A new three-year research project led by the University of Sussex will explore ways to ensure that the UK’s shift to a low-carbon society does not leave anyone behind.
FAIR (Fuel and Transport Poverty in the UK’s Energy Transition) will explore the causes and links between fuel poverty and transport poverty in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before drawing up policy recommendations designed to limit their impacts in the transition to a more sustainable future.
The study’s principal investigator is Dr Mari Martiskainen, a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and Sussex Energy Group (SEG).
She said: “This study is pressingly needed to ensure that as the UK undergoes a significant and very necessary decarbonisation effort of Net Zero by 2050, innovations such as vehicle electrification and ‘smart’ technologies do not create new injustices.
“We will be looking at who is currently vulnerable to fuel and transport poverty in the UK and to what extent and why but also how will that change over time.
“Fuel and transport poverty have until now typically been treated as distinct problems in the UK with their own causes and consequences but we argue that they are in fact deeply interlinked and potentially mutually reinforcing.
“It is also pleasing for me personally to lead a project which includes several early career women, especially in light of the considerable gender imbalance that still exists in UK energy research.”
Policy proposals
More than 3.5 million households live in fuel poverty in the UK while best estimate figures for transport poverty put the figure at around 2.5 million households.
Fuel poverty can have a significantly detrimental impact on the health of individuals who lack the resources to adequately heat their home while transport poverty can leave households at risk of being cut off from work and healthcare.
The project will include interviews with both rural and urban households to identify and examining the circumstances that leave some vulnerable to fuel and transport poverty, and the application and analysis of primary and secondary data to map the variation of fuel and transport poverty patterns across the UK.
The project will also include modelling of future scenarios to estimate the impact of low-carbon energy and transport policies on key indicators such as unemployment, sectoral employment, household incomes and wage rates.
Finally, the researchers will explore policy proposals to enable just and fair transitions particularly for vulnerable groups.
Equity and justice
CREDS director Nick Eyre said: “I am delighted about this exciting new research project within CREDS. Energy demand is going to change radically in coming decades to deliver the goals of a zero-carbon energy system.
“It is important that equity and justice are fully taken into account in this transition, so that we understand how benefits can be achieved by those in the most need.”
The world renowned Cambridge scientist, Professor Wadham, has warned that 300 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the Greenland sheet last year. The sheet is “decaying quite rapidly.”
Local feedback mechanisms could be accelerating the breakup of the glaciers and recent measurements show that the rate of decline is speeding up beyond any of the projections contained in IPCC reports.
Britain’s nuclear power stations are sited on our coast and, once built, new ones could like Sizewell B could be producing electricity for sixty years. Hinkley Point is due to be built by around 2026 and there is a queue of others waiting to get the go ahead. That takes us right into the era of considerable sea level rises.
High risk
An assessment published by the government last year included a projected sea level rise of up to 1.15m in the London area by 2100.
Some of the UK’s existing nuclear power stations are already under pressure from erosion, with constant dredging to maintain the existing coastline.
In 2012, nine of the sites were assessed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as being vulnerable now, while others are in danger from rising sea levels and storms in the future.
The sites include proposed new nuclear power stations around the coast, as well as numerous radioactive waste stores, operating reactors and defunct nuclear facilities. According to Defra, Hinkley Point already has a low risk of flooding, and by the 2080s will face a high risk of both flooding and erosion.
David Crichton, a flood specialist and honorary professor at the hazard research centre at University College London, noted: “Sea level rise, especially in the south-east of England, will mean some of these sites will be under water within 100 years. This will make decommissioning expensive and difficult, not to mention the recovery and movement of nuclear waste to higher ground.”
Projections
This assessment was based upon 2009 figures, but projections have got worse since then. The 2018 Factsheet endorsed by Defra notes that: “The UKCP18 sea level projections are consistently larger than in the previous set of UK climate projections, UKCP09 (see Lowe et al, 2009), for similar emissions scenarios.”
This is important because the Office Nuclear Regulation response to climate change in March of this year notes that their plans are still based upon the 2009 projections and they don’t expect this to change until later this year at the earliest.
While the ‘wild-card’ of localised feedback loops could see ice melt accelerate in Greenland, it is possible that the IPCC have under-estimated positive changes such as the rapid growth of solar power in recent years.
Defra include a lower set of projections based upon more mitigation and I desperately hope that this optimistic view turns into a political reality as we end our addiction to oil quickly. However, they make clear that climate change is happening now: “UK tide gauge records show substantial year-to-year changes in coastal water levels (typically several centimetres).
“The amount of sea level rise depends on the location around the UK and increases with higher emissions scenarios.” So I will be asking a series of questions to establish how this new projection impacts on individual nuclear power station sites.
Worth the risk?
The factsheet’s final sting in the tail is that: “Based on exploratory results to 2300, sea levels continue to increase beyond 2100 even with large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is a big warning that planning to build new nukes on the coast shouldn’t be based upon the 2100 estimates, as these will be exceeded. The projections beyond 2100 clearly become less as reliable the further they get into the future but as the factsheet says: “Global sea level has risen over the twentieth century and will continue to rise over the coming centuries.”
I accept that the melt of the entire Greenland ice-sheet with a 7m rise in sea levels seems far off, but as oceans warm they also expand slightly.
What happens to these new nuclear power sites with a 2-3m rise in sea levels? Nuclear energy is a very expensive and redundant technology; is it worth the risk?
This Author
Jenny Jones has held several prominent political roles: Deputy Mayor of London, Deputy Chair of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Green Councillor for Southwark Council and Chair of the Green Party of England and Wales. Jenny was introduced to the House of Lords in November 2013, she took her title, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, from the council estate she grew up on in Brighton. She is the Green Party’s sole representative in the House of Lords.
Dialectic is – f0r the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle – the art of persuasion.
This art can be understood through allegory: it is like a boxing spectacle in which two individuals spar against each other in front of a braying audience. In boxing they rely on skill to land blows on each other until one person is knocked out or loses on points. In the art of public debate dialectic is the skill or ability to land blows on the opponent’s argument with the aim of landing that knock out blow. The boxer is restricted to punching above the belt. In public debate, dialectic is restricted to the use of questions and answers to validate or invalidate a logical argument. A knock out blow would be a contradiction, falsification or paradox. Boxing as a practice remains a popular sport. Dialectic is extinct as a public spectacle. This may not be a good thing.
To provide a more theoretical definition, dialectic is one of the forms of intellectual inquiry. For Aristotle, dialectic was an art – alongside medicine and rhetoric – as opposed to a science – such as logic or mathematics. It can be understood as the identity between rhetoric and logic. It is, like logic, a process of discovering and validating definitions, definitions that reveal the essence of that which we aim to define. It is different to logic – or pure reason – because it does not need true premises nor does it directly seek the truth. But dialectic is about a dialogue between two, whereas rhetoric is about the one speaking to the many.
Ecological crisis
Why is any of this useful today? The aim of dialectic is not simply to win an argument but for two (or more) people to test their own definitions and arguments in conversation with each other. This process could prove incredibly useful at a time when difficult decisions need to be made by large numbers of people in order to solve extraordinarily complex problems, not least climate change and biodiversity collapse.
Logic can be used to test whether a statement is valid – and therefore is a defence against propaganda and ‘fake news’. Dialectic is a method of two people using logic in conversations to test the arguments of each. It is also pedagogical as it can be used by an expert to transfer knowledge to a student Dialectic can help in calibrating the knowledge gained by each – finding correlations and contradictions that may validate both or invalidate either.
We live in a time when some people understand and accept some findings of the natural sciences (for example, proving that climate change is driven by pollution) while others don’t. Dialectic can be useful in transferring knowledge between one individual, or one community, to another. I believe that dialectic in conjunction with active listening (or nonviolent communication) could be one tool for finding consensus among the teams and institutions that we now need to avert our ecological crises.
In short, dialectic – and specifically the form advanced by Aristotle – could be precisely the method we need today to deal with complex and urgent problems.
This solution, however, presents its own problems. The first barrier is complexity. Dialectic as a concept can be difficult to understand and to explain, and therefore difficult to practice. There are also problems of association. Aristotle derived this method, but his own findings are morally repugnant to us. Dialectic is also associated with Marxism (and in some of its most deformed forms) and some people will not be able to see the value as a result.
Testing definitions
The difficulties in understanding dialectic begins with Aristotle’s failure – indeed, his refusal – to provide a precise definition or text about this technique. Indeed, he argued that such a thing was impossible.
Dr John D G Evans, the author of the authoritative Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic, says the ancient Greek philosopher warned that “precision beyond a certain degree is not be expected in a work on dialectic” (89). He adds: “[T]he work which seeks to produce dialectical skill in its audience is inevitably reduced in its precision…(92)” Nonetheless, I will be as precise as I can.
The aim of dialectic is persuasion. Dr Evans argues: “In dialectic one is required to convince, by logical means, actual people of the truth of some particular assertion” (92). Elsewhere: “In dialectic, success is achieved when one has secured the agreement of a particular opponent. To secure this agreement one must produce a sense of conviction, but one must produce it in a particular person; and while it may be true that a sense of conviction is most likely to be produced by that which is really convincing, there is no guarantee that any individual will be convinced by this” (75).
Aristotle opens Topics, his clearest presentation of dialectic, with the following: “The goal of this study is to find a method with which we shall be able to construct deductions from acceptable premises concerning any problem that is proposed – and – when submitting to argument ourselves – will not say anything inconsistent.”
To change the world we must understand it, and the foundations of this understanding are the definitions we use. We must also explain our understanding to other people. The “task of the dialectic” is “the testing of proposed definitions” (36). An agreement on definitions is both the beginning and the end of the process of validating arguments. Dialectic is concerned with the testing of definitions (where logic is the pursuit of a singular definition). Dr Evans states: “[T]he dialectician works not on the definition, but on definitions” (35).
Scope
We can begin to define dialectic itself as a bridge between the art of rhetoric on the one hand and the science of logic, and the sciences in general on the other. “Its concerns are limited neither to the absolute truth of the matter under consideration [logic] nor to the views held by persons on the matter [rhetoric]: it embraces both of these and thus has the unique function of taking us from the latter to the former” (114).
However, dialectic for Aristotle is not the same as logic, nor rhetoric. Dialectic is not simply a persuasive argument. “The concept of dialectic imposes limit and order on what would otherwise be formless mass of sophistic material (75-76)”, writes Dr Evans. Aristotle goes further in proposing that dialectic is the practice of persuading particular people – in one to one conversation – rather than persuading people in general.
This is the meaning of this following statement from Aristotle’s Rhetoric: “Nor will rhetoric consider what is plausible to an individual, such as Socrates or Hippias, but what is so to such-and-such people, as does dialectic.” (76) To untangle this a little: rhetoric does not consider what is plausible to an individual, like Socrates, but does consider what is to a class or group of people. Dialectic does consider the particular individual.
What is the scope of dialectic? To begin with, dialectic should be deployed when discussing issues of complexity and difficulty, where no satisfactory answers exist. This makes it all the more attractive today. “Generally, Aristotle maintains that dialectic must concern itself with matters where there is aporia, the difficulty being caused either by the existence of conflicting arguments about the particular problem or by the lack of a satisfactory explanation of the matter.” (80)
Further: “A question which everyone would agree in answering in the affirmative or negative cannot be allowed to be dialectical, nor can such questions as ‘should we honour the gods’, or ‘is snow white’. Dialectical questions are concerned with matters about which there is difficulty and dispute; and questions to which all would agree the answer clearly do not belong to this class … questions that would be answered by punishment or the uses of the senses and not by argument, are also excluded” (79).
Strategy
But dialectic may not be useful for those set apart by the current cultural wars. “Aristotle is concerned with the strategy which should be adopted by the answerer in dialectical exercises which are conducted not in a contentious spirit but for the sake of testing and examining the views on some question” (80), Dr Evans points out. Dialectic is a discussion in good faith, where each side aims to move the other but leaves themselves open to being moved.
Dialectic can discuss anything, it is “indeed concerned with everything about everything” (48). Aristotle resists “limiting the scope of dialectic to any particular department of reality.” (38) But this is in part why dialectic for Aristotle is not a science. “The price which it pays for this universality is that, unlike first philosophy, it is not scientific in character.”
So far, I have attempted to provide a very broad outline of Aristotle’s dialectic. I have offered a thumbnail definition, and then a more dialectical one. Then I’ve set out why this may be useful. I have attempted to sketch out the aims and scope of dialectic, relying heavily on Dr Evans’ work.
Next I want to discuss the method of dialectic. And when I have done that, I want to turn this method back on the concept of dialectic itself. I hope in the process to arrive at a more precise definition of the term, and to have also persuaded some of you of its utility – thereby practicing dialectic in the process.
This Author
Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is part of the Endoxa.review project.
Doctors backing the Extinction Rebellion movement have blockaded the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to highlight the impact of climate change on public health.
Thirty doctors from all over the UK joined the protest on Wednesday to call on the Government to take rapid action to create a carbon neutral health service.
Two doctors scaled the building to glue themselves to the glass porch over the entrance, while several others held a banner reading “government inaction will cost thousands of lives”.
Respiratory
The protesters told police they would not move until a representative from the department came to speak with them.
Rachel Cottam, a GP from Brighton, told the PA news agency: “The NHS is the biggest public sector emitter, equally climate change is a public health emergency and seven million people die globally because of air pollution.
“The last four years were the hottest on record, this July was the hottest July on record and it’s no surprise we saw the highest level of A&E admissions. For every one degree of warming there is a 3.4 percent increase in cardiovascular disease mortality and a 3.6 percent increase in respiratory mortality.
Health
“The wonderful thing is that what we need to do to combat climate change is incredibly good for our health. Stop eating meat, it’s the biggest cause of colon cancer; stop driving our cars and walk, tackling diabetes and obesity.
“The climate emergency is intimately linked with every aspect of our health.”
Chris Newman, one of the two men glued to the building, said in a statement: “Climate and ecological breakdown poses one of the greatest threats to public health the world has ever faced. Yet the Government is failing to take meaningful steps to protect its citizens.
“Non-violent peaceful protests like today are essential public health interventions for getting the government to take immediate action.”
A new UN report is set to warn that climate change is having a significant impact on the oceans, with millions in coastal communities facing flooding and sea level rise.
The latest special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comes after countries met at the UN in a push to increase efforts to cut emissions to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
The summit heard from teenage activist Greta Thunberg who set out the scale of the challenge in curbing emissions as she criticised world leaders for failing to take action, with the refrain: “How dare you?”
Emissions
The new study, which examines the oceans, coasts and the cryosphere or frozen areas of the world, is expected to warn of huge increases in flooding damage, melting ice caps and glaciers and more ocean heatwaves that bleach and kill coral.
More than 100 scientists from around the world have assessed the latest science about the role of climate change on ocean, coastal, polar and mountain systems, and the human communities that depend on them.
The final draft, which has been agreed by countries meeting in Monaco, is also expected to warn of damage to fish stocks and seafood which millions rely on.
And an increase in extreme El Ninos – a weather phenomenon in the Pacific which pushes up global temperatures and can cause an increase in wildfires – is also on the cards.
The world’s oceans absorb much of the extra heat being generated by global warming and take in a proportion of the emissions of carbon dioxide, making the seas more acidic which can damage sea creatures.
Devastating
The report is expected to cover what can be done to alleviate the problems, such as the importance of protecting the oceans and restoring habitats which absorb and store carbon such as sea grass beds in shallow waters.
Ahead of the report’s launch, Greenpeace International scientist, Melissa Wang, said: “We expect the IPCC report to confirm our worst fear – the climate crisis is an oceans crisis.
“Some of the impacts of climate change on our oceans are now irreversible and others are looking increasingly inevitable.”
And she warned: “At current emissions rates, we are effectively dumping one million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the oceans every hour.
“Unless we accelerate efforts to curb carbon emissions and take greater steps to protect our oceans, there will be devastating human, environmental and economic consequences.”
This Author
Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.
Sustainability certificates for North Sea cod are being suspended following declines in fish stocks, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has said.
Cod stocks in the sea had been thought to be in good health but the latest scientific advice has revealed much lower amounts of fish, putting the fishery in increased danger of collapse.
It means North Sea cod is coming off the menu again for consumers who care their fish supper is sustainable, just two years after the fishery won the recognisable “blue tick” eco-label.
Collapse
It is not clear what is fuelling the declines, though experts said it could be the result of factors such as warming waters driven by climate change and fewer young cod surviving into adulthood in the past two years.
As a result Marine Stewardship Council certification, which allows seafood to carry the blue tick that shows it comes from sustainable fisheries, will be suspended from all MSC-certified fisheries targeting North Sea cod.
Any cod caught from the date of suspension on October 24 will not be able to carry the label.
The news comes as a blow to the fishing industry which has put in initiatives to actively avoid catching young fish, such closing large spawning areas to fishing, trialling new nets, and avoiding areas where cod congregate to avoid catching them when fishing for other species.
These kind of initiatives helped the fishery win its sustainability certification in 2017, when stocks were assessed as reaching 152,207 tonnes, the highest levels since 1982 and a decade after they came close to collapse.
Stock
Stocks were forecast to hit 180,990 tonnes in 2018, but the scientific advice for that year included a far smaller estimate of the amount of cod in the North Sea.
And this year’s expert advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) revealed estimates of only 81,224 tonnes, below the “safe biological level” for the stock and at increased danger of collapse.
Erin Priddle, UK and Ireland programme director for the Marine Stewardship Council said: “The decline in the North Sea cod stock is a worrying development, with the latest stock models suggesting that the fishery has not recovered as well as previously thought.”
She said the latest scientific advice meant the North Sea cod fishery no longer met the MSC standard.
“While this news is devastating for industry, it is a testament to the MSC standard working as it should: to pick up on threats to stock sustainability, as is the case with North Sea cod.
Imported
“It is imperative that industry works collaboratively with fishery managers, non-governmental organisations and the wider seafood supply chain to introduce effective measures that will see this fishery once again achieve certification.”
Mike Park, chairman of the Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group said: “The industry is concerned that, notwithstanding their best efforts to continue to rebuild North Sea cod, some developments are taking place that seem beyond their control.
“That said, they are committed to introducing balanced and proportionate measures in an attempt to reverse the decline.”
The UK consumes 115,000 tonnes of cod a year, 37% of which carries the blue tick label.
Most of what is eaten here, some 94 percent, is imported, with sustainable options from outside the North Sea coming from areas such as Iceland, Norway and Russia, MSC said.
This Author
Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.
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.
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
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.
Peasant farmers blockade a major road to disrupt crop spraying. Photo by Hugo Hooijer
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.
Women from Crescencio González participating in a community assembly. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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.
Native varieties of maize and bean seeds, and free-ranch eggs on display at a community event in Crescencio González. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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.
“Paraguayan soup”, a traditional Paraguayan food made from native corn in the FNC’s Sebastián Larrosa settlement. Photo by Susana Balbuena
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.
FNC general secretary Teodolina Villalba and a compañera serving food to a community event in Sebastián Larrosa, another FNC settlement. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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.”
A house in Tovatiry. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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.
Community assembly in Tovaitry. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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.
A woman from Arsenio Vazquez removes a dish of Paraguayan soup from a “tatakua” (traditional clay oven), made from corn cultivated by the community. Photo by Inés Franceschelli
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 discuss food sovereignty and climate change in Arsenio Vázquez. Photo by Lisa Meyer
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.
