I was particularly struck by one question about protests when I spoke to a student audience at Manchester University about climate change: “How do you justify the impacts and explain them to those who question them?”

My questioner’s case study was the fuel blockade in 2000 – at about the time he was born – which made me think that he was reflecting on the views of a parent, reaching that wonderful point where studies and exposure to different viewpoints from his peers led him to question what he’d taken as family gospel.

The latest edition of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine is out now!

The 2000 action had been undertaken by lorry drivers protesting about rising fuel duty – a reminder that protests can be conducted from very different political directions. In the same era there was the big Countryside Alliance pro-hunting march.

Crucial role

But questioning the very act of protest was an important reminder that many of us live in ‘bubbles’ – social media or otherwise – where we take such activities for granted as a significant, and effective, form of political action. Many others do not – and it is essential that we make it clear to many more that these actions are essential, and to be celebrated.

In answering the question, I referred to the suffragettes and then zoomed forward a century to the recent Sheffield protests against unnecessary street tree felling. I might have referred to the two accounts featured in this issue of Resurgence & Ecologist, from France and Germany, where long, concerted protest has had a clear and positive outcome; or to the Greenham women and other anti-nuclear weapons protests of their time.

As many such case studies indicate, change in our society isn’t granted by those in charge. It has to be forced on them – to be won. The few benefiting from the status quo are hardly going to give up those benefits without a huge struggle, and they frequently can’t see from their lofty positions that change – controlled or uncontrolled – is inevitable.

The crucial role of protest in change was true for the men and women rallying and dying to demand parliamentary reform at Peterloo in 1819, and it remains true for those standing up for people and planet today.

The traditional political methods, petitions and letters, media stunts and reasoned argument, are not going to create transformation change, at least not on their own.

Vested interests

That’s not to say they’re not a crucial part of any struggle, the making of the case, but where vested interests are deeply entrenched at the heart of government they have to be confronted. The government has to know that people are prepared to put their freedom, and even their safety, on the line in resistance.

The full range of change drivers will have to be deployed if our society is going to change its entire political, economic and social approach – which we must do if we are to get away from the disastrous neoliberal politics of Reagan and Thatcher and the growth ideology that’s dominated since the end of the second world war.

The risks that brave people are prepared to take were highlighted by the recent jailing of three anti-fracking protesters, who had ‘lorry-surfed’ at the Preston New Road Cuadrilla drilling site. The three were each sentenced to more than a year in prison for “public nuisance”.

That an appeal judge subsequently described these sentences as manifestly excessive and freed them on conditional discharges a few weeks later came as little surprise, but they, and others who’ve taken similar actions, knew what they were risking. Those dicing with and defying swingeing injunctions brought by fracking companies against peaceful protests at sites across the North and the Midlands, who are putting potentially their homes and financial security on the line, are similarly aware.

Yet those injunctions are a sign of the power of the protests, and how much these companies and other vested interests fear them.

Building strengths

These are not actions taken lightly, and such movements only emerge and develop where it is clear traditional political tactics are not going to succeed. And it often takes time for their broader impacts to become evident.

The massive 2003 demonstrations against the Iraq War are often cited as a failure. But a decade later the Labour Party voted in parliament against bombing Syria, an action that clearly related back to the protest, while the public’s view of interventionist foreign policy continues to be coloured by that action.

The Iraq War march has been an object lesson that’s informed political action and helped develop movements in the 15 years since. A key lesson is that one action – even if it involves well over a million people – almost never brings change on its own.

Protest is a process, not an act. One of the things that happens is that protest movements learn from each other, grow out of each other, develop strengths from others’ successes and failures. The Climate Camp was informed by the anti-war protests; UK Uncut and Occupy grew out of its tactics.

Some people bring their experience from one movement to another, but one of the things that is striking in the anti-fracking protests is that many of those involved have never previously been involved in politics. Protest, bravery, the determination of the anti-fracking protesters camped in the cold and the rain, waving daily to passing locals – all this draws in people and communities.

Flexible tactics

Protests are continually evolving, learning entities, which have good days and bad, successes and defeats. I was there the week Sheffield tree protesters learnt that.

There was despair when South Yorkshire police arrested two women on private property, under repressive anti-trade-union laws. It seemed to be the loss of a crucial tactic. Yet a couple of days later, the protectors had an answer. Someone was employed to paint a householder’s gate under a threatened tree. Police were left scratching their heads – if the law was being deployed to protect workers’ ability to proceed, which workers had priority?

It’s not just a question of flexible tactics. Each movement has to develop its own methods of decision-making, of support and interaction. People bring many different perspectives and experiences to moments of high stress and pressure, and there are no rules to ensure that works effectively.

But while focusing on the successes and the achievements of protest movements, we also need to think about when protest tactics may not be appropriate and may even be counterproductive. Mistakes will be made, but they need to be learnt from. One of the things that’s marked Sheffield trees, anti-fracking, zad and Hambi is that direct actions have always been carefully targeted towards the movement goal.

Sitting under a threatened tree, blocking a lorry with fracking equipment, occupying a vulnerable space, has a clear link to the cause, an immediate impact that can be explained on the evening news. The further you get from that – the more an action can simply be labelled as attention-seeking, as a headline without substance, the less likely it is to be effective.

Successful movements 

Further, the environment in which protest operates is also constantly changing. Protests need to adapt to that, as zad has had to adapt to the removal of its initial raison d’être by victory.

One of the things we need to think about very carefully now is the febrile political age in which we live. That makes it more important than ever that protests offer hope and promote alternatives, and do not just oppose what is happening now.

The far right is promoting a politics of fear and division – and there’s no doubt it is dangerous and won’t be defeated by our adopting the same approach. We have to offer hope and inspiration, positive models and stor­ies of how we’re not just opposing, but proposing, not simply preventing, but building, not just saying no to climate-disastrous fossil fuels, but saying yes to a just transition to a new world.

Zad, Hambi and the anti-frackers have all done that. At Preston New Road there was a wonderful case study of this – an image woven into a security fence of what the fracking field could look like without the drilling rig – trees, green fields and a rainbow of hope, fitting with a sign frequently spotted there, “FARMING NOT FRACKING”. Such creativity, beauty, play, joy are crucial to a successful protest movement – and sometimes forgotten in the telegenic moments of arrests, lock-ons and marches.

And that vision of a liveable planet, with people living in security and just­ice, is one that is only available to our ‘side’. Defenders of the status quo can only oppose change, not celebrate the unstable, dangerous mess their system has created. To deliver radical change, we need – and I’m confident we’ll see – far more actions like zad and Hambi.

Everyone has a role, from promoting actions on social media and answering questions from family and colleagues such as those I was asked in Manchester, to baking quiches and cakes for the protesters, to leaping on top of lorries or marching en masse. There’s a role for everyone in making a new sustainable world – a role for everyone in protesting the destruction of our wonderful planet and the exploitation of the people on it, and building a beautiful alternative. Protest is crucial to get where we need to go.

This Author

Natalie Bennett is a former leader of the Green Party of England and Wales. This story was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine.

Image: Tim Lüddemann, Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

A conflict between those working to conserve numbers of hen harriers and those maintaining commercial shooting of red grouse in the English uplands has existed for decades – with little sign of progress.

Drawing on work conducted in psychology, a new study published in the journal People and Nature investigated the underlying values that shooters and conservationists hold that make it so hard to find shared solutions.

Ecological studies over the last thirty years have shown that hen harriers and other birds of prey are capable of reducing the number of grouse to such an extent that driven grouse shooting can become economically unviable. Consequently, hen harriers, although protected under UK legislation since 1952, are killed illegally on grouse moors.

Opposing views

Researchers from Bangor University and the University of Aberdeen surveyed a range of organisations that represent the interests of field sports – hunting, shooting, fishing – or nature conservation in England to assess their values and attitudes towards hen harriers, grouse shooting and potential management interventions.

Dr Freya St John from Bangor University said: “We found that people who are involved in field sports and those engaged in bird conservation hold more or less opposing views about human relationships with nature, challenging our ability to find shared solutions.”

“Although there is general agreement about the evidence of the ecological relationships between hen harriers and grouse, there is much less agreement about the best approach to manage them.”

They found that those from shooting organisations, in contrast to people associated with conservation groups, held a view of human mastery of nature and prioritised human wellbeing over the rights of wildlife.

This group expressed support for various management approaches, including brood management where eggs or young birds are removed from nests, reared in captivity and released back into the wild at fledging.

Management approaches 

In contrast, individuals associated with conservation groups did not support brood management.

However, like those associated with field sports, they did express support for continued monitoring of the hen harrier population, protection of their winter roosts, enhanced intelligence and enforcement, and diversionary feeding of harriers to reduce predation on grouse.

The results indicated that diversionary feeding was most favoured and received greatest consensus amongst the groups surveyed.

To date, this is the only management technique that has been trialled and found to be effective at reducing the number of red grouse chicks eaten by hen harriers. Despite this, feeding has not been widely taken up on grouse moors.

Professor Steve Redpath of the University of Aberdeen, who presented the study’s findings at the British Ecological Society’s annual conference, commented: “Our work highlights that this is a conflict between people with very different views about the management of the countryside and its wildlife.”

Stakeholder conflict 

There is currently no formal dialogue process in place to support the management of this stakeholder conflict.

Conservation organisations withdrew from previous discussions, partly because hen harriers continue to be killed illegally and have almost disappeared as a breeding species in England.

Redpath added: “It seems unlikely that conservation organisations would be willing to return to the negotiating table unless the illegal killing of hen harriers stops. 

“To minimise the impact of harriers on grouse, brood management was put forward, but as we see in this study, it is very controversial. Particularly whilst illegal killing of harriers persists, such a hands-on intervention is unpalatable to some.”

This Article 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the British Ecological Society. 

World-renowned environmental and peace activist Satish Kumar provides simple guidance and inspiration for anyone interested in contributing to positive change on our planet in a series of short videos being published through this month.

Change the Story showcases Kumar remarkable philosophy and insights on caring for the environment, cultivating personal wellbeing and upholding human values. The Resurgence Trust, owner of The Ecologist, is releasing a new film every day in January on its Vimeo channel.

Kumar edited Resurgence magazine for 43 years and founded the Resurgence Trust. He said: “I’m delighted to share my vision for how to meet our planet’s escalating environmental and political problems with hope and optimism in these films.

Wild landscapes

“The subjects of the films range from economics to Gaia Theory, science to Shakespeare, and energy to the importance of the food we eat. Each one has a simple message: together let’s write a new story for our time.”

Kumar, 82, is the author of seven books including the bestselling No Destination about his extraordinary 8,000-mile peace walk from India to America. He is the guiding spirit behind several acclaimed ecological organisations including Schumacher College in Devon. His latest book Elegant Simplicity will be published in April 2019.

Resurgence, renamed Resurgence & Ecologist in 2012, has been at the forefront of environmental change for more than 50 years. It publishes, in print and online, positive, informed and original perspectives on ecology, activism, social justice, ethical living, and the arts. It has been described as “the spiritual and artistic flagship of the green movement”.

Contributors to Resurgence & Ecologist include Fritjof Capra, The Dalai Lama, Noam Chomsky, Jonathon Porritt, Vandana Shiva, Caroline Lucas, George Monbiot and Germaine Greer. Michael Morpurgo, the former Children’s Laureate, said: “No publication has done more to raise awareness of the dangers to the environment of our throw-away society.”

The films were recorded in and around Satish’s home in Hartland, North Devon and other wild landscapes that inspire him and are being shared on the Resurgence Trust Twitter feed (@Resurgence_mag) and Facebook page (@Resurgencetrust).

This Author

Angie Burke is the trust manager at the Resurgence Trust, owner and publisher of The Ecologist.

Everyday products including lighting, displays, washing machines, dishwashers and fridges will need to be made to be more easily repairable and longer-lasting from April 2021.

The move has been welcomed by environmental campaigners and consumer groups, who argue that the “right to repair” will cut waste and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing consumer goods that are designed to need replacing prematurely.  

The proposals are part of the EU’s laws aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of products, known as Ecodesign. Previous Ecodesign policies have mostly focused on improving energy efficiency, but this is now being taken further to ensure that products are designed to last longer, and are easier to repair and recycle.

Limited access

However, campaigners have criticised the new laws for limiting access to most spare parts and repair manuals to professional repairers only. This may restrict the access of independent repairers, repair cafés and consumers to some key replacement parts and information, limiting the availability and affordability of repair services, they said.

Campaigners blame strong pressure from industry lobby groups for prompting the European Commission to water down proposals on repairability in favour of recyclability. 

Stephane Arditi of the European Environmental Bureau said that the restriction was a missed opportunity. “Small independent repairers can make a great contribution to the economy and our society. We need to help them do their job,” she said.

However, a spokesperson for the UK Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances said: “It is essential that a repaired product remains safe as well as in good working order and this is why the legislation is specifying a professional repairer.”

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

The decision to allow the Bradley opencast coal site in Pont Valley, County Durham, which began operating in 2018, is to be reconsidered by James Brokenshire, the communities secretary.

A judicial review brought by local residents today forced the secretary of state to agree to revisit the decision. His department admits that ‘a flaw in the decision-making process’ had resulted in the refusal to revoke the mining company’s permit last summer, enabling them to begin extracting 500,000 tonnes of coal.

Opencast coal extraction involves stripping large areas of topsoil and subsoil to extract vast quantities of coal using heavy machinery and dynamite. It is far more destructive to the local environment than traditional mining which it came to replace.

Fighting back

June Davison, who lives near the Bradley site, said: “As a result of the government’s flawed decision, we have watched from our homes as a much-loved habitat has been ripped apart, and we have suffered coal dust and noise 12 hours a day.

“Within weeks explosions will begin just 500 metres from our homes as they blast away the earth in preparation for destroying a whole new section of the valley for coal, unless the government acts.

“The Secretary of State can’t repair the damage that has been done here but the least he can do is stop it getting worse. We are fighting back for what remains of the wildlife in the Pont Valley, for the climate and for the health of our community.’

Climate change

This comes as the decision on whether to approve another opencast coal site, Druridge Bay in Northumberland, was handed back to the Secretary of State on Friday.

The department admitted that it failed to take into account campaigners’ and lawyers’ letters which had raised comparisons between Bradley and the proposed Druridge Bay opencasts; the latter was refused in 2018 on the grounds of climate change and damage to the local landscape and community.

In reference to Bradley, the department concluded “the matter needs to be reconsidered by the secretary of state on the proper basis“

Tony Bosworth, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The world’s leading climate scientists have made it clear that we need to act fast to avoid climate chaos.

“Coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels and it belongs in the history books, not in an energy system for the 21st century. Our energy future must be based on energy saving and renewable energy, not on more fossil fuels.”

Opencast coal

The company behind both projects is Banks Group, which is also seeking an extension to another opencast mine, “Shotton” in Northumberland, and is investigating a new site for coal extraction near of Newcastle. Banks Group is the only company in the UK which is looking to open new opencast coal sites.

Banks Group is also awaiting a court trial for wildlife crimes, as residents claim the company failed to relocate protected species off the Bradley site before the mine started.

The end of coal…?

Anne Harris, of the Coal Action Network, said: ‘The government should seize this opportunity to end the dirty industry of opencast coal extraction for good. Supporting either Bradley or Druridge Bay would be inconsistent with their promise to end coal use in power stations by 2025.’

But what would the end of coal mean in County Durham, where the deep-pit mines used to provide work for whole communities?

Liam Carr, local resident, said: “Most families around here would have dads or granddads who worked down the pit, but opencast coal does not provide the job opportunities that deep mining once did.

“The government should look again at revoking permission at Bradley and look very closely at any new opencast coal mine applications. This region was built on coal, we are rightly proud of our past. Coal is our heritage, not our future.”

This Author

Isobel Tarr is a Campaigner & Community Organiser with Coal Action Network, @CoalActionUK.

Forget the K-Pg extinction that led to the demise of the dinosaurs 66 million-years-ago – the most devastating mass extinction in Earth’s history occurred 251 million-years-ago at the end of the Permian.

This event – appropriately nicknamed the Great Dying – is the closest life on our planet has ever come to being entirely extinguished.

The geological evidence suggests that the main cause of the extinction was climatic change. 

Unmatched scale

Estimating the exact moment that the extinction took place has proven difficult. Unlike the clear iridium-rich clay layer that delineates the K-Pg event, most of the rock record for the end Permian has been eroded away by fluctuations in sea level.

Even the famous Meishan Section in China, although an invaluable resource to scientists, is too restrictive to offer a clear picture of what was happening at a global scale.

When compared with data collected from other sites around the world it is clear that the Great Dying was a series of extinction events that occurred during the Late Permian into the Early Triassic.

The scale of the extinction is unmatched by anything else in the geological record. Although there is little evidence to suggest that life itself was ever at risk of disappearing entirely, the statists are staggering.

It is estimated that up to 90 percent of all species became extinct within a few million years.  The event led to the wholescale collapse of entire ecosystems as plankton and other producers disappeared. 

Sea temperatures

Isotopic data shows intense warming at the end of the Permo-Triassic boundary, around 250 million-years-ago.

A 2012 study published in the journal Science reported a rise in temperature from 21°C to 36°C (the ocean temperature at the time of writing this article is about 17°C) in the Tethys, an ancient ocean that was situated at the equator, over an 800ky period.

A second rise in temperature in the Early Triassic lead to temperatures exceeding 40°C, a critical temperature for marine organisms.

Such extreme estimates have been criticized for methological flaws in the data. Despite this, the rise in ocean temperatures at the end Permian is well documented – it’s the extent of the warming that is subject of ongoing study. 

Marine organisms with high oxygen demands – such as cephalopods – cannot survive long in waters exceeding 35°C. The extreme temperatures at the equator forced organisms to higher latitudes where conditions remained somewhat tolerable.

Global anoxia

The same phenomena is observed in terrestrial organisms. During the Permian and Triassic the continents were joined together to form a single landmass called Pangea. 

The rise in ocean temperatures was likely the dominate factor driving the extinction, but it is not enough to account for the sheer magnitude of the event. Many researchers instead think that the extinction was driven by a complex range of factors.

Unoxidised carbon-rich minerals, notably pyrite, are characteristic of the end Permian occurring in marine deposits worldwide. Ocean waters at the time were structured with anaerobic bottom waters capped by oxygenated surface waters.

The warming of the oceans reduced the solubility of oxygen in the seawater, causing the concentration of the oxygen to decrease. This coupled with increased weathering of the continents – caused in part by higher sea levels – led to an influx of phosphates in to the oceans.

The increase in phosphates was good for life, in the short-term, because the extra nutrients supported more primary producers, notably plankton, in the oceans. But the increase in productivity was a double edged sword: as the increase in the amount of plankton meant that they sank to the bottom of the ocean where they further decreased the oxygen concentration.

Methane hydrates

The accumulation of organic matter on the seabed led to release of CO2 as the organics decayed. Such ocean anoxic events allowed the formation of organic rich shales, the source rocks for petroleum and natural gas.

This makes studying palaeoclimatology important not just from an environmental but also an economic perspective. 

During cool periods methane gas becomes trapped at the bottom of the sea forming methane hydrate deposits. An increase in temperatures causes the trapped methane in be released, furthering global warming.

When released, methane rapidly degrades to CO2. This increases ocean acidity, anoxia, and contributes to global warming by releasing greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere. All three of these factors amplified the extinction rates.

The release of methane hydrates would also explain the negative carbon excursion seen at the end of the Permian.  There is real concern that contemporary climate change may cause methane hydrates to melt, with a severe impact on the earth’s climate. 

Triggering factor

What triggered the global warming at the end of the Permian has been debated by researchers.

One theory suggests that the warming was triggered by a meteorite impact citing shocked quartz discovered in Antarctica. However, the shocked quartz appeared to have been plastic deformation structures more consistent with tectonic activity rather than a bolide impact. The meteor hypothesis is largely rejected by most scientists. 

The most widely accepted explanation is volcanic activity. The Siberian Traps in Russia are a large expanse of basaltic lava with a volume roughly 4 million km3which formed during 300,000 years of continuous eruptions over a mantle plume.

The phenomenal amounts of greenhouse gases released would have caused major climatic changes. The amount of CO2 released by these volcanic eruptions would also account for the isotopic data. 

Heeding a warning 

The end Permian extinction should serve as a warning as to the dangers about extreme climatic change.

The release of greenhouse gases by volcanic activity led to warming of the oceans and the results release of trapped methane caused the climate to spiral out of control. Just replace volcanic with human in the previous sentence and you have our current situation.

As global temperatures continue to rise we may see a repeat of the end Permian, though nowhere near as extreme. 

This Author

Jack Wilkin is a graduate research student at the Camborne School of Mines in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on the isotopic geochemistry of fossils from the Jurassic of Germany for paleoclimate studies.   

More than 800 million people still live in hunger, and many of us now eat more unhealthy than ever. Global food production remains the largest pressure caused by humans on the planet, threatening local ecosystems and the stability of the Earth system itself.

This is despite of increased food production around the world over the past 50 years, and a drop in hunger, infant mortality and poverty globally.

Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production, and reducing food waste, concludes a scientific commission.

Plant-based foods

The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems, a three-year long project involving scientists from 16 different countries, now provides the first scientific targets for a healthy diet that operates within the planetary boundaries. Their findings were published today in a report entitled Food in the Anthropocene in the medical journal The Lancet.

“The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong,” says one of the commission authors, Professor Tim Lang from the University of London.

“We need a significant overhaul, changing the global food system on a scale not seen before in ways appropriate to each country’s circumstances.”

To stay within planetary boundaries, the report urges a combination of major dietary change, improved food production through enhanced agriculture and technology changes, and reduced food waste during production and at the point of consumption.

On an individual level, the scientific commission recommend diets consisting of a variety of plant-based foods, with low amounts of animal-based foods, refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars, and with unsaturated rather than saturated fats. Consumption of red meat and sugar would have to be cut by over 50 percent to ensure human and planetary health.

Connection with nature

If the world followed this Planetary Health diet, more than 11 million premature deaths could be prevented annually. The diet addresses the global burden of disease that is linked to poor diets (including obesity, undernutrition, and malnutrition). Unhealthy diets are the leading cause of ill-health worldwide, causing more death and disease than unsafe sex, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use combined.

The diet would cut greenhouse gas emissions to levels compatible with the Paris Agreement on climate change, while also reducing biodiversity loss and phosphorus use, and limiting agriculture’s demand for land, water and nitrogen.

Professor Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, is a co-lead commissioner of the report. He said: “Designing … sustainable food systems that can deliver healthy diets for a growing and wealthier world population presents a formidable challenge. Nothing less than a new global agricultural revolution.”

Dr Richard Horton, editor-in-chief at The Lancet, added: “The transformation that the Commission calls for is not superficial or simple, and requires a focus on complex systems, incentives, and regulations, with communities and governments at multiple levels having a part to play in redefining how we eat.

“Our connection with nature holds the answer, and if we can eat in a way that works for our planet as well as our bodies, the natural balance of the planet’s resources will be restored.”

This Author

Arthur Wyns is the program manager of Climate Tracker, an organisation supporting environmental journalists worldwide to bring climate change into their national debates. He tweets from @ArthurWyns

Nigel Lawson, the founder of the climate science denial group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has announced that he is stepping down as the group’s chairman. 

Lawson – who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher’s government – led the UK’s most prominent climate science denial campaign group for a decade.

He announced his resignation at a meeting of the GWPF’s board of trustees during which he said that since establishing the group in 2009, it had become “a prominent force in the climate policy debate” and that it was now “stronger than ever”.

Bernard Donoughue

Lawson, who will turn 87 in March, will remain affiliated to the GWPF as its honorary president. 

Launching the GWPF in 2009, Lawson argued in a column in The Times that it was morally wrong to “force the world’s poorest countries to cut carbon emissions”.

Lawson has repeatedly spread disinformation about climate science in newspaper columns and regular media appearances. In October 2017, the BBC apologised and admitted Lawson “should have been challenged” over incorrect statements he made on the BBC’s flagship Today programme.

In October 2018, broadcast regulator Ofcom found that Lawson’s statement on the Today programme was “neither correct or sufficiently challenged during the interview or subsequently during the programme”. 

The GWPF said Bernard Donoughue – a life peer in the House of Lords who has been a member of the GWPF’s board of trustees since the group’s foundation – will replace Lawson as the group’s chairman.

Donoughue served as a junior minister for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under Tony Blair’s government and as a senior advisor to Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan. 

Former Prime Minister David Cameron once quoted Donoughue’s objection to the landmark Climate Change Act on cost terms as a reason for the Conservative party to oppose a 2030 decarbonisation target.

Right-wing organisations

The GWPF is based at an office at 55 Tufton Street, near Westminster, which is also home to a host of right-wing liberal organisations and pro-Brexit groups, including the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Leave Means Leave, IFT (previously Institute for Free Trade) and the Centre for Policy Studies.

The GWPF has also announced that economist Ruth Lea will join the group’s board of trustees. Lea also serves as a regulation fellow for the opaquely-funded right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank and sits on the advisory council of the low-tax campaign group the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which was founded by Vote Leave CEO Matthew Elliott.

Martin Jacomb, one of the founding members of the GWPF’s board of trustees, is also standing down from his position.

This Author 

Chloe Farand is a freelance journalist focussing on the environment and foreign affairs. This article was first published by DeSmogUK. 

Campaigners plan to stage a protest day at Bristol Airport today (Friday, 18 January 2018) over proposals for expansion. 

The expansion of the airport would mean a 59 percent rise in aviation carbon emissions this decade – at a time when local authorities have declared a climate emergency and pledged to reduce carbon by 50 percent by 2035.

The action is in response to the airport’s application for planning permission, which is open for consultation, until 26 January.

Reckless decision

The campaigners say the plans would mean the airport’s greenhouse gas emissions increasing from previous (2017) levels of 746.77 to 1,183.87 kilo tonnes of CO2 per year by 2026.

A Bristol spokesperson for the climate change campaign group, Extinction Rebellion, said: “Bristol Airport is trying to expand, accommodating 20 million passengers by 2040. This is a reckless decision, which is not congruent with the action necessary to safeguard our common future.” 

They say that local authorities in the west of England have adopted targets that would otherwise equal or beat national Government targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have warned that the 400+ parts per million accumulation of atmospheric gases from burning fossil fuels are driving global warming beyond a critical and dangerous average level of 1.5C. 

To meet the necessary reduction targets and avoid overshooting that 1.5C rise, there is an ambition by city leaders to reduce carbon emissions in the west of England by 20 percent by 2020; 50 percent by 2035; and by 80 percent by 2050. Bristol has become the first city to pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Bristol and South West regional campaigners are therefore asking people to object to the proposals before the deadline of January 26. 

‘Die-in’

Extinction Rebellion Bristol have announced on their Facebook page that their protest will include staging a ‘die-in’ at the airport this Friday, where large numbers of people will lie on the floor of the airport, hindering access, to represent the numbers of lives they say will be lost or shortened by climate change impacts.

This event follows a series of protests throughout November and December by a network of Extinction Rebellion groups around the UK and more recently overseas too. 

One campaigner, who asked not to be named, said: “The application is for growth to 12 million passengers per annum. Phase 1 of growth to 20 million passengers per annum. This is a 50 percent increase from 2017 when Bristol Airport reached 8 million, and will mean a throughput of 97,373 aircraft movements in a 12 month calendar period, a flight almost every three minutes.” 

The group claims: “Aviation carbon emissions at Bristol Airport in 2026 would increase by 59 percent compared to 2017 levels. This figure could well be higher if the modern, less-noisy fleet of aircraft does not materialise.”

They also say Bristol Airport’s plan to extend low cost car parking would undermine public transport, and add further to the airport’s fossil fuel burden: “Public transport was only at 12.5 percent in 2017. This underscores the lack of ambition by the airport as it is in their interests to retain heavy car usage.”

Global aviation

The group has estimated that 87.5 percent of passengers travel by car to and from the airport, which means more carbon emissions and lower standards of air quality: “The airport’s strategy is one of ‘business as usual’ aimed at retaining high levels of car travel to fuel the airport’s significant reliance and near monopoly on revenue from parking,” added their spokesperson. 

In 2017, Bristol Airport was the ninth busiest in the UK. Its carbon dioxide output from flights has previously been calculated to exceed that of an entire African country, according to the campaign group Global Justice Now, and based on figures for the state of Malawi.

Bristol Airport expansion plans have garnered criticism from various campaign groups for the past 15 years, including Stop Bristol Airport Expansion, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. 

A spokesperson for North Somerset Green Party said: “It seems that the dire warnings from the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPSS) last October have fallen on deaf ears at Bristol International Airport… Global aviation consumes an astonishing 5m barrels of oil every day, pumping 859 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.”

Defenders of the airport’s expansions have argued that aviation accounts for only 2.5 percent of CO2 emissions currently.  

This Author 

Alex Morss is a freelance ecologist, writer, editor and educator and one of Avon Wildlife Trust’s Wildlife Champions.

The eco-tourism movement has continued to impact where people choose to spend their vacations.

Eco-tourism serves to promote increased environmental awareness, sustainable communities, cultural experiences and environmental preservation and conservation.

Yet the inherent nature of tourism demands that there be developments, which haven’t always benefited the environment. Nevertheless, for those planning a sustainable vacation, it’s important to keep eco-tourist considerations in mind.

Eco-tourism benefits

With eco-tourism comes curiosity — about both environment and experience. Instead of going to popular tourist destinations like China, Italy, Spain and Germany, vacationers are expanding their searches and destinations.

More destinations mean more opportunities for employment within indigenous populations of lower-income communities and countries. Locals act as guides, experts, demonstrators, merchants and hosts to visiting tourists. Increased traffic means more money funneling directly back into the community along with a higher standard of living.

Community outreach and tourism allow people from all over the world to come into an impoverished community and restore it by providing services and patronage. In one instance, a vacation could mean volunteering, building or serving in an impoverished community. Another impact would come from immersive experiences in the lives of indigenous peoples that sustain their culture and environment.

Eco-tourism also provides cultural literacy. By incorporating local cultural lodging, food, history and activities, communities can improve their welfare as well as educate a wider population.

Plus, taking some press away from the typical tourist destinations means that some pressure is taken off the surrounding environment and ecosystems. The money that results and is saved from releasing the environmental pressures is put back into conservation and preservation efforts.

​Negative developments

With increased tourism comes increased pressure to develop areas and make them more inclusive and resort-like. Building more accommodation, businesses and amenities within these communities and destinations damages and destroys habitats. By damaging the local environment, you increase the pressure on native species.

Increased competition for resources between invading tourist activity and indigenous populations — both locals and wildlife — means wildlife and certain ways of life disappear. In their place, these cultures and environments take on the same features and characteristics of previous popular sites.

Indigenous cultures are distorted to consumer culture to keep tourists coming, which leads to the exploitation of resources and wildlife that’s currently destroying destinations like the Bahamas and the Philippines.

Not all eco-tourist destinations are what they appear to be. Some eco-tourists book vacations thinking they’re going to have an authentic, sustainable experience when that’s not the case.

Even cycling and hiking close to home can have devastating effects on the environment and wildlife. While vacation should be an enjoyable and memorable experience, the environment is not to be exploited for a stellar photo album.

Thankfully, instances of irresponsible excursions such as reckless mountain biking and enclosing wildlife for display and hunting have diminished.

​​​Vacation impact

Eco-tourism calls on vacationers to redefine what it means to take a vacation — not only where you go and how you get there, but also what you do while you’re there.

This strategy affects how people choose where to stay. With home-sharing sites like Airbnb growing more popular with five million listings worldwide, many people are opting for a more cost-effective, authentic experience for their vacations. (Airbnb has itself been criticised because of its impact on local communities and economies).

There’s also been an increase in the demand for energy-efficient hotels and resorts that benefit the local cultures as well as the environment. Food is something that everyone should consider as well. Trying the local dishes and delicacies is part of every vacation, and you’re supporting the local farmers when you buy from local vendors.

With immersion in the homes and lifestyles of the cultures surrounding you, you can grow to appreciate them and the environment more. It also makes you more curious about what else is out there. With local guides, you’ll realise how many activities are available that wouldn’t be found in a resort.

Eco-tourism is often close to home too. A study of 160 countries found that tourism accounts for eight percent of the world’s carbon emissions and is increasing each year. If you’re worried about the effects of your traveling, consider a low-carbon vacation, which means forgoing the standard airfare travel and road trip in favor of one closer to your own backyard. Instead of staying at a hotel, it can mean camping, climbing, hiking, backpacking or biking.

Eco-destinations

If you already know what you’re looking for, go somewhere that’s likely to give you the right experience. Here are some common goals for traveling as well as corresponding destinations:

• For the community and culture: Cambodia, India, Kenya and Ethiopia
• For the conservationist efforts: South Africa, Belize, Malawi and Thailand
• For the outdoors: Peru, Argentina and the United States
• For the history: Japan, Jordan, Ethiopia and Vietnam
• For the wildlife: Finland, Canada, the Azores, India, Borneo and Uganda

Eco-Tourism Tips

For the best experience with eco-tourism, consider the following tips:

• Do your research: When it comes to taking a sustainable vacation, make sure all the details are spelled out. Do some research into the company you’re staying with, the excursions you’d like to go on and the places you’re visiting.
• Avoid taking more than you need: Whether you’re going abroad or just camping on a local mountain, a light suitcase or backpack will complement a high sense of adventure. When you’re packing for a hike or a flight, remember to keep it quick, easy and light, including the clothes you wear, the tools you use and the food you eat.
• Always keep the environment in mind: As long as you’re keeping the health of the environment in mind when you plan your vacation, you’ll be doing your part as a responsible traveler.

Eco-tourism has had an impact on the way people think about leisure and how they feel about vacation. Fun doesn’t have to be sacrificed for sustainability and a greener planet. In fact, these lifestyles open up more opportunities to see the world and make every vacation an adventure.

This Author

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