Kelp dredging is currently not allowed in Scotland. This could change as the biochemical company Marine Biopolymers has submitted a scoping report to Marine Scotland outlining plans to dredge for the kelp Laminaria hyperborea over a huge area of Scotland’s West Coast. 

This type of dredging already takes place in other countries such as Norway, North America, and Iceland. The potential devastating impacts on the environment and coastal communities are just starting to be understood. 

Marine Biopolymers describe the kelp habitat as a ‘monoculture’;  it is more commonly thought of as one of the most ecologically dynamic and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. L. hyperborea supports more life than the other kelp species in Scottish waters.  Kelp is a ‘Keystone species’ at the bottom of the food chain: to remove it is ‘fishing down the food chain’ at its very worst.  

Marine ecocide

Currently kelp can only be hand-cut with a license from the Crown Estate, with strict guidelines on preserving the plant. The hand harvester must cut the kelp above the meristem ensuring that the holdfast, stipe, and a large part of the frond remain intact to allow the kelp to regenerate.  They must record invertebrate by-catch, and community structure must be monitored to ensure no changes in assemblage of structure.

Marine Biopolymers want to tow a large-toothed dredge in strips through kelp beds ripping the entire plant up by the holdfast (killing it), then throw the holdfast over the side to ‘facilitate survival’ of invertebrates. 

Assuming any invertebrates survive this treatment, where are they meant to go when chucked back over the side? Their habitat is gone, the other invertebrates are not going to ‘budge up’ and make room for them, that’s not how biology works.   

Kelp is long-lived and the holdfast and stipe are a vital part of the habitat, supporting other seaweeds, and hundreds of species of invertebrate that feed fish, including cod, seatrout, and wrasse, lobster, crab, otters, birds, seals, and us.  

So much employment of coastal Scotland is reliant upon a healthy coastal ecosystem: fisheries and eco-tourism would all be jeopardised by the destruction of kelp beds. We can’t peddle Scotland to tourists as a beautiful pristine environment, whilst committing ecocide under the waves at the same time.

Moreover, climate change is happening.  Its effects, such as increasing acidity and rougher seas are already being measured in our oceans.  Kelp sequesters significant amounts of carbon, buffers acidity, and acts as a storm barrier for coasts.   

Endangering biodiversity

The Scottish Governments ‘Wild Seaweed Harvesting Consultation’ from November 2017 references papers which highlight the many unknowns associated with kelp dredging. 

L.hyperborea is only classed as having a ‘moderate’ recovery potential. One study showed that it did not re-grow at all, whilst another tells of places where sea urchins have taken over due to the absence of predators (they went with the kelp) allowing them to over graze and inhibit kelp regeneration.

The only thing we know for a fact is that removing the kelp would most definitely reduce an incredible habitat along with everything that relies on it, and it would remove one of the few barriers to ocean acidification.

Virgin kelp beds can be looked on in the same way as virgin terrestrial forest. At the moment the beds are pristine, they have been evolving for thousands of years; that is not the sort of habitat that can recover in the short term.

Even if the L. hyperboreais dredged and returns to harvestable size within 5 or 6 years (which is not a given) there is no evidence that original communities ever return, and of course they never well if the area is re dredged every time it gets big enough to make it worth the dredgers time. The new habitat would be more homogeneous than before with plants of the same age. Homogeneity is the enemy of biodiversity.  Biodiversity is what supports our coastal fisheries and life. 

Sustainable solutions

There is a growing demand for seaweed products, but it doesn’t need to be from dredged kelp. 

Scottish waters are an ideal environment for farming kelp which could create real sustainable employment in coastal communities without jeopardising the ecosystem.  The Scottish Association for Marine Science have proven that kelp can be farmed at their test sites near Oban, and there are successful kelp farms in the Faeroes, and Rathlin Island between Scotland and Ireland.  

There are an increasing numbers of successful small businesses doing well selling seaweed as food where the emphasis is on sustainability.  

If alginate companies are finding it hard to farm the kelp that they need, then work needs to be done to identify how to overcome whatever obstacles they are encountering. Marine Biopolymers may be able to get more alginate more quickly by ripping up wild L.hyperborea, but so what?  It is not theirs to take. 

The importance of this habitat is so great that allowing dredging at any level is to set a dangerous precedent where short term profit comes above a healthy coastal environment.  The kelp forests and the life that they support belong to all of us and should never be dredged up for a fast profit for one company.  

To open the door to this proposal would normalise dredging. Businesses always want to expand, and other alginate companies would want a slice of the pie.  The door to kelp dredging must be slammed shut now.

This Author 

Ailsa McLellan has a background in marine science and over 18 years of experience working in inshore fisheries management.  She currently runs an oyster farm with her husband, and has been diversifying into seaweed. She is a member of the Scottish Seaweed Industry Association. Find her on Twitter @AilsaMcL. For more information see the report by Ecology and Evolution, and visit the ‘Stop Mechanical Kelp Dredging’ Facebook page. 

Migration is one the most profound effects of climate change on human population.

Climate change impacts such as accelerating sea-level rise and weather extremes, like hurricanes and droughts, are happening with increased regularity and intensity. They cause damage to property, infrastructure and livelihoods and, ultimately, force people to leave their homes.

Yet, the news media connects climate induced migration with security, risk and victimisation, rather than with the plight of displaced people. This comes with consequences for policy options.

Vulnerable communities 

The destructive paths of the 2017 hurricanes in the Caribbean show that the most dramatic climate change impacts fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable in terms socioeconomic status, no matter which country they live in. 

Developing countries, the least responsible for climate change, will be most dramatically and immediately affected.

International migration to wealthier and less vulnerable regions is one way in which vulnerable communities cope with the impacts of a changing climate.

Victim or threat

Despite the severity of the issue, little of the real situation of climate change effects on vulnerable populations is reported in western mass media. While climate change has gained news coverage, media discourse on the social nature of climate change is limited, compared to energy or policy issues. 

When climate migration gains traction in the media in countries like the US, UK and Australia, those forced to relocate are described mainly as victims of a changing climate, required to abandon their homes or as potential threat to social order. 

With regards to the security threat frame, the rationale is that climate change is projected to threaten natural resources, and bring already fragile societies to the brink of collapse.

This new wave of refugees will supposedly fuel crime rise, even though there is no empirical connection between migration and crime.

Similarly, evidence that links resource scarcity and conflict is weak: the war in Syria has been labelled as a climate conflict in the media, despite the fact that there is little evidence that climate change helped create and sustain this conflict.

On the other hand, victimization points to a personalized or emotionalized perspective of climate-driven human mobility. People forced to relocate in the context of climate change are represented as desperate sufferers who can only be helped by the rich, developed countries of the West. 

Overall, either victim or threat, media representations of climate migration highlight migrating people’s otherness, as they are perceived as outsiders and external to ‘western’ experiences.

How and why certain people and certain nations are more vulnerable to climate change impacts are neglected topics. Little is known about vulnerable communities’ political agency, their inherent rights and their actions to protect livelihoods, defend homeland and culture.

Reduced mandate

Considering the rich variety of media-policy connections, it’s not surprising that the nature of climate migration discourse in the media does not differ sharply from its treatment in policy circuits.

Migration seems to be receiving short shrift in the climate policy discussion, coincided with periods of anti-immigrant narratives that migrants and refugees are increasingly being perceived as a problem.

For instance, there is a profound difference in how our responsibility to protect the rights of climate migrants and refugees has been addressed at the UN over time.

Almost a decade ago, in 2010, climate change induced migration was explicitly and formally recognized in the text of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

However, the subsequent Paris Agreement has a reduced mandate, as it only refers generally to ‘displacement’ – without specifying what the term means – as part of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, which still lacks a coordinated framework for addressing the multiple challenges of climate migration.

The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, the principal international legal instrument for the protection of people forcibly displaced across international borders, does not cover climate change induced mobility.

The UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants in 2016 was assumed to be an important turn for climate migration policies. However, the resultant New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants failed to meet its aspirations.

The recent non-binding Global Compact of Migration makes reference to climate change induced migration but does not provide a specific protection to climate displaced people. 

New narrative

Meanwhile, former US President Barack Obama, high-profile environmentalist Al Gore, and Prince Charles have referred to climate change induced migration as a cause of disruption, social unrest and violence, warning of what is going to happen to host countries if climate change is left unaddressed. 

At the same time, in the post-Paris era, the notion of migration as an adaptation strategy has gained ground in climate migration advocacy.

Voluntary migration is suggested as an effective way to allow people to generate extra income and build resilience where climate change threatens livelihoods.

But even if climate migration is framed as adaptive, it places additional stress on already vulnerable communities, as it relies on the individual migrant’s ability to compete in and benefit from labour markets in wealthier and less vulnerable regions.

The failure to make room for the issue, along with the increasingly restrictive refugee and migration policies, signal urgency for a new narrative for climate migration.

Given the media’s role in framing issues surrounding climate change, a challenge emerges for theorists and practitioners of climate change communication. 

As media coverage of climate migration issues is only slowly emerging, there is a window of opportunity to proactively influence the media agenda.

We need to empower journalists and media professionals to enable the emergence of climate change debates beyond the energy, policy and security frame, and push for policies that address historical injustices, protect human rights and contribute to the transformation of how climate change induced migration is perceived.

Vulnerable communities are determined of protecting their rights, cultures and livelihoods: we must embrace their narrative. 

This Author

Maria Sakellari is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow at the University of Brighton. Her project IKETIS has received funding under the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No 74829).

Nicolas Hulot, the French environment minister,  has resigned saying he had felt alone in pushing for more ambitious climate policies and an energy transition to take place in France.

Hulot, a former broadcaster known in France for his wildlife and conservation documentaries, told France Inter that he had taken the decision to quit the government.

“I don’t want to lie to myself anymore,” he said. “I don’t want to give the illusion that my presence in the French government shows that we are doing what it takes to face these challenges. I have taken the decision to leave the government. This is about being sincere with myself.”

Where are my troops?

Hulot said he had not told President Emmanuel Macron or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe about his intention to resign, which also came as a surprise to the two journalists interviewing him on the morning news programme.

Hulot was made environment minister for the first time in May 2017 after deciding not to run as a presidential candidate a year earlier.

As part of Macron’s government, he was forced to accept the implementation of the EU-Canada free trade agreement and a delay in reducing the share of nuclear power in France’s energy mix to 50 percent by 2025 — decisions to which he publicly objected. Rumours of Hulot’s imminent resignation were common during his time in office.

Describing his “immense friendship” with Macron’s government, Hulot said that although he had no regrets in joining the government he had suffered from his time in office, increasingly accommodating himself with “small steps” at a time when “the planet is becoming a sauna and deserves that we change the way we think and operate”.

“Am I up to the task? Who would be up to this task on their own? Where are my troops? Who is behind me?”, he asked.

Profound introspection

The environmentalist and former TV presenter admitted that he had been thinking about resigning throughout the summer but that it was the presence of hunting lobbyist Thierry Coste at a ministerial meeting to which he was not invited that prompted him to take the decision.

“We have to talk about this because it’s a democratic issue to ask who holds the power and who governs in this country,” he told France Inter.

Hulot said his time in office had been “an accumulation of disappointments”, citing France’s failure to move away from nuclear power. He said he felt like he had “a bit of influence but no power”.

He stressed that the transition to a carbon-free world was a “collective responsibility” and that the dominating liberalism model had to be put into question if the world was to move to a green economy.

“I hope that my resignation will lead to a profound introspection of our society on the reality of the world,” he said, pleading all sides not to use his resignation as political tool.

So crucial

Benjamin Griveaux, spokesman for the French government told French TV channel BFM TV he regretted the way Hulot has chosen to make his decision public, adding: “I think it would have been basic courtesy to warn the president and the prime minister.”

Opposition politicians were also quick to respond to the announcement.

The leader of the opposition les Republicans party Laurent Wauquiez, told RTL radio that he understood that Hulot felt he had been “betrayed” by Macron.

“I don’t necessarily share his opinions, but I can understand that he feels betrayed — like many French people — by the fact strong promises were made but the impression that these promises have not been kept.”

Ségolène Royal, former environment minister under the previous socialist government during which the Paris Agreement was signed, wrote on twitter: “I respect Nicolas Hulot’s choice. As I know from experience, he has proved that the battles for the environment are very difficult but so crucial.”

“France needs to keep the climate leadership and be ready to fight for those forces around the planet that hope for a better future.”

Yannick Jadot, from the French Green party, said: “The departure of Nicolas Hulot from the government is the consequence of the absence of environmental policies from this government.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Not everything in this action is legal. But the action itself has legitimacy. In the scientific paper titled Is Earth F ** ked? geophysicist Brad Werner concludes with the words, “more or less”.

But in his complex models, one variable gives hope: direct environmental actions by people who carry out blockades or sabotages and who go beyond the capitalist logic. That is what is happening in Groningen now.

Mathias, 30, is one of the busloads of participants coming from Belgium. This is not a first for him. He told The Ecologist: “Here I do not feel so powerless or alone anymore, in relation to the climate breakdown. But it’s not just about that positive energy, our collective strategy is also working.”

The blockade succeeded

To keep it that way, Mathias gives trainings. “This is about peaceful collective civil disobedience to tackle the climate problem at source: the exploitation of fossil fuels. There is no room for rioting machos here,” he said.

This is certainly clear at the last training session before the blockade, where I walk with the Belgian student Stephanie Colling Woode Williams, 27. She discusses with her ‘buddy’ what they are going to do if one of them is pushed to the ground by a police officer.

Stephanie says she is calm in confrontations with the police. “I have experienced worse in an anti-racism demonstration, where extreme right-wing opponents awaited us and pulled leather belts from their pants,” she said.

At the training on Monday, Stephanie’s affinity group was one of ten that practiced a so-called ‘finger’ exercise where a total of about 100 disobedient citizens break through a cordon of a dozen acting cops.

It is only one of the many preparations that the activists have been working on for days. At the training three real police officers were watching, but plenty more awaited the activists on Tuesday. Nevertheless, the blockade succeeded.

The problem for police forces and for the governments they work for is that activists learn from each other and are getting better at this. Without a political revolution their numbers continue to grow.

International aid

The resignation of Nicolas Hulot as Minister of Ecological Transition in France this morning shows once again how difficult it is to bring about change through the usual political path.

There is a worldwide, below-radar mass of people whose patience ran out long ago. Someone who literally mapped that is the ecological economist Joan Martinez-Alier.

Together with activists from around the world, he and his academic team created an online atlas with more than 2,500 environmental conflicts, including maps with actions against gas and blockade actions.

He describes the emergence of a global movement for environmental justice, which in his opinion is not only more radical but also more efficient than the subsidised environmental movement.

In addition to the international aid, national solidarity is also visible everywhere: the Dutch support the Groningers in their struggle to stop gas exploitation that has been underway here for decades.

Direct action

Actions such as ‘Support a Groninger’ and ‘Knit for Groningen’ touch many Dutch people. The fact that gas production in Groningen already caused more than 1,000 earthquakes affecting more than 100,000 people living in now unsellable homes has something to do with this.

Groninger Jan Dales, 58, is someone like that. “My father died of a heart attack that I directly associate with the corruption at the institution that refused to acknowledge the damage to his house.”

Jan paid 2,000 euros to a certified researcher who proved that the house did indeed need considerable stability repairs – only to hit a brick wall of unwillingness.

With his lawsuit, he made it to national TV and he managed to get Prime Minister Mark Rutte to visit him in Groningen. “My troubled lawsuit suddenly caught a bizarre momentum.

“The day before Rutte came the judge decided that my complaint was inadmissible, after which the Prime Minister came to tell me that he could do nothing.” Jan’s had made up his mind: “Elections do not change anything here and the rule of law is rotten, so we’re left with direct action”.

Bridge fuel

Hanneke, 40, is the spokeswoman for Code Red, the movement that organises this action. She saw the will to action grow rapidly. “Code Red was created in the wake of the more established environmental organisations, in whose business model this kind of direct action to keep fossil fuels in the ground does not fit.

“People are tired of soft action, they want to take action right now. We make that possible.”

The ongoing Code Red action is the largest ever in the Netherlands. The multinationals of this world may gain power, the same can be said of the multinational resistance against polluting companies. The history books will celebrate the people who resist.

In the meantime, it is forbidden in the Netherlands for any new building to have a gas connection. In Belgium, where one and a half million people depend on the gas from Groningen, only the obligation for a gas connection for new buildings has been abolished.

Belgium’s government is lagging behind a rapidly changing situation.

The UK is even worse off, with the continuing push for gas, fracked or not. Forget the myth that gas is a so-called bridge fuel. A German think tank calls gas a bridge to nowhere. Gas is a bridge that is collapsing, with many of us walking right under it.

This Author

Nick Meynen is a geographer, author of Frontlines. Stories of Global Environmental Justice (now in Dutch, English forthcoming) and policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau. He’s also a regular contributor to The Ecologist.

Solar modules that produce electricity for use on the electric grid or to power individual homes and commercial buildings are impressive enough.

Solar panels are much more efficient than they used to be. And since 2010, the cost of solar photovoltaic panels has decreased by more than 60 percent, putting the technology in reach of millions of Americans. The United States now has enough solar capacity installed to power 5.7 million average US homes. 

But rooftop solar modules and utility-scale solar plants are not the only way that people are using solar technology. Here are seven innovative ways in which solar is being utilised today.

1. Trash and Recycling

Cities around the United States have started rolling out trash cans and recycling bins outfitted with solar-powered compactors. These devices use the power of the sun to compress their contents.

By compacting the trash people throw in them, these cans substantially increase their capacity, reducing their need to be emptied by up to 80 percent. This means cost savings on labor and transporting the trash. Because collection trucks don’t have to operate as often, these compactors also lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

These devices can even be equipped with smart sensors that send alerts when it’s time to empty them and provide insights that can help with optimising trash can placement.

2. Emergency Medicine

Solar devices are also playing a role in emergency medicine. Solar technology can provide power to medical personnel even in remote locations or in the wake of natural disasters when other sources of electricity are not available.

The We Care Solar Suitcase, for example, includes small solar panels that provide energy that health and emergency workers can use to power medical lighting, communications, laptops and small medical devices.

Shipping containers with solar panels affixed to their roofs can also serve as clinics during emergency and restoration situations. These solar-powered “tiny clinics” can be sent to disaster locations where medical personnel can use them to provide emergency care.

3. Vehicles

You can power electric cars with solar energy from rooftop solar panels or the grid. You can also increasingly find parking garages, small shelters and other structures outfitted with solar panels to charge the cars that park in or under them.

Increasingly, people are also using solar to power vehicles directly.

The first entirely solar-powered cars are scheduled for release in 2019. The Lightyear One, as it’s called, reportedly can drive up to nearly 500 miles without needing a charge.

Solar technology is becoming an increasingly realistic way to power a boat, with more and more boaters powering their vessels with the sun. In 2016, the Solar Impulse 2 became the first solar-powered plane to make a trip around the globe.

4. Clothing

While not quite a mainstream trend yet, solar clothing is started to cause a stir in the fashion industry. Numerous designers have created fashion items, from t-shirts to jackets to backpacks to jewelry, which incorporate solar technology. One t-shirt designed by Dutch designer Pauline van Dongen can reportedly generate up to one watt of electricity.

Jayan Thomas, a researcher at the NanoScience Technology Center at the University of Central Florida, recently created a nanofiber filament that you can weave into clothing. The copper material has small solar panels and a technology for storing energy on the other.

5. Device Chargers

You can buy solar-powered chargers for your mobile devices. Many of these chargers are portable, enabling you to charge your phone on the go and making them popular with outdoors enthusiasts.

One of the most popular solar chargers, the X-Dragon, has four small 1.2-watt panels and can fold up for transportation. Another device, the XDModo solar charger, can stick to your window to help it get as much light as possible. If you want a larger model, you can opt for the Fuse 6W Solar Charger, which has clips that allow you to attach to a backpack.

6. Ski Lifts

A tiny town in Switzerland called Tenna uses solar panels to power a ski lift that can transport up to 800 skiers an hour up the mountain. The system includes about 80 solar panels that tilt to follow the sun and automatically shake snow off of them.

The lift is also connected to the power grid in case it doesn’t get enough sunlight. On sunny days, it produces twice as much energy as needs and sends the rest back into the grid to power the rest of the town. During the offseason, it will provide all of its energy to the grid.

7. Paint

In the future, we might be able to use paint to collect energy from the sun to power our homes.

Researchers at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology are developing a solar paint which absorbs solar energy and moisture from the air and then splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then power a fuel cell. This paint could potentially turn any object into a source of energy.

Solar technology is already transforming our world, but it is continuing to do so in a variety of new and innovative ways. We’ll likely see many more solar inventions in the years to come.

This Author

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

The IPCC held its third meeting in Washington DC in February 1990 and US President George Bush Snr opened the session by referring to his recent State of the Union address: “A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and quality of human life and enterprise,” he told the American people.

“Clearly, strong economies allow nations to fulfil the obligations and environmental stewardship. Where there is economic strength, such protection is possible.”

Bert Bolin, founder of the IPCC along with two hundred climate scientists, researchers and government negotiators submitted the IPCC’s first assessment report to the United Nations general assembly in October 1990.

Further research

The IPCC debut report set out that the scientists were: “certain” that “emissions resulting from human activities were substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide” and also that “these increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the Earth’s surface.”

The report warned that under “business as usual” there would be an average 0.3 degrees of warming every decade, which would be a faster rate of increase in global temperatures than witnessed on earth for more than 10,000 years.

The scientists warned that by the end of the 21st century there would be four degrees of warming above those experienced before the industrial revolution: “The rise will not be steady because of other factors,” the scientists set out.

“The oceans act as a heat sink and thus delay the full effect of greenhouse warming.”

The report then set out the uncertainties in the science, including: “the response of clouds, oceans and polar ice sheets” before calling, as scientists to, for further research.

Idle chatter

“The complexity of the system means we cannot rule out surprises”.

American coal and oil companies fully understood the implications of the report. The IPCC stated that industrialised countries had a greater responsibility to reduce carbon emissions and suggested this could be achieved through greater efficiency and “the use of cleaner, more efficient energy sources with lower or no emissions or greenhouse gases”.

It advised national governments to set limits on carbon emissions. Such limits could sound the death knell for coal fired power stations, petrol-driven sports utility vehicles and almost a century of industry based on encouraging British and American shoppers to consume as much energy, oil and plastics as possible.

The IPCC report was not idle chatter. The report was discussed by the UN the following December, and the grand sounding Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee was be formed.

This body would draft the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to be agreed at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, scheduled for June 1992.

Hardly convincing

If coal and oil were to prevent a calamity for their current business model they would have to act fast and decisively.

Bolin sounded genuinely surprised and personally dismayed by the reaction of heavy industry: “There was, however, early reluctance from industry and other stake-holders to proceed quickly,” he complained.

“They feared that action to protect the current climate, i.e. a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, might be a threat to their activities and admittedly the scientific basis for taking action was then hardly convincing.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk. 

I want to ask you to clear your mind for a moment and count to 10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In those 10 seconds, Jeff Bezos, the owner and founder of Amazon, made more money than the median employee of Amazon makes in an entire year. An entire year. Think about that.

Who pays?

Think about how hard that family member has to work for an entire year, the days she or he goes into work sick, or has a sick child, or struggles to buy school supplies or Christmas presents, to make what one man makes in 10 seconds.

According to Time magazine, from 1 January through 1 May of this 2018, Jeff Bezos saw his wealth increase by $275 million every single day for a total increase in wealth of $33 billion in a four-month period.

Meanwhile, thousands of Amazon employees are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because their wages are too low. And guess who pays for that? You do.

Frankly, I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because he pays his employees inadequate wages.

Absurd expense

But it gets remarkably more ridiculous: Jeff Bezos has so much money that he says the only way he could possibly spend it all is on space travel.

Space travel. Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is absolutely absurd.

Well here is a radical idea: Instead of attempting to explore Mars or go to the moon, how about Jeff Bezos pays his workers a living wage? How about he improves the working conditions at Amazon warehouses across the country so people stop dying on the job? He can no doubt do that and have billions of dollars left over to spend on anything he wants.

So today, whether or not you use Amazon, I want to ask the Americans among you to join me in sending a message to Jeff Bezos.

Now, I have never understood how someone could have hundreds of billions of dollars and feel the desperate need for even more. I would think that, with the amount of money he has, Jeff Bezos might just be able to get by.

Policy failures

I think there is something weird and wrong with people who have that much and are willing to step over working people, many with families and young children, in order to get more and more.

But this is not just about the greed of one man. These are policy failures as well.

Last year, Amazon made $5.6 billion in profits and did not pay one penny in federal income taxes. The Trump tax cuts rewarded Amazon with almost $1 billion more. And city after city is offering additional tax breaks, mostly in secret, for the right to host Amazon’s second corporate headquarters.

In my view, a nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. Millions of people across this country struggle to put bread on the table and are one paycheck away from economic devastation, and the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

It has got to stop.

Get involved

But that starts with all of us making our voices heard and being clear — loudly and directly — that this kind of greed is intolerable, and it must end. And that starts with you.

Sign my petition to Jeff Bezos: It is long past time you start to pay your workers a living wage and improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses all across the country. He needs to know that you are aware of his company’s greed, which seems to have no end.

We must ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether or not this is the kind of country and economic culture we are comfortable with. I am not. And I don’t believe you are either. Thank you for making your voice heard.

This Author

Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has served as junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. In 2016 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America. 

The government must ban onshore oil and gas exploration which uses acid stimulation treatments, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth. 

The report, entitled ‘The Acid Test: The Case for a Ban on Acid Stimulation of Oil and Gas Wells’, explains what acid stimulation is, highlights key concerns, and makes recommendations including a call for a full independent assessment of the health and environmental impacts of acid well stimulation.

The campaigners call for a ban due to gaps in knowledge about the chemicals being used, the risks related to oil and gas exploration, and the need to avoid climate chaos.

Significant risks

Friends of the Earth said that many of the risks associated with fracking are similar when it comes to acid stimulation of wells. These include risks of groundwater, air and soil contamination from the chemicals, risks for human health, and risk of earth tremors.

There are also the same issues regarding the industrialisation of rural areas with increased heavy goods traffic, noise and how the waste fluids coming from these sites are being monitored and dealt with.

Recent concerns about an increased number of earthquakes near two oil sites in Surrey led to four senior geologists calling for a moratorium until the cause of these have been established.

Brenda Pollack, South East campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Residents are right to be worried about the increasing use of acid well stimulation to produce oil and gas in this area. There are a lot of unknowns about the quantities and type of chemicals being used and where they end up.

“It’s clear that we should be reducing fossil fuel use, yet the government is encouraging the industry. Plans to fast-track shale gas operations could have implications here in the Weald basin which is a known shale oil area.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. A full briefing can be read here.

I want to ask you to clear your mind for a moment and count to 10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In those 10 seconds, Jeff Bezos, the owner and founder of Amazon, made more money than the median employee of Amazon makes in an entire year. An entire year. Think about that.

Who pays?

Think about how hard that family member has to work for an entire year, the days she or he goes into work sick, or has a sick child, or struggles to buy school supplies or Christmas presents, to make what one man makes in 10 seconds.

According to Time magazine, from 1 January through 1 May of this 2018, Jeff Bezos saw his wealth increase by $275 million every single day for a total increase in wealth of $33 billion in a four-month period.

Meanwhile, thousands of Amazon employees are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because their wages are too low. And guess who pays for that? You do.

Frankly, I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because he pays his employees inadequate wages.

Absurd expense

But it gets remarkably more ridiculous: Jeff Bezos has so much money that he says the only way he could possibly spend it all is on space travel.

Space travel. Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is absolutely absurd.

Well here is a radical idea: Instead of attempting to explore Mars or go to the moon, how about Jeff Bezos pays his workers a living wage? How about he improves the working conditions at Amazon warehouses across the country so people stop dying on the job? He can no doubt do that and have billions of dollars left over to spend on anything he wants.

So today, whether or not you use Amazon, I want to ask the Americans among you to join me in sending a message to Jeff Bezos.

Now, I have never understood how someone could have hundreds of billions of dollars and feel the desperate need for even more. I would think that, with the amount of money he has, Jeff Bezos might just be able to get by.

Policy failures

I think there is something weird and wrong with people who have that much and are willing to step over working people, many with families and young children, in order to get more and more.

But this is not just about the greed of one man. These are policy failures as well.

Last year, Amazon made $5.6 billion in profits and did not pay one penny in federal income taxes. The Trump tax cuts rewarded Amazon with almost $1 billion more. And city after city is offering additional tax breaks, mostly in secret, for the right to host Amazon’s second corporate headquarters.

In my view, a nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. Millions of people across this country struggle to put bread on the table and are one paycheck away from economic devastation, and the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

It has got to stop.

Get involved

But that starts with all of us making our voices heard and being clear — loudly and directly — that this kind of greed is intolerable, and it must end. And that starts with you.

Sign my petition to Jeff Bezos: It is long past time you start to pay your workers a living wage and improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses all across the country. He needs to know that you are aware of his company’s greed, which seems to have no end.

We must ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether or not this is the kind of country and economic culture we are comfortable with. I am not. And I don’t believe you are either. Thank you for making your voice heard.

This Author

Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has served as junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. In 2016 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America. 

The government must ban onshore oil and gas exploration which uses acid stimulation treatments, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth. 

The report, entitled ‘The Acid Test: The Case for a Ban on Acid Stimulation of Oil and Gas Wells’, explains what acid stimulation is, highlights key concerns, and makes recommendations including a call for a full independent assessment of the health and environmental impacts of acid well stimulation.

The campaigners call for a ban due to gaps in knowledge about the chemicals being used, the risks related to oil and gas exploration, and the need to avoid climate chaos.

Significant risks

Friends of the Earth said that many of the risks associated with fracking are similar when it comes to acid stimulation of wells. These include risks of groundwater, air and soil contamination from the chemicals, risks for human health, and risk of earth tremors.

There are also the same issues regarding the industrialisation of rural areas with increased heavy goods traffic, noise and how the waste fluids coming from these sites are being monitored and dealt with.

Recent concerns about an increased number of earthquakes near two oil sites in Surrey led to four senior geologists calling for a moratorium until the cause of these have been established.

Brenda Pollack, South East campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Residents are right to be worried about the increasing use of acid well stimulation to produce oil and gas in this area. There are a lot of unknowns about the quantities and type of chemicals being used and where they end up.

“It’s clear that we should be reducing fossil fuel use, yet the government is encouraging the industry. Plans to fast-track shale gas operations could have implications here in the Weald basin which is a known shale oil area.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. A full briefing can be read here.