Oil giant BP is funding an influential free-market think tank that facilitates behind closed doors access to cabinet ministers, an investigation by Unearthed has found.

Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) director Mark Littlewood told an undercover reporter that the oil company uses this access to press ministers on issues ranging from environmental and safety standards to British tax rates.

He suggested the closed-door events organised by the IEA offered its corporate donors an “off the record” forum in which they could discuss their interests with ministers and other senior politicians.

In addition to BP, the investigation found the IEA raises money from gambling companies and US donors that support its push for a hard Brexit and a deregulatory US-UK trade deal.

Yesterday Unearthed revealed that the IEA has set up a secret channel for donations from US sources to help fund its controversial trade team, with donors including US agribusiness interests that are keen to see an end to EU-style food regulations which limit sales of US produce in the UK. The group also claimed it would approach alcohol companies to support its work.

Gambling report 

A document seen by Unearthed now reveals that the National Casino Forum (NCF) – which represents major UK casino companies – planned to donate to the IEA after a 2012 IEA report, which argued for deregulation of the casino industry.

The NCF saw funding the report as a way of getting the casino industry’s messaging across via an independent organization, the document says adding that the NCF signed off on funding the research and held meetings with the report’s author more than a month prior to its launch.

Unearthed understands that the NCF – then known as the National Casino Industry Forum (NCIF) – had planned to pay the fee via its then-PR agency, Tetra, to ensure that its name was not associated with the report.

NCF declined to comment on the record however a source said that the group had not paid for or commissioned the report but had made a donation to the IEA: “After the launch event for the release of the report, which some NCIF members attended, the NCIF decided to make a voluntary donation of £8,000 to the IEA, which was paid directly by the NCIF.”

He also said: “It was brought to the attention of NCIF members that the report was being written and they were given the opportunity to help with fact-checking etc which they took.”

An IEA spokeswoman said: “It is perfectly legitimate to check facts and data with relevant industry representatives. This categorically does not mean that they have any sway or influence on the conclusions we come to in our research. We categorically refute the claim that anybody external to the IEA saw a draft of this report or made any changes prior to publication.”

“The figures suggested and inferences made in your email are factually inaccurate and potentially libellous. We do not recognise the figure referred to”.

The news that the IEA accepts money from businesses aiming to further their commercial interests raises questions regarding assurances the IEA made to the Charity Commission in 2016 regarding its impartiality.

Jon Trickett, Labour’s shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, told Unearthed: “When big money uses underhand ways to influence political decisions it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that democracy is being severely undermined.”

“The system is clearly not working if a registered charity, supposedly prohibited in law from having a political purpose, uses foreign money to lobby politicians to support its extreme political agenda,” he continued.

Commenting on the investigation Jane Mayer, award winning journalist and author of the book Dark Money, said: “These days it’s hard to distinguish some of these think tanks from corporate lobbyists.”

Access to ministers

The IEA is fiercely protective of the identity of its donors and little has been revealed about who funds the charity since the 1990s, when tobacco lawsuits showed it was funded by oil, chemical, tobacco and construction companies during the previous decade.

BP’s ongoing donations to the IEA were revealed by the charity’s director general, Mark Littlewood, during a meeting with an undercover reporter posing as a potential US agribusiness donor.

Littlewood told the reporter that BP’s donations enable the energy company’s staff to attend “intimate” private lunches and dinners, where it can probe ministers on issues like worker safety, environmental regulations and taxation.

“We’ve never written anything to specifically help BP’s you know, precise business model, but their corporate affairs team will come to tonnes of our events, I mean more than half”, Littlewood said. “And the representative from BP will often frame his question within the context of his company – you know, ‘We at BP are really struggling with these regulations which we don’t believe are improving safety of our workers or improving the environment and they are putting up the energy bill for ordinary British citizens – can you tell me why you’re not going to change this, minister?’”

He continued: “That would… be a normal part of the conversation. But then the person from BP might also say, you know, ‘And overall aren’t taxes too high in Britain?

“So there’s a general, we don’t expect, people can’t leave their interests at the door I mean you know,” he added.

Littlewood, who defended the IEA’s policy of hiding its donors’ identities, claimed that he was not breaching a confidentiality agreement with BP “because they state it in their annual accounts”. However, Unearthed could find no evidence of this in the corporation’s filings.

When contacted for comment by Unearthed, the IEA stated that it has received donations from BP every year since 1967. This includes a period in the 1990s when the IEA was at the forefront of efforts to cast doubt on the link between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels.

An IEA spokeswoman said: “It is surely uncontroversial that the IEA’s principles coincide with the interests of our donors.”

Mayer told Unearthed that the IEA was the progenitor of the modern conservative think tanks that now proliferate in the US: “Unsurprisingly, businesses flocked to fund such think tanks. These days it’s hard to distinguish some of these think tanks from corporate lobbyists. They are often funded by huge private interests, to promote the political agenda of huge private interests, yet they present themselves as untainted, independent charities,” she continued.

Private dinners

As one of the UK’s largest corporations, BP executives frequently meet with ministers to discuss their concerns. But the private dinners and other events organised by the IEA offer corporate donors a less-official channel through which to build relationships and discuss their interests with politicians and policy advisors – one where there is little public information about who attended and what was said.

Littlewood explained how these private dinners work: “Let’s just hypothesise that over the next year you have come to three of our drinks parties, four of our lunches and six of our dinners. By this time unbeknownst to me you’ve become big buddies with journalist X, MP Y and policy advisor Z and you’re going off and meeting them for coffee you know that, that is a how a lot of people make connections here that we have facilitated that they then pursue.”

“So if you had an agriculture minister here speaking and you and your clients were here to talk to them about it, you would exchange business cards, you would have our events, our evening dinners are 6.30 till 9 everybody gets to know each other, everybody bends each other ear and it’s, the opportunity would be for you to say minister I’m really keen to bend your ear about erm, beef from the west coast of the USA erm, we’re really worried that you’re not opening your market to this, who should I speak to about this?”

A spokesman for BP said: “BP engages with and shares our perspectives with a number of think tanks in the UK, allowing us to keep informed of different viewpoints and policy conversations.  We have a long-standing relationship with the IEA, a respected free-market think tank, as we do with others including the Centre for European Reform and the Green Alliance.  The IEA hosts round-table events under the Chatham House Rule which our staff have attended; these have involved politicians from different parties, academics and journalists.”

An IEA spokeswoman said: “There is nothing untoward about think tanks having a collaborative approach with politicians. We have introduced MPs and civil servants to experts from a range of relevant areas including customs operations and trade negotiations.  We do not act in donors’ interests, except to the extent that they have an interest in pursuing free trade and free markets.”

Sponsored research

As well as the 2012 casino industry report, Littlewood suggested the IEA would be comfortable receiving money from donors with an interest in fixed odds betting terminals, the high-stakes roulette machines that are accused of contributing to growing rates of problem gambling, and helping them to campaign against legal restrictions on that type of gambling.

He told an undercover reporter: “A lot of donors will say, ‘Jeez, do you know this is coming down the line in the government’s regulation of gambling machines? This is going to be a bloody nightmare, what do the IEA think of this?  Are you doing anything about it?  If you are doing anything about it how did you … who should we speak to about it, do you know anyone I should speak to about it?”

The charity has published numerous reports opposing the regulation of fixed-odds betting terminals.

Matt Zarb-Cousin of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling told Unearthed: “With the IEA, they’re presented, particularly by the BBC, as impartial experts on matters of economics… and the problem is, we’re open about who we are, who funds us, where it comes from, they’re not.”

“So instead of being the bookies against the campaigners, it’s the perception of someone who is an impartial expert and some renegade campaigner. So I think the BBC have really got a lot to answer for in terms of letting these people on telly and on radio without them having to state who’s funding them,” he continued.

Littlewood also revealed that the charity directly approaches businesses to fund research that is in their economic interests: “To give you an example, we would take money from alcohol companies. We would go to alcohol companies and say we want to write about the cost of living being too high and actually alcohol consumption is not costing the National Health Service as much money as they often complain.”

Last year the IEA published a paper about how taxes on alcohol are too high and drinking is not costing the NHS as much as the government claims. The IEA did not disclose how this paper was funded.

In response to enquiries from an undercover report representing a US agribusiness about how the IEA could be funded to argue in favour of deregulation of the UK beef market, Littlewood indicated that the IEA takes finance for projects but wouldn’t do a ‘directly commissioned piece of research where they were expected to take conclusions ‘and package them up.

An IEA spokeswoman said: “The Institute’s editorial and policy output is decided by its research team and Academic Advisory Council.  In other words, we make independent editorial decisions and then seek funding. The work we undertake is work we will do regardless of whether it raises donations.”

Charity rules

The findings appear to contradict the undertakings made by the IEA’s trustees to the Charity Commission in 2016.

During the meeting, IEA trade expert Shanker Singham explained that the think tank only works on projects that fit with its libertarian ideology, but suggested they are were open to being commissioned to carry out research that agreed with their world view: “Someone might come to us and say we are beef farmers from the US, we’re really, really interested in helping our interests and we’d like you to do research around how valuable the protected tariff is for beef. This is not something we would do, I mean this is not consistent with our world view.

“But if they said you know, we’d really like you to talk about how damaging a tariff is for consumers in a market where there’s a huge tariff on beef, that’s entirely consistent with our world view. And we’ll happily do research on that till the cows come home,” Singham continued.

Former board member of the Charity Commission, Andrew Purkis, told Unearthed: “The IEA is very untransparent about where its money comes from… the argument I have put to the Charity Commission is that if a charity is untransparent about how it funds its research it can bring the public confidence and trust in charity into doubt because the public is entitled to wonder, here’s this report on alcohol… I wonder if it’s funded by alcohol companies? The public ought to know this to be able to judge who’s influencing the report.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, an investigations website published by Greenpeace.

Britain’s most prominent free-market think tank is offering to broker access to senior politicians for foreign donors seeking to influence the course of Brexit, an undercover Unearthed investigation has found.

The head of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) boasted about setting up meetings with Brexiteer MPs, a government minister and senior trade officials for US visitors who had agreed to raise money for the IEA’s work pushing for a US-UK free trade deal.

The visitors, who met politicians including the then Brexit minister Steve Baker in May, came from an Oklahoma think tank which has promised to raise donations for the IEA, including from American farming interests who are keen to ensure the UK drops EU-level regulations after Brexit.

Acting politically

US officials have said they will insist that any US-UK free trade deal allows controversial US agricultural products such as chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-injected beef to be sold in UK supermarkets.

IEA director general Mark Littlewood also told an undercover reporter, posing as a representative of a US agribusiness investor, that becoming a donor would allow his client to attend “intimate” private dinners and lunches, at which attendees “get to know cabinet ministers on first name terms”.

Shadow Cabinet minister Jon Trickett said: “When big money uses underhand ways to influence political decisions, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that democracy is being severely undermined.”

Trickett has now written to the Charity Commission claiming the IEA may have breached charity law by acting politically and calling for an inquiry.

Advertising value

The investigation also revealed:

• An undercover reporter was offered the possibility of attending a private dinner with environment secretary Michael Gove, if they funded a £42,500 IEA report on innovation in agriculture after Brexit.

• The IEA has set up a secretive funding channel for money from Oklahoma to fund its controversial trade team, including from agribusiness interests.

• The IEA is quietly soliciting funding for its reports from donors who also have vested commercial interests in the subject matter, and confirmed it would approach alcohol companies to fund work on drink pricing.

• A former Charity Commission board member says the investigation suggests the IEA is “masquerading as an educational venture” and potentially breaking charity rules.

The IEA has been criticised for refusing to disclose its donors. Monitoring organisation Transparify describes its funding as “highly opaque”.

Hard-Brexit faction

However, it is a high-profile voice in the UK media: Littlewood told Unearthed’s undercover reporter that while the IEA’s turnover is £2.5m, it punches above its weight in terms of prominence through “a pretty substantial media effort”.

Littlewood said: “Our advertising value equivalent on the media last calendar year was £66m.”

Although it took no official position on the EU referendum, the IEA has moved to the forefront of the push for a hard Brexit, hiring controversial trade adviser Shanker Singham in March.

This month, supporters of a deregulatory Brexit had a setback when the prime minister unveiled proposals at Chequers that ruled out any reduction in agricultural standards after Brexit. But the Chequers deal has met furious resistance and resignations, including the departure of three Brexiteer ministers – Boris Johnson, David Davis and his deputy Steve Baker.

It also prompted a parliamentary backlash from the European Research Group (ERG), the powerful hard-Brexit faction led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Singham, who is in close contact with the ERG, praised Davis’ resignation in an article in the Telegraph.

Political access

Littlewood told an undercover reporter that Singham was “unbelievably well connected” to Brexiteer cabinet ministers including trade secretary Liam Fox, Michael Gove and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson and would be able to introduce the ministers to the prospective US agribusiness donor.

Singham was “writing Gove and Johnson’s script” on leaving the customs union, Littlewood claimed. He also confirmed a Mail on Sunday report from last November that Singham drafted a letter from the pair to the prime minister insisting she stick to a hard-Brexit course.  At the time, Gove claimed not to remember whether Singham had written the letter.

Littlewood said Singham and his team speak with Gove “every three or four days, along with David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox”.

Labour’s Jon Trickett said: “It is deeply worrying that senior Conservative politicians appear willing to engage in unaccountable back room discussions on issues that are critical to the British people.”

Singham’s contact with Steve Baker, the former DExEU minister, has come under particular scrutiny after BuzzFeed reported Baker had failed to declare frequent meetings with the adviser. Baker told BuzzFeed they had not discussed government business so there was no requirement to register the meetings.

Chlorinated chicken

Littlewood told the undercover Unearthed reporter he had been used as a “slight shill” to hide some of Singham’s meetings with Baker, attending meetings alongside Singham so the minister could officially record visits as “Mark Littlewood and staff”.

A spokeswoman for the IEA said of Littlewood’s comments on hiding meetings with Baker: “We do not recognise this version of events”, adding that ministers should register meetings they attend transparently.

The IEA’s spokeswoman said the charity takes “no corporate view” on Brexit.

She said: “[W]e would point out that Shanker Singham is clearly not ‘writing Gove’s script’ given the significant divergence in their opinions. At the time of writing it looks as if the UK is headed towards a customs union on goods – this is quite clearly different from the unilateral free trade policy which we believe to be optimal.”

A spokesman for Gove told Unearthed: “Food safety and animal welfare standards will not be weakened after Brexit.

“We will never be swayed on this. There will be no chlorinated chicken entering the UK and we will retain the precautionary principle. That position won’t change whatever any think tank recommends.”

‘Speculate to accumulate’

Earlier this year, Littlewood set off on what he described as a “lucrative” tour of the US, aiming to raise funds for Singham’s trade team.

At a February meeting in Florida, Littlewood made a “plea” for donations to the IEA’s new trade unit, explaining it would “have as its top priority pushing for US-UK free trade.” The following month, Singham moved with three of his staff from the Legatum Institute, another think tank, to the IEA.

The IEA’s spokeswoman said it was “categorically untrue” that Littlewood had fundraised from US donors for Singham’s team, explaining: “The IEA’s trade team did not start working at the IEA until late March.”

Separately she said that Littlewood had solicited donations to support the US-UK trade deal but added these came from individuals rather than businesses.

On the trip, Littlewood also formed a partnership with an Oklahoma-based think tank, the E Foundation, which includes a plan to channel cash from US farming donors to support Singham’s work.

Speculate to accumulate

The CEO of the E Foundation, Michael Carnuccio, told an undercover reporter that funding Singham’s work offered foreign donors a way to influence Brexit.  Singham’s access and influence was part of his appeal to potential US donors to the IEA, he added.

In May, Singham arranged for Carnuccio and an Oklahoma beef and petrochemicals tycoon named Tucker Link to meet then Brexit minister Steve Baker at the IEA’s offices. The visitors also met Jacob Rees-Mogg at a meeting in parliament of the ERG, and senior officials at the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade.

Discussing the trip with the undercover reporter, Littlewood confirmed Carnuccio was raising money for the IEA. “We haven’t seen a cent of it yet – we quite often… we speculate to accumulate,” he said. “So with Oklahoma and [Carnuccio] and Tucker coming over we wanted to show what we thought was possible.

“It was almost like a trial run: the fact that we were able to get them in to see four members of the House of Lords, five MPs for lunch, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the European Research Group.”

An aide to Baker said: “Any suggestion – or implication of the same – that Mr Baker would attend meetings because ‘access’ to him was being sold is entirely false.”

Agribusiness donors

She added: “On the occasion you refer to, Mr Baker met US Republicans in his political capacity to discuss trade relations between the two countries.”

Singham told the undercover Unearthed reporter that if the supposed US agribusiness funded his work, he would also be happy to “show them round” in the UK.

“[I]f they think there is something worth doing, then we’d agree that we would do something and they would fund and support our trade work in some way, and if it’s a donation of X to our trade team so that they, so we can do more work on the US-UK [free trade agreement] then absolutely, when they came over we’d show them round and, you know, decide on a body of work going forward.”

The IEA’s spokeswoman said: “[W]e have received no money to support our trade or Brexit work from any foreign business to date. Given our strict protocols we see no reason however why we should not.”

She described Unearthed’s evidence that the IEA is fundraising from agribusiness donors who stand to benefit from deregulation as “tendentious and unfair”.

She added: “The prospective donors are businesses who stand to benefit from free and open trade in accordance with UK regulations which should be in line with sound science and democratic accountability. UK businesses and consumers will also benefit from this.”

The E Foundation issued a statement: “The conversations supported the E Foundation’s purpose to explore global business and research opportunities.

“The informal conversation enlightened us on possible mutually beneficial endeavours in the future between [the] United Kingdom and Oklahoma. Any suggestions the conversations were about something other than constructive business and research pursuits would be completely misguided.”

Intimate dinners

Littlewood also revealed the IEA hosts intimate dinners at its London headquarters at which leading politicians are matched with “five or six donors who have an interest in the area”  and “two or three journalists”, although the meals are off the record. Donors can “get to know cabinet ministers on first name terms”, Littlewood said.

At the dinners, he said, “Everybody gets to know each other… it’s an opportunity for you to say, ‘Minister, I’m really keen to bend your ear about beef from the west coast of the USA… Can I send you a note about it? Can I speak to one of your policy advisors about it?’ All of these conversations are happening because we facilitate them.”

Littlewood said the IEA is not a lobbying organisation, describing the charity as a “great facilitator”  for business to connect with senior politicians.

An IEA spokeswoman said there is “nothing untoward” about the IEA’s contact with senior politicians, adding: “We do not act in donors’ interests, except to the extent that they have an interest in pursuing free trade and free markets. We put people in touch where we feel there is a genuine interest on both sides.”

But Sir Alistair Graham, the former head of the committee on standards in public life, told Unearthed: “It is disturbing to see that such a respected think tank as the IEA are seeking donations for access to lobby ministers at private lunches or dinners.”

Charity rules

Fundraising from donors who stand to profit from the IEA’s policy recommendations may contradict assurances it gave to the Charity Commission. In 2016, after a complaint by former Charity Commission board member Andrew Purkis about its lack of transparency, the trustees told the regulator the “only sponsored research IEA accepts is from individuals or trusts who do not have a vested commercial interest in the topic under discussion.”

The IEA also assured the commission that “companies donate money to the IEA for their own reasons and the IEA’s role is to ensure that it is ‘blind’ to these reasons… and no company is able to guide IEA’s research conclusions.”

But Littlewood told Unearthed’s undercover reporter that the IEA is happy to solicit research funding from companies with commercial interests in the research subject they are planning to cover.

“To give you an example,” he said, “we would take money from alcohol companies – we would go to alcohol companies and say we want to write about the cost of living being too high and actually alcohol consumption is not costing the National Health Service as much money as they often complain”.

There are also concerns that the IEA’s push for a Brexit that allows the UK to reduce regulations and sign a sweeping US-UK trade deal amounts to a political campaign.

Lobby politicians

As an educational charity, the IEA is able to accept tax-free donations but must abide by Charity Commission requirements to be politically impartial, balanced and neutral in how it presents information and stick to its charitable object of education.

In written guidance the charity commission notes that “Raising people’s awareness of an issue to build support for a campaign is not educating them about this issue as the aim is to gain their support.”

Yet Littlewood told an undercover Unearthed reporter: “Our principal campaign is on trade arrangements and free trade.”

“We’ll either win or lose in 12 months,” he added.

In a later meeting, Littlewood revealed the think tank’s work on post-Brexit agriculture is pursuing a specific policy goal: “The key point underlying all of this is that we’ve got to get away from the precautionary principle”,  he said, referring to the cautious approach to risk that underpins European environmental regulation.

Charitable objectives

Labour’s Jon Trickett said: “The system is clearly not working if a registered charity, supposedly prohibited in law from having a political purpose, uses foreign money to lobby politicians to support its extreme political agenda.”

Purkis, the former Charity Commission board member, told Unearthed he had raised concerns with the regulator three times about whether the IEA is breaching charity rules. He said: “Running a campaign for a particular kind of trade deal in a controversial political context… is contrary to all Charity Commission guidance on what an educational charity may or may not do.

“Accepting that the purpose of the IEA is educational, the harm is that a campaign which is not designed to improve public levels of information, not balanced and neutrally presented, and which actually has a specific policy goal which is motivating it… something is masquerading as an educational venture is actually a political venture.”

The IEA maintains it “has no corporate view” and “does not undertake campaigns”. A spokeswoman said: “A free trade agreement between the UK and US is not in itself a controversial proposition and is in fact government policy.” 

She added “The stakes of the Brexit process are high, in our opinion, and our work focuses around a Brexit that delivers free trade and open markets, in line with the IEA’s principles and charitable objectives.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, an investigations website published by Greenpeace. The IEA were approached for comment on this story, however following publication by Unearthed they released a further statement. Click here to read in full.

One of the UK’s most prominent think tanks told a prospective donor they could discreetly influence a report in ways that could advance their business interests – in exchange for £42,500.

The head of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Mark Littlewood, told an undercover reporter posing as the representative of a US beef investor that funding the report on what “green Brexit” means would ensure it prominently featured the donor’s concerns.

He made the offer despite the IEA telling the Charity Commission its research is independent from corporate sponsors.

Neonicotinoid pesticides

Littlewood told the undercover reporter that funders were not able to change the conclusions of IEA research, but they could influence the “content” and “salience” of issues within the paper.

He also suggested the funder would be able to attend a private dinner with its author Lord (Matt) Ridley – a prominent climate change sceptic and advocate of controversial neonicotinoid pesticides – and potentially with Gove, the environment secretary, or another minister.

Littlewood said Gove was keen for the report to happen.

Green Brexit

Gove has promised a “green Brexit”, with even stronger animal welfare and environmental protections than the EU’s. European environmental rule-making follows the precautionary principle, under which products and methods must be proven to be safe before they can be introduced.

Littlewood suggested the report could be counted on to argue that the EU’s precautionary principle should be dropped – a longstanding goal of Ridley’s – and that beef reared to US standards should be allowed into UK supermarkets. Many American beef products cannot currently be imported to the UK, because of an EU ban on hormone-reared beef.

The IEA director told the undercover reporter: “[T]here is no way this report is going to say the most important thing we need to do is keep American beef out of our market in order to prop up our beef farmers, in fact exactly the opposite”.

Littlewood said Ridley had discussed the report, on innovation in agriculture, with Gove, who he said was enthusiastic about getting the ideas into the “bloodstream of Defra”.

“Yeah, he told Matt Ridley, it would be really good if you guys could get these ideas out there,” he said.

Deeply concerning

When asked by the reporter why Gove would want that, Littlewood said: “Because it would move the argument in this direction. Gove’s an intellectual… he wants these ideas floated and out there.”

He said the paper would examine what is really meant by “green Brexit” – a term coined by Gove.

A spokesman for Gove told Unearthed: “The government and the environment secretary have been very clear that food safety and animal welfare standards will not be weakened after Brexit.

“We will never be swayed on this. There will no chlorinated chicken entering the UK and we will retain the precautionary principle. That position won’t change whatever any think tank recommends,” he continued.

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas said: “It’s deeply concerning to see an organisation as influential as the Institute for Economic Affairs is willing to take cash from US agribusiness in return for favourable reports.”

“But what’s more worrying is Michael Gove’s apparent enthusiasm for a project authored by a leading climate change sceptic whose love of dangerous pesticides is well-documented. If the Government wants research-backed policies, ministers would do well to rely on their own independent civil servants,” she continued.

Ridley told Unearthed that the report was about innovation in agriculture rather than agriculture after Brexit and added that its aim is not to influence Defra officials but to “inform all debate on the topic”.

‘Substantial content’

The IEA, which is registered as an educational charity, does not disclose its donors, arguing that it is under no moral or legal obligation to do so. In 2016, the charity’s trustees told the regulator it only accepts research sponsorship from “individuals or trusts who do not have a vested commercial interest in the topic”, the Charity Commission wrote.

“[T]he trustees take considerable efforts to ensure that whatever the source of funding, IEA’s research is independent,” the commission wrote.

But Littlewood suggested donors’ interests could help shape its reports.

When asked by the Unearthed reporter whether his client, a fictional investor in US beef, would be able to fund the report and ensure its specific concerns were covered, Littlewood responded: “Oh sure and, and absolutely and we, I don’t mind our donors affecting us on salience.”

He continued: “We would assume that donors are giving us money because we are covering areas of their interest and we can make those undertakings and guarantees no problem at all… And beef is actually, it is actually an area of interest, an area that we do genuinely happen to be interested in.”

And he added: “To give you an example, we would take money from alcohol companies. We would go to alcohol companies and say we, we want to write about the cost of living being too high and actually alcohol consumption is not costing the National Health Service as much money as they often complain.”

He added that the IEA does not let donors change a report’s conclusions, but confirmed that there would be prominent “substantial content” covering their areas of interest.

Responding to the allegation that Littlewood offered the prospective donors the chance to influence the report, a spokesperson for the IEA told Unearthed: “We have no evidence or reason to believe this is the case. Mark was clear that corporate donors do not alter the conclusions of IEA work.”

“The IEA is currently working on a report on agricultural innovation, which was commissioned prior to the meeting outlined. As previously mentioned, we would carry out this work regardless but obviously do fundraise to cover the production and distribution costs of our output,” she continued.  

Guests of honour

As well as being guests of honour at a launch event, Littlewood added, the donor would be able to attend a private dinner with the author, and potentially a government minister.

“We might need to take one or two people to a lunch, private lunch-slash-dinner… take four seats around the table, make sure you’re sat next to … Matt Ridley and/or the minister who’s there.”

Asked if a minister would definitely attend, Littlewood said: “That’s not something I can make an absolutely [sic] guarantee on… don’t know if we could get Gove – quite possibly, but we would definitely try to get a minister from agriculture.

“Or it could even be a minister from the Dexeu [the Department for Exiting the European Union] or trade department, right, because it’s actually about trade rules governing agriculture rather than agriculture per se.”

Hormone beef

The proposal for the IEA study – which is marked ‘strictly private and confidential’ and published by Unearthed here – echoes another report on innovation in agriculture published in November by UK2020, a think tank run by Ridley and Owen Paterson MP, his brother-in-law and former environment secretary.

UK2020’s paper argues that restrictions on chlorinated chicken, hormone beef and GMOs should be dropped post-Brexit and biodiversity offsetting introduced.

The report recounts how that Paterson hosted Gove on an agricultural tour of his North Shropshire constituency in October, where the environment secretary was introduced to some of the ideas in the UK2020 report.

The IEA were approached for comment on this story, however following publication by Unearthed they released a further statement. Click here to read in full.

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, an investigations website published by Greenpeace. 

In the ballroom of the Hyatt hotel in Sarasota, Florida, the head of the UK’s most influential think tank made an urgent plea for donations for a new international trade unit he was establishing in London.

The top priority of the Institute of Economic Affairs’ (IEA) trade unit would be to push for a sweeping, deregulatory trade deal with the US, its director-general Mark Littlewood said.

The next day, at the Cornell Club in Manhattan, Littlewood told an audience of businessmen and libertarian campaigners that Brexit offered the opportunity to “shred” EU regulations and appealed for their help. Speaking at a conference, Littlewood later described his 13-stop US tour as “lucrative”.

Parliamentary backlash

In the following months, Unearthed established that the IEA is working with US donors to capitalise on the opportunity presented by Brexit in order to radically alter the rules and regulations that govern how we consume products in the UK.

A six-month investigation, which included undercover meetings in Washington, Copenhagen and London, found that those who have pledged money to the IEA include those with US agribusiness interests who hope to profit from a trade deal that scraps EU restrictions on US products, such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-reared beef.

In London the IEA’s trade unit, led by controversial trade expert Shanker Singham, has established itself at the heart of the campaign for a hard Brexit, advising senior Brexiteer ministers and developing close links with Jacob Rees-Mogg’s powerful European Research Group (ERG), a faction of backbench MPs.

Singham advocates dropping the EU’s precautionary principle, which underlies many rules on food and the environment.

Chlorine-washed chicken

The government has said there will be no weakening of environmental or food safety standards after Brexit. But Theresa May’s Chequers deal, which attempted to make part of this assurance a formal part of the UK’s negotiating stance, met a furious parliamentary backlash led by the ERG, as pro-Brexit MPs insisted the deal would prevent the UK from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.

During a series of conversations at a conference in Copenhagen, the head of an Oklahoma-based think tank revealed he has agreed to raise thousands of dollars for the IEA, principally from donors with agribusiness interests.

Michael Carnuccio, CEO of the E Foundation for Oklahoma, told an undercover reporter that his pitch to potential IEA donors was Singham’s political access and influence: “If they don’t know them, then we just explain they’re the free market organisation that is the private sector trade advisor right now through working in that capacity with Shanker, so they have the access, they have the influence.”

Carnuccio said that the partnership between the IEA and the E Foundation includes a proposal to target the constituencies of MPs using a US political tactic called “bracket and smother”; a model trade deal to be signed by the governor of Oklahoma and Liam Fox; and a trip to Oklahoma by leading Brexiteer MPs where they would eat chicken to try and improve the image among British shoppers of chlorine-washed chicken.

Funding the ‘brain’ of hard Brexit

The IEA does not disclose the identity of its donors, meaning that it is not known who else funds Singham’s work. In a statement, the IEA said that it has not received funding from US sources for its work on trade, but Carnuccio told Unearthed that the money raised by the E Foundation will be transferred later this year.

At a breakfast meeting in Tulsa in February, Carnuccio organised for Littlewood to address a group of potential donors, including agribusiness tycoons. “Mark starts talking about how to get a free trade agreement done, what I need in the United States is I need some partners and I need a big media push on the May government and others… in the UK,” Carnuccio told an undercover reporter.

According to Carnuccio, some of those present went on to set up a specialised membership organisation, the Bison Club, made up mainly of donors from the agricultural and, to a lesser extent, energy industry, which he said planned to raise $250-400,000 to cultivate post-Brexit trade.

The E Foundation also secured a commitment from its supporters – including energy and agribusiness interests – to donate $35,000 to the American Friends of the IEA to support Singham’s work. Carnuccio said the Oklahoma partnership offered US businesses the opportunity to play a role in Brexit.

He told an undercover reporter: “If you’re looking for a way to invest resources in the US, to where there’s a tax deduction for the resources and there’s anonymity between it, that will get the resources deployed in the United Kingdom in a way that gets as much influence as close as possible and at the same time, creates a conversation and groundswell, we have the system already set up, that’s what we’re doing.”

Mutually beneficial

In a separate conversation, Littlewood said: “On this particular project, as it stands at the moment, Mike’s raising the money and I’m spending it.”

An IEA spokeswoman said the Bison Club was “entirely fictitious”, adding: “We do not recognise the figures mentioned of $250,000-$400,000.”

She confirmed Littlewood toured the US seeking donations for the IEA’s trade team, but said the events were “attended by private individuals rather than businesses – indeed no businesses were met.”

The E Foundation released a statement saying: “The conversations supported the E Foundation’s purpose to explore global business and research opportunities. The informal conversation enlightened us on possible mutually beneficial endeavours in the future between United Kingdom and Oklahoma.

“Any suggestions the conversations were about something other than constructive business and research pursuits would be completely misguided.”

Open doors

In May, Carnuccio and Oklahoma businessman and E Foundation board member Tucker Link visited the IEA in London, where they developed plans for a model trade agreement between the UK and the state of Oklahoma.

Shanker Singham’s political access was vital to the trip’s success: he arranged for Carnuccio and Link to meet peers at the House of Lords and to be guests of honour at a parliamentary meeting of the ERG, where Carnuccio described addressing an approving crowd and watching the MPs count votes of no confidence in Theresa May.

Littlewood said: “In the room… it was pushing at totally open doors, because that wing of the government just utterly wants some positive noises from elsewhere on planet Earth.”

Singham arranged for then-Brexit minister Steve Baker – who resigned earlier this month alongside his boss David Davis in protest at the Chequers agreement – to meet the visitors at the IEA’s headquarters. He also took them to meetings with senior trade officials at the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade.

“I’m telling you, that dude has access,” Carnuccio said.

Prospective donors

He compared Singham to George Clooney’s well-connected “fixer” character in the movie Michael Clayton: “Shanker is like that but for trade and economics and everything else, they all just seem to call him or want to talk to him to, like, figure out how to get things done.”

An aide to Baker said: “Any suggestion – or implication of the same – that Mr Baker would attend meetings because ‘access’ to him was being sold is entirely false.”

She added: “On the occasion you refer to, Mr Baker met US Republicans in his political capacity to discuss trade relations between the two countries.”

When Unearthed suggested the IEA had provided access for potential donors representing vested interests to the heart of government, an IEA spokeswoman said: “The better inference is that prospective donors and a fellow think tank see benefits and mutual interests in making the case for free markets and prosperity in which we all have a vested interest.”

Memorandum of Understanding

At the DIT, where Carnuccio and Link met with Oliver Griffiths, director of capability, they discovered “that department is looking for a state to do like a pilot programme with,” Carnuccio said.

Littlewood and Carnuccio discussed bringing Todd Lamb, a member of the E Foundation’s advisory council who was running to be Oklahoma’s governor, to the UK for a ceremony  with trade secretary Liam Fox in which they would sign a memorandum of understanding, to be drafted by Singham.

“In fact, in the meeting at the Department of Trade, the guy from Trade that said we need to get an MOU started… he turned to Shanker and he said, ‘Can you help send us some language? Can you help put this together?’” Carnuccio said.

Littlewood told an undercover reporter: “We’ll get two governments to sign it. But go and ask Governor Lamb who’s writing it. Governor Lamb wants Singham’s draft, Fox wants Singham’s draft.”

He described the agreement as a template for the future US-UK trading relationship. “We can’t sign a trade deal, but we can sign the memorandum of understanding of what the trade deal will look like,” he explained. Agricultural regulations would be among the top priorities.

Business representatives

“It’s not legally binding… But that obviously has political force,” Littlewood said. He hoped other states would want MOUs of their own, creating pressure on Congress for a full free trade deal.

The plan, he explained, was to create the impression that other nations were queuing up to sign a free trade deal with the UK. “The big problem is the US saying, once you [the EU] and the UK have worked out what the fuck you’re doing, give us a call,” said Mark Littlewood, director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

“And we’re saying no, no, no – you’ve got to come into this clusterfuck and say we want a deal… the nightmare is the rest of the world waits.”

In the end, Lamb lost the Republican primary contest.

A DIT spokesman said: “A meeting between DIT officials and US business representatives earlier in the year did not result in any binding actions, and no memorandum of understanding was discussed.”

Improve understanding

An IEA spokeswoman said the IEA had not done work at the request of civil servants, but it is working on a “draft trade agreement” using Oklahoma as a case study. It said the E Foundation had offered to help fund the agreement, but the IEA believed “individuals rather than companies would be the primary supporters.”

The MOU was aimed at “furthering public understanding”, she added.

The IEA is a charity, which limits the type of political activity it can be involved in. In 2016 its trustees assured the regulator, the Charity Commission, that it does not engage in “policy engineering” or campaigning beyond its mission of educating the public about economics.

This was according to a response the commission wrote following a complaint about the IEA from Andrew Purkis, a former Charity Commission board member.

But Purkis told Unearthed IEA’s work in support of a US-UK free trade deal appeared to be “a campaign which is not designed to improve public levels of information, not balanced and neutrally presented, and which actually has a specific policy goal which is motivating it”.

An IEA spokeswoman said: “We are confident that the IEA is acting in accordance with Charity Commission regulations. The IEA’s mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.”

‘Bracket and smother’

Carnuccio also outlined plans for a campaign that would apply pressure on individual MPs by targeting their constituencies, using a tactic he called “bracket and smother”:

“Mark [Littlewood] and his team will be able to tell us… this Member of Parliament, he needs work, this one’s good, we’ll micro-target his district, right. We’ll pepper him with social media, with grassroots swell, and then, with the national publications.”

“We call that strategy, bracket and smother… it’s the idea that like, if you’re a Member of Parliament and we’re trying to target you, when you go home and you go to like your grocery store or you go to the restaurant or anything else, all the people there have been hit… with these messages when you walk in the door and either say you’re a great guy or you’re an ass,” he continued.

In a later phone conversation, Carnuccio said he was familiar with the tactic from US politics, and the IEA would lead on the campaign in the UK: “In terms of the actual tactical what’s on the ground and going there, you know, I’m in Oklahoma, they’re in London… they’ll direct that, they’ll know that.”

An IEA spokeswoman said of “bracket and smother”: “We have no record of this.”

Eat chicken

The campaign targeting MPs would be part of a wider plan to challenge EU opposition to chlorinated chicken and hormone beef: “I mean, it’s strategic communications to say that cows are not happy in the United States coz of their hormones or that chlorinated chicken is killing people all over the world or something,” Carnuccio said.

“We quickly figured out that we’re gonna have to have some level of marketing, advertising, communications strategy that is going to impact the consumer in the UK but also from more of a political pressure standpoint, it will challenge the narrative that the EU has always had,” Carnuccio continued.

Carnuccio said leading Brexiteer MPs would come for a three-day trip to Oklahoma, where they would tour a chicken farm and eat chicken in front of the cameras to help persuade British shoppers US products were safe to eat. Carnuccio claimed that then Brexit minister, Steve Baker, was working with Singham to identify which MPs to take, and was keen to come.

“They wanted to look at chicken because chlorinated chicken is a big question and how does it work. They wanted to look at a cow-calf operation, you know, the whole question about GMOs, right,” said Carnuccio.

An IEA spokeswoman said the plan to eat chicken for the cameras was “really a bit of a joke”.

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, the investigations website published by Greenpeace.

Finding a reliable, eco-friendly and economical energy supply benefits everyone. Finding sustainable ways to live a comfortable life is an important part of existing on this planet.

We don’t have another place to call home, so if we want to thrive and survive, we have to take care of the one we have. Technology has helped advance a lot of comforts that make life easier, and it may be the key to affordable energy.

Fossil fuels have been a source of energy since 1,000 BC, with the Industrial Revolution making it the main source in the mid-1700s to today. While effective, there are some downsides, including the harm fossil fuels cause the environment and the fact that they aren’t renewable.

Humans have already done untold damage to the environment. Some of this might be able to be reversed, but some can’t. There is a desire to fix what can be fixed and stop any more damage from occurring. To accomplish this goal, there is a drive to find renewable and affordable energy sources. Of which, one possibility is geothermal.

Geothermal Energy

This renewable energy source is stored in the earth and can be used to create electricity. Geothermal plants access the steam or hot water reservoirs that exist underground and are used to power a generator or turbine. The best part about this energy source is that heat is always generated by the earth, so it can be a constant source of energy.

In the US, we have used large-scale, commercial geothermal plants since the 1960s. There are geothermal plants around the world, including in Italy, the Philippines (which has three of the 10 largest plants in the world), Indonesia, Mexico and Iceland.

There are three types of geothermal power plants: binary cycle, flash steam and dry steam. Dry stream plants use pipes to move the steam from underground wells directly to the power plant.

Binary cycle plants use hot water to boil another liquid with a lower boiling point, which is then vaporised into a heat exchanger that turns the turbine.

At a flash steam plant, underground water naturally makes its way to the surface, losing steam along the way, which is captured and used to power the turbine or generator.

Commercial uses of geothermal energy are the most common, but they are not the only way to use this renewable energy source. Smaller home units also exist to keep homes warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Geothermal systems can sometimes be easier to maintain, despite being underground, which cuts down on maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, geothermal energy isn’t widely used because of the cost associated with its implementation. Building a plant can be incredibly expensive, and even though the heat from the earth is widespread, there are only certain areas in the world where it’s easy to access. Installing a geothermal system in your home can also be a costly endeavor. There are companies who are attempting to lower the cost and improve the technology, but it is an ongoing process.

Renewable Energy

Some of the most commonly known renewable energy resources include solar, wind and hydro, with geothermal coming in fourth on the list. All of these are renewable and have a lower impact on health and the environment than fossil fuels. Despite the benefits of using renewable energy, it is not widely implemented as a source of energy throughout the world.

One of the main reasons for a lack of use for renewable energy is the cost associated with installing the equipment. As technology advances, as tax breaks are given and as policies improve, which have an impact on lowering the cost of installing and maintaining equipment, the incentive to utilise renewable energy increases — and countries around the world are heeding the call.

China leads the world with implementing renewable energy. This was driven by concerns over air pollution. The country is so serious about implementing renewable energy programs that they have surpassed their solar PV target for 2020. The two other countries that have expanded their renewable energy resources in addition to China are the US and India.  

The growth in renewable energy is encouraging and substantial, but more can and still needs to be done. Fossil fuels are still the most abundant energy source that are produced and consumed, especially in the US and China. To combat fossil fuels consumption, it’s essential to find new sources of renewable energy, and and geothermal energy has incredible untapped potential. 

The future of humanity, all other life and the planet depend on our ability to find renewable energy sources. Developing renewable sources and making them a cost-effective form of energy is a great start. We will have to keep working to find ways to improve their reliability and economic viability, especially with geothermal energy, so it can be implemented on a worldwide scale.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

The limited supply and infinite use of natural fuels has created an energy crisis. Overconsumption has strained energy resources for decades. The uncontrolled soar of overpopulation has added fuel to this fire. The dated infrastructure and management have led to wastage. 

Such dire circumstances have made it paramount for us, as a community, to find a solution. We need to explore renewable energy efficiently and take advantage of its potential.

Solar power

Today, you can use solar installations and solar operations for entrepreneurial purposes as well as at home. It is low maintenance and can help reduce electricity bills.

The wide criticism of expensive installation has not deterred environment enthusiasts from embracing this natural source of renewable energy. The energy produced by solar panels for an hour can be used to supply the entire planet for a year. Yet we are only able to harness only 0.001 percent of this potential source.

A solar power farm like Ivanpah needs 5000 times more space, as compared to the Diablo Canyon solar farm, to produce a single unit of energy. But the fact is that solar is a renewable source of energy in its most sustainable form.

Is it the case then that other forms of renewable energy are more trouble than they’re worth?

Endangering birds

Wind turbines in Germany may have caused extinction for a lot of individual species of birds. Offshore expansions may be a fruitful resources for the economy but rare harbour porpoises have borne the brunt of the expansion and are now endangered.

In North America, biologists have argued that migratory bat populations risk extinction if the expansion of wind farming is not controlled. Drastic reduction in the population of hoary bats has been observed. The wind facilities have annually resulted in countless fatalities of this endangered species.

California, on the other hand, has taken the lives of hundreds of desert tortoises and burned six thousand birds at Ivanpah wind facility. 4700 golden eagles are killed annually at another Californian wind farm. 59400 birds are killed in solar farms while 328000 birds are annually killed at wind facilities in the United  States of America. 

The loss and injury of rare birds and other species cannot be ignored.

It takes up to three-quarters of an hour to shut a wind turbine, which is not enough time to save birds that swoop towards the facilities. We need to be smart with our advances in renewable energy.

Aviary experts and conservationists are now openly resisting the progress of renewable energy. Celebrities, writers, social media activists and even the general population has taken it as a serious issue.

Fossil fuel-based power stations

Despite this argument though, reports highlight that wind turbines don’t pose as serious a problem for birds as climate change. The report confirms that numerous bird species including the bald eagle are at serious risk due to climate change. Forecasts reveal that they may even lose around 95 percent of their current range.

In fact, bird deaths due to wind turbines are even lower than those caused by their collisions with radio and cell towers. Statistically, wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds every year. On the other hand, cell and radio towers take the lives of 6.8 million birds annually. On top of that, cats are responsible for about 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion bird deaths.

Moreover, a 2009 study that used European and US data on bird deaths concluded that fossil fuel-based power stations kill fifteen times more birds than wind and nuclear power stations.

The study remarked that nuclear power stations and wind farms caused about 0.3-0.4 fatalities for every gigawatt-hour (GWh). On the flip side, power stations that run on fossil fuels lead to 5.2 fatalities per GWh.

Futhermore, research goes on to say that birds are able to detect the wind turbines and alter their flight course in due time to save their lives. It seems that wind turbines that provide clean energy are falsely accused as wind choppers that take substantial number of bird lives.

Take action

We can save the space that solar panels need by placing the collectors on our own rooftops. These investments today will help our future generations to have a sustainable life. Hydroelectricity and nuclear power may need a lot of funding and government intervention, but solar power is achievable.

You can switch to solar energy efficient home appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners that can help you save your hard-earned money. Solar powered lamps instead of light bulbs would be another easy step towards a better future.

Renewable energy could be causing some harm to wildlife. While large-scale facilities may be a danger to the birds, we can still take small, individually innocuous steps in the right direction to save the planet. What we nurture today is exactly what our children shall inherit tomorrow. Let’s save the planet, a little at a time.

This Author

Alycia Gordan is a freelance writer who loves to read and write articles on healthcare technology, fitness and lifestyle. She is a tech junkie and divides her time between travel and writing. You can find her on Twitter: @meetalycia

Nine right-wing organisations – including think tanks pushing disinformation about climate change – have been accused of mounting a coordinated campaign to push for a hard Brexit, according to court documents.

Whistleblower Shahmir Sanni, formerly of youth campaign group BeLeave, claims that think tanks and campaign groups held regular meeting at 55 Tufton Street — an office close to Westminster and home to the climate science denial group the Global Warming Policy Foundation — to “agree on a single set of right-wing talking points” and “securing more exposure to the public”.

Some of the topics discussed allegedly included “new policy announcement by the Labour Party, developments in the Brexit negotiations, or any other political news story”.

Legal proceedings

The accusations were made in documents from an employment tribunal setting out Sanni’s case  against pressure group the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which he has accused of unfair dismissal after he spoke out about illegal behaviour at Vote Leave, the official pro-Brexit campaign group.

According to Sanni’s claim, the organisations involved in this right-wing campaign for media coverage include the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the officer of Peter Whittle, the former deputy leader of UKIP, Civitas, the Adam Smith Institute, Leave Means Leave, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Brexit Central, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute for Economic Affairs.  

As DeSmog UK previously reported, these organisations have strong ties with Tory MPs and Cabinet members and are working together to advocate for deregulation and a hard-Brexit.

Sanni filed a lawsuit against the TaxPayers’ Alliance the day after the Electoral Commission published findings that Vote Leave had broke electoral spending laws during the EU referendum by funneling money to BeLeave.

Responding to the suit, the Taxpayers’ Alliance told The Guardian that it “acted at all times in a fair and correct manner and we reject (and will be defending) the claims Mr Sanni has made”. The group declined to comment further because of the ongoing legal proceedings.

Revolving Doors

Sanni’s claim also emphasised how the organisations based around 55 Tufton Street had revolving doors between the groups for employees.

Matthew Elliott, the former head of the Vote Leave campaign group, which was based at 55 Tufton Street, is also the co-founder and former CEO of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and now works as the editor-at-large of Brexit Central, both organisations which work out of 55 Tufton Street.

Elliott is also a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute, another free-market think tank which has been described as “the most influential think tank in the country” providing extensive advice to the government on Brexit issues.

The Legatum Institute’s former key lobbyist Shanker Singham, now director of international trade at the Institute for Economic Affairs, has strong ties to the US climate science denial lobby, and has slotted neatly into a network of transatlantic climate science deniers pushing for a hard Brexit.

Sanni’s claim states that although he was employed with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, he had initially applied for a job with Brexit Central for the role of deputy editor. While Elliott and Brexit Central editor Jonathan Isaby interviewed Sanni, he was offered a role with the TaxPayers’ Alliance for which, at the time, neither Elliott nor Isaby were officially working.

A number of staff from the Vote Leave campaign have also gone on to work for the TaxPayers’ Alliance, including former development director of Vote Leave, John O’Connell, now CEO of the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Chloe Westley a senior team member of Vote Leave is now the group’s campaign manager and Vote Leave’s Operation manager Tom Banks is now the groups’ grassroots campaign manager.

Science deniers

Included in this network of organisations pushing for a hard Brexit is the UK’s premier climate science denial campaign group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

Founded by prominent climate science denier Nigel Lawson, the group aims to fight back against what it describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change.

Despite disputing the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate science, the GWPF still has a voice in Parliament.

Both Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton Graham Stringer and Tory MP for North Shropshire Owen Paterson have strong ties with the GWPF as well as three Tory members of the House of Lords including Peter Lilley, Matt Ridley and Nigel Vinson.

Lilley’s also sits on “a committee of experts” closely advising international trade secretary Liam Fox, DeSmog UKpreviously revealed.

Lilley is a supporter of the European Research Group (ERG). Led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG is lobbying for a hard Brexit and has been described by Buzzfeed as “an aggressive, disciplined, and highly organised parliamentary and media operation”. Former Brexit minister, Steve Baker, is a past chair of the group.

Hard Brexit

The ERG has grabbed media attention over the last few months over its influence on the Brexit negotiations and for crushing Theresa May’s short-lived soft Brexit plan agreed by her cabinet during a meeting at Chequers earlier this month.

Following the vote, leading pro-EU Tory Anna Soubry warned May that she was “no longer in charge” and that Rees-Mogg and the ERG were “running the country”.

Some of the group’s most influential supporters include prominent members of May’s cabinet.

Newly appointed Brexit minister Dominic Raab and environment secretary Michael Gove were active supporters of the group before being promoted to cabinet roles while international trade secretary Liam Fox has also used the ERG to gather support among MPs.

Tory MP John Redwood, former environment secretary Owen Paterson and new peer Peter Lilley are also members of the ERG and notable climate science deniers.

Cabinet ministers

The influence of the 55 Tufton Street network reaches all the way into May’s cabinet.

Brexit minister Raab, and newly appointed health secretary Matt Hancock both are connected to the Tufton Street network through the Institute for Economic Affairs, a free-market think tank that pushes for deregulation and refuses to reveal where its funding comes from.

Environmental secretary Gove also has strong ties to the Tufton Street hub through his involvement with the Vote Leave campaign and think tank the New Culture Forum, while International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has been a strong supporter of Grassroot Outs, a pro-Brexit campaign group that sprung out of infighting between Vote Leave and Nigel Farage and Arron Banks’ Leave.EU.

Grassroots Out was also supported by DUP MP and climate science denier, Sammy Wilson. The Conservatives and DUPsigned a ‘supply and confidence’ pact to provide Theresa May’s government with additional votes on key issues.

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

The rupestrian grasslands of Brazil are facing serious threats, researchers from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Unesp-Rio Claro, and Stanford University have warned.

These areas are ancient and megadiverse vegetational complexes. They harbour more than 5,000 plant species and one of the highest levels of endemic species in the world.

In Brazil, this unique ecosystem occupies 83000 km2 of quartzite and iron mountaintops in the Minas Gerais and Bahia states, most of which are located in the Espinhaço mountain range.

Synergy or collapse

A recent study – “The deadly route of collapse and the uncertain fate of Brazilian rupestrian grasslands” – predicted a loss of up to 82 percent of this ecosystem by 2070. 

This will impact the whole region, including its water supply and food security. More than 50 million people in Brazil could be effected. 

Geraldo Wilson Fernandes, one of the study’s authors, said: “Mining is one of the activities that causes negative impacts.

“Others are badly managed and planned road building, biological invasion, urban sprawl, and the complete inability of public environmental agencies to monitor and act due to lack of information about this ecosystem.”

Unrestrained tourism and forestry are other vectors of great relevance. Everything has synergy and collaborates to a route of collapse.  Uncontrolled human activity is harming biodiversity in the grasslands. 

Fernandes added: “Species do not exist alone and many depend on others for their survival. The withdrawal of vital species results in a cascade of events that can lead to the collapse of the entire ecosystem and the change in the production of natural resources.”

Delicately balanced

The study contains data collected over a 30 year period. It considers the sustainable use and conservation of rupestrian grasslands specifically in relation to the area’s particular characteristics. They cannot be treated as if they were forests.

Rupestrian grasslands are millions of years old, with very particular soil conditions. A delicately balanced harmony allows for the survival of certain species. Fernandes argues that to remove native vegetation in order to plant trees only serves economic interests.

She said: “More than creating conservation parks, our plan is to establish with the society and decision makers a proposal for the rational use of the rupestrian grasslands, based on scientific knowledge, and to work together with all the stakeholders. Otherwise, political measures may not be effective.”

This Author

Jacqueline B. Ramos is the communication manager at GAP Project International and an environmental journalist. Read her blog here.

The hills, heat, helmets, bottlenecks, overtaking busses, being overtaken by busses, men who shout, men who stare, potholes: cycling in London has its drawbacks. 

My commute from south to central London is 10 miles each way, takes about an hour, and saves me around £100 a month. I don’t own any Lycra and my trusty – or just rusty – bike is older than I am. Cycling helped me get to know the city that I now call home: everything is much closer together than you’d think and sometimes that’s good to realise. I’m fitter and happier.

But serious collisions – like this one, between a woman cyclist and a cement mixer – cut through the everyday frustrations and bring severe dangers into sharp focus. Reading about it, a slow-burning militancy bubbled over. This city’s blind spots are numerous and they eclipse more than we can afford to lose. 

National funeral

The activist group Stop Killing Cyclists was set up after six cyclists were killed in London in November 2013. At their first ‘die-in’, 1500 cyclists laid down in the road to protest traffic violence. 

The group has called for a ‘National Funeral for the Unknown Cyclist’ on 13th October 2018. The procession and rally on Parliament Square will call for a £3billion per-year investment in cycling, and a reversal of tax cuts on toxic diesel and petrol. 

Their most recent demonstration was in June 2018 outside Woolwich Town Hall. Three cyclists had been killed in as many weeks in south east London. A fourth was then killed on the A102, on a roundabout along the path of the planned Cycle Superhighway 4. 

As the website Beyond the Kerb pointed out, the Government’s recent Cycle Safety Review procured its independent legal advice from Birkett’s, a member of the Road Haulage Association’s legal panel.

True to form, the review was authored by Laura Thomas, an ex-director of the Freight Transport Association. With this in view, can we really expect the radical changes that we need?

Direct vision

Notoriously, back in 2009, 10 out of 13 fatal cycling accidents in the capital were women, and eight of them were killed by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). 

According to Transport for London (TfL), HGVs drive four percent of the city’s road miles, but are involved in 50 percent of cyclist deaths. 

By 2024 HGVs will need a visibility rating of at least 3/5 to drive through London. The Mayor’s Office believes there are currently 35,000 trucks operating in the city that would receive a zero rating. These trucks will be banned by 2020. 

This policy is called the Direct Vision Standard (DVS). It will assess what a driver can see directly through their cab windows, as opposed to indirectly through cameras or mirrors.

Direct action

I wonder how far we might push this standard. I’m lucky enough to have never been injured on London’s roads, but I think of a pedestrian who once grabbed hold of my handlebars as I stopped for him at a zebra crossing. He looked right at me and shouted: “What are you waiting for? You’re waiting for me!”

I couldn’t work out whether it was meant as a threat or a daring provocation. He seemed at once to be saying, this is my space, get back – and what’s stopping you here, go faster. 

Did he think that I was too assertive, or too timid, or a heady, misogynistic mix of both? In any case, though many looked on, nobody intervened; though he saw me look scared, he went right ahead. 

There was no restrictive mirror or raised cab – but I still felt swallowed up in a zone that nobody was really seeing. 

It’s time that London confronted these social, infrastructural, and environmental blind spots. We need safe roads. Insisting on direct vision is one step in that direction, but perhaps it’s only direct action that will get us the whole way there.  

‘Near Miss’

In 2017 Cycling UK wrote that 20 percent of men report being ‘regular’ cyclists, compared with eight percent of women; men travel on average 86 miles per year by bike, while women travel 21. Three quarters of women never cycle. 

In response, the same champion of UK cyclists published its aspirational 100 Women in Cycling list in June 2018.

‘Women’, Cycling UK wrote, ‘have always lagged being men in taking up cycling’. Despite some good work, something in the language here jars, to say the least. 

June was a busy month. A report published by the charity Sustrans detailed some aspects of the gender gap in UK cycling in great detail, but didn’t include statistics on gender-based traffic violence or harassment, despite the stark female mortality figures. 

A report compiled by the Near Miss project, and published in the Journal of Transport and Health, utilised 1500 cyclists’ testimonies regarding incidents that didn’t result in injury. They found that women cyclists are twice as likely than their male counterparts to experience harassment or bad driving. 

Is it simply the case that women are ‘lagging behind’?

Ovarian Psycos

By contrast, the Goldsmiths research project Bikes and Bloomers highlighted some of the ways in which women on bikes were at the centre of historical debates around gender, mobility, and public space. 

Women’s innovate insistence that they too would take to the wheel underscores important connections between freedom of movement and freedom of identity that are as relevant today as ever. 

Today, collectives such as 56a Bikespace London emphasise the relationships between autonomy, community, and environmental sustainability.

Further afield, films such as Ovarian Psycos show how women cyclists – the ‘runaways and throwaways’ – confront racism and violence along the barrios and boulevards of Los Angeles. 

Our roads are the fault lines that trace a huge range of connected issues: violence, poverty, pollution, toxicity.

Rather than corporate developments such as the Underline, Skycircle or the Thames Deckway, might we turn instead to radical, communal reclamations of our transport network in order to encourage and protect cyclists?

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is contributing editor for The Ecologist, focussing on change makers. She is also a PhD candidate at Birkbeck College and a lecturer in English literature at Canterbury Christ Church University. @curiousvolumes.

Drivers who spot roadkill can actually help conservationists. The People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) is calling on the public to record sightings of mammals – dead or alive – while driving along Britain’s roads.

Submissions will form part of PTES’s annual Mammals on Roads survey, designed to spot changing trends in populations and identify where conservation action is needed most.

According to a recent report by the Mammal Society, compiled with PTES’s help, one in five wild mammal species in Britain is at risk of extinction. But getting an idea of the size of populations and how numbers are changing remains difficult.

David Wembridge, surveys officer at PTES, explained: “At the moment, a lot of what we know is still a ‘best guess’ and what we really need are good records of mammals and of all sorts of species, more generally. Better estimates of numbers will help us understand our wildlife and the ‘natural health’ of the nation.”

Get involved

David continued: “Together with the more traditional, paper-based methods, we hope the app will encourage more people to get involved in conservation and wildlife recording. The survey, of course, should only be done by passengers in the car – drivers should always have their full attention on the road and other vehicles.”

This year, the survey runs from Sunday 1st July through to Sunday 30th September and participants in this citizen science project can take part either online or via an app on a smart phone or tablet.

Over the three summer months, PTES is asking families, car-sharing commuters or anyone on Britain’s roads, to record sightings of mammals and submit the records online, or with the Mammals on Roads app, available for free from the App Store and Google Play. 

The annual Mammals on Roads survey will help ongoing conservation efforts, building a countrywide picture from records submitted by the public of how the numbers of hedgehogs, badgers and other species are changing.

Previous findings have revealed the shocking decline in hedgehog numbers, which led to the launch of the nationwide campaign Hedgehog Street, run with the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, which now has almost 50,000 volunteers committed to helping save the humble hedgehog.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES). To support PTES’ ongoing conservation work, you can donate £3 by texting ‘PTES18 £3’ to 70070.