Trump’s brief appearance

Rather than joining the others in the UN Assembly Chamber, where some serious climate discussions were taking place, Trump instead held his own ‘mini-conference’. The president booked a separate room to discuss religion while the climate summit was taking place.

This was perhaps not too much of a surprise given that he once claimed that climate change is a hoax. What’s more, many of the seats normally offered to member state delegates were instead given to representatives from American religious groups, a crowd sure to greet him with applause (which they did).

The progressive Pope

Pope Francis made sure to be present during the climate debate and delivered a powerful speech. He stated that climate change is “one of the most serious and worrying phenomena of our times”.

His speech framed climate action as a moral duty, one which demands “honesty, responsibility, and courage.” Three words, he often returned to throughout his talk, which was surprisingly progressive. He stated that “the post-industrial period may be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history.”

He also shared some criticisms, stating that climate efforts by the States have been very weak, highlighting that we are far from reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement. He wrapped things up by offering some hope, stating that the brief window of opportunity is still open, with many solutions available to us.

‘How dare you’

Stealing the show, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg gave another powerful and accurate speech. She seemed more determined than ever and had a look of frustration and fury.

When asked what her message is for the world’s leaders, she leaned towards the microphone and calmly stated: “My message is that we will be watching you.” She then began her speech, starting with, “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school, on the other side of the ocean.”

Her voice began to break as she became filled with emotion, upset and angry. She raised her voice and continued: “Yet you come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.” She continued, “I am one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth!”

Her eyes began to water, she paused, then added, “How dare you! … For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear … How dare you continue to look the other way!”

She went on to reveal how the world’s leaders are failing to meet even the bare minimum climate targets. Her closing section included some harrowing lines: “If you choose to fail us… we will never forgive you!”

Climate legal action

Greta was also involved in more direct action. Along with fifteen other children, she filed a complaint against five nations for violating human rights.

The complaint, delivered to the UN, alleged that Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey have failed to uphold their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (a 30-year-old human rights treaty).

The accused nations are said to have failed to prevent the deadly and foreseeable consequences of the climate crisis. The complaint claims that the five nations’ insufficient pledges will not keep the average surface temperature below two degrees celsius (the target outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement).

The children stipulate that they don’t want money, they want adequate actions that address the crisis. Other high emitting nations are not included as they didn’t sign that portion of the treaty.

Bonus item

On a lighter note, a personal highlight of mine wasn’t actually part of the conference itself. It was when Greta briefly met Donald Trump, the president of the only nation to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and the President of the biggest carbon polluting country in history.

It was a surreal moment caught on camera by chance. Trump was simply walking through the convention centre but Greta can be seen in the background glaring at him. If looks could kill… I took a screengrab and posted the strange encounter on my Instagram page for those who are curious.

What Now?

As someone who has been fighting for climate justice for some time, I often take these events with a pinch of salt. After all, political empty promises are far easier, and significantly more familiar, than the required level of pioneering policies and system change. In other words, the green talk is far easier than the green walk.

That being said, this year felt different. Those speaking at the conference had clearly done their research. They seemed more committed and more organized. There were new tactics such as filing for abuses of human rights. There were significantly more people who took to the streets in the lead up to the conference.

As Greta noted in her speech: “The world is waking up”. It seems that the environmental movement is close to its own tipping point. And fortunately, this is a positive one.

The only concern is that it really matters when we reach that tipping point, as millions of people are already suffering, and what’s on the horizon, if we don’t reach our positive tipping point first, is far worse.

Now is the time to double down, to ramp up, to give this everything we have. So please, get involved however you can. As the title of the Climate Summit states, this is a race we must win.

This Author 

Chris Macdonald is a scientist and author. His new book Operation Sustainable Human is out now. To get in touch with Chris, you can visit his Instagram page: @ChrisMacdonaldOfficial

Image: European Parliament, Flickr. 

The poem ‘Fugitives’ was commissioned by the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. 

Simon Armitage gave the first public reading of the poem on 21 September, the beginning of Landscapes for Life Week, which sees Areas of Outstanding Beauty nationwide creating simultaneous Hearts in the Landscape moments.

In Arnside & Silverdale, Armitage joined local farmers, dry stone wallers, clog dancers, artists and children who will create a flash mob heart up on the Arnside Knotthillside.

Natural world

Huddersfield-born Simon Armitage has a vision of nature of something of the future, something dazzling and astonishing. He says: 

“I was delighted to be asked to work with the NAAONB on this auspicious occasion. They are an institution that safeguards and celebrates all that is good about the world we live in, and an organisation whose values I share and trust.

“The relationship between poetry and the land in this country goes back to the very origins of poetic utterance and I’m proud to be making a contribution to that ongoing dialogue.

“There is no greater challenge for a contemporary laureate and geography graduate than to contribute artistically to a conversation about the natural world and the state of our planet, and to praise those things that are wonderful and of wonder.” 

It was the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act which paved the way for the legislation to create the UK’s 46 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the first of which was designated in 1956 at the Gower Peninsula in South Wales. 

The Fugitives

Then we woke and were hurtling headlong 

for wealds and wolds,

blood coursing, the Dee and the Nidd in full spate

through the spinning waterwheels in the wrists

and over the heart’s weir,

the nightingale hip-hopping ten to the dozen

under the morning’s fringe.

 

It was no easy leap, to exit the engine house of the head

and vault the electric fence 

of commonplace things,

to open the door of the century’s driverless hearse,

roll from the long cortège

then dust down and follow

the twisting ribbon of polecats wriggling free from extinction

or slipstream the red kite’s triumphant flypast out of oblivion

or trail the catnip of spraint and scat tingeing the morning breeze.

 

On we journeyed at full tilt

through traffic-light orchards,

the brain’s compass dialling for fell, moor, 

escarpment and shore, the skull’s sextant 

plotting for free states coloured green on the map,

using hedgerows as handrails,  

barrows and crags as trig points and cats’ eyes.

 

We stuck to the switchbacks and scenic routes,

steered by the earth’s contours and natural lines of desire,

feet firm on solid footings of bedrock and soil 

fracked only by moles.

We skimmed across mudflat and saltmarsh,

clambered to stony pulpits on high hills

inhaling gallons of pure sky

into the moors of our lungs,

bartered bitcoins of glittering shingle and shale.

 

Then arrived in safe havens, entered the zones,

stood in the grandstands of bluffs and ghylls, spectators

to flying ponies grazing wild grass to carpeted lawns, 

oaks flaunting turtle doves on their ring-fingers,

ospreys fishing the lakes from invisible pulleys and hoists,

the falcon back on its see-through pivot, lured from its gyre.

 

Here was nature as future, 

the satellite dishes of blue convolvulus

tuned to the cosmos, tracking the chatter of stars,

the micro-gadgets of complex insects

working the fields, heaths tractored by beetles, 

rainbowed hay meadows tipsy with mist and light,

golden gravel hoarded in eskers and streams.

 

And we vowed not to slumber again

but claimed sanctuary

under the kittiwake’s siren

and corncrake’s alarm,

in realms patrolled by sleepwalking becks and creeks

where beauty employs its own border police.

 

And witnessed ancient trees 

affirming their citizenship of the land,

and hunkered and swore oaths, made laws

in hidden parliaments of bays and coves,

then gathered on commons and capes

waving passports of open palms, medalled by dog rose and teasel

and raising the flag of air.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the National Association of Areas of Outstanding National Beauty

Image: Paul Hudson, Flickr. 

Devastating fires across South America’s fragile forests have put the spotlight on the impacts of an emboldened livestock and feedstock sector that is hungry for land and unburdened by legislation or law enforcement.

The Chaco forests in western Paraguay have been particularly badly hit by deforestation and fires, as cattle ranchers expand their pastures.

Eastern Paraguay, on the other hand, has already been largely cleared of its forests, which were burned over recent decades to clear land for agribusiness. There, 94 percent of arable land is used for cultivating genetically-modified monocultures, primarily soy, which is exported as animal feed.

Regaining control 

Peasant and indigenous communities are caught between a state-sponsored agribusiness industry that steals land and poisons the air, soil and water, and a climate emergency that puts even more pressure on their already fragile ability to feed themselves.

With minimal external support but maximum threats to land security, community health and food sovereignty, peasant and indigenous communities are organising to reclaim control of their lives.

Women are at the forefront of this resistance, and in particular they are strengthening their organisations through training and skill-sharing to tackle gender-based discrimination, on top of all of the other pressures they face.

Eastern Paraguay was once covered by wooded savannahs, grasslands and dense humid subtropical forest, but these habitats have been devastated in the race to free up land for industrial-scale export-oriented agricultural production, especially of genetically-modified soybeans and beef.

Sojization or “soyification” is the term used locally to describe this process. Many peasant and indigenous communities have been evicted from their lands or persuaded to sell or lease their lands for little in return. The people left behind speak of empty schools, and land and water contaminated with agricultural toxins, which are killing crops and animals as well as making people sick.

The dire situation in Paraguay has led to serious conflict between the state and agribusiness on one side, and Indigenous Peoples and peasant communities on the other.

Peasant and indigenous communities, and in particular their women members, are working together to protect their food sovereignty, indigenous seeds, natural medicinal resources and traditional, ancestral knowledge. They are organising through the Federación Nacional Campesina (National Federation of Peasants/FNC) and Coordinadora Nacional de Mujeres Campesinas e Indígenas (National Coordination of Peasant and Indigenous Women). 

Faced with the twin threats of advancing monocultures and climate emergency, they are building their own resilience from the soil up.

The community at Crescencio González is a direct result of the struggle over land. It cost the lives of five militants, including Crescencio González, who was the first to be killed and where the settlement takes its name from.

The dispute ended when the government gave the community back 5,000 hectares to live on and farm. The participation of women in political assemblies and decision-making meetings in Crescencio González is increasing, and they are doing so with extraordinary enthusiasm.

Together with their children they participate and debate, and are heard and respected by their peers. In this particular assembly, while women discussed how to achieve food sovereignty through sustainable food production, the men in the community cooked and then served them lunch.

Crescencio González is organised by the National Federation of Peasants (FNC). One of the main objectives of the FNC is to conserve agrobiodiversity, which encompasses the variety and variability of animals, plants and microorganisms which are necessary to sustain the key functions of the agroecosystem, in order to support and ensure food production and food security.

This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of agriculture in the country, which relies on vast monocultures and huge inputs of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

Food sovereignty and security are central to climate resilience and the ability of communities to adapt to increasingly extreme climates. As in many parts of the world, Paraguay’s climate is getting hotter and drier, with drought conditions straining already fragile and marginalised local food production.

At the same time, extreme weather events are causing severe flooding in the wet season, which has turned many peasant and indigenous communities into climate refugees, and forced them into slums in urban areas.

The National Federation of Peasants has a Women’s Front, which for many years has been working to empower women to fulfill political roles in the organisation and more broadly.

As an example of the success of this women-led organising, this year’s Peasant March in the capital Asunción was led by FNC women who carried a banner with the slogan “Land and Production for National Development”.

During the closing ceremony, the three speeches were also given by women. A woman from Sebastián Larrosa commented of the Paraguayan state: “They are not interested in peasant or indigenous production, they are only interested in soy. Their response is always eviction, because they need more and more land to produce on.”

The pressures from competing land uses and climate change are felt by all communities in Paraguay. While some are able to support themselves to live in dignity, others are not so fortunate.

The Tovatiry community is home to the Avá Guaraní Indigenous People, and now finds itself in a situation of extreme poverty, having been forgotten by local and national authorities. The drought suffered in the spring spoiled all of the corn crop and much of the bean crop.

Several families have already left the community to go to the closest city. The families that have remained had to subsist on cassava and by hunting, and the eggs that four hens provided, shared between ten families. there were also several reports of sexist violence against women leaders. Despite these extreme challenges, the community continues to resist and build towards a better future.

Before the drought and with the support of the National Coordination of Peasant and Indigenous Women, the Ava Guaraní community had been planning to build a storehouse to preserve the diverse range of crops they had planted.

But the limited resources available to them through the fundraising of peasant and indigenous organisations had to be redirected towards helping to plant the next crop, in the hope that another drought wouldn’t destroy that too. In the absence of state support it is up to grassroots organisations to provide the support themselves.

The community at Tovaitry is a clear example of the vulnerability of communities on the front-lines of climate change, and how precarious their lives are.

The Arsenio Vázquez settlement is another National Federation of Peasants success story, built on the struggle for access to land. It covers 1,100 hectares and is named after a peasant leader who was martyred during the occupation that ultimately secured the land and rights to it for the community. Today, at almost 15 years old, it is flourishing and produces food for the community and surrounding areas.

Women in Arsenio Vázquez are confident and defiant. The level of organisation and collective action in the community, and the importance given to women’s participation in collective processes, are responsible for its growth and development.

Community members are free and able to come together to discuss all of the issues that are important to them and learn from past mistakes, whilst also bringing new knowledge and understanding to traditional practices, allowing their quality of life to be continually improved. They recognise that deforestation produces climate change and poverty, and that a system that evicts farmers from their land for cows and soybeans can only benefit the very privileged few.

With the threats posed by climate change and industrial agriculture only increasing, they must support each other to survive.

These communities are clear that in order to be able to adapt to the worsening climate crisis, big agribusiness must be stopped from stealing their land, destroying their biodiversity and poisoning their water.

At the same time, their collective and women-led efforts to organise for their own resilience must be respected and supported. The indigenous and peasant women featured in this photo essay embody the kind of ambitious and transformative climate action that is so desperately needed.

This Author 

The Global Forest Coalition is a worldwide coalition of 99 NGOs and Indigenous peoples’ organisations from 62 different countries striving for rights-based, socially just forest conservation policies. Follow the Global Forest Coalition on Facebook and Twitter. 

This photo essay is based on trainings facilitated by Heñói, a member of the Global Forest Coalition. Heñói has been developing a process of dialogue, training and debate with peasant and indigenous women since 2016, with the objective of strengthening their organisational capacity, and their struggles to reclaim their rights. 

One of the most popular eco-friendly fashion brands in the world has been slapped with a watchdog warning after an inquiry found that it was likely misleading customers about how sustainable it really is. 

The warning was given to ethical label Matt & Nat, a pioneer of vegan bags and shoes, by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

The retailer was warned it should not “exaggerate” its use of recycled material, after the ASA received a complaint that a Matt & Nat print advertisement had misrepresented the brand’s green credentials.

Advertising rules

The complaint concerned a flyer with the image of a backpack made from one of the most environmentally damaging plastics, polyvinyl chloride or PVC, but with the tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled” suggesting that this bag in particular, and the brand in general, is eco-friendly.

The complainant said this was deceptive given that only the bag’s lining is made of recycled plastic bottles, while the tag stated the bag itself was made of 100 percent PVC.

A case officer at the ASA said: “We have concluded that [the Matt & Nat] flyer was likely to have breached the advertising rules we apply and we have taken steps to address this.

“We have explained [the complainant’s] concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the codes.”

The codes – 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 – state advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting or hiding material information, presenting it in an ambiguous manner, or exaggerating the performance of a product. Advertisers must also be able to prove any claims being made.

A spokesman for the ASA added: “We told the advertiser to ensure that in future its ads do not exaggerate the amount of recycled material in its products. In addition, we set out the relevant advertising code clauses that apply. And we highlighted our guidance on Misleading Advertising and Substantiation.”

Environmental campaigners

The complainant also shared the contents of a leaked email from Matt & Nat’s customer care. It crucially revealed the brand’s extensive but unclarified use of PVC in two main collections – information that they felt contradicts the retailer’s branding as an eco-friendly label. ⁠

This means that 54 percent of all bags and shoes currently being sold on its website as eco-friendly would not qualify as such. This figure was even higher in August, at 65 percent.  The email noted the Dwell and Vintage collections are made of PVC, with only linings made out of recycled plastic bottles.

At the time of publication, Matt & Nat had not commented on this story.

The retailer’s use of toxic PVC and lack of transparency and has been called out by environmental campaigners.

Greenpeace stressed that for a fashion label to be sustainable it must not use any PVC at all. A spokesperson said: “PVC contains toxic additives and is difficult to recycle, making it harmful for people and the planet. It is made with chlorine which is very energy intensive and from ethylene, a petroleum product. 

“Brands which seek to be truly eco-friendly must completely avoid the use of PVC. It is also important that only products made wholly from recycled materials are described as ‘recycled’. Customers trying to shop ethically need to know they can trust retailer product descriptions.”

Cruelty-free

The animal charity PETA, that has previously endorsed Matt & Nat for being eco-friendly, has also stressed that the use of PVC does not qualify as sustainable.

Yvonne Taylor, director of corporate projects at PETA, said: “PETA commends all brands that use animal-free materials. However, with the huge array of animal-free, eco-friendly vegan leathers now available, we agree that there is no need for any brand to still use PVC.”

The complaint added that Matt & Nat states on its website that “PU is less harmful for the environment than PVC and we make it a point to use it whenever possible”. This gives the impression that PVC is only sparingly used whereas the email reveals otherwise.

The complaint argued that Matt & Nat’s tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled”, gives the false impression that all of the retailer’s products are recycled.

Ethical fashion

The revelations in the email and the ASA’s ruling are important given the retailer’s position as a leader in the ethical, eco-friendly fashion world.

Matt and Nat was founded in Canada in 1995 as a vegan brand, selling shoes and bags that did not make use of animal products. However, the company’s marketing strategy has evolved over the years and it now presents itself as an environmentally friendly label. Its products are sold across the world in the UK, US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The retailer was nominated at the prestigious Canadian Arts & Fashion Awards (CAFA) awards in May, for Accessory Designer of the Year, and has been repeatedly praised in publications in the UK for its eco-friendly and vegan credentials.

This Author 

Hiba Mahamadi is a freelance journalist writing about financial crime and corruption. 

One of the most popular eco-friendly fashion brands in the world has been slapped with a watchdog warning after an inquiry found that it was likely misleading customers about how sustainable it really is. 

The warning was given to ethical label Matt & Nat, a pioneer of vegan bags and shoes, by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

The retailer was warned it should not “exaggerate” its use of recycled material, after the ASA received a complaint that a Matt & Nat print advertisement had misrepresented the brand’s green credentials.

Advertising rules

The complaint concerned a flyer with the image of a backpack made from one of the most environmentally damaging plastics, polyvinyl chloride or PVC, but with the tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled” suggesting that this bag in particular, and the brand in general, is eco-friendly.

The complainant said this was deceptive given that only the bag’s lining is made of recycled plastic bottles, while the tag stated the bag itself was made of 100 percent PVC.

A case officer at the ASA said: “We have concluded that [the Matt & Nat] flyer was likely to have breached the advertising rules we apply and we have taken steps to address this.

“We have explained [the complainant’s] concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the codes.”

The codes – 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 – state advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting or hiding material information, presenting it in an ambiguous manner, or exaggerating the performance of a product. Advertisers must also be able to prove any claims being made.

A spokesman for the ASA added: “We told the advertiser to ensure that in future its ads do not exaggerate the amount of recycled material in its products. In addition, we set out the relevant advertising code clauses that apply. And we highlighted our guidance on Misleading Advertising and Substantiation.”

Environmental campaigners

The complainant also shared the contents of a leaked email from Matt & Nat’s customer care. It crucially revealed the brand’s extensive but unclarified use of PVC in two main collections – information that they felt contradicts the retailer’s branding as an eco-friendly label. ⁠

This means that 54 percent of all bags and shoes currently being sold on its website as eco-friendly would not qualify as such. This figure was even higher in August, at 65 percent.  The email noted the Dwell and Vintage collections are made of PVC, with only linings made out of recycled plastic bottles.

At the time of publication, Matt & Nat had not commented on this story.

The retailer’s use of toxic PVC and lack of transparency and has been called out by environmental campaigners.

Greenpeace stressed that for a fashion label to be sustainable it must not use any PVC at all. A spokesperson said: “PVC contains toxic additives and is difficult to recycle, making it harmful for people and the planet. It is made with chlorine which is very energy intensive and from ethylene, a petroleum product. 

“Brands which seek to be truly eco-friendly must completely avoid the use of PVC. It is also important that only products made wholly from recycled materials are described as ‘recycled’. Customers trying to shop ethically need to know they can trust retailer product descriptions.”

Cruelty-free

The animal charity PETA, that has previously endorsed Matt & Nat for being eco-friendly, has also stressed that the use of PVC does not qualify as sustainable.

Yvonne Taylor, director of corporate projects at PETA, said: “PETA commends all brands that use animal-free materials. However, with the huge array of animal-free, eco-friendly vegan leathers now available, we agree that there is no need for any brand to still use PVC.”

The complaint added that Matt & Nat states on its website that “PU is less harmful for the environment than PVC and we make it a point to use it whenever possible”. This gives the impression that PVC is only sparingly used whereas the email reveals otherwise.

The complaint argued that Matt & Nat’s tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled”, gives the false impression that all of the retailer’s products are recycled.

Ethical fashion

The revelations in the email and the ASA’s ruling are important given the retailer’s position as a leader in the ethical, eco-friendly fashion world.

Matt and Nat was founded in Canada in 1995 as a vegan brand, selling shoes and bags that did not make use of animal products. However, the company’s marketing strategy has evolved over the years and it now presents itself as an environmentally friendly label. Its products are sold across the world in the UK, US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The retailer was nominated at the prestigious Canadian Arts & Fashion Awards (CAFA) awards in May, for Accessory Designer of the Year, and has been repeatedly praised in publications in the UK for its eco-friendly and vegan credentials.

This Author 

Hiba Mahamadi is a freelance journalist writing about financial crime and corruption. 

One of the most popular eco-friendly fashion brands in the world has been slapped with a watchdog warning after an inquiry found that it was likely misleading customers about how sustainable it really is. 

The warning was given to ethical label Matt & Nat, a pioneer of vegan bags and shoes, by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

The retailer was warned it should not “exaggerate” its use of recycled material, after the ASA received a complaint that a Matt & Nat print advertisement had misrepresented the brand’s green credentials.

Advertising rules

The complaint concerned a flyer with the image of a backpack made from one of the most environmentally damaging plastics, polyvinyl chloride or PVC, but with the tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled” suggesting that this bag in particular, and the brand in general, is eco-friendly.

The complainant said this was deceptive given that only the bag’s lining is made of recycled plastic bottles, while the tag stated the bag itself was made of 100 percent PVC.

A case officer at the ASA said: “We have concluded that [the Matt & Nat] flyer was likely to have breached the advertising rules we apply and we have taken steps to address this.

“We have explained [the complainant’s] concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the codes.”

The codes – 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 – state advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting or hiding material information, presenting it in an ambiguous manner, or exaggerating the performance of a product. Advertisers must also be able to prove any claims being made.

A spokesman for the ASA added: “We told the advertiser to ensure that in future its ads do not exaggerate the amount of recycled material in its products. In addition, we set out the relevant advertising code clauses that apply. And we highlighted our guidance on Misleading Advertising and Substantiation.”

Environmental campaigners

The complainant also shared the contents of a leaked email from Matt & Nat’s customer care. It crucially revealed the brand’s extensive but unclarified use of PVC in two main collections – information that they felt contradicts the retailer’s branding as an eco-friendly label. ⁠

This means that 54 percent of all bags and shoes currently being sold on its website as eco-friendly would not qualify as such. This figure was even higher in August, at 65 percent.  The email noted the Dwell and Vintage collections are made of PVC, with only linings made out of recycled plastic bottles.

At the time of publication, Matt & Nat had not commented on this story.

The retailer’s use of toxic PVC and lack of transparency and has been called out by environmental campaigners.

Greenpeace stressed that for a fashion label to be sustainable it must not use any PVC at all. A spokesperson said: “PVC contains toxic additives and is difficult to recycle, making it harmful for people and the planet. It is made with chlorine which is very energy intensive and from ethylene, a petroleum product. 

“Brands which seek to be truly eco-friendly must completely avoid the use of PVC. It is also important that only products made wholly from recycled materials are described as ‘recycled’. Customers trying to shop ethically need to know they can trust retailer product descriptions.”

Cruelty-free

The animal charity PETA, that has previously endorsed Matt & Nat for being eco-friendly, has also stressed that the use of PVC does not qualify as sustainable.

Yvonne Taylor, director of corporate projects at PETA, said: “PETA commends all brands that use animal-free materials. However, with the huge array of animal-free, eco-friendly vegan leathers now available, we agree that there is no need for any brand to still use PVC.”

The complaint added that Matt & Nat states on its website that “PU is less harmful for the environment than PVC and we make it a point to use it whenever possible”. This gives the impression that PVC is only sparingly used whereas the email reveals otherwise.

The complaint argued that Matt & Nat’s tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled”, gives the false impression that all of the retailer’s products are recycled.

Ethical fashion

The revelations in the email and the ASA’s ruling are important given the retailer’s position as a leader in the ethical, eco-friendly fashion world.

Matt and Nat was founded in Canada in 1995 as a vegan brand, selling shoes and bags that did not make use of animal products. However, the company’s marketing strategy has evolved over the years and it now presents itself as an environmentally friendly label. Its products are sold across the world in the UK, US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The retailer was nominated at the prestigious Canadian Arts & Fashion Awards (CAFA) awards in May, for Accessory Designer of the Year, and has been repeatedly praised in publications in the UK for its eco-friendly and vegan credentials.

This Author 

Hiba Mahamadi is a freelance journalist writing about financial crime and corruption. 

One of the most popular eco-friendly fashion brands in the world today – with former ambassadors like Fearne Cotton and Natalie Portman – has been slapped with a watchdog warning after an inquiry found that it was likely misleading customers about how sustainable it really is. 

The warning was given to ethical label Matt & Nat, a pioneer of vegan bags and shoes, by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

The retailer was warned it should not “exaggerate” its use of recycled material, after the ASA received a complaint that a Matt & Nat print advertisement had misrepresented the brand’s green credentials.

Advertising rules

The complaint concerned a flyer with the image of a backpack made from one of the most environmentally damaging plastics, polyvinyl chloride or PVC, but with the tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled” suggesting that this bag in particular, and the brand in general, is eco-friendly.

The complainant said this was deceptive given that only the bag’s lining is made of recycled plastic bottles, while the tag stated the bag itself was made of 100 percent PVC.

A case officer at the ASA said: “We have concluded that [the Matt & Nat] flyer was likely to have breached the advertising rules we apply and we have taken steps to address this.

“We have explained [the complainant’s] concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the codes.”

The codes – 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 – state advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting or hiding material information, presenting it in an ambiguous manner, or exaggerating the performance of a product. Advertisers must also be able to prove any claims being made.

A spokesman for the ASA added: “We told the advertiser to ensure that in future its ads do not exaggerate the amount of recycled material in its products. In addition, we set out the relevant advertising code clauses that apply. And we highlighted our guidance on Misleading Advertising and Substantiation.”

Environmental campaigners

The complainant also shared the contents of a leaked email from Matt & Nat’s customer care. It crucially revealed the brand’s extensive but unclarified use of PVC in two main collections – information that they felt contradicts the retailer’s branding as an eco-friendly label. ⁠

This means that 54 percent of all bags and shoes currently being sold on its website as eco-friendly would not qualify as such. This figure was even higher in August, at 65 percent.  The email noted the Dwell and Vintage collections are made of PVC, with only linings made out of recycled plastic bottles.

At the time of publication, Matt & Nat had not commented on this story.

The retailer’s use of toxic PVC and lack of transparency and has been called out by environmental campaigners.

Greenpeace stressed that for a fashion label to be sustainable it must not use any PVC at all. A spokesperson said: “PVC contains toxic additives and is difficult to recycle, making it harmful for people and the planet. It is made with chlorine which is very energy intensive and from ethylene, a petroleum product. 

“Brands which seek to be truly eco-friendly must completely avoid the use of PVC. It is also important that only products made wholly from recycled materials are described as ‘recycled’. Customers trying to shop ethically need to know they can trust retailer product descriptions.”

Cruelty-free

The animal charity PETA, that has previously endorsed Matt & Nat for being eco-friendly, has also stressed that the use of PVC does not qualify as sustainable.

Yvonne Taylor, director of corporate projects at PETA, said: “PETA commends all brands that use animal-free materials. However, with the huge array of animal-free, eco-friendly vegan leathers now available, we agree that there is no need for any brand to still use PVC.”

The complaint added that Matt & Nat states on its website that “PU is less harmful for the environment than PVC and we make it a point to use it whenever possible”. This gives the impression that PVC is only sparingly used whereas the email reveals otherwise.T

The complaint argued that Matt & Nat’s tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled”, gives the false impression that all of the retailer’s products are recycled.

Ethical fashion

The revelations in the email and the ASA’s ruling are important given the retailer’s position as a leader in the ethical, eco-friendly fashion world.

It was founded in Canada in 1995 as a vegan brand, selling shoes and bags that did not make use of animal products. However, the company’s marketing strategy has evolved over the years and it now presents itself as an environmentally friendly label. Its products are sold across the world in the UK, US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The retailer was nominated at the prestigious Canadian Arts & Fashion Awards (CAFA) awards in May, for Accessory Designer of the Year, and has been repeatedly praised in publications in the UK for its eco-friendly and vegan credentials.

This Author 

Hiba Mahamadi is a freelance journalist writing about financial crime and corruption. 

The US lobby groups representing the fossil fuel and automotive industries are world leaders when it comes to stalling government action on climate change, new research shows.

Of the top 10 trade associations considered to be the most effective at opposing climate-friendly policies globally, seven are based in Washington DC, according to a report published this week by lobbying watchdog InfluenceMap.

Many of the organisations, which include the American Petroleum Institute and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, have had their wishes granted since President Donald Trump’s election. As part of a broader deregulatory agenda, the Trump administration has scrapped regulations on methane emissions and automotive fuel efficiency standards.

Cap-and-trade

Analysis by the NYU School of Law’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center suggests these regulatory rollbacks will add an estimated 200 million tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2025.

The report coincides with a UN Climate Action Summit taking place in New York this week, which aims to strengthen countries’ emissions reduction plans, with an overall goal of “net zero” by 2050.

The lobby groups highlighted in the report have been working to undermine efforts to introduce climate policies since long before Trump’s election, however.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which tops the list, coordinated the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, which tried to influence the UN’s IPCC process and spread doubt about climate science during the 1990s.

In 2009, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers funded rallies against the proposed Clean Energy Act which would have established a “cap-and-trade” emissions scheme across the country.

Activism

The National Mining Association currently runs an astroturf campaign called ‘Count on Coal’, while the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a recipient of Koch and ExxonMobil funding, has developed numerous “model bills” for states to adopt over the years. They include opposition to renewable energy targets and support for the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Three trade associations from other countries feature in the top 10: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Japan Business Federation. BusinessEurope, a coalition of trade federations that has opposed the EU increasing its action on climate change, sits at number 12.

InfluenceMap argues that while the groups have so far managed to avoid significant public scrutiny, they are being “increasingly challenged by investors, the media and politicians that recognise the role they play in holding back effective action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”

Beau O’Sullivan, Communications Manager at the shareholder activism charity ShareAction, said the findings reinforce growing calls for companies to sever ties with organisations working to kill off strong climate policies:

Dire

“This report rightly quantifies the insidious nature of the anti-climate lobby powerhouse. Investors are indeed alert to this and are taking action.”

“Most recently, investors have filed an ambitious shareholder resolution at mining company BHP to ask it to cut ties with the worst offenders in obstructive lobbying, namely the Minerals Council of Australia, Business Council of Australia, and USchamber of commerce. Voting for this proposal will be a real test of investor action.”

Ed Collins, Project Lead on Climate Lobbying at InfluenceMap, told DeSmog the trade associations were also “facing increasing pressure from more progressive parts of their membership”.

 “We are at a crucial time for climate action. But against a backdrop of huge public concern around climate change and increasingly dire warnings from scientists, these trade groups continue to frustrate progress on climate policy, especially in the US, which should be leading the world in terms of climate ambition,” he said.

This Author

Richard Collett-White writes for Desomg.uk, where this article first appeared.

One of the most popular eco-friendly fashion brands in the world today – with former ambassadors like Fearne Cotton and Natalie Portman – has been slapped by a watchdog warning after an inquiry found that it was likely misleading customers about how sustainable it really is. 

The warning was given to ethical label Matt & Nat, a pioneer of vegan bags and shoes, by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). 

The retailer was warned it should not “exaggerate” its use of recycled material, after the ASA received a complaint that a Matt & Nat print advertisement had misrepresented the brand’s green credentials.

Advertising rules

The complaint concerned a flyer with the image of a backpack made from one of the most environmentally damaging plastics, polyvinyl chloride or PVC, but with the tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled” suggesting that this bag in particular, and the brand in general, is eco-friendly.

The complainant said this was deceptive given that only the bag’s lining is made of recycled plastic bottles, while the tag stated the bag itself was made of 100 percent PVC.

A case officer at the ASA said: “We have concluded that [the Matt & Nat] flyer was likely to have breached the advertising rules we apply and we have taken steps to address this.

“We have explained [the complainant’s] concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the codes.”

The codes – 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 – state advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting or hiding material information, presenting it in an ambiguous manner, or exaggerating the performance of a product. Advertisers must also be able to prove any claims being made.

A spokesman for the ASA added: “We told the advertiser to ensure that in future its ads do not exaggerate the amount of recycled material in its products. In addition, we set out the relevant advertising code clauses that apply. And we highlighted our guidance on Misleading Advertising and Substantiation.”

Environmental campaigners

The complainant also shared the contents of a leaked email from Matt & Nat’s customer care. It crucially revealed the brand’s extensive but unclarified use of PVC in two main collections – information that they felt contradicts the retailer’s branding as an eco-friendly label. ⁠

This means that 54 percent of all bags and shoes currently being sold on its website as eco-friendly would not qualify as such. This figure was even higher in August, at 65 percent.  The email noted the Dwell and Vintage collections are made of PVC, with only linings made out of recycled plastic bottles.

At the time of publication, Matt & Nat had not commented on this story.

The retailer’s use of toxic PVC and lack of transparency and has been called out by environmental campaigners.

Greenpeace stressed that for a fashion label to be sustainable it must not use any PVC at all. A spokesperson said: “PVC contains toxic additives and is difficult to recycle, making it harmful for people and the planet. It is made with chlorine which is very energy intensive and from ethylene, a petroleum product. 

“Brands which seek to be truly eco-friendly must completely avoid the use of PVC. It is also important that only products made wholly from recycled materials are described as ‘recycled’. Customers trying to shop ethically need to know they can trust retailer product descriptions.”

Cruelty-free

The animal charity PETA, that has previously endorsed Matt & Nat for being eco-friendly, has also stressed that the use of PVC does not qualify as sustainable.

Yvonne Taylor, director of corporate projects at PETA, said: “PETA commends all brands that use animal-free materials. However, with the huge array of animal-free, eco-friendly vegan leathers now available, we agree that there is no need for any brand to still use PVC.”

The complaint added that Matt & Nat states on its website that “PU is less harmful for the environment than PVC and we make it a point to use it whenever possible”. This gives the impression that PVC is only sparingly used whereas the email reveals otherwise.T

The complaint argued that Matt & Nat’s tagline, “Vegan.Cruelty Free.Recycled”, gives the false impression that all of the retailer’s products are recycled.

Ethical fashion

The revelations in the email and the ASA’s ruling are important given the retailer’s position as a leader in the ethical, eco-friendly fashion world.

It was founded in Canada in 1995 as a vegan brand, selling shoes and bags that did not make use of animal products. However, the company’s marketing strategy has evolved over the years and it now presents itself as an environmentally friendly label. Its products are sold across the world in the UK, US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The retailer was nominated at the prestigious Canadian Arts & Fashion Awards (CAFA) awards in May, for Accessory Designer of the Year, and has been repeatedly praised in publications in the UK for its eco-friendly and vegan credentials.

This Author 

Hiba Mahamadi is a freelance journalist writing about financial crime and corruption. 

The US lobby groups representing the fossil fuel and automotive industries are world leaders when it comes to stalling government action on climate change, new research shows.

Of the top 10 trade associations considered to be the most effective at opposing climate-friendly policies globally, seven are based in Washington DC, according to a report published this week by lobbying watchdog InfluenceMap.

Many of the organisations, which include the American Petroleum Institute and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, have had their wishes granted since President Donald Trump’s election. As part of a broader deregulatory agenda, the Trump administration has scrapped regulations on methane emissions and automotive fuel efficiency standards.

Cap-and-trade

Analysis by the NYU School of Law’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center suggests these regulatory rollbacks will add an estimated 200 million tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2025.

The report coincides with a UN Climate Action Summit taking place in New York this week, which aims to strengthen countries’ emissions reduction plans, with an overall goal of “net zero” by 2050.

The lobby groups highlighted in the report have been working to undermine efforts to introduce climate policies since long before Trump’s election, however.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which tops the list, coordinated the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, which tried to influence the UN’s IPCC process and spread doubt about climate science during the 1990s.

In 2009, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers funded rallies against the proposed Clean Energy Act which would have established a “cap-and-trade” emissions scheme across the country.

Activism

The National Mining Association currently runs an astroturf campaign called ‘Count on Coal’, while the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a recipient of Koch and ExxonMobil funding, has developed numerous “model bills” for states to adopt over the years. They include opposition to renewable energy targets and support for the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Three trade associations from other countries feature in the top 10: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Japan Business Federation. BusinessEurope, a coalition of trade federations that has opposed the EU increasing its action on climate change, sits at number 12.

InfluenceMap argues that while the groups have so far managed to avoid significant public scrutiny, they are being “increasingly challenged by investors, the media and politicians that recognise the role they play in holding back effective action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”

Beau O’Sullivan, Communications Manager at the shareholder activism charity ShareAction, said the findings reinforce growing calls for companies to sever ties with organisations working to kill off strong climate policies:

Dire

“This report rightly quantifies the insidious nature of the anti-climate lobby powerhouse. Investors are indeed alert to this and are taking action.”

“Most recently, investors have filed an ambitious shareholder resolution at mining company BHP to ask it to cut ties with the worst offenders in obstructive lobbying, namely the Minerals Council of Australia, Business Council of Australia, and USchamber of commerce. Voting for this proposal will be a real test of investor action.”

Ed Collins, Project Lead on Climate Lobbying at InfluenceMap, told DeSmog the trade associations were also “facing increasing pressure from more progressive parts of their membership”.

 “We are at a crucial time for climate action. But against a backdrop of huge public concern around climate change and increasingly dire warnings from scientists, these trade groups continue to frustrate progress on climate policy, especially in the US, which should be leading the world in terms of climate ambition,” he said.

This Author

Richard Collett-White writes for Desomg.uk, where this article first appeared.