Homeowners have access to a diverse range of renovations which reduce their carbon emissions and environmental impact. Of these renovations, they’ll often choose improvements with the greatest effect on their energy bills. It’s a common motivation for investment in energy efficiency, and perfectly valid.

At the same time, some individuals see energy savings as a secondary benefit, not their primary motivation. They’re aware of the effects of their energy consumption, and they want to give back — not to themselves, but to the planet. Naturally, these individuals are strategic with the renovations they select.

The question is: Which sustainable home changes are the most beneficial for the environment? When an eco-conscious homeowner is evaluating all of their available options, which among them will make the greatest impact on the planet? We’ll look at some of the leading improvements in greater detail.

High-Impact Renovations

As stated earlier, homeowners have access to a diverse range of renovations, many of which are beneficial in reducing their environmental impact. A number of these renovations are familiar, unsurprising on the list of the top three changes below. Others are somewhat unexpected when reviewing the available options.

1. Solar energy systems: Increasingly common on the rooftops of residential buildings, solar panel installations are an effective means of generating electricity. They help a homeowner minimize their reliance on the grid, drawing energy from the sun as they store it for later use. Provided they have the necessary resources, solar energy systems are powerful, comfortably offsetting the emissions that one fossil fuel automobile produces in a year.
2. Geothermal heat pump: Lesser known than solar energy systems, but no less impressive, geothermal heat pumps use the earth as a heat source and heat sink. They transfer heat from the earth to warm homes during the colder months, and they transfer heat from a home into the earth during the warmer months. Perhaps best of all, it’s possible to combine solar and geothermal systems to amazing effect, with the potential for net-zero communities.
3. Green roofs: Homeowners who are knowledgeable in energy efficiency understand the immense value of insulation. When they invest in green roofing solutions for their home, they improve their energy efficiency while using an ecologically sound alternative to modern insulation materials. More than this, homeowners can choose to employ eco-friendly materials like recycled newsprint, recycled metal and engineered lumber to structure their green roofs.  

If homeowners are unsure how to proceed, they should consult the relevant resources and seek support from industry professionals. For example, Seth Leitman is an advocate for green living who educates people about sustainability. As they implement his suggestions, homeowners should also look into the subject of tax credits and government incentives for renewable energy.

Government Incentives

Homeowners will enjoy a significant reduction in their installation costs when they pursue renewable energy tax credits. Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, these tax credits are available for solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines and fuel cells. The following dates are important.

If a homeowner places a system in service before Dec. 31, 2019, they may save as much as 30 percent on the systems they install. If it’s after 31 December 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2021, they may save 26 percent on the costs of their chosen systems. Between 31 December 2020, and 1 January 2022, they can expect to save 22 percent.

Then again, these homeowners still have to qualify for the tax credits. If they intend to invest in a solar panel installation, that system must provide energy for the residence. However, the homeowner can still take advantage of renewable energy tax credits even if the solar panels aren’t for their principal residence.

Concerning the installation of geothermal heat pumps, homeowners have to meet the requirements of the ENERGY STAR program in effect at the time of the expenditure. It may seem like a small concession, but interested homeowners should note these details if they want to pursue renewable energy in the future.

In short, those who intend to transition to renewable energy should research the subject as they continue. Sustainable improvements for energy efficiency are far more affordable when homeowners take a strategic approach to their changes. Government assistance and the expertise of professionals like Seth Leitman can alleviate the pressure of these investments.

Moving Forward

When homeowners assess the three renovations above, review their different payment options and seek professional advice, they’ll feel far more secure in their decisions as they move forward. They’ll have an informed understanding of sustainable home improvements, as well as strategies to reduce the costs of installation.

That said, solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps and green roofs aren’t always available for homeowners on a limited budget. When this is the case, they should seek changes within their price range. While the renovations above are some of the most effective, even a small change can make a big difference.

This Author

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

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Police have made 10 arrests after environmental campaigners attempted to block access to BP’s offices by locking themselves in containers.

Greenpeace volunteers were due to spend a week locked inside the reinforced boxes as part of protests over the oil giant’s lack of action on climate change.

Protesters arrived at the company’s offices in St James’ Square, central London, at around 3am on Monday to set up the container blockade.

Business

Scotland Yard said officers were called to the scene shortly after 4am following a report of protesters scaling a building.

Activists were warned they were trespassing and risked arrest under the Public Order Act. Ten people were arrested for aggravated trespass and all remain in custody, police said.

Officers made the final arrests at about 7.40pm and are maintaining a presence at the scene, despite no protesters remaining.

Campaigners are demanding that BP immediately ends all exploration for new oil and gas and switches to investing only in renewable energy.

If it does not, Greenpeace is calling for it to wind down its operations completely and go out of business.

Excuses

Greenpeace climate campaigner Mel Evans said: “The police are right to treat the area like a crime scene. But the real crime is not what our volunteers are doing but what they’re trying to stop.

“Oil giants like BP are fuelling a climate emergency that’s threatening the lives of millions of people.

“Business as usual means mass extinction, massive economic damage, and a barely habitable planet. It’s simply not an option.”

Ms Evans said BP was “running out of excuses” and would be met by “opposition wherever they go”.

Morten Thaysen, 31, warned BP that Greenpeace activists would be in Aberdeen on Tuesday with other environmental groups for the start of the company’s annual general meeting.

Abseiled

He told the Press Association: “I think it has dawned on a lot of us that this isn’t something that will only affect the next generation, it is affecting us now.

“It is taking politicians a long time to respond to our climate emergency because of companies like this. BP has spent millions lobbying against the exact climate action that we need.

“It’s all about greed and making as much money as possible. And whether we have a liveable planet in the next 10 years does not matter to them.”

Each container at the protest had enough space for two activists who would have nothing but a week’s worth of supplies and access to Netflix to while away the time inside.

Discussion

Earlier on Monday, other Greenpeace volunteers abseiled off the building to unfurl a banner reading “Climate Emergency”.

BP staff were sent home while police officers cordoned off roads leading to St James’ Square, allowing access only to people working in neighbouring buildings. Road closures have now been lifted, Scotland Yard said.

According to Greenpeace research, BP is outspending other oil giants on lobbying campaigns against climate action and spent £12.6 billion adding to its oil and gas reserves in 2018.

Greenpeace said only £392 million was invested in alternatives to fossil fuels. A spokesperson for BP said: “We welcome discussion.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter for the Press Association.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Environmental activists have blocked access to BP’s headquarters ahead of its annual general meeting demanding it ends all exploration for new oil and gas.

Greenpeace volunteers arrived at the oil giant’s offices in St James’ Square, central London, at around 3am on Monday where they encased themselves in specially designed containers.

The containers, which weigh several tonnes each, are being used to blockade all the main entrances to prevent staff from entering.

Business as usual

The boxes feature photos from photographer Gideon Mendel’s Drowning World project, which looks at the impact of the climate emergency on people across the globe.

The campaigners are demanding that BP immediately ends all exploration for new oil and gas and switches to investing only in renewable energy. If it does not, Greenpeace is calling for it to wind down its operations completely and go out of business.

The blockade comes ahead of BP’s AGM with shareholders this week, and volunteers have set up a camp to attempt to keep the building closed for the next seven days.

A spokesman for Greenpeace said that by 8am police had attempted to clear the area of pedestrians but had not made any arrests.

Paul Morozzo, one of the volunteers in the containers, said: “We’re shutting down BP’s HQ because business as usual is just not an option.

Fossil fuels

“BP is fuelling a climate emergency that threatens millions of lives and the future of the living world. The science is clear – we must stop searching for new oil and gas if we want a liveable planet. BP must clean up or clear out.”

Mr Morozzo added: “For too long, BP and the oil industry have paid lip service to climate action while lying and lobbying against it behind the scenes and spending billions scouring the world for more oil and gas.

“The reality is that BP’s whole business plan is a heavy bet against our hopes to avoid a climate catastrophe and must change.”

According to Greenpeace’s research, BP is outspending other oil giants on lobbying campaigns against climate action and spent 16 billion US dollars (£12.6 billion) adding to its oil and gas reserves in 2018.

Greenpeace said only 500 million dollars (£392.8) was invested in alternatives to fossil fuels.

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter for the Press Association.

Katharine Hayhoe, a prominent Canadian climate researcher and political science professor, based in Texas, argues that the crux of winning people over on climate change is not so much about battling with climate science deniers as it is about overcoming a wide aversion to perceived solutions.

Hayhoe announced on her UK tour last week: ““Frankly I don’t care if we all agree on the science!”

Her team’s research suggests that people reject or fail to act on the science of climate change because they misunderstand the extent of the impact that climate change itself, and the solutions, will have on their lives. 

Solution aversion

Hayhoe told a Bristol audience last Friday that she’s stopped caring whether people believe the science or not. Instead, she encouraged people to move away from believing the solutions consist of things that are “unpalatable and unpleasant.”

Crucially, what matters is showing everyone that they can be part of the solution and that the necessary changes will improve their lives.

Giving a speech at the Cabot Institute, Hayhoe highlighted how she thinks we should be tackling social attitudes and how to move away from endlessly attempting to explain the science to people who don’t want to listen and instead look at achieving action and beneficial solutions that people will welcome, regardless of beliefs. 

She highlighted interesting social research on climate change denial, and how rejecting the problem of climate change comes down to peculiar demographic factors, a fear of the unknown and a problem of ‘solution aversion.’  

She listed examples of frequent but extreme accusations that she is confronted with by deniers and those resistant to moving away from fossil fuel driven economies: “We are told that solving climate change will destroy the economy and let the communists and socialists run the world. Worst case scenario: that the United Nations is led by the Anti Christ! That’s not a joke – I get emails that literally say that!”

Threat meter

Hayhoe continued: “We are told that tackling climate breakdown will allow China to destroy the United States’ technological capacity and leadership, which frankly they are already doing in the clean energy sector. 

“We are told these things and we are also told we can only fix climate breakdown if we stop having any children, if we never travel again, if we all go vegan, and a whole host of things which, for many people, are not acceptable. 

“Our threat meter is unbalanced, we feel that the impacts don’t matter, but the solutions pose an imminent threat. And that is what drives our rejection of the problem.”

Hayhoe also quoted research from the 2018 US National Assessment on Climate Change, which showed strong positive correlations between areas of global poverty and the worst predicted climate change impacts.

However there appeared to be a low level of belief among those in countries with lower predicted impacts that they would be personally affected. 

Science literacy 

In a separate study carried out in 2018 on British social attitudes to climate change, whilst around 90 percent of people responding to research questions said they believed climate change was happening, less than 40 percent believed it was caused by humans, and less than 30 percent said they were worried about it, Hayhoe revealed.

And it’s not about level of education. Hayhoe’s team found that apathy over climate change is often surprisingly and wrongly attributed to education level: “We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it.

“Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest.”

In contrast to those perceptions, Hayhoe said: “Climate change isn’t a distant issue any more. It’s affecting every single one of us, in every part of the US, across almost every sector.’’

“Frankly I don’t care if we agree on the science, at this point, as long as we can agree on the solutions, and agree that clean energy is good, it helps our economy, it improves energy, it cleans up our air pollution, it doesn’t use any water – which is a very important issue in Texas where I live – and it brings home the cheque.”

Dangerous myths

Hayhoe added: “And studies have shown that when people are actually invested in a part of the solution then all of a sudden the science isn’t such a big deal any more. In fact they might even be willing to agree with it because they are part of the solution already.

“I don’t think changing people’s mind about the science is nearly as effective as changing people’s minds about the solutions – explaining the positive, beneficial outcomes. The biggest thing I learned from the US National Climate Assessment process is how we interact with information.”

Katharine noted that in Texas, where she works as a climate researcher at Texas Tech University, a large number of people still don’t believe climate change is caused by humans, despite an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, but they are nevertheless more receptive to hearing how solutions will improve their lives:

“Where I live is already naturally most at risk because we get pretty much everything – ice storms, blizzards, hail, severe thunderstorms, dust storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, heatwaves, floods!” 

Showing social research evidence from the Assessment, she pointed out: “The most dangerous myth we’ve bought into is that climate change is a distant issue, only affecting future generations and places that are far away:

“Climate change is not a distant issue for the US any more, but is now affecting virtually all US citizens in some way, across almost every sector.”

This Author 

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

Image: Katharine Hayhoe. 

Many species of bees are on the brink of extinction in parts of the UK with some types lost entirely, a report has found.

Climate change, habitat loss, pollution and disease are revealed to be threatening the pollinators following research at centres in the east of England.

It concluded that 17 species were regionally extinct – including the Great Yellow Bumblebee, the Potter Flower Bee and the Cliff Mason Bee – with 25 types threatened and another 31 of conservation concern.

Biodiversity

Published today on World Bee Day, The Bees Under Siege report by WWF and Buglife analysed data recorded for 228 species of bees. The pollinating services of the insect are worth £690 million per year to the UK economy.

An important region for agriculture, the research centres were in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertforshire, Norfolk and Suffolk – all home to nationally and internationally significant pollinating populations.

The report recommends a number of conservation actions to help stabilise populations of bees and reverse declines.

– Ensure that coastal management plans protect coastal habitats and promote the management of sea walls

– Safeguard wildlife-rich brownfield sites and promote beneficial management

– Identify opportunities to connect disjointed habitat fragments and promote coordinated management between landowners and landholdings

-Local Authorities can work with and support local communities in urban areas to restore and create new habitats

– Ongoing survey and monitoring of bee populations

– Maintain and increase awareness, advice, support and funding for practical delivery projects.

The report also called on the upcoming Westminster Environment Act to be “ambitious enough” to develop a nature recovery network for bees.

It comes as a report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) revealed an alarming loss of biodiversity.

Landscape

Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF, said: “The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the fact that our precious pollinators are in peril is a sad illustration of the dramatic decline in wildlife we’re seeing all around us.

“We desperately need targeted action if we’re going to bring under-pressure wildlife back from the brink.

“The upcoming Environment Act gives us a golden opportunity to restore our natural world – we need to ensure it’s ambitious enough to do that.”

Matt Shardlow, chief executive at Buglife, said: “Our study found that many of the rarer, more specialist bees are battling to keep up with the changing face of their landscape and increasingly hot weather.

Habitats

“Although a few species have expanded their populations and range, more species are in decline, 17 species are already extinct in the region and another six species are now so endangered they are only known to survive on single sites – this is a very unhealthy picture.”

A Defra spokesman said: “We are working hard to support our bees and other pollinators – as these species are essential for pollinating crops and in turn human survival.

“Through our 25 Year Environment Plan, we have already committed to developing a Nature Recovery Network to protect and restore wildlife, and our Biodiversity and National Pollinator strategies have helped to create over 130,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat.

“Furthermore the Bees Needs campaign brings together conservation groups, farmers, beekeepers to promote good practical advice so we can all do more to provide suitable habitats for bees and other insects.”

This Author

Emma Bowden is a reporter for the Press Association.