Ecocide: a corporate anathema

'Eradicating Ecocide highlights the need for enforceable, legally binding mechanisms in national and international law to hold to account perpetrators of long term severe damage to the environment. At this critical juncture in history it is vital that we set global standards of accountability for corporations, in order to put an end to the culture of impunity and double standards that pervade the international legal system.'

So says Bianca Jagger in her endorsement of Polly Higgins’ book, Eradicating Ecocide. And rightly so.

If corporations are not immediately reined into prevent them from persisting in acts which, directly and indirectly, are the primary causes of our global ecological meltdown; in continuing to maintain and aggressively promote a corporate and societal culture which prioritises profits over all other concerns and obligations so as to be able to persist in perpetrating those acts to those ends, then we must anticipate a substantial destabilisation of the biosphere in the not too distant future, one which will make life untenable for many species and cause immense, almost unimaginable, human suffering.

To give but one example, as James Hansen says, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is approved, it is game over. (Use the tag or search for previous posts on Jim Hansen, and for inspiration check out the end of the one paragraph version of his c.v. accessible here)

Be that as it may, we already know far more than enough to be certain that the corporate world will oppose the criminalisation of ecocide to the absolute limits of its power, a power which in practice appears almost irresistible.

The evidence for that is overwhelming - it is irreconcilably hostile to any limitation placed on its freedom to operate and resists implacably with every means at its disposal. Ever since they were introduced, it has been waging a concerted and heavily-resourced war of attrition to roll back the advances made in environmental protection in the second half of the last century. By now it is quite clear that it is winning substantially.

We simply could not be in this most dire of predicaments were that not true. On every front, in every aspect of our multi-faceted environmental calamity, be it deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, water, soil or any other you care to look at, the damage is being done, facilitated and enabled by corporate activity, and almost always on a scale which is still ramping up despite the known impacts that will result and their indisputably disastrous consequences.

Yet in every example, almost without exception, you will find that all attempts to stop, limit or mitigate the damage and its consequences are being powerfully opposed by the corporate lobby, almost always by the very corporations which undertake the activities concerned and profit by them. There are some noble exceptions, it is true – Patagonia being the most outstanding example, the principled companies aiming to be a part of the solution rather than of the problem - but most are minnows in the grand scheme; the general picture is as described.

Environmental protection measures have been under constant attack on every front: the doctrinaire, alarmist and irrational - that things will go very badly economically and hence very badly in general if market forces are not allowed free rein; direct attacks on legislation and the legislative process pressing for the watering down or repeal of existing measures and opposing new proposals; undermining the credibility of the scientists whose work underpins environmental regulation, and, most notably over climate change, well-documented attacks on the science itself via devices which employ bogus institutes, maverick scientists and pseudo experts to mislead and bamboozle the public; by drawing the teeth of regulators through similar assaults on the regulatory bodies concerned, attacking their funding or even their very existence (currently on the Environmental Protection Agency no less), through tying up their limited resources in legal challenges, or merely by being able to intimidate them into submission using the probable costs should they decide to so challenge.

Lobbying funded on an gigantic scale, together with the manipulation of public perceptions through the mass media are ubiquitous weapons in this war, and the influence now wielded over politicians, particularly those in power, seems to have reached a degree where their independence and representational purpose is very seriously in question.

One has only to look to what is currently unrolling in America, the extraordinary transformation of President Obama, The Citizens’ United decision by the Supreme Court last year (covered by Common Cause here and here, and by the New York Times here), and the assault on the continuing existence of the EPA to see how things panning out.

In the UK too, the process seems relentless, with attack after attack, be it frontal or guerrilla, by the Government itself on existing environmental protection measures, justified on almost any context imaginable. Spending cuts, economic efficiency, deregulation, public benefit, ideology...

Whether we ever lived in democracies is open to question; what seems clear is that in practice the dominant powers in the developed world have now morphed into corporatist states and superstates, in which the superficial trappings of what was never anything more than what is euphemistically termed 'representative democracy' have become a mere puppet show to distract an impotent and gullible populous, deliberately hypnotised by a constant stream of diversions and banality; a populous which has been intentionally socialised and educated to be incapable of thinking sufficiently deeply to comprehend the issues, what is happening, how it will affect their lives and their families, to even take an interest in its own vital interests, let alone react intelligently to what it perceives, while remaining emotionally incapable of doing so anyway, should that unlikely occurrence actually happen. That our collective response to climate change can objectively be described as insane would alone seem to prove all of this beyond dispute.

So the corporate world as it currently exists will never be anything but implacably hostile to the criminalisation of ecocide, be its opposition overt or covert. Its credo is the entirely unfettered, globalised free market, where all and everything is decided by market forces and nothing else, where everything is commoditised without exception. If we still have a regime where the costs of environmental impacts can continue to be externalised and discounted more or less totally, it is no accident. It is the result of sustained, massively resourced and extremely sophisticated politicking by the corporations, conducted over very long time frames and on a global scale, and which continues with increasing vigour even now, as we watch our future (or at least a benign one) slipping relentlessly into oblivion.

Yet, bizarre as it may seem, to the extent that the corporate world can ever be reconciled with the prospect of criminalising ecocide, once it has understood the terms it is being offered, the corks will be flying in boardrooms around the globe.

The reasons for this unlikely and counter-intuitive conclusion must wait for the next substantive post - the one immediately following being a quick update on coverage of the mock trial, which seems to have been very well received.

Climate Politics in 2 minutes 20

This may look flaky, but don’t be fooled. It is as hard as they come, thumping home the facts with the sequential subtly of a pile driver.







Although scripted before COP16 in Cancun, anyone believing the Cancun Agreement renders its message irrelevant need only consider that, even after the accommodations made, we remain on course for temperature increases of at least 3.5ºC on International Energy Agency figures.

Anyone who views this as a success is referred to Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, winner of the Royal Society Science Books Prize in 2008.

Or, as Lord Julian Hunt, Visiting Professor at Delft University, Vice-President of Globe, and former Director-General of the UK Met Office put it recently in a Reuters Davos Notebook briefing for the World Economic Summit on the outcome of COP16 (my emphasis throughout):

‘However, despite these initiatives, we are now at a point at which preserving our current environment is probably unobtainable.’

‘Far from being another unsuccessful international environmental meeting, as some predicted, the Cancun Summit is likely to be looked back upon in years to come as a seminal moment. The accord endorsed the various actions of countries to limit green house gas emissions. However, more significantly for the long term it accepted that preserving the global environment in its present state is probably unattainable.’

‘In the absence of moves towards a much stronger, global and legally binding deal, the world is thus on the path of the ‘business as usual’ scenario envisaged recently as an unlikely worst case. And, the international community now has got to therefore consider unprecedented changes.’

‘What is absolutely clear is that temperature rises of a 3-4C magnitude will, most likely, pose an irreversible tipping point for continental sized areas of changing land cover, and for ice on sea and land. As a result, millions (if not tens of millions) of people are likely to be displaced by the effects of desertification and rising sea levels, and mountain snow melt.’

‘And, with this in mind, politicians and the public would do well to follow the Netherlands Delta commission; the report of the UK Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change; and China’s scientific agencies and seriously begin to consider planning for the monumental changes that will be apparent in the decades to come.’

And in closing:

‘The rising costs of dealing with these effects, such as coastal defences, reducing desertification and urban overheating, mean that preventative actions have to begin right away. It would be folly of the highest order to delay this process until economies grow further, as some influential economists continue to argue.”

END

Open email to Ed Miliband

Here's an email sent this weekend to Ed Miliband, the lead UK minister for climate change, taking issue with his view that it is "outrageous" to suggest that what little remains wild in Britain should remain so.

[15 December: Ed's email stating this (to which this is a response) is now appended]

Ed in general has been doing an outstanding job on climate change. Most impressive and more or less unique is Ed's Pledge, his on-line campaign to build the critical mass of support needed to get the right result from COP 15 in Copenhagen.

However he has somehow not yet fully grasped the biodiversity arguments. Instead he has managed to come to the conclusion that what little remains wild in the uk should be sacrificed to windfarms and the like to meet consumers' insatiable demand for cheap energy.

Anyway, read on for the arguments.

Numbers make an enormous difference to such things. So should anyone happen to be moved to support, just paste a copy into an email with the heading:

re: Sign My Letter to David Cameron

add your comments and send it to "Ed Miliband"

info@email-new.labour.org.uk

(well that's the one he gives out, anyway. Given that address, might be an idea add to that you want him to receive it in person.)

In closing, should add that this is not a foray into politics. Just an exercise in rationality, attempting to reason objectively with those so engaged.






Dear Ed

Congratulations on Ed's Pledge and the tremendous work you are doing, especially in respect of COP 15.

Sorry to have to come back to you on this at a supremely busy time, but there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking here, and one that could prove fatal.

Ken Clarke was right on this. It is not a question of nimbyism, bourgeois values, or sentimentality.

It is the indisputable fact that wild places and undisturbed ecologies are absolutely essential for our survival. Simple as that. Because they provide the ecological services on which we all depend for our existence.

The various environmental crises which confront us so forcibly are simply the result of having failed to respect that immutable fact. The underlying reason for our current plight is that we have commandeered massively more than our sustainable share of the wilderness to serve our perceived (and often highly questionable) needs.

James Lovelock calculates that sustainability requires leaving no less than 90% of Earth in its natural state, entirely uninterfered with by human activity. Instead, the entire UK has been so modified and subordinated to human desires that there remains no wilderness to speak of, very little in the way of wild places, and the vast majority of the land mass is altered massively and detrimentally to serve human demands.

The solution to climate change is not to still further compromise or destroy those last remnants for the purpose of meeting demands that are grossly inflated by our refusal to accept our ecological limits. That is the critical mistake in your thinking.

In reality that is to add one of the final nails to our coffin by further undermining ecological integrity and the planetary life support system as a whole - which can already be seen on many measures to be approaching collapse. All in the perceived furtherance of living standards which are the root cause of the problem in the first place. Thus terminates our viability.

Its is as flawed a logic as to conceive the solution to be cutting down what remains of the Amazon rainforests to provide fuel to meet our energy requirements. Or to put up wind farms, for that matter. It would the same process. The only difference is that the UK is more advanced in the delivery than the Amazon nations.

If one of the richest countries in the world is not prepared to relent from subjugating all of nature to economic ends it renders bankrupt your negotiating position towards the developing countries - especially in respect of REDD, and indeed in the maintenance of ecological integrity generally. You can hardly expect the developing nations with their real and pressing needs to accept what you consider to be 'outrageous' when merely suggested for the UK. And if we do not have ecological integrity we have nothing, for on that everything depends.

Yet the importance of REDD must already be clear to you. Similarly the critical role of biodiversity. The Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity has already stressed that biodiversity is part of the solution to climate change; that healthy terrestrial and marine ecosystems are essential to the health of the atmosphere; and at COP 15 he has submitted a further expert report driving home that critical message.

Vital, then, that you appreciate wilderness is absolutely essential, and not a luxury to be traded away. To solve climate change and our other ecological crises we urgently need more, not less. And every nation has an inescapable duty in that respect.

To this end, please recognise the pivotal importance of large scale ecological restoration, as exemplified astonishingly by the Chinese on the Loess Plateau - an area the size of Belgium - and the groundbreaking work of John Liu at Rothansted.

And please understand that the world will no longer accept the implied imperialism in expecting the developing nations to deliver the ecological services which the UK considers completely dispensable on its own turf, and is prepared to undermine absolutely in the furtherance of preserving its standard of living.

So it is critical that you re-evaluate and take this on board urgently, even as you are in the process of negotiating the Copenhagen Treaty. It is absolutely vital that it is understood. By you. By Gordon Brown. By the other world leaders. And by everyone else involved in the negotiations.

The answer to climate change is not to complete the historical process of subjugating all of nature to meet human desires to provide more and yet more again. That is the endgame in our current and historical trajectory, and it ends - inevitably - in our self-destruction.

It is have the wisdom and humility to learn how to live well and happily within our ecological limits. Which is what we are now called on to do. That must mean valuing, protecting and restoring natural ecosystems over our more frivolous and debatable needs - even our indulgent, inflated demand for cheap energy on a massive scale - as well as getting back to real values.


We have no choice in this. You can negotiate all you like with each other, and for as long as you wish. But there can be no negotiating with Nature. And we can but accept her timing, or be swept away.

Canute showed that a long time ago. Please do not make the same mistake. Have the vision to re-evaluate now and rise to a pivotal role in changing perceptions - and in pulling us out of the fire.

That's Ed's Pledge. Thank you for it, profoundly.

Wishing you the absolute best for the rest of the summit.

PS
The importance of wilderness is far more eloquently argued by The John Muir Trust, the leading British actor in this field, which has been promoting the re-establishment of wilderness in the UK for over 20 years, and putting it into practice on its own lands and by assisting others similarly moved. Becoming fluent with their thinking would add new dimensions to your understanding and vision both domestically and internationally, and is most highly commended.



Ed's emails

Email 1

On 21 Oct 2009, at 15:06, Ed Miliband wrote:

If you can't see this email correctly, please click here

Last week it was a backbencher, today it's one of the most important shadow cabinet members undermining the fight against climate change.

Last week I told you about a backbench Tory who said those of us concerned by climate change were part of a 'lunatic consenus'. Over a thousand of you wrote to your local newspapers, letters were printed in newspapers across the country and we made it clear that the public have had enough of climate change deniers. To all of you who wrote, thank you.

But today I'm writing to you again with worse news. Ken Clarke - one of the most important and best known Tories - has gone on record today opposing wind farms, saying: "My view is that those few wild and open (land) spaces that we have left in Britain should not be used for wind turbines."

I've decided to write personally to David Cameron, asking him to overrule Ken Clarke and make their policy clear. I'm going to deliver the letter tomorrow morning but need your support if it's to have impact.

Click to co-sign my letter to David Cameron

Ken Clarke's comments are outrageous and have an immediate effect of putting off investors and stopping the creation of green jobs in our renewables industry.

If one thousand of you sign this letter with me TODAY it will have much more media impact and show Ken Clarke that the British public want their politicians to take climate change seriously.

Click to co-sign my letter to David Cameron

Let's send another clear message that those undermining the fight to combat climate change will be challenged every step of the way.

Ed

PS – Once you’ve signed the letter please forward this email to your friends and ask them to sign as well – the more of us there are, the stronger we are.


To unsubscribe, please click here.
Privacy: we won't pass on your email address to anyone else. See http://www.labour.org.uk/privacy

Reproduced from an email sent by the Labour Party, promoted by Ray Collins, General Secretary, the Labour Party, on behalf of the Labour Party, all at 39 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0HA

If you can't see this email correctly, please click here




Email 2

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ed Miliband
Date: 22 October 2009 13:30:38 BST

Subject: Success

If you can't see this email correctly, please click here

Thank you and well done.

After a huge effort by people who've signed up to the Ed's Pledge campaign, the Guardian has reported that Ken Clarke has retracted his comments calling for an end to the building of windfarms on land.

Yesterday was an incredible victory for everyone who’s signed up to the campaign.

Help recruit more people to this campaign - to fight for more victories like this

We set a target of getting 1000 signatures for my letter to David Cameron - you broke it within an hour. We set another target of 2000 signatures - you broke that too. Right now over 3000 of you have signed with more still coming in.

Winning arguments like this makes a differ ence. Climate change is too important to be left to be dealt with by people who resist the low carbon technologies of the future.

You showed that the power to make a difference lies with thousands of people working together.

Help recruit more people to this campaign - to fight for more victories like this

The more people we get involved in our campaign, the stronger each of our individual voices become.

So I'm asking you, with 46 days to go until the make-or-break Copenhagen summit, to bring more people into this campaign.

Today’s victory shows that, together, we really can make change happen.

Click here to tell your friends about Ed' s Pledge and the victories we can achieve together

Thanks

Ed

Hot and Cold on Independence day

Here's some light relief to lift our hearts and celebrate independence, courtesy of the WE Campaign.

Happily it brings together two current themes as it just happens to feature a pig, along with a rather burnt looking pancake or tortilla and a fridge.

The main point, though, is a rather simplified account of how to resolve the thorny conundrum of averting damaging climate change whilst continuing with extraordinarily high energy lifestyles. That goes for all conventional inhabitants of developed nations, and quite a few others elsewhere too, of course, not just the dominant population of Turtle Island.

The WE Campaign successfully re-invented itself as Repower America last summer, and Al Gore has continued to exert unprecedented (seriously) influence via a thoroughly statesperson like performance at the helm of the Alliance for Climate Protection. This embodies both organisations and apparently some others too.

Repower America has no less an aim than to get the States off carbon entirely in just 10 years, whilst simultaneously rebooting the economy via the green stimulus and relieving the perceived strategic vulnerability of massive dependence on imported oil and astronomical overseas borrowings to pay for it. Here's a succinct summary of the campaign's objectives.

It is succeeding magnificently. At the end of last month the House of Representatives passed the Clean Energy Security Bill in a hard fought vote in which the dirty energy lobby exceeded themselves in greenwash and disinformation. According to the WE Campaign, the opposition

'stepped up a blatant distortion campaign on TV and behind closed doors to scare Congress from taking action.'

'Members of Congress who oppose clean energy paraded around a map that distorts the truth about curbing carbon pollution. Not only was the analysis misleading, the computer file still listed the original author -- the coal lobby.

'And another group, funded by the fossil-fuel industry, released targeted TV ads designed to drum up fear ahead of the vote.'

It is clear the efforts of Repower America were absolutely critical in swinging the vote. Not merely the shear political clout wielded by a campaign which has almost 2.3 million members - an extraordinary number - but by the pressure they have brought to bear by raising massive on-line petitions in days, donating for the advertising necessary to counter the greenwash, and sieging congresspeople by phone, mail and in person. People power or active democracy at its best, as you will. Most heartening stuff.

The bill has now passed to the Senate but it is expected that this sort of thing will be racheted up yet again in an all-out effort to defeat it. Al Gore said

'The American Clean Energy Security (ACES) Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will ever pass. This comprehensive legislation will make meaningful reductions in global warming pollution, spur investment in clean energy technology, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The next step is passage of this legislation by the Senate to help restore America's leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to put in place a truly global solution to the climate crisis.

We are at an extraordinary moment, with an historic opportunity to confront one of the world’s most serious challenges. Our actions now will be remembered by this generation and all those to follow – in our own nation and others around the world.'

So much to celebrate on the day, and much to engage in.

Wherever you happen to be you are welcome in the We Campaign, and regardless of nationality. It's critical, it's interesting, and it takes but a few moments to join. So we all should be adding our weight to the critical mass. Two million is an extraordinary achievement, but Al is aiming for 10 million. That would make it the largest campaign in American history - and a truly irresistible force for the planet. You can join it here.

Yet there are are currently around 6.8 billions two legged monsters here on Earth, so where are the rest? And what can they be thinking? Of the mass of humanity 10 million is but a drop in the ocean, and we have known from the outset that if America goes down everything is lost.

Regardless, a great deal to celebrate universally, so have a happy day one and all. And better luck with the pancakes.

Pig Business: 2200 tomorrow

Excellent news. Tracy Worcester's documentary Pig Business has finally cleared the legal obstacles and should finally be shown on More 4 at 10.00 pm on Tuesday 30 June. It's going out as part of their 'Great British Food Fight', though it is relevant to food production everywhere, particularly in the USA and the EU.

Don't miss this one. It's vitally important for the pigs, sure, and that matters -tremendously. Just as important for humanity that it decisively rejects the mindset that embraces such indefensible, abject cruelty as a necessity, economic expedient, or even revels in it as a positive improvement in efficiency.

Yet this film is far more than just an expose horrors of factory pig farming. Along the way it questions our whole relationship to food and the environmental consequences arising from it at a most fundamental level. In essence, you get what you pay for - be it benign and enlightened, or utterly unacceptable. Here we get that message unequivocally and straight from the horse's mouth.

In that regard we learn of the attitude of one of the massive companies involved in this type of agribusiness, whilst under scrutiny gaping holes are revealed in European Union policy as we see the catastrophic effect it has had on Poland and its agricultural sector, one of the the most sustainable and environmentally benign in Europe, and the Polish diaspora that has resulted. Anyone interested in Poland will therefore find it essential viewing.

Absolutely not to be missed is Bobby Kennedy Jr, who has to be the epitome of an environmental lawyer and a lion amongst environmentalists. Just imagine a world where every environmental lawyer was as a unequivocal and committed. Here again he has been right in the thick of things opposing pig business from the beginning, and finishes the programme with some stirring and well-targetted oratory which we could all well heed.

All yours. Previous posting discussing the film and the legal obstacles it has had to surmount can be found here and here.

Wild Law: EPA v ESA

This is just to post up a story from the New York Times mainly of interest to wild lawyers, climate activists, and those concerned over the fate of species threatened by climate change, as well as those interested in politics and current affairs more generally. And of vital interest to polar bears.

The issue is the sparring currently going on to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the right to act over climate change under the Endangered Species Act to protect such animals. In the lead for ursus maritimus are The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups represented by Earthjustice.

'For now, the decision rests with Obama's Interior secretary, Ken Salazar. Congress has given him authority to strike the greenhouse gas exemption and other Bush-era changes to the Endangered Species Act. He must act by May 10.'

So a pretty hot topic - read on if it grabs.

Earthly Rights

In case James Lovelock's views proved disquieting, here's something refreshing and positive which all should find inspiring.

It's a short and very readable introduction to the concept of Wild Law by author, ecologist and academic Stephan Harding which appeared in The Guardian on 03 April.

Wild lawyers will obviously be heartened to see the subject starting to get some serious coverage.

While those yet to get a handle on this as yet little recognised but critical issue will find it a very easy way in. One only has to reflect on why we are in this predicament to recognise its central importance in everything that is transpiring.

Happily, by the same token it also offers one of the few positive ways forward that remain open. These things are not fixed in stone and can be changed - if there is sufficient will.

It is one of the very few options remaining that has the potential to bring about the necessary changes in attitude - and crucially behaviour - on a global scale fast enough to give us the possibility to head off the worst of James Lovelock's predictions, and contain whatever damage we have already caused to the least that is now possible.

And it can be done on a global scale and very quickly - through a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights at the United Nations. This is a very new and radical idea and time is very short, but the head of steam is already beginning to build, and at a very high level.

To be part of it, join the trees have rights too campaign now, and give the future a chance.

This is such a critical issue it will be covered in more depth as soon as time allows.

For those inspired by these themes, there is a chance to meet Stephan Harding, Polly Higgins, the prime mover behind the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, and many of the leading thinkers in the field of Wild Law at the Wild Law Weekend which will take place in Dorset, England at the end of September, which can probably be described as the premiere event globally in the field.

As some of the terms may prove to be somewhat esoteric, here are some definitions with links for greater depth:

Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law.

Earth Jurisprudence is the branch of jurisprudence which is based on the idea that humans are only one part of a wider community of beings and that the welfare of each member of that community is dependent on the welfare of the Earth as a whole.

Earth Jurisprudence means looking at the actual philosophy and value systems that underpin legal and governance systems, and making sure that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth.

Implicit in Earth Jurisprudence is the idea that rights of other components of the biosphere such as plants and animals need to be acknowledged and recognised (in contrast to dominant legal systems in which they are currently not).

Here is the Earth Jurisprudence website for more.

Wild Law is the manifestation of Earth Jurisprudence in practice, meaning where it exists in draft or actual laws and governance.

Update: Pig Business and Libel Laws

A big apology to those who tuned in to watch Pig Business on Tuesday night and found themselves watching True Stories - Who Killed the Electric Car? instead.

Little was it anticipated that what was intended as a quick announcement of this film would lead us deep into the sacred turf of freedom of speech - internationally - and to Britain's parlous libel laws.

What happened was that Channel 4 revised the schedules at short notice, announcing that a new broadcast date would be found for Pig Business. This was apparently done in order to assure the press that pulling the programme was merely postponing it, rather than abandoning it altogether. However the new slot is likely to be sometime in May, presumably to allow time for the perceived issues to be fully worked through.

Channel 4, like all UK media outlets attempting to report public interest information, has to do boot and braces when making sure all its legal boxes are ticked. This can be onerous, as UK libel laws might be considered to be corporate friendly - if not a major impediment to free speech. So much so that 'libel tourism' is now a serious problem, where foreign plaintiffs come to the UK to sue, even over material that was not published in the UK.

This is not a problem merely for Britain. It is considered to be a such a threat to the American First Amendment - freedom of speech and the press - that draft legislation to counter it is currently being laid before Congress with support on all sides. Here's the First Amendment in full:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For an example of what is happening at its worst, here is a recent story from The Washington Post titled The Attack of the Libel Tourists which tells us:

'Plaintiffs with little or no connection to the country [UK] are filing libel suits there; British judges more often than not allow them to proceed on flimsy jurisdictional grounds'

while The Guardian reports the issue from the other side of the pond:

'American legislators told Congress that cases heard in London were causing "concrete and profound harm" to the American people.

'The Guardian has learned both the Ministry of Justice and the parliamentary committee on media, culture and sport are planning consultations on libel law reforms, as the US takes steps to protect Americans from the English courts.

'Earlier this month, an American congressional committee singled out "ridiculous lawsuits" permitted in London and heard that "foreign individuals are operating a scheme to intimidate authors and publishers".'

Putting the issue into context:

'The controversy surrounding English libel law is the requirement that authors of defamatory statements must prove the statement is true.

'By contrast, in the US, statements are presumed to be true unless the person bringing the claim can show it was false, there was "actual malice" or that the falsehood was intentional.'

So much for the cherished British notion of free expression, then.


Astonishingly - as she was not on the distribution for the postings and we had never been in contact - in the midst of all this Tracy Worcester somehow managed to get a message through in good time to alert us of the rescheduling in advance. Alas, her email arrived after the library had shut, just too late to pass it on to you in good time.

So whilst the rescheduling may therefore have come as a surprise, three potentially good things emerge from this:

it seems safe to assume that when a programme has to be re-edited under these circumstances we can be sure it has something very important to say

as more notice of the showing should now be possible, more folk will get a chance to learn what it is

while apparently True Stories - Who Killed the Electric Car? turned out to be an important documentary in its own right, described by one recipient as 'essential viewing'.

So a happy ending, at least for those who persevered. Here's what the Channel 4 website had to say about it:

'The curious story of the short life of one of the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built.

'It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The lucky few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did General Motors crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles into landfill sites in the obscurity of the Arizona desert?

'Chris Paine's documentary investigates the events that led to the quiet destruction of an apparently promising product.

'Through interviews, ranging from enthusiastic owner Mel Gibson to ex-CIA boss R James Woolsey, the film paints a picture of an industrial culture whose aversion to change and reliance on oil may run deeper then its ability to embrace new, radical solutions.'

Stand by for news of the revised showing of Pig Business which will be circulated just as soon as the information reaches the pensive prognosticator.

Meanwhile for those who can't wait, here's the trailer. Plus there is plenty more graphic stuff on the Pig Business website.

Pig Business - More 4 tonight 2200

The flurry of important environmental events at short notice continues apace.

The latest is Pig Business, a film by Tracy Worcester, which is being shown tonight on More 4 at 2200.

Tracy did a brilliant job chairing the launch of the groundbreaking and quite possibly historic Wild Law research paper last Tuesday, by all accounts. More on that later.

While if all of us had her commitment to building a better world, just imagine how much better things would be. Here's what she does according to Wikipedia - amongst other things.

In 1989, Tracy Worcester began working with Friends of the Earth. Since then, she has been active in green politics as Patron of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, a Trustee of the Gaia Foundation, the Schumacher Society and the Bath Environment Centre, Patron of the UK's Soil Association, and as a member of the advisory board of The Ecologist magazine and a member of the International Forum on Globalisation.

And still has time for making movies!

Pig Business exposes the unconscionable costs of bringing home the bacon on four fronts:

- animal rights

- destroying small farmers - at an astonishing rate as the market is globalised by multi-national farming conglomerates

- polluting the environment - in a big way...

- jeopardising our lives


For example on the environment (my bolding throughout, other than titles)

'One-third of the world’s total cultivable land is dedicated to growing cereal and soya to feed livestock, while a further 7% is used for grazing animals. Eighty per cent of the world's soya beans and 60% of its maize and barley are grown for livestock feed.

'Much of this land is acquired by destroying forests, a major cause of CO2 emissions and loss of biodiversity. Between 2004 and 2005 around 1.2 million hectares of rainforest were cut down as a result of soya expansion, almost entirely for animal feed and livestock pastures.

'How livestock production contributes to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions

Source: McMichael et al. (2007) Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370(9594), 1253-1263

'In Latin America the land devoted to soya crops doubled between 1994 and 2004, and deforestation, particularly of the Amazon rainforest, now accounts for around 75% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. Soya cultivation in Brazil to date occupies an area of land the size of Great Britain.'

On the threat to our lives:

'Because of the crowded and unnatural conditions in which factory farmed animals live, they are frequently given antibiotics to prevent disease or bolster their weakened immune systems. Across the world half of all the antibiotics used are administered to livestock. Around 80-90% of all antibiotics used for humans and animals are not fully digested or broken down, leaving them to pass through the body and enter the environment intact through waste.

'Evidence suggests that this over-use of antibiotics is helping to spread drug-resistant strains of diseases such as MRSA and E. coli, which can cause humans serious illness and death. The transfer of MRSA from pigs to humans is already recognised in the Netherlands, and it is feared this new strain of MRSA affecting pigs in some countries will spread to the UK, exacerbating the existing problem.

'Workers at risk
'... at least a quarter of factory farm workers consistently suffer from respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, mucous membrane irritation, asthma-like syndrome, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

'A deadly environment
'Studies repeatedly show that air and water quality are threatened in and around factory farms. Noxious gases in the atmosphere from manure containing hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, and dangerous pathogens cause ill health not only to those working with the animals but those living nearby. Many local residents report unusually frequent headaches, eye irritation, excessive coughing, nausea and asthma. Hydrogen sulphide may cause nausea, blackout periods, headaches and vomiting, and breathing in too much ammonia can cause severe respiratory damage.

'Excessive spraying of faecal material onto fields results in run-off into nearby lakes and rivers, poisoning the water table, eco system and drinking water. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has discovered that 1 in 10 drinking-water wells near factory pig farms contains unsafe levels of nitrates, which has been linked to risk of blue-baby syndrome. Six-month-old infants, pregnant women and adults with immunity deficiencies are especially vulnerable.

'President George W. Bush, in one of his last acts before he leaves office, has proposed to free industrial-scale pig and cattle farms from the Clean Water Act if they declare they are not dumping animal waste in lakes and rivers.

'Exploiting the poor
'In the US, intensive pig farms are clustered typically in non-white areas near low-income communities where people are extra vulnerable to the hazards of factory farms because of existing problems of poor health, poor housing, low income, and lack of access to medical care.

After all that, one may ask why not go the whole hog, keep the poor old hog whole, and just go vegan? George Monbiot came to that conclusion, at least intellectually, in this article last April:

Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat A food recession is under way. Biofuels are a crime against humanity, but - take it from a flesh eater - flesh eating is worse

While there are some telling environmental arguments put forward by the Vegan Society here and in the side links dealing with land, water and energy.

Perhaps most telling, particularly for those inclined to blame climate change on the growing human population is this:

'World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1. [2] In other words, the livestock population is expanding at a faster rate than the human population.'

And consuming a substantial proportion of the available resources, particularly land, food and water.

More than enough said.

Put People First! Tomorrow - London

Hard to find a more worthy cause than this. To confirm that, just take a scroll through the organisations supporting it listed on the Put People First website.

Short notice undoubtedly - its tomorrow in London. But if you can possibly get there, think profoundly about dropping everything and going - regardless.

If not, lend your voice in cyberspace by filling in the message box now. It need only take a few moments.

Nothing could be more important in the run up to the G20 summit than a massive demonstration that fundamental values have got to change - right now. That we are no longer prepared to sleepwalk into annihilation following leaders irretrievably stuck in the old paradigm - the one which has got us into this enormous hole in the first place, environmentally, socially and financially.

Could turn out be the best thing you've ever done. It has the promise to be the catalyst of changes that will improve life on the planet for billions of people and our fellow travellers here - to save lives even. Maybe yours!

The thing which will make the difference is massive numbers of bodies on the street, standing up peaceably and positively for a better world for us all.

Only one way to make that happen - be there!


PS Apologies for the short call - the request to circulate this was only received a couple of hours ago.

Cap, Trade and Lobby

Much remains to catch up on, but here is one hot off the press.

It is James Hansen's reflections following his testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means of the US House of Representatives on 25 February.

His testimony lays out starkly the reasons why cap and trade - which he argues should properly be called 'tax and trade' - is intrinsically incapable of addressing climate change effectively.

Because it is inherently inefficient, far too slow, and wide open to exploitation, as well as just plain unjust.

More than just disquieting, then, that cap and trade is the principal and more or less unique mechanism world leaders are prepared to envisage as a response to the perils of climate change.

Here are some key quotes from Hansen's testimony:

'A ‘cap’ increases the price of energy, as a tax does. It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide the fact that Cap is a tax. Other characteristics of the “cap” approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten “blackout coming” to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.

'The biggest problem with Cap Tax is that it will not solve the problem. The public will soon learn that it is a tax. And because there is no dividend, the public will revolt before the Cap Tax is large enough to transform society. There is no way that the Cap Tax can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.

'We need a tax with 100% dividend to transform our energy systems and rapidly move us beyond fossil fuels. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot let the special interests win this fight.

'Our planet is in peril (1). Climate disruption threatens everyone, but especially the young and the unborn, who will bear the full brunt through no fault of their own. Recent science makes it clear that if we continue to burn most of the fossil fuels we will leave our children a deteriorating situation out of their control.

One scientific conclusion is crystal clear (1): we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without setting in motion a process of climate disruption that threatens the very existence of many species on our planet. This potential injustice is not limited to the innocent species we exterminate. The greatest injustice is to our own species (2) – our children, grandchildren and the unborn, and people who live with nature, who we may call ‘undeveloped’, indigenous people who want only to live their lives without bearing burdens that we create.'

[please see the paper for footnotes 1 and 2 - link below]

Instead he argues passionately for a 'Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend' where the entire yield of the tax is returned to the community so as to reward low carbon users whilst penalising profligate ones. This is a simple measure that can be quickly introduced which will immediately change consumer behaviour directly. One reason is that it will shift the balance decisively in favour of renewable energy over carbon.

In his testimony he suggests:

'a tax large enough to enough to affect purchasing decisions: a carbon tax that adds $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. That’s a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670B per year. We return 100% of that money to the public. Each adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3000 per year, $250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child up to a maximum of two children per family. So a tax rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of $9000 per year for a family with two children, $750 per month. The family with carbon footprint less than average makes money – their dividend exceeds their tax. This tax gives a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy. It spurs innovation.

'This path can take us to the era beyond fossil fuels, leave most remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to extreme environments to find every drop of oil. We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow. Why not do it sooner, for the benefit of our children? Not to do so, knowing the consequences, is immoral. The tax rate likely must increase in time, but when gas hits $4 per gallon again most of that $4 will stay in the United States, as dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many gallons. We will be well on the way to energy independence.'

On the way we get some insights into the world of climate change politics and lobbyists in particular:

'the number of lobbyists in DC working to influence federal policy on climate change increased in the past few years by 300% to 2,340 lobbyists -- four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.'

'The question is: who will Congress listen to? Protesters (bringing no gifts - it's hard enough to pay their own way) or lobbyists (with lobbying expenditures last year of about $90M).

'Young folks, if you need an indication of what you are up against, let me give you one example. Peabody Coal (a.k.a. Peabody Energy) hires Dick Gephardt, paying him $120,000.00 per quarter in 2008. The amount of money going into lobbying is increasing rapidly. As Shakespeare would say, gird up your loins.

'If democracy does not win this one, if the lobbyists win, perhaps the best we can do for our grandchildren is buy them a ticket to another planet. Of course, Congress would have to borrow the money from our grandchildren. But at least we would show that we are giving them some consideration.'

And I guess that goes equally for every one of us too.

Gird up your loins, folks. The Last Battle approaches. Truly.

For those with the time, his testimony is well worth a look to see how the world's top climate scientist summarises our position and policy responses to it. Find them all at

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/james-hansen-ways-and-means-and.html