Recent European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions published earlier this year (2019) deal with two approval applications for maize developed through cross-breeding to combine several genetically engineered traits.

The plants are resistant to up to four groups of herbicides – glyphosate, glufosinate, 2,4-D and AOPP – and produce up to six insecticides.

The genetically engineered maize is a crucial element of a business strategy that couples the marketing of patented seeds with herbicides.

Combinatorial effects

This concept has serious consequences for the protection of health and the environment: the plants inherit resistance to several herbicides and can therefore be sprayed with high dosages and mixtures of specific herbicides.

Consequently, the residues from spraying will be present in the harvest, as will the insecticidal toxins produced in the maize.

In previous decision making the EU Commission has already approved several maize variants with similar characteristics. None of these were ever tested for combinatorial effects on health from mixtures of the toxic constituents in the respective food and feed products.

The EU Commission, EFSA and industry are of the opinion that detailed investigations of the combinatorial effects are not necessary.

However, this assumption is highly questionable. Just recently, documents were published showing that EFSA had not correctly assessed immune system responses to Bt toxins. Currently, it cannot be ruled out that Bt toxins trigger allergies and other immune responses.

Health risks

Very high concentrations of Bt toxins can be found in some products derived from the maize. In addition, the health risks from the residues of spraying are still being discussed by scientists, and crucial data needed to conclude on safety are missing.

Christoph Then for Testbiotech said: “Instead of giving priority to the protection of health and the environment, EFSA is paving the way for international trade and corporate interests. 

“And despite the majority of EU Member States and the EU Parliament repeatedly voting against imports of these crop plants, it is highly likely that the EU Commission will again give its approval.”

Currently, Testbiotech is aiming to make more detailed investigations mandatory for genetically engineered plants in a case brought before the EU court (case C-82/17 P).

Unfortunately, as stated by the Attorney General in 2018, the EU Court does not seem to be in a position to request a further, more detailed risk assessment. The final decision of the court is expected in 2019.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Test Biotech, the Institute for Independent Impact Assessment of Biotechnology. 

Geoengineering tends to get short shrift from environmentalists, seen as a distraction from the hard and necessary work of cutting emissions – at best.

All the same, it is increasingly hard to see the world avoiding dangerous warming without it – and research is proceeding, whether they like it or not.

Switzerland is calling on the UN Environment Programme to consider international governance options, in a draft resolution for this month’s summit obtained by Sara Stefanini.

Because as reader Felix Schenuit points out, more science cannot resolve the political dilemmas involved: debate is needed on the values and interests at stake.

GCF boss

The Green Climate Fund has named Yannick Glemarec as its next executive director, to lead the institution through a fundraising drive. He will coordinate with economist Johannes Linn, facilitator of the replenishment process.

With no shade on either appointee, who by all accounts are smart and competent, you have to ask how an institution drawing from an international pool landed on two white men.

Particularly when the highly qualified Mafalda Duarte was in the running. Maybe the 7:1 male to female ratio on the selection panel goes some way to explain it…

Meanwhile cracks showed in developing world unity at a board meeting in Songdo, as Saudi and Seychellois members clashed over governance reform.

Cool trillion

French experts, backed by Paris Agreement architect Laurent Fabius, are promoting a trillion-euro EU climate finance pact, Natalie Sauer reports.

At a launch event in Paris, they outlined plans for a new bank and fund to mobilise cash on a large scale. Proponents hope to put it on the agenda of a summit on the future of Europe this month and European Parliament elections in May.

Big oil on defence

International Petroleum Week this year coincided with a winter heatwave in London. As activists superglued themselves to the doors, inside were some signs of humility from the oil majors.

Saudi Aramco chief Amin Nasser took a strikingly defensive tone, revealing that top financiers and policymakers had told him his industry had little future.

He begged to differ, unsurprisingly, arguing for better PR rather than a wholesale shift to clean energy – but there’s no denying the sector is rattled.

For all the talk of carbon pricing, some were kicking it old school: Financial Times correspondent Anjli Raval spotted a delegate wearing an I❤FossilFuels pin.

CR 4 EVs

Costa Rica launched a 2050 climate strategy, covering all sectors of the economy. This small central American country switching to electric vehicles may not make Nasser tremble on its own, but advocates hope it can be an example to others.

Brexit loopholes

With four weeks to the Brexit deadline, UK lawmakers scrutinised plans to replace EU environmental laws – and found them wanting.

The draft bill contains “too many get-out-of-jail-free cards”, warned Environmental Audit Committee chair Mary Creagh.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.

Campaigners are seeking to stop the EU counting wood as a renewable energy source, in a lawsuit which has been filed at the Court of Justice.

Plaintiffs from six European countries and the US argue that burning biomass for heat and power is a false solution to climate change. The EU Renewable Energy Directive promotes logging of ancient forests, according to the brief, contravening the bloc’s higher principles and individuals’ rights.

The suit challenges a major plank of efforts to generate 32 percent of EU energy from renewable sources by 2030. Nearly two thirds of EU renewables come from various forms of bioenergy, with more projects in planning.

Carbon sinks

“We are burning up our forest carbon sink and injecting it into the atmosphere,” said Mary Booth, lead science advisor to the case and president of the US-based Partnership for Policy Integrity.

“There is forest biomass being shipped thousands of miles to meet biomass demand in the EU. We think that needs to stop.”

At the point where it is burned, wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal. However, the EU treats wood burning as carbon neutral, on the basis trees will grow back, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.

A spokesperson for the European Commission climate change division would not comment on the legal merits of the case.

The commission’s policy framework aimed to guarantee “sustainable development of bioenergy, while at the same time enhancing the role of land and forests as carbon sinks,” she said.

Renewables

That was endorsed by member states and the European Parliament when they adopted the directive last year.

Carbon accounting of forest management has long been fraught with controversy, as scientists like Booth warn it does not reflect the true climate impact. Instead of being harvested, she said in a press call, trees should be allowed to mature and store carbon.

The plaintiffs will also raise concerns about damage to biodiversity, cultural heritage and human health in their regions. These range from the deterioration of peat bogs in Ireland to threats to Estonia’s pagan religious traditions.

From a legal perspective, counsel Peter Lockley explained, the case needed to demonstrate the renewables directive clashes with higher law –  enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – in a way that directly concerned individuals.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.

Brazil witnessed its worst ever mining disaster earlier this year, after Vale’s tailing dam in the Brazilian town of Brumadinho in Minas Gerais collapsed without warning.

Estimates tag the number of deaths at 142, while nearly 200 remain missing. Hundreds were evacuated this week near the dam area of another mine in Minas Gerais as a precaution. 

This tailings dam collapse comes less than four years after another devastating tailings mine disaster destroyed the town of Samarco, also in Brazil, also managed by Vale (though in a joint partnership with BHP). The Samarco tailings dam failure killed 19, and caused widespread environmental destruction through the state of Minas Gerais. 

Tailings technology 

Tailings dam disasters have not been limited to Brazil. The Samarco incident came only a year after the tailing dam at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley copper and gold mine in British Columbia breached. Though no deaths were recorded, the tailings spill was one of the largest ever recorded in history.

Since 1970, there have been over 70 major incidents of tailings dam breaches and collapses. Despite this, there is very little indication that future tailing spills will be averted, due to the nature of the industry and the technical difficulties in finding viable alternatives to storing mine waste.

The Mount Polley independent engineering review panel, released in January 2015, found that incremental changes to the design and implementation of tailings ponds would not be sufficient in preventing another such disaster. The report said: “Without exception, dam breaches produce tailings releases. This is why best practices can only go so far in improving the safety of tailings technology that has not fundamentally changed in the past hundred years.”

Instead, the panel called for the use of alternative methods, including storing mine waste underground, or using the process of dry stacking, which calls for the dewatering and compacting of mine waste for storage.

The report also called for the increased use of dry soil covers for tailings ponds, which can help reduce infiltration and keep oxygen out to prevent sulfide oxidation of mining waste.

Technological change

Four years later, these alternative technologies have yet to make much headway in the industry, though Anglo American did release its vision for its waterless mine last month.

One reason for the delayed uptake in disaster-avoidance strategies is that the mining industry has a reputation for being slower than other industries in embracing technological change.

Though the hot-button word in the industry has been ‘transformation’ for the past 10 years, mining companies have taken only the smallest of steps to incorporate new technologies and reconsider problematic processes, including but not limited to mine waste storage.

Though there is some appetite for change, market realities have made it near impossible to move forward on these plans. The bottom line of mining companies took a sustained hit in the years of the downturn of the supercycle, and companies were forced to significantly pare down their businesses to survive.

R&D departments were gutted, leaving mining companies with fewer resources now to come up with innovative, effective means of preventing future tailings disasters. Though the industry has recovered somewhat, many of these departments are at minimum staffing levels, if they exist at all.

Cutting costs

Another obstacle to taking more preventative measures to prevent another Brumadinho is the continued disconnect between executives and on-the-ground operators involved in mine planning and closure.

Top-level managers are driven to cut costs wherever possible because of the mining industry’s tight margins, which discourages long-term thinking and responsible budget estimates for extended stage in the life of a mine, such as mine closure and land rehabilitation.

Mine closure is still too often an afterthought in the project plans, and is more often than not seen as a non-essential ‘nice to have’ element in the mine design.

The scale and the human cost of latest Brazil tragedy may change this mode of thinking – but it won’t be overnight, and it’s likely that mine planners will still be butting their heads against budget constraints as they try to create closure plans which do not endanger the local population and environment.

Meanwhile, tailings dams are getting bigger and bigger across the world. Untapped mineral deposits on the earth’s surface are increasingly rare, and finding a surface-level deposit is next to impossible. This means that mining operations must dig deep to extract mineral resources, which creates more mining waste – and substantially larger tailings ponds facilities.

Government regulation 

Governments have a role to play, though have been slow to respond to the threat posed by potentially unstable mine waste structures. Brazil’s government signaled that they would be toughening mining regulations in the wake of the disaster.

Following the Mount Polley incident, British Columbia reconfigured its mine approval process by requiring companies to fully consider the likelihood of a tailings disaster and the environmental and health impacts it would have.

But the reality is that more and more countries are increasingly economically dependent on mining revenues. According to a report put out by the International Council on Mining and Metals this year, low- and middle-income countries were found to depend most heavily on mining.

The report found that the top 50 countries with the highest dependence on the mining industry “are governed at levels below those considered satisfactory for good governance of natural resources.” 

The more a country relies on mining to reinforce its GDP, the less likely it will be to impose strict environmental and health and safety regulations on companies extracting local metals and minerals. Before Brumadinho, Brazil had been stripping away regulations on mining companies and how they managed mining waste. Only now are officials looking to put those regulations back in place.

Moving forward

Finally, it’s important to remember that because the mining industry has no direct consumers it’s very difficult for consumers to put any pressure on them by way of boycotts and public shaming campaigns.

It’s all very well and good to be publicly outraged about the poor working conditions of those working in cobalt mines in the Congo – but who among us is willing to forfeit the smartphones that use that cobalt? The same goes for other base metals (iron ore, nickel, lead, copper).

We may be dismayed at the environmental cost of poorly managed tailings dams, but it is very difficult to protest the use of these metals when they’re used to build bridges, cars, and other necessities of modern living.

So, what’s the way forward?

First, industry organisations – including, but not limited to ICMM – must push harder on the industry to meet environmental and sustainability goals, and ensure that these companies follow best practices at every stage. 

Secondly, our generation needs to invest in mining and metals companies. Shareholders have power, and it is to the shareholders that these companies are beholden.

Investors in natural resources firms have traditionally seemed older and more conservative, but as this generation passes into retirement, new shareholders are needed. If new investors demand higher safety and environmental standards, mining companies will have to respond and comply.

This Author 

Jax Jacobsen is a mining and energy journalist, and a regular contributor to Mining Magazine. She has also written for Canadian Institute of Mining Magazine, Natural Resources Magazine, the Montreal Gazette, and other publications. In 2013-2016, she was S&P Global’s Canadian mining correspondent.

Image: Bento Rodrigues dam disaster, Wikimedia. 

Grassroots activist group Foil Vedanta recently facilitated a demonstration outside the UK Supreme Court, during the case of Dominic Liswaniso Lungowe and others v Vedanta Resources PLC and Konkola Copper Mines. 

Campaigners provided information to the public outside the courts throughout the hearing in solidarity with Zambian and the estimated 38,274 others directly affected by the poisoning of the 990 mile long Kafue River.

The hearing came after a 13-year struggle to decide whether the case as a legal right to be heard in the UK. 

Copper colonialism 

Konkola Copper Mines, or KCM, are the largest copper producers in Zambia, with Vedanta Resources holding a controlling 79.4 percent share.

Prior to the construction of KCM’s smelter in Chingola on the Copperbelt, residents of 1st street, which runs directly parallel to the smelter, report being assured that this was a “modern” construction and the waste would have little effect.

Foil Vedanta’s extensive Copper Colonialism report prompted an audit which found levels of arsenic, cobalt, copper and lead all well above international limits. 

The effect of the pollution are numerous: residents are suffering from ill-health, tin roofs are eroding at alarming rates, while farming and fishing yields are dwindling alongside the disappearance of hippos at the famous Hippo Pool. 

This hearing will not determine how the pollution should be addressed or whether there is to be compensation for the claimants. Given the barriers to justice within the Zambian legal system, the UK is the ‘natural forum’ to hear the case.

Barriers to justice

Vedanta Resources PLC was delisted from the London Stock Exchange amidst accusations of human rights abuses in October of last year, but the UK-domicied company is still headquartered in London. 

Vedanta denies a ‘duty of care’ to those the operations of its foreign subsidiary KCM. This looks to be a landmark case in the future of UK-domiciled multinationals and their level of legal responsibility regarding foreign subsidiaries.

Opponents argue that taking the case to the UK is damaging and patronising to the Zambian court system. We must acknowledge that many of the barriers to justice within Zambia are a symptom of historical systematic exploitation.

Evidence of prior knowledge of potential damages and the mutually beneficial relationship between mining companies and the Crown are in disclosed in part in documents from the 1930’s held at the National Archives:

“In the event of any such legal proceedings being taken or threatened against the Mining Company it will forthwith make every practicable endeavour to eliminate the cause of the damage complained of and in the event of it being decided after consultation between the Crown and the Mining Company to defend the legal proceedings the Mining Company will render every assistance in its power to the Crown in the defence and generally will act under the direction of the Crown in the conduct of the proceedings.”

Neo-colonial extractive industries continue a legacy. In March 2014, Foil Vedanta released a clip of executive chairman Anil Agarwal bragging about Vedanta’s deception of Zambian government and great profits from KCM. The video garnered thousands of views and reached headlines in Zambia and Liberia. 

Duty of care

Judges Lady Justice Black, Lord Justice Briggs, Lady Justice Hale, Lord Justice Hodge, and Lord Justice Wilson heard the appeal at the Supreme Court and will hand down a judgement in the forthcoming months. 

The claimants were represented Richard Hermer QC, instructed by Leigh Day, who previously acted on behalf of the Bodo community of Nigeria in the pollution case against Shell.

Hermer argued that lack of funding to support a fairly represented case presented a major barrier to justice within Zambia. Further than that, one of the twelve claimants who won the right to compensation in the Zambia courts has yet to be informed.

Hermer noted that while relationships between parent companies and subsidiaries will differ, Vedanta’s own documents state: “[we] measure our sustainability framework at an operational level”.

Gibson, representing appellant Vedanta, continued to argue that there is “no conceivable basis on which the law can ascribe responsibility” stating that Vedanta lacks the necessary proximity and level of control. 

Recent precedents 

In 2011 in the case of Nyasulu v Konkola Copper Mines Plc, Zambian High Court Justice Musonda not only sided with claimants, for damage to health and livelihood, but drew attention to the that fact KCM “had been shielded from criminal prosecution by political connections and financial influence, which put them beyond the pale of criminal justice.” 

Despite this, when the case moved to the Zambian Supereme Court not one person was able to actually claim compensation, due to a lack of medical records. 

In October 2017 at the UK Court of Appeal, Vedanta Resources’ lawyer Charles Gibson QC of Henderson Chambers – who has represented multinationals such as BP and Unilever, argued that this is not a social justice issue to be paraded, but that the focus should be legislation. Gibson claimed that Vedanta resources simply did not have a ‘duty of care’.

The name of the court in which Gibson argued seemed to be lost only on him as the three judges took the side of the claimants, supporting the decision of Justice Musonda and upholding the verdict that had come from the UK’s High Court in April 2016.

A swell in media attention around the anthropocene and climate tipping points seem to have given UK audiences a new-found yet crucial sense environmental urgency. Cases such as this demonstrate that for many this urgency is a daily reality.

Extractive industries

Climate justice is racial justice and multinationals such as Vedanta are a neo-colonial Hydra.

As expressed by Aboriginal activists group, Queensland, in the 1970s: “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” This is often credited to Lilla Watson, Aboriginal elder and activist, but she attributes it to a collective process.

Extractive industries must transform if we are to have a future and we must collectively address this reality taking lead from those directly persecuted and resisting in the presentmoment.

Dominic Liswaniso Lungowe and the other 1,825 claimants demands are as follows:

• Stop polluting the rivers immediately. Close down the plant until pollution control measures are replaced andupgraded.
• Provide clean water to the villages immediately, by tankers orpipes.
• De-silt the Mushishima stream and Kafue River and remove contaminated waste.
• Remediate the entire polluted area to make it safe to live, farm and fish thereagain.
• Compensate the affected people for loss of health and livelihood. All medical costs should be paid by KCM/Vedanta infuture.

This Author

Laurèl Jayde is a member of Foil Vedanta, a grassroots organisation focused primarily on mining giant Vedanta Resources and working in solidarity and collaboration with struggles against corporate take-over, resource racism and neo-colonialism, as part of an ever widening global movement.

Image: Foil Vedanta.

Approval for a huge new coal mine that would leave 3,000 people in search of new homes is being challenged by ClientEarth’s lawyers in Poland.

The Zloczew open-cast mine would be Poland’s deepest ever and, for the first time, use explosives to access the lignite (the dirtiest form of coal) beneath the surface.

The process is set to displace seven billion tonnes of rock, putting the surrounding area at major risk of tremors – as well as serious water and air pollution.

Cone of depression

A project of state-owned energy company PGE, the Zloczew mine would result in the displacement and destruction of 33 villages, including highly specialised modern farms, homes, schools, shops, chapels and fire stations.

The coal from the mine is destined for Belchatow, the notorious mega-polluter and largest lignite-fired coal plant in the world. It burns a tonne of lignite every second and emits over 37 million tonnes of CO2 – the same as a small country – each year.

Ilona Jedrasik, the head of ClientEarth Poland’s energy team, said: “The damage this mine would cause, socially and environmentally, cannot be overstated.

“It is a catastrophe, not just for the thousands of people whose way of life would be bulldozed to make way for it, but for the landmass it will destroy – and all to feed a hugely polluting coal plant. From seismic tremors to chemical leakage, it is extremely hard to see how PGE can justify this project.”

While the pit itself is set to span an area of up to 14km2, the Zloczew mine’s impact on the ground structure – the ‘cone of depression’ – would spread over up to 800km2.

Transition plans

Operations at Zloczew would release five tonnes of mercury, 26 tonnes of cadmium and 168 tonnes of lead – all known neurotoxins and carcinogens – into the environment every year. Add to that its major predicted methane emissions and the project presents an inexcusable environmental and climate threat.

PGE is trying to start construction of the Zloczew mine via a ‘leapfrogging’ mechanism that skips the vital step of securing a final and binding environmental permit.

ClientEarth’s court case challenges the authority’s decision to grant immediate effect to the environmental permit, even though an appeal against the environmental permit is pending and it is not final and binding.

This immediate activation of the permit allows the investor to seek further permits and concessions required to excavate and operate the mine.

Jedrasik added: “While other EU countries announce coal phase-out dates and just transition plans, Poland ploughs ahead with mammoth projects like Zloczew.

“This is totally avoidable. Lignite is the dirtiest form of coal and yet state-owned PGE is pulling out all the stops to give it a free pass.”

This article

This article is based on a press release from ClientEarth. Image is Bełchatów lignite coal mine.

Shortly before violent protests broke out in the oil-producing city of Basra in Iraq, British government representatives visited an oilfield partially operated by BP, and praised the company’s “impressive” social and environmental performance.

Campaigners have criticised the visits for prioritising BP’s interests over those of local Iraqis.

According to documents seen by DeSmog, released in response to a Freedom of Information request from campaign group Culture Unstained, the British ambassador to Iraq, Jon Wilks, met with BP and Iraq’s Department for International Trade on 9 April 2018. The meeting took place at the Rumaila Oilfield, which is being developed by BP.

Electricity shortages

A summary of the event, sent to Wilks in the following week, states: “Broadly on the oil and gas companies we visited it was impressive hearing about their social outreach and the work they are doing to employ and professionalise local Iraqis – including a focus on those who lived in close proximity to the oil fields…

“The work of British companies was clearly having an impact on Basrawis, particularly the gas capturing which was improving the air pollution and increasing electricity coverage.”

Following the visit, Ambassador Wilks himself tweeted that he had “Toured the Rumeila [sic] oil field and saw for myself the huge commitment and success of BP, one of Iraq’s main oil operating partners. Some of the infrastructure dates back to the 1950s, but it is being upgraded even as production expands across the field.”

The praise of BP’s work came at a time of severe discontent among local Iraqis.

Around three months after the ambassador’s visit, citizens of Basra took to the streets to protest lack of basic public services in the region, including polluted water, electricity shortages and unemployment. The unrest resulted in the deaths of several protesters.

Regularly engage

While the government praised BP’s production expansion and social and environmental conduct, it appears not to have engaged with this nascent unrest: The Foreign Office denied holding any records relating directly to the protests.

In a response to DeSmog UK, the Foreign Office said:

“The comments the Ambassador made were in relation to BP and the good work they are doing to provide jobs and training for Iraqis, and help local communities.”

“We regularly engage with the Government of Iraq on the importance of addressing water, electricity, public services and job needs for the people of Basra.”

BP said it couldn’t respond as it wasn’t aware of the comments in question.

Directly responsible

In another email, the ambassador was told that the visit to British companies in Basra would be “an opportunity for us to understand their key concerns and demonstrate HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] support for these companies.”

BP is not the only oil company operating in the Basra region of Iraq. Lukoil and Exxon Mobil also operate major oilfields in the area, although Rumaila is the biggest.

In this region of Iraq, the wealth of the oil industry is in sharp contrast to the struggles of daily life in Basra. Protesters told media outlets at the time that they felt neglected as the money made by oil executives failed to trickle down into their own pockets, and higher paying jobs went to foreign workers.

“Extreme health and energy-poverty conditions have worsened as the activities of BP and other companies have expanded and as oil production and exports increased,” according to Iraqi economist Kamil Mahdi, in a briefing including Culture Unstained.

“It is not good enough for these companies to claim they are not directly responsible for the outcome,” he said.

Interlocutors

A fact-finding mission by the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative NGO found that the water in Basra was not safe for human consumption, due to the disposal of industrial and petrochemical waste, either from Iran or inside Basra.

Chris Garrard, co-director of Culture Unstained, criticised the Embassy’s friendly approach towards BP’s operations in Iraq.

“They pretty much give the impression that they understand their role is there to service the interests of the oil companies … whereas ideally they should be taking a much more critical approach, and also seeking to understand what civil society groups on the ground feel about those companies,” he told DeSmog.

He also questioned the need for redactions that appear throughout the released documents, including those made to protect the commercial interests of BP.

In a letter accompanying the documents, the FCO justified the redactions on the grounds that:

“Failure to protect such commercially sensitive information would limit the sources of information and interlocutors available to the FCO and limit the FCO’s ability to promote the British economy and lobby for the interests of British businesses overseas.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

The decision to host the UN’s annual climate change conference last year in the Polish coal city of Katowice drew mixed responses from the international environmental community, ranging from outrage to intrigue.

Like it or not, attendees commuting between Katowice and its neighbouring coal towns were forced to confront the likely impacts of swift decarbonisation on the people who live there.

It jump-started an international conversation around ‘just transition’ – the idea that ending fossil fuels should not mean punishing the working class communities that have historically relied on them for employment.

Oil

Despite the global climate sector’s growing interest in the issue of just transition (and the comprehensive but largely technical analyses of how to achieve it), there has been next to no empirical work done on what it might look like to successfully engage communities in the process.

When it comes to possibly the most politicised issue of our age, it is increasingly important to have open and constructive conversations with fossil fuel communities.

The resistance that can emerge if these communities aren’t brought into the conversation is evident, for example in the US rust belt communities supporting Trump’s pro-coal agenda or the coal mining regions of Europe from Spain to Germany.

Climate Outreach has spent years exploring and promoting effective public engagement with climate change, and last year turned our attention to Canada’s most oil-rich province.

In Alberta, almost everyone is involved with oil – either working with it, dependent on it, or knowing someone who is. Oil is part of what it means to be Albertan.

Activists

The Alberta Narratives Project saw over 500 Albertans talking openly with their peers about their beliefs, values, attitudes to climate change and relationships with oil.

The project pioneered a new form of citizen social science, training 75 community organisations in the methodology of robust research and co-designing both content and conclusions.

We have released an audience report, following up initial core findings with specific advice on language that works – and doesn’t work – with 8 key audiences in Alberta, including oil sands workers.

I spoke to George Marshall, co-founder of Climate Outreach and lead author of the report, about why we should be talking to oil sands workers about climate change.

He told me: “we don’t think anyone has really listened in this way to oil workers in Alberta. There is a tendency, especially among activists, to write them off.

Greedy suits

And that animosity is entirely mutual. But this is a mistake. Firstly because these are people with livelihoods to protect. Their needs should be respected. Alberta also plays a significant strategic position in Canadian politics. Who they vote for is important.”

In any democracy, what people think about climate change has serious implications for our ability to do something about it. Albertan oil sands are the poster child for a North American economy heavily reliant on extractive industries.

Learning how to talk about climate change in a community as politically divided on the issue as Alberta could hold far-reaching benefits for similar efforts continent wide, and even globally.

Effecting an energy transition in Alberta will have deep economic and social impacts, yet many environmental movements have a fairly monolithic view of the fossil fuels industry.

The Alberta Narratives Project shows there is more to oil than greedy suits in far-off boardrooms. Our attachment to fossil fuels is a diffuse and deeply human issue, and so should the solutions be.

Gratitude

Grounded in a uniquely participatory approach, this human focus runs to the heart of the project. The values, concerns and aspirations emerging from these discussions became the basis of tailored narratives, allowing climate change to be broached in ways that resonated with local audiences.

Despite its provincial scale, George says this is ‘global work’, with important lessons for non-Albertans everywhere.

The partnership methodology has been the signature format for an entire ‘Global Narratives Project’ series, bringing diverse constituencies into conversation not just in Alberta, but India, and soon the Middle East too.

“First of all, don’t assume there is one just transition,” says George. “Always recognise the distinctness of your audience. It’s about respect.” In Alberta, recognising the role that oil and gas has played in securing local livelihoods proved crucial.

Most environmentalists would balk at a narrative of “gratitude” towards oil, but co-producing an equitable path out of fossil fuel dependency means making oil sands workers feel valued, not attacked.

Political identities

Empathic language that acknowledges oil’s place in local history could therefore be the key to cultivating support for decarbonisation.

Canadian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe shared at a Climate Outreach event how she found this gratitude in a conversation with the leadership team of one of the biggest oil and gas companies.

“I started by talking about all the benefits that the industrial revolution brought us – a childhood accident means I would have died without the medical technology enabled by fossil fuels – and then I said ‘but we didn’t know back then, and we know now’”.

This project was also one of the first to test language specifically on energy transitions. While participants were generally receptive to the concept, the word ‘just’, with its social justice connotations, proved to be anything but politically neutral.

In an environment where attitudes towards climate are bound to political identities, many interviewees showed a resistance to the idea of government handouts, even where an unjust transition would likely put them out of a job. 

Political deadlock

The report recommends a narrative of ‘diversification’ rather than ‘transition’, stressing positive future opportunities instead of moving away from a negative past.

The Alberta Narratives Project shows that recognition of the human dimension of climate politics, though hard won, is only the start. To be just, a transition must be collaborative, but to be successful, it must consider what stories resonates with those involved.

The science is clear: the time for dirty energy is gone. More than ever then, that means breaking climate’s political deadlock and recognising the positive role everyone can play. It means that it’s time to start talking.

This Article

Karl Dudman works for Climate Outreach. This Article first appeared at Climate Home News.   

Globally renowned centre for botanical and mycological knowledge, Kew Gardens, and global forest management not-for-profit, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), have teamed up to use identification technologies that allow scientists to determine the species and origin of timber using only a small piece of the wood.

FSC started using these technologies in 2011, launched a pilot across North America in 2017, and are now expanding the project further.

To increase the number of database samples, which must first be recorded before a match can be established, FSC are now working with partners including Kew and the US Forest Service. The ultimate aim is to facilitate on-the-spot tests for timber across the globe and increase transparency across the supply chain.

Identification techniques

Recent evidence and reports from the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF International) have shown that in Latin America shipments of illegally logged wood were being shipped alongside FSC-certified timber. By expanding the database of samples with credible partners, FSC will further build the credibility of their system and help mitigate against these risks. 

The project aims to collect over 200 samples from up to five commonly traded wood species in FSC-certified forests of Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Peru. They will ultimately expand the work across the 1,900 FSC-certified forests across all the major and minor timber producing regions in the world. 

Michael Marus, Chief Knowledge Officer at the Forest Stewardship Council, said: “This project is not just about playing a critical role in strengthening FSC by increasing its sampling of wood and integrating this information by using digital technology support. It is also about contributing to science and the evolution of Wood Identification techniques and methods which are fundamental to addressing a host of major challenges our forests face today, including climate change.”

“Of equal or greater importance for FSC is the unique role we contribute to the collection of reference samples from the over 1,500 FSC certified forests found across the globe.

“Being able to work with the leading forensic labs such as The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the US Forest Service Forest Products Lab and Agroisolab is a unique opportunity to develop a library of geo-referenced wood samples that will be made available to qualified labs across the world.

Illegal trade

Marus continued: “This partnership will allow enforcement agencies and responsible corporations to use these new scientific techniques to rid supply chains of illegal wood and will go a long way towards fulfilling FSC’s mission to promote responsible forest management. It will be critical for combatting illegal logging and addressing climate change.”

Dr Peter Gasson, Research Leader, Wood and Timber, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, has said that he is “delighted that we are working with FSC and the US Forest Service to improve our xylarium (wood collection).

“Kew has one of the largest and most extensive xylaria in the world, with worldwide coverage and c.42,000 named wood samples. There are plenty of gaps in our collection, and FSC is well-placed to help us fill some of them with georeferenced samples from their worldwide concessions. 

Ed Espinoza, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Forensics Laboratory explained that the collaboration is effective “not just to combat illegal trading of timber but also to aid the trade of legal species. If we have abundant, reliable reference samples, we are able to facilitate the trade of legal species and keep in check the trade of illegal species.”

This article 

This article is based on a press release from the Forest Stewardship Council. Image: Working the punch to successfully collect wood samples from a FSC-certified Bozovich concession in Peru. © Marysol Jaime/Forest Stewardship Council.

A collaboration of indigenous groups fighting to save their Amazon environment, a grassroots project promoting community development through art and environmental education, and an organic food project supporting people with disabilities are among the entries shortlisted for the 2019 Lush Spring Prize.

Cosmetics company Lush and research and publishing co-operative Ethical Consumer established the Lush Spring Prize in 2017 to promote ‘regenerative’ projects – those that go beyond sustainability by taking holistic approaches to restoring degraded land and communities. It aims to inspire more individuals, groups and communities to start regenerative processes.

The judges noted interesting commons themes in this year’s entries. Climate Change was the most common issue being addressed, both in terms of preventing it but also adapting to and mitigating the effects that are already being felt by projects and their stakeholders.

Indigenous

Other issues addressed by entrants included ecosystem restoration, regenerative food production, building community, creating resilient housing and circular economies, whilst also supporting displaced people, protecting indigenous rights and access to land.

Examples from this year’s shortlist include:

Laboratorio Sicilia 2030. This project supports individuals and organisations in Sicily to regenerate and grow sustainably by uniting uncoordinated local initiatives under the aims of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Alianza Ceibo (Ceibo Alliance). Members from four indigenous nations in the western Amazon are together building a movement to prevent the destruction of their cultures and rainforest territories.

Winners

INUA (Instituto Nova União da Arte). A grassroots project based in the East Zone Favela of Sau Paulo, Brazil which promotes community development through art, culture, environmental education and generation of paid work. 

Karambi Group of People with Disabilities. This Ugandan group tackles the discrimination, isolation, and exclusion faced by people with disabilities. It has established a food forest, permaculture gardens and an irrigation system and now produces organic foods all year round. It also operates skill training and demonstration centres for primary school children.

Previous winners include the Malawi School Permaculture Clubs, which has used the prize money to expand its project. The full shortlist is available here. The winners will be announced on 22 May.

This Author

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