The end is nigh for fracking in the UK, not that it ever particularly got started.

Regulators at the government’s Department of Business, Energy, Innovation and Skills (BEIS) recently denied fracking pioneer Cuadrilla’s request to raise earthquake limits.

This is a hammer blow to the company’s prospects of profitably extracting shale gas at their Preston New Road (PNR) site in Lancashire.

There is little more that Cuadrilla could do to portray itself as the arch-villain of the climate movement as they demand the Government allow them to induce more earthquakes at their site between Blackpool and Preston. All to make a quick profit.

Their demand comes after fracking just 5% of the well at PNR since beginning horizontal drilling on 15 October 2018. They have induced 57 earth tremors between then an February 2019.

BEIS state that while they support fracking, they have set existing regulations in consultation with the industry.

You can’t help but expect that even this callous Tory government have woken up to the deep unpopularity of fracking. By limiting Cuadrilla’s expansion at this stage, time is being run down until a Labour government ban it all together. It may even come with a new Tory leader in an attempt to appear ‘green’.

No support

Polling in a BEIS report in December 2018 showed that only 13 percent of the public support fracking in the UK. A peak of now 35 percent oppose.

The gap has only widened since 2014. There is nothing about fracking that cultivates popular support. The more the public learn about fracking, the more they oppose it.

The industry often argues for its existence under the guise of energy independence from big, bad, scary Russia. In reality, less than one percent of the UK’s gas comes from Russia.

The truth is that there is no under-supply of gas in Europe. The only demand for a new gas industry comes from investors and fossil capitalists who stand to make money from exacerbating climate breakdown.

Why would the public support a disruptive mode of extraction that just unnecessarily pumps unwanted gas into the energy supply?

Every proposed fracking site radicalises a new wave of organisers willing to put everything on the line to stop the industry imposing itself on their community.

In Lancashire, local nanas went from dipping their toes in activism by objecting to Cuadrilla’s plans to leading a movement and blockading the site themselves.

Where the fracking industry goes, local residents will be confronted by its terrible realities for climate, geologies, house prices and beyond.

Local struggles

These local communities get highly organised quickly.

They’re also supported by national networks like Reclaim the Power (RTP) and Friends of the Earth (FOE). As locals bring the energy and drive to defend their land from fracking, the networks have brought the experience, skills and capacity to amplify local struggles and throw national weight behind local struggles against a government-backed industry.

As mass demos and audacious blockades continue to the chorus of “until we win!”, you can only believe that these activists are committed to the fight until the bitter end.

Indeed, their organising has brought about the end for fracking. By using every trick in the book to frustrate Cuadrilla’s attempt to kick-start fracking in Lancashire, they have played a massive part in the industry’s failure.

Had they not put up a fight over many years, the government would have found it easy to relax regulations and wave through a dangerous new industry. Instead, there just isn’t the mood for that level of disregard for people and planet.

While UK fracking knocks at death’s door, we must remember that the struggle to kill it off is not over. Later in February, Reclaim the Power are organising “two days of resistance and direct action to disrupt the fracking supply chain and new gas infrastructure”.

The fracking industry needs kicking while they’re down. As the anti-fracking movement puts the nail in fracking’s coffin, there’s no better time to join the movement. Fracking was never going to succeed in the UK, but its down to us to make sure that INEOS, Third Energy and their fellow travellers meet the same fate as Cuadrilla.

This author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet and member of Reclaim the Power in Oxford. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Ireland’s grid operator is lobbying Brussels to fast track funding to connect the country to the rest of Europe, citing concerns about becoming isolated after Brexit, its boss told Climate Home News.

Ireland relies heavily on British energy. It shares its electricity market with Northern Ireland, with just two power links to the mainland, and receives most of its oil and gas imports from the UK.

While an abrupt, no-deal Brexit on 29 March is unlikely to stop those supplies, it could lead to disruptions if Europe and Britain’s rules diverge in future, energy industry representatives are warning.

Rising supply

With these risks in mind, state-owned EirGrid is urging the European Commission to approve funding for a planned €930m electricity link with France before the commission’s term ends late this year, according to chief executive Mark Foley.

“It’s a project of common interest and a project of enormous strategic importance to an island nation which, in a post-Brexit situation, is not connected to Europe,” Foley said on the sidelines of a conference at Dublin City University last week. “We’d like to achieve grant aid in formal terms in the lifetime of the current EU commission.”

The commission has already approved funding for studies of the Celtic Interconnector, which is deemed a cross-border project of common interest that can bolster the EU-wide energy market. If additional funding is secured, EirGrid and its French counterpart, RTE, hope to begin trading power in 2026, Foley added.

Plans for the link between southern Ireland and northwest France predate Brexit by about five years, and proponents say it will be crucial to both countries regardless of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

For Ireland, new interconnectors are needed to balance the rising supply of renewable power. This way producers can export their electricity when the weather is strong and supply exceeds demand, and import when it wanes.

Disputes

Renewables – mostly wind, with some hydro and solar – accounted for about one-third of the entire island’s power generation in 2018, according to EirGrid. The republic aims to reach 40% by 2020, and EirGrid expects to have to double the island’s capacity of around 5,000 megawatts to reach its 2030 goal.

“As we take it to the next level, if we don’t have the safety relief valve to export wind to other jurisdictions, the economic case for building renewables on the part of private developers won’t be there… they won’t get bank financing,” Foley said.

That’s why EirGrid is also pursuing a planned second power connection with Northern Ireland and considering another to mainland UK – on the assumption that Brexit will not split the island’s single power market, he added.

Ireland and Northern Ireland further integrated their market last October, allowing traders to buy and sell as quickly as within the day. London, Dublin and Brussels have all promised to keep the market intact after Brexit.

That said, there are concerns that British and Irish market rules will gradually diverge, and uncertainties about how disputes between traders would be resolved if the UK is not under the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction – adding to Ireland’s need for links beyond Britain.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.

Many people have noticed the buzz about something known as the clean label movement. Consumable products and those in the beauty sector are particularly likely to have the clean label designation. But, what exactly is a clean product?

Some variations in the definition exist, but it generally means an item free from unnecessary ingredients and made of familiar components people can pronounce. So, clean products appeal to individuals who want to be more aware of what they put into or on their bodies. Often, sustainability is part of clean products, too.

The goal is to provide a greater level of transparency, thereby empowering people to make more informed choices about what they buy and which companies they support. Besides benefitting consumers, clean products can be advantageous to businesses and foster their growth.

Build trust

Research indicates that people are fed up with brands that aren’t transparent about what they offer. If individuals don’t view brands as trustworthy, they’re likely to look elsewhere to find a brand that makes them feel more confident.

A 2016 Label Insights study showed 94 percent of respondents were likely to be loyal to brands that provided complete transparency. Also, the survey indicated there’s no need for manufacturers to go to extreme lengths to highlight that products are healthy. That’s because more than half of those polled said they use personal determinations to decide what’s healthy and what isn’t.

When consumers feel companies are trustworthy, they’re arguably more likely than not to support those brands. After all, if entities aren’t straightforward about which ingredients they use, it’s easy for people to wonder what else they might be concealing.

Moreover, a lack of trust can have severe consequences. An investigation from Sprout Social that took a close look at the effects of transparency indicated that 86 percent of people would take their business to competitors if they perceived brands to lack transparency.

Conversely, though, the presence of transparency builds a level of trust that makes people more forgiving after company mistakes occur. More specifically, the Sprout Social study showed when a company has a history of transparency, 85 percent of people are more likely than not to give them second chances.

Boost sales

Companies do a variety of things to increases their profits. Some run creative social media campaigns while others alter their packaging to make it more appealing and eye-catching in a crowded supermarket aisle where various things compete for shoppers attention. Those efforts can help, but it’s also becoming increasingly important to make it simple for people to check ingredients.

That’s because statistics indicate three-fourths of people say that they read nutritional and ingredient labels found on food and think it’s important to see mostly recognizable ingredients when they survey the information. Author Michael Pollan urged people to be more conscious of what they consume over a decade ago. He recommended that foods contain five or fewer ingredients, all of them pronounceable.

Also, research from Nielsen shows an upward trend in the market share of clean label products. It’s not just from a niche segment of consumers, either. Nielsen discovered more than half of shopping trips contain clean goods, and certain consumer segments gravitate towards those items at above-average rates. Companies could cater to the desire to read labels by simplifying the packaging designs and using callouts like “No artificial flavors or colors.”

Outside of clean products people eat, Sephora is making it even easier for people to buy products free from unwanted ingredients. It launched a “Clean at Sephora” section in 2018 that features all the clean beauty products in one area of stores or on the website. Now, people can shop at Sephora and know that they can get clean products there. As such, Sephora’s sales should go up as it caters to an identified need.

In addition to making overall sales rise, companies that offer clean products may find that their profits improve because people will pay a premium for natural ingredients. Research from Lycored indicated 88 percent of people would spend more on items with natural ingredients. And, when presented with a hypothetical about naturally flavored milk, participants said they’d pay 47 percent more for it.

Embrace innovation

Although consumers like consistency for some aspects of products, such as quality and price, they also appreciate new offerings that keep pace with societal changes. When enterprises don’t innovate, they could become stagnant and get swallowed up by competitors.

In recent years, various companies made changes to support the public’s interest in clean products. Dunkin’ Donuts, Smoothie King and Panera Bread are some examples of well-known brands that changed their ways of doing things to get rid of artificial ingredients.

DuPont could soon help those brands and many others figure out how to successfully innovate in ways that align with the desire for clean products without being prohibitively cost-intensive. It will have a clean label hub in Denmark, and one of the priorities of the people who work in that facility will be to devise new clean texturants — the ingredients that make food feel pleasant in the mouth— to replace the artificial ones frequently used now.

This kind of innovation promotes growth in several ways. As a start, it gives the perception that brands listen to what people want and respond to trends. When individuals believe brands care about what they want, they could be especially likely to support them. Plus, innovation allows companies to potentially cut manufacturing costs or reduce inefficient processes, which could provide more resources to build the enterprises.

The research showcased here, and numerous other conclusions, show that the clean label movement is here to stay and in demand. When companies recognize that and respond accordingly, they naturally innovate, which helps them grow as reputable entities and brands that match customers preferences and purchasing habits.

This Author

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

The European Commission will meet on controversial rules this week to limit the use of biofuel crops linked to deforestation – amid backlash from the world’s two largest palm producers.

The new rules will define which fuels can be counted toward EU renewable energy targets. Biofuels that indirectly lead to changes in land use and higher greenhouse gas emissions will be excluded by 2023.

EU commissioners will discuss the legally-binding act in a meeting on Wednesday, commission spokeswoman Anna-Kaisa Itkonen said. It comes a few days after the 1 February due date. If it is adopted, the European Parliament and member countries will have two months to give any objections before it’s finalised.

Energy goals

If the commission chooses tough criteria could significantly limit one of Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s biggest exports – palm oil.

The Indonesian and Malaysian governments and industries have long criticised the EU’s push to tighten its biofuels criteria.

“The proposed ban is clearly an act of discrimination,” Malaysian foreign affairs minister Saifuddin Abdullah said in a statement in January. “Malaysia is committed to producing sustainable palm oil … every drop of palm oil produced in Malaysia will be certified sustainable by 2020.”

Jakarta, meanwhile, plans to lodge a complaint with the WTO on the grounds that the EU directive will unfairly target palm oil in favour of European commodities like rapeseed oil, Reuters reported last week. On top of that, the government is reviewing its relations with the EU and urging southeast Asian neighbours to hold off on any plans to upgrade their relationship with the bloc, it said.

Brussels countered that the rules will comply with its WTO obligations. “The commission will make sure that any necessary implementing rules are fair, balanced and based on solid scientific evidence to ensure that the achievement of the EU’s renewable energy goals goes hand in hand with the fair and rules-based international trade regime that we so strongly defend,” Itkonen said.

Biodiesel

The EU has also stressed that it does not intend phase out palm oil-based biofuels by 2030 entirely. Instead, palm oil and other crops will have to pass new “objective and non-discriminatory” criteria in order to qualify as low-carbon and renewable sources of energy, the EU’s ambassador to Indonesia, Vincent Guérend, wrote in a letter to the Jakarta Post in November.

“The Union remains a large, open market for palm oil,” Guérend wrote. “If it failed to pass these criteria, palm oil imports would still be possible under current condition, except European member states could not count it as ‘renewable energy’ anymore.”

The EU is working with the Indonesian government to see how its palm oil can comply with the coming rules, with about four years to prepare, he added.

The extent to which food-based biofuels should count as renewable energy was one of the most contentious issues in the EU’s negotiation for the 2021-2030 policy.

Environmentalists argue biodiesel made from palm oil is the worst type of biofuel, followed by soy. According to the NGO Transport & Environment (T&E), biodiesel releases three times the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel diesel, once land use is taken into account.

Deforestation

Their concern now is that some palm oil production will count as lower-risk crops that can still be imported for fuel, said Nico Muzi from T&E.

“That for us is the loophole, the wide-open door, for green-washed palm oil. All the fight will be around that – how big that loophole will be.”

However, not all palm oil production causes deforestation, and sustainability rules need to recognise the differences from country to country, said Gernot Klepper, a senior researcher at Germany’s Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

There is still extensive tree loss and illegal cutting in Indonesia, but much less now in Malaysia. Colombia’s palm oil, instead, is produced in plains rather than forests.

Rules that allow producers to qualify their crops as the lower-risk feedstock can incentivise them to become more sustainable, he said. 

Restricting imports

On the other hand, banning palm oil outright – which the Commission does not intend to do – would hurt more sustainable producers as well.

Norway and France have moved ahead of Brussels to clamp down on deforestation.

Norway committed in 2016 to making sure the supply chain in its public procurement is deforestation-free and included the plan in its budget last autumn. Malaysia quickly warned it would affect its trade relations with the European Free Trade Association.

France announced in November that it will stop imports of palm oil, soy, beef and other products linked to deforestation and unsustainable agriculture by 2030.

Malaysia again responded, with prime minister Mahathir Mohamad telling president Emmanuel Macron that the government would consider restricting imports of French products, Reuters reported.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.

Fish are in trouble. It seems that every week we hear warnings about drastically reduced populations in numerous species.

And did you catch the disturbing story about UK fish and chip shops serving up endangered species to unwitting customers?

According to Global Fishing Watch, some species’ numbers have dropped by a huge 90 percent, while lists such as this show ten kinds of fish which have recently become extinct.

Hot water

This isn’t new information either. In a study published in Science in 2006, experts said that we risk seeing fishless oceans by 2048.

And so what has happened since then to avert this disaster? Very little. In terms of UK policy we’ve in fact seen the opposite, with news that Brexit could lead to overfishing on an even larger scale than before.

The reasons behind marine biodiversity loss are many. However, we can boil it down to the fact that more fish are caught than can breed to replenish the numbers.

Illegal fishing and government subsidises contribute to overfishing, as does the use of certain fishing industry practices.

Trawler nets do not discriminate based on the type of sea life they pick up. This results in large numbers of fish being caught which are either surplus to requirement or the wrong species.

Seafood

The ‘bycatch’ or ‘bykill’ is then thrown dead back into the sea. ‘Ghost nets’ also pose a threat. These are fishing nets which are lost or abandoned in the sea, acting as a death trap to animals which are then never collected.

The resulting reduced numbers of fish and other sea life has a huge impact on the entire marine ecosystem, which in turn affects life on land.

As well as issues concerning biodiversity, overfishing has been linked to declining water quality, ocean dead zones and coastal flooding.

So isn’t it enough to cut down on the amount of seafood you eat, and to look into the fishing methods used to bring it to your plate?

Some experts take a different view, such as Marine Biologist Dr Sylvia Earle. Dr Earle explained to the National Geographic: “I personally have stopped eating seafood. I know too much. I know that every fish counts.”

Oceans

There are also the wider ethical arguments to consider.

Animal rights groups may be more likely to share content depicting animals such as cows and pigs in distress, however it’s important to remember that fish also suffer in the hands of our food system.

Fish are animals, like us, with a central nervous system. They experience pain and discomfort and have an inbuilt desire to live. While methods for catching fish vary, none of them make for an enviable end of life.

It’s easy to feel discouraged in the face of such large-scale problems. However, there is still time to make a difference.

The oceans can be assisted to return to a healthier state. We need protected ocean areas and government legislation – but what can you do as an individual?

Blossom

By withdrawing your funds from the fishing industry, you can play a part in fighting against the harmful effects of overfishing.

While it is true that from an environmental point of view certain fishing practices are less harmful than others, there is no essential reason to continue eating fish given that we do not rely on them for a single nutrient. From protein to fatty acids, all of our nutrients can be found in totally plant-based sources.

And what’s more, vegan-friendly options to replace fish are springing up left, right and centre – from Quorn’s fishless fingers to more gourmet restaurant options such as “tofish” and chips, or battered fish made from banana blossom.

If you’re intrigued, why not sign up to The Vegan Society’s Plate Up for the Planet Challenge and try a vegan diet for 7 days?

This author

Elena Orde is communications and campaigns officer at The Vegan Society and editor of The Vegan magazine.

Russia, one of the world’s highest-polluting hold-outs, has taken steps that could lead to ratification of the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile a key business group reversed its opposition.

Late last year, the country’s lead climate advisor Ruslan Edelgeriev released a statement flagging the preparation of a key report on the pros and cons of ratification.

In January, business daily Kommersant reported that Edelgeriev had asked a working group of government experts to have the report ready by the end of February, with a view of landing the document on Vladimir Putin’s desk by March.

Implementation

The government would then be in a position to submit ratification legislation to the country’s two parliamentary chambers, the Duma and Federation Council.

The move coincided with a shift from a key business group that had previously called for Russia to move slowly on its ratification of the deal.

In a letter to the environment ministry on 17 January, Alexander Shokhin, the head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), wrote that “Russian producers are interested in ratification” as “the absence of national obligations and state regulation of activities to combat climate change may serve as a pretext for imposing economic restrictions on Russian companies”.

Shokhin also cited concerns over a loss of competitiveness and unnecessary costs.

The European Commission indicated last year it would prioritise countries in trade negotiations that had backed the Paris deal. Accordingly, the Japan-EU agreement concluded in 2017 contained a chapter explicitly referring to the ratification and implementation of the Paris deal.

Ratification

Neither the RSPP nor a spokesperson for the EU responded to a request for comment.

Nearly 200 countries, including Russia, have signed the Paris Agreement, which commits members to limiting global warming to “well below 2C”.

Formal ratification typically involves an act of parliament, although it varies from country to country. Russia, which accounts for nearly 5% of global greenhouse emissions, remains the largest of the 12 signatories that have not formally ratified the deal.

Alexey Kokorin, a climate change officer from WWF Russia, said he believed Russia’s new climate representative Edelgeriev was providing an impetus that could see the government follow through with the process.

“The big positive is that the new Mr Edelgeriev completely supports ratification. He would like ratification as his personal view, he would like to make that he has made something significant,” said Kokorin.

But Kokorin warned that the ratification had yet to pass a legislative ring of fire.

Influential

Deputies “will resist it as much as possible using this to demonstrate themselves as Russian patriots.

The populists of United Russia [Vladimir Putin’s party] will certainly delay the process to prove themselves”, he said.

There may also be resistance from within the government. A representative from the ministry of science was the only official to oppose the ratification during the working group, reported Kommersant, citing a lack of evidence for man-made climate change.

Russia was part of a small group of oil and gas producing states that blocked a recent UN conference from welcoming a hugely influential scientific report on the impacts of warming 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs, has announced that Tony Juniper is his preferred candidate to become the next Chair of Natural England. The news has been welcomed by Friends of the Earth.

Craig Bennett, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth said: “This is excellent news. At a time when we are witnessing catastrophic declines in wildlife it is very welcome to have a passionate environmentalist of Tony Juniper’s experience and calibre proposed as chair of what is supposed to be England’s independent watchdog to ensure our natural world is protected.

“But the truth is that over the last decade, Natural England has lost most of its independence, with its communications, finance and HR functions being subsumed within DEFRA while – at the same time – suffering a drastic cut in funding.

Nature laws

“Mr Gove is to be congratulated on his choice of candidate, but he should also take the opportunity to make Natural England truly independent and properly funded once again.

“This is of utmost importance, given Brexit is just around the corner and we’re about to lose the independent scrutiny and enforcement of our nature laws currently delivered by EU institutions”.

Juniper is a former trustee of the Resurgence Trust, an educational charity and owner and publisher of The Ecologist. 

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a commissioning editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth. 

Image: Jakob Polacsek, Flickr. 

I want to start out by addressing younger readers in particular. And what I have to say to you is stark. It is this: your leaders have failed you; your governments have failed you; your parents and their generation have failed you; your teachers have failed you; and I have failed you.

We have all failed to raise the alarm adequately; and so of course we have failed to prevent the dangerous climate change that is now here, and the worse climate change that is coming and that is definitely going to get a lot worse still: definitely, because of time-lags built into the system. 

This crisis already shows our failure. For, if we had been going to tackle this in such a way as to actually get a grip on it, we would have done so a generation ago (at minimum).

True leadership

Roughly speaking, we would have elected Green or genuinely green-friendly, non-growth-obsessed governments everywhere in the world a generation ago and they would have done things that were quite unpalatable to a lot of us. That would have been true leadership.

But of course nothing remotely like this has happened. So now we’re in a real last chance saloon. The globally hegemonic civilisation of which we are all a part is in an end-game. Those who wanted to preserve it have already definitively failed.

Because of that failure I’m afraid for you, reader, especially if you are younger than me (I’m 52). I have fear for you: I fear that (some of) you are unlikely to grow old.

We’ve gambled too much on succeeding in preventing/mitigating anthropogenic dangerous climate change and the anthropogenic extinction crisis. Because we were unwilling to face up to the alternative.

But the alternative is not as simple as an instantaneous end of life would be. The alternative is complex, involving many possible variants of ‘unthinkably’ horrendous, bad, and even (in some respects) good.

Transformational adaptation

Most crucially: there is a huge difference between the various versions of complete irrecoverable societal/species collapse, on the one hand, and the rise of a successor civilisation(s) out of the wreckage of this one, on the other.

We have to be willing to think this – and face it. Which means that we have to look beyond mitigation alone; we have to get serious about the processes of transformational adaptation and deep adaptation that are now necessary.

We cannot continue to avoid the vast effort necessary in attempting to adapt our communities to cope with our changed and changing world. Not least because the time-lags built into the climate system mean that – even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that we manage to stop massively damaging our climate further – it is bound to deteriorate further for a long time to come.

The only way that our civilisation might appear to persist is if we manage to transform it beyond recognition. But that transformed civilisation would then in no meaningful sense be the same civilisation as ours.

It would be radically relocalised, degrowthist, energy-descended; it would have ended consumerism and foregrounded ecology; it would have learnt indigenous and peasant wisdom and have left behind most of the wrong turn of industrial capitalism; in short, it would probably be as different from our present world as that world is from the pre-industrial-revolution world.

Irrevocable changes

It is in the context of the present civilisation being finished that I have just had a paper published which this Ecologist article précis’s and builds upon. My paper asks, given that this civilisation is finished, what exactly, among those willing to face up to this terrifying and liberating reality, is to be done?

Let me now turn more directly to that. To the great work of taking the effort of adaptation to our irrevocably changed world seriously, this great task that now lies ahead of us.

In my new paper, published as IFLAS Occasional Paper 3, I build on and complement the work already done by Jem Bendell, in his widely-read, extremely-influential IFLAS Occasional Paper 2, on “Deep Adaptation”.

Deep Adaptation means adaptation premised upon collapse. And it has to be faced plainly that such collapse is likely.

For instance: How many more summers like 2018’s can we take? In my own neck of the woods, in Norfolk, many crop yields were massively down. And this is while we deal with the effects of only 1 degree of global over-heat. What will things be like, when we reach 2 degrees, or even 3, as it is now only realistic to expect we will.

Social collapse

I have also argued there that Bendell’s claim that we face “inevitable”, “near-term” social collapse is nevertheless not valid. I think that the evidence he puts together in ”Deep Adaptation’’ does not justify that double-claim.

The claim that I have been making for some time now is that our civilisation will inevitably end. This may sound much the same as Jem’s claim. But it is different in two crucial respects:

Firstly, I do not put a time-limit down; I think we really don’t know what the time interval is. Secondly, I leave open that the ending still might be by way of a positive transformation, the opposite of collapse.

We don’t know that this isn’t possible, because we don’t know what human beings are capable of in novel circumstances. Tragically, I definitely would not bet on it, but to pretend that we can be certain that it won’t happen is to close down the open-endedness of human being and to overstate our own epistemic powers. It is to be unhumble before the future. To repeat, in a way, the kind of mistake that got us into this horrendous situation.

It still just might be social transformation, not social collapse, that our future holds.

Precautionary logic

It is plain that climate-nemesis is coming our way on a business as usual pathway or any likely pathway — catastrophic climate change is a white, not a black, swan – but we can’t know for certain when it will arrive by, nor even (for certain) that it will arrive.

We do not need certainty about collapse (or whatever) in order to guide our actions; the Precautionary Principle already guides them powerfully, by pointing us somewhat more specifically to what we need to do in order to guard against worst-case scenarios, etc. It directs us to ‘prep’, especially together, even if we do not know when or if collapse will occur. Doing so is simply a sensible precaution.

This precautionary logic may be (more) helpful to our cause, unlike the standard scientific ‘evidence-based’ logic that is more-or-less hegemonic among g/Greens and policy-wonks alike, a logic that is actually often harmful. 

I think that my way of characterising our situation is more likely to be energising and motivating than a message of inevitable doom. The Extinction Rebellion now beginning, could be our last chance to begin to do enough to stop full-scale climate catastrophe, or at the least to significantly slow it. 

But Extinction Rebellion risks being undermined by a ‘doomer’ message that says near-term social collapse is inevitable.

Extinction Rebellion

We must bend our wills to deep adaptation, as an insurance policy against the likely eventuality of collapse. And to transformational adaptation, adaptation that seeks simultaneously to mitigate and to transform our society in the direction it desperately needs to change in. The latter points too toward the hope for that transformation, a hope that remains, even in the darkness of this time.

Insofar as human beings are willing to wake up and to look the dark reality of climate crisis in the eye, so we rise up to meet it. That is true courage. That is still at the heart of the task now upon us. A task that Extinction Rebellion is leading the way towards.

This Author 

Rupert Read is a reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia.

Image: kthtrnr, Flickr. 

Activists who locked themselves to a plane to prevent it deporting people to West Africa have been given community orders and suspended sentences.

The protest took place in 2017. Most of those on board the plane were being deported following failed immigration cases, though some had not yet received a final decision. Two have since been given leave to appeal, which the activists say justifies their actions.

The conviction of the activists in December for endangering the safety of an airport was criticised by human rights campaigners as being excessive.

Immigration system

However, the sentencing judge Christopher Morgan QC, said that although such action would “ordinarily result in custodial sentences”, they “didn’t have a grievous intent as some may do who commit this type of crime”.

In an article for the Guardian, protester Emma Hughes wrote: “We are a group of peaceful protesters, but the state has convicted us of a terror-related offence. This was done without any transparency by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and neither the CPS nor the attorney general have explained this decision. 

“This is why we have already lodged our appeal. Amnesty International has described our convictions as ‘a crushing blow for human rights’, and we cannot just accept that and walk away.” 

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, welcomed the ruling. “The actions of the Stansted 15 exposed the brutality of secretive charter flights.

“We need root and branch reform of our immigration system with an end to the use of charter flights for deportations immediately,” he said.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We only return those with no legal right to remain in the UK, including foreign national offenders and failed asylum seekers.

“We expect people to leave the country voluntarily but, where they do not, the Home Office will seek to enforce their departure.”

A flight deporting 29 Jamaicans left the UK yesterday. Crimes committed by the individuals include murder, rape and serious violence, and had a total combined sentence of over 150 years imprisonment, according to the Home Office. None were British citizens or members of the Windrush generation, it added.

This Author

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

From the 6-14 April 2019, Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) and the Iceland Foods Charitable Foundation, will mobilise more than 30,000 volunteers at 500 beach, river, city and mountain locations across the UK in its Big Spring Beach Clean: Summit to Sea.

SAS is calling for inspired community leaders from all walks of life to help remove and track plastic pollution in their local area.

The Big Spring Beach Clean is the UK’s biggest coordinated beach clean activity, which has brought together over 150,000 volunteers over the last five years, contributing an incredible two million hours of volunteer time to protecting and conserving our beaches for everyone to enjoy.

Plastic pollution

These vital community events not only remove dangerous plastics from our unique and precious coastal environment, but also indicate where action needs to be taken further upstream to reduce the leakage into and impact of plastics on our ocean and beaches.

A recent report showed that plastic makes up 70 per cent of all the litter in the ocean, and if no action is taken to reduce its input, then it is forecast to treble within the next ten years.

Almost a decade ago, SAS pioneered the Plastic Pollution Audit at our beaches to identify which plastics were washing up on our tidelines. This year SAS is conducting the research again to map and monitor plastics, and signpost where urgent action needs to be taken to reduce plastic pollution.

Hugo Tagholm, CEO of Surfers Against Sewage says “The Big Spring Beach Clean is an annual celebration of our beaches, uniting thousands of like-minded volunteers to take action for our ocean.

“We are excited to be working with the Iceland Foods Charitable Foundation to invite anyone, anywhere to lead a community clean-up with us to tackle plastic pollution. We can all be ocean guardians from our summits to the sea, from our river banks to city streets. Register your event today.”

Common passion

Richard Walker, trustee of the Iceland Foods Charitable Foundation, said “Iceland Foods Charitable Foundation and Surfers Against Sewage share a common passion for tackling the scourge of plastic head on, and we know that this is an issue that resonates with an ever-growing number of people.

“Our Iceland stores are at the heart of high streets up and down the country and we recruit our store colleagues locally, making us a true community retailer. We are delighted to be backing SAS in encouraging individuals and organisations throughout the UK to help make a difference to the quality of their local environment through The Big Spring Beach Clean.”

SAS hopes to engage a wide range of people to take part in protecting the ocean from summit to sea.

Individuals can find their nearest clean or volunteer to lead their own clean by clicking here or by emailing SAS. All Clean Leaders will receive a Big Spring Beach Clean kit, a limited edition SAS insulated Hydro Flask, a step-by-step guide to organizing their clean, along with support and guidance from the SAS Team in organising their event.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Surfers Against Sewage.