brexit Inc: the environment and corporate power in the new Britain’ series.

Related Articles by Brendan Montague


This article
was first published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Creative Commons License

 

Nature’s soundscapes: protecting personal and planetary silence

Something urged me up onto Dartmoor the other Sunday night. A combination of incredible weather, the fact I had nowhere to be on Monday morning, and a desire for an earthy, elemental withdrawal. I took a book but needn’t have bothered, because my 12 hours were filled with watching, waiting, listening (and not much sleep). 12 hours of hypnotic wonder and pure joy. The weather was warm and still, the night was quiet and grand. Only by opening my eyes and seeing a sky full of Milky Way above did I really believe I was sleeping in a bivvy bag on Dartmoor.

Stillness settled like a blanket. Daylight gave way to the gloaming, and then to night, like acts of a play. The main players emerged – the joyful trilling of a blackbird handing over to the slow wise call of an owl, the incessant purring of a nightjar, and even the squeaks and snorts of a hare (I learned afterwards that I’d heard hares calling when by chance, a radio programme about hares came on the next day).

I’d felt drawn to spending a night on Dartmoor, paradoxically to feel whole and like ‘me’ again, whilst also wanting to blur into Earth below and galaxy above. I was also simply seeking stillness and silence; it felt essential. A descending quiet followed the animal orchestra, and felt as refreshing as cool water on a hot day. I caught myself frequently grinning, full of joy. The night became a series of gifts – animal calls, sunset, smells, colours, stars and planets, silence and finally, sunrise.

Noise pollution

 But these spaces for stillness and silence, whether experienced individually or globally, feel increasingly rare. We hear – and experience – that the world is getting noisier, and perhaps nowhere shows this quite like the stark, white silence of the Arctic.

Here, as a recent TED talk explains, human activity and climate change is, amongst other things, increasing noise pollution. Melting sea ice is exposing swathes of water, creating a bigger surface for waves to bubble and crash on, and a bigger surface for oil searches, fishing boats, research vessels and tourism to cut through. The noise is harming the communication and navigation abilities of native whales, which use intricate and haunting sonic songs to connect over vast distances. Add to this the pressure from southern ocean species like Orca and blue whales that are heading north because of warming seas, and the environment is becoming busier, cacophonous. Ancient underwater creatures are becoming stressed and lost.

I wonder how noise in our own environment might be impacting our ability to communicate, and to navigate life? Traffic; TV; agendas; words; ‘news’; pictures; insistent pings of phones – we get so used to all this supposedly important noise, that when quiet comes it rings painfully in our ears, or worse, we come to fear and avoid the silences and the space. It becomes a tomblike hole that must be filled, for fear of what might be discovered if we look inside.

Protecting silence, globally and personally

In defending Arctic habitats and the creatures that call them home, solutions include getting ships to slow down, and restricting access in certain seasons and areas that are important to mating or feeding, so as to quiet the underwater soundscape. Of course, we need to stop runaway climate change, which would ultimately protect the Arctic and everywhere else, but I like the intention of a move that will simply make things quieter, protecting beauty and wild things for their own sake.

William Blake spoke of seeing: “…a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower“. On Dartmoor, I didn’t read a single word of the book I took with me because I was entranced by imagined stories of ancient granite rocks; by colours that were created for this place; by the luck of hearing a nightjar; and by seeing Jupiter step out against an indigo canvas, followed by a legion of stars. The ‘entertainment’ was slow, but addictive. I watched (what I think was) a kind of gorse plant produce foam; moorland that turned from gold to brown to purple to grey; I saw birds diving to catch midges and moths (I think they were nightjars again); and when it was dark I saw the silhouette of a big bird hovering above me – cue hairs standing on the back of neck. The wonder forced to me to pay attention, quiet my mind, and simply watch the small things – which really are the truly eternal, vast and wise things.

We must create and protect stillness and silence in our own lives, before – like the Arctic sea creatures – we too become disoriented, stressed and lost, thereby further stressing our planet, for what we do to ourselves we do to our planet, and vice versa. Quakers, contemplatives, Buddhists and others know this and practice, even revere, silence.

How can we seek more stillness in our lives than an hour of yoga (with instructors telling us what to do), or going running (with headphones in our ears)? These things are nourishing, but if possible, physically being still in a wild space – a woodland, a moor, a mountain, a cliff top — seems to accelerate the ability to get out of headspace and into bodyspace, and finally out into wildspace; the world beyond head and body. I think it is there that we find simultaneously the shape of ourselves, alongside an awareness of connection to everything else – where your thoughts become so quieted that you can’t tell where you end and the cosmos and everything in it begins.

My instinct and experience tells me that it is from here that we might hear the small and grand questions and solutions to personal and collective challenges. If the world is in a grain of sand, just imagine what might be in an Arctic ecosystem, a community, or a human being — if only we might bravely create the stillness and silence to meet it and hear it.

For a fascinating look at how silence is used and even revered in culture, art, faith and elsewhere, I highly recommend Graham Turner’s book,’The Power of Silence. To watch the TED Talk about noise pollution in the Arctic Ocean, , see here.

For guidance about where you can wild camp on Dartmoor, see the camping map here.

This Author

Elizabeth Wainwright is the Ecologist’s Nature Editor. She spends her time between Devon and London, and loves wild spaces. She also co-leads a global community development charity.

Twitter: @LizWainwright

www.ElizabethJayneWainwright.com 

 

 

Brexit will have devastating consequences for the environment – and that’s no accident

“Do you try and win votes over the important issues (which means fighting the battle on basically unfavourable ground)? Or do you forget about winning voters over and concentrate on trying to convince them that the unimportant issues (on which they are already on your side) are really important? For a variety of reasons the Tory strategists eventually plumped for the second course. I believe they were right to so do.” 

The ‘Scapegoat’ is Europe

Immigration is in reality an unimportant issue. Immigrants make a “vital” contribution to the UK economy. And yet immigration dominated the Brexit campaign. Brexit in turn dominated the general election with Theresa May demanding a mandate for the negotiations with the rest of the European Union. 

The dog-whistle politics of the Tories and UKIP seemed to deafen swathes of the electorate to the important issues: the government’s responsibility for a moribund economy, chronic housing shortages, fatal cuts to public services, the sell-off of the NHS, and the crisis of climate change. 

The Tories convinced some British white working class voters that immigration was really important because it was an issue on which white politicians appeared to be on the same side. And everybody forgot about the Tory donors and their magic money tree

Crisis in Housing, Health, Employment 

It’s a very old trick. The quote above is from Lord Lawson, the chairman of the Vote Leave campaign. But it does not refer to the recent Brexit crisis. 

It’s Lawson’s contemporaneous analysis of the 1964 general election for the Financial Times. He humbly coined it “Lawson’s law of election campaigning” in his self-serving autobiography, The View from Number 11: Memoirs of a Radical Tory

The Tories convinced many that immigration was the problem. But May as home secretary failed to solve the ‘problem’ of immigration. This allowed the Brexiteers to present Brexit as the solution to immigration, and by implication the crisis in housing, health, employment.

Poisoned Air and Rivers

My investigation for openDemocracy suggests that immigration was only of marginal importance even to those who ran the Brexit campaign. They knew it would win votes.  

What they really wanted was to leave Europe, and leave behind environmental regulations and human rights legislation designed to protect the population from poisoned air and rivers, from dangerously long working hours, and from climate change. 

The key question I attempting to answer in the Brexit Inc. series for openDemocracy is, why hasn’t Britain done more to protect the environment and prevent run-away climate change? The threat is extreme, and very real. 

The Countervailing Force is Business 

Environmental campaigners have since the early 1970s fought hard to force governments around the world to protect their citizens, and the natural environment that is the material substance of their nation. But fight for the environment is far from over, and we’re losing badly. 

Brexit means this conflict will now take place in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay, Stormont (and possibly Dublin) rather than Brussels. But why are the politicians resistant to the pressure of the environmental groups and their supporters? 

The public, the environment charities, those politicians who are seriously concerned about climate change represent a serious force. But the countervailing force is business – micro, small, monopoly and transnational.

Hating Environmental Regulations

What does this look like up close? How did businesses influence the Brexit campaign? Was the business community split? And how did the industrial wing of the Brexit campaign succeed?

Our investigation into the Brexit campaign has established that most of the people publicly involved in the Brexit campaign are small to medium businessmen who see regulation and government as an impediment to profit and success.

The European Union is seen – rightly – as an instrument of regulation and state restrictions on the private sector. It is therefore deeply resented. In particular, the business people involved in Vote Leave and Business for Britain hate environmental regulations and the working time directive.

“Regulation Costs Business”

Business for Britain, one of the two main Brexit campaign groups, raised concerns about regulations designed to reduce emissions, including from the transport sector. Many of those involved work directly or indirectly for companies with high intensity emissions. They made sure their core supporters understood the important issues.

Business for Britain released a press release early in its campaign, headlined “New Research Reveals £12bn Cost of Lisbon Treaty to British Businesses”.

It stated: “Research by Business for Britain, based on official Government data, finds that EU regulation stemming from the Lisbon Treaty has cost UK businesses £12.2bn since December 2009, and currently hits British companies for £6.1bn annually.

“The Steady and Unaccountable Intrusion”

“In 2009, David Cameron correctly warned: ‘The problem we’re facing today… will now be made worse by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty… These problems boil down to the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into nearly every aspect of our lives’.”

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of Business for Britain, was quoted saying: “The Lisbon Treaty was hugely unpopular at the time, and we can now see that it has increased the cost of doing business in Britain.”

There is an extremely strong correlation between supporting Britain leaving the European Union and espousing climate denial. There are very many points of evidence that the same group of people are promoting Brexit and attacking climate science and policy.

“Greater Profitability and Growth”

The same motive – a dislike of regulations – drives climate denial and in particular the attack on the UNFCCC and IPCC process, and the European Union’s role in that process. 

The assumption is that without the European Union the Conservative government would be free to remove regulations, allowing for greater profitability and growth for companies which are carbon intensive or otherwise polluting.

Lawson (yes, him again), argued that “EU regulation is untouchable” without Brexit. Ian Brown was the South East chairman of Business for Britain and works in the carbon intensive construction industry. He attacked the working time directive in the local newspaper.

“Sheer Mountain of Regulation”

Carl Chambers, then Yorkshire chairman of Business for Britain, works for CNG, which is the “largest independent shipper of gas in the UK”. He is also opposed to European Union regulations.

“The European Union has been a very costly exercise for the UK,” he told local media. “We are spending £350m a week and that’s on top of the cost of complying with the sheer mountain of regulation and law which come out of Brussels.

“The reason I have got involved is if you are going to have regulations and laws that affect businesses as well as the general population, those laws should be passed as close to those people as possible…We have got 50 per cent of our laws and regulations coming from Brussels. It’s unrepresentative, it’s unaccountable and it’s costly.”

“Bureaucrats in Brussels”

Nigel Baxter, the East Midland chairman of Business for Britain, runs RH Commercial Vehicles with sites in Cossington in Leicestershire and Alfreton in Derbyshire, and is the boss of a truck hire company in Nottingham.

The local newspaper reported: “He says many small and medium-sized businesses in the East Midlands are fed up with bureaucrats in Brussels imposing oppressive regulations and costs on them, and want to see a fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with Europe.”

The centrality of regulation was largely underreported in the media, but not totally ignored. Perhaps the best example is the following from the Economist, under the headline “Regulation is perhaps the Eurosceptics’ biggest bugbear”. 

Stick to Most of the Rules

“When trying to show how much Britain might gain from leaving the EU, they tot up all the costs of EU regulation, assert that there are no benefits from it and assume that, after Brexit, the whole lot could be scrapped.”

And. Yet. “The OECD club of mostly rich countries has compared the extent of regulation in product and labour markets among its members and finds that Britain is among the least regulated countries in Europe. Indeed, Britain compares favourably with non-EU countries such as America, Australia and Canada.

“And there is little to suggest that, if it were to leave the EU, it would tear up many rules. Moreover, if a post-Brexit Britain wanted to retain full access to the single European market, it would almost certainly have to stick with most of the accompanying rules.”

Greater Anxiety is Yet to Come

The most unpopular claim you can make is that the public has been deceived. The idea that you have been deceived creates too much shame and anxiety to bring into consciousness. It is almost as hard to say publicly that you have changed your mind, you may have been wrong.

This is what makes Lawson’s law of election campaigning so powerful, and so insidious and cruel. The public voted because they do need a “strong and stable” society: security at work, support through hospitals and social care.

We were told that immigrants were taking away those services. That Brexit would stop immigration. That we would have jobs, schools, hospitals. The reality is Brexit means ever greater economic and environmental instability. So far greater anxiety is yet to come. Unless of course…

This Author

Brendan Montague is the new contributing editor of The Ecologist and can be reached at brendan@theecologist.org.

He is also is a regular columnist for openDemocracy in its ‘Brexit Inc: the environment and corporate power in the new Britain’ series.

Related Articles by Brendan Montague


This article
was first published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Creative Commons License

 

Nature’s soundscapes: protecting personal and planetary silence

Something urged me up onto Dartmoor the other Sunday night. A combination of incredible weather, the fact I had nowhere to be on Monday morning, and a desire for an earthy, elemental withdrawal. I took a book but needn’t have bothered, because my 12 hours were filled with watching, waiting, listening (and not much sleep). 12 hours of hypnotic wonder and pure joy. The weather was warm and still, the night was quiet and grand. Only by opening my eyes and seeing a sky full of Milky Way above did I really believe I was sleeping in a bivvy bag on Dartmoor.

Stillness settled like a blanket. Daylight gave way to the gloaming, and then to night, like acts of a play. The main players emerged – the joyful trilling of a blackbird handing over to the slow wise call of an owl, the incessant purring of a nightjar, and even the squeaks and snorts of a hare (I learned afterwards that I’d heard hares calling when by chance, a radio programme about hares came on the next day).

I’d felt drawn to spending a night on Dartmoor, paradoxically to feel whole and like ‘me’ again, whilst also wanting to blur into Earth below and galaxy above. I was also simply seeking stillness and silence; it felt essential. A descending quiet followed the animal orchestra, and felt as refreshing as cool water on a hot day. I caught myself frequently grinning, full of joy. The night became a series of gifts – animal calls, sunset, smells, colours, stars and planets, silence and finally, sunrise.

Noise pollution

 But these spaces for stillness and silence, whether experienced individually or globally, feel increasingly rare. We hear – and experience – that the world is getting noisier, and perhaps nowhere shows this quite like the stark, white silence of the Arctic.

Here, as a recent TED talk explains, human activity and climate change is, amongst other things, increasing noise pollution. Melting sea ice is exposing swathes of water, creating a bigger surface for waves to bubble and crash on, and a bigger surface for oil searches, fishing boats, research vessels and tourism to cut through. The noise is harming the communication and navigation abilities of native whales, which use intricate and haunting sonic songs to connect over vast distances. Add to this the pressure from southern ocean species like Orca and blue whales that are heading north because of warming seas, and the environment is becoming busier, cacophonous. Ancient underwater creatures are becoming stressed and lost.

I wonder how noise in our own environment might be impacting our ability to communicate, and to navigate life? Traffic; TV; agendas; words; ‘news’; pictures; insistent pings of phones – we get so used to all this supposedly important noise, that when quiet comes it rings painfully in our ears, or worse, we come to fear and avoid the silences and the space. It becomes a tomblike hole that must be filled, for fear of what might be discovered if we look inside.

Protecting silence, globally and personally

In defending Arctic habitats and the creatures that call them home, solutions include getting ships to slow down, and restricting access in certain seasons and areas that are important to mating or feeding, so as to quiet the underwater soundscape. Of course, we need to stop runaway climate change, which would ultimately protect the Arctic and everywhere else, but I like the intention of a move that will simply make things quieter, protecting beauty and wild things for their own sake.

William Blake spoke of seeing: “…a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower“. On Dartmoor, I didn’t read a single word of the book I took with me because I was entranced by imagined stories of ancient granite rocks; by colours that were created for this place; by the luck of hearing a nightjar; and by seeing Jupiter step out against an indigo canvas, followed by a legion of stars. The ‘entertainment’ was slow, but addictive. I watched (what I think was) a kind of gorse plant produce foam; moorland that turned from gold to brown to purple to grey; I saw birds diving to catch midges and moths (I think they were nightjars again); and when it was dark I saw the silhouette of a big bird hovering above me – cue hairs standing on the back of neck. The wonder forced to me to pay attention, quiet my mind, and simply watch the small things – which really are the truly eternal, vast and wise things.

We must create and protect stillness and silence in our own lives, before – like the Arctic sea creatures – we too become disoriented, stressed and lost, thereby further stressing our planet, for what we do to ourselves we do to our planet, and vice versa. Quakers, contemplatives, Buddhists and others know this and practice, even revere, silence.

How can we seek more stillness in our lives than an hour of yoga (with instructors telling us what to do), or going running (with headphones in our ears)? These things are nourishing, but if possible, physically being still in a wild space – a woodland, a moor, a mountain, a cliff top — seems to accelerate the ability to get out of headspace and into bodyspace, and finally out into wildspace; the world beyond head and body. I think it is there that we find simultaneously the shape of ourselves, alongside an awareness of connection to everything else – where your thoughts become so quieted that you can’t tell where you end and the cosmos and everything in it begins.

My instinct and experience tells me that it is from here that we might hear the small and grand questions and solutions to personal and collective challenges. If the world is in a grain of sand, just imagine what might be in an Arctic ecosystem, a community, or a human being — if only we might bravely create the stillness and silence to meet it and hear it.

For a fascinating look at how silence is used and even revered in culture, art, faith and elsewhere, I highly recommend Graham Turner’s book,’The Power of Silence. To watch the TED Talk about noise pollution in the Arctic Ocean, , see here.

For guidance about where you can wild camp on Dartmoor, see the camping map here.

This Author

Elizabeth Wainwright is the Ecologist’s Nature Editor. She spends her time between Devon and London, and loves wild spaces. She also co-leads a global community development charity.

Twitter: @LizWainwright

www.ElizabethJayneWainwright.com