Agriculture could hold the key to tackling the climate emergency and meeting the Government’s net zero goals, the head of an environment-focused industry body says, but political uncertainty is holding the industry back.

Read: The farms attempting to reverse wildlife decline

Martin Lines, chairman of the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN), said farmers had received “plenty of warm words” from the government but no long-term funding guarantees for projects to help them capture carbon and reverse habitat loss.

Speaking to the PA news agency, he said: “When it comes to tackling the climate emergency, farmers on the ground can react the quickest.

Rewilding

“We are calling for additional support and more money to direct towards those that can deliver the climate change mitigation opportunities.”

Founded just two years ago, the NFFN has over 1,000 members and is growing all the time as more farmers look for cost-effective ways to combat issues such as declining soil quality and erosion.

But it is still tiny when compared to the rest of UK agriculture, which is comprised of an estimated 220,000 holdings operated by around 120,000 businesses and accounts for 70 percent of all land.

The NFFN thinks the quickest way to mobilise the rest of the industry to fight climate change is a clear system of payments for helping implement the Government’s environmental policies.

Private projects such as rewilding farms and country estates have met with resistance from farmers, but the NFFN wants to see policy that empowers them.

Transition

“Many of the projects for rewilding are top down, if we can go from the bottom up and get farmers engaged and delivering, then things happen quickly,” Mr Lines said. “Farmers don’t like being told how to manage their farms or that they are doing things wrong.”

The NFFN supports the Government’s mooted £3 billion “public money for public goods policy” that would see farmers rewarded for projects such as carbon capture and flood mitigation.

But Mr Lines said political uncertainty – particularly the future of Brexit and the likelihood of a general election in the near future – is making farmers hesitate.

“We get many warm words from the Government but we know this Government might not be in place for the duration set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act – we need long term funding guarantees,” he said.

In its latest report published on Thursday, the NFFN found 90 percent of its members think the industry is under-resourced to transition to sustainable food production at scale.

Capital

A further 54 percent did not trust the Government to deliver on the public money for public goods policy, while 49 percent did not think the £3 billion earmarked for the policy would be enough.

Accelerating climate change is also a barrier to investment as farmers are unsure how best to future-proof their businesses.

Mr Lines said: “Many are aware that the system they are farming in for the long term will not be sustainable, but they are unsure in which direction to go.

“We have the uncertainty of future funding but also we have the big uncertainty of climate change and the question of what kind of system we need to put in place.”

He added: “We have limited amounts of capital investment available, and we need certainty and direction to invest our money and also the public’s money in delivering the climate mitigation, the wildlife improvement and that future food security that we need.”

Climate

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “We know farmers are crucially important stewards of our natural environment and have a key role to play in helping the UK reach our tough net zero target.

“That’s why we’re reforming agricultural policy and allocating millions to support our hard-working farmers for taking action that locks up carbon and cuts emissions.

“This includes a £15 million fund to invest in new innovative technology to help them meet the daunting job of feeding the nation while coping with the effects of our changing climate.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter with PA.

The idea of banning fracking isn’t new. But, as calls increase around the world for fossil fuel divestment, bans on hydraulic fracking have entered the political mainstream as a very real election issue both in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Putting fossil fuels behind us for good, despite the now-well-publicised urgency of doing so, has proven an uphill battle. Entrenched interests in the oil and gas community have doubled down on fracking as a way to “pivot” to renewables. The practice is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases compared to coal, but it also keeps us dependent on fossil fuels.

It would be good if fracking did help us lower carbon emissions compared to previous levels, but it brings potential trouble of its own, including earthquakes and water and air contamination. Maybe fracking really is the “coal killer” people say it is. But are renewables the “fracking killer”?

Fracking advantages

Fracking is one method of obtaining natural gas. Per unit of energy, natural gas yields in the United States roughly half the carbon emissions as burning coal. Fracking also doesn’t require the level of visible destruction that open-pit mines and mountaintop removal procedures do.

With natural gas cheaper for utilities to deploy and more efficient in generating power, it’s easy to see why natural gas has filled out the areas in America’s energy portfolio where coal used to reside. Coal-based power plants cannot realistically compete any longer.

Natural gas power plants perform capably during periods of high demand in a way that nuclear and coal plants cannot. As solar and wind production ebb and flow, natural gas-based power plants can come online very quickly and fill in any supply shortfalls.

For these reasons, fracking and renewable energy generation have enjoyed simultaneous growth over the last several years. Over a decade, renewable electricity capacity in the US doubled even as natural gas investments continued. Natural gas has helped us divest from coal and its huge carbon footprint, and it seems to provide a solution for renewables’ few apparent shortcomings.

However, saying that investment in fracking today “encourages” investment in renewable energies like solar and wind is a little disingenuous.

Fracking downsides

One of the big arguments against fracking is that it keeps us dependent on fossil fuels. At a time when scientists say there is a literal ticking clock counting down to the end of farming and the apparent heat-death of planet earth, many argue it’s time to put fossil fuels behind us for good. Investing here feels increasingly like a backward-looking endeavor.

Fracking is seen as a net positive because it helps keep oil and gas prices manageable while we shift away from coal. But it’s also a huge problem for those same reasons: Low oil and gas prices mean there’s little profit motive in finding more efficient automobile technology and improved batteries.

Indeed, as fracking has grown in popularity, automotive conglomerates have increased, rather than decreased, lobbying to keep mile-per-gallon regulations low for American cars and emissions regulations high. If fracking was at any point intended to be a measure to “buy ourselves time” as we solve the transportation emissions and electric car problems, it seems that mission has been entirely subverted by industrialists.

Moreover, researchers are sounding alarm bells about wastewater production in the oil and gas sector and the remarkable speed with which fracking activities can reduce or dangerously deplete local water tables. Some 17 million Americans live within a mile of a fracking site. Proximity to wells correlates with low-birth-weight babies and other health problems.

Estimates also say fracking in the U.S. is single-handedly responsible for around half the global increase in methane emissions and leaks over the past decade. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and another one that industries don’t want regulated. Even as it helps reduce the greenhouse gases in our energy portfolio once emitted by coal, it’s doing damage of its own in other ways.

Controversy continues

Will renewables ever replace fracking? The U.S. produced more electricity using natural gas than it did using any other method in 2018, with 34 percent of the energy portfolio. In 2018, nuclear energy stood at 19 percent and renewables stood at 20 percent. But even among industry insiders, there are worries that the low energy prices supported by fracking are “artificially” low and that they can only increase from here.

Moreover, the balance may already have shifted. In Los Angeles’ Power and Water department made the decision to build a solar farm with battery storage instead of a natural gas power plant. Making the decision to embrace renewables will mean Los Angeles can produce electricity for half the cost of natural gas. When our electric grids become capable of storing as much electricity in batteries (for high-demand, low-supply periods) as would be supplied by natural gas, we will have no practical need for fracking any longer.

The cost-effectiveness of renewables may not be uniform everywhere right now. But we can say with some certainty that the average cost for renewables will only fall, while the average cost to spool up a new natural gas plant can only increase. There is also ample evidence that renewable energy projects enjoy far more support from the population than fracking projects — sometimes fully twice as much support.

According to climate scientists, the planet cannot afford new oil and gas projects if we’re to realize our collective climate goals. Fracking came along at an important moment and helped us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and get close to divesting ourselves of coal.

Now, renewables and fracking share a mutually beneficial relationship. Shortly, however, we’re likely to look back at fracking as the “booster rocket” we needed that got us to something better. In this case, the “something better” is a future powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

This Author 

Emily Folk is a regular contributor to The Ecologist, a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

Intensive agriculture is among the factors blamed for the steep decline in wildlife native to the UK and Ireland since the 1970s, but the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN) is determined to reverse the trend. Here are some of the farms doing their bit.

Read: Agriculture ‘key in meeting net zero carbon targets’

Charlie Cole, Broughgammon Farm, Moyle, Northern Ireland – “We have species-rich acid grasslands which we graze sensitively to ensure optimal conditions for plants and wildlife.

“We’ve restored a network of hedges and pockets of woodland around the farm. We’re in the process of establishing a farm rotation through our good fields to benefit soil health and contribute to carbon storage.”

Holistic

David Lord, Earls Hall Farm, Essex – “Arable farmers are seeing huge benefits from using cover crops in between cash crops.

“In the intervening six-month period between harvesting our wheat crop and sowing our next crop, we grow a diverse mix of plant species which pulls carbon and nitrogen from the air, improves soil health and provides a great habitat for wildlife, including wading birds, lapwings and curlews.”

Sorcha Lewis, Troedrhiwdrain Farm, Mid-Wales – “We’ve planted a Ffridd habitat for the Welsh Clearwing moth, introduced fruiting trees for the wintering birds and installed a pond which is home to water voles.

“We have peat bogs which capture carbon and our stock is grass fed all year round which reduces our carbon footprint.”

Lynn Cassells, Lynbreck Croft, Cairngorms National Park, Scotland – “We take a holistic approach to farming and avoid chemicals: that means no fertilisers, no pesticides and no herbicides.

Fertiliser

“We use regenerative grazing practices to improve the health of our soil and ensure we only have breeds that are suited to our land.”

Gethin Owen, Nant-yr-Efail, Abergele, North Wales – “We have implemented a mixed farming approach, trying to be as self-sufficient as possible.

“Growing red and white clover minimises the amount of fertiliser we need to buy and protects the soil.”

Michael Meharg, Fortfarm, County Antrim, Northern Ireland – “We’ve planted over 5km of hedges and around 1.5 hectares of woodland with 2,000 trees.

“We manage our grasslands with zero artificial fertiliser input and delay cutting to protect the Irish hare. Recently we’ve incorporated a 20kw solar farm to generate clean energy.”

Lapwing

Neil Heseltine, Hilltop Farm, north Yorkshire, England – “We have created hay meadows, which support a rich mixture of flowers and grasses and provide valuable nesting habitat for birds.

“We make sure we leave sufficient time before we mow to allow the ground nesting birds to lay eggs and give the fledglings time to fly away. Perhaps the most noticeable change has been the growth of plant life on the farm.

“There were plants that I didn’t even know existed until we started putting some of our nature friendly practices in place.

“These plants provide a habitat for invertebrates, allowing birds to follow. We regularly see red-listed species including curlew, lapwing and skylark.”

Adopting

Polly Davies, Slade Farm, St Brides Major, South Wales – “Through the provision of overwintered stubbles for birds, red clover fields for bees and wild mouse drips for small mammals, we support farmland wildlife so it can flourish.

“The farm is organic so we don’t spray pesticides or herbicides and we reduce our impacts by managing nutrients through farm land manure and green waste.

“By managing hedgerows on a two-year cycle, the red-listed yellowhammer populations have increased significantly.”

Nick Rau, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The NFFN is showing how agriculture can help fix the climate emergency, reverse nature decline and produce high quality food.

“By adopting nature friendly solutions such as more trees on farms, less intensive and better quality meat and dairy we can work towards a farming system that is better for the planet.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter with PA.

The government’s plan to establish the UK shale gas industry through the controversial process of fracking is taking longer than expected, a new report has said.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report comes amid ongoing public concern over the effects of fracking on the environment and public health.

Fracking is the process of extracting gas and oil from shale rock wells by using highly pressurised water, sand and chemicals.

Costs

In 2016, the Cabinet Office said it expected that up to 20 wells would have been fracked by mid-2020, but only three have been fracked to date.

Site operators have said the system to protect against the risk of earthquakes is stricter than that used internationally and claim that this has hindered their ability to develop the industry, the report said.

The NAO also found that operations have proved costly for local authorities and police forces, which manage anti-fracking protests, traffic disruption and general public safety at the sites.

The report estimated that at least £32.7 million had been spent by public bodies since 2011, although the full costs are not known.

Three local forces have incurred costs; Lancashire Constabulary, North Yorkshire Police, and Nottinghamshire Police.

Untested

Lancashire Constabulary reported that between 25 and 100 officers were “directly involved” in the policing of fracking sites every day between January 2017 and June 2019, at a cost of £11.8 million.

Public concern about fracking operations centres around greenhouse gas emissions, groundwater pollution and fracking-induced earthquakes.

Francis Egan, the chief executive of Cuadrilla, the only company to have fracked a well in the UK, said it was right that the government invests in a “major national resource”. But he recognised that the industry needs to work on building public support.

In August this year, a tremor measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale was detected at a Cuadrilla fracking site near Blackpool, the largest ever recorded at the site. Fracking has been indefinitely suspended since.

The report states that landowners may ultimately be liable for the decommissioning costs of fracking sites, should an operator be unable to cover them, but arrangements are “unclear and untested”.

Ban

Following its publication, shadow business and energy secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, condemned the fracking operations.

“The Tory-Lib Dem coalition and now the Tory government have wasted millions pushing an industry that is unpopular across the UK and fiercely opposed locally,” she said.

“Fracking threatens air and water quality, and it contributes to the climate crisis. And as this report reveals, the Government’s plan for making fracking sites safe after they’ve been used is unclear and untested.

“Well let me be crystal clear, Labour will ban fracking immediately.”

Safe

The report added that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) felt that climate change objectives could be met while developing shale gas, but that the necessary technology had not yet been developed.

Greenpeace UK chief scientist Doug Parr said the government has “wasted well over £1 per UK household propping up a pointless and divisive pursuit of a fossil fuel that our commitments to decarbonisation mean we can hardly use”.

A spokesman for BEIS said: “The government has always said shale gas exploration can only proceed as long as it is safe and environmentally responsible.

“The Oil and Gas Authority will soon publish a finalised scientific assessment of recent industry data and we will set out our future approach as soon as we have considered the findings.”

This Author

Mike Bedigan is a reporter with PA.

The winner of England’s Tree of the Year contest has been announced as the “spectacular” Allerton Oak in Liverpool.

The tree in Calderstones Park received more than 34 percent of the 11,000 votes cast in the annual competition, run by the Woodland Trust.

Members of the public were asked to nominate trees with fascinating stories.

Unique

The Colchester Castle Sycamore, growing on the walls of the Essex stronghold, came second while the mythical Dragon Tree on the Isle of Wight was a “close third”.

There are separate winners from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but judges confirmed the Allerton Oak will represent the UK in the European Tree of the Year contest which begins in February.

So far no British tree has scooped the top prize at European level, although Wales’s Brimmon Oak has come close, earning second place in 2017.

Award-winning horticulturist and TV personality David Domoney, who has supported the competition throughout, said: “Working with the Woodland Trust on its Tree of the Year campaign is a real pleasure.

“The entrants this year have been outstanding and illustrate perfectly the unique nature of our native trees. I wish the tree the best of luck as it enters the European Tree of the Year competition. Please vote for the British tree.”

Greener

The tree has a colourful history – it is mentioned in the Domesday Book and local legend tells of a medieval court, known as a Hundred Court, that met under its branches as local officials had no courthouse.

Liverpool City Council is working in partnership with the Mersey Forest to preserve the Allerton Oak. The council has already invested around £70,000 this year, but the value of the tree is “conservatively estimated” at more than £500,000.

Adam Cormack, Woodland Trust head of campaigning, said: “The Allerton Oak is a spectacular example of a city tree.

“Trees are an important part of the urban landscape helping to make our towns and cities better places to live. We are keen to increase understanding of their value and promote their protection.

“We are currently working with partners to help increase tree cover in the city and make Liverpool a greener place to live.”

This Author

Mike Bedigan is a reporter with PA.

Sir David Attenborough, president emeritus of The Wildlife Trusts, has made a short film with the charity to provide answers to the State of Nature partnership’s latest warnings of continued, devastating wildlife declines in the UK.

In the film, Sir David calls for powerful new laws to ensure the UK’s wild places can thrive once more and for a Nature Recovery Network.

Sir David Attenborough says in the film: “A wildlife-rich natural world is vital for our wellbeing and survival. We need wild places to thrive.” 

Recovery network 

Attenborough continues: “Yet many of our systems and laws have failed the natural world. We now live in one of the most nature depleted places on the planet.

“Nature urgently needs our help to recover – and it can be done. By joining up wild places and creating more across the UK we would improve our lives and help nature to flourish – because everything works better when it’s connected.

“Now is the time to tell our politicians that we need a Nature Recovery Network set in law. A legally binding network for nature would mean that wildlife is prioritised when managing our land and planning our towns. Powerful new environmental laws can ensure habitats are expanded and reconnected meaning all life will thrive once more.

“It’s time to turn things around. Nature is capable of extraordinary recovery but we must act now! Tell your politicians now is the time to put nature into recovery. Everything works better when it’s connected.”

The film urges people to take action for a wilder future. It follows on from an earlier film created by The Wildlife Trusts, also narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which retold the children’s tale The Wind in the Willows to highlight the problems faced by UK wildlife. This new film goes one step further by providing a tangible solution.

Recover and thrive

Nikki Williams, director of campaigns and policy at The Wildlife Trusts, said: “Nature is in big trouble but we know how to bring it back. Local action is already making a real difference and now the government needs to play its part.

“We need a Nature Recovery Network established in law – one that is locally developed and nationally connected – this would help join up our last remaining wild places by creating vital new habitats.

“It’s time to make nature a normal part of childhood again and restore wildlife so it can recover and thrive across urban jungles and the countryside once more – where it can be part of people’s daily lives.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Wildlife Trusts. 

Dr Laurence Vaughn, an engineering expert and director of noise mapping company Quiet Places, has criticised Bristol International Airport’s measurement of its environmental noise pollution.

Dr Vaughn has measured real-time decibel levels around the airport to be almost double that recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

He said: “Bristol International Airport is supposed to be operating within the planning condition of 57 decibels. With my measurements I’m getting peak levels of 75 decibels locally but according to the airport we are not even supposed to be affected by its noise.

“Last year a WHO report recommended aircraft noise levels reduce below 40 decibels as noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.”

Environmental assessments

The Department of Health (DoH) recommends an independent Health Impact Assessment (HIA) be carried out before approval of any planning application for airport expansion to ensure the health of the local population is not put at risk by the commercial pursuit of economic benefits. 

However, as these environmental assessments are undertaken by airport operators there are concerns about a lack of transparency and objectivity. Bristol Airport undertook its own assessment.

Bristol International Airport, owned and run by the Canadian-based Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, is seeking permission to handle up to twelve million passengers annually by 2025, with a potential increase to 20 million. 

The expansion would mean 97, 373 aircraft movements in a 12-month calendar period: a flight almost every three minutes and an average of 9,500 extra vehicle movements every day.

Quiet Places aims to help property buyers assess local environmental noise levels, in much the same way as buyers calculate running costs of homes or businesses. 

Noise pollution

Dr Vaughn gathers information about air, road and rail traffic and using analytical software creates an accurate environmental noise level map. 

A recently published Government environmental requirements document called CAP 1616 and 1616A could allow changed airspace routes above the regional airport with potential detrimental effects on noise.

Dr Vaughn added: “The Government also evaluated the commercial and health costs of noise pollution so developers have to submit noise impact data. 

“In my opinion, Bristol International Airport is failing to recognise the impact of existing noise pollution on communities let alone changes they are proposing. Noise pollution has been shown to extend to Keynsham and Yatton, yet the Airport has only produced limited modelling of ground, air and traffic noise close to the airport.

“The Airport has failed to assess noise impact from additional 24,000+ flights required to service 12 million passengers. Aircraft noise will also alter bird breeding patterns, disturb wildlife and damage sensitive ecosystems.”

Airport expansion

If the airport expansion is given the green light, there will be a flight movement on average every 3.5 minutes, sixteen hours a day. An increase from 8 to 17 an hour. An estimated extra 5,453 dwellings – up to 20,000 people in North Somerset – will be affected by airport noise. There are set to be 4,000 night-flights between the hours of 23:30 and 06:00 with no seasonal restrictions.

Studies in Europe and UK demonstrate aircraft noise has substantial effects on cardiovascular disease including hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and stroke. Night noise disturbs sleep and causes increased blood pressure as stress hormone levels rise.

Air pollution, with a marked increase in road traffic to the airport, is likely to act in conjunction with aircraft noise to induce pulmonary disease in children.

A German study revealed that a day-time average sound level of 60 decibels increased coronary heart disease by 61 percent in men and 80 percent in women. A night-time average sound level of 55 decibels increased the risk of heart attacks by 66 percent in men and 139 percent in women. 

The WHO states that the learning of children in primary schools near airports is adversely affected by noise.

Laurence added: “It cannot be right to give the go-ahead to the airport expansion when it is clearly going to affect the health of people region-wide.”

This Author 

Melanie Greenwood is a freelance journalist. 

German energy giant RWE – Europe’s biggest carbon emitter, and owner of some of Germany’s most polluting coal plants and mines – has announced a new ‘green’ image campaign, with a major renewables buyout and a new 2040 carbon neutrality target.

RWE wooed the media at a press conference designed to assure investors its business is suitable for the 21st century. But critics were quick to point out that its 2038 coal phase-out date would come nearly a decade too late to align with the Paris climate goals – or to satisfy investors demanding RWE quits coal.

Even as its CEO took the podium in Essen, a new campaign was being launched at another press conference in North Rhine-Westphalia, historically one of Germany’s core mining regions – about the human rights impacts of RWE’s ongoing coal exploitation activities.

Human rights

“Menschenrecht vor Bergrecht” – human rights not mining rights – is a group made up of several families from villages that RWE is still determined to demolish in its quest to mine coal.

Under the villages of Keyenberg, Kuckum, Berverath and Westrich lies a reserve of lignite – heavy, polluting coal – that the company wants to use to feed the nearby coal power plants of Niederaußem and Neurath, two of the EU’s biggest and dirtiest coal plants. 

The whole area would be turned into a vast opencast mine – an expansion of the notorious Garzweiler mine, which already spreads over almost 50km2.

The villagers have decided they will not be moved – and to defend their homes and communities, they’ll go all the way to court if they have to.

In the words of Forbes – it’s a “PR nightmare” waiting to happen for the ‘new RWE’ campaign.

Evictions

The members of Menschenrecht vor Bergrecht are refusing to sell a piece of land to RWE. In their formal refusal to RWE to negotiate over this land, they asked the company instead to reconsider its ambition to flatten whole villages for mining. They want to see a public statement that no one else will be forced to sacrifice their home to coal.

Given RWE’s rebrand, cancelling the demolition plans seems like an obvious move.

But if the company fails to do so, the only way it can get its hands on the land would be to ask the local authority to override the villagers’ wishes and give RWE permission to forcibly take the land.

If that happens, the villagers will double down. They are rightly convinced that, in the face of Germany’s agreed coal phase-out, its recent sign-up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance and the urgent need to act on climate change, forced evictions for coal are no longer justifiable and may be unconstitutional.

The villagers will seek a court decision confirming this. To test the legal argument, they will use a piece of land, which lies on the frontier between the mine and the villages.

A decision in their favour would set a precedent that could change the game for the thousands in Germany who stand to lose their homes in this way.

Fossil fuels

In spite of the new PR campaign on renewables – including a promised “responsible phasing out of fossil fuels” – RWE seems set on continuing with its coal activities. CEO Rolf Schmitz reiterated this at the press conference when pressed by a journalist.

It’s difficult to see how continued coal mining and burning tallies with the company’s new position. Spokespeople for the company insist that energy security in Germany depends on the continued use of coal, right up until the law prevents it.

But the excuse is wearing thin. Given RWE’s insistence that some combination of the Hambach Forest and nearby villages must be sacrificed to keep the coal business going, it is reasonable to conclude that the company is not eager to abandon coal any sooner than it has to.

And the reason for RWE choosing a 2040 deadline, instead of dovetailing it with Germany’s 2038 coal phase-out date? It “sounds better”, according to Schmitz.

Making a profit?

It seems as though RWE is going some way to try to prolong the shelf life of its coal business.

Market experts have assessed the profitability of lignite – the particularly polluting form of coal RWE has based much of its dealings on in Germany – and found that, from now, there is barely an economic case for it.

But RWE’s reports suggest that lignite’s value is still such that any threat to its ability to mine would be disastrous to its profits – to the point that it predicted a ‘low three digit million’ Euro loss as a result of a court suspending its right to mine in the Hambach Forest last October.

Many had misgivings about this announcement. We recently alerted the German financial regulator, BaFin, to our concerns about the false picture it paints of the profitability of the coal market – we believe RWE’s actions may amount to market manipulation.

Legal action

The realities of living next to a coal mine have to be experienced to be believed.

Acres of fertile land come to an abrupt halt just metres from the rural villages of Keyenberg, Kuckum and others, dropping off into a vast pit, where wildlife and flowers would have flourished before.

But perhaps worse than living next to a mine is knowing that the place you live is set to be lost forever inside it. For the people of Menschenrecht vor Bergrecht, legal action is now their only option to fight back.

The villagers know the scale of the challenge they’re taking on, and how long it might take. But their lives here are rooted deeply and they’re not ready to be turfed out.

This Article

This article was first published by ClientEarth, which is supporting Menschenrecht vor Bergrecht in their campaign. 

Image: Bert Kaufmann, Flickr. 

Eating high levels of dairy products may be linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer for men, according to new research.

Men who ate higher amounts of cheese, butter, milk and yoghurt were between seven percent to 76 percent more likely to develop the disease, a study by US researchers found.

Experts at the Mayo clinic in Chicago reviewed 47 studies published since 2006, with more than a million participants, to better understand the risks of prostate cancer associated with plant and animal-based foods.

Consumption

Two meta-analyses and seven cohort studies on dairy consumption found the men had an increased risk of between seven percent and 76 percent of developing prostate cancer. But other studies did not find a link.

Researchers detected no link between an increased risk of prostate cancer and eating red and white meat, processed meat and fish.

But they found a decreased risk of developing the disease in vegetarians and vegans.

John Shin, MD, a Mayo Clinic oncologist and lead author on the study, said: “Our review highlighted a cause for concern with high consumption of dairy products.

Methods

“The findings also support a growing body of evidence on the potential benefits of plant-based diets.”

Dairy products are rich in calcium and the researchers suggest the mineral may play an important role in the link between higher consumption and increased risk.

But they caution that more research is needed to determine the nature of the associations found. The study is published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London, said there were “weaknesses” in the methods used in the study.

Lifestyle

He said: “Vegans have about a 35 percent lower risk of prostate cancer than meat-eaters but this may reflect the fact they are usually much lighter than meat-eaters rather than the absence of dairy foods from their diets.

“It is notable that the incidence of prostate cancer is much higher in black men of African ethnic origin, who generally consume few dairy products, compared with white men.

“The prevalence of prostate cancer has increased markedly in south-east and east Asia, where few dairy products are consumed, which would indicate that lifestyle factors, other than dairy food consumption, are responsible for the global epidemic prostate cancer.”

This Author

Jemma Crew is the PA health and science correspondent.

Children are five times more exposed to harmful air pollution while travelling to primary schools in London than at any other time of the day, a new study claims.

More than 250 pupils aged between six and 11 wore backpacks containing sensors to monitor the air quality on their journey to and from five London primary schools.

They helped collect 490 million measurements from 2,000 journeys for the Breathe London Wearables Study, which was carried out by King’s College London in spring 2019.

Harmful

The results, published on Tuesday, found that children were on average exposed to five-times-higher concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during the school run than when they were at school.

It also revealed that children who walked to school via backstreets were exposed to the lowest levels of NO2 pollution, even less than those travelling in cars and buses.

The study advised that children in the capital should avoid using busy roads to walk or cycle to school in order to reduce their exposure to pollution.

A total of 258 pupils carried 1kg sensors in their backpacks to measure N02 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the study.

Particulate matter is a term used to describe the mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air, while NO2 is a harmful gas released when fuel is burned.

Breath

The sensors, developed by Dyson, were carried by each child for five days and also recorded their GPS location.

Those taking part were from primary schools in Richmond, Greenwich, Haringey, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea.

The study, funded by the Mayor of London in partnership with C40 Cities, found that children who walked to school along main roads received the highest concentrations of PM2.5 and NO2.

It said children were “particularly vulnerable” to the harmful effects of air pollution due to their “immature and developing immune system and lungs”.

It comes as new data collected by Google Street View cars for the Breathe London project shows nitrogen dioxide is on average 51% higher on busy A roads, compared to quieter local roads.

Educate

The cars recorded the highest concentrations on Hanger Lane and other locations on the North Circular, Brixton Road and Kensington Church Street in London.

The locations are all to fall within the expansion of the new ultra low emission zone in 2021.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: “Air pollution is a public health crisis and it is shocking that pupils are exposed to such high levels of harmful air.

“All the schools who took part in this study are using the results to educate pupils and their families on air quality and helping them find the least polluting routes for their journeys.”

This Author

Luke Powell is a reporter with PA. Image:  Ruben de Rijcke, via Flickr.