The government has been urged to bring forward concrete plans for ending greenhouse gas emissions after the “net zero” target passed into law.

The new goal will require a 100 percent reduction in emissions by 2050, with any remaining pollution “offset” by measures such as planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide.

The move has been welcomed by campaigners, but there are warnings rapid action is now needed to ensure the target is met – with the UK already off-track to meet interim carbon cutting goals in the 2020s and 2030s.

Serious

Daisy-Rose Srblin, Christian Aid’s UK advocacy adviser, said: “The government passing a UK net zero emissions target puts the UK in the front group of countries upping their response to the latest scientific warnings about climate breakdown.

“While we think the UK can achieve this goal before 2050, the most important thing will be the government bringing forward concrete plans for rapid and radical decarbonisation of the economy. Setting the target is easy, the question is what will the government now be doing to meet it?”

A report from Friends of the Earth suggests a “transport revolution” is needed to help the UK meet its target. The green group said measures include reducing car travel by a fifth by 2030, enduring 100% of new cars are electric, and reducing flights by 18 percent.

Mike Childs, head of research at Friends of the Earth, said: “Net zero greenhouse gas targets need to be a front-and-centre policy for all arms of government.

Zero

“But we have to move right now, and a brilliant example of where government can show that they’re serious is transport because the sector is now the biggest source of greenhouse gases.

“The Department for Transport has gone rogue on climate change and presided over increasing emissions, decimated bus services, and failed to invest properly in cycling and walking. Its fixation with aviation expansion and road building needs to end.”

Professor Sam Fankhauser, director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said setting the target is an act of “true international leadership” by the UK.

He added: “This new target will provide a clear signal to investors about the direction of Government policy and should help to unlock billions of pounds of investment in the transition to a zero-carbon economy.

Believe

“However, the UK’s political leaders now need to focus on putting in place the policies to realise the target. Much stronger policies are needed to accelerate the phase-out of gas central heating and fossil fuel powered vehicles, for instance.”

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said: “The first nation to use fossil fuels on an industrial scale has just become the first major economy to set an unequivocal goal of phasing them out.

“For the UK, one striking fact has been the cross-party and indeed cross-societal consensus, with no serious opposition in Parliament and the backing of business, farming, faith groups and other important constituencies. 

“If the UK can do it, there’s no reason for any other developed nation to believe that it can’t.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

English-born chequered skipper butterflies are flying in the UK for the first time in more than 40 years as part of a conservation project, experts say.

A second batch of the butterflies collected from Belgium have been released at a secret location in Rockingham Forest, Northamptonshire, as part of efforts to reintroduce the species, which had become extinct in England.

And butterflies introduced from Belgium last spring have successfully bred in the woodland – with their English-born young now on the wing, wildlife charity Butterfly Conservation said.

Extinct

Chequered skippers became extinct in England in 1976, as a result of the destruction of their wet woodland habitat in the East Midlands, when woods with the open glades and rides they favour were cleared and replanted with uniform conifers.

Dr Nigel Bourn, of Butterfly Conservation, said: “It was a very rapid extinction that took everybody by surprise.

“They were recorded in quite good numbers in the 1950s but went extinct in the next 20 years, and it comes back to their habitat.”

Butterfly Conservation is running the three-year project to bring them back in partnership with Forestry England, which manages Rockingham Forest.

The releases in 2018 and this year follow work to restore parts of the forest, once a stronghold for the chequered skipper, to create the ideal conditions for it with wide, flower-filled rides.

Skipper

Dr Bourn describes seeing his first English-born chequered skipper, which he spotted while preparing the Belgian insects for release in the woods, as a “surprisingly emotional moment”.

“We had the Belgian chequered skippers in a net to acclimatise before releasing them and were marking them, and as we were doing that, one of the volunteers said, ‘Here’s an English one’.

“I went to look and it was a surprisingly emotional moment. It’s taken a lot of work and effort over several years – it was a good moment.”

The butterfly has only a “toe-hold” here, he added, and a further release of new butterflies is planned for next year to boost numbers and help the insect establish a sustainable population across the landscape.

Forestry England ecology and heritage manager for the Central England district Adrienne Bennett said: “We are thrilled that the hard work by Forestry England staff over many years has created the ideal habitat for the reintroduction of the chequered skipper on our site.

Brink

“We hope the butterfly thrives and the population is able to spread from here.”

The reintroduction forms part of the Roots of Rockingham project across a number of sites to restore the forest to its former glory and help woodland species such as the willow tit, lesser spotted woodpecker and barbastelle bat.

The chequered skipper is one of a number of species being helped by the “back from the brink” project led by Government conservation agency Natural England to save 20 species from extinction and boost more than 200 others.

Back from the brink is being backed by the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the People’s Postcode Lottery.

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

Samuel Alexander: Rupert, I would like to invite you into a space of uncompromised honesty. Let us engage each other in conversation, not primarily as scholars wanting to defend a theory, or as politicians seeking to win votes or advance a public policy agenda, or even as activists fighting for a cause, but instead, just as human beings trying to understand, as clearly as possible, our situation and condition at this turbulent moment in history. When I look at the world today, I see the vast majority of academics, scientists, activists, and politicians ‘self-censoring’ their own work and ideas, in order to share views that are socially, politically, or even personally palatable.

This article is a reproduction of the first chapter of This Civilisation is Finished: Conversations on the End of Empire – and What Lies Beyond (2019).

There are times, of course—often there are times—when we must be pragmatic in our modes of communication, and shape the expression of our ideas in ways that are psychologically digestible, compassionate, or even crafted to be at- tractive to an intended audience. But the more we do that, the more constrained we are from saying what we really think; the less able we are to look unflinchingly at the state of things and describe what we see, no matter what we find. If we never find ourselves in spaces of unconstrained openness, we might not even know what we really think, hiding truths even from ourselves. 

Courage and truth

It seems to me that one of the first principles of intellectual integrity is not to hide from truths, however ugly or challenging they may be. Yet there are truths today which I feel many people are choosing to ignore, not because they do not see them or understand them, but because they do not want to see or understand them.

Truth, as any philosopher knows, is a contested term. But perhaps in what is increasingly called a ‘post-truth’ age, time is ripe to reclaim this nebulous notion, to try to pin it down, not in theory but in practice. That is to say, I am inviting you, Rupert, to practise truthfulness with me, to share thoughts on what we really think, and to do so, as far as possible, without filtering our perspectives to make them appear anything other than what they are.

This may require some bravery, of course, because if thou gaze long into an abyss, as Nietzsche once said, the abyss may also gaze into thee. Have we the courage? Will our readers have the courage to stay with us on this perilous and uncertain journey? My invitation to you is not, of course, arbitrary. It seems to me that you are amongst a very small group of thinkers today who have already started the process of speaking ‘without filters’. I’ve seen you deliver lectures to your students saying things that most academics would not dare even to think, let alone say out loud in public.

Privilege and responsibility 

I’ve read articles of yours that manifest the uncompromised honesty that I hope will inform, perhaps even inspire, this dialogue. One of the articles to which I refer, and which now entitles this book, is called ‘This Civilisation is Finished.’ Let that bold and unsettling statement initiate our conversation. No doubt it will require some unpacking. What did you mean when you declared that this civilisation is finished? 

Rupert Read: Thanks Sam. It is a privilege, in at least two ways, to be able to conduct this dialogue with you. First, it’s a privilege to be in dialogue on this vital matter with you, whose work on degrowth and voluntary simplicity is, in my opinion, simply the best there is. But I also mean that it’s a privilege, a wonderful luxury, to be able to have this conversation at all, because it is quite possible that in a generation’s time, or possibly much less than that even, such conversations will be an unaffordable luxury. 

It is quite possible that, although we are living at a time that is already nightmarish for many humans in many ways (let alone for non-human animals), we will come to look back on these times, if we are alive to look back on them at all, as extraordinarily privileged. Right now people such as you and me don’t have to spend much of our time scrabbling for food and water or looking over our shoulders worrying about being killed. So we have a responsibility to make the most of this privilege. 

Raising the alarm

What I’ve just expressed will strike some readers as exaggerated for effect. It is not. It is simply an attempt to level with everyone; to take up your invitation, Sam, and join you in a space of uncompromised honesty. Environmentalists are often accused of being doom-mongers. I think that the accusation is largely false, because I think that almost all environmentalists incline in fact to a Pollyanna-ish stance of undue optimism.

This might prompt an accusation of me being a fear-monger or alarmist. I’m not an alarmist. I’m raising the alarm. When there’s a fire raging—as is the case right now, as I write, across the UK and across the world including in forests that are our planetary lungs—then that’s what one needs to do. Raise the alarm.  This elementary distinction—between being an alarmist and justifiably raising the alarm—is exactly the distinction that Winston Churchill drew, under similarly challenging (though actually less dangerous) conditions, in the 1930s. 

If people are feeling paralysed right now, I think it is probably because they are stuck between false hopes. On the one hand, there is the delusive lure of optimism, the hope that there will be a techno-fix that will defuse the climate emergency while life more or less goes on as usual. This is, I believe, in a desperately-dangerous way keeping us from facing up to climate reality.

On the other hand, there are dark fears that people mostly don’t voice and don’t confront. My message, far from being paralysing, is liberating. One is liberated from the illusory comfort—that deep down most of us already know is illusory—of eco-complacency. One is able at last to look one’s fears full in the face. One is able at last to see the things that the other half didn’t want to see. And then to be freer of constraint in how one acts. 

Industrial growth 

One of the ideas in the work of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein that most deeply inspires me is that the really difficult problems in philosophy have nothing to do with cleverness or intellectual dexterity. What’s really difficult, rather, is to be willing to see or understand what one doesn’t want to. After years of denial, and years of desperate hope, I finally reached a point where it was no longer possible for me to not see and understand the fatality that is almost surely upon us. 

I have come to the conclusion in the last few years that this civilisation is going down. It will not last. It cannot, because it shows almost no sign of taking the extreme climate crisis—let alone the broader ecological crisis—for what it is: a long global emergency, an existential threat. This industrial-growthist civilisation will not achieve the Paris climate accord goals; and that means that we will most likely see 3–4 degrees of global over-heat at a minimum, and that is not compatible with civilisation as we know it. 

The stakes of course are very, very high, because the climate crisis puts the whole of what we know as civilisation at risk. By ‘this civilisation’ I mean the hegemonic civilisation of globalised capitalism— sometimes called ‘Empire’—which today governs the vast majority of human life on Earth. Only some indigenous civilisations/societies and some peasant cultures lie outside it (although every day the integration deepens and expands). Even those societies and cultures may well be dragged down by Empire, as it fails, if it fells the very global ecosystem that is mother to us all. What I am saying, then, is that this civilisation will be transformed. 

Possible futures

As I see things, there are three broad possible futures that lie ahead. The first possibility is that this civilisation could collapse utterly and terminally, as a result of climatic instability (leading for instance to catastrophic food shortages as a probable mechanism of collapse), or possibly sooner than that, through nuclear war, pandemic, or financial collapse leading to mass civil breakdown. Any of these are likely to be precipitated in part by ecological/climate instability, as Darfur and Syria were.

Alternatively, this civilisation (we) will manage to seed a future successor-civilsation(s), as this one collapses; or that his civilisation will somehow manage to transform itself deliberately, radically and rapidly, in an unprecedented manner, in time to avert collapse.

The third option is by far the least likely, though the most desirable, simply because either of the other options will involve vast suffering and death on an unprecedented scale. In the case of the first possibility, we are talking the extinction or near-extinction of humanity. In the case of the second, we are talking at minimum multiple megadeaths. 

The second option is very difficult to envisage clearly, but is, I now believe, very likely. One of the reasons I have wanted to have this dia- logue with you, Sam, is so that we can talk about how we can prepare the way for it. I think that there has been criminally little of that, to date. Virtually everyone in the broader environmental movement has been fixated on the third option, unwilling to consider anything less. I feel strongly now that that stance is no longer viable. And, encouragingly, I am not quite alone in that belief.

Paradigm shifts

The first option might soon be as likely as the second. It leaves little to talk about. Any of these three options will involve a transformation of such extreme magnitude that what emerges will no longer in any meaningful sense be this civilisation: the change will be the kind of extreme conceptual and existential magnitude that Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of ‘paradigm-shifts’, calls ‘revolutionary’.

Thus, one way or another, this civilisation is finished. It may well run in the air, suspended over the edge of a cliff, for a while longer. But it will then either crash to complete chaos and catastrophe (option 1); or seed something radically different from itself from within its dying body (option 2); or somehow get back to safety on the cliff-edge (option 3). Managing to do that miraculous thing would involve such extraordinary and utterly unprecedented change, that what came back to safety would still no longer in any meaningful sense be this civilisation.

That, in short, is what I mean by saying that this civilisation is finished. 

This Author 

Rupert Read is a reader in philosophy at the University of East Anglia. Dr Samuel Alexander is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is also co-director of the Simplicity Institute and a research fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute.

Image: Taker, Flickr. 

Blackthorn Safaris, based in Oswestry, hosts ‘canned’ hunts on an estate 40 miles north of the mining town of Kimberly, in South Africa’s Northern Cape district.

The company is owned by Alex Goss, a Shrewsbury businessman who also organises bird-shooting holidays in Africa and in the UK.

In addition to lion hunts, Blackthorn offers trophy hunting for people wanting to shoot elephants, leopards, hippos, and crocodiles. Other hunts on offer from the company include zebras, buffaloes and antelopes.

International law

Eduardo Goncalves, founder of Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “In the shocking world of trophy hunting, there is nothing more depraved than captive lion hunting.

“For an apparently British company to be actively organising captive lion hunts will make people sick to the stomach.

“The government should ban the import of hunting trophies, help close the loophole in international law which lets hunters shoot endangered animals for ‘sport’, and support moves to abolish all trophy hunting”.

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting branded the ‘canned hunting’ industry as ‘cowardly: “You might as well as be shooting a zoo animal.

“Canned hunting is so cowardly that even some trophy hunters – hardly paragons of virtue – find it repugnant.

Wildlife traffickers

Goncalves continued: “Lion cubs are ripped from their mothers a few days or hours after birth by this industry. They are then reared in captivity to be shot for entertainment.

“They cannot possibly escape, and probably assume an approaching trophy hunter is a keeper bringing it dinner.

“Hundreds of lionesses are shot in these facilities every year and their bones sold to south-east Asian traders for phoney medicines.

“Court records show many of those involved are known wildlife traffickers and notorious crime syndicates.

“After the killing of Cecil the lion in 2015, Rory Stewart promised to stop British lion hunters from bringing back their trophies into the country. He then quietly dropped the pledge.

Unanimous consensus

“A few weeks ago, Michael Gove hosted a meeting of conservationists and hunting groups where there was unanimous consensus against canned hunting. Even though the UK and European trophy hunting industry groups condemned it, nothing has happened.

“In a few weeks, governments will be meeting in Geneva to decide the fate of wildlife species hunted for sport. CITES is meant to protect endangered wildlife, yet incredibly it grants hunters an exemption which allows them to shoot threatened species for selfies and trophies.

“The government says Britain is a leader in animal welfare and conservation. In fact, Britain is one of the worst countries in the world for canned lion hunters. The revelation that it allows canned lion trophies to freely enter the country runs a coach and horses through this claim.

“To repair its shattered credibility, the government should be calling for urgent reform of CITES and for this extraordinary loophole to be closed with immediate effect.”

There are an estimated 10,000 lions in over 300 breeding and canned hunting centres across South Africa.

Bone trade

More than 400 lion skeletons were shipped from South Africa to Vietnam last year.  Another 300 skeletons and bones were shipped to Laos. Dozens of skeletons were also shipped to Thailand.

Large numbers of lions were also sent to ‘zoos’ in China and Vietnam – these may also end up in the lion bone trade.

Lionesses are forced to become ‘cub mills’ through intensive breeding. They do this by taking her cubs away, sometimes when they are just a few hours old.

When the lionesses are too old to breed, they are shot and their skeletons sold for around $1500-2000.

Because of the problems of in-breeding and disease, lions are sometimes illegally taken from the wild to refresh bloodlines. Lions are killed in neighbouring countries to take their cubs which are then sold onto lion farmers.

Tiger bones

To make ‘lion wine’, the carcass of the lioness is hoisted up by the hind legs and hung down from a beam. Knives are used to cut her open and peel the skin. The meat is cleaved away and the layers of fat are stripped. The skeleton is left intact, often still connected by tendons.

The skeletons are then placed in large aquarium fish tanks about 2 metres long which have been filled with alcohol. Another method is to reduce the bones to powder and add it to wine.

To make the ‘cake’, the skeletons are boiled in water, often alongside muntjac bones and turtle shell. The gravy-like residue that floats on top is scooped off to make the ‘cake’ bars.

The demand for lion bones follows the collapse of the tiger bone trade, as the wild tiger population has been virtually wiped out. Lion and tiger bones are virtually indistinguishable. The lion bones are often passed off as tiger bones.

Some South African lion bone exporters are known to be linked to the Laos-based Xaysavang Network which was described by ex-US Secretary of State John Kerry as “one of the most prolific international wildlife trafficking syndicates in operation.” The network has been heavily involved in the illegal rhino horn trade.

Deadly dozen

Its leader, Thai kingpin Chumlong Lemtongthai, was jailed after he was found in possession of not only rhino hor but also of 60 illegally obtained lion bones. During the trial it emerged that in Laos the “main business of the company” was to trade in lion bones.

Eduardo Goncalves added: “Lions are in serious danger of going extinct. In the 1950s, there were up to 450,000 lions in the wild. Today there are just 20,000. Lions have disappeared from 90% of their range and gone extinct in 26 countries.

“Last year, over 2700 live lions, lion bodies, body parts and hunting trophies were traded between African countries and foreign hunters, collectors and businesses.

“Hunters took over 1000 lion trophies home with them last year. Over the past decade, foreign hunters have taken around 10,000 lion trophies home from Africa.

“Britain is one of a ‘Deadly Dozen’ group of nations responsible for the largest number of captive Lion trophies taken from Africa each year.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

Almost one-sixth of global GDP is now covered by net zero emissions targets set by nations, regions and cities, a new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has found.

Fifteen nations have declared the intention of reaching net zero emissions in or before 2050. While most commitments come in policy documents, Norway and Sweden have set the target in national legislation, with others set to follow. A further two  – Bhutan and Suriname – already absorb more greenhouse gases than they emit to the atmosphere.

These nations are joined by at least eleven states and regions such as California, Catalunya and Scotland, and at least 23 cities including Barcelona, Los Angeles and New York.

Global economy

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: “Having a net zero target with a date before mid-century is probably the best single indicator of whether a nation is serious about delivering what it promised at the Paris summit, so it’s notable that such a large slice of the global economy is already being conducted under net zero targets.

“Of course a target means little without a process to meet it. But science shows unequivocally that halting climate change means reducing emissions to net zero; so if a government isn’t planning to bring its own emissions to net zero, it can’t really claim to be planning to do its share of stopping climate change.”

In December 2015, all governments pledged in the Paris Agreement to attempt to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations expert body, showed that in order to stand a reasonable chance of achieving this goal, governments need to bring carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050. 

Black added: “The fact that governments, regions, cities and businesses are beginning to set net zero targets indicates a growing level of concern among citizens and governments about climate change. It also reflects a growing body of evidence showing that it can be done, and done affordably.”

Legally binding

Last year, the Energy Transitions Commission, a global organisation including major businesses such as BP, Shell, Tata and Vattenfall, concluded that even sectors where decarbonisation is generally thought to be hard, such as aviation, shipping, steel and cement, could reach net zero by mid-century at a cost below 0.5 percent of global GDP. 

The new ECIU analysis shows that at least 34 companies with annual income above $1bn have set net zero emissions targets – and a few have already met them.

The report also shows that more nations are due to set net zero targets, or to put existing targets in legislation, in the coming months.

The UK will shortly become the largest economy with a legally-binding net zero target, having laid legislation before Parliament two weeks ago.

Tracker

The UK is also a candidate to host COP26, the UN climate summit in December 2020 at which governments are due, under the Paris Agreement, to outline plans for cutting emissions more deeply, both in the near term and out to 2050.

The report argues that the UK could advance this process my making the summit the ‘net zero COP’, involving civil society, academia, business and the finance sector in planning to expand the spread of net zero targets and methods of delivering net zero economies.

The report was launched on the sidelines of a UN climate meeting in Bonn, Germany, along with ECIU’s online Net Zero Tracker.

The tracker collates and displays information on countries, regions, cities and states that have set net zero targets, and countries that are planning to do so. It will continuously be updated as more sign up.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. 

A target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050 has become law – making the UK the first major economy to legislate to end its contribution to global warming, the government said.

The move comes after the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change called for the new legal target to be brought in as soon as possible and to urgently ramp up action to cut emissions.

Hitting net zero – a 100 percent cut in emissions – will mean an end to heating of homes with traditional gas boilers, more green electricity and a switch from petrol and diesel cars to electric vehicles, walking and cycling.

Zero

Energy and Clean Growth minister Chris Skidmore has signed the order paper which makes the law come into force on Thursday, after it passed the Commons and Lords this week.

The new target amends the previous goal to cut climate pollution by 80 percent by 2050, which was agreed by MPs under the Climate Change Act in 2008.

Emissions will have to be brought as near to zero as possible and any remaining pollution in 2050 from areas including aviation will need to be “offset” through measures to cut carbon such as planting trees.

The committee told the government the move would be in line with commitments to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C (2.7f) above pre-industrial levels under the international Paris Agreement and will provide leadership for other countries on tackling climate change.

A recent letter leaked to the Financial Times showed the Treasury warning the PM that making the shift to a zero carbon economy would cost at least £1 trillion.

Industrial

But the committee also said it will cost around 1-2 percent of annual economic output up to 2050 – the same as predicted a decade ago for the 80 percent target – while the price of inaction would be many times higher.

The move comes in the wake of increasingly severe warnings from scientific experts about the impacts of rising global temperatures and the need for “unprecedented” action to curb the problem.

The climate “emergency” has also been rising up the public agenda, with youngsters walking out of classes and lectures for school strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests and a mass lobby of MPs by constituents on Wednesday.

Mr Skidmore said: “The UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, which was responsible for economic growth across the globe but also for increasing emissions.

“Today we’re leading the world yet again in becoming the first major economy to pass new laws to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 while remaining committed to growing the economy – putting clean growth at the heart of our modern industrial strategy.”

The Government hopes other countries will follow suit and has pledged a review within five years to ensure other nations are taking similarly ambitious action, and British industries are not facing unfair competition.

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels.

Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries.

Military emissions

If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

It’s no coincidence that US military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across US government departments.

In fact, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw from the accord in 2020, this gap will will return.

Our study is based on data retrieved from multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to the US Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the US military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

Three multiplier 

The US military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other risks.

Many, though not all, military bases have been preparing for climate change impacts like sea level rise. Nor has the military ignored its own contribution to the problem. As we have previously shown, the military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these comprise only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels.

The American military’s climate policy remains contradictory. There have been attempts to “green” aspects of its operations by increasing renewable electricity generation on bases, but it remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based weapons systems for years to come, by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations.

Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the US military’s carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties.

Our study shows that action on climate change demands shuttering vast sections of the military machine. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as waging war. Significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget and shrinking its capacity to wage war would cause a huge drop in demand from the biggest consumer of liquid fuels in the world.

Peace dividend

It does no good tinkering around the edges of the war machine’s environmental impact.

The money spent procuring and distributing fuel across the US empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take.

There are no shortage of policy priorities that could use a funding bump. Any of these options would be better than fuelling one of the largest military forces in history.

These Authors

Benjamin Neimark is a senior lecturer at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University; Oliver Belcher is an assistant professor of Geography, Durham University; Patrick Bigger is a lecturer of Human Geography at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University.

This article was first published on The Conversation. 

Music lovers attending this year’s Belladrum Tartan Heart Festival – the Highland’s longest running and biggest music festival – are being encouraged to help rewild the Scottish Highlands by having their own trees planted by conservation charity Trees for Life. 

With growing concerns about the threats of climate change and loss of nature, the organisers of ‘Bella’ 2019 are calling on attendees to mitigate the carbon impact of travelling to the event near Inverness through donations to fund native trees.

Every tree will help Trees for Life restore the globally important Caledonian Forest together with its precious wildlife such as red squirrels and pine martens.

Biodiversity hotspot

The trees donated will be planted at Trees for Life’s acclaimed Dundreggan Conservation Estate – a 10,000-acre forest regeneration site and biodiversity hotspot in Glenmoriston near Loch Ness.

Steve Micklewright, Trees for Life’s Chief Executive, said: “We’re delighted Bella is helping to bring back one of the world’s most magical forest habitats. As well as trees, rewilding is about people, culture and place – so it’s wonderful to connect nature, music and the wild spirit of the Highlands like this.”

Claire Clark from Bella said: “The wild Caledonian Forest once covered much of the Highlands, but today only one per cent remains – which we think is a really big problem. So we’re asking Bella-goers to help. Every £6 donation will allow Trees for Life to plant a native tree – a lasting legacy, and a great, green way to give back to nature when visiting Bella 2019.”

So far Trees for Life’s volunteers have established 1.7 million native trees, and the charity is also successfully reintroducing red squirrels to suitable woodlands across the Highlands.

The award-winning charity will have a dedicated presence at Bella from 1-3 August, so that attendees can discover more about rewilding the Highlands.

Dedicated trees

Everyone who dedicates trees through the Bella initiative will have their names included in a tally of tree planters, and will be invited to a celebration day at Dundreggan in September – with music, activities and opportunities to plant their own tree or to see it being planted. 

People can support Trees for Life by becoming members, volunteering, and by funding their own dedicated trees and groves.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release for Trees for Life. 

Image: Trees for Life volunteers at Dundreggan Conservation Estate near Loch Ness. © Stephen Couling, Trees for Life

Thousands of people are set to gather in Westminster today to lobby their MPs on taking action on climate change and environmental protection.

Organisers say more than 15,000 people from 99 percent of the UK’s constituencies have signed up for the Time Is Now lobby to urge politicians to “tackle the climate and environmental emergency immediately”.

It is organised by the Climate Coalition and Greener UK, whose members include aid agencies such as Cafod and Oxfam, the Women’s Institute and conservation organisations such as WWF and the National Trust.

Vital

The mass lobby follows growing environmental protests and increasing warnings of the need for “unprecedented action” to curb dangerous climate change and the threats faced by wildlife and the natural world.

MPs have approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency, and the lobby comes on the day the Lords debate a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, which should pass into law this week. Campaigners will be pushing their MPs to back the policies needed to turn the new net zero target into a reality.

They want an ambitious Environment Bill to clean up polluted air, tackle plastic pollution and restore nature, with legally binding targets and a powerful independent watchdog to enforce environmental laws.

Sarah Osborn, a primary school teacher from Cambridge who will be attending with Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust, said she values wildlife and is concerned children are disconnected from the natural world.

“I believe in the vital role nature plays in our mental health. We are in a state of crisis and I am deeply concerned about the future of the planet,” she said.

Target

Grandmother Ann Hayward from Wendover, Buckinghamshire said: “I am lobbying my MP because I am ashamed of what he and his colleagues are leaving behind for my grandchildren – a failing climate, huge biodiversity losses, huge financial debts for unwanted infrastructure projects which will all undermine their futures.”

MPs will be taken from Parliament by rickshaw to meet their constituents stationed around the area, and more than 300 people from different faiths will be led on a walk of witness through Whitehall.

At 2pm, campaigners will ring thousands of alarm clocks, mobile phone alarms and sirens, alongside church bells in the area, to symbolise “the time is now” to act, organisers said.

Clara Goldsmith, campaigns director at The Climate Coalition, said: “The Government’s decision to set a net zero target in law was clearly a response to calls for action from voters which have grown louder and louder in recent months.

“Now we need our politicians to put policies in place to deliver on that target, as well as measures to clean up the air we breathe and the plastic in our seas.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent. Image of protest in the USA (c) Alisdare Hickson. 
 

The #MeToo movement has caused profound shake-ups at organizations across the United States in the last two years. So far, however, it has left many unresolved questions about how workplaces can be more inclusive and equitable for women and other diverse groups. 

In its latest twist, over the last month a series of top executives have exited The Nature Conservancy, the largest conservation organization in North America, after an internal investigation produced accusations of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct. Investigators found that the organization’s culture “can make it difficult for women to thrive.”

We have been studying women in conservation leadership for the past several years, and unfortunately this news didn’t shock us. Our research shows that harassment is one of many gender-related challenges that frequently confront women conservation leaders. 

Workplace barriers

For over 30 years environmental conservation in the United States has been critiqued for being led by white, wealthy people, mainly men. Environmental organizations have pledged to do better by hiring more diverse staff and partnering more closely with environmental justice advocates. 

Women are expanding their presence in conservation: In 2017 they occupied 41 percent of full-time staff jobs. But until recently there has been little research on their experiences. 

The Nature Conservancy is not the first organization where women have complained about a challenging work climate. Since 2016 sexual harassment scandals have been reported at the nonprofit group Conservation International and the US National Park Service. 

Research has identified numerous workplace barriers that make it hard for professional women to advance. They include challenges to their competence, salary and promotion disparities and sexual harassment.

These challenges have been called a “labyrinth” that can hold many women back from senior leadership. Although environmental conservation is a progressive-leaning field whose advocates view themselves as striving to “do good,” we found in a recent study that female scientists who led conservation efforts faced many of these obstacles.

Physically threatening 

We interviewed 56 women in conservation leadership positions at non-government organizations, federal and state agencies and other organizations in 19 states. Their ages ranged from 26 to 64, and they had diverse natural and social science credentials. 

In our conversations they described six categories of gender-related challenges. They included salary inequality and difficulty negotiating pay levels; unequal hiring and promotion; informal exclusion; sexual harassment and inadequate organizational responses; and assumptions that that they were either unqualified to do their work or unfit to be leaders. 

Women remembered these challenges starting early in their careers, whether in the form of harassment at remote field sites or judgment that legitimate scientists shouldn’t wear high heels or makeup.

For many it continued into their late careers as senior leaders whose colleagues still greeted their success with surprise. 

Women of all backgrounds reported these experiences. Most had encountered at least four of these challenges. Many reported experiencing sexual harassment, from unwanted comments to unwanted contact. A few described male supervisors or colleagues behaving in verbally or physically threatening ways. 

Women of colour

Dorceta Taylor, a professor at the University of Michigan, teaches courses on topics including food systems, environmental history and politics, environmental justice and sociological theory. She authored a 2014 report that described the US environmental movement as ‘an overwhelmingly white Green Insiders’ Club.‘UMSEAS, CC BY

In their view these behaviors often went unreported because women feared retaliation or did not think reporting would lead to change. When organizations did take action, women in our study viewed it as insufficient.

As one woman explained, “I’ve thought about reporting it and then I was like, why? He won’t be held accountable for change. It would be on me, and it would be something like, ‘You need to take that less personally.’”

Women of color face even higher hurdles than their white counterparts. Black, Hispanic and Asian American study participants described being singled out as “the only” conservationist of their race or ethnicity and having colleagues assume they were not leaders or scientists.

As several of them explained, white women might struggle to sit at the conservation table, but women of color faced many challenges to even get into the building. 

Organisational policies

Our participants told us that two types of support had improved their situations. One category consisted of structural measures – organizational policies on sexual harassment, salary inequity and other issues, and training on topics such as leadership and diversity. Some women reported that organizational policies on sexual harassment were only put in place following a scandal. 

Other helpful measures centered on personal relationships. They included behaviors such as providing opportunities, learning women’s individual needs, offering feedback and guidance, connecting women to professional networks, championing their work and demonstrating confidence in them. 

Seeing these behaviors modeled by leaders, regardless of their gender, was particularly important.

In this light, the hiring of former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as The Nature Conservancy’s interim CEO seems promising. Jewell has already highlighted the need for a workplace culture “where employees can bring their whole selves to work.”

The Nature Conservancy hired former U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as interim CEO after the resignations of several top leaders over workplace harassment charges.

Diversity matters 

Conservation is more than protecting wildlife and natural systems. It also involves working with people to promote sustainable lifestyles and habits, so that future generations can thrive.

In a 2014 essay, 240 conservation scientists asserted that “issues of gender and cultural bias” were hindering conservation by fueling divisive arguments over why and how to conserve nature.

“Conservation regularly encounters varied points of view and a range of values in the real world,” they wrote. “To address and engage these views and values, we call for more inclusive representation of scientists and practitioners in the charting of our field’s future, and for a more-inclusive approach to conservation.”

The upheaval at The Nature Conservancy is part of broad calls for a transformation of the US conservation movement.

There are many reasons to believe that a more diverse movement will be more effective, not only in attracting and retaining talented staff, but also in addressing the unprecedented extinction crisis facing our planet.

These Authors

Megan Jones is a PhD candidate in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University; Jennifer Solomon is assistant professor in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. This article was first published in The Conversation. 

Image: Sally Jewell. AP Photo/Joel Bouopda Tatou