Monthly Archives: August 2018

Oil and tobacco explain funding of neoliberalism

Friedrich von Hayek, the architect of a Thatcherism defined by its the privatisation, tax breaks and strike breaking, would be officially recognised in December 1984. He had already received the Nobel Prize for Economics—but this was the real highlight.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

Hayek was made a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour by the Queen, on the prime minister’s recommendation, for “services to the study of economics”.

The audience with the Queen was followed by a jubilant dinner with family and friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs. “I’ve just had the happiest day of my life,” Hayek said.

Margaret Thatcher in turn thanked Fisher, Harris, and her sponsors at the IEA during its 30th anniversary dinner at Grosvenor House in April 1987.

Fisher flew over from the United States for the auspicious occasion. He was at this point 72 years old, and finally considering retirement.

He had recently hired John Blundell, a childhood admirer of the IEA and a friend of Thatcher’s, to take over as president of his US-based Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

Effective fundraiser

Blundell was then head of the Institute of Humane Studies, with a reputation as “a highly effective manager and fundraiser”.

Fisher had a lot to celebrate. Thirty years ago his ideas were at the very margins of respectability, and the free market seemed like an economist’s shameful fantasy.

Yet, during the previous year alone, the government had implemented the “Big Bang”, with regulations for the savings and investment industry torn asunder. Then, in December 1986, British Gas was sold off in its entirety for £5.6 billion.

The anniversary dinner was held. Lord Blake told the dinner guests: “No single body has contributed more than the IEA to the long overdue destruction of étatisme and to the recovery of Britain.”

Finally, it was Thatcher’s turn to speak. “Anyone who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of the post-war consensus was derided, pilloried, criticised, frowned upon, and looked down upon as being either reactionary, pitiful, or ignorant,” she said.

“The IEA dared to challenge that. You did not say, as so many others did so, ‘what can a few people do among so many’.”

“You set out to challenge, to change public sentiment… once you, with your courage, gave expression to other views, others followed… what we have achieved could never have been done without the leadership of the Institute of Economic Affairs.”

John Blundell was in the United States at the time, but soon got hold of the gossip from the night. “I heard she was infuriated at how long the 10 men ahead of her spoke,” he told the author.

Bleeding heart

“She tried to convince Fisher that evening to allow the Tory party to take over the IEA, and he was appalled at the idea, and said ‘no way!’” Lawson, it appears, did not attend.

He was, at that time, working on a project to tie aide to developing countries to Thatcherite economic reforms. As he himself said, “I was not known, for good reason, as a bleeding heart.”

Harris, the indefatigable fundraiser, made good use of Thatcher’s kind words. He wrote to British American Tobacco, British Petroleum, and Esso (later to become part of ExxonMobil), asking for an increase in contributions.

“If you had been at the anniversary dinner and heard the PM say ‘what has been achieved would never have been done without the leadership of the IEA, you would agree we should do all we can to strengthen its work in the decisive years ahead,” he wrote in a note to Patrick Sheehy, the non-smoking BAT chairman.

“You have been among our strongest supporters over the years, and are already entitled to share the tributes paid to our success. I question whether I dare address a further appeal to you for the fund of £600,000, to acquire the freehold of 2 Lord North Street or an alternative permanent address. Before going public, I’d like to collect pledges for at least £200,000 from a dozen or so special friends.” 

Internal documents released after legal action show that BAT agreed to pay £10,000 to the appeal. “We didn’t get anything out of it except we got some ideas, and we talked about free enterprise and the market economy and things like that.”

Capitalist environment

“They got a lot of support from us,” Sheehy told the author. “The benefit to shareholders is that, in a capitalist company, you would want a capitalist environment to thrive… The less regulation the better. Although there’s obviously got to be some, but it’s got to be a minimum.”

British Petroleum, then 31 per cent owned by the state, agreed to donate £20,000 on top of its annual subscription of £10,000 a year. Esso paid considerably more, according to Clive Wright, who was the director of corporate affairs at the time.

The chairman, Norman Foster, attended Malborough Grammar with Harris, and the two were lifelong friends. “When I was there, we were big supporters of Hayek. We gave them a major donation when they wanted to buy the premises at Lord North Street,” Wright recalled.

“I met Ralph quite a lot at a lunch couple of times in the House of Lords. Very interesting man, very lively and in depth, very much a free thinker. The last thing I want to give you is an impression of anything improper.”

He went on to add: “We had a very strict policy that we did not get involved politically… of course we are free market company, so naturally we believe in the free market. Yes, we didn’t like state control, particularly in something as sensitive as oil.”

The IEA, at the height of its influence and long before climate change was an issue, was bankrolled by Big Oil and Big Tobacco as both industries fought regulation and taxation.

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

Burned up: wood-fueled electricity could be more damaging than coal

Drax Power, the country’s largest utility, began converting its old coal-fired boilers into ones that run on wood a decade ago, with the financial support of the UK Government. 

In 2017, subsidies to Drax cost Britons £729million, or nearly £2million pounds per dayThese subsidies fueled a voracious demand: the UK is now the world’s top importer of wood pellets.

This has put the country out of step with the realities of climate science, economics, and the needs of the electricity grid. 

Increased awareness

Scientists do not see largescale use of biomass for electricity as the preferred de-carbonization approach. But that didn’t stop the Department of Energy, Business & Industrial Strategy from approving another biomass conversion at Drax Power Station this year.

The public is now becoming more aware that burning trees is not good for the environment, and voices against biomass are growing louder. 

In April 2018, Channel 4’s Dispatchesaired a hard-hitting investigative report exposing the destruction behind the UK’s move to replace dirty coal with wood fuel. 

As Dispatches journalists uncovered, in parts of the Southern US, unique hardwood forests that are massive storehouses of carbon are being clear cut, manufactured into wood pellets, and loaded on ships destined for Drax’s boilers.

Back in January 2019, researchers at MIT found that when plants switch to biomass, “the first impact is an increase in carbon dioxide, worsening global warming over the critical period through to 2100, even if the wood offsets coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel”

They weren’t alone. At the same time, a whopping 800 scientists wrote to the European Commission to say biomass electricity is a false climate solution.

Recommended reforms 

The European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC) agreed. They warned that, “forest biomass with long carbon payback periods could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, putting Paris Agreement targets at risk”. 

The EASAC urged policymakers to reconsider their approach to using forest biomass for energy. 

In May 2018, in a first-ever statement from a conservative institution of its kind, the right-leaning think tank Bright Blue published a report on strengthening the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act.

They stated plainly that, “some sources of bioenergy, such as woody biomass in the power sector, do not deliver genuine greenhouse gas emission savings relative to fossil fuels”.

Amongst the recommended reforms was complete accounting for biomass carbon emissions, including at the smokestack, to prevent an expansion in the use of bioenergy that sets the UK back in its climate goals. 

If this happened, the jig would be up. Woody biomass would account for more carbon emissions per watt of electricity than coal, and no policymaker could justify subsidizing it.  

‘Missing emissions’

Unfortunately for Britons who care about climate change, a June report from the venerable think tank Chatham House showed the UK Government to be increasingly isolated on this controversial fuel: “Only the UK has seen a substantial increase in the generation of electricity from biomass both in absolute terms and as a proportion of electricity from renewable sources”.  

Chatham House also identified the UK as top importer of wood fuel from countries that do not completely or uniformly account for carbon losses in forests when trees are cut down to be burned for energy. 

The result? Massive quantities of “missing emissions”: there is carbon dioxide going up into the atmosphere that the UK simply pretends doesn’t exist.    

Unlike some other EU countries, the UK is in the enviable position of having affordable and low-risk alternatives to burning wood in old coal plants. 

In fact, its solar and wind projects are cheap and getting cheaper, and its offshore wind prices have set records. 

Diverse technologies

The UK’s Committee on Climate Change lamented that the clean energy solutions the UK needs do exist, but those in charge don’t back them. The committee concluded that: “Low-cost, low-risk options to reduce emissions,” such as onshore wind, “are not being supported by Government.” 

New analysis from Vivid Economics and Imperial College supports this critique. It suggests that not only is biomass more expensive than solar and wind, but unnecessary to ensure the reliability of a smart, low-carbon UK electricity grid. 

In place of burning wood, the UK could de-carbonize electricity sector emissions by 2030 relying almost entirely on new investments in wind, solar, and smart resources, such as battery storage, demand response, and interconnection with Europe. 

The government should focus on delivering this mix of technologies, not on delivering biomass. 

Public outrage

The devastation of forests portrayed by Dispatchesshows the toll to our planet from the UK Government’s recklessdecision to subsidize this fake clean energy. 

The program was particularly powerful because the biomass industry’s ability to traffic on a “green” image depends on people remaining in the dark about its true costs. 

Duncan Brack, a former energy official and author of the Chatham House’s biomass report, told Dispatches:“If the public understood that we are using public money raised from electricity bill payers to subsidize the clear-cutting of American forests and increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere, then they would be outraged”.

As more people speak out against biomass, pressure builds for policymakers to pull their head out of the sand, acknowledge the mistake they have made, and correct their course.

There have been glimmers of good news, such as a recent decision to increase efficiency requirements for combined heat and power plants burning biomass. 

Destructive policies

Claire Perry, minister for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, would still prefer we believe industry fabrications instead of our own lying eyes. 

Perry’s complicity in this scam is particularly troubling. She presents the UK as a global “leader” in tackling climate change by substituting dirty coal with equally dirty biomass. 

The reality of these destructive policies can no longer be ignored. It’s time for UK citizens to demand that Theresa May’s government become the climate leader it claims to be and end payouts to this dirty industry. 

Choosing to ignore the overwhelming evidence will leave the UK isolated, while other countries scale-up genuine low-carbon energy solutions, like energy efficiency, storage, solar power and wind power. 

This Author

Sasha Stashwick is a senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Fossil fuel giant Shell to sponsor exhibition at Manchester Science Festival

They’re at it again.

Despite campaigners’ repeated calls for publicly-funded museums to drop controversial commercial deals, the Museum of Science and Industry has agreed a deal with fossil fuel giant Shell to sponsor a new exhibition, DeSmog UK can reveal.

The exhibition, Electricity: The Spark of Life will run for six months, as part of the Manchester Science Festival. It will be sponsored by Shell UK, North West Electricity, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Campaigners said they were “hugely disappointed” at the museum’s decision.

Undermining integrity

Shell’s sponsorship of the exhibition is controversial, but not unusual. The company has corporate partnerships with the Science Museum, Southbank Centre and National Theatre.

Email correspondence previously published by DeSmog UK showed how cosy these partnerships can be, with Shell using its sponsorship of the National Gallery to obtain private tours and ticketing privileges.

Documents released earlier this year analysed by DeSmog UK show that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change for decades. Shell recently announced it would increase its investment in clean energy technology, from $1 billion a year to $1-2 billion. But that works out as less than 6 percent of its $25-30 billion total annual investment.

In July, a group of leading climate scientists, academics and environmentalists lodged a formal complaint with the Science Museum over their partnerships with big oil companies. They accused the museum of “undermining its integrity as a scientific institution” by partnering with BP, Shell and Statoil despite the companies’ contribution to climate change.  

Carbon Co-op, an NGO that was partnered with the Manchester Science Festival, have today announced their withdrawal from the event.

Big challenge

Jonathan Atkinson Carbon Co-op said: “Our core mission is around developing ways to address the causes and effects of climate change. It is hugely disappointing that Manchester Science Museum have chosen to align themselves with a company that holds significant carbon reserves, with a historic position in denying climate change and a responsibility for tackling the issue.”

The broadcaster Chris Packham was a signatory to a letter organised by Carbon Coop opposing the sponsorship. He said in a statement: “As the world swelters and wildlife struggles in this unprecedented heatwave, MSI has decided to partner with Shell, one of the corporations responsible for fuelling climate change.

A museum dedicated to science education should not be helping promote any company that is actively exacerbating this planetary emergency until they show a serious proactive drive to switch to renewables. And thus far this is not happening.”

A spokesperson for Shell said: “Shell has long recognised both the importance of climate change and the critical role energy must play in enabling a decent quality of life for people across the world.

“The big challenge, for society and for a company like Shell, is how to provide much more energy while at the same time significantly reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Prospective funders

“Sponsorship of this exhibition is part of the long standing relationship between Shell and the Science Museum, based on shared interests such as the need to inspire young people about science.”

A spokesperson for the Museum of Science and Industry told DeSmog UK: “We work with a range of funders to support our mission to ignite curiosity in science.

“At a time when Government funding is declining in real terms, we are only in a position to be able to do this because of the strong support of a range of individual philanthropists, corporate partners and charitable trusts.

“We apply the same thought and consideration to all prospective funders, whether corporate, charitable trusts or individual philanthropists, and any partner that wishes to work with us must accept that editorial control sits firmly with the museum.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Living walls: a resilient trend

At this summer’s Chelsea Flower Show, Tony Woods, Director of Garden Club London, incorporated a Royal Horticultural Society trend into his award-winning Urban Flow Garden for Thames Water: a living wall, or vertical garden.

Woods created an edible living wall, inspiring gardeners to grow food in a small space while monitoring their water usage.

Woods said: “For edible walls, our system uses individual units that clip in and out of the main framework; you can replace plants and experiment with a range of evergreen and annual edibles.”

Vertical gardening 

Since Chelsea ended, many countries including the UK and the USA have faced prolonged heatwaves and drought conditions, creating added pressure for gardeners to restrict water usage whilst keeping plants healthy.

Living walls tend to require less water than similar ground-based displays, and the option of built-in hydroponic watering systems mean that potential hosepipe bans pose no threat. Whilst the living wall trend has flourished for several years for businesses and individuals, the Royal Horticultural Society’s approval and the persistent heatwave increase its appeal.

In contrast, Woods said: “Ground level planters are often specified by designers and architects with no form of watering, using crazy materials like stainless steel, which speeds the drought in tough conditions.” 

In her book, Grow a Living Wall, Chicago-based organic garden designer, author and social media influencer Shawna Coronado proves how accessible vertical gardening can be, whatever your space. Many of the living walls she creates are freestanding – the simplest are based on “layers of window boxes to hold 35-40 plants” – and affordable. 

Coronado recommends her own organic soil recipe to maximise efficiency: “One-third organic soil, one-third rotted manure, and one-third leaf mould or kitchen compost, and a scoopful of organic fertiliser when planting. This means watering twice a week, or every three days, not every day.”

Business sense

By 2015, living walls had become hugely popular for UK businesses, signposting their eco credentials and better assimilating their sites into the local area. There’s a certain amount of camouflage, even in built-up shopping streets or soulless retail parks, but less maintenance required than with flowerbeds or window boxes. 

The Village Bakery Baking Academy in Wrexham, Wales, is a perfect example: its 72m² LivePanel wall is a focal point, fed by a hydroponic rainwater system that reflects the bakery’s eco-friendly stance.

High street retailer Marks & Spencer was an early living wall adopter at branches like Cheshire Oaks, as part of its Plan A sustainability initiative in 2015. 

In the same year, living wall specialists ANS Global built the UK’s largest living wall, over 1000m², for the National Grid car park façade in Warwick, featuring strawberries and mentha. More recently, at the Postal Museum in London, a once-blank wall holds nearly 3,500 primarily evergreen plants, with five antique post-boxes interspersed. 

A vast living wall earns its keep at the Hotel Rubens at the Palace, in central London. Harriet Rowlinson, of the hotel, said: “The Rubens is kept cooler in summer and warmer in winter, lowering our carbon footprint, and it has encouraged birds, bees and butterflies, which was one of our main aims. We capture rainwater from the roof of the building in dedicated 10,000 litre storage tanks, which ultimately reduces urban flooding.”

Reducing pollution

It’s handy marketing fodder, too: a new Go Green hotel package, complete with vegan afternoon tea, imparts secrets of the living wall. Rowlinson said: “gardeners have to abseil down to reach the flowerbeds.”

The most tangible benefits of living walls are a reduction in air pollution and a habitat for bees, butterflies and other insects. Coronado noted they provide pollinator trails for migrating pollinators, “such as monarch butterflies”. 

Steve McIntyre, of ANS Global, knows pollution absorption rates vary by location, season, weather and plant varieties – he cited Hedera Helix as an efficient COabsorber – but biodiversity results are rapid:

“We recently built an 800m² wall in the Barbican, and already it’s attracting honey bees and butterflies. We also try to plant local species and bulbs that were there before construction.”

McIntyre emphasised that living walls help developers reach the green space targets attached to building regulations, especially in cities, where every inch on the ground comes at a premium. According to the Land Atlas of the UK, 98% of land in the City of London is built on. Unsurprisingly, the only way is up. 

International excellence 

Milan’s photogenic Bosco Verticale (or Vertical Forest), is a world-famous development. Its two plant-covered tower blocks designed by Boeri Studio won the RIBA Award for International Excellence in 2018.

With almost 17,000 plants and trees in just 1,500m² of ground space, Bosco Verticale comes highly praised by Biophilic Cities Journal, edited by Tim Beatley, Professor of Sustainable Communities at the University of Virginia and founder of the Biophilic Cities Network. 

External living walls are also popular at universities. ANS Global installed them in Cambridge, Edinburgh and York, whilst volunteers and students at the University of Texas at Austin built their own honeycomb design as a habitat for hummingbirds, lizards and owls.

The University of Ottawa’s six-storey indoor living wall biofilter, the largest of its kind in North America, reduces noise pollution and filters an incredible 80-85% of volatile compounds from the surrounding air; find smaller-scale begonia-studded walls at the University of Malmö, Sweden. 

Glasgow University’s new student accommodation at a former printworks, and Nottingham Trent’s University Hall extension, both set for completion in 2019, will feature living walls. 

Attainable and Sustainable

The American Farmland Trust reported losing 175 acres of farmland per hour to developers. 

Meanwhile, an indoor vertical farm at Princeton University tests the optimal ways to grow everything from kale and strawberries to basil and spearmint which, when successfully harnessed, will help combat the reduction in arable land for traditional farming. 

Whether growing food, flowers or an array of evergreens, a living wall is an attainable and sustainable way to support the environment, regardless of budget or scale.

This Author

Polly Allen is a journalist and travel blogger. 

How Lawson sold BP – and how an Arab state almost got control

Lord Lawson is a  leading member of the ‘take back control’ Brexit brigade, and a vocal climate denier. He believes himself to be a very wise man indeed.

But his sale of BP to the private sector nearly handed the oil company to an Arab state and this means that today, governments cannot control carbon emissions.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

The Hayek-inspired revolution was about to become a reality as British Petroleum (BP) would be sold into private ownership.

BP had long been a sponsor of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) which was crucial in raising Thatcher and Lawson to the crowning heights of the British state. Lawson would return the favour by now selling off the company, loosening it from the control of the bureaucrats.

Ironically, the way Lawson conducted the sale would prove so controversial that even BP itself would object – and accuse the government of failing to get the best deal for the taxpayer.

Sir Peter Walters, the chairman of the oil major, now believes that if Lawson was in fact trying to act in the interests of the British public, then he showed extraordinary poor judgement, putting the ideological need for a successful sale ahead of ensuring the best price, and ultimately acting out of “panic”.

When the Conservatives came into power in 1979, the British state still owned 51 per cent of the company.

Geoffrey Howe, on becoming chancellor, began the sale of over 80 million shares, or a five per cent stake. It was Lawson who began planning the complete sell off. “It was the largest share sale the world had ever seen,” he would recall.

Largest Flotation

The chancellor opted for a fire sale; the shares would be sold over three years, but a single price would be set at just £3.30.

The price was suggested by Michael Richardson, the head of of corporate finance at the merchant bankers who advised the government on the sale.

Lawson recalls in his autobiography: “I astonished both Michael Richardson and my officials by crying ‘Done!’ as soon as the price, for which Richardson apologised, was put to me. It was the shortest pricing meeting in which I ever participated.”

Walters met with Lawson’s treasury official at BP’s head office in St James’s Street. “What sort of period are you going to make this sale,” he asked.

“This is by far the largest flotation in human history. I assume we’re going to do it over a number of years.”

The official replied: “Oh, we’re going to do it over three years,” before adding, “but we’re going to price it immediately for the whole of the three years and we will just collect a third, a third, a third of the money.”

Walters was stunned. “So you’re actually selling it one lump?” The official nodded. “I think that’s risking failure. Anything can go wrong. It’s the biggest share offering ever made in this market.

“You might find that the market had gone up to a point where you get a pound a share more for the second tranche.”

Walters advised a staged sale, with a new price set each year. But the official was not negotiating. “Oh no, we’ve got so many other privatisations,” he said. Walters concluded: “That is tremendously risky.”

The BP boss was so concerned about the method of sale that he insisted on speaking to Lawson directly. He outlined his fears that the share price might collapse, allowing a rival foreign controlled firm to take over Britain’s biggest energy company.

Lawson recalls the warning: “There will be the possibility that an unwelcome buyer could obtain a major stake in BP for a very low initial cost,” Lawson quoted Walters as saying. “Twenty percent of the company may be procured from desperate sellers for around £1 billion.”

Brushed aside

Lawson was, however, adamant that the sale should be rapid.  

The government was set on a course of massive privatisation, and the budget had been drawn up on the basis of billions in profits from the sale of the oil company.

The chancellor would not countenance any arguments to stagger the sale, even if this would mean greater profits for the government, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Walters had delivered his warning, but “Lawson rather brushed it aside.”

On Thursday 15 October 1987, the government announced the share price of BP to the general public, amid much fanfare and costly advertising.

Lawson spoke in front of a vast crowd in front of the Old Botanic House in the City of London. Paratroopers abseiled down the front of the headquarters of BP unrolling a huge banner.

“The price was all rolled up like a enormous curtain, so paratroopers came down over the side of the building on ropes and rolled it and rolled it and rolled it and there it was: 3-3-0. The government’s share offering of 330 pence was open for three weeks, or 21 days”, recalls Walters.

That evening the weatherman Michael Fish told BBC viewers that “earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she’d heard there was a hurricane on the way.”

He smiled: “Well, if you’re watching, don’t worry, there isn’t.”

Overnight, a freak hurricane crossed the Atlantic and tore through country, destroying England’s oldest and most beautiful trees.  

When City traders arrived for work the following morning, they found the markets had been closed.

By happenstance, Monday 19 October 1987, witnessed an international stock market crash, causing pandemonium in Wall Street—and the City of London.

Black Monday, as it was immediately named, was the worst day of trading since the 1929 Wall Street crash. Shares in Britain’s 100 biggest companies lost almost a third of their value over the following days.

Awful carnage

Some traders were paralysed by the shock, and stood staring into space, “sweat running down their faces”.

Richard Oldfield, a City fund manager at the time, told The Guardian newspaper: “We had returned early from a holiday to deal with the fallen trees, when somebody called me at home to tell me that the Dow had fallen by 500 points.

“Looking at the awful carnage outside, I can remember thinking how [the trees were] so much more important and how [the Wall Street crash] was an unjustified fall. “I then went into the office, which was a mistake. I was overwhelmed by the sense of panic.”

Lawson himself recalled. “At the time it seemed to many the end of financial civilisation as we had known it…for a few days, sheer panic reigned.”

The free market revealed itself to be red in blood and claw.

Black Monday would not create the lasting devastation of 1929. But it could not have come at a worse time for our chancellor. “By a malign coincidence,” Lawson would reflect later, “the world’s largest ever share sale collided with the world’s most dramatic stock market crash.”

Walters recalled 30 years later: “That was the wipeout”. The crash left Lawson with an almighty dilemma: he could forge ahead and sell BP in one of the worst markets conceivable, or he could pull the sale and risk embarrassing Thatcher, her government, and its privatisation agenda.

A decision had to be made in a matter of days. He cancelled the government’s expensive advertising. Jim Baker, the US secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan, called on 27 October “to urge me, in the strongest possible terms, to call off the issue.”

Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the federal reserve, wrote to the governor of the Bank of England in a similar vein.

Walters wrote a long, detailed letter to Lawson on 28 October “pleading directly for the issue to be withdrawn” despite the fact that BP would automatically get a huge payout.

The chancellor was told by his officials he could not protect the 270,000 small investors who had applied for shares and would now have to pay a high price.

The banks, including Goldman Sachs, Shearson Lehman and Morgan Stanley, faced collective losses of £330 million.

Heavy pressure

Lawson addressed the Stock Exchange Conference for Industry on what was meant to be a celebration of the first anniversary of his Big Bang. “I cannot recall a time when I was under heavier pressure,” he would reflect.

The country expected a decision. Lawson appeared after a day of negotiations and legal advice at 10pm on 29 October 1987 before a “packed, noisy and expectant” House of Commons. He rose to the dispatch box once more.

The tension among the MPs was palpable. “To cheers from the benches behind me, I told the House that I had decided the offer should go ahead.”

Five years later, he would explain that it would have been “inconvenient” to delay the sale of BP until the market recovered, as this would blow “an enormous hole” in the budget he wrote when assuming the sale would make billions.

“Most worrying of all, it might have seriously damaged the credibility of the rest of the government’s privatisation programme,” he would add. “Last, but by no means least, pulling the issue would, in my judgement, have badly damaged the reputation of the City of London.”

The Bank of England, acting in the interests of the government, was forced to spend £27 million intervening in the markets to prevent the shares losing even more value.

Lawson had, in the moment of crisis, revealed his loyalties: not the British taxpayer, nor his own enrichment, but his ideological commitment to Hayek-inspired privatisation, and the City of London. But the share flop was, it soon transpired, only the beginning of the impending disaster.

Walters received a call at BP from David Scholey, of the merchant bank Warburgs, which confirmed that the warnings Lawson had received—that a hostile foreign power may seize the British oil —were about to come to pass.

“Peter, I’m in Kuwait,” he said: “I’ve just heard that the Kuwait Investment Authority, have just bought ten per cent of BP.” Walters replied: “My god.”  

He immediately called the treasury. The Kuwait Investment Office (KIO) announced on 18 November that it had, in fact, snapped up 10 per cent of BP.

The KIO was owned by the Kuwait Investment Agency, which in turn acted in the interests of Kuwait’s government.

Classified documents

Thatcher was forced into the humiliating position of having to tell the House of Commons it “was a straightforward commercial matter, and no cause for concern”, when it very clearly was of very serious concern.

For the Conservative party nationalists, this was nothing short of humiliation. The fortunes of the oil company and the British state had, since the birth of the twentieth century, been intimately linked.

William Knox D’Arcy, who had made a fortune in gold mining, was granted a consession by the British to search for oil in Persia, in what became Iran, in 1901. Seven years later he discovered oil and formed the company that would later become British Petroleum.

The company was founded, and, in 1914, Winston Churchill persuaded the government to buy a 51 per cent stake to bail out the company [Bergin, 2012]. Churchill converted the navy from coal to oil on the eve of the Second World War.

In 1923, the company hired Churchill as a lobbyist and consultant, where he secured exclusive rights to Persian oil resources. Iran nationalised its oil industry following the assassination of its prime minister in March 1951, including BP and its American rivals, and a decade later they formed the oil cartel OPEC.

Churchill then called on Britain’s secret services, MI6, to work alongside America’s Central Intelligence Services (CIA) to launch a coup d’état in Iran.

“Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil,” according to the New York Times.

An oil consortium, including BP, returned to take control of Iranian oil. The prospect of an Arab state taking control of the company was unthinkable to Thatcher’s government.

Walters wrote again to Lawson on 17 December warning that KIO could demand representation on the board.

The two men met face to face and, during a heated exchange, the chairman of BP told the chancellor: “Look, I can’t have this, because, under the BP statutes, if you own 10 per cent plus one share you can call an extraordinary general meeting and you can dictate more or less.”

“The usual shareholder apathy means probably only about 15 per cent of shareholders bother to vote, so with a block vote of 18 per cent the Kuwaiti’s could basically run BP. They could get rid of me!”

“They could put four of their own people on the board! We are in the process then of buying Gulf Oil in the United States. They could stop that!” He paused.

Then he panicked

“Listen, you’ve got to take me seriously!” Lawson did take him seriously. He summoned the Kuwaiti ambassador and Ali Khalifa, the Kuwaiti oil minister.

“Her majesty’s government regard your taking of 18 per cent of BP as a hostile action,” the chancellor told them.

Lawson would dismiss Kuwait as a “pocket handkerchief of a country”, but the Middle Eastern oil minister was not in anyway intimidated. The following day the Kuwaiti shareholding rose to 22 percent.

Walters demanded an audience with the chancellor, and during the meeting told Lawson to refer the Kuwaitis to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, a statutory public body set up to investigate mergers, markets and regulation to ensure fair competition between companies.

The commission ruled that the KIO would have to reduce its shares to a maximum of 9.9 per cent, or the British government would unilaterally buy back the disputed shares and cancel them. The company obliged.

I asked Walker if the Kuwaitis were really trying to gain control of BP. “Oh, absolutely. I’d have been out on my ear within a week you know. I wasn’t panicking; I was telling Lawson what to do, telling him he should have already have taken his bloody finger out, otherwise the future of Britain’s biggest company is at risk.”

Lawson would recall: “On 3 May, David Young referred the KIO shareholding in BP to the MMC. He explained ‘the implication of BP coming under the influence or control of a government with substantial oil interests, and which is a member of OPEC, raises issues of public interest which warrant investigation by the MMC.”

“To my relief, and some surprise, the MMC reported in September 1988 that the KIO should be required to reduce its shareholding in BP to below 10 per cent within twelve months.”

“It was a much tougher ruling than I had expected […] there is a high degree of probability that sooner or later situations will arise in which Kuwait’s national and international interests will come sharply into conflict with BP’s and HMG’s interests.”

The newly privatised BP was then forced to spend £2 billion, hurriedly buying up its own shares at a higher price to prevent a “predator” gaining a controlling stake.

The former state asset in effect transferred billions directly to the Kuwaiti state agency. “The KIO had made a useful profit on the deal.”

Due to Lawson’s decision to press ahead with the sale, and despite a global stock market crash, BP was about to become part-owned and controlled by a member of the OPEC cartel.

It was the intervention of the state, in the form of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that prevented what for most Conservatives could only be viewed as a national calamity.

Walters still believes that the chancellor showed “poor judgement” when insisting BP should have been sold at one price. Then the worst thing happened—“Lawson panicked.”

The sale price and the method of sale would echo through the ages when, 30 years later, George Osborne as chancellor would be fiercely criticised for flogging Royal Mail for 330p in a single parcel.

This low price cost taxpayers £750m in lost revenue, and the Tory government would act as though this accident was unavoidable.

The cruelest of historical ironies is, however, that Lawson had put the energy industry beyond the control of the state just months before his ally Thatcher would announce to the world that governments must take action to reduce emissions and prevent the catastrophe of climate change.

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

Landfill is rubbish – but is some capacity still needed?

“Landfill is bad. Do everything you can to get waste out of landfill.” For the best part of twenty years, the message for waste managers has been clear.

Over that time, it has been a pretty decent rule of thumb, if one that has its limits.

However, I suspect that policy makers may soon have to face up to something that those involved at the sharp end of waste operations may already understand. Certainly, landfill is bad – but no access to landfill might, for a while at least, be even worse. 

Adapting to demand

I realise that I might be accused of waste management heresy at this point, but my key claim is simple. Back in 1997-98, when the Landfill Tax (LFT) was introduced, we buried 50m tonnes of standard rate material.

As we start making inroads into the last 10m tonnes of residual waste going to landfill – and those inroads will be pretty rapid – there will be no business as usual. 

The huge advantage that landfill holds for waste managers is its flexibility. Once built, a landfill site can easily scale up and down the amount of waste it receives.

In a previous role, I designed a site that increased its throughput from 50k to 500k tonnes per year. 

By contrast, an incinerator demands a fairly narrow range of tonnage in order to operate and it can’t easily be switched off and on.

Financial issues

No sensible operator would deliberately build more capacity than is required and so as we move away from landfill, in the event of an unexpected increase in waste, we’ll have a greater need to store it – with all the challenges that brings.

It’s a financial as well as a practical issue. The capital cost of a landfill is deployed through a site’s life.

You progressively build cells. You line them, then install leachate and gas collection systems. When a cell is full, you cap it and install gas extraction.

You might spend a few tens of millions overall – but that can be spread across many years, spanning the period before, during and after the cell’s active life.

You can afford to have your cash flow go up and down during that time, in a way that isn’t possible if you’re running a (much more capital-intensive) energy from waste (EfW) facility. 

Until recently, you could divert waste away from landfill however quickly or slowly you wanted without having a fundamental impact on the structure of the market.

Closing time

Year after year, the LFT has made landfill more expensive and less attractive, while other options have become cheaper and easier: waste prevention, recycling, domestic Energy from Waste (EfW), and export have all contributed to diverting waste at a highly unpredictable rate. 

Landfill has coped, but I think we’re now at the tipping point. Throughput is becoming low enough that it may not cover running costs, and there’s little prospect of demand increasing.

The number of sites has fallen dramatically and will continue to do so. Viridor, for example, has decided at a corporate level to eventually close all but three of its 21 UK landfill sites.

After closing four sites in 2016-17 alone, its total number operational sites currently stands at just 11. Once closed, engineering and permitting considerations mean sites can’t cheaply or easily be reopened.

We have to hope that this unexpectedly rapid closure process goes smoothly, although there are reasons to be concerned that there’s trouble in store.

In any case, closing a site earlier than planned can give rise to problems around drainage, landform and landscaping, which can increase the closure costs and add to the aftercare problems encountered.

Shock absorbers

If we do not retain a national network of landfills, it could become far more difficult and expensive to manage a range of foreseeable situations, such as:

A sudden increase in waste arisings

A major waste fire, producing thousands of tonnes of soggy waste, unsuitable for thermal treatment

The breakdown or closure of a major incinerator

A change in the export market, perhaps because of increased demand for treatment for waste from Eastern Europe.

In the past, almost every part of the country had a landfill site within easy haulage range that would only too gladly rise to the occasion.

Landfill helped to smooth out peaks and troughs in demand. It also provided a control on the price for thermal treatment.

At the moment, there’s a glut of waste in Europe, with export from the UK showing signs of becoming expensive. For now, incinerators can’t put up their merchant prices too high, or waste will head back to landfill.

In a couple of years, that will no longer be the case.

Necessary evil

In the absence of a planned approach to the near demise of landfill, and a strategic approach to making sure we have sufficient capacity to deal with shocks, there will be problems.

In the short term, we’re likely to see hassle and costs for any waste producers trying to find an affordable outlet for non-contracted waste. For a while, at least, there will be waste managers out there ruing the fact that the local landfill closed down.

We all want to see an end to landfill, at least on any meaningful scale.

I’m sure that, eventually, there will be recognition of these issues and that the market will develop systems to store waste safely and broker it so as to match it with treatment capacity.

However, we’re not there yet, and landfill remains a necessary evil until the alternatives are in place. We still need the flexibility that it offers, and a dozen sites across the country simply won’t supply it. 

This Author

Mike Brown is Managing Director of Bristol-based, independent environmental consultancy Eunomia Research & Consulting. He has over 30 years’ experience in waste management – 20 of those as an operator – and is a leading expert in the residual waste treatment sector. 

Lawson becomes chancellor – attacks miners, sells coal, oil and gas

The general election of June 1983 was a landslide for the Tories and landed Thatcher an increased mandate for her free market reign. “Margaret unexpectedly offered me the chancellorship,” Nigel Lawson recalled.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

Lawson’s first appearance at the dispatch box brought with it promises of further tax cuts and an attack on public services—and he also tried to sneak through the sale of £500 million in British Petroleum shares, hoping the British public wouldn’t notice.

On 29 June 1983, he told the House of Commons about “an emergency package of spending cuts—which would bring savings of £1 billion.”

A month later Lawson admitted that he also intended to sell off some of the government’s remaining shares in British Petroleum.

Lawson had only confirmed the sale after a written question. John Biffen, the leader of the house, was “barracked for some twenty minutes” by MPs furious at the apparent abuse of Parliament.

“I am by nature fairly secretive,” Lawson said of the period. “In presentational terms at least, my chancellorship did not get off to a very good start.”

Lawson’s bungling was about to get worse. The Guardian, the country’s then leading left-wing broadsheet, obtained a copy of his budget. “I was deeply depressed, even devastated,” he would recall.

Budget leak

“I find it difficult, writing several years later, to express the depth of despair I felt on the night of 29 February 1984, when I was first told by my press secretary, Martin Hall, that the Guardian had got a jumbo budget leak, and then was brought the first edition where I was able to see the full horror of it all.”

The leak only compounded his unpopularity – his cuts came when millions in Britain were suffering.

Unemployment had risen from £1.1 million when they came to power—with Charles Saatchi’s masterstroke political campaign, Labour Isn’t Working—to £2.4 million when Lawson was made energy secretary, and further to £2.8 million by June 1983.

But for the new chancellor, this level of unemployment was acceptable after years of “overmanning”.

The following year, even the Daily Mail was shocked by his callousness when he increased tax on fish and chips. His performance at the ballot box caused uproar on the Labour benches.

“The opposition were bound to claim that this justified their allegations during the campaign that we had a ‘hidden agenda’ of further public spending cuts,” he complained.

Working class

As chancellor, Lawson would, in 1984, side with the energy industry against its own employers. The national strike by the National Union of Mineworkers lasted almost a year, and was the last time in British history that the working class would demonstrate any control over the country’s energy policy.

A decade earlier, the miners had pitted themselves against Edward Heath—and won. Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, had argued that the free market could only operate if the “monopoly” of trade unionism was destroyed.

Nicholas Ridley, a Conservative MP, drafted a detailed secret plan to defeat the unions working in government-run industries. The miners’ strike was the painful reaction to the government’s attack on trade unions.

“Our original aim was to build a successful, profitable coal industry independent of government subsidies; to de-monopolise it and ultimately open it to private enterprise,” Lawson wrote in note to Howe, when the latter was still chancellor.

“Then the events of February 1981 showed beyond any reasonable doubt we will make no progress towards our aim until we deal with the problem of monopoly union power.”

The government began secretly stockpiling coal, converting power stations to oil, and hiring truck drivers in case of a sympathy rail strike.

Then, in March 1984, it announced the closure of 20 mines, at the cost of 20,000 jobs. The NUM, led by the Marxist Arthur Scargill, immediately called strike action.

Checking abuses

The country’s most powerful union, with the ability to cause blackouts and bring the country to a halt, was ready to confront Thatcher and Lawson directly.

Either the government or the union would be destroyed in the coming months. Thatcher introduced laws through parliament that made secondary picketing—where workers would line up outside other factories and offices and ask the staff to strike in support—illegal.

Lawson confirmed the government was less than completely honest about its intentions.

“A reduction in union power was an important aim of Conservative policy, even though it was couched in the language of checking abuses, democratising procedures, and so on.”

The strike ground on for over a year. Thatcher attacked “the enemy within”, evoking fears that Marxists were infiltrating British unions.

Tony Benn, the former Labour energy minister, called the strike a “civil war”.

Allegations were raised in Parliament that Roger Windsor, the chief executive of the NUM during the strike, had been working for or with MI5. He took £80,000 from journalists after making false claims that Scargill misused union funds.

Police in riot gear clashed with 6,500 pickets – and the BBC was caught reversing the footage to make it look like the officers were under attack.

Politically possible

Then, on 5 March 1985, the NUM delegate conference voted to return to work. The closures would go ahead.

There were 160,000 miners in Britain at the beginning of the strike. Today, there are fewer than 6,000. Coal is imported from the US and Poland, while nuclear power derives from France.

The mining industry in Britain was buried. Lawson calculated that the strike had forced the government to borrow an extra £2.75 billion.

“Even in narrow terms,” Lawson had said during a major debate in Parliament in August 1984, breaking the miners’ strike was “a worthwhile investment for the nation”.

Labour, he added, took the remark to be “conclusive evidence that the government had fomented the strike deliberately. This caused uproar in the chamber.”

This is the moment in history where the miners who powered Britain would have any lasting influence in its distribution.

The idea that the working class should have a decisive say in the control of energy, or the factories and offices, would be confined to history, a fading memory, no longer understood to be politically possible. 

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

Tropical birds benefit from more forest by rivers in oil palm areas

Protected riverbank habitats within areas of oil palm cultivation can play a key role in reducing the negative impacts on tropical bird numbers. New research from the University of Kent has shown that they need to be increased in size.

Converting rainforests to oil palm plantations has well documented impacts on tropical wildlife, including birds.

But so far there has been little research on the value that natural vegetation in river areas in plantations has for nature. These areas are often preserved for water management as ‘riparian reserves’.

Minimising impact

The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in the School of Anthropology and Conservation at the University of Kent, in partnership with Universiti Malaysia Sabah, have demonstrated that these riparian areas can help lessen the negative impacts of oil palm cultivation on bird communities.

The team counted birds across 28 rivers at a site in Malaysia and were able to examine their findings in relation to the width of the protected forest alongside the rivers.

The study showed that large riparian reserves tend to support more bird species, with the largest ones hosting similar number as nearby forests.

Overall, the researchers found that a single river site might support around a third of all the bird species found in adjacent forests.

Furthermore, the authors were able to show that the best rivers for protecting bird populations in oil palm areas had more than 40m of forest vegetation protected on each bank, which helped provide shelter and resources for the birds.

Protecting birds

However, to ensure all the forest-dependent bird species were represented, the width of this protected riparian area would need to be at least 100m on each bank. 

Lead author Simon Mitchell said the findings underlined the potential to protect some bird species within landscapes affected by palm oil cultivation:

“We show that even small increases to the width could lead to big improvements for birds. This could be really important if we are to find better ways of maintaining biodiversity in agricultural landscapes.”

The researchers hope their findings will lead to oil palm companies increasing the width of riparian reserves protected in new plantations, or restoring more vegetation in old ones.

Stricter environmental policies in tropical producer countries could also help improve the protection of riparian reserves.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor at The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from the University of Kent. The study referenced above has been published in the Journal of Applied Ecology under open access entitled Riparian reserves help protect forest bird communities in oil palm dominated landscapes.

Six key questions in whole systems thinking

A whole-systems understanding of the world acknowledges that a whole is always more than the simple sum of its parts. It pays attention to the diversity of elements, the quality of interactions and relationships, and the dynamic patterns of behaviour that often lead to unpredictable and surprising innovations and adaptations.

As change agents in the transition towards a more sustainable human presence on Earth, many of the interrelated problems we face are rooted in a way of thinking that has not paid enough attention to whole systems and their dynamic interconnectedness, dynamic relationships, and context.

Whole-systems thinking has to be a transdisciplinary activity that maps and integrates relationships, flows and perspectives into a dynamic understanding of the structures and processes that drive how the system behaves.

Placing together

Experts and specialists are important contributors to most sustainability projects, but we also need integrators and generalists who can help to put the contribution of each discipline into systemic relationships, and help to contextualise the contributions made by the specialists.

Too often we employ limited progress indicators or inadequate measures of success based on the dominance of a particular discipline or perspective.

One way to define the word ‘system’ is as a set of interconnected elements that together form a coherent pattern we can refer to as a ‘whole’. 

Such a system exhibits properties of the whole that emerge out of the interactions and relationships of the individual elements. This definition could be applied to a molecule, a cell, a human being, a community or the planet.

In many ways a system is less a ‘thing’ than a pattern of relationships and interactions — a pattern of organisation of constituting elements. The Greek root of the word system is ‘synhistanai’ and literally means ‘to place together’.

Defining boundaries 

Systems thinking and systemic intervention is a possible antidote to the unintended and dangerous side-effects of centuries of focusing only on reductionist and quantitative analysis informed by the narrative of separation.

Yet, it is important to maintain the awareness that the systems view itself is also just another map that – as Alfred Korzybski put it – should not be confused with the territory.

We can reduce the world to a whole just as easily as we can reduce it to a collection of parts. Neither the whole nor parts are primary; they come into being through the dynamic processes that define their identity through relationships and networks of interactions.

One of the most important questions in any systemic approach is to ask ‘what is the system in question’. In doing so we define boundaries that provide us with the necessary ‘enabling constraints’ to make sense of a situation.

Questioning assumptions

Yet, these boundaries are themselves a way of seeing that make a distinction between the system in question and its environment. We should regard the boundaries that delineate one system from another as places of connection and exchange rather than barriers that separate or isolate.

In more general terms, whole-systems thinking invites us to see complex issues from multiple perspectives, to suspend our judgement by questioning our own assumptions, and to honour insights from different disciplines and different ways of knowing.

Thinking in this way helps us to pay attention to the fertile ground of synergistic, whole-systems solutions. It can help us to more clearly see the opportunities in the multiple converging crises around us.

Whole-systems thinking stops us from seeing ecological, economic and social constraints as irreconcilable challenges.

It invites us not to view different stakeholder perspectives in a competitive, win-lose frame of mind, and encourages us to explore win-win-win solutions that improve the overall health and sustainability of the system as a whole

Regenerative economy

Whole-systems thinking is living systems thinking. 

I believe that a systemic understanding of processes by which life continuously regenerates conditions conducive to life offers a pathway to creating regenerative businesses and organisations within a regenerative economy as enabling factors of a regenerative culture. 

Here are six questions to contemplate when dealing with systems:

  • What is the system in question and how are we defining what belongs to the system and what does not?
  • What is the wider context that the system in question operates in?
  • What are the key agents whose interactions and relationships define the system structure and drive the system’s behaviour?
  • How is our perspective of the system in question shaped by our worldview and value system?
  • What are the key ‘emergent properties’ of the system that could not have been predicted by simply looking at the individual ‘parts’ of the system?
  • How does our participation in the system and our way of describing it affect what we are observing?

 

This Author

Dr Daniel Christian Whal is the author of Designing Regenerative Cultures (2016). This article is based on a piece first published on Medium. 

The path of the panda: interview with Kyle Obermann

The wildlife photographer Kyle Obermann and his team of rangers finally came across evidence of the pandas they knew were living deep in the core of the Anzihe Nature Reserve in China.

Kyle was invited into the reserve to photograph their habitat – a habitat which is home to 30 percent of the world’s population of giant pandas but which is also under severe threat from poachers and other human activity.

You were one of the first Western photographers invited to photograph in the Anzihe Nature Reserve. How did that opportunity first come about?

At the time I was working as a contract photographer and consultant for Conservation International’s  (CI) China program. CI supported my application to the local government to enter what they call the “main core” of the nature reserve which is where the whole expedition took place. As far as I know, I was the first western photographer to photograph the core of the reserve.

What are the main challenges facing panda and wider wildlife conservation in China?

Panda and wildlife conservation has come a long way in China, but there is still a long way to go. The wild panda population in China is steadily increasing and they have cracked the code to captive breeding, but habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to pandas today.

Similarly, human disturbance and an expanding footprint is the greatest threat to other species like snow leopards, Tibetan gazelle, etc. In the past, poaching brought some of these species to the edge of extinction, but thankfully has been largely stopped. Still, the expansion of herding, roads, and dams remains a major threat.

You spent the last four days of the expedition deep into terrain in the reserve that you say even rangers who’d spent twenty years there hadn’t explored. How did it feel walking into the unknown? Could you enjoy something like that?

From a journalistic perspective, it was a massive honour to have the opportunity to enter this part of the reserve with them. The first two days when we were still above the tree line were very enjoyable.

Every step was a new one, and it is really a special feeling to know you are documenting places that have actually never been documented before.

On the last two days it got much worse, however, as we descended below the tree line and had to hack our campsites out of the soaking undergrowth and go through a repetitive process of finding and losing the animals trails we were trying to track.

But that’s all part of the price you pay for going to someplace completely unknown – one moment it’s marvellous; the next all you want to do is go home.

What was it like, trekking with the rangers who had spent so long in the reserve and were so in tune with it?

Our relation to the wild was worlds apart. This was work, not exploration. Chiku nailao – chore, not play. While I was exploring uncharted territory to photograph, it was simply another day at work for the rangers.

The necessary, pressing task of surveying the wildlife and removing the poachers’ traps was essential. It governed every move and drove us on long after tents failed, backpacks broke, clothes soaked, and far beyond where I would have opted for the easier way.

How has your work positively impacted conservation efforts in China?

I’m not a conservation scientist, but I see myself and my photography as PR for conservation efforts and backcountry in China.

Storytelling and photography is an attractive way to draw people’s attention to issues that matter and make conservation more appealing. So, that’s what I do. I try to use my work as a constructive way to support local conservation groups and show people the value of protecting these lands.

Your work frequently highlights the positive impact people can have upon nature. How difficult is that to achieve in this day and age?

Not difficult at all. There are incredible people doing very positive things for nature all around, but media tends to focus on the negative stories – which yes, there are plenty of too.

In an era where there is so much pessimism about China or about global environmental conditions I think we also need stories of hope and positivity to show that, yes there is hope, or, even if you feel like you can’t do anything concrete in your current place, you can support these people who are.

How would you recommend budding travellers go about making a positive impact on the land that they explore, particularly in such a challenging country like China?

This is something I think about constantly. There are things that we should already be doing in order to leave no impact, like Leave No Trace, but to actually make positive impact is much harder.

One thing I would suggest is try to make the narrative less about yourself and really dig deep into the story of the land and the people. A lot of the places we go are areas that could really stand to benefit from our support and have no ability to reach the audience that we can.

So, if nothing else, promote the people who have protected and conserved the land which you are enjoying, share and support their stories alongside your own. This can be true in China and anywhere you visit.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. Click here to read more about Kyle’s expedition to the Anzihe Nature Reserve.