Most of our laws in the UK relating to public health, occupational health and the environment are based on EU Directives. The European Commission can take enforcement action when governments fail to comply. 

The EU commission started 753 actions against the British Government between 2003 and 2016, of which 120 related to the environment, according to the Institute of Government. That equates to nine environmental actions every year. Most were settled, but 29 cases reached the European Court of Justice.

The UK government has published a Draft Environment Bill which requires Ministers to “have regard” for a set of environmental principles when formulating government policy, in order to compensate for the loss of EU scrutiny post-Brexit.

Green watchdog

The Environment Bill further proposes to establish a green watchdog called the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) which will monitor performance and if necessary initiate enforcement measures against public authorities if the breach of environmental principles is considered sufficiently serious.

The remit of the OEP includes clean air, so an obvious question is whether the OEP will hold the UK Government to account for breaching air quality standards once we leave the EU.

Air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and small particulates (PM2.5) are already enshrined in UK law, and the failure of the UK Government to comply with NO2 standards has already led to a series of defeats in the High Court.

Theoretically, the OEP could take action provided that Ministers don’t tamper with existing legislation, and assuming that the OEP is established as a truly independent body.

This sadly seems doubtful, as a majority of members on the OEP will be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It stretches credulity to think that the Government would now establish a statutory body to enforce legislation that the Government has been actively resisting for the past eight years.

Legal standards

There is however a bigger problem. Court action has focused on NO2, which is particularly dangerous for asthmatics. But the medical effects of PM 2.5 are even more serious and wide-ranging and account for most of the 40,000 deaths that occur annually in the UK from air pollution.

The annual EU air quality standard for PM2.5 is 25 microgrammes per cubic metre of air, but the medical effects of PM2.5 are without threshold. In the US the legal limit is 12, and WHO have recommended a guideline of 10. Average levels in Central London are around 15. So what will the OEP do post-Brexit?

Currently the EU Commission are reviewing The Ambient Air Quality Directive, and will doubtless recommend stricter legal standards.

Known effects of PM2.5 in adults include heart disease, stroke, chronic lung disease and cancer. In children the best-documented effects are on the respiratory system and include physical effects such as reduced lung volume, but there is also serious concern about the unborn child.

It is well known that smoking in pregnancy reduces birth-weight, and the same is true of air pollution. Again it is PM2.5 that shows the strongest correlation.

Toxic exposure

It is also known that smoking and air pollution is associated with reduced IQ in childhood.

Researchers in the US studied a group of non-smoking pregnant women in New York and showed that higher exposure to a subset of small particulates, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) was associated with developmental delay at 3 years, a reduction in IQ of 4-5 points at 5 years, increased anxiety and depression at 7 years and a lack of self-regulatory behaviour that became more significant over timewhen followed up for 11 years.

A recent study based in London demonstrated that 12 year olds exposed to higher levels of air pollution had a four-fold risk of depression at age 18.

These are very worrying observations. Even so, the studies are preliminary and do not allow firm conclusions as to the most dangerous toxin or the most critical period of exposure.

Most traffic-derived PAHs come from diesel vehicles, and reach the maternal circulation both as gases and particulates.  The only PAH measured routinely in Europe is Benzo-a-pyrene (BaP).

From a mental health perspective, it may well be significant that BaP levels at traffic monitoring sites in the EU have increased by 52 percent since 2000, due largely to the growth in sales of diesel vehicles. In the UK diesel cars have increased from less than 14 percent of new registrations in 2000 to almost 50 percent by 2015.

Remedial action

It is likely that the EU Commission will impose stricter standards for both PM2.5 and BaP, and pressure will grow for a more rapid phase-out of diesel vehicles.

However these new standards won’t benefit UK citizens. The government’s recent Clean Air Strategy does include a commitment to halve the number of people in the UK exposed to levels above the WHO limit for PM2.5 by 2030, but this is not a standard. This is an aspiration that lacks any legal force.

Before Christmas DEFRA Minister Therese Coffey expressed the view that not all the associations between air pollution and health are causal. Even so, the precautionary principle holds that remedial action should be taken even when medical or scientific concern is less than certain.

The OEP could and should therefore challenge government policy and force the introduction of stricter air quality standardson the basis of the environmental principles set out in the Draft Environment Bill.

However, page 12 of the Bill’s wxplanatory notes states: “The  precautionary principles should be considered where there are reasonable grounds for concern … taking into account the available scientific evidence, and the associated costs and benefits of action and non-action”. This is a very weak interpretation.

Precautionary principle 

A stricter definition would require the polluter to demonstrate that a particular activity did not have an adverse effect.

Second it indicates that the precautionary principle is nothing more than a trade-off wherefinancial costs to the motor industry can be cited by the responsible minister as an excuse for inaction.

Finally the environmental principles contained in the Draft Bill includes outdoor, but not indoor air pollution, which makes it difficult for the OEP to fulfil its stated function in relation to clean air.

If people are expecting a watchdog with teeth, then don’t hold your breath.

This Author 

Dr Robin Russell-Jones is former Chair of CLEAR, the Campaign for Lead Free Air.

As a group of British academics and others who think and write about dangerous anthropogenic climate change, we have been impressed by your new book The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future. 

This already best-selling book, like the viral article in New York magazine from which it grew, states with passion and eloquence the hard truths of our current global plight. Far from being irresponsibly alarmist, as some have alleged, your straight look at oncoming disaster offers a vital stimulus to realistic understanding and action.

We are so pleased that your book is receiving the mass attention it deserves, and is thereby making  the very real risk of an unprecedented climate breakdown and consequent societal collapse comprehensible to the general public. 

Against geoengineering

As one of us has stated in a published review, however, we also fear that your book may lead people to believe that the unprecautionary deployment of geoengineering is the answer to our predicament.

We are unconvinced by your claim  that because we engineered this mess, so we must be able to engineer an escape from it. While that may be a neat journalistic turn of phrase, it is a logical nonsense.

Climate change was not intentionally engineered by humanity. The self-reinforcing feedbacks that are further heating our world show us how the complex living system of Planet Earth is beyond direct human control. So, we have no precedent for humanity intentionally engineering global change. 

We understand you may wish to offer your readers some hope. However, your argument offers a continuing license for the hubris which has led humanity into climate-peril in the first place.

You point out that since “a decarbonised economy, a perfectly renewable energy system, a reimagined system of agriculture and perhaps even a meatless planet” are in principle possible, we have “all the tools we need” to stop tragedy in its tracks. And yet that would require us, as you also sardonically note, to rebuild the world’s infrastructure entirely in less time than it took New York City to build three new stops on a subway line.

Deep adaptation 

It is dangerous to hang on to such an unrealistic hope while not making adequate preparations for the likelihood that it will prove groundless. 

Really facing up to climate reality, by contrast, means giving up all hope of solutions — without giving up on hope itself.

Instead of fantasies of one-world command-and-control salvation, we believe that The Uninhabitable Earth should wake us all up to the need for what one of us has recently and influentially named a ‘Deep Adaptation agenda’.

This involves building resilience, both physical and psychological, learning to relinquish long-held beliefs and aspirations (such as that od uninterrupted ‘progress’), and the attempted restoration of attitudes and practices which our carbon-fuelled way of life has so dangerously eroded.

Such an approach, while recognising the certainty that the civilisation which has brought us to this pass is finished, accepts also that we cannot know in advance what fine human and societal possibilities may emerge from the crucible of this very recognition.

Transformative change 

The irony of your starkly-titled book is that it ends up being, from our perspective, too ‘optimistic’. This may blind readers to the greatest new need now: for Deep Adaptation – that is, for accepting that some kind of eco-induced societal collapse is now not merely possible, but likely, and preparing honestly for it; for recognising that – while it is absolutely vital to continue to seek to mitigate our society’s climate-deadly emissions – the time is past when it was credible to fixate on doing this while ignoring the increasingly-urgent need for Deep Adaptation.

What we draw, and should like others to draw, from your urgently necessary book is a difficult but – we believe – a genuinely realistic message of hope.

It is not that acknowledging the hard truths which you present so starkly might still enable us to avoid climate disaster. For that it is, as in practice you so clearly demonstrate, now too late. Rather, it is the hope that through accepting the inevitability of such disaster for our present civilisation, we may yet find our way to genuinely transformative change, capable of avoiding terminal catastrophe for humanity and the biosphere.

The sooner we realise that humanity won’t have a Hollywood ending to climate change, the more chance we have to avoid ours becoming a true horror story.

We invite you to think with us about what facing up to climate reality now really means, and in particular to enter into the Deep Adaptation agenda. We look forward to your response.

These Authors 

Rupert Read is a reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia; Jem Bendell is Professor of Sustainability Leadership at the University of Cumbria, and author of the paper “Deep Adaptation”; John Foster is co-chair of Green House, and author of After Sustainability. 

Zuzana Čaputová – ‘‘Slovakia’s Erin Brockovich’ – will promote a green jobs agenda against the country’s traditional backing of heavy industry.

In a second-round run-off vote, lawyer Zuzana Čaputová saw off European commissioner for the energy union Maroš Šefčovič, beating him 58 percent to 42 percent to take on the largely ceremonial role.

Čaputová has a long-record of championing environmental health, after she led a case against an illegal landfill site for 14 years.

Key issues

Spokesperson Martin Burgr told Climate Home News that climate policy was “one of the key issues”, for the new president.

Burgr said: “The need is clear: to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees. And to do that we need to start green and just [transition] of not only our economy but society” 

Burgr said the president-elect wanted Slovakia to grasp “the opportunities presented by low carbon development and eco-innovation in terms of sustainable and quality jobs, not ‘just’ protection of the climate”.

Slovakia is one of the most energy intensive economies in Europe, with its automotive, metal, steel and chemical manufacturers having been favoured over emissions cuts by Slovak governments, according to think tank E3G.

Current subsidies prop up the otherwise uneconomical production of lignite, while a 2023 deadline to phase-out coal has drawn criticism for loopholes.

Coal subsidies 

Burgr said Čaputová was an “outspoken critic of subsidies for coal mining” who backed an initiative calling for the swift phase out of coal mining and support for affected workers and regions.

Slovakia is part of the Visegrád group, a bloc including Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland, which has fought to quell EU climate ambitions. Čaputová’s spokesperson said she would “use her influence with the group to advocate for more pro-climate stance”.

Ada Ámon, a Hungarian analyst for the think tank E3G, said the win was “hope for the region”.

Ámon said: “For a Visegrad country, it is a very interesting development that a woman with a liberal, Erin Brockovitch background comes into the picture.”

In 1999, a wealthy developer expanded a landfill in the small vineyard town of Pezinok in Western Slovakia. Cancer, respiratory illnesses, and allergy rates shot up, with one particular type of leukaemia being reported eight times more than the national average.

Local support

Čaputová rallied local support against the landfill through petitions, protests and cultural events. She also took the case to the European Court of Justice, prompting the EU judiciary to affirm the public’s right to participate in decisions that impact their environment.

In her 2016 acceptance speech for the Goldman Prize, Čaputová said: “In Slovakia we are still learning lessons about democracy after the fall of communism … We cannot let it run without our involvement. The same goes for the protection of our planet. It needs engagement.”

However, her win will not immediately impact the country’s direction. In Slovakia’s parliamentary democracy, the office of president does not have executive power.

Asked whether Čaputová would act against the country’s coal subsidies, Burgr said that “it is not in the competence of the president to change this directly”.

But Ámon was confident that the future president could use her role to pressure the government of prime minister Peter Pellegrini and “encourage as much public consultation and debate on [climate] as is possible”.

This Author

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article first appeared on Climate Home.   

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.