A new letter published in Science argues that banning trophy hunting imperils biodiversity.

The letter’s authors present arguments which, to their collective mind, offer a compelling scientific case for trophy hunting, even if they find it repugnant. 

Persistent caveats

The letter aims to bolster its ostensible scientific strength through a supplementary list of 128 signatories.  The inclusion of these 128 signatories constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. It is indicative of a strange but prevalent view that simply because a scientist makes a statement, that statement is somehow imbued with scientific rigour.

But a statement in speculation remains a statement in speculation regardless of whether it is made by a scientist.

Moreover, many of the names on the list of 128 belong to people who are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination – some lack credentials and some have a vested interest in the trophy hunting industry. The attempt to use the list as some kind of show of scientific consensus is problematic. 

Added to this, caveats are ever-present in arguments favouring trophy hunting as a conservation tool. This letter is no different. In the space of a few hundred words, the authors recognise that “poorly managed trophy hunting can cause local population declines,” and “with effective governance and management trophy hunting can and does have positive impacts.”

Moreover, “there is considerable room for improvement, including in governance, management and transparency of funding flows and community benefits.” The problem is that these caveats constitute conditions for efficacy that are hardly ever realised in practice. 

Arbitrary quotes

The Achilles heel of the hunting argument is the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, which allocates 19 of its 20 concessions to hunting. Despite this, the surrounding communities received hardly any benefits and elephants were decimated over a five-year period between 2009 and 2014. This undermines the argument that wildlife population declines would be worse without hunting.

Pointing to a small sample size of a few well-governed instances does not outweigh the evidence of hunting’s inadequacy as a conservation tool. The reason that good governance is not attained in reality is because hunting is subject to the free-rider problem.

While concession owners may have an interest in wildlife population growth, hunters themselves have every incentive to over-exploit the quotas in each concession. The quotas themselves are often thumb-sucks, as it is extremely difficult to decide that each concession, for instance, gets to shoot 20 elephants a year.

On what grounds, for instance, has the Botswana government decided that 400 is the ecologically correct number of elephants that should be shot per annum?

In an open system, the incentive to lure animals from other concessions is strong, which leaves fewer animals available for photographic tourists to see. There is a serious collective action problem here that suggests that governance reforms are incentive-incompatible with the very nature of trophy hunting. 

Science and ethics

It is peculiar that scientists think they are being true to science by ignoring their repugnance of trophy hunting. This subtly implies that ethics and science are somehow distinguishable and should be treated separately.

At best, there is a crude utilitarianism in play, where these scientists argue that the ends justify the means.

In other words, if a few animals are shot because a few wealthy people can afford to shoot them, and this ensures (speculatively) that the land is not converted to agriculture or other non-wildlife uses, then it is morally acceptable to allow trophy hunting.

But this backdoor appeal to consequentialism assumes that outcomes would be worse in the absence of hunting and ignores the importance of respect for individual animals (and the fact that removing the most impressive individuals has deleterious ecosystem and population-level impacts).  

Biodiversity loss

The letter argues that “more land has been conserved under trophy hunting than under national parks.” This may be true, though the reference is quite dated now. Even so, this does not make it self-evident that the land could not have been conserved in the absence of trophy hunting.

Land can be conserved through paying community members cash in hand for not over-exploiting it. Examples such as Carbon Tanzania demonstrate that such payments (for carbon credits, for example) can be enormously successful for conserving wild spaces. 

The letter goes on to argue that “ending trophy hunting risks land conversion and biodiversity loss.” Not ending trophy hunting carries similar risks. Shooting the elephants with the biggest tusks, for instance, means shooting the most reproductively successful animals who also play a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem functionality and herd sociology.

Shooting the lions with the biggest manes similarly undermines pride functionality. In both instances, the genetic selection effects are pronounced and problematic for biodiversity loss.

Again, the implicit assumption is that the land would not be conserved in the absence of hunting, which is untested as there is no counterfactual. The lack of a counterfactual is not an argument in favour of trophy hunting. 

Corrupt industry 

Perhaps no one will argue with the letter’s claim that “hunting reforms should be prioritized over bans unless better land-use alternatives exist.” But it suggests that hunting reforms can be effective.

The Selous example does not inspire confidence, and the extent of corruption in Botswana’s hunting industry prior to the 2014 moratorium also raises questions.

The argument also suggests that better land-use alternatives are unlikely. This simply shows a lack of development imagination. Why should we continue to depend on the global north – rich, white, wealthy elites displaying an extractive chauvinism – to throw trinkets and a bit of bushmeat to local communities? Deepening existing global inequalities instead of finding home-grown solutions is offensive. 

In addition, while trophy hunting can provide income for marginalised and impoverished people, the question is whether it should provide that income. Evidence, conveniently ignored, suggests that income from trophy hunting is full of leakage away from communities – very little of the revenue actually ends of benefiting communities.

Rural poverty is also a function of complex, interacting factors such as corrupt elites in government. Perhaps most frustrating in this argument is that trophy hunting, the colonial excesses of which created the need for establishing protected areas in the first place, disenfranchises local communities and makes them dependent on their colonial masters once more. 

Viable alternatives

The letter wrongly assumes that land-use options are binary, ignoring all manner of alternative uses. What matters is scale-appropriate planning.

For instance, in Botswana, the most important ecosystem consideration is to identify and protect migratory corridors and seasonal movements. Conservation-friendly agriculture needs to map onto the contours of these corridors.

This needs to be integrated with tourism plans. Tourism is not only photographic – self-drive options, adventure tourism and mobile camps are all alternatives to photographic safaris that have lower ecological footprints and ensure counter-poaching presence.

Areas like CT1 and 2 (aesthetically marginal) or southern Chobe would be well-served by these options, but nobody bid for them in the absence of hunting because the government did not make those options available.

Now we have this argument that the hunting ban didn’t work and therefore we need hunting again. The problem is not the lack of hunting; it’s the lack of even considering appropriate alternatives.

Management plans that consider the best ecological outcomes at the right scale also address the obvious point made in the letter that animals like lions fare worst in the absence of either photographic or hunting activities. 

Major threats

Removing trophy hunting because it is morally repugnant, ecologically destructive (for elephants and lions at least) and exacerbates dependence on wealthy whites, forces us to think about alternatives that simultaneously address the major threats to wildlife.

Major threats to wildlife include habitat destruction and fragmentation, along with the illegal wildlife trade.

Paying community members directly through a carbon credit system, for instance, is far more likely to yield ecological and economic sustainability than trophy hunting. If community members are being paid to keep migratory corridors open and farm in conservation-compatible ways, for instance, threats to wildlife will be significantly reduced.

Moreover, these alternatives avoid the governance problems associated with community trusts that are typically riddled with power politics, gatekeeping and in-fighting over how revenues are to be allocated. 

Chauvinist extraction

Trophy hunting does not provide agency or self-determination. If anything, it deepens dependency on wealthy ‘donors’ (hunters) and crowds out the importance of thinking deeply about more appropriate home-grown alternatives.

Maintaining the status quo out of fear that banning trophy hunting might not work is insulting to local African communities who are being patronised by this letter. The subtle message is that Africans are not capable of finding other ways of protecting their biodiversity and therefore need to remain dependent on chauvinist extraction to survive.

This is deeply insulting. A deeper look at the letter demonstrates a matter of stacking the decks. No argument advanced stands up on its own merits but taken together the unsuspecting reader may be persuaded of the merits of trophy hunting. This should be avoided. 

This Author 

Ross Harvey studied a B.Com in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT), where he also completed an M.Phil in Public Policy. At the end of 2018, he submitted his PhD in Economics, also at UCT. Ross is currently a freelance independent economist who works with The Conservation Action Trust.

There comes a moment in every parent’s life when your kids stop believing you are a superhero and you are brought back to earth with a bump.  

Greta’s trip to ‘the Land of the Free’ has taken that experience to a whole new, global level. She preempted the likely responses to her Sentate appearance by going on the attack against these old white people and their inaction on climate breakdown. 

Greta said: “Please save your praise. We don’t want it. Don’t invite us here to just tell us how inspiring we are without actually doing anything about it because it doesn’t lead to anything.”

Questioning everything

She continued: “If you want advice for what you should do, invite scientists, ask scientists for their expertise. We don’t want to be heard. We want the science to be heard. I know you are trying but just not hard enough. Sorry.” 

As a parent, the killer word in there is “sorry”. Nothing is worse than your children being disappointed in you.

The realisation that your parents are flawed and confused – i.e. human – is all part of growing up. It is also part of parenthood.  It gets you every time it happens and every single adult in that Senate hearing will have felt it – the idea that despite the trappings of power bestowed on them, they had failed in their fundamental duty.

This is what it means to speak truth to power. And when she gets the Nobel prize, I hope they change the inscription from ‘peace’ to ‘bluntness’. 

Greta’s speech made me question everything I have been doing to ‘influence’ and bring about political change to support action on the climate crisis.

For example, as someone who has worked for 10 years to find ways to finance the infrastructure (wind farms, solar parks, tidal etc) we need to power our civilisation without burning the deck we are standing on, the climate strike on Friday would seem counterproductive.

Climate strike

Surely, I should redouble my efforts? Work my lunch hour? Get in early and leave late? Anything but strike? 

But I now see that was missing the point. When Greta is speaking truth to power she isn’t saying how ‘green’ is aligned with their political interests. Greta is pointing out the real reason that power hasn’t listened.

Global power is based on wealth that comes from oil. Just look at the politics of the countries that produce the fossil fuels  (and importantly hold the reserves) which will turn the climate crisis into a clear and present danger for humanity.    

The politics of the climate crisis is coming to a head. It is shifting from the politics of talking to the politics of action. The need for action sets the scene for a struggle across new dividing lines which have left many political parties clutching anachronistic identities and speaking irrelevant language.

By striking for climate, I am taking sides in the struggle. And a crisis requires you to take sides. Net Zero is not an objective delivered by compromise.  

That is not to say that our response to climate crisis should be at any cost. We still need to care about justice for those affected by the transition to Net Zero and frankly, if we don’t, we will create friction and suffering that will undermine our goal.

But the time for praise and inspiration is passed. The time for action has come. And calling out those in power for their inaction is a good start. 

This Author 

Bruce Davis is managing director of Abundance Investment, which advertises with The Ecologist.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has regulated public water sources in America for 40 years. But due to underfunding and bureaucracy, the agency has failed to enforce water testing and treatment standards.

Municipalities have been forced to police themselves, with nearly 100 million cities across America drinking potentially unsafe water.

Take the Flint, Michigan crisis, for example, which came to light in 2014. To save money, city officials switched the water supply from the Detroit River to the Flint River. Lead levels skyrocketed, but the city assured citizens the water was safe to drink.

Under pressure

How was the city able to get away with serving citizens unsafe drinking water for years? The biggest reason was the use of water testing and treatment practices that violated EPA guidelines. One such method is running tap water for several minutes before gathering a sample, a technique called “pre-flushing.”

Municipalities are under more pressure than ever to improve water quality. It’s imperative to invest in updating lead pipe water systems. Cities must find a purification system that meets their safety and budgetary needs — all while removing contaminants like lead, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate). Plus, it’s imperative to invest in upgrading lead pipe water systems.

It’s up to local governments to engage with businesses and promote sustainable initiatives. Legislation should encourage transparent and efficient water use. It’s also crucial to raise awareness with citizens about their water consumption and footprint.

Governments can ensure the long-term sustainability of freshwater resources by setting maximum sustainable limits for pollution levels. They should establish water footprint goals based on best available research, practices and technology.

Many people are arguing the government must take more responsibility for the safety of the environment, including freshwater sources. When an individual makes a mindful decision to conserve water, they do a little good. However, when a government gets involved and enacts new regulations, it can jumpstart a successful sustainability movement.

A lack of freshwater resources in one city has an impact on the whole country. When a government analyzes water use in only their area, they overlook true sustainability. To see the big picture, local governments must look at both the internal and national water footprint.

Radical action

Some local governments have already stepped up to make radical efforts towards sustainability. In Philadelphia, the water authority has recommended “pre-flushing” for more than 20 years. It’s been revealed the city’s children have unusually high lead levels in their blood, four times the national average.

Three municipalities in the suburbs decided to take matters into their own hands after further contamination from the use of firefighting foam on nearby military bases. Both the cities and citizens believe the military cleanup didn’t ensure the water was safe.

Their water project includes the installation of six water filtration systems that will remove all traces of PFAS, contaminants linked to health problems like cancer. The project is almost complete and will remove pollutants in Horsham, Warrington and Warminster Townships.

In California, the water regulator recently voted to spend $1.3 billion to provide safe drinking water to communities throughout California. Water systems are failing, with an estimated 500,000 residents lacking clean water. The Central Joaquin Valley, for example, is home to 10 percent of the state’s population — and more than half the state’s unsafe public water systems.

The new budget, which uses revenue from California’s cap-and-trade program, guarantees safe drinking water through 2030. The goal is to update water treatment systems while also linking smaller local water systems to larger ones. Consolidation is designed to increase efficiencies while lowering costs. As a result, clean drinking water can reach rural parts of the state.

This Author 

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

The planet is burning. We are already at crisis point to try and make a difference, to try and salvage a decent future.

It is becoming clearer to millions of people that the way we organise our society and our economy is not suitable for sustaining life on Earth. A system based on profiteering and greed and competition to boost profit margins isn’t going to be able to adapt quickly enough to stop run away destructive climate change.

Capitalism is the kind of system where the ice caps melt and the oil companies stake a claim to the newly revealed oil reserves.

Radical change

Greta Thunberg and her Fridays for Future movement has been an inspiration. Now these young people are calling on adults – workers – to take action alongside them.

Lambeth Trades Council has called for a rally in Windrush Square on Friday 20 September from 12:30. We are calling on workers across the borough to take action, walk out of work and join us for the rally.

Trade unionists will then be sending a delegation into central London to join school students on their protest outside Milbank. We are urging people to join us in standing together, alongside workers across the world to demand action now.

This is a real opportunity for working people to stake their claim on the future. We cannot leave it to teenagers to be the brave ones. If we accept that human activity is driving climate change then it is up to us who work in that system to organise and frustrate the machinery of climate death and the point of production and distribution.

Locally we are moving in the right direction. Lambeth Council has declared a climate emergency and has committed to making the council’s operations carbon neutral by 2030. Lambeth is also calling a Citizen’s Assembly. But how can we ensure that these aren’t just tick-box, paper exercises, and that they lead to meaningful and radical change?

Local issues

And the issue isn’t just the Council. They contribute only 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the borough. Even if they did go carbon neutral before 2030, what about the rest of the local economy?

We have the Shell HQ in Lambeth after all. How can we create a culture locally of low emissions and carbon offsetting in the next few years?

Workers at Lambeth Council are in negotiations with the council about how we can make serious progress on environmental issues. This is about embedding new cultures and behaviours among staff and putting new systems in place that clearly outline how we can become carbon neutral.

All this has practical implications: when Home for Lambeth begin to knock down estates to build new housing, how are they going to offset the carbon released into the atmosphere?

An independent climate change advisor alongside a regularly convened assembly of local residents to advise and assess Lambeth council’s progress is so important. But this should be widened out too to the whole borough.

International responsibilities 

We have local issues to tackle, a national role to play in providing best practice examples but also international responsibilities.

Staff are calling on the council to ensure they are welcoming climate refugees while doing anything possible to help measures against the global displacement of peoples from their homes.

We are already beginning to see the impact of climate change on our planet. Now it is a race against time to save what we can and ensure a decent standard of living for future generations.

The politicians are prevaricating and the bosses are making money out of the crisis. It is time for working people – alongside the students – to take a stand. Everything depends on it.

This Author 

Simon Hannah is the joint branch secretary of Lambeth UNISON and a Labour Party activist. He is also the author of A Party with Socialists in it: A History of the Labour Left and the forthcoming book from Pluto, Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay: The fight to stop the Poll tax.

The world’s biggest supplier of burgers has been fuelling the destruction of the Amazon rainforest by sourcing cattle from ranches linked to deforestation – and British companies are still buying thousands of tonnes of its beef.

This article was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Marfrig, a Brazilian meat company that has supplied McDonald’s, Burger King and other huge fast food chains around the world, bought cattle from a farm using deforested land in a part of the Amazon currently ravaged by forest fires.

One of the key causes of those fires is farmers clearing land for eventual beef pasture.

Unprecedented research

Marfrig boasts of its green credentials and recently offered $500m in bonds aimed at environmentally conscious investors. Marfrig claims that none of the cattle it buys come from farms involved in deforestation and that it is the only beef company that can guarantee this.

Yet research by Repórter Brasil, working with the Bureau and the Guardian, traced cattle that the company purchased this year back to a farm that had grazed cows in an area of illegally felled rainforest.

Our investigation has also revealed the full extent of the UK’s involvement in the Amazon crisis. Nearly £1bn worth of beef supplied by Marfrig and two other meat giants which have been accused of deforestation — Minerva Foods and JBS — was directly imported to the UK in recent years.

Unprecedented research to be published today claims that the supply chains for exported beef from these three companies are between them linked to up to 500 square kilometres of deforestation every year.

Responding to our findings, Neil Parish, MP, chair of the Commons environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said: “This investigation shows the importance of supply-chain transparency, from farm to fork. We must think more carefully about the environmental impact of food and the greater degree of control we have with British made products. I’m sure British consumers will not want to be contributing to deforestation in the Amazon.”

Illegal felling

Bill McKibben, the veteran environmental campaigner, told the Bureau: “It’s hard to know what’s worse — companies that don’t acknowledge our environmental crisis at all, or those that … do so and then don’t live up to the promises they make.”

In January, inspectors from Ibama, Brazil’s environmental watchdog, found cattle from Limeira Ranch grazing on illegally deforested land inside a protected region, the Triunfo do Xingu Environmental Protection Area in Pará state. The region has been devastated by the largest number of forest fires in Brazil this year.

The land where the cattle were found had been placed under an official embargo — which prohibits grazing — three years before, due to illegal felling. Embargoes are imposed for environmental violations and serve both as a punishment and protective measure to allow land to recover.

For breaking the embargo, the ranch was fined R$ 1.19m ($300,000) this year. Despite this, documents obtained by Repórter Brasil show that 144 cattle from Limeira Ranch were subsequently supplied to a Marfrig abattoir in Tucumã, also in Pará. The company also bought cattle from the ranch on multiple occasions in late 2018. There is no evidence that the cattle Marfrig purchased were raised on illegally deforested land.

In response, Marfrig did not dispute that the ranch had broken an embargo at the time of the purchase, but said that official checks it carried out using Ibama data at the time had given the ranch the all-clear.

Sustainable transition?

A spokeswoman for Marfrig said: “Ibama issued a negative certificate assuring that on that date nothing was against the supplier … That’s the only way companies — not just Marfrig — can look for official information in real time.”

The company added that it had stopped buying from the ranch as soon as it learnt of the fine. According to documents seen by the Bureau, Ibama had publicly listed the fine on its website two weeks before the cattle purchase.

Ten years ago Marfrig committed “not to purchase any livestock originating from deforested or conservation areas”, and said in 2017 that it was tightening up its protocols for cattle purchases, adopting a system that “blocks, rather than permits, cattle purchases in the case of any doubts”.

This July Marfrig launched a controversial “transition” bond designed to tap into the growing sustainable investment market. Like “green bonds”, which allow environmentally friendly firms to raise cash, bankers have designed transition bonds for companies with the potential to clean up their practices to fund that change.

However, there is no single definition of a “sustainable transition”. Experts have suggested that the absence of minimum standards could leave the bonds open to exploitation by greenwashers – businesses seeking to exaggerate their environmental commitments.

Business as usual

Joshua Kendall, senior environmental analyst at Insight Investment, said that while the Marfrig bond showed credible sustainable objectives and a commitment to improvement, he had not invested. In his opinion, “it doesn’t go far enough beyond ‘business as usual’ spending. It also lacks indicators that would give us a sense of whether or not it has made improvements,” he said.

Limeira Ranch is not the only deforestation case that can be linked to Marfrig. According to new figures from Trase — a supply-chain initiative run by the Stockholm Environment Institute and NGO Global Canopy — Marfrig’s beef exports could be linked to up to 100 square kilometres of deforestation a year in Brazil.

Trase also calculated figures for JBS, the world’s biggest meat company, and Minerva Foods, another large global supplier of Brazilian beef. JBS beef exports could be linked to up to 300 square kilometres of deforestation per year, and Minerva Foods linked to up to 100 square kilometres, the research says.

JBS and Minerva both said they did not buy cattle from farms in deforested areas and that they had systems in place to block non-compliant suppliers.

The Trace research mapped supply chains for beef from international markets back to the specific areas of Brazil where the cattle were raised. By cross-referencing these chains with official data on new pastures, deforestation and cattle numbers, the researchers calculated a potential deforestation “risk” — presented as an area in sq km — associated with companies and even specific international markets.

Overall, up to 5,800 sq km of forest — an area four times the size of Greater London — is being felled in the Amazon and other areas annually to be converted into pasture used for cattle farming, according to the Trase report.

Food production 

The Bureau has established that Marfrig, along with Minerva Foods and JBS and their subsidiaries, has shipped at least 147,000 tonnes of beef to the UK in the past five years – enough to make 170m burgers a year.

That much meat is worth £1bn. Much of it was canned corned beef destined for supermarkets and other retailers, as well as frozen meat imported for wholesalers and manufacturers.

From there it could end up in hospital dinners, ready meals and fast food, through a chain of little-known catering and food production companies. The Bureau has identified several of these chains, including one that ends with the Ministry of Defence.

Brazilian canned beef from Marfrig or JBS has been found by the NGO Earthsight at Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl and Asda. The Bureau has also found JBS-produced canned beef at the Co-op. That can was marked with a stamp showing the beef had come from Brazil.

But the link is not always so clear, and it can be impossible for consumers to always know if their food is from companies linked to the destruction of the Amazon. JBS canned beef is also sold to NHS Supply Chain, which manages the sourcing and supply of food across the health service, including at hospital trusts.

Weddel Swift, part of the Randall Parker Food group, is hardly a household name, but it supplies meat products to caterers, wholesalers and retailers. The company has bought £30m worth of Brazilian beef since 2015 from Minerva. The group told the Bureau that only 1.5 percent of its sales had come from Brazil and that it has only imported £240,000 worth of beef this year. Weddel Swift also said it believes Minerva is a responsible beef producer.

Bolstering profits 

Earthsight discovered that beef from Minerva was being supplied to the Ministry of Defence, but the department could also be feeding soldiers JBS beef as well. Vestey Foods, which holds the catering contract for Armed Forces personnel on active deployment in the UK, buys Brazilian beef from JBS.

The MoD said it did not directly contract with Minerva or JBS, and added that it was working with suppliers “to address any concerns surrounding the recent link between sourcing beef from Brazil and deforestation.”

It is impossible to trace specific cans of Brazilian corned beef or a supermarket cottage pie directly back to fields burned out of the Amazon rainforest. Many retailers insist their supply chains contain only sustainable beef, but continue to bolster the profits of businesses which have been linked to deforestation.

Toby Gardner, the Trase director, said that all those involved in the Brazilian beef chain needed to act: “Buyers, whether traders, processors, retailers, need to demand and invest in transparency systems that can guarantee they are sourcing from areas that have not been recently deforested, whilst at the same time working to support producers’ shift to more sustainable and at the same time more productive systems.”

In a statement to the Bureau, Minerva Foods said: “100 percent of Minerva’s purchases come from zero-deforestation areas … Our sustainability department blocks any suppliers that are not compliant … which effectively means that Minerva can’t buy any animals coming from these suppliers.”

Cattle procurements

The company also said all of its cattle procurements were completed after checks on the supplier ranches using public government databases on embargoed areas. It said it has blocked more than 2,000 cattle suppliers who were found not to be in compliance with standards.

JBS told us: “We have a zero deforestation policy in the Amazon and prohibit cattle from deforested farms in the region from entering our supply chain … To date, more than 7,000 potential suppliers have been blocked from our system.”

They added that a recent audit found 100 percent of their cattle purchases were in compliance with their responsible sourcing policies.

Responding to the findings on behalf of supermarkets Aldi, Sainsbury’s, Asda and The Co-op, Leah Riley Brown, of the British Retail Consortium, said: “Illegal deforestation is completely unacceptable, and retailers are collaborating to tackle deforestation and drive greater uptake of certified sustainable products in their supply chains.”

Supply chain

Burger King said: “Our goal is to eliminate deforestation within our global supply chain, and we are working toward this” and that all their suppliers were required to comply with their sustainability and forest protection policies.

McDonald’s said it aimed to eliminate deforestation from its global supply chains by 2030 and that it had “made a commitment not to purchase raw material from any farm in the Amazon … linked with deforestation”.

NHS Supply Chain said: “We are committed to procuring products responsibly and sustainably and actively work with our suppliers on important issues such as sustainability.”

This Author

André Campos, Andrew Wasley, and Alexandra Heal work with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 

Black carbon particles have been found on the baby’s side of the placenta in women exposed to air pollution during pregnancy, scientists say.

But further research is needed to determine whether they are able to reach the foetus.

Researchers say particle transfer across the placenta has been suggested before – but to date, no direct evidence in real-life, human context exists.

Exposed

An observational study published in Nature Communications looked at 28 women.

Professor Tim Nawrot, of Hasselt University in Belgium, and colleagues used high-resolution imaging to detect black carbon particles in placentae collected from five pre-term and 23 full-term births.

They found that 10 mothers who had been exposed to high levels of residential black carbon particles – 2.42 micrograms per cubic metre – during pregnancy had higher levels of particles in the placenta than 10 mothers exposed to low levels of residential black carbon – 0.63 micrograms per cubic metre.

Particles

Black carbon particles are released every day into the air, largely from the combustion of fossil fuels. It is thought these can have detrimental effects on pregnancy outcome.

Researchers say it is important to understand how these particles affect pregnancy – through direct effects on the foetus or indirect effects through the mother – to improve pregnancy care in polluted areas.

The authors wrote: “Our results demonstrate that the human placental barrier is not impenetrable for particles.

Wellbeing

“Our observation based on exposure conditions in real-life is in agreement with previously reported ex vivo and in vivo studies studying the placental transfer of various nanoparticles.”

Andrew Shennan, Professor of Obstetrics, King’s College London (KCL), said: “Small particles, such as through smoking, can cause considerable disease related to the placenta, and these findings of particles in the placenta are a concern.

“Their possible effects on the baby and mother warrant further investigation. The placenta is the interface between mother and baby and is key to nourishing and supporting all the needs of the baby.

“Both the function and structure of the placenta is important, not only to the baby’s growth and wellbeing, but also to that of the mother. High blood pressure and fits in pregnancy have been linked to household pollution.”

This Author

Nina Massey is the PA science correspondent.

Two thirds of people believe in the need to curb air travel to tackle climate change, a survey suggests.

More than a third (37 percent) of those quizzed are very or extremely worried about climate change, up from just a fifth (20 percent) three years ago, the poll for the new Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) found.

Almost half of more than 2,000 adults questioned by YouGov for the centre, which is led by scientists from Cardiff University, felt they had become much or slightly more worried about climate change than they were 12 months ago.

Cut down

When asked why their views had changed, people cited reasons including extreme weather events, greater media coverage and a sense of a lack of political and society-wide action to tackle climate change.

Two thirds (67 percent) agreed that people should definitely or probably limit the amount of flying they do, while just 15 percent thought such a move was not needed.

Just over half thought people should cut down on the amount of meat in their diets to address climate change. A total of 37 percent thought it was not necessary.

Footprint

The £5 million centre, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), is a collaboration between Cardiff, Manchester, York and East Anglia Universities, and the charity Climate Outreach.

It will explore ways people can act to directly cut their own carbon emissions and influence other people and policies, focusing on food and diet, transport and mobility, consumption of goods and heating and cooling.

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, director of the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations said: “Our new survey findings make clear that most people feel climate change is an urgent issue, and are willing to make significant changes to their own lifestyles to help tackle it.”

She said changing travel and food habits were among the most significant things individuals could do to reduce their carbon footprint, and said “it’s very encouraging that there’s support amongst the public for making these changes”.

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

The Art of Activism​ is a multi-artist exhibition and fundraiser for Friends of the Earth, which takes inspiration from the whimsical, darkly humorous placards that people create for demonstrations.

Friends of the Earth partnered with theprintspace and The Guardian to ask the public to submit artworks that demonstrate their passion for curbing the irreversible damage being done to our planet.

The shortlisted artworks will be exhibited at theprintspace Gallery over the next month. Artworks will also be offered as fine-art prints via The Guardian, with all profits going to Friends of the Earth to continue protecting the planet through their vital work.

Attention grabbing

Muna Suleiman, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Friends of the Earth has a long history of environmental activism at a grassroots level. Time and time again we’ve found that the voices of people and communities can lead to big changes for the good.

“Art and design have always been important in activism, making sure that campaigns and demands grab people’s attention and settle in their memory. We’re excited to team up with theprintspace to celebrate the passion of artists and activists, and can’t wait to see people’s creations!” 

Stuart Waplington, CEO of theprintspace, said: “The climate crisis is real and immediate. Change must happen now if we are to have a hope of achieving a sustainable society.

“At theprintspace it’s fair to say we have had a massive realisation that this problem is so urgent that it requires everyone to act immediately. As Greta Thunberg says, I don’t want your hope, I want you to panic.” 

The press statement added: “It would be nice to think that governments might act on the current crisis we face, but so far they have proved woefully unable to grasp the seriousness of the task.

“They talk about what is possible rather than what is absolutely necessary, so it now falls to us to ditch the cult of individualism and unite as a community to save the future of our planet.”

The open call for submissions has now closed. Opening night is this Thursday 19 September at theprintworks, 7.30-9.30. The exhibition and charity print sale will run from 20 September to 15 October 2019. 

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from theprintspace. 

Image: Fabric Florin, Flickr. 

The Women’s Environmental Network (Wen) is advocating #PeriodAction, by leading a revolution for healthy eco-friendly menstrual products to be used by all.

Wen’s Environmenstrual​ Coalition​ was founded in 2017 and is made up of 50 organisations and activists, including WI and Friends of the Earth, that aim to make plastic pollution from periods a thing of the past. 

Plastic seems to be a predominant material used in mainstream menstrual products, from the wrappings to the plastic applicators. It has been estimated that u​p to​ 90 percent of a menstrual pad and 6 percent of a tampon is plastic.

Plastic waste

Women and individuals who menstruate in the UK use 11,000 disposable menstrual products in their reproductive lifetime.​ T​hese products include tampons, menstrual pads and panty liners that are all single-use.

​ 2​00,000 tonnes of waste is produced per year​. It ends up on landfills (if thrown in the bin) or in the sea and rivers (if flushed down the toilet) where it will break up into microplastics that take up to 1,000 years to decompose.​ 

Not only does this plastic waste damage the environment (s​uch as killing up to a million seabirds and 100,000 sea mammals and marine turtles as well as countless fish each year​), but using products that are made up of plastic can have devastating impacts on human health too.

But it’s not just plastic that is the issue. Non-organic menstrual products are made from cotton sprayed with chemical pesticides, which not only have a detrimental effect on workers producing cotton, but pesticide residues have been found in menstrual pads and tampons.

In addition, the raw ingredient (wood pulp) used to make menstrual pads, is bleached white to remove its natural brown colour. This ‘purification’ process can generate dioxin, which is one of the most highly toxic and persistent chemicals known and has been linked to reproductive disorders and cancer.

Period justice 

As part of the Environmenstrual campaign, Wen has invited individuals, groups, schools, universities and organisations nationally, to take part in the​ E​nvironmenstrual Week of Action​ which will be held from the 12 – 19 October 2019.

The theme of this year’s Week of Action is influencing change, to show how plastic-free movements are linked to period justice.

Natasha Basheer-Piette, Environmenstrual Campaign Manager, said: “We are really excited about this year’s Environmenstrual Week of Action. There is real momentum for change.

“Sainsbury’s has recently announced the removal of plastic tampon applicators from its own range. But we need more manufacturers to come on board and for people to shop with their feet, by trying reusable period products.”

Events will be held around the country, raising awareness of the impact of plastic in menstrual products  while showcasing alternative plastic-free options.

Wen has created adownloadable​ toolkit​ that has detailed advice and resources on how to run an event for the Week of Action. Ideas include, film screenings, creating washable pads, quiz nights, beach cleans and fundraising activities.

Get involved 

Participants can​ r​egister​ their events online as well as check for events happening in their local area. Also contained in the toolkit are letter templates and social media posts, so that people can easily contact manufacturers and retailers, to demand that plastic be removed from single use period products.

Through the Environmenstrual Week of Action, Wen wants to break the taboo surrounding periods. People will be encouraged to try reusable menstrual products, for example menstrual cups, washable pads, period pants or to make the switch to using plastic free and organic single-use options.

To motivate individuals to try a #plasticfreeperiod, Wen have a​ s​upplier list​ and​ d​iscount vouchers​ for plastic free products. Wen also has a​ w​ashable pad pattern​ available to print and suggest that consumers read the​ ​ethical consumer product guide​.

To celebrate this movement, Wen will be hosting the Environmenstrual Festival on Wednesday 16 October at Amnesty International UK in London. The festival will be held from 6.30pm-9.30pm, with guests able to browse stalls, take part in interactive workshops and hear a panel discussion with guest speakers.

Tickets​ for the festival are £10 early bird and thereafter £15. Concession prices are available. You can find the link for booking tickets through​ ​Eventbrite.​

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Women’s Environmental Network. 

A sky-blackening 75,000 forest fires were recorded in the Amazon in the first eight months of 2019, a 76 percent increase on the same period last year, according to the National Institute for Space Research.

What must this catastrophe have looked like from outer space? A signal flare; a war raging; a cry for help.

Let’s be clear about how this happened, and who it hurts. Policy is being weaponized against indigenous communities who have called the fires an “atrocity”. Since assuming power this year, President Bolsonaro has presided over a swift and brutal regime of forest clearances and illegal logging. He has flagrantly abused the legal controls in place for the Amazon’s protection, using inflammatory words to claim populist power. This has provided fuel for the work of loggers, miners and agribusiness profiteers.

Unimaginable scale 

Forest fires in the Amazon are almost always caused by human activity. Logging companies penetrate the forest first, exposing the understory to the sun and leaving a trail of giant kindling behind them. Forests are then flattened for cattle ranches and soy bean fields, where a breath-taking abundance of life once thrived.

Hundreds of thousands of indigenous people call the Amazon home; it is their house first and foremost which is ablaze; and their children’s future going up in smoke.

We must learn from the indigenous communities’ experiences, and their centuries of local resistance. We must protest globally, in the knowledge that the Amazon is central to a safe climate for the Earth.

Not only is the Amazon rainforest crucial to regulating the world’s climate, it is the home to a vast diversity of wildlife, with new species discovered every year. With an area larger than Greater London deforested in July alone, some 870 square miles, the issue is not merely one of damaging arson but of ecocide.

The world’s most biodiverse region is being destroyed on an unimaginable scale: hundreds of thousands of species – all in flames.

Collective action 

Standing with the Amazon’s indigenous communities and its wildlife, we must fight back against the deforestation – caused by chainsaw or fire – with the non-violent channels afforded us.

We must expose those companies that still drive deforestation and demand transparency through their supply chains, demanding proof that the products they produce or sell are not implicated in this violent environmental vandalism and abuse of human rights.

Traders and consumers in Europe have a clear role to play in the battle for the rainforest: we can take away the money and with it much of the power of invasive agribusiness. Brazil’s Indigenous People Articulation has a blacklist that shows where not to buy your beef, but since 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the livestock sector, giving up beef altogether is an easy and effective thing you can do for the climate and an action each of us should take.

Supporting the Amazon from afar requires collective action. Facing up to corporations and governments can feel overwhelming, but there are pathways of communication: urge your elected representatives to block trade deals with countries destroying their forests, engage in protest and activism and amplify the voices of those in the global south feeling the worst impacts of climate change.

We won’t get many warnings this big. We are still in the 12 year window of reversibility, capable of limiting this climate change catastrophe. For the indigenous people, for the thousands of species, the world must stand in solidarity and act in support.

Get involved

In the eloquent words of Elaine Brum, Brazilian journalist and novelist: “Bolsonaro is not just a threat to the Amazon. He is a threat to the planet, precisely because he is a threat to the Amazon.

“Confronted with Bolsonarism’s accelerated forces of destruction, all of us, of all nationalities, must emulate the enslaved Africans who rebelled against their oppressors. We must forge communities like those established by Brazil’s escaped slaves.” 

So what can you do? First: hold your elected representatives accountable. Are they doing enough to prevent the mass extinction of the world’s wildlife and the climate crisis? Next, get involved and support organisations that fight for forests around the world. 

It’s fundamental that we also avoid beef. Around 80 percent of the Amazon that has been deforested since the 1960s – approximately 900,000 km2 ­– is now used as pasture for cattle. All meats have a climate impact but beef is by far the highest.

And finally, demand more of your retailers – are the supply chains of the food and products you buy free from deforestation?

This Author 

Steve Trent is the executive director of Environmental Justice Foundation.