There is little doubt that food systems and the natural world will come under ever-increasing pressure in the coming decades.

Without concerted action, existing cropland soils will become even more degraded and less resilient to weather extremes. Subsistence farmers in the drylands will also continue to degrade soils as they and the livestock on which they depend are pushed onto more marginal, brittle land.

Farmers tend to get the blame for this, but look a little closer and it becomes clear that the degradation caused by their over-stocked animals is often the result of developed and developing countries continuing to acquire, by fair means or foul, more and more of their better land to grow food for their own burgeoning populations back home.

Reducing consumption

At the same time, unless we are very careful, yet more of the last remaining natural habitats, such as rainforest and savannah grasslands – home to some of our most iconic and threatened wildlife – will be converted to food production, principally soya beans, palm oil, sugar and maize, with devastating impacts on the environment and biodiversity.

Over recent years, a large number of reports, which have considered at least some of these issues, have almost all come to the similar conclusion that we need to reduce our consumption of meat, because feeding grain directly to humans is more efficient than feeding it indirectly, via farm animals producing meat or milk.

Almost without exception, these reports recommend cutting beef and lamb production and consumption. Some additionally recommend cutting dairy consumption, but many also recommend either leaving chicken and pork consumption at current levels or actually increasing it, as recently recommended by the UK’s Committee on Climate Change.

Underlying these conclusions is evidence that demand for meat is growing in developing countries, as some of them become more affluent and adopt Western-style diets, where meat consumption is already high.

However, if current projections are correct, it is clear that the planet will not be able to produce enough grain to feed the animals to meet this demand, without destroying more of the natural world. From this has developed the concept of introducing a tax on meat to reduce its consumption.

Methane emissions 

Ruminants produce the greenhouse gas methane, of which the levels in the atmosphere are about twice as high as they were before the industrial revolution.

Chickens do not produce methane and pigs produce only small amounts, though the manure from housed cattle, pigs and poultry can also result in some methane emissions, especially if not well managed. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Beef and lamb are considered unhealthy meats by some nutritionists, because about half of the fats they contain are saturated.

Studies consistently show a small increased risk of bowel cancer and some other diseases in people who eat a lot of processed red meat, but the evidence on red meat itself is less clear with some studies appearing to find a small link between high red meat consumption and diet-related disease and many other studies finding no such a link.

Two teams of researchers now have found that people who eat red meat have lower levels of disease than people who do not, when – and this may one of the keys to explaining the confusion – both meat-eaters and those who don’t eat meat, also have an otherwise healthy diet.

Meat tax

With much of this in mind, the idea of a meat tax was recently debated at a meeting organised by the Food Ethics Council (FEC), a charity founded with the help of a donation of £100,000 from the late Joanne Bower. 

Joanne’s life was, and continues to be, an inspiration. She cared passionately about farm animal welfare, about farming in harmony with the precious beauty of the natural world and all the creatures and plants that inhabit it.

One of her long-standing concerns was that we needed a committee on ethical standards in farming and food production. She proposed this to successive administrations, but as she couldn’t get any Government to establish one, she did what she could to set it up herself, giving half of the money she had saved over the decades on behalf of the Farm and Food Society, by never charging for her time while running it.

Overall, I’m sure she would have been delighted by the quality of the FEC’s meat tax debate.

While the SFT shares the same serious concerns as other campaign groups, government committees and many scientists, our analysis of the issues, especially in relation to methane, saturated fat and red meat (as part of a healthy diet) leads us to significantly different conclusions about how to address these problems.

Small farms

Our primary concern is that a meat tax would force the last small family farms in the UK out of business, to be replaced by fewer, larger farms using more intensive farming methods.

The main reason for this is that small to medium-sized beef, lamb and dairy farmers are already struggling to survive; allowing for inflation, prices of meat and dairy are historically low. The financial pressures on British livestock farmers as a result are severe.

Problems with mental health are rising in an occupation normally associated with mental wellbeing. On average, more than one farmer a week commits suicide, and agricultural charities are buckling under far more requests for help than they can meet.

A meat tax would only exacerbate this. When you make a tiny profit on every animal you rear, the only practical options for most producers are to sell up or keep a lot more animals and cut costs by intensifying.

The SFT fears this would result in more mega-pig and poultry farms, increased use of grain and soya, and more dairy cows kept indoors on concrete and not allowed out to graze; with all this, is a reduced quality of life and greater use of feed additives, including antibiotics.

Sequestering carbon

We believe that researchers make the mistake of assuming that all red meat is the same in terms of its impact on the environment and human health, regardless of the way animals are farmed.

It is also clear that most of those who call for big reductions in ruminant numbers in the UK fail to understand the key role they play in maintaining our pastoral landscapes and soil fertility and biodiversity.

One interesting example of this misunderstanding is that several studies have found that grass-fed cattle tend to produce more methane than cattle eating grain.

But if you use this to conclude that feeding them on grain is no worse and maybe better than feeding them on grass, you overlook the loss of soil carbon from land producing grain, and the extent to which grasslands sequester and store carbon in their soils.

A further, recent example, is that research from Oxford University reassessing the impact of methane on global warming shows that, contrary to established scientific assumptions, because the gas is short-lived, we only need to make small reductions in emissions to achieve zero warming, rather than the dramatic reductions needed in the long-lived greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

Arguably these could more easily be made by the fossil fuel industry – the biggest source of methane emissions, as well as carbon dioxide.

Tipping the balance

A similar paradox occurs when comparing pork and chicken with beef and lamb. Chickens produce no methane and convert grain to protein much more efficiently than cattle and sheep.

But pig and poultry diets are heavily based on grain and imported soya, the production of which causes many environmental issues, particularly relating to deforestation and use of chemical inputs.

Cattle and sheep, however, are far more efficient at converting grass to protein than pigs and poultry.

As we can grow grass in much of the UK where we can’t grow grain, this tips the balance in their favour. Two-thirds of our farmland is in fact under grass, most of this for sound environmental and agronomic reasons.

If we don’t make the best use of this land to produce food, we will need to increase our protein and fat imports even more and, as a result, be responsible for more rainforest destruction and even more indigenous people being evicted from their ancestral lands because they have no documented land rights.

Incentivising habits

Taxing foods considered unhealthy or environmentally damaging has increasingly been promoted as an effective way to incentivise better eating habits.

There is mounting evidence to suggest that this can work, when proper care is taken: perhaps the best results to date have come from countries which have introduced taxes on sugary drinks, like Mexico.

However, implementing a tax on food requires absolute certainty that reducing consumption of the targeted food group will bring about overwhelmingly positive benefits. With sugary drinks, which pose a major public health challenge, there is almost unanimous agreement that this is the case.

We cannot say the same about the production and consumption of red meat in the UK, where most (though not all) is reared on grass, with all the environmental and health benefits that this brings.

This Author 

Richard Young is policy director of the Sustainable Food Trust.

UN shipping talks stalled as slow-moving players – including Saudi Arabia, Brazil and the US – obstructed attempts to decide how the sector should begin to decarbonise.

The negotiations, which took place at the London headquarters of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), are part of a global process on how to cut shipping’s large and growing emissions.

Setting speed limits on ships and increasing operational efficiency were just two of the 15 proposals on the table for reducing emissions in the short term, meaning before 2023.

Negotiations

But much of the week-long environmental protection committee talks were spent debating the order in which different proposals should eventually be discussed, with little to no progress made on which of them should actually be implemented.

NGO observers and delegates hoping for more headway expressed frustration that an undue focus on these and other nitty-gritty procedural issues essentially amounted to filibustering by countries wishing to slow progress.

After decades of talks, countries agreed last year on a climate deal for international shipping. Part of this deal was to set these short-term emissions cuts — considered an important step to avoid delaying action for decades.

But procedural dithering meant decisions on measures that will have the highest impact on shipping emissions were pushed to next April at the earliest.

“We have only one week of negotiations, at best two weeks of negotiations, every six months,” says Faig Abassov, manager of shipping campaigns at Transport and Environment.

Aspiration

“If [those who want slow progress] can just get everybody really busy with those details, before you realise time is up, and everybody has to go back home. That’s essentially what happened last week.”

Saudi Arabia, Brazil and the US were among the worst offenders for blocking progress,  even objecting to the concept of prioritising emissions reduction measures.

The same three countries last year refused to sign up to the greenhouse gas deal agreed by the IMO, which targets a 50 percent cut in emissions from shipping by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. Chile, Peru and Argentina were also active in slowing down ambition, says Abassov.

“We could sense there are some delegations who might be just playing some delaying tactics and not allowing the IMO to move quickly on some of these things,” says Jimmy Nuake, the Solomon Islands representative at the talks, without naming specific countries.

Abassov agrees that progress was slow. “We have an aspiration, we need to have measures that are binding that change or guide the behaviour of individual ships or shipowners,” he says. “A year after the IMO agreed that it will have to eventually decarbonise shipping, there have been no substantial discussions on those measures.”

Shipowners

On the first day of the talks, Extinction Rebellion blocked traffic outside the IMO in a Titanic-themed demonstration to demand the organisation declare a climate emergency and decrease shipping speeds to reduce emissions.

“We saw again that they managed to avoid committing themselves to any binding regulations,” says Paulo Enock, an Extinction Rebellion campaigner. “There are alternatives to fossil fuel-driven marine navigation, and they ought to be coming on stream right now.”

International shipping is responsible for around three percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same as Germany. And these emissions are on the rise: the IMO’s most recent study on the topic estimates they will grow 50 to 250 percent by 2050.

Despite such growth, a report from the International Transport Forum published last year found the whole industry could in theory be fully decarbonised by 2035.

But progress on climate regulation at the IMO is stalled by powerful shipping trade associations, according to a 2017 report from InfluenceMap. It found that the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), a global shipowners trade body that represents over 80 percent of the world merchant fleet, was leading efforts to oppose action.

Flag-states

Other major trade bodies such as BIMCO, the world’s largest international shipping association, were also slowing progress, it said.

At last week’s talks, both ICS and BIMCO were pushing for voluntary measures that research suggests are too weak to achieve the IMO’s 2030 climate targets.

The ICS process means the voices of more progressive companies tend to get lost, Transport and Environment’s Abassov explains, because they are represented in trade associations alongside less progressive actors.

As well as these powerful industry groups, corporate representatives are also often part of official state delegations. InfluenceMap found that 31 percent of nations were represented in part by direct business interests at an IMOenvironmental committee meeting in 2017.

This is in part because many of the biggest “flag states” — countries where ships are registered  — are small countries.

Ban

Panama, for example, is the world’s largest flag state, followed by the Marshall Islands and Liberia. These small countries have small institutional capacity, says Abassov, leading private actors to emerge. “These end up speaking on behalf of the government at the IMO,” he says.

Another Transparency International report last year found that five states — Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Malta and the Bahamas — own over half the world’s fleet and contribute 44 percent of the total funding from the IMO’s 170 member states.

“These countries potentially have exaggerated weight in the IMO policymaking processes, particularly when no mechanism exists to protect against undue influence,” the report said.

The IMO has also frequently been criticised for a lack of transparency. Unlike the UN’s international climate talks, the IMOplenary is not live-streamed or open to those without official access to the talks.

Journalists with permission to attend the talks can view the plenary, but are not permitted to report on anything said without first gaining direct permission from the person who spoke to do so. At least one journalist has received a temporary ban from the IMO for reporting comments made in the open plenary.

Urgent

In one unexpected move at the talks, the IMO’s environment chair, Hideaki Saito, refused to set up a special working group to fast-track GHG discussions, despite a majority of countries supporting this measure.

“That was a bit of a mess,” says Nuake. “The majority of the room were [supporting] that, and the chair’s sort of summary of what was discussed was not to have it, which really surprised a lot of us.”

Nuake argues such additional working groups are essential to making progress on emissions cuts quickly enough. Measures will need to be decided on at the next environmental protection committee meeting in April 2020 in order for them to come into effect by the 2023 deadline set out in the IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy,” he says.

The chair’s decision creates “a major obstacle” to the timely implementation of a greenhouse gas policy,” another IMOdelegate told shipping news website Splash 247, on condition of anonymity.

“This work clearly needs to be undertaken urgently and efficiently, but the IMO seems not to want to do that,” they added.

Fuels

Some progress was made at the talks, however, with countries agreeing to tighten up mandatory efficiency standards for some new ships. These set limits on the amount of CO2 different vessel types are allowed to emit per tonne of cargo transported.

Since these efficiency standards only apply to new build ships, and most ships have lifetimes of 25-30 years, they will take years to filter through to the wider fleet, however.

Campaigners also accused the IMO of failing to set the standards high enough to drive decarbonisation.

“What a shame that IMO continues to treat the [targets] as a way of describing what is already happening rather than mapping out a future pathway to decarbonisation,” says John Maggs, senior policy advisor of Seas At Risk.

Increasing ship efficiency is also a crucial driver for the adoption of alternative fuels other than fossil fuels, says Aoife O’Leary, senior legal manager at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Because of the lifetime of ships we really, really, need to be doing [efficiency measures] today to make sure that the ships are ready for these alternative fuels,” she adds.

Delay

There were other small bits of progress. A procedure for assessing the impact of greenhouse gas reduction measures on states was decided on, as well as plans for a new study assessing shipping emissions, to be published in 2020.

But those concerned about climate change continue to worry that progress is nowhere near fast enough.

“The IMO just needs to get its act together and start progressing some of this work,” says Nuake. “Unless the sector does its part and quickly transitions to low carbon shipping, it will be quite difficult to achieve the 1.5C temperature goals set in Paris.”

“Our biggest concern in the Pacific and other small islands states is that we can’t afford to delay any of this any more, because our islands are already going underwater.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

A Lake District viewpoint immortalised by the artist JMW Turner is to be opened up to the public after being acquired by the National Trust.

Brackenthwaite Hows was a popular spot with Lake District tourists in Georgian and Victorian times, and the view from the hill was captured by the young Turner in a watercolour on his first visit to the Lake District in 1797.

Today it is a well-loved landscape, renowned for its views and areas of woodland and heathland rich in bluebells, wildflowers and wildlife, including rare red squirrels, the Trust said.

Historic

Now the National Trust has purchased the 77 acres of land at Brackenthwaite for £202,000, with a third of the value of the sale being donated back to the charity by one of the previous owners.

The Trust has pledged to preserve the landscape in the heart of the Lake District World Heritage Site, respecting its history, encouraging nature and improving access to the area.

Turner turned to landscape painting at the age of 17, in 1793, looking for inspiration at home in the UK, including the Lakes, before travelling abroad through Europe.

His 1797 watercolour Crummock Water Looking Towards Buttermere from the viewpoint formed the basis of a later oil painting of the dramatic vista.

Tom Burditt, general manager for the National Trust in the North Lakes, said the organisation would explore ways to improve access routes to the historic viewing station.

Beauty

“We know it was visited by Turner and formed a popular stopping off point for early Lake District tourists in the Georgian and Victorian eras. We’ll work hard to support this area of high cultural and ecological importance, which neighbours woodland, fells and lakes that we already look after.

“We plan to maintain its mosaic of veteran and younger trees and heathland habitats which provide a haven for rare birds, bluebells and red squirrels.”

The land that the Trust has bought, which includes parts of Lanthwaite Wood as well as Brackenthwaite Hows, was previously in multiple ownership and two of the owners, Ruth and David Hill, have gifted their share to the Trust.

They said: “We have owned and cared for a share of Brackenthwaite Hows since 1990. During that time, we were privileged to maintain the property and walk this magical summit in all seasons. We always wanted the National Trust to look after the property as we felt they would be the best possible custodian of its heritage.”

And they added: “We would encourage others to consider the wider benefits of giving such properties to be cared for on behalf of the nation, so the natural beauty can be preserved.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

More than 100,000 members of the public have supported the idea of rewilding in an online petition by campaign group Rewilding Britain.

Rewilding means the large-scale restoration of ecosystems where nature can take care of itself as natural processes are reinstated, for example, tackling flooding through moorland restoration and reintroduction of beavers.

The NGO launched the petition on 17 April, expecting to get 10,000 signatures in the first month, and then “see how far we could get over the six-month life-span of parliamentary petitions,” it said.

Double emergency

However, in one day, 10,000 people had already signed it. Within two months, the 100,000 signature target was met, meaning that the proposals have to be debated in Parliament.

“Our demand for nature to be restored at scale isn’t based on a vague idea. There are specific steps our government can take, to rise to the double climate and biodiversity emergencies with natural climate solutions and rewilding,” the organisation said.

Ecosystems such as woodland, peat bog, wetlands and marine areas can draw carbon out of the atmosphere, according to a report by the campaigners. For example, for every hectare, wetlands can absorb an average equivalent of around 5.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, it said.  

“This feels like a massive step for Rewilding Britain – it’s the first time we’ve asked people to show political support for rewilding in the UK, and the response has been astounding!” the organisation said.

Trees

The petition was signed by people across the UK, with rural areas often showing the most support, it noted (see map below).

In response, the environment department (Defra) pointed to its 25-year environment plan, which commits the government to improving the condition of protected sites and to creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat in England. The plan will become statutory through the environment bill, currently in draft form.

“The bill will include ambitious legislative measures to take direct action to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age, many of which are linked directly to climate change: air quality, nature recovery, waste and resource efficiency, and water resource management,” it said.

It is also working on plans to restore peatland, plant 11 million trees by 2022, and pay land managers for actions that benefit the environment, it said.

This Author

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

A rare flower which has almost vanished from the countryside is being given a helping hand, with a study into the best conditions for reintroducing it.

Red hemp-nettle was once common in southern England and South Wales but the use of herbicides, fertilisers and the spread of highly productive crop varieties have led to it almost vanishing from fields.

The distinctive plant with a spike of two-lipped red flowers is now critically endangered and is only found in a few dozen places, according to wildlife charity Plantlife, which is pioneering a reintroduction experiment.

Germination

To help the scheme, some 27,000 seeds of the wildflower have been sent from Kew Gardens’ Millennium Seed Bank to the Royal Agricultural University (RAU), where they have been sown in experimental plots to find the best conditions for reintroducing them.

The experiment at the university’s Harnhill Farm, near Cirencester, will look at the germination and survival of the red hemp-nettle under three different conditions, in plots without crops and others sown at normal or reduced rates.

The seeds are being monitored for germination success, with further surveys in the summer and autumn, the university said.

Keen

Efforts to bring back red hemp-nettle are part of the “colour in the margins” project led by Plantlife to boost cornfield plants and other wildlife.

It is one of 19 “back from brink” initiatives led by Government agency Natural England that aim to revive a range of threatened species across England.

Dr Kelly Swallow, senior lecturer in ecology and agro-ecosystems at the RAU, said: “Although once classified as a weed, the reintroduction of this scarce plant is important, not only for its aesthetic contribution to the landscape, but because biodiversity is key to the health of our environment and ecosystem functions.

“Students are keen to be involved throughout this project.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) has rejected its shortlisting for a design award sponsored by Beazley, an insurance company which sells insurance for environmental liability, a practice that XR argues supports “immoral environmental practices”.

The London Design Museum’s Beazley Designs of the Year is an annual award celebrating designs that have impact, including inspiring people, representing change in their field, or thought leadership, according to its website.

Beazley also sells insurance for war, aviation, energy and weather.

Artwash

Clare Farrell a spokeswoman for the Extinction Rebellion UK Art Group, said: “This is yet another example of a major cultural institution attempting to Artwash the unacceptable behaviours of its financial backers.

“For Extinction Rebellion to be co-opted by an organisation like Beazley runs counter to our movement’s values.

“We are in the business of refusing business as usual, and the insurance industry, which supports the mitigation of financial loss caused by immoral environmental practices, is not something we can have anything to do with,” she added.

A spokesman for the Design Museum said that it was surprised at XR’s decision. “The Beazley Designs of the Year exhibition embodies the museum’s purpose to make the impact of design visible and highlights the role that design can play in providing solutions to many of the challenges we face today – including challenges to the environment.”

He added that the exhibition was visited by thousands of people each year and demonstrated that design projects could improve lives.

This Author

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

One of the most exciting outcomes from the recent climate strikes is that we are being prompted to re-evaluate the way we measure human progress.  

We need to move beyond the assumption that there’s a positive relationship between economic growth and wellbeing – otherwise, we will be blind to the tipping point where wellbeing starts to nosedive.

You can explore this question and much more at this year’s Timber Festival, which runs from 5 to 7 July 2019 in the heart of the National Forest. 

Ultimate measure

This thinking isn’t new. As long ago as 1968, a young Robert Kennedy challenged the concept of economic growth as a measure of America’s progress in the world:

“Our Gross National Product counts air pollution … the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder … it counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars. 

“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. 

“It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

And yet, just over fifty years later it seems we really haven’t moved on in our thinking.  Economic growth is still held up as the ultimate measure of success for governments, regardless of the impact on the available resources, the environment or society.  

It feels as though we have learned nothing from the simple ecological principle that every population has to live within limits.  

Happiness index

Fortunately, there are other measures out there.  Take the World Happiness Index produced by the United Nations.  

This is unashamedly human-centric, and uses measures that impact on wellbeing as its benchmark, on the basis that it is not growth per se, but the outcome of our investment on wellbeing that should be the real test of progress.

It is heartening to see in the 2019 Happiness Index that the UK has risen up the charts, now standing at fifteenth in the world.  Such measures of wellbeing are now springing up across the UK, from the Office of National Statistics to the Royal Mail. But even these measures can be misleading.  

How can we be getting happier when 16 percent of adults in the UK take antidepressants each year (that’s one in six of us) and 40 percent of GP appointments are said to involve mental health?

Moreover, some of these indicators still seem to relate back to economics, measuring factors that mean our most affluent areas come out on top. 

Timber festival 

We have been grappling with these issues in the National Forest, exploring a more rounded measure of quality of life that takes into account the green economy, community wellbeing and the state of the natural environment.  

The National Forest Festival ‘Timber’ was set up last year in recognition of these issues.

Timber is a statement of intent. A showcase for the view that our natural environment can not only make us happier, but much healthier too, as well as giving rise to more sustainable livelihoods.  

The festival is a microcosm for what we are trying to do across the whole National Forest, to promote sustainable living in the face of a changing climate.

The festival is designed so that each element – the location, programming and activities – demonstrates how the natural environment enhances our quality of life.  Wildlife watching, environmental arts, pole lathing, wild play, charcoal making, outdoor exercise, local food – all interspersed with music, dance, comedy and debate inspired by our trees and forests.

Political progress

Festival goers should leave not just having had a great time, but having experienced something new and wanting to continue and deepen their connection with the natural world.

In this context, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) feels a very blunt instrument.  So why don’t we do away with GDP and adopt a more progressive measure of success?  

I wonder what would happen if we challenged governments, local authorities, schools and workplaces to report on happiness or sustainable living?  It would seriously shift the way we think about investment if we asked the question ‘will it make us happier and more sustainable?’ rather than ‘will it increase GDP?’  

There are other metrics already starting to do this, like the Thriving Places index or the various measures recording carbon or natural capital.  Changing our focus on GDP could be a huge political step, and stop us simply marching headlong into ever more growth, on the pretence that it is a mark of progress.  

It would be a breakthrough for this climate generation, and perhaps even make Kennedy proud to think that after all these years we are finally measuring something that makes ‘life worthwhile’.

This Author 

John Everitt is chief executive of The National Forest Company. 

The Ecologist will be hosting talks and discussions at this year’s Timber festival, 5 – 7 July. 

Recent trends in our understanding of cultural evolution can help to apprehend the interconnected events that have given rise to young people’s radical responses to climate breakdown. 

Taking an evolutionary perspective can help to explore entrenched personal and political behaviours that have tended to cause a policy-making stalemate. 

We have learned to change our environment to ‘construct our niche’, to make our lives more efficient and comfortable. During this most recent evolutionary phase, many civilisations have grown and declined, and we have learned from this to develop a more successful global economy. 

Social learning 

Taking the very long term view, human evolution – separate from other primates – started about six million years ago, during which time we have evolved through four identifiable species types, and through phases of physical, social and then cultural  adaptation. 

In the last two decades our understanding of how this evolutionary trajectory has unfolded has also progressed greatly. ‘Darwinian’ and genetic explanations have become augmented with increasing research into many epigenetic factors: adaptations for high sociality in densely populated land for instance.

Particularly since the evolution of our species as homo sapiens, we have become the most social of mammal species, developing  language, tool-use, social emotions (pride, guilt shame etc) and social learning as adaptations that have enabled us to live in highly dense levels of population and succeed in surviving in virtually every part of the world.

As evolutionary psychology has shown over decades, much of our current behaviour is still driven by these adaptations – for instance our deep sense of identity with important ‘in’ groups, which is often fuelled and enhanced by defining ourselves as different to other ‘out’ groups, in terms of values, morals etc.

Our innate preference for social learning from others similar to us, has led to us to tend to polarise our political views in ways that influence our behaviour in ways that often seem to contradict common sense, eg: around climate change. 

Niche construction 

Humans have also developed a deep instinct for ‘niche construction’, a relatively new term in evolutionary studies which is key to understanding our present predicament.

In its most basic form, even simple organisms change their environment to better ensure their survival in face of threats: Rhodedendrons change the acidity of the local soil to deter other young plants competing for their space; beavers build complex dams and floating shelters.

For hundreds of thousands of years, humans have done this in increasingly sophisticated and complex ways, to the point where we now almost instinctively look to change our environment to suit our selves, and are individually dependent on doing so for our general well being.

Through this we have overcome most of the pressures that natural selection operates through: diseases and parasites through medicines and sanitation, food and resource scarcity through agriculture, industry and trade, climate and weather through robust housing, shelter and transport infrastructure.

At an individual level we see nice construction in ‘nesting instinct’ that we have towards our home environments. 

Neoliberalism and financialization 

Looking now at this more recent phase of cultural evolution in the West, we accelerated our niche construction into rapid economic development through metallurgic technologies (engineering) and harnessing fossil fuel energy to increase work efficiency during the industrial revolution.

This has led us to living in highly dense urban population centres, which has also had several deep and lasting effects: we have steadily developed increasingly high expectations of problem solving through more technology, and this has, over time, usually worked and we are increasingly motivated to conform to social norms of behaviour that allow us to live in very close proximity to each other, including lessened aggression and greater influence by prestigious individuals (leaders, celebrities etc). 

In addition to this, western societies have become more fragmented as they have moved more towards a nuclear family system and away from extended families and collectivist community living values.

Even more recently those in the west have evolved a different trajectory again.

Neoliberal ideology  and financialization gained traction as the main economic models, as those in the West began to perceive that their leadership and hegemony in industrial production was being overtaken by the Asian economies. 

Shifting expectations

In parallel to this, western societies also developed  more postmodern cultural values, based more on individualism and personal enhancement than previous more collectivist values.

The neoliberal economic argument for free unfettered trade in both goods and capital movement, and the postmodern ideology of freeing people from a sense of place and territorial inheritance, are far more detached and abstract ideologies than earlier value systems.

Over the last 40 years or so, neoliberalism has produced an expectation that certain members of global society can go wherever they like and buy whatever they want, a sort of detached mentality that rejects the previously perceived need for regulation and control in the national or community interest.

Thus the value of many items and services in the West have become detached from their actual value in terms of production costs.

Detaching economic behaviour from long-held values of exchange based on local resources and specialisms practiced over hundreds of thousands of years, has brought about a huge surge of global economic activity.

This has lifted billions of people out of absolute poverty, and increasingly brought them into the mainstream economy, most noticeably India and China.

Uncontrolled escalation

Neoliberalism has, however, also produced several deleterious effects: soaring economic and health inequalities and spiralling mental health issues, property prices that reflect these huge inequalities, and lack of career progression opportunities for young people.

It has also bolstered an escalating reaction to regulation and control by those who have most profited from these changes of values, eg: tax avoidance on an industrial scale, complete freedom being taken by the internet giants to use our data as they please and increase advertising to maintain and drive up sales.

This increased economic activity over the last 40 years has also produced an uncontrolled escalation of emissions of greenhouse gasses from the burning of oil, gas and coal that have fuelled it, stepping up the rate of climate change exponentially.

It is not surprising that young people feel like rebelling against a system that feels to them both fatalistic and unreasonably unfair – having been faced with the triple impacts of rising property values making mortgages and rents increasingly onerous, a lack of reliable and progressive employment prospects, and an outlook of a world with diminishing wildlife, natural resources and stable climate. 

They could also be seen as reacting against the older adults around them who act as if ‘business as usual’ is the best way forward, based on the short sighted assumption that the current version of trading is the only way capitalism can run.

Communal control 

Taking the longer-term evolutionary perspective, it is more reasonable to assume that the recent large scale experiment of neoliberal ideology in economics is coming to an end, and some more sustainable and equitable way of trading will need to evolve.

This would suggest greater emphasis being placed on decisions for the common good of all, including  more regulation of fossil fuels and plastics. 

Many young people feel deeply that there  needs to be a move towards more democratic structures in society, such as Citizens’ assemblies, with  greater emphasis being placed on decisions for the common good of all sections of the population of each nation, including them.

Such an intervention could also bring about more communal control and regulation of fossil fuel use, plastics, waste systems and food production, as attempts to get people to voluntarily live more frugally has not succeeded in mitigating climate change. 

This Author 

Steve Heigham is an evolutionary psychologist, lecturer in counselling and practicing psychotherapist. He is also an activist in Extinction Rebellion.

Image: Terry Matthews. 

It’s dispiriting to hear such negative reactions to the school climate strikes coming from the adult world. In particular, the patronising and dismissive responses from those politicians who have failed to develop appropriate policies to address climate change.

Equally concerning are reports of obstructive responses from some schools, teachers and parents: tales of teachers in an Exeter secondary school barricading doors to prevent pupils leaving to attend a recent climate action – and an eye witness account of an irate parent dragging a brave youngster from the podium as he was addressing the climate gathering.

In comparison, the measured but dissuasive announcements from the head teacher of my children’s rural secondary school seemed considerably more moderate – or so I thought. 

Cognitive dissonance 

My 15-year-old daughter has recently been appointed deputy head girl for the forthcoming academic year and wished to attend the next climate action. She experienced a tension between firmly held beliefs and her perception of her leadership role.

I advised her that adhering to one’s values was probably a more important expression of leadership than toeing the line. I felt I should pass on the advice I had offered in order to inform the head-teacher that my daughter’s choice had not been made lightly.

I further attempted to convey that participating in the climate action might help to counter some of the sense of hopelessness and low self- esteem which sadly burdens many youngsters. This I explained in the following terms:   

“I have become very interested in recent discussions about young people’s anxieties over environmental issues and their sense of well- being.

“I have a couple of friends involved in clinical psychiatry who talk a lot about “cognitive dissonance” in this context – a concept which I believe refers to the anxieties which arise when strongly held values and attitudes conflict with actions and decisions. I guess something we all experience to a degree!”

Collective participation 

My letter continued: “For many children, I think it may be difficult to influence decisions at home which have ecological impacts. They see government mired in Brexit and effectively paralysed in relation to more far reaching matters, resulting in a sense of despondency and personal disempowerment.

“I have a sense that collective participation with friends in public demonstrations is not just fun but has real ability to dispel their sense of hopelessness while strengthening their feeling of self-worth.”

In terms of wider educational objectives, I do feel that an appreciation that peaceful demonstration is an important element in our democratic process is important.

I fear that presenting a negative perception of such actions can further alienate young people from the democratic model and may divert some into more extremist pathways.

His response was polite and considered but either my arguments had been unconvincing or were outweighed by his priority of not rocking the boat.

Imaginative placards

As a bystander at a previous school climate action in Exeter it became evident to me that a great deal of important learning was taking place.

There had seemed to be an over-simplistic myth among some younger children that climate change in itself will directly bring about human extinction within their lifetimes – a deeply unsettling idea for any child.

Speeches, placards and conversations would have gone some way to presenting a more likely if more complex scenario to those present at the action – a scenario in which the combined interaction of climate change, habitat destruction, resource depletion and pollution would create uninhabitable regions displacing populations on a large scale with chaotic and destructive outcomes.

One cleverly designed placard conveyed pictorially how the scale of climate-generated refugee populations might dwarf the current displacements fuelled largely by war.

The extinction of polar species, a highly likely prospect resulting from arctic melting, was a widespread theme on the imaginatively designed and colourful placards, too. 

Educational experience 

I learned a lot, particularly concerning sea level evidence emerging from research into the Pliocene environment. From a conversation with a  palaeoclimatologist,  I discovered that at that time – some 4 million years ago – CO2 concentration reached 400 ppm, similar to the present elevated levels resulting from fossil fuel burning.

The sea level appears to have progressively risen to plus 15 metres, a devastating finding if viewed in the context of the modern world and present population distributions.

Implicit in the collective enthusiasm of the throngs of youngsters was a sense of the joy and empowerment to be found in solidarity.

In the broadest sense this was a powerful educational experience. In a moment of nostalgic euphoria, I was reminded of the visions and critique presented in Ivan Illich’s “Deschooling Society” which envisaged  radical and ecologically oriented forms of education outside the confines of institutionally bound schooling.

On the train home Pink Floyd’s insistent chorus line was ringing in my ears: “Hey teacher, leave those kids alone…”

This Author 

David Job is a former teacher with the Field Studies Council and lecturer in Geography Education at Institute of Education, University of London. He retired to develop a green tourism project in North Devon, and is now a smallholder and environmental campaigner.

Image: Roaming-the-Earth, Flickr. 

Hundreds of climate change experts have urged Theresa May to confront Donald Trump over his approach to the issue during his state visit this week.

A letter signed by 250 academics from universities and research bodies across the UK states the US president’s “refusal” to tackle global warming is “increasing risks for lives and livelihoods” around the world.

The experts praise the UK’s international role in tackling climate change but say Mr Trump’s visit is “incompatible” with it while he is “undermining” US domestic and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Risk

It reads: “The president’s refusal to tackle climate change, and particularly his initiation of the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, is increasing risks for lives and livelihoods in the United States, the United Kingdom and around the world.”

They urge the Prime Minister to tell Mr Trump to accept the scientific evidence of the threat of man-made climate change; support policies in the US to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2050, and collaborate with international efforts to combat climate change.

The president has previously called climate change a “Chinese hoax” and “bullshit”.

Bob Ward, director of policy for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, coordinated the letter.

He said: “President Trump’s refusal to accept and address global climate change is putting at risk lives and livelihoods of current and future generations in the UK.

Hope

“The state visit is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to challenge the president’s reckless approach and advance the UK’s reputation as an international leader on climate change before she steps down as Prime Minister.

“The special relationship between the UK and USA is meaningless if the Government does not use it to confront the actions of a president that are a threat to UK citizens.”

A Government spokeswoman said: “The Prime Minister has raised climate change with the president before and will do so again during his visit.

“Tackling climate change is a priority for the UK. We are driving forward international action through our work at the UN and with our Commonwealth partners, and we’re proud to have offered to host COP26 in 2020.

“As the Prime Minister has said previously, we were disappointed by the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017 and continue to hope they will return.”

Blimp

A giant inflatable Donald Trump baby blimp is expected to fly over London during the US president’s state visit after its owners reached their fundraising target.

Organisers plan to fly the 20ft blimp above Parliament Square for two hours from 10am on Tuesday, the second day of Mr Trump’s UK visit. The blimp, which can be flown up to 100ft in the air, depicts the US president wearing a nappy and clutching a mobile phone.

A spokesman for the team behind the blimp said they had received permission to deploy the inflatable from the Greater London Authority, headed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and the Civil Aviation Authority.

This year, the Trump Baby team, which is part of the Stop Trump coalition, said the blimp would only be flown if a crowdfunding target of £30,000 was met to support groups focused on tackling social issues.

Organisers announced the target was reached on Sunday and raised it to £50,000 to give the groups an “even bigger boost”.

Loud and clear

The Trump Baby team said the money will go to groups in the US and UK “fighting Trump’s policies and their impact on communities”, including in relation to climate change and women’s reproductive rights.

Ajuub Faraji, a Trump blimp “babysitter”, said: “Trump is a dangerous, divisive demagogue and we’re thrilled that the public have put their hands in their pockets to support groups fighting the impacts of his policies.

“Trump will try his best to avoid the public on his trip, but with Trump Baby flying we’re sending a very clear message of solidarity to those affected by his despicable politics – and saying loud and clear that the US president doesn’t deserve the red carpet treatment being given to him by the Government.”

This Author

Harriet Line is a Press Association political correspondent. Tom Pilgrim and Lewis Pennock are reporters for the Press Association.