Sophie Ranson shines a light on the pressing topic of environmental crime and the EU legislations being brought in to combat this crisis. Photo by: Jack b Anthropogenic destruction of the environment, also known as 'ecocide', will be criminalised under a law from the European Union (EU), making it the first international body to do so.    In February 2024, an overwhelming majority of the European Parliament voted in favour of the move with votes at 499 for, 100 against, and 23 non-votes.    Defining ecocide According to Stop Ecocide Internationa l  (SEF), “While most human activity has some degree of impact on the environment, ecocide refers to the very worst harms, usually on a major industrial scale or impacting a huge area.” Legislation in the new directive closely follows the language put forward by a panel of legal experts in 2021 . The panel initially intended to target the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the adoption of ecocide in the Rome Statute of the ICC, making it equal to genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Interest in enacting ecocide laws nationally has since rocketed.  "Environmental crime is exploding around the world, it is now considered just as lucrative as drug trafficking, and is helping to destroy living conditions on Earth," said Marie Toussaint—a French lawyer and member of European Parliament who helped steer negotiations for the new directive . In 2021, France became the first EU nation to include ecocide in its national law, but campaigners criticised the legislation for vague language .    Did you know? "Ecocide, committed repeatedly over decades, is a root cause of the climate and ecological emergency that we face now".                                             A new EU legislation for the Environment The new directive will double what was recognised in former EU environmental directives and cover eighteen criminal offences , including water  abstraction; ship recycling and   pollution ; ozone destruction, and the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. However, some environmental crimes such as fishing; export of toxic waste to developing countries, and carbon market fraud remain missing from the list, as do crimes committed by EU organisations overseas. Member States (MS) will have the freedom to individually determine  the lawfulness of crimes committed outside EU borders. Individuals such as CEOs and board members—once able to dodge personal liability—may now face prison sentences of up to eight years – increasing to 10  should their actions spark fatality Experts mark this new legislation as a positive step. Among these include Antonius Manders —a Lawyer and Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). “CEOs can risk a fine, but they do not want to be personally involved. They never want to go to jail.” he says. For participation in ecocide, countries could now also face fines of up to €40 million  or 5% of their income from the EU. Since the February vote, all 27 member states were given two years to meld the policy into national law. In the same month, Belgium became the first EU country to take action , voting in favour of a revised penal code. Today, citizens face up to 20 years in prison for widespread environmental harm, with organisations liable for fines up to €1.6 million.    Modern policy for longstanding practices  While the mainstream jurisdiction of ecocide is relatively new, it reflects a practice already well-established: humanity’s insidious long-term impact on the planet – particularly via industry and wars. In 1990, Vietnam became the first country in the world to integrate ecocide into its domestic law following the catastrophic impact of US herbicidal warfare programme— Operation Ranch Hand (1961-1972 ) —during the Vietnam War. Under this operation, over five million acres of crops and 500,000 acres of forests were affected. Article 278 , which is still applicable today, states, “ecocide, destroying the natural environment, whether committed in a time of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity.”   Adoption of this policy in the EU today will affect some of the world’s highest-polluting organisations such as RWE, the region’s highest emitter. In 2021, this German energy company generated 89 million tonnes of Scope 1 emissions and 80% of its electricity from non-renewable sources  in 2020.  "Environmental crime is exploding around the world, it is now considered just as lucrative as drug trafficking, and is helping to destroy living conditions on Earth," said Marie Toussaint, a French lawyer and member of European Parliament who helped steer the negotiations . In summary As modern environmental destruction continues disrupting nations today—devastating ecosystems across Europe and beyond—these new laws further clamp down on the legalities of this conflict, flagging it as far more than a humanitarian crisis, but a planetary one, too.   Similar articles: The Countries Leaving the Controversial Energy Charter Treaty Researcher: Rachel Cairns | Editor: Harriet Newcome | Online Editor: Alison Poole A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Sophie Ranson examines AI's transformative impact, from driving advancements in healthcare to improving environmental conservation efforts. Photo by: Igor Omilaev From job market changes to improvements in environmental and healthcare services, opportunities in artificial intelligence (AI) are rewiring the trajectory of our global society.  Assistive technologies and education AI’s advancement in assistive technology has made significant strides in making accessibility and high quality of life possible for all. Assistive technology refers to technology and software, such as wheelchairs and dictation services, which enable people to complete certain tasks that they otherwise may have struggled with. Over one billion people globally rely on such services, and this figure will rocket to 3.5 billion by 2050.   In the classroom, AI is enabling accessible learning for students with neuro-diversities and disabilities , those with visual impairments for example can now access more proficient text-to-speech technologies. This is ultimately increasing inclusivity in education.   But fast-tracking AI into education isn’t a step welcomed by all. Concerns remain over cheating on homework assignments and final exams, with new research revealing that machine learning models perform extremely well in basic operations management, and processing analysis questions. In 2023, ChatGPT scored between a B- and B for a final exam designed for Pennsylvania’s Wharton School . Did you know? AI could create 38.2 million net new jobs across the global economy offering more skilled occupations as part of this transition.                                                      Healthcare AI tools are empowering people to make more informed choices. From fertility cycle trackers to sweat-tracking devices for Diabetes, trackables present monitoring opportunities for individuals to better manage their health. In turn, this generates cost-savings for the economy. For example, healthcare professionals can use trackables to access a greater pool of data to better understand patient ailments, leading to more impactful and preventative care prescription. According to Forbes, AI could achieve annual savings of $7 billion for the US healthcare sector alone.   And that’s not the only way AI is impacting medicine. Compared to traditional surgery, robot-assisted procedures are safer and achieve greater accuracy and precision. Patients who receive such procedures are 77% less likely to develop blood clots, spend 20% less time in hospital, and are 52% less likely to be readmitted .   Environment   By 2030, around 4.4% of global CO2 emissions could be avoided thanks to AI technology; that equates to the combined annual emissions of Australia, Canada and Japan combined. But new technology can also deliver bottom line benefits, with environmental applications alone predicted to boost the global economy by 4.4% — an additional $5.2 trillion USD .   These applications include enhanced environmental monitoring; more sustainable supply chains, and a better balancing of the supply and demand of energy systems , prompting a greater uptake of renewables globally, in parallel with a lower dependence on fossil fuels. AI can also help to reduce waste in energy-intensive sectors, such as agriculture which currently contributes to 22% of global CO2 emissions , and builds more resilient agrifood systems .   AI is also playing a growing role in the conservation and monitoring of nature and wildlife. From monitors to tracking software, AI enables the unobtrusive, continuous collection of data on species and biodiversity . For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association ( NOAA ) fisheries in the Pacific Islands deployed acoustic recorders to locate humpback whales. In 2018, the organisation partnered with Google AI to develop a machine learning model that could detect the distinctive humpback whale song. Since then, NOAA has accumulated approximately 190,000 hours of recordings—a feat not possible without AI. According to NOAA research oceanographer, Ann Allen ; “It would take an exorbitant amount of time for an individual to manually identify whale vocalisations.” She told The Guardian, “We also found a new occurrence of humpback song at Kingman reef, a site that never before had documented humpback presence.” This data will now form the basis of developing critical marine protection policies to protect these mammals. Human innovation or inhibition? From writing to acting, ChatGPT’s launch into the world in November 2022 impressed the world with its ability to perform tasks thought only possible with the human touch, from writing poetry, to composing music, and conducting diplomacy. Numerous other machine learning platforms, such as Claude from Anthropic and Gemini from Google , have since launched to compete with the OpenAI chatbot. In the US, generative AI tasks could automate 10% of tasks across a plethora of industries , prompting nearly 12 million workers to change jobs within the decade . Due to improved productivity and efficiency rates, similar trends are expected globally. But inaccuracies from AI still occur. That’s why organisation such as McKinsey propose that AI will more likely complement and improve efficiency rates of many existing jobs, versus replacing them entirely. The UK government stipulates that some jobs, such as Teaching, are “irreplaceable” . With the creation of 38.2 million net new jobs globally, AI will undoubtedly reshape the job market. But some question its impact on humanity’s ability to creatively tackle new challenges. “Now humanity faces the prospect of an even greater dependence on machines,” according to Greg Rosalsky and Emma Peaslee from NPR . “It's possible we're heading towards a world where an even larger swath of the populace loses their ability to write well. It's a world in which all of our written communication might become like a Hallmark card, written without our own creativity, personality, ideas, emotions, or idiosyncrasies. Call it the Hallmarkisation of everything.” “Using AI for environmental applications could contribute up to $5.2 trillion USD to the global economy in 2030, a 4.4% increase relative to business as usual.”   Conclusion AI is poised to enhance every aspect of life as we know it . With this major epochal transition, AI is bound to remedy some of humanity’s existing challenges. However, as this technology is developing at an ever-increasing rate, it is also possible that AI will spark new challenges that we cannot predict. Careful consideration, regulation, and ethical deployment of AI are essential to ensure that its benefits are maximised while mitigating potential risks. Regulatory bodies and policymakers must be proactive in addressing these challenges to safeguard societal well-being.   Similar articles: Future in Focus: The Becoming of Blockchain Researcher: Alexandra Kenney | Editor: Harriet Newcombe | Online Editor: Elena Silvestri A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Mia Yaffes explores the mounting legal challenges faced by companies over their roles in climate change. Photo by: Patric Hendry As the urgency of climate change grows amidst the attempts to combat this crisis, the rise in the number of court cases involving environmental organisations and other vulnerable parties continues.   In July 2023, the U.N. Environmental Programme  (UNEP) released a report stating that between 2020 and 2022, there were 2180 Climate Change cases. According to the UNEP, a climate change case involves a lawsuit aimed at addressing specific climate-related issues, such as reducing greenhouse emissions (mitigation), preparation for extreme weather (adaptation), or improving scientific understanding (attribution science).  How do cases promise to aid climate change?  The heightened anxiety of citizens and activists can begin to explain the rise in the numbers of cases. For these affected groups, one of the most tangible means to take action against climate change is to apply legal pressure with court litigations. This pressure has manifested globally.     Surprisingly, while the majority of cases occur in the US, developing countries and small island nations account for 17% of reported cases . Moreover, these cases promote the voices of otherwise unprotected youth, with 34 cases representing under-25-year-olds.     Many of  these cases focus on one central concern: the escalating global temperatures.   Governments fail to comply with outstanding greenhouse emission rates, which "inevitably will lead more people to resort to the courts" , said Michael Gerrard, Sabin Centre’s Faculty Director.     These lawsuits are typically one of six types such as Infringement on human rights; disputing corporate greenwashing; locals demanding their government to increase climate policies, and companies and governments being held accountable for responding to the aftermath of climate change accordingly. Did you know? Climate change cases have more than doubled since 2017 from 884 in 2017 to 2180 in 2022                                                 Examples of cases    The key climate litigation cases  have created positive change worldwide. The majority of these cases tackle a government’s inability to comply with pre-existing climate goals or neglecting to take sufficient action.     For instance, The European Commission and EU consumers authorities have written to 20 airlines operating in the EU asking them to address “several types” of “misleading green claims” made to appeal to consumers and giving them 30 days to say how they will bring their practices in line with EU law. Brazil’s supreme court deemed the Paris Agreement as ‘supranational’; Germany’s court condemned the Federal Climate Protecting Act for its human rights violations, and a Dutch organisation mandated that the infamous oil and gas company Shell reduce its carbon emission levels.   The battle against Shell    Shell faced yet another major court case battle by one of their shareholders , the environmental law charity Client Earth. The Companies Act 2006 provided the legal framework for shareholders to take derivative actions against Shell’s directors. Client Earth pursued legal action against Shell due to the company's failure to progress towards its target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The judge, however, ruled against Client Earth, saying their evidence was not concrete and without good faith. The judge also said there were no clear means for Shell to achieve its emissions reduction targets. An optimistic outlook According to the CCC, the UK, in comparison to neighbouring countries, ranked 21st out of 21 for per-capita installations of heat pumps in 2022 . In the midst of the current cost of living crisis, it is true that making drastic changes to homes will prove impossible for many people as stated by the CEO of Good Energy, Nigel Pocklington ,    "Many of these cases focus on one central concern: the escalating global temperatures. Governments fail to comply with outstanding greenhouse emission rates, which ‘inevitably will lead more people to resort to the courts" - Michael Gerrard, Sabin Centre’s Faculty Director Conclusion    Does it combat climate change and   benefit the environment to take a company to court?   In instances like Client Earth's unsuccessful attempt to prosecute Shell, it may seem doubtful. However, the successful cases can lead to concrete and viable plans which actively address climate crisis, such as when a UK court found the government in breach of its legal duties  under the Climate Change Act 2008 .   Furthermore, as the cases have doubled within a five-year period , and reached up to 65 judicial types, it is apparent that people are committed passionate about confronting climate change. The rising number of court cases reflects a growing awareness and dedication to a critical cause.   Similar articles: The Countries Leaving the Controversial Energy Charter Treaty Researcher: Robyn Donovan | Editor: Fiona Patterson | Online Editors: Elena Silvestri & Alison Poole A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Mia Yaffes   reveals the promises of virtual reality and how it might shape our future. Photo by: Shri Virtual Reality (VR) threatens to shape our future drastically. Currently its purpose seems to be in the form of gaming though its promises are greater. But what can we really expect from this new and somewhat unknown innovation? A concise definition of this new digital realm is 'a technology that allows a user to carry out actions in a digital environment, yet feels as if they are immersed in a physical environment'. VR enables people to perceive and interact with a new digital surrounding in a way that resembles the physical world, including experiencing detailed and sensory elements. The investment for a new future   As VR becomes increasingly more prevalent, the industry’s funding grows rapidly . In 2023 the VR market size was valued at $15.8 billion. From 2022 to 2025 the industry numbers are predicted to almost double, from $12 billion to $22 billion.   Did you know? As of 2023, the VR market is worth approximately $15.8bn.                                                  Concerns and benefits of VR on youth   With the rapid rise of VR comes the question of risk to the development of children and adolescents. Despite the common public notion that VR harms teenage progression, studies showed that its impact on cognitive development is mostly positive or neutral . The consensus was that the main concerns arise from the overuse and unsupervised use of screens and ‘head mounted displays.’     Furthermore, these studies found that VR can be used to educate and support those with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). Influence on healthcare Making recent headlines for ‘transforming healthcare’ ,  VR can be used by professionals to facilitate improvements in memory, cognition and physical therapy treatments, and can even elevate surgical efficiency. Doctors are able to cultivate their capacity to empathise by simulating the patients’ experience of conditions such as Parkinson’s disease or Dementia. Studies also show that VR directly helps student doctors to understand and perceive the problems of the elderly, especially with vision and hearing loss or Alzheimer’s .     VR has been effective in aiding patients who need physical rehabilitation. The use of ' motion enabled games ' boosts motivation, and encourages the reproduction of specific movements. It can also help patients to practice real-life tasks like shopping etc, and programmes can be altered for patient needs.     Surgical efficiency is also refined through VR. Harvard released a study  showing that VR improved surgical precision by 230% more than conventional approaches. Moreover, it increased procedure time by 20%. Participants of the study underwent training using either VR or traditional methods, and then performed a procedure to repair a fractured tibia; a bone which VR can be extremely beneficial in improving. VR is also having a significant effect in raising hospital conditions for a wide variety of people, e.g. reducing  labour pain during childbirth, or the use of video games to distract young, ill children from pain.       “ VR is inherently a very therapeutic medium. The fact that people know it's not real enables them greater psychological flexibility; they can make new learning that's beneficial for their mental health. ” – Daniel Freeman , professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Oxford   Conclusion In a new age of virtual reality, questions loom about the long-term effects of using VR, yet it could promise more than know. Monetary investments portray the future impact that we believe VR might have, and the studies conducted in the healthcare realm exhibit the positive effect it has on people.   Similar articles: Future in Focus: The Analysation of AI Researcher: Phoebe Agnew-Bass | Editor: Fiona Patterson | Online Editor: Elena Silvestri A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Alekia Gill explores how large corporations exploit the resources of our planet, limit access to essentials and widen the wealth gap. Photo by: Pepi Stojanovski On the list of UN-defined basic human rights is access to safe water, food, and a clean environment. By exploiting the planet’s natural resources, corporations make increased profits whilst limiting the supply of these basics. Seeking to financially gain from public resources, they move dangerously close to full monopolisation and privatisation of supplies. Corruption within the water industry Very little of the earth’s surface water is drinkable, and even this small percentage is at stake due to climate change, pollution and the impact of corporations on its accessibility. In 2020, it was discovered that multinational food company Nestle, which owns around 80 water brands, had taken 25% of its water ‘withdrawals’ from water-stressed areas.   At the start of the millennium, companies at the UN Global Compact agreed to implement ten principles which would encourage them to meet ‘fundamental responsibilities in human rights, labour, environment, and anti-corruption’ . They were later called to ‘address global water challenges’ through six commitment areas. Included were the tracking and assessment of water usage; awareness of water sustainability when making business decisions, and collective action with governments and public authorities. One specific commitment entails outreach towards local communities in which the business operates. Nestle is one of two hundred companies that endorsed this mandate, yet they have arguably put the health of their consumers at risk. They most recently came under fire for the low sanitary quality of their mineral waters , and for adding up to six grams of sugar—per each serving—to their infant food products in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Did you know? Only approximately 3% of water on Earth is fresh, and only 0.5% is ‘available’ as fresh water.                                                  The exploitation of seeds and forests When companies own a large share of public resources, they pose a risk to smaller businesses, as most of the stock is in their control. Monsanto—now owned by Bayer—is an agrochemical company who once owned more than eighty percent of all the genetically modified seeds in the world. In 2013, the US Supreme court ruled that patented seeds could not be re-planted by farmers after harvest, without the rights owners’ permission. This meant that farmers would have to pay for new seeds every season, eradicating the concept of ‘Farm Saved Seed’ . If seeds are patented and owned by only a few companies, prices rise and genetic diversity falls.   At the hands of capitalist ventures and political entanglements, forests have also fallen victim to exploitation and eradication. Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has vowed to take protective measures regarding the Amazon rainforest, following widespread deforestation under previous leader, Jair Bolsonaro. The Amazon Rainforest is on the brink of irreversibly drying out if deforestation is not prevented now. Yet the question remains—who can we trust to preserve the planet's natural resources, if doing so goes against the wishes of those at the top? “Lula, who took office on 1 January this year, has pledged to end illegal logging after deforestation soared to a 15-year high during the Bolsonaro years” Guardian   Conclusion Organisations such as the UN and WHO have guidelines in place to ensure companies operate without harm to communities or individual members of the public. However, even when companies start to comply with these measures, it could be argued that their activism is performative, and their strategies are simply greenwashing. One may wonder whether these companies have a responsibility to uphold moral standards in their products, especially when they are not only human rights but necessities, such as water. When profit is chiefly prioritised, those who suffer are those most in need of these products, namely the vulnerable masses of society.   Similar articles: Corporations are Lobbying to Undermine Climate Policy Researchers: Adrian Windeler & Phoebe Agnew-Bass | Editor: Harriet Newcombe Online Editors: Elena Silvestri & Alison Poole A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Manhaaza Ashfaq explores the risks of one-sixth of species facing extinction in Great Britain. Photo by: Ratapan Anantawat Preserving biodiversity is a global concern, and where one-sixth of its species is now at risk of extinction, Great Britain is of no exception. This loss of biodiversity is largely attributed to human activities which directly and indirectly affect ecosystems, emphasising the need to understand the severity of endangered species statistics and implement measures to protect these ecosystems. Statistics on Species Extinction The State of Nature 2023 Report revealed that 16% of species in Great Britain are currently endangered, while 2% have already become extinct. According to the report: 18% of species in Wales; 13% in England; 12% in Northern Ireland, and 11% in Scotland are threatened by extinction. These statistics are alarming as they highlight that extinction— affecting a wide range of species—could occur sooner than anticipated.   The presence of invertebrates, across various locations, has decreased by 13% since 1970. The highest percentage at 13.9% in Northern Ireland, with England having the highest percentage of endangered vertebrates. Additionally, 54% of flowering plant species and 59% of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) are found in fewer locations due to decline. The current highest proportion of endangered plants is found in Scotland, accounting for 14.6%.   Since 1986, the population sizes of 13 species of seabirds have significantly reduced by 24%, and in Scotland 11 species have experienced a staggering 49% reduction. Wales sees 18% of reptiles and amphibians and 33% of mammals under threat, whilst in Great Britain, 30.8% of amphibians and reptiles and 26.2% of terrestrial mammals also face extinction threats. Did you know? 16% of species in Great Britain are at risk of extinction.                                                   Drivers of Extinction Understanding the factors that contribute to species extinction is vital in designing effective conservation strategies.   A primary contributor to these shifts is climate change, which not only directly impacts natural processes but also exacerbates other factors. Over the past decade , land temperatures have risen by 0.5°C; summers have become 15% wetter; sea temperatures have increased by 0.1°C, and there has been a notable rise in sea levels. The disruption of established ecosystems makes species vulnerable to extinction and affects both food availability and reproductive patterns. Another significant factor is agricultural management. This includes policies aimed at intensifying agrarian practices to meet growing food demands, resulting in the use of chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. Given that a large portion of land in the UK is dedicated to farming , this explains the heightened risk of extinction in the region. Significant causes in the decline of marine life are overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices . These can often lead to bycatch—the unintentional capture of non-targeted species—and the damage of marine habitats. Human behaviour is undeniably the primary driver of animal extinction in Great Britain, as our lifestyles have ever-growing detrimental effects on ecosystems. According to Helena Horton , Environment reporter for The Guardian, “we historically hunted a lot of animals to extinction and have destroyed their habitats over centuries.” However, in addition to directly hunting species, humans also indirectly contribute to habitat destruction and species loss . While the negative impact of human behaviour may not be immediate, the effects are evident over a long period of time, as seen with climate change. Responses and Strategies The former Secretary of State for Environment, Thérèse Coffey , outlined a comprehensive Environmental Improvement Plan in a 2023 BBC article , aiming to 'create and restore at least 500,000 hectares [...] of new wildlife habitats.' The government also emphasised investments such as a £25 million Species Survival Fund and £750 million allocated for woodland and peatland restoration.   However, these proposed ideas may not be sufficient in protecting and improving biodiversity. A holistic approach is necessary for promoting environmental diversification in farming, which includes sustainable solutions and heightened environmental awareness among farmers and consumers. Some responses to the extinction of British species already showcase these principles.   Implementing strategies like mixed grazing, organic farming, and agroforestry reduces the pressure on natural habitats as the diversity of plant and animal life prevents intrusion. Further methods for diversifying habitats involve 'varying mowing regimes, planting or seeding with native tree and shrub species, or occasional soil disturbance.' Avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals and pesticides helps produce microhabitats to support wildlife and create healthier ecosystems while offering varied fruit sources can populate a wider range of species. The Fisheries Act (2020) proposes strategies to ensure fish populations continue to thrive amidst human pressures: ‘Adopting a conservative quota system based on Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)’ to set fishing limits would allow fish populations to thrive naturally, preventing overfishing, and reducing the risk of extinction. Lessening the pressure on habitats by reducing the number of fishing vessels, while adopting sustainable fishing practices decreases the chances of bycatch and overfishing, and the prohibition of harmful fishing techniques in regions aimed at conserving marine ecosystems protects these habitats. Climate change is a major contributor to species extinction in Great Britain , therefore, addressing the root causes of climate change can significantly help in species conservation. In a 2022 article, the NRDC  suggests several ways in which humans can reduce their carbon footprint and mitigate climate change: minimising fuel consumption and substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy sources; promoting sustainable public transportation by expanding transport access, and encouraging 'zero-emission' modes like walking, biking, and transitioning to electric-powered vehicles. Improved forestry practices and sustainable agriculture : considering trees, plants, and soils reduce CO2 emissions by storing large amounts of carbon, it is crucial to preserve them without relying on chemical fertilizers. Additionally, ending or limiting deforestation is vital since trees cannot replenish fast enough after being cut down. This not only leads to long-term ecosystem destruction but also releases substantial CO2 emissions. Given the wide range of endangered species across Great Britain, these methods may not immediately reduce extinction risks for all species; however, by remaining dedicated to these strategies and contributing to the development of additional measures to tackle the extinction crisis, we can gradually diminish the risks. “We need to move far faster as a society towards nature-friendly land and sea use. Otherwise, the UK’s nature and wider environment will continue to decline and degrade, with huge implications for our own way of life.” – Beccy Speight , Chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPS)   Conclusion In summary, the concerning rates of extinction in Great Britain highlight the urgent need to address immediate threats to ecosystems and implement long-term solutions that individuals can integrate into their daily lives. Human activity has a significant impact on biodiversity, and by increasing awareness and applying pro-environmental policies, we can reduce the threats to our wildlife and natural habitats.   Similar articles: Environment: Forests being restored by Animals Researcher: Phoebe Agnew-Bass | Editor: Alison Poole | Online Editor: Elena Silvestri A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. S ubscribe from £1.16 today.

Alekia Gill delves into the current state of affairs concerning the UK's contribution to climate change. Photo by: Matt Palmer Following the news that the first month of 2024 was the hottest January on record, one begins to question the steps being taken by the government in climate change targets. Are they making progress or is change being made too slowly to meet targets? Response from the Government Despite being a consistent leader in the fight against climate change, the UK seems to be falling behind on several policies. In September 2023, the UK’s Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a speech on the Net Zero target set by a growing number of countries—to cut emissions to net zero by 2050. In this speech, Sunak stated that he planned to relax policies on decarbonising buildings and transport, and that he was 'scrapping’ a number of proposals that he deemed ‘unnecessary’ and ‘heavy-handed’. These policies included imposing taxes on meat, and on flights in an effort to discourage the public from contributing to unnecessary emissions in their everyday lives. The PM also made steps to slow the transition, from boilers to heat pumps, within homes but maintains that the 2050 Net Zero target is still within reach. A recent assessment by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), put forward by its advisers to the government, states that not only did they not propose the tax policies—despite advising the public to make more sustainable choices daily— but that the speech decreased the perceived climate ambition of the country and that our role as a leader amongst other COP delegates is slipping Did you know? The UK government needs to quadruple its effort to reach its goal of a 68% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, according to the climate change committee. Rising pressure across the globe Reports from the CCC, covering the discussion from the 2023 COP28 summit, state that while the UK is making progress in some areas of climate change, many sectors are progressing far too slowly for our targets to be met. Solar and onshore wind, for example, face obstacles regarding planning, which come as the world’s largest offshore wind developer, Orsted, announces 800 job cuts due to rising costs and supply chain difficulties. If the government continues to rollback targets for climate change action, the threat of missing the long-term targets becomes even more pervasive. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), dedicated to providing scientific information, regarding climate change across the world, states that the projections outlined in the Paris Agreement are at risk of being breached as soon as February 2034. The Paris Agreement, signed by 196 parties, indicates that all countries involved must make efforts ‘to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’. When the agreement was signed in 2015, this threshold was projected to be reached by 2045—nineteen years later than current predictions. Reasons for the world hurtling towards these record-breaking temperatures are due to several factors, including increased greenhouse gas emissions and, in certain parts of the world, natural climate phenomena, such as El Niño. Glimmers of hope Here in the UK, we cannot ignore that steps are being taken in reducing emissions, and results are being seen. Last year, according to an analysis by Carbon Brief, the amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels fell by 20%, reaching the lowest level since 1957. While this is good news, electricity is ‘just one part of the UK’s overall energy picture’ and ‘three quarters of the UK’s energy mix is gained from oil and gas’, according to David Whitehouse - CEO of Offshore Energies UK. While it has become clear that the UK is making efforts to reduce emissions and decrease climate change, these changes are not happening quickly enough nor often enough to garner the intended results. This is bolstered by the fact that the UK has fallen in esteem as one of the world leaders in climate change action, despite being ahead of the pack in terms of financial measures, sectoral initiatives, and support of sustainable farming across the world. As part of his September speech, Rishi Sunak outlined how it is unreasonable to expect members of the public to make the costly transition to heat pumps under current time pressures, therefore relaxing targets while maintaining that Net Zero will be reached. An optimistic outlook According to the CCC, the UK, in comparison to neighbouring countries, ranked 21st out of 21 for per-capita installations of heat pumps in 2022. In the midst of the current cost of living crisis, it is true that making drastic changes to homes will prove impossible for many people but as stated by the CEO of Good Energy, Nigel Pocklington, “Addressing climate change never dropped off the British public’s priority list, why did it fall down the government’s? We can combat climate change and the cost of living together. Fixing our grid, insulating homes, rapidly rolling out renewables, electrifying heat – these measures will cut carbon and cut costs.” The key will be to strike a happy medium between reducing costs for the British public as much as possible, while rolling out measures as fast as possible in order to avoid irreversible damage to the planet, which continues to be a looming and ever-present threat. Similar articles:The Hidden Cost of Cotton Researcher: Robyn Donovan | Online Editor: Alison Poole A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Sophie Ranson explores the concealed ethical and environmental repercussions associated with plastic. Photo by Possessed Photography From cosmetics to cleaning products, plastic is a ubiquitous feature of modern society. Strong, malleable and durable: its qualities have prompted market growth globally and plastic consumption has quadrupled over the last three decades, doubling between 2000 and 2019 alone. Yet its growing presence creates complications for people and the planet. At 1.8 billion tonnes, the plastic industry accounts for 3.3% of global emissions; 90% of this originates from production. And it’s at the wellhead where the downsides of the plastic industry begin, according to Priscilla Villa, former Earthworks campaigner. “When we talk about fracked gas, we’re talking about fracked plastic,” she says. . 8% of global oil is earmarked for producing the world’s plastics. By 2050, this figure will rocket to 20%. Local communities around these sites pay the price of poorer health. For example, a 2023 study conducted in Pennsylvania, US, revealed that children who live closer to heavily-drilled natural gas wells are more likely to develop asthma and lymphoma. Among other health impacts, close proximity to fracking sites can also result in premature death. Given that marginalised communities are more likely to live closer to fracking sites, the plastic industry contributes to harmful social divides and racial discrimination. “Here in Houston, along the Gulf Coast… we are facing an unprecedented boom in plastic production fed by fracking, that will put even more vulnerable communities in harm’s way,” says Villa. Did you know?                                                                         There are ‘75-199 million tons of plastic waste in the ocean - UNESCO A growing sea of problems for plastic Marine environments hold 80% of the world’s plastics. That’s 75-199 million tonnes of plastic waste swirling about oceans, seas and beaches. Not only does this threaten wildlife, but it seeps into the human food chain too, via the process of bio-accumulation; plastic particles bind with environmental pollutants, which animals then ingest. While fish consume 1,000 microplastics annually, the average adult ingests 35,000 to 62,000. Among the bulk of the waste are single-use plastics: two-thirds of plastic waste originates from plastics with lifespans of under five years. And the industry’s not slowing down: by 2050, the plastic industry is projected to quadruple compared to levels in the 1970s when plastic bottles first appeared on supermarket shelves. The role of policy in plastic waste management Unclear information, a lack of local recycling infrastructure and limited local support are among some of the factors contributing to poor plastic recycling rates. But the responsibility of recycling rates should not fall on the shoulders of the consumer, says Edward Carver, London-based environmental journalist. “That suits the plastics industry just fine,” he says. “When Theresa May proposed a tax on plastic packaging—the world’s first—the British Plastics Federation said that it was “very disturbed” at her tone and pointed out that “littering” was a matter of “personal behavior.” Policies that influence stakeholders further up the supply chain, e.g. product manufacturers, such as Coca Cola, who alone produce 100 billion plastic bottles every year, have the potential to have a greater systemic impact, versus schemes targeted at consumers. A large proportion of plastic waste is the result of industry mismanagement. The OECD highlights that while 9% of plastic is recycled, a staggering 22% is mismanaged. The UK government, for example, exports three olympic-sized swimming pools-worth of waste every day. Most of this ends up in landfills of countries that have low-recycling rates or a reputation for burning waste illegally, such as Turkey and Malaysia, according to Greenpeace. New policies are beginning to trickle down to government actions. For example,the 2021 directive on single-use plastics from the European Union, placed a ban on cutlery, straws, balloon sticks and cotton buds within EU Member State markets, as well as other products made from expanded polystyrene and oxo-degradable plastic. Alternative recycling methods, such as Deposit Return Schemes (DRS), in which consumers pay an additional fee for purchasing plastic-based products, have shown some improvements in recycling rates for plastic waste streams. Though success typically varies, with meager participation from local municipalities and the non-binding nature of these schemes contributing to lower levels of engagement. But change is coming: new EU policy will oblige all member states to have an established DRS for all single-use plastics by 2029. A circular economy approach Some entities are calling for a rethink of the plastics recycling industry altogether. While recycling remains an integral part to waste management, it is symptomatic of a linear approach system, which can be costly for economies. In a linear economy, raw materials for products are extracted, manufactured, used, then disposed of; this leads to the world throwing away between $80-120 billion worth of plastic every year. “We need to rethink the way we make and use plastic,” argues James Woolven, Editor for the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a charity championing the power of a circular economy approach, which aims to extend the lifespan of a product for as long as possible. Innovation in this way can not only preserve the environment, but benefit business’s bottom line, too. “This means channeling our innovation efforts upstream, to the design stage. Design is the key word here. We need to design out waste and pollution… If we keep plastic in the economy, we keep it out of the environment.” Similar articles:The Hidden Cost of Cotton Researcher: Adrian Windeler / Online Editor: Ellis Jackson A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Liam Anderson takes a look into digital currencies. Where they are from and where they could be going. Photo by: Moose photos From its beginnings as the foundation of Bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies that followed, to its widespread adoption across multiple industries, blockchain technology has since emerged as a disruptive yet innovative technological force with far-reaching implications. Understanding blockchains A blockchain network is primarily used in relation to cryptocurrency and can be best described as a decentralised, immutable ledger that records transactions made across a peer-to-peer network. Participants using the network can confirm transactions without requiring approval from a central clearing authority – e.g. a bank. When a transaction is completed, it is recorded in the blockchain as a ‘block’ of data. This data contains lots of information about the transaction, and the asset itself. These blocks form a chain containing a cryptograph of the previous block, allowing users to have an open view of the transaction history of the asset. As these blocks link up, the design makes it near impossible to alter past transactions without altering subsequent blocks in the chain, thus safeguarding the integrity of the data within the blockchain. Did you know? In 2023, the market size of the Blockchain Technology market has been estimated at approximately USD 8.89 billion. The history and future of Blockchain Blockchain can be traced back to 2008 when the enigmatic Satoshi Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency. As the popularity of Bitcoin grew, developers began to explore the potential applications of blockchain beyond cryptocurrencies. Today, blockchain technology is used across a wide range of industries beyond finance. Supply chain management, healthcare, real estate, voting systems, and intellectual property rights are just a few examples of sectors benefiting from blockchain's transparency, security, and efficiency. Blockchain technology looks set to stay and will likely evolve and continue to grow. One area of significant interest is decentralised finance, which aims to disrupt traditional financial services such as lending, borrowing, and trading by leveraging blockchain technology. Blockchain's potential in addressing issues like identity theft, data breaches, and fraud is garnering attention from governments and businesses worldwide. By providing a secure and tamper-proof means of storing and verifying data, blockchain has the potential to revolutionise how we manage digital identities and protect sensitive information. Furthermore, as environmental concerns become more pressing, the focus is shifting towards sustainable blockchain solutions. Bitcoin activity alone is estimated to consume an average annual 176 Terawatt hours (TWh), more than the annual energy consumption of Poland in 2023. Efforts are underway to develop eco-friendly consensus mechanisms and reduce the energy consumption associated with blockchain mining, making it more environmentally sustainable in the long run. “There is a new technological institution that will fundamentally change how we exchange value, and it’s called the blockchain.” – Bettina Warburg The possibility of a digital pound There have also been suggestions of developing a digital pound, built on blockchain technology that could be used alongside its established physical companion, the coin. Such a digital currency, issued and regulated by the Bank of England, could offer numerous benefits, including faster and cheaper cross-border transactions, increased financial inclusion, and enhanced transparency in monetary policy. While discussions surrounding the implementation of a digital pound are ongoing, several central banks worldwide are exploring the concept of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as a means of modernising financial systems and adapting to the digital age. Nigeria, the Bahamas, and Jamaica are the only states to have an active state run blockchain cryptocurrency, and 36 states are currently in the pilot stage. Conclusion Blockchain technology has come a long way since its inception, transforming the digital landscape and reshaping industries across the globe. As we continue to explore its possibilities, the prospect of a digital pound serves as a compelling example of the transformative power of blockchain in shaping the future of finance and beyond. Similar articles:The Hidden Cost of Cotton Researcher: Phoebe Agnew-Bass / Online Editor: Alison Poole A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Sophie Ranson investigates the surge in environmental and climate litigation, and how court action can be used as a tool to achieve justice. Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm The use of the courts in the fight against climate injustice is becoming increasingly commonplace. A 2023 report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that global climate litigation cases more than doubled in five years – rising from 884 in 2017 to 2,180 in 2022. At the root of this is frustration over government inaction. "There is a distressingly growing gap between the level of greenhouse gas reductions the world needs to achieve in order to meet its temperature targets, and the actions that governments are actually taking to lower emissions,” said Michael Gerrard, Faculty Director at the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law. “This inevitably will lead more people to resort to the courts.” Now, governments are being held to account by groups and individuals through litigation. Climate-related cases occurred in 65 forums worldwide, across all judicial court levels, from regional to national to international, as well as tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. The report identified six main categories of claims: Cases relying on human rights enshrined in international law and national constitutions Challenges to domestic non-enforcement of climate-related laws and policies Litigants seeking to keep fossil fuels in the ground Advocates for greater climate disclosures and an end to greenwashing Claims addressing corporate liability and responsibility for climate harms Claims addressing failures to adapt to the impacts of climate change. While the majority of cases originated in the US, 17% arose in non-Western countries. This includes Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which home some of the world’s most at-risk communities to the effects of climate change. Did you know? The total number of cases connected to climate change more than doubled in the five years since 2017. - United Nations New Voices Take Centre Stage in the Courtroom Climate litigation has created a stage for previously marginalised groups, such as young people and women, to make their case. In 2016, a seven-year-old girl from Karachi, Pakistan sued her country’s Supreme Court for violating her human rights for allowing the burning of coal for electricity generation. One year later, a nine-year-old named Ridhima from India filed a similar case. “My government has failed to take steps to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are causing extreme climate conditions. This will impact both me and future generations,” Ridhima told The Independent. The UNEP report identified a total of 34 cases that were instigated by, or on behalf of, people aged 25 and under. Yet engagement in climate change litigation remains intergenerational. In March 2023, thousands of senior women banded together to sue their home country of Switzerland before the European Court of Human Rights, demanding more radical climate action. Companies, too, are feeling the heat, as courts order organisations to cough up for inadequate environmental action. In June 2023, a German court ruled that carmakers Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz owe compensation for emissions-cheating devices. Commenting on the landmark 2021 court decision that oil giant Royal Dutch Shell must slash its emissions by 45% by 2030, Paul Benson, a lawyer for NGO Client Earth said: "[It] shows the Paris agreement has teeth - not just against governments, but against companies." "This resolution sends a message that nobody can take nature, clean air and water, or a stable climate away from us – at least, not without a fight" - Inger Andersen, UN Environment Programme Executive Director, on a UN decision to declare a healthy environment a human right Fighting For a Healthy Environment Roda Verheyen, a successful environmental lawyer from Germany, attributed the increased use of climate litigation to three factors: court timings, evidence and culture. The nature of climate change litigation means that some cases may wait years for resolution. “Courts take a long time to actually come to conclusions," she told the BBC, giving the plaintiff time to add to their body of evidence. Simultaneously, an ever-growing body of research cements climate change as a man-made phenomenon. This makes lawyers better positioned to defend plaintiffs in court. "And then obviously the narrative of what society perceives climate change to be has changed," she commented. "A lot of law is flexible to some degree, because you always have to interpret existing rules. And when [judges] do that, they take into account societal norms and how belief systems might have changed." In 2022, for example, the UN declared a ‘healthy environment’ a human right. While not legally binding, the intergovernmental organisation hopes the move will have a trickle-down effect on national climate policies. It is also expected that the new UN policy will fuel rising climate action in the courtroom by environmental campaigners. "This resolution sends a message that nobody can take nature, clean air and water, or a stable climate away from us – at least, not without a fight," according to Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. But climate litigation isn’t a silver bullet for climate action, Benson warned. "It's just one of the levers [alongside activism, policy and science] that can be pulled to trigger necessary change." Similar articles: UK Government Sued Over Climate Policy Researched by Phoebe Agnew-Bass / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Liam Anderson provides an overview of Autism and explains the signs to promote a better understanding of the condition, also known as ASD. Photo by Enes Çelik Autism, sometimes called autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a broad medical term given to a range of behavioural conditions that can affect people in different ways, with various signs. Autism is regarded as a spectrum condition, which means the presentation and effect of its symptoms vary greatly per person. For example, some autistic people need no support or care – those around may even be surprised by their diagnosis, while others may require constant support from a carer or guardian. Autism was first recognised as a neurological condition in the early 20th century. Though there are descriptions of children, now believed to have been autistic, prior to this time, there was no understanding of their differences or what lay behind them. Many misconceptions about the causes and symptoms of autism prevail to this day. Moreover, as autism can present differently and requires different degrees of support, many autistic people live without a diagnosis. It is important to note that being autistic is not an illness or a disease, it simply means that your brain works differently to others. Did you know?                                                                         Worldwide, it is estimated that 1 in 100 children have been diagnosed with Autism. - Wiley Signs of Autism: Autistic people may: ·       Find it hard to communicate with others ·       Have difficulty understanding how other people feel ·       Feel anxious in social or generally unfamiliar situations ·       Get overwhelmed by certain stimuli ·       Engage in repetitive actions, language, or thoughts ·       Take slightly longer to process certain types of information ·       Avoid making eye contact when talking to or engaging with others. ·       Be non-verbal ·       Become fixated on specific hobbies, creating a 'spikey profile' with deep knowledge in one area but potential gaps in others. ·      Experience meltdowns or shutdowns due to overstimulation: meltdowns involve a loss of control, while shutdowns may manifest as periods of silence. "The greatest discomfort for autistic people can be the social one. For me, I was confused by the way people behaved." - Chris Packham, CBE, National Autistic Society Ambassador. The Causes of Autism Although we still don’t know exactly what causes autism, the research shows that there is not just one cause, and that autism likely develops from a combination of factors. Some factors have been observed to increase the chance of a child being autistic, though it is very important to note that an increased chance is not the same as a cause. Factors that can lead to an increased chance in autism include: ·       Having children at an older age ·       Complications during the birth or pregnancy period ·       Pregnancies that occur within one year of each other It is now known that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism. Although there are some who still advocate for this theory, the science does not support it and it has been repeatedly refuted by numerous studies. How Common is Autism It is estimated that around 1 in 100 children have autism worldwide, but some estimates put the figure much higher. This is because autism is often undiagnosed, particularly in girls and minority ethnic groups. It was previously believed that autism was more common in men than in women. However, research now suggests that many autistic women and girls are not correctly diagnosed, potentially because autism presents differently in males and females. Further research is likely needed to fully understand these presentational differences. Autism diagnoses also appear to be lower in minority ethnic groups. This could be due to several factors including differences in healthcare, environmental factors, and cultural perceptions and stigmas surrounding autism. Similar articles: Understanding of Borderline Personality Disorder Researched by Phoebe Agnew-Bass / Editor: Mia Yaffes / Online Editor: Ellis Jackson A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Thomas Kelly explores the proposed megacity 'The Line’ which promises unprecedented organisation of its population and considers its potential purpose for utopia or state control. Photo by Kunj Parekh Trapped within the confines of a crystalline metropolis, hemmed in by desolate wastelands on all sides, Yevgeny Zamyatin's dystopian science fiction novel We serves as a stark portrayal of the convergence of monumental urbanism and totalitarian ideology. In this narrative, the transparent nature of the city becomes a tangible metaphor for the erosion of autonomy and individuality within the all-seeing surveillance state. Zamyatin's work has proven eerily prophetic as we witness the unfolding of a real-world counterpart in Saudi Arabia's ambitious megacity, NEOM, often referred to as 'The Line.' This ambitious endeavour entails the construction of two colossal, mirrored skyscrapers spanning an astounding 170 kilometres across the Arabian desert, giving rise to a distinctive vertical city. With an estimated construction cost of $1 trillion and the capacity to house 9 million residents, this controversial project commenced its construction in July 2023. The Line aspires to redefine the essence of urban development, presenting a radically innovative model for spatial organisation and infrastructure systems in future smart cities.  According to Rafael Prieto-Curiel, a researcher specialising in cities at the Complexity Science Hub, ‘it embodies the dream of starting from scratch and completely reimagining the concept of a city’. Nevertheless, its announcement has evoked a spectrum of reactions, ranging from awe at its scale and commitment to sustainability and liveability to concerns regarding the potential extension of influence by the Saudi state and technology-driven governance, with so-called ‘gigaprojects’ straddling the lines between the creation of new progressive ecologies and image-centric vanity schemes. The project has stirred concerns regarding an intensification of authoritarian control within a nation marked by a troubling history of human rights abuses, political assassinations, and strict restrictions on press freedoms, prompting journalist Elliot Smith to pose the question: is The Line ‘ushering in the future or a smokescreen for repression?’ Did you know?                                                                         The Line will have 265,000 people per km2, four times greater than the most densely populated city on Earth, Manila. - NPJ The Line: A Cognitive City While often presented as revolutionary solutions to conventional urban challenges like congestion, overcrowding, and poverty alleviation, these igaprojects can often operate as a disguise concealing their true intentions. Behind their glossy façades lie a common thread of control whether exerted by architects, corporations, states, or an amalgamation of these forces. Saudi Arabia has strategically established itself as the epicentre of this global architectural phenomenon, showcasing a series of momentous and otherworldly commissions on the horizon as featured at the cityscape conference in Riyadh. These include the Jeddah Central, Murabba, the Red Sea Project, and, the highly anticipated Kingdom Tower, set to surpass the Burj Khalifa as the tallest structure on the planet. As the name indicates, these developments formed part of the Crown Prince Bin Salman’s 2030 vision to raise the profile of the nation and transform its petrochemical economy into a hub of global tourism. Touted as the world's first 'cognitive city,' the Line epitomises this approach by organising its residents within a smart superstructure spanning multiple levels, where the digital and physical spheres are inextricably connected. This cognitive city relies on AI and Project NEOS, the world's first operating platform to facilitate data transfers, human mobility, and the entire city's communication infrastructure. Inspired by the CGI special effects of video game technology, of which the Crown Prince is known to be a fan, the shining environments glimpsed in the promotional materials create the impression of an unreal paradise, a social media, AI-augmented utopia that promises total connectivity. “You cannot build a 500-meter-tall building out of low-carbon materials; this would require a phenomenal quantity of steel, glass, and concrete” - Philip Oldfield, Head of School, UNSW Built Environment Joseph Bradley, the CEO of Technology and Digital at NEOM, has made bold assurances regarding user data control within The Line. He stated, "[The Line] residents will have full control over their personal data. M3LD is an innovative consent management platform that will enhance trust by putting personal data ownership back in the hands of users." However, the question arises: can these promises be genuinely trusted? These commitments, seemingly beneficial, raise concerns about their potential costs, including privacy infringement, restricted movement, and diminished individual autonomy. The incorporation of advanced AI and geolocation software capable of tracking residents throughout the city, and collecting data on their spending habits and daily routines, raises valid apprehensions. Moreover, the promise of swift cross-city journeys in under fifteen minutes hints at a controlled and confined living environment, where citizens will be under constant surveillance. Environmental Sustainability One of The Line's noteworthy aspects is its emphasis on environmental sustainability. This claim has faced scrutiny and scepticism. Despite the visuals of lush green foliage and spaces, the sprawling 170-kilometre line could act as a formidable barrier to the surprisingly varied desert species unless substantial investments are made in constructing costly tunnels to facilitate their movement. Furthermore, doubts persist regarding The Line's claims of ecotopia, especially when considering the substantial material and energy demands of skyscraper construction. Philip Oldfield, Head of the Built Environment school at the University of New South Wales, cautioned against overlooking the massive, embodied carbon cost of such construction. He noted that this cost could overshadow any environmental benefits, stating, “You cannot build a 500-meter-tall building out of low-carbon materials; this would require a phenomenal quantity of steel, glass, and concrete”. New Era of Authoritarianism One cannot ignore the deeply troubling human rights violations already entangled with this megaproject. Last year, the Saudi Arabian government imposed death sentences on Shadli al-Huwaiti, Ibrahim al-Huwaiti, and Ataullah al-Huwaiti, all members of the Huwaitat tribe residing in the project's designated area, even before the project commenced. In his endeavour to enhance Saudi Arabia's reputation, Crown Prince Mohammed appears willing to resort to various brutalities that seem to be escalating, aiming to implement a new way of life and attract investments from Western democracies. These incidents give rise to profound ethical concerns about the architects, corporations, and foreign investors associated with the endeavour. While we must explore innovative approaches to address the impending climate crisis, these troubling events cast a shadow of uncertainty over the future of a project that many worldwide suspect, if it comes to fruition, will symbolise a new era of authoritarianism. Similar articles: Sustainability: The Crackdown on Greenwashing Researched by Thomas Kelly / Editor: Ziryan Aziz / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Liam Anderson investigates the importance of trees in the UK, looking at both the quantifiable and intangible value that trees provide in our everyday lives. Photo by Dan Otis Several recent studies have shed light on the numerous benefits that trees have upon the people that live beside them and wider society. From reducing pollution levels and flood risks to improving mental and physical health, the social impact of trees is vast, and the economic impact worth billions. The benefits of trees can be broadly classified into five categories: Health and social well-being Cognitive development and education Economy and resources Climate change mitigation and habitat Green infrastructure By reducing air pollution levels, encouraging physical and outdoor activity, boosting social interconnectivity, reducing stress, and positively impacting crime levels, trees promote good health and social wellbeing in the communities where they are located. Furthermore, large open spaces with trees have been shown to be linked to reduced symptoms of ADD and ADHD. Did you know? A 2021 report found that walks taken by people in UK woodlands save £185m a year in mental health costs. - Forest Research Economic Value The impact of trees on their surrounding communities has positive ramifications for both the local and national economy, and the overall costs incurred by tree planting is often offset by the economic value they contribute once they reach maturity. Outside of a tree’s commonly associated economic value as a material commodity, there are also significant economic benefits to trees in their capacity for removing and storing CO2. The secondary economic value of planting trees should not be ignored as they have proven to reduce pollution levels, cool temperatures, and limit noise pollution. Furthermore, they can increase the desirability of an area, thus boosting the local property prices. But determining the value of trees is challenging, as many of their benefits and contributions are difficult to quantify, such as the positive impact they have on mental and physical health. However, a 2018 report by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs estimated the total value of the contribution made by the UK’s three million hectares of woodland at approximately £4.9 billion per year. Moreover, the value of the benefits of non-woodland trees was estimated to be between £1.4 billion and £3.8 billion, depending on the metrics and methodology used. A single tree with a canopy diameter of 30 metres can provide hundreds of pounds to the UK economy each year. Trees Under Threat Despite the wide-ranging benefits that trees have on surrounding human populations, they face significant threat across the world, not only through deforestation but also due to insufficient government planning for urban tree canopy cover. For example, one study found the urban canopy tree cover in the United States to be declining at a rate of around 36 million trees per year. This is largely down urbanisation outgrowing tree planting, as well as the spread of tree diseases and pest infestations. In the UK, the government has targets set for increasing tree cover, but for many these targets are too little too late. Mike Childs, Head of Policy at Friends of the Earth, states: “The government’s suggestion of increasing tree cover in England from 14.5% to 17.5% by 2050 is completely inadequate,” and argues that tree cover should be doubled. In response, former Forestry Minister Trudy Harrison recognised the “extraordinary financial value of the trees in our streets, our parks and our countryside.” However, she decried the limited protection of trees, citing the example of the East of England which has lost half of its trees in the past 150 years. Going Forward It is hoped that the latest research on the benefits of trees will be used to inform urban designers and town planners on how to incorporate trees into development projects to ensure we continue to reap the numerous rewards that trees offer. Environment: Forests Being Restored By Animals Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Editor: Ziryan Aziz / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Aimee Jones assesses the UN High Seas Treaty's potential to safeguard international waters amid ongoing threats to the ocean and marine life from human activity. Photo by John Towner Historically, only 1% of international waters have been protected. The High Seas Treaty, agreed by UN Member States in March 2023, aims to change that. Deemed crucial for enforcing the pledge that several countries made at the UN Biodiversity Conference in 2022 to protect one third of the sea (and land) by 2030, the treaty provides a means to protect the ocean from pressures caused by human activity. Protection for the High Seas The high seas, also known as international waters, make up two-thirds of the ocean. Governance of these areas is difficult as they lie beyond the control of any country. Known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ), the new treaty aims to protect biodiversity by allowing the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) at a global level. The journey to reaching agreement was a long one. Commenting on the historic deal in March 2023, director of the High Seas Alliance Rebecca Hubbard said, “Following a two-week-long rollercoaster of a ride of negotiations and superhero efforts in the last 48 hours, governments reached agreement on key issues that will advance protection and better management of marine biodiversity in the high seas. What happens on the high seas will no longer be ‘out of sight, out of mind’.” The Importance of the Treaty The ocean makes up 71% of the Earth's surface and has an undeniable impact on human life. In addition to providing sources of food and regulating our climate, the ocean also generates over half of the oxygen on the planet. With 10% of all marine species at risk of extinction, the urgent need for marine protection is clear. Some of the biggest causes of marine extinction are pollution and overfishing, both of which the treaty could potentially tackle. Besides marine protection, the treaty also seeks to right inequalities. With so much of the ocean still unexplored and unmapped, there is significant interest in the potential genetic resources it might hold. The treaty provides for the sharing of marine genetic resources between countries fairly and equitably. These resources could potentially contribute towards food and pharmaceuticals, which could especially benefit poorer countries which might not otherwise be able to recover such resources. Historically, only 1% of the high seas have been under protection and conservation protocols, despite the fact that the ocean makes up 95% of the world’s biosphere, produces 50% of the planet’s oxygen and soaks up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. - UNFCCC The Future of the Treaty While the aims of the treaty are admirable, there is a lack of detail, particularly with regards to the fishing industry, and questions remain about how MPAs will protect against commercial fishing. Activities will still be allowed to take place within these areas, provided that they are in line with conservation objectives, potentially limiting fishing, shipping and exploration activities. Even in already protected areas of the sea, marine life can come under threat. In many of Britain's protected areas, for example, industrial-scale bottom trawling still takes place. The government was presented with amendments to the fisheries bill in 2020 that could have seen supertrawlers banned from these areas, but voted against it. The treaty is a major step in the right direction when looking at climate change and limiting long-term damage caused by humans. However, it is far from clear whether the necessary protections can be put in place quickly enough to match the urgency of the situation. The UN must wait until at least 60 countries have signed the treaty before it can be implemented. Also critical is the funding. The EU has stated that it will work to ensure ratification happens swiftly, and pledged €40 million in funding towards a Global Ocean Programme. Time will tell whether this is enough to realise the objectives of the long-awaited treaty. Similar articles: Salmon Deaths: 15 Million in 2022 Researched by Alekia Gill & Ellis Jackson / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Hannah Johnstone reveals how plastic-eating worms could help in our war against plastic. Photo by Christina Plastic is one of the leading contributors to our planet’s deteriorating health. Each year, 400 million tonnes of plastic is produced, 40% of which is single-use. Of this plastic, only 9% is recycled, 12% is burnt and the remaining 79% ends up in landfills or the environment. Environmentalists predict that 12 billion tonnes, the equivalent of 66 million blue whales, of plastic waste will occupy landfills or the environment by 2050. Clearly, a solution to all this plastic waste is needed, and soon. Many countries have placed bans on certain plastic use. For example, in 2017 Kenya implemented a full ban on the production and handling of plastic bags. Rwanda and Morocco have also applied plastic bans, meaning that anyone producing or in possession of plastic packaging will face criminal punishment. There is still, however, plastic with lifespans of up to 1000 years overflowing our landfills. Not only does this plastic waste clog up our landfills and produce eyesores in our natural environment, but it also harms wildlife. 1 in 3 turtles will ingest plastic within their lifetimes. With wildlife suffering at the hands of man made waste, could nature be ready to fight back in the form of a worm? The solution? The wax worm could be a potential light in the ever darkening cloud of plastic waste. Scientists have discovered two species of waxworm, the Galleria mellonella and Plodia interpunctella, which can digest polyethylene. Polyethylene is the most commonly used plastic, forming most of the world’s plastic bags and bottles. Professor and beekeeper Federica Bertocchini was the first to discover the worms’ plastic-eating abilities after finding them in her backyard beehives. She placed them in a plastic bag to later find that they produced tiny holes in the plastic. Bertocchini then, along with scientists Paolo Bombelli and Christopher J. Howe, observed that, when placed in a polyethylene shopping bag, approximately 100 Galleria mellonella waxworms consumed almost 0.1 gram of the plastic over the course of 12 hours. This information shows us that it would take 100 of these worms nearly a month to completely break down an average, 5.5 gram plastic bag. It is believed that the worms produce an enzyme capable of breaking down the plastic into ethylene glycol - a biodegradable compound. This enzyme could be the key to breaking down some of the plastic waste polluting our planet and therefore clearing landfills. Although these worms represent a phenomenon in natural history which forms a bridge between the natural world and man-made pollution, it is not looking like the most cost effective method of combating plastic waste. Tracy Mincer, a marine biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, claims that a better solution is simply recycling more and producing less plastic. We are a conscious publication and platform providing social-ethical insight and acknowledgement about topics that matter. Ethical insight, one place. We are non-profit and funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, please donate. | Tru.

Katie Byng-Hall talks about the carbon captures of our ecosystems and their critical importance. Photo by Radek Grzybowski A recent study by the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University has found that there are 3.04 trillion trees on Earth, 422 for every human on the planet, including 3 billion growing in the UK. However, the research has also found that 15 billion trees are lost every year due to deforestation, forest management and changes in land use – the Earth’s population of trees is being severely threatened. It is undeniable that humanity has had a detrimental effect on Earth’s trees. Since human civilisation began 11,700 years ago, the number of trees on the planet has dropped by 46%. As Thomas Crowther, leader of the study, has said, “we’ve nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we’ve seen the impacts on climate and human health”. Benefits Trees Bring As well as being beautiful, there are a multitude of factors which make trees invaluable for us, the planet, and the animals we share the planet with. Trees absorb huge amount of carbon dioxide which would otherwise be polluting the atmosphere. An acre of matured trees provides enough oxygen to supply 18 people for a whole year. Trees provide food for humans as well as most birds and wildlife.They are a habitat for numerous species of animals and insects. Trees help prevent soil erosion by slowing the flow of rainwater down slopes. Thomas Crowther: trees are “essential for the cycling of nutrients”. These benefits cannot be replicated by any manmade system or robot: trees are irreplaceable in most aspects of life as we know it. Saving the Trees Deforestation is continually on the increase in an attempt to accommodate for our excessive commercial habits and demands. More than 20% of the Amazon Rainforest has been destroyed forever for the sake of industrial development, predominantly cattle farming. This decimation has to stopped and counteracted. In 2006, the United Nations Environment Programme launched a campaign called the Billion Trees Campaign which aimed to plant 1 billion trees across the world by the end of 2007. After a decade of encouraging individuals, companies, and countries to participate, the scheme led to the planting of 14.2 billion trees by 2016. Movements of mass awareness-raising and significant action such as the Billion Trees Campaign are desperately needed to save the Earth’s three trillion trees before it’s too late, both for the environment, and for us. We are a conscious publication and platform providing social-ethical insight and acknowledgement about topics that matter. Ethical insight, one place. We are non-profit and funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, please donate. #trees #ecosystem #environmental | Tru.

Emma Smith explores the critical role that bees play in the well-being of our ecosystems. Would the world really stop without bees? Photo by Damien Tupinier It’s almost inconceivable to think that life-as-we-know-it would severely deteriorate if bees were to disappear. Although these black and yellow furry insects might not seem extraordinary at first glance, their place within the ecosystem is highly valuable. The sight of a bee should be welcomed, even more so now, as they are reported to have recently entered into extinction risk. Last year the Earthwatch Institute determined that the bee is the most important living being on the planet. Bees possess many unique benefits that keep our environment functioning. Studies have determined that bees are the only living creature that does not carry pathogens, making it impossible for them to spread viruses and disease. The agriculture industry depends on 70% of these insects. If it weren’t for bee pollen, farmers would not profit. Bees transfer their pollen between flowering plants, which allow them to reproduce and grow as food for animals to feed on, keeping the food chain ticking. The services that bees and other pollinators provide is worth £691 million a year in the UK, regarding the value of the crops harvested. If bees were to die out, hundreds of thousands of jobs and livelihoods would vanish. The honey that bees produce is not only sweet and delicious, but also harbour many health benefits. Raw honey can: · Improve healthy weight management · Counter the effects of allergies · Be a natural source of energy · Heal wounds *Honey should be sourced responsibly and bee farming can have a detrimental affect on bees and quality of life. Albert Einstein said that if bees were to disappear, humans would have four years to live. These important insects are disappearing due to humanity’s interference in nature. The main reasons being mass deforestation, lack of safe places for nests and flowers and uncontrolled pesticides. In Columbia the fumigation of crops has been responsible for 34% of bee deaths over the last three years. It was found that these bees with agro-toxins died of poisoning. Furthermore, due to the ever-expanding construction and development industry, bees are losing their habitats. A theory put forward by The Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland, claims that the waves caused by mobile technology could partly be to blame for the disappearance of bees. Researcher and biologist Daniel Favre conducted 83 experiments that showed, bees in the presence of mobile waves produced a noise 10 times higher than usual; this behavior makes it known to other bees that they are in danger. The waves make the bees disorientated and ultimately lose their sense of direction. Did you know? Bees pollinate up to 80% of wildflowers in Europe. Despite what pesticide companies promote, there are serious health risks attached to the use of these harmful chemicals. The aim of agro-ecology is for agro-ecosystems to mimic how the environment would function naturally; there is no ‘waste’, so everything can be recycled. This means that all-natural processes will control pests. However, there is very little public funding behind it but the recognition of agro-ecology is slowly growing. If we want to establish the protection and re-population of bees, we have to act now. To make human food production safe and preserve wild habitats, ecological farming must be mandatory. We must completely stop the use of all toxic pesticides and promote natural agriculture alternatives. As individuals we can all contribute by planting wildflowers, trees and shrubs. Building a bee bath or wildlife pond in your garden, and eating organic produce. #ecosystems #bees #beethechange | Tru.

Sophie Ranson investigates how fauna and seed dispersion may contribute to higher levels of forest restoration than previously thought. Photo by Amber Shadow Plant species survival depends on seed dispersal. That is, the process of transporting a seed to a new site for germination. The role of animals in this process has long been documented. In the tropics, for example, animals can disperse up to 80% of tree species. But new research indicates that fauna cultivates even greater levels of forest restoration than previously thought. A recent study from the Yale School of the Environment has revealed the most intricate picture of wildlife’s role in seed dispersal. Using data collected across a century, the study enabled the analysis of regenerating forests across all stages of restoration - the first of its kind. Zooming in on Panama’s regenerating tropical forests aged from 20 to 100 years, the study illuminates the role of animal species in seed dispersal parallel to the age of the forest. In younger regenerating forests, smaller terrestrial mammals – such as birds and bats – headed up most of the seed dispersal. That baton was passed to larger species, predominantly flightless mammals, in later stages (aged 20 years and over). Ultimately, animals secure plant abundance and diversity. Coupled with proximity to old growth forests, minimal human impact was also pinpointed as a key catalyst for greater seed dispersal levels. In areas with little to no hunting, for example, an abundance of fauna is available for seed dispersal. Hunting is the greatest threat to wildlife populations in the Congo basin, with larger-bodied species most at risk. The reduction of keystone species, such as elephants and great apes, results in imbalances in critical ecological services, including seed dispersal, as biodiversity richness suffers across entire trophic chains. And when the wildlife community collapses, so too does one of the earth’s mighty defence mechanisms against climate change: forests. Did you know? More than 80% of tree species found in the tropics can be distributed by animals. - Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour Why Forest Cover Matters Forests cover just a third of the Earth’s surface, yet house up to 80% of biodiversity. These vast green spaces also absorb twice as many CO2 emissions as they emit, making them critical carbon sinks. Deforestation swells mean regional air temperatures. In fact, the World Resources Institute estimates that tropical deforestation alone heats up the local average temperature by 1°C annually. It’s no surprise, therefore, that forest restoration is chief on the list of many climate-focused projects. Yet few stem from the symbiotic relationship between animals and plant life. “When we talk about forest restoration, people typically think about going out and digging holes and planting seedlings,” says Liza Comita, Professor of Tropical Forest Ecology at the Yale School of the Environment and co-contributor to the study. “That's actually not a very cost-effective or efficient way to restore natural forests. If you have a nearby preserved intact forest, plus you have your animal seed dispersers around, you can get natural regeneration, which is a less costly and labour-intensive approach.” “In these tropical environments, animals are paramount to a speedy recovery of forests." - Sergio Estrada-Villegas, Yale University, School of the Environment Seeding new hope for forest restoration Projects should instead focus on wildlife management, maximising biodiversity via efforts to attract seed-dispersing wildlife. Promising methods include: increasing the structural complexity of the vegetation; levelling up the number of perches available; and making food sources, particularly fruit, plentiful. The abundance of frugivores – an animal that thrives predominantly on fruit – in deforested areas leads to a “seed rain evenness and diversity up to five times greater” than areas with less fruit availability, according to one study. Beyond seed dispersal, animals also foster fruitful results for fertilisation, which is foundational to forest restoration. Fertilisation ramps up biological activity, replenishing lost nutrients in a site. “In these tropical environments, animals are paramount to a speedy recovery of forests,” emphasises Sergio Estrada Villegas, the study’s lead author. Estrada Villegas hopes the findings will build a new roadmap for restoration projects, expediting nature’s bounty in forests globally. Wildcats In England: A Possible Return Researched by Phoebe Agnew-Bass / Editor: Ellis Jackson / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Alekia Gill explores the ongoing UCU strikes, questioning the future for both staff and students amidst the dispute over pay and working conditions. Photo by Edwin Andrade A report by the University and College Union (UCU) found that, in 2021 to 2022, universities across the UK generated a surplus income of £2.6 billion, the highest produced in four years. This data is taken solely from universities that have been involved in industrial disputes regarding treatment of staff, the underpayment of workers and cuts to pensions. Staff at over 143 universities have been involved in industrial action since 2018, with a Marking and Assessment Boycott taking place over summer, and a five-day UK-wide strike taking place at the beginning of term as part of the long-running dispute. Individual universities can also take matters into their own hands when it comes to continued disruption and management decisions, such as at the University of the Highlands and Islands, where six days of strike action took place in October over job cuts. Signs of Progress At rallies and picket lines at The University of Edinburgh, staff and students testified to the poor conditions provided by the university, leading lecturers to deal with growing piles of administrative tasks and limited time to prepare tutorials for subjects they may never have encountered before. Marking is often done during unpaid hours and administrative staff can become so overwhelmed with requests that responses can take up to two weeks. Recent years have also seen strikes in response to pension cuts. In October 2023, Universities UK agreed to restore pension payments to previous levels before a 35% cut was made in April 2022. Commenting on the agreement, UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: ‘We have pension justice. We now move on to delivering justice on pay and job security.’ Impact on Students For students during strike action and ongoing disputes, learning conditions are heavily disrupted, if not non-existent. Despite this, universities have been unwilling to provide compensation for students who have paid full fees for the entire university experience but are not receiving teaching for much of their studies. For example, the Marking and Assessment boycott led to countless degrees being indefinitely deferred, causing many to lose out on postgrad places, job offers and subsequently, VISAs. For international students who paid over the normal amount to study in the UK, a lack of concern from management is a major cause of frustration. At the University of Edinburgh, the £43k pay rise for Vice-Chancellor Sir Peter Mathieson was nothing short of controversial, since students at the university were left graduating without degree classifications. "This is just the start for our union. We have pension justice. We now move on to delivering justice on pay and job security. We will not stop until we create a higher education sector that properly values its staff." - Jo Grady, UCU General Secretary Looking to the Future At a rally in September, University of Edinburgh Brand Membership Secretary Sue Sierra pointed out that ‘it is unprecedented for a union of our size to win a mandate for industrial action three times in a row. The rules are set up to be difficult for trade unions, so employers are counting on us to not be able to win this mandate for action’. In a significant blow, the UCU announced in November that turnout for the vote on further strike action did not reach the necessary threshold. Turnout was 42.59%, below the 50% threshold, with 68.32% voting in favour of strike action. Meanwhile, the UCU reported that staff at further education colleges across England had voted overwhelmingly in favour of strikes, which took place in November. It is not clear what will come next in the ongoing union disputes. One thing that has been clear, however, is the support from students. One student at the September rally in Edinburgh stated: ‘We stand for fairness, for dignity, and for the future of education’. A joint statement from University of Edinburgh management and the UCU stated that both sides acknowledged the disruption that had been caused and its effects on students. The priority, both parties stated, is to provide quality grades and feedback and to finalise awards and progression from the last academic year, while providing students with the best possible teaching standards. The question of when this will happen, however, has been left unanswered. Similar articles: Key Workers: Strikes over Pay and Conditions Researched by Alekia Gill & Ellis Jackson / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Mary-Jane Amato explores how to understand and support people affected by BPD, breaking down the stigma surrounding a misunderstood issue. Photo by Nathan Dumlao Deemed untreatable by many until the 1970s, BPD, or Borderline Personality Disorder, is one of the most misunderstood and stigmatized personality disorders, affecting around 2% of the world's population. It is closely interconnected to the individual’s personal relationships, causing great distress in those diagnosed and the people near them. But is it possible to better understand those who fall under the umbrella of BPD, and how can we all learn to support them properly? What is BPD and What Are Its Causes? According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Borderline Personality Disorder, also known as Emotional Unstable Personality Disorder ( EUPD), is characterized by "An enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviours that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture." This pattern usually affects the individual's cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control. Such pattern is pervasive to the extent that it severely impairs those areas of life connected to one's social and occupational functioning. This specific personality disorder affects how one feels and thinks about themselves and the people around them, causing extreme anxiety and fear of abandonment, which profoundly impacts interpersonal connections, making it hard to maintain healthy relationships. This condition makes it hard to express one's feelings clearly without the fear of how one is perceived and the constant idea of being abandoned, even when there would be no reason to feel that way. There is no known direct cause for BPD. Researchers believe that personality disorders are caused by a variety of different factors, including a stressful or traumatic life events or a genetic disposition. It is very possible that if a person is diagnosed with BPD, they might have experienced significant trauma in their early years. Such trauma may have stemmed from various situations such as a lack of support growing up, feeling non-validated, familial instability, living in proximity of someone with an addiction, having endured sexual, physical, verbal or emotional abuse, or having lost a loved one. There is, however, a greater probability of developing certain personality disorders if someone in the family has been diagnosed with it before, which explains the genetic theory of its cause. Heightened Feelings and an Altered Perception of Reality People with a BPD diagnosis tend to experience everything more intensely than average. It is common within this disorder to go from extreme highs to extreme lows, and all could happen in a very brief period or last for days. No matter how intense a reaction to an event or situation may be, that response makes complete sense in that person's mind at that precise moment in time. These extreme emotions often factor into the the typical features of the condition: impulsive actions in self-damaging areas (such as spending, substance abuse, binging, or reckless driving), unstable moods, aggressiveness towards others, or self-harming. For these very reasons, people diagnosed with BPD may shut down in fear they may seem like they are constantly overreacting or being misunderstood with how they feel about themselves. Experiencing BPD is already a rollercoaster ride to them; being stigmatized for their reactions to this experience might aggravate their state of mind. How to Help Someone with a BPD Diagnosis Supporting a loved one who has been diagnosed with BPD is not always simple. One of the most important things to do is not to judge how they feel about a particular situation. Keep an open mind and reassure them about their positive traits while setting healthy boundaries and clear expectations. Make sure you are aware of their triggers and try to learn about their condition; this will help them feel more secure and trusting. It is also essential to help them seek the proper treatment. Nowadays, several effective treatments for BPD can help cope with this disorder. The most common treatment is usually a combination of psychotherapy and medication. Psychotherapy is an extended-term support and can include: Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, which consists in a form of cognitive-behavioural therapy focusing on thoughts and beliefs that can lead to behaviours; Schema Focused Therapy, which is integrative psychotherapy incorporating aspects of cognitive behavioural therapy and psychoanalytic theories; Mentalization Based Therapy which helps with recognizing mental states and Transference Focused Psychotherapy, which promotes the transferring of feelings and expectations from early relationships on to a person in the present. Moreover, medication such as antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers have been proven to reduce specific symptoms when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. However, possibly the most crucial aspect in helping those with BPD is making sure that they know how to take good care of themselves. Self-care is essential in managing BPD, and finding effective coping mechanisms when anger, sadness, or anxiety strike, is extremely important. Concluding Comments In conclusion, it is critical to be well informed about BPD and be aware of the struggles people with this diagnosis go through to avoid worsening their already challenging situation. At the same time, it is important not to forgo your own mental health while assisting someone who struggles with this condition, and to remember that to be an ally in this battle, you must make sure you look after yourself and keep your well-being in check. Taking care of someone with BPD can be difficult, but by understanding them and destigmatising this complicated condition, it can become more manageable and possible to live a fulfilling and prosperous life. HelpGuide have produced a concise article to help identify and support a loved one displaying traits of BPD, and Mind have produced a variety of accessible resources about personality disorders and other topics concerning mental health. If anyone you know might be at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, Samaritans can be contacted for free at 116 123, or by emailing jo@samaritans.org. If you have any reason to believe that a friend, neighbour or member of your family is having a difficult time, take a moment to reach out and invite them to seek the appropriate support. Similar: Children's Mental Health Services Overwhelmed We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Manhaaza Ashfaq highlights risks for black pregnant women due to healthcare access inequalities and representation gaps. Photo by Stacy Ropati Historical Western perspectives on minorities have contributed to discriminatory behaviours in healthcare. It can often stem from unconscious biases that people unknowingly acquire throughout their lives, but nonetheless this Western bias poses a danger to the lives of women who deviate from the norms and values. Prejudice is deeply ingrained within the system, exceeding personal racial beliefs and policies and as a result institutional racism plays a significant role in the mortality rates of Black mothers and infants, as well as health complications pre- and post-birth. Racial Disparities in Maternal Healthcare A report published by MBRRACE-UK revealed that between 2019 and 2021, 241 women died during or up to six weeks after pregnancy, among 2,066,997 births, and a further 495 died during or one year later. According to the research, Black women are four times more likely, and Asian women are twice as likely to experience pregnancy-related deaths in comparison to white women in the UK. However, this disparity among racial groups is not limited to the UK. Research shows that every year, approximately 700 women die in the US due to complications related to pregnancy, and that 84% of these deaths are preventable. Between 2018 and 2021, the maternal mortality rate for Black women during pregnancy or within 42 days of giving birth was significantly higher than for White women. Although these statistics reflect the COVID pandemic, the notable disparity between the treatment of ethnic minorities compared to White individuals by the healthcare system predated this time, and has since been exacerbated. The gap in the maternal mortality rates is also relevant to the infant mortality rates - the number of babies who die within the first year. Babies born to Black women are over twice as likely to die in comparison to those born to White women (10.6 vs. 4.4 per 1,000). The inadequate healthcare system creates a ripple effect as the consequences of ethnic minority pregnant women being treated insufficiently increase the risks of health complications for newborns. The Office for National Statistics found that in 2021, the death rate of Black babies before and during delivery was higher (6.9 stillbirths per 1,000 births) compared to babies of other ethnicities. Such statistics indicate that social, economic, and racial factors have adverse effects on Black women’s pregnancies, ultimately subjecting their babies to risks as well. Discrimination In Access To Care One possible reason pregnant Black women face challenges within maternal healthcare is due to social barriers limiting their access to care. There has been identified a correlation between a high maternal mortality rate amongst women of all races, and residence in deprived areas. The 2022 MBRRACE-UK’s report revealed that, one in nine women who died during or after pregnancy had "severe and multiple disadvantages." These disadvantages include limited access to healthcare, health risks, educational barriers, low employment, financial instability, and limited access to information. Enduring systematic racism and xenophobia means ethnic minorities can have potentially limited opportunities compared to their White counterparts. Such socioeconomic factors play a significant role in the lives of pregnant women, placing both their well-being and that of their babies at risk. The US's lack of universal healthcare makes easy-access healthcare a privilege that financially deprived individuals cannot afford. Consequently, Black women receive inadequate levels of prenatal care in their first trimester and most healthcare plans restrict postnatal care to just one appointment six weeks after birth. This places women and their babies at an elevated risk of developing life-threatening complications, as well as heightening the possibility of stillbirth and premature births. Crear-Perry, the Founder of the National Birth Equity Collaborative stated that "We don’t have an environment that protects moms. The same racism, classism and gender oppression that causes Black mamas and Indigenous mamas to die too early also causes them to have babies too early." High mortality rates of Black pregnant women and their infants primarily result from the absence of supportive environments and systematic inequities. Marginalised communities typically face an endless cycle of racism, classism and gender oppression because these injustices reinforce one another, making it harder for Black pregnant women to access social and medical support. Did You Know? Pregnancy related mortality rates for Black American women are over three times higher compared to the rate for white women (41.4 vs. 13.7 women per 100,000) - KFF Racial Bias In Healthcare The inequitable care of pregnant women from different racial backgrounds also stems from the divide that exists between White health workers and ethnic minority patients. The UK based Black Equity Organisation’s 2022 report shows that 65% of Black people said they had faced discrimination by healthcare professionals due to their ethnicity. There is a growing consensus amongst scholars and scientists that "the black body is biologically and fundamentally different from the white body" specifically that they are "stronger, faster, and more agile", therefore, they have a higher pain tolerance. This can mean Black patients are less likely to be medicated because their pain is either left unidentified, or it is recognised and ignored. Embodying such beliefs leads to a lack of empathy for Black patients, which is especially detrimental to pregnant women given their existing emotional and physical vulnerability. A 2022 report by Birthrights found that UK healthcare professionals were dismissive of mothers experiencing pain and expressing concerns about their babies’ health. Many also failed to identify health issues in infants who displayed clear signs of illnesses or complications because medical staff could not discern any physical symptoms on different skin tones. This led to babies having health conditions such as jaundice, brain injuries, and other developmental issues. Likewise, inadequate care of mothers caused medical conditions such as a "life-threatening blood clot", sepsis, and inflicted emotional damage when cultural needs and autonomy were disrespected. “It’s outrageous that these inequalities have been allowed to exist. Groups like ours and activists have been raising the alarm for over 30 years. Things should be dramatically improving with the advances in technology, but these disparities have remained.” - Tinuke Awe, Fivexmore Co-founder What Can Be Done? Although discrimination can be unintentional, healthcare workers’ unconscious biases jeopardize the well-being of pregnant women and newborns. Creating a safe environment for Black pregnant women to minimise their trauma is crucial, and the following considerations are important: 1. Enhance accessibility by implementing affordable medical support through government policies for low-income individuals. 2. educate healthcare staff on diverse cultural needs and promote empathy to prevent traumatic patient interactions, particularly considering concerns of ethnic minority pregnant women. 3. Foster an inclusive healthcare staff through research on diverse skin tones and medical conditions. Diverse backgrounds among healthcare workers aid in symptom identification, enhancing patient trust and understanding. To improve healthcare access for disadvantaged Black pregnant women, addressing the ingrained Western bias within the healthcare system is essential. By combating oppressive social attitudes towards marginalised groups and providing healthcare staff with empathy and communication training, we can provide every women a safer pregnancy. Similar articles: Protests in Poland: Women’s Rights are Wavering Researched by Robyn Donovan / Editor: Ziryan Aziz / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Harry Hetherington discusses the Scottish Government's recent proposal for decriminalisation of drug use amid continued high drug-related death rates in the country. Photo by Gras Grun Statistics on drug-related death in Scotland published in August have added fuel to the debate around illegal drug use in the country, coming one month after a proposal for decriminalisation. According to the National Records of Scotland's report, 1,051 deaths were attributed to drug misuse in 2022. This is the lowest level for five years and indicates that deaths may have passed their peak. However, this figure still represents the highest rate in Europe, at 15 times the European average. Why is the Rate in Scotland So High? The reasons why Scotland exceeds other European countries (including the rest of the UK) in drug deaths are complex. Analysis by NHS Scotland and the University of Glasgow cites the legacy of economic deprivation caused by deindustrialisation as a significant factor in the explosion in drug deaths seen in subsequent decades. People in Scotland’s top twentieth percentile for deprivation make up more than half of all drug-related deaths and are 16 times more likely to die from drug misuse than the least-deprived 20 percent. Report author Dr John Minton argues that similar surges in suicide rates among deprived communities are “consistent with the hypothesis that economic and other policy decisions during the 1980s created rising income inequality, the erosion of hope amongst those who were least resilient and able to adjust, and resulted in a delayed negative health impact”. This delayed impact is exacerbated by Scotland’s ageing population – there are now significantly more over-65s (1,091,000) than those under the age of 15 (832,300) – and this is reflected in drug user demographics. The average age of a person dying due to drug misuse rose from 32.2 in 2000 to 44.8 in 2022. Among older drug users and addicts, a combination of decades of drug use and related chronic medical conditions are increasing the risk of overdosing. A more recent driver of increased drug deaths is the change in the types of drugs available to users. Fiona Measham, Chair in Criminology at the University of Liverpool, has cited a rise in deaths caused by synthetic opioids, by drugs bought from the internet, and those attributed to multiple drugs (‘polydrug’ deaths). Opioids were implicated in over 80 percent of deaths, but often in combination with new psychoactive substances (NPSs), drugs which have been made to mimic the effects of substances such as cocaine or ecstasy. The increase in synthetic drug misuse has also been connected to the Taliban’s ban on the production and trade of opium in 2022, drastically reducing the global heroin supply, which Afghanistan had dominated. The resulting rise in prices has led to greater prevalence of synthetic opioids in the UK like fentanyl which have a higher potency. What is the Scottish Government Proposing? As detailed in a policy paper published in July, the Scottish government proposes decriminalising the possession of drugs for personal use. Decriminalisation stops the criminalising of the user (prohibition) while stopping short of legalising the drugs market (legalisation). Announcing the proposals, Scotland’s minister for drugs and alcohol policy Elena Whitham stated that “the war on drugs has failed”. She continued: “criminalisation increases the harms people experience. Criminalisation kills.” The vast majority of drug offences recorded in Scotland relate to possession, although a very small proportion of these lead to a custodial sentence. Currently, laws covering drugs are made in Westminster rather than Holyrood, and are primarily covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Scotland does, though, have the power to make its own laws to tackle abuse of substances like alcohol. The paper argues that decriminalisation would not be a panacea, but that it would de-stigmatise users, enabling them to access support and be guided through recovery without fear of being penalised. By encouraging users to access help before they reach a crisis point, the proposal argues that users would be less at risk of unsafe drug use or overdosing. “Criminalisation increases the harms people experience. Criminalisation kills.” - Elena Whitham, Scottish Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy The proposal also advocates for harm reduction measures such as supervised drug consumption facilities and increased access to the drug naloxone, an emergency antidote for overdoses of opiates and opioids. Such an approach differs to a more traditional strategy that requires abstinence as a measure of successful treatment, and as an expectation for users before they can access treatment. Some experts note that government policy that focuses on abstinence can do more harm than good. Commenting on the drug statistics in the country, Iain McPhee at the University of the West of Scotland pointed to “the lack of focus and funding towards actual harm reduction” as having a significant impact. Proponents of drug decriminalisation argue that outright prohibition of drugs creates an unregulated illicit market which enriches organised crime and ultimately harms society. They argue that decriminalisation reduces the risk of harm for users, though the government paper concedes that it would still leave an unregulated market which would not address the illicit origin or safety of the drug supply. Therefore, the proposal leaves the door open for the creation of a strictly regulated legalised market in the future led by an “evidence-based approach”. Does Decriminalisation Work? The Scottish government paper cites Portugal, one of 30 countries worldwide to have decriminalised drug use in some form. The Portuguese government made the change in 2001 in the wake of an HIV epidemic caused by widespread heroin use in the country. Advocates of the policy point to the creation of Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Use, three-member panels made up of social workers, legal advisors and medical professionals, which hear an apprehended drug user’s case and decide on appropriate sanctions and treatment plans. In the early years of the change, over 90% of Commission cases resulted in administrative rather than punitive measures. Overdose deaths fell from 369 in 1999 to 30 in 2016 (in a country with almost double Scotland’s population). Meanwhile, the number of people incarcerated for drug offences decreased from 3,863 to 1,140. However, longer-term academic assessment has found mixed results in terms of the impact on people being able to access better support for drug addiction. Dr João Goulão, who is known as the architect of Portugal’s drug policy, noted that "decriminalisation by itself gives you nothing" in the struggle to reduce drug deaths. Instead, it is the starting point in a strategy which also requires a public health-oriented approach to treatment and recovery. Could Decriminalisation Work in Scotland? As the current legal framework limits the changes to drug policy that Scotland can implement, the push for drug law reforms must be viewed in the context of independence. The government report was preceded by a 2019 SNP resolution formally adopting decriminalisation as a policy aim and describing existing legislation as “not fit for purpose”. Anne-Marie Ward, founder of addiction recovery charity Favor UK, stated that she “[doesn’t] believe for a moment” that the Scottish government is seriously considering decriminalising drugs in the absence of the necessary massive investment in drug treatment which would be needed, and is instead using the issue because it highlights a non-devolved aspect of UK law. Decriminalisation, Ward says, is an “extremist” view designed to manufacture a new constitutional grievance. Ward co-authored the Right to Recovery Bill, an alternative bill proposed by the Scottish Conservatives advocating for the universal provision of addiction treatment for drug users regardless of their past behaviour, which does not explicitly call for decriminalisation. Whether it is a genuine attempt to enact fundamental change or a piece of political manoeuvring in the debate on independence, the Scottish government is right that decriminalisation is incompatible with the UK’s current drug laws. As if to prove the point, a Downing Street spokesperson responded to the report by stating that “there are no plans to alter our tough stance on drugs”, while admitting that they had not read the proposal. Future Drug Strategy Scotland’s high rate of drug-related deaths has no obvious solution. Understandably, the highly charged nature of the debate can skew public discourse. In 1998, when the Portuguese government was forming its drug strategy, it consulted an expert panel, which suggested that there are “many pre-conceived notions about the use of drugs, many of which are false and result from uninformed emotional reactions”. The policy that Portugal settled on may not be transferable to the political reality of a country like Scotland, but the panel’s observation is still relevant. In practical terms, decriminalisation can be sought through a change to UK-wide drug laws, devolving these laws to the Scottish parliament, or through Scottish independence. Even without decriminalisation, steps can and should be taken to tackle the crisis, such as massive investment in drug treatment programmes, a focus on harm reduction rather than total abstinence, and ensuring that all users qualify for treatment regardless of their past behaviour. Similar articles: United Nations: Life Expectancy, Education and Income Have Fallen Researched by Robyn Donovan / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

As the world scrabbles to deal with the climate crisis, Colombia’s decision to halt oil exploration raises the question of whether other countries will make similarly ambitious plans, as Aimee Louise Jones finds. Photo by Jan Kronies Amid the climate crisis, good news can seem hard to come by. In this context, the decision by Colombian president Gustavo Petro to stop issuing new oil exploration permits attracted a lot of buzz, as well as criticism. Colombia's Promise Announcing the move at the World Economic Forum in January 2023, minister for energy and mines Irene Vélez said, “We have decided not to award new oil and gas exploration contracts, and while that has been very controversial, it’s a clear sign of our commitment in the fight against climate change”. While the decision has indeed sparked much debate, it did not come as a surprise, as Petro had made his stance on Colombia’s overreliance on oil clear during his campaign for the presidency. With oil making up 40% of exports and 12% of government income in Colombia, however, this is a very ambitious change. Former president Julio César Vera stated that by stopping oil exploration permits, Colombia would be “killing their golden-egg laying goose". Others have said that halting oil exploration will not change the global demand for fossil fuels but will instead hurt Colombia’s economy. Countering these arguments, Petro stated that the end of oil exploration permits shows a clear commitment in the global fight against climate change. He pointed to tourism as a key sector for investment; with enviable natural beauty, the South American country has potential for further growth in this industry. Petro has also highlighted Colombia’s potential for producing clean energy, which could eventually fill the gap left by fossil fuels. "To have even a 50:50 shot of achieving the 1.5°C target, according to a March report by the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), rich countries need to stop producing oil and gas by 2034, and countries in Colombia’s middle income-bracket must do so by 2043. In climate terms, Petro’s two-decade production phase-out is not ambitious - it’s just about acceptable." - Time The Future of Fossil Fuels Other environmentalists have said that while Colombia’s decision on oil exploration is a step in the right direction, there are other key environmental issues within the country that are not being addressed. For example, they note that cattle ranching and unsustainable agriculture are driving deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. This illustrates the multifaceted nature of the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity, which require action on various fronts. Many countries, including almost all of the top 33 oil-producing countries, have pledged under the Paris Agreement to try and limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, none of them have set timelines to end oil production that would help them to achieve this goal. At the COP26 summit, approximately 20 countries also pledged to stop financing fossil fuels abroad by the end of 2022. The countries, which included the UK and the US, committed to moving funding towards clean energy instead. However, rich countries have come under fire for failing to stick to their promises, and continuing to invest in fossil fuel projects overseas. In a significant move, US president Joe Biden told federal agencies in 2021 to stop funding for many new fossil fuel projects abroad. Despite this, leaders of America’s Export-Import Bank made the decision to lend almost $100 million towards the exploration of an oil refinery in Indonesia. Environmental group Friends of the Earth labelled this a “direct violation” of the commitments that the Biden administration had made to ending federal support for such projects overseas. An Outlier on the Global Stage? With the world struggling to contain climate change and deal with its impacts, positive steps such as that taken by Colombia can provide a basis for cautious optimism. Other countries are facing criticism for not staying true to their claims and commitments to combat climate change. As Colombia now makes the first step away from fossil fuels, it remains to be seen whether other countries will follow suit. Similar articles: Record Oil And Gas Profits: Paid For By The People Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Harry Hetherington examines what greenwashing is, and asks whether the latest EU Directive is enough to tackle the growing problem and spur meaningful climate action. Photo by Nur-andi Amid growing concern around the dubious environmental claims made by large carbon-emitting companies, the EU is seeking to counter ‘greenwashing’ through legislation. In March, the European Commission introduced the Proposal for a Directive on Green Claims. Commonly known as the Green Claims Directive, it recommends ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ penalties for firms which cannot justify their environmental claims. A 'Golden Age of Greenwashing'? Greenwashing is defined by Greenpeace as ‘a PR tactic that's used to make a company or product appear environmentally friendly without meaningfully reducing its environmental impact’. A term first used in the 1980s, it has become more prominent in recent years as companies with large carbon footprints have engaged in greenwashing to delay climate action. As such, Greenpeace has suggested that 'the last few years may well go down in history as the golden age of greenwashing’. According to Blanca Morales, Senior Coordinator for EU Ecolabel, European Environmental Bureau, ‘The proliferation of greenwashing is hampering the green transition: it hinders consumers’ ability to make informed sustainable choices, and makes it harder for the companies that strive to reduce their environmental impacts to differentiate themselves from free riders.’ Fossil fuel companies have altered their approach to climate change dramatically, as shown by their advertising strategies. The 1990s saw firms denying the existence of man-made climate change, before switching approach and passing responsibility onto consumers by getting individuals to assess their own carbon footprints in the 2000s. Increasingly, we are now seeing what renowned climatologist Michael Mann refers to as climate ‘doomism’. This narrative suggests that it is already too late to avert disaster, potentially causing people to give up. Such disengagement can be good news for polluters. Greenwashing is another form of these tactics, co-opting the language of environmentalism to placate consumers and governments. Recent examples include easyJet’s claim that customers can ‘fly carbon-neutral' and meat company JBS proclaiming in a full-page New York Times advert that bacon, chicken wings and steak could have net-zero emissions. Shell was criticised for misleading consumers by claiming that individuals could drive ‘carbon-neutral’. What they were referring to, however, was simply a promise to offset car fuel emissions by stopping deforestation. Carbon offsetting is offered as a solution by greenwashing companies and it is a contentious issue. Undoubtedly, offsetting has the potential to create a huge global financial market where companies buy and sell ‘carbon credits’ from each other and which incentivises reducing emissions. One problem is that the initial emissions created by companies are patently real, whereas the balancing-out of these emissions via offsetting can be falsely represented. While supporting and restoring natural carbon sinks such as forests and oceans is crucial, critiques of such schemes point out that they can distract from real climate action and cannot truly ‘offset’ emissions. A recent investigation by The Guardian showed that leading offsetting certifier Verra overstated the threats to forests supposedly ‘saved’ by offsetting deals by around 400% on average. Offsetting projects need to show that there would not have been carbon savings if the project was not initiated, that deforestation has not simply been pushed to another area, and that the project will have a duration long enough for carbon to be reabsorbed. What is the Green Claims Directive? The Directive is part of the European Green Deal, a policy initiative to make the European Union climate neutral by 2050. In 2021, the Commission conducted an online ‘sweep’ of green claims from a variety of business sectors such as clothing, cosmetics and household equipment. Of the 344 seemingly dubious claims it initially identified, it concluded that 37% of cases included statements like ‘conscious’, ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘sustainable’ without basis. Meanwhile, in 42% of cases the Commission ‘had reason to believe that the claim may be false or deceptive’. Across the EU, almost half of the 230 ecolabels available have either very weak or no verification procedure whatsoever. The Directive would give companies ten days to justify green claims before imposing penalties. Firms would need to substantiate their claims using a product life cycle analysis tool that covers all environmental impacts, and EU states would have to set up or support agencies to launch their own investigations into greenwashing allegations. Significantly, the Directive seeks to clarify the ambiguities related to carbon offsetting by making firms distinguish between their own carbon reduction efforts and their purchasing of carbon credits. A major focus is on consumer empowerment, allowing individuals to be fully informed. 'The proliferation of greenwashing is hampering the green transition: it hinders consumers’ ability to make informed sustainable choices, and makes it harder for the companies that strive to reduce their environmental impacts to differentiate themselves from free riders.’ - Blanca Morales, Senior Coordinator for EU Ecolabel, European Environmental Bureau Is Legislation Enough to Tackle Greenwashing? The spirit of the Directive has been praised by consumer groups, but they warn that proper enforcement of it is the key to its practical success. According to Monique Goyens, director of the European Consumer Organisation, ‘Authorities should regularly control green claims, publicly disclose their findings, and be able to fine companies who mislead consumers.’ EU Directives, if voted through by the European Parliament and Council, are legally binding. However, it is up to individual EU member states to transpose them into their own law, so the Green Claims Directive would still be susceptible to different implementations. Under the proposal, companies’ use of carbon offsets to achieve carbon neutrality must be certified and made clear to consumers. Still, the EU’s Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius stressed, ‘The message needs to be clear, we are not banning carbon offsets, they are allowed’. The requirement to clarify the exact nature of offsetting should stop the use of ‘phantom credits’ historically used by big firms to claim carbon neutrality. Despite this progress, it is still important to closely monitor the use of carbon sinks such as forest-planting in offsetting projects as they still risk being destroyed by decay, burning or moving north due to global heating. Did you know? Findings on ‘green’ claims by companies found that in 42 per cent of cases, the claims were exaggerated, false or deceptive. - European Commission The Future of Greenwashing While it is positive to see steps being taken against greenwashing, the practice won’t be disappearing anytime soon. Large carbon-emitting corporations continue to regard greenwashing as an effective and worthwhile practice, as evident in the money they spend on advertising which talks up their environmental credentials. Shell, for example, devoted 70% of its public communications to environmental messaging in 2021, according to a report from InfluenceMap, while investing just 10% of profits into ‘low carbon’ investments last year. Even then, Global Witness has argued that the majority of the company’s renewables and energy solutions division expenditure was devoted to gas, and just 1.5% into genuine renewables. Being alert to the language of greenwashing, distinguishing between carbon reduction measures and carbon offsetting, and scrutinising the effectiveness of carbon offsetting projects, are all important steps individuals can take when exercising their power as consumers, both inside and outside of the EU. Similar articles: Greenwashing: The Impression of Sustainability Researched by Emily Boldero / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Farihah Choudhury explores the Healing Powers of Ginger: A Natural Remedy for Health and Wellness In the era of Berocca and paracetamol, the remarkable advancements in pharmaceutical drugs in the 21st century have transformed the way we perceive and manage illnesses. While Nobel Prize-winning medications have undeniably improved healthcare in numerous ways, enhancing human longevity and vitality, there is a downside to our reliance on these miraculous white pills: it has disconnected us from the healing power of nature. Instead of investigating the root causes of common ailments such as colds or headaches, we often reach for a quick fix like ibuprofen and carry on with our daily routines. However, turning to everyday natural remedies may offer long-term preventive solutions for aches and pains, reintroducing us to the healing potential of the world around us. One such natural remedy is ginger, a consumable rhizome with numerous health benefits. Glorious Ginger Ginger, a member of the Zingiberaceae family, is a widely-used spice in traditional Asian cuisine known for its numerous health benefits. This versatile plant's root can be consumed in various forms: raw, powdered, juiced, as an oil, dried, or even in lozenges and sweets. Naturally, ginger is rich in essential nutrients such as zinc, phosphate, magnesium, vitamin B6, riboflavin, and folate, all crucial for the proper functioning of our bodies. Folate deficiency is prevalent in the UK population and can have adverse effects on fetal outcomes in pregnant women. Ginger also contains several advantageous compounds, including shogaols and gingerols, and is generally recognized for its antioxidant properties. Consequently, incorporating ginger into your diet can be beneficial and has been used for years to alleviate the symptoms of various ailments. A Spicy Solution Ginger has been scientifically studied for its effectiveness in alleviating nausea, making it a valuable remedy for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and pregnant women experiencing morning sickness. Furthermore, the compounds in ginger can ease indigestion by stimulating the production of gastrointestinal lubricants and enhancing the activity of digestive enzymes such as trypsin and pancreatic lipase. The distinctive spicy flavor of ginger, attributed to a compound known as a ketone, classifies it as a diaphoretic, which means it induces sweating. This property is beneficial for treating cold and flu symptoms. Ginger is also recognized for its potential in reducing pain and inflammation. For example, studies have shown that ginger, when consumed with cinnamon, another spice, can effectively reduce inflammation, as demonstrated in Iranian female athletes. Overall, ginger offers numerous natural health benefits and may serve as an alternative or complementary treatment when incorporated into a balanced diet. However, it's important to note that sufficient evidence is currently lacking to consider ginger a complete replacement for physician-prescribed medication, and it should not be used as such. Five Ways to Incorporate Ginger Into Your Diet Diced: Add diced ginger to your curries or stews for a flavorful and healthful twist. Tea: Slice ginger and combine it with a lemon wedge in hot water to create a soothing and aromatic tea. Lozenges: Use ginger lozenges to ease a sore throat and enjoy its therapeutic benefits. Powder: Incorporate powdered ginger into various meals and drinks to enhance their flavor and nutritional value. Smoothie: Blend fresh ginger with your favorite vegetables to create a nutritious and tasty smoothie. Incorporating ginger into your daily diet is a simple and delicious way to tap into its natural health-promoting properties. However, always consult with a healthcare professional before making significant dietary changes or using ginger as a substitute for prescribed medications. We are a conscious publication and platform providing social-ethical insight and knowledge about topics that matter | Ethical insight, one place. www.tru.org.uk We are funded by readers like you. To support our work and journalism, donate here Sources: Chang W.P., Peng, Y.X. (2018) Does the Oral Administration of Ginger Reduce Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting?: A Meta-analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials. Cancer Nurs. 2018 Oct 6. Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G. (2018) Interventions for treating nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Sep 27:1-8. Bode A.M., Dong Z. (2011) The Amazing and Mighty Ginger. In: Benzie IFF, Wachtel-Galor S, editors. Herbal Medicine: Biomolecular and Clinical Aspects. 2nd edition. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2011. Chapter 7. [Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92775/] Viljoen, E., Visser, J., Koen, N., & Musekiwa, A. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect and safety of ginger in the treatment of pregnancy-associated nausea and vomiting. Nutrition Journal, 13, 20. http://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-13-20 Marco Valussi (2012) Functional foods with digestion-enhancing properties, International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 63:1, 82-89, DOI: 10.3109/09637486.2011.627841 Mashhadi, N. S., Ghiasvand, R., Askari, G., Feizi, A., Hariri, M., Darvishi, L., Hajishafiee, M. (2013). Influence of Ginger and Cinnamon Intake on Inflammation and Muscle Soreness Endued by Exercise in Iranian Female Athletes. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(Suppl 1), S11–S15. Jeena K1, Liju VB, Kuttan R (2013) Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities of essential oil from ginger. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2013 Jan-Mar;57(1):51-62.

Vanessa Clark investigates the impact and possibilities of one of England's new rewilding projects Photo by Jasper Garratt What is a wildcat? A common response when considering the wildcat is what kind of cat it is. According to The Wildlife Trust, the wildcat, or ‘tiger of the Highlands’, is like a domestic tabby cat and is largely nocturnal and characteristically shy. These wild cats are one of the rarest and most endangered mammals in the UK, as the only wild member of the cat family in the UK. Since the end of 2022, wildcats are making headlines with various rewilding schemes discussing their reintroduction to the country and how feasible those endeavours might be. Wildcats enjoy edges of moors and peaks of hills, far away from populations. The Mammal Society explains that wildcats carry out most of their lives at dawn and dusk, preferring solitude with only one cat per 3km² in optimal areas and one per 10km² in less favourable areas. "The wildcat has left an indelible pawprint on Scotland, where its untameable, fearless spirit and love of solitude have given it a mythical reputation in folklore and history" - Rewilding Britain Hopes for Devon to become first wildcat home The Devon Wildlife Trust has initiated a project to determine whether this shy cat could be reintegrated in the South West, once hunted to extinction for its fur and to protect rabbits and chickens. Since hunting laws are not a current threat, the main threat is hybridisation with the domestic cat. In February this year, TimeOut announced the repopulation of wildcats and similar projects for bison in Kent, with plans for rewilding in London. The narrative is transforming into how we can improve relationships with our environments. Rewilding Coomestead, a Devon based former farm, is thinking about nature as experience, inviting guests to holiday on the land previously used to farm livestock, which is now in a process of letting nature reclaim its habitat. Rather than being a human-led environment, the former farm is interested in understanding the process of nature, flood management and courses in rewilding for beginners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Rewilding in cities Rewilding projects are diversifying themselves and efforts to repopulate nature in built-up cities offer hope to those whose lives are bound to concreted, urban areas. Repopulation projects hope to reverse the fragility of species and cultivate biodiversity across the UK. UK-based charity Rewilding Britain aims to holistically help nature recover and flourish itself, providing a 12-step program for anyone interested in taking part. The first step in the program is a ‘do nothing’ approach, observing and allowing nature to unfurl. Did you know? You can tell a wildcat apart from a domestic by its cylindrical, bushy tail with a blunt black tip - The Mammal Society Realistic hopes for rewilding We live in an ecosystem with interdependent components; cities have long relied on green spaces to improve the health of the population and counter climate change. Rather than blocking off the eaves of roofs, they can serve as homes for starlings and owls. If wildcats find a home again in wider England, it will likely turn more of our attention to matters of the environment, both rural and urban. Rewilding is an opportunity to look outside of ourselves more, to pay attention to and act upon the needs of our fragile yet majestic world. Similar articles: Rewilding Could Help the UK Fight the Climate Crisis Researched by Adrian Windeler / Edited by Mia-Helena Caisley / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Mary Jane Amato examines the factors behind declining youth mental health and explores solutions for a happier start in life. Photo by Ron Lach A sharp spike in mental health issues hit the UK following the pandemic-related lockdowns and restrictions, with some of the worst impacts being felt by children and young adults. The cost-of-living crisis has also been a significant factor in the continued rise in stress levels, anxiety disorders and severe mental health problems. With recent studies illustrating the extent of the issue, the country is starting to recognise that what was a silent but dangerous problem is now becoming a genuine emergency. The Impact of Lockdown on Young People's Mental Health The Children’s Society reported that the percentage of children aged 5 to 16 likely to have a mental health problem has risen by 50% in the last three years, now affecting 1 in 6 children. For those aged 17 to 19, the figure jumped to 1 in 4 between 2021 and 2022. In a worrying trend, the Good Childhood Report 2022 found that 1 in 8 children were unhappy with school, and 1 in 9 children had low wellbeing. The Covid-19 lockdowns played a pivotal part in these declines. According to a report from Mental Health Foundation Scotland commissioned as part of Barnardo’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Core Priority Programme, since the pandemic young people have reported more significant depression and anxiety symptoms and harmful psychological consequences. The perceived threat of the virus and the confusion, disturbance and isolation imposed by the health-related emergency all contributed to the problem. The government’s report on Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing found that manifestations of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder increased significantly in children and young people aged 7.5 to 12 years immediately after the pandemic. Some parents and carers also reported more mental health problems in their children over these months, as well as behavioural and attentional difficulties. Happiness levels in children and youth seemed to be at the lowest point during school shut-downs. The Cost-of-living Crisis and the Mental Health Emergency Covid-19 and the consequent lockdowns have not been the only factors contributing to this alarming situation. The charity Mind has estimated that the cost-of-living crisis has impacted 8 in 10 Britons' mental health. The circumstances have influenced people's capacity to make space for and manage their mental health. Worryingly, nearly 18% reported that the cost-of-living crisis is reducing the frequency with which they can openly discuss these difficulties. The Heads Up: Rethinking Mental Health Services for Vulnerable Young People report from July 2022 likewise painted a bleak picture. Drawing on global data, it found that mental health challenges often start early in life, with a potential knock-on impact on young people’s developmental progress, putting them at higher risk of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, crime and exploitation. Calling for a “once-in-a-generation package of support to make our mental health services for children fit for purpose,” Anne Longman, Chairman of the Commission for Young Lives, set out a strong case in the foreword to the 2022 report. According to Longman, “The Covid pandemic was a disaster for the mental health of many children, and thousands of young people are still struggling with its aftereffects… This deterioration in the mental health of so many of our young people, combined with a mental health support system still not able to cope with demand or reach all of those who need it, is a huge generational threat to our nation’s future national prosperity…’ The percentage of children aged 5 to 16 likely to have a mental health problem has risen by 50% in the last three years. - The Mental Health Society A Government Failing? In the wake of a recent study showing that just one-quarter of English primary schools can offer school-based mental health support by the end of next year, ministers have been accused of failing to fully grasp the impact of mental illness striking children. With mental health disorders on the rise, specialist support teams were created to work with children in schools and address early symptoms, thereby reducing the pressure on the NHS. By the end of 2024, however, almost 73.4% of primary schools in England will not have access to these new mental health support teams (MHSTs). As the NHS struggles to deal with surging caseloads, a quarter of a million children in the UK with mental health problems have been unable to access help. According to research based on freedom of information request responses, some NHS trusts fail to treat 60% of people referred by GPs. Combined with the lack of MHSTs in many schools, the system is failing those children in dire need of mental health assistance. "This deterioration in the mental health of so many of our young people, combined with a mental health support system still not able to cope with demand or reach all of those who need it, is a huge generational threat to our nation’s future national prosperity..." - Anne Longman, Chair of the Commission for Young Lives Listening to Young People's Voices The mental health crisis affecting the youth in the UK is genuine, and the lack of substantial support from institutions means that it will not be over soon. Another aspect revealed by the numerous reports into the problem, however, is the desire of many charities and organisations to improve the situation for young people. In March 2022, The Young Foundation published youth-led peer research illustrating that young people became increasingly worried about their future both during and since the pandemic. The increase in anxiety about health, well-being and economic security has impacted young people significantly. Through the foundation, these individuals are expressing their thoughts and letting their opinions be known. The association with the #iwill fund, connected to the National Lottery Fund, helps them in this endeavour, using their voices to shape the development of the fund itself. The #iwill fund is a collective investment across England which pools money in a central investment pot to establish thousands of new social action opportunities for young people. The pandemic sowed the seeds for a mental health emergency, compounded by a cost-of-living crisis that has made dealing with mental health even harder. In this context, it is paramount that young people’s voices be heard. Starting from government institutions and schools and moving to social spaces, more changes must be implemented, backed by sufficient funding to support children and young people, setting them up for a happier future. Similar articles: An Understanding of Anxiety Researched by Adrian Windeler / Editor: Laura Pollard / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Aleksandra Bienkowska reports on the causes of a worrying upsurge in salmon deaths in UK waters Photo by Cotton Bro Salmon farms are facing an accelerating number of fish deaths. Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) data shows that deaths increased to almost 15 million last year. With salmon death rates doubling quickly, campaigners are advocating for boycotts. Salmon farm producers blame natural causes Salmon deaths have increased from 5.81 million in 2020, to 8.58 million in 2021 and 15 million in 2022. Producers blame diseases, bacterial or viral infections, with large numbers of micro-jellyfish in British waters, suspected to be caused by climate change. “Wild Atlantic salmon has a survival rate of only around 1 to 2%, compared to around 85% for a farm-raised salmon,” said Tavish Scott, Chief Executive of the membership body Salmon Scotland. “Throughout the year there will be different environmental pressures that affect survival rates. Farm-raised Scottish salmon typically face the biggest challenges in the autumn, when seawater temperatures peak. Scott describes consistently high rates of farmed salmon during 2022, prior to a jellyfish bloom reducing survival in the month of September to 95.3%, being 2.4% less than the past four-year average. Scott maintains the belief salmon farmers are competent in ensuring required standards are met, as providers of world-leading animal welfare; the salmon losses are described by Scott to be the consequences of “naturally occurring challenges”. Did you know? Salmon deaths in UK waters have almost tripled in the last three years - The Guardian The global outlook “The aquaculture industry has the audacity to boast of its fish ‘survival rates’, as though it is somehow acceptable for millions of individual fish to die each year from violent lice treatments or rough weather conditions,” said Abigail Penny, Executive Director of anti-cruelty charity Animal Equality UK. Penny goes on to describe the ways that aquatic lives are often seen as “little more than numbers on a page”, suffering from “miserable” existences and “many don’t even make it to the slaughterhouse." Don Staniford, director of the campaign Scamon Scotland, explains that the numbers of salmon deaths are higher than recorded statistics suggest, as the producers do not need to record all the mortalities. “I’ve kayaked out to farms at 5am in the summer when it’s light, before they’ve got to work, and you see dead fish lying belly up at the top of the cages. The others have sunk to the bottom. So the first thing they do is collect the dead fish. “About 25% of the salmon in sea cages are dying, so that’s about one in four,” he said. “If ramblers saw one in four cows or sheep dead in a field they’d be horrified, but because it’s underwater it’s out of sight, out of mind.” Salmon farming's role in the Scottish economy Salmon is the most exported food from the UK, which makes it a huge income stream. Just in Scotland, salmon farms bring around £760 million in a year. The Scottish minister plans to up export rates to 400,000 tonnes a year before 2030. Advocating against the proposal to increase production, campaigners are boycotting before lice and further preventable issues pose further threats to the salmon farm populations. "If ramblers saw one in four cows or sheep dead in a field they’d be horrified, but because it’s underwater it’s out of sight, out of mind." - Don Staniford, Scamon Scotland campaign Similar articles: The Devastating Impact of Ocean Floor Trawling Researched by Adrian Windeler / Editor: Mia Caisley / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Harry Hetherington explores the unique dangers that refugees and migrant children face in the UK and globally, and what can be done to prevent such disappearances Photo by Jeffrey Riley In January, it was reported in the UK that dozens of unaccompanied migrant children had gone missing from a Brighton hotel where they were being temporarily housed as part of a controversial Home Office policy. According to a whistle-blower from a Home Office contractor employed at the hotel, 136 children had been reported missing from the hotel in the previous 18 months and 79 remained unaccounted for. The news shocked many, but it was not an isolated incident. Instead, it highlighted a worrying nationwide trend. Missing child refugees in the UK Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASCs) are defined by the Home Office as children claiming asylum while ‘not being cared for by an adult who in law or by custom has responsibility to do so’. Though many who are reported missing will be safe, the Brighton hotel’s whistleblower’s account painted a bleak picture. ‘Most of the children disappear into county lines’, they said, referring to the practice of transporting illegal drugs across county borders, a trade which often uses vulnerable young people. As evidence of the national scope of the problem, it was reported a month after the initial news broke that nearly two-thirds of the 43 police forces in England and Wales had recovered missing children from six hotels used by the Home Office to house unaccompanied asylum seekers. Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick admitted in parliament that 440 children had gone missing from the hotels since July 2021, and that 200 remained missing. The number remains high, with just 13 having been located by the end of February. The government policy at the heart of the controversy is itself unusual. Generally, unaccompanied children – refugees or UK citizens – are the responsibility of local authorities. Under their care, they are entitled to access to advocates, health assessments, and social worker visits. However, in this case the Home Office ‘took effective ownership’ and placed the unaccompanied migrants in regular hotels, ‘essentially converting them overnight into unregistered children’s homes’ which were not subject to the same local authority care. The Home Office argues that they have ‘no alternative’ but to enact the policy as a response to increased migrant channel crossings. It seems a lack of communication between services has increased the risks of child refugees slipping through the cracks and being made vulnerable. An absence of safe and legal routes to the UK, coupled with weakened institutions within the country, has had the effect of pushing people to society’s margins and sometimes into danger. The situation in the UK serves as a microcosm for the dangers faced by UASCs globally. "Over 4,600 unaccompanied children have been accommodated in hotels since July 2021. There have been 440 missing occurrences and 200 children remain missing" - Robert Jenrick, Minister for Immigration, 24 January 2023 The global outlook The 21st century has seen many regional and global migration waves, including from economic ruination in Venezuela, or from conflicts such as in South Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. Children make up an outsized proportion of refugees: more than 40% of the total in 2021. The separation of children from guardians which so often occurs during displacement makes UASCs vulnerable. On average, 17 migrant and refugee children went missing every day in Europe between 2018 and 2020; 57% were not found within 12 months. It’s important not to overstate the sinister element to these disappearances: for example, in 2021 57% of cases were runaways, and only a very small minority of cases were confirmed to be criminal abductions. However, these figures don’t account for the large proportion of missing cases where there is no information available at all. Elsewhere in the world, trafficking is a common tool of exploitation of child refugees. On the Mexico-USA border, an estimated 75-80% of newly-arrived unaccompanied children are victims of human trafficking. Once reported missing, discrimination towards refugees can sometimes hinder efforts to relocate missing children. In the UK police have often assumed that missing asylum-seekers have simply absconded, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary that they have come to harm. This is not an assumption that the authorities would generally make in the case of a missing unaccompanied child who was a UK citizen. UASCs therefore face a dangerous mix of being more vulnerable to exploitation to begin with, and then being arguably less likely to be searched for when they do go missing. This apparent double-standard prevails even though a large majority of UASCs are ultimately granted asylum or other permission to remain in the UK – 77% from 2006-2021. What can be done? There are steps that authorities can take to lessen the likelihood UASCs disappearing and reducing the risks they may face. Firstly, information-sharing between nations and authorities must increase, and better data must be gathered. IOM recommends that data on the subject diversifies away from being ‘based on the qualitative accounts of children’s experiences’ and towards standardised data collection which distinguishes between different vulnerabilities faced, and disaggregates data by important factors like age and sex. Most importantly, a move away from a policy of detention and deterrence is vital for strengthening UASC trust in authorities and bolstering the resources of the state to care for them. The Europe-based INTERACT project argues that a ‘firewall’ must be put in place between immigration enforcement and child protection services, so that data collected is not accessed by border authorities for the purpose of detaining and deporting children. ‘Putting children’s rights above the enforcement of immigration rules’ will increase UASCs’ trust in authorities to ensure their safety. Without this trust, those who would report their disappearance would not do so, for fear of jeopardising the residency status of the child. Did you know? The equivalent of 17 children a day went missing in Europe between 2018 and 2020 - Missing Children in Europe Concluding thoughts In the case of the current Home Office hotel policy, the controversy looks set to continue. Over 100 refugee and children’s charities have now signed a letter urging the government to end the ‘unlawful and harmful’ policy which the letter states has ‘no legal basis’. Elsewhere in the country and in the world, child refugees face unique dangers on their journeys and unique barriers to accessing appropriate support. However, better information-sharing between authorities which is responsible and mindful of children’s wellbeing can lessen these challenges. Similar articles: The Unsettling Reality of a 'Warm Welcome' for Refugees Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Vanessa Clark / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit paper, advocating for those topics that matter. Subscribe from £1.16 today.

Mary Jane Amato tracks the history of the 1998 Energy Charter Treaty and many European countries' decision to withdrawal Photo by Julius Drost In 2020 the European Commission declared its intention to withdraw from the infamous Energy Charter Treaty. This treaty was designed almost 30 years ago with the clear intention to protect companies investing in the energy sector by allowing them to sue governments on policies that could potentially put their investments at risk. A few years before, in 2017, and in the years to follow, modernization attempts were made to bring the treaty in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement. These attempts were supposed to be voted upon in November 2022, after an agreement in principle was reached in June of the same year. However, this did not happen, and a new date has been set in April 2023 for this vote to take place, but it seems the consensus of most of the EU and EURATOM countries who co-signed the treaty is to completely withdraw. A brief history of the treaty The Energy Charter Treaty was co-signed by 54 European states (53 since Italy left in 2016) in 1994, coming into effect in 1998. This treaty, which initially was meant to facilitate the creation of advantageous cooperation in the post-cold war energy market, is a global accord that creates a multilateral framework for international collaboration, particularly in the fossil fuel sector. The agreement covers all facets of commercial energy activity, while also outlining processes for resolving disputes between states and other states, and also between states and foreign investors. Within the agreement is also established an extremely long sunset clause, which subjects the states to a litigation period of 20 years after withdrawal. In other words, the Energy Charter Treaty is a pact that protects fossil fuel investors from being sued by the countries they have invested in. Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is provided to these companies; this means that if governments decide to move in a way that could jeopardise their profit, said companies can sue them in corporate courts that will, by rule of thumb, protect them. In a time where climate action has become prevalent, such a set-up is a serious threat to any progress in this direction. '[The ECT] no longer serves the interest of the European Union, especially with regard to the objective to become climate neutral by 2050' - European Parliament Resolution, 24 November 2022 Italy and Slovenia: Sued for millions for protecting their land The power of the ISDS can be attested in the analysis of two separate cases where two countries, Italy and Slovenia, have acted against two major fossil fuel tycoons. In the first case, the Slovenian government was sued for €120 million, in 2020 by the UK energy company Ascent Resources for demanding an environmental impact study of a planned fracking project. There was a real concern about how the fracking would affect the water sources in the area, and the government wanted a more thorough investigation before allowing the company to proceed. This led the country to back down and pass a new law which allowed limited fracking on the land. In Italy's scenario, a ban on oil and gas development within 12 miles of the Italian coastline was successfully reintroduced by the Italian Parliament in 2015. This triggered a claim for compensation in 2017 by the UK company Rockhopper Exploration Plc, claiming that the Energy Charter Treaty's rules on investor protection had been broken. The corporation sued the Italian government and won the arbitration, obtaining £190 million even though Italy had previously exited the ECT in 2016. This controversial decision was possible due to the sunset clause which protected not only the investments Rockhopper had made in Italy, but also the loss of its future profits. More countries are following Italy's example At this point in time, the European Parliament, with the support of a majority of EU countries, have expressed their will to leave the ECT. After an inconclusive period where the possibility of modernising the treaty was proposed to make it more in line with the Paris agreement, the general consensus is that all countries should exit the ECT. Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Slovenia, Germany, and Luxembourg all declared their intention to exit the Energy Charter Treaty by 2022. On November 24 2022 the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging the European Commission to launch a coordinated withdrawal, since it no longer serves its necessities and is highly incompatible with its policies, especially in light of the EU's goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Despite this, Guy Lentz, head of the ECT secretariat, has written a letter to Roberta Metsola, the president of the European Parliament, warning that abandoning the treaty without modernising it would give fossil fuel industries more power. Did you know? Rockhopper Exploration Plc made £190 million from suing Italy, 6x money than it had invested. - Climate Change Litigation Database Concluding comments What happened to Italy exemplifies the type of risk that this outdated treaty poses to any country trying their best to fight climate change. Rockhopper made six times more money than it had ever invested in the project thanks to the ECT sunset clause, and it is highly likely that it will utilise that money to support further oil exploration. A resolution needs to be found as soon as possible and the voting on the modernisation of the treaty that will take place next April will be defining the next steps in this complex and pernicious matter. Similar articles: European Union Fails to Take Climate Emergency Seriously Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Jenny Donath / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Aimee Jones explores the reforming of chick culling laws in Italy, France and Germany, and the impact of anti-cull campaigns Photo by Brian David Approximately seven billion male chicks are killed across the world each year, simply because they are deemed to be 'unprofitable'. Sadly, the killing of male chicks is widespread within the egg industry, yet not many people are aware of the cruelty that takes place in the process of providing their local supermarkets with eggs. Why are male chicks deemed unprofitable? Male chicks cannot produce eggs; therefore, no profit can be made from them within the egg industry. They also cannot be sold on to the meat industry as they are a different breed of chick to those that are bread to be eaten. Therefore, the industry sees no use in the male chicks and the decision to kill them is made. It is believed that approximately 29 million male chicks are killed each year in the UK alone; 25-40 million are killed in Italy and a huge 260 million are killed in the US. How are male chicks killed? Sadly, the ways in which the chicks’ lives are ended are all very brutal and cruel. Suffocation – Chicks are placed into cramped plastic bags and left to die Electrocution Decapitation – The chick's necks are snapped individually CO2 Killing – the use of a high CO2 gas slowly kills the chicks; this can be very painful and long lasting Maceration – live chicks are placed onto a conveyor belt and put through a shredder. In the UK, the most common method of killing the chicks is by using an inert gas. This kills the chicks within two minutes; much less painful than the high CO2 gasses, but still unpleasant and cruel. After the chicks are killed, they are often fed to birds of prey, snakes, or sold within the zoo trade in order to help feed other animals. The countries enacting chick cull bans Some countries have already started to ban the killing of male chicks (also known as culling). For example, France vouched to do this by the end of 2021, with Germany following suit in 2022. These countries, along with some others, have already started to see sales of ‘no-cull’ eggs in their supermarkets. Most recently, Italy have announced that they will be banning all culling by the end of 2026. This was officially passed on 3rd August 2022 by the Italian Chamber Deputies after 2 years of hard work and campaigning by the charity Animal Equality. The vote was passed by an absolute majority, with 346 voting in favour, 10 voting against and 19 abstentions. Although we are seeing some European countries take a stand and move towards the banning of chick culling, unfortunately not all countries are on board. Last year, UK supermarkets were reported to be trying to block the ban of culling out of fear that consumers will become aware of the cruel goings-on within the egg industry. They said that by selling ‘no-cull’ eggs, this will draw the consumers attention to culling and educate them around what this is; believing that it is better for people to not know the extent of the cruelty and the killing that happens behind the scenes. "The response [from UK supermarkets] is that the customer will realise all the other eggs are ‘with chick culling’, and they wouldn’t have known that before" - Carmen Uphoff, CEO of Respeggt However, that will not stop Animal Equality from campaigning and sending around their petitions in the hope to change this outlook. Since 2010 Animal Equality have investigated nine hatcheries in Italy, Mexico, USA and Spain, where they documented the killing of male chicks. In 2020 the charity launched a petition in Italy to propose a ban on chick culling which gained over 100,000 signatures and allowed the petition to be looked at by the Italian government. It was then decided to put the initiative in place and come up with a timescale to make the ban happen. We can only hope to see more countries taking part in these bans, to save the lives of millions of baby chicks each year. Animal Equality's petitions can be found here. Did you know? Italy's ban will save between 25 and 40 million male chicks from being culled annually. - Animal Equality Similar articles: How 'Ag-gag' Laws are Hiding Animal Mistreatment Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Alexandra Kenney explains some of the reasons for record profits and proposes how we could shake our dependence on costly energy sources Photo by Teddy At a time when oil companies are hitting record-level profits and everyday people are suffering under a cost of living crisis with skyrocketing energy bills, it’s important to understand how we got here. We need to examine the reason gas and oil prices are so volatile, and the reasons the energy crisis is hitting the UK worse than the rest of Europe. Untangling the complexities of these issues and their interconnectedness can be challenging but necessary to understanding where we might go from here. Record oil profits According to recent reports, the oil industry doubled its profits to $219 billion in 2022, ‘smashing previous records in a year of volatile energy prices’. In addition, the 'top Western oil companies paid out a record $110 billion in dividends and share repurchases to investors in 2022,' which has led to renewed pressure on governments to institute windfall taxes across the oil industry. In 2022, companies such as Total and ExxonMobil saw massive profits; Centrica, the UK’s largest energy supplier, tripled its profits to £3.3bn; Shell made $39.9bn (£32.2bn), the highest in its 115-year history; Saudi Aramco profited $42.4bn over a three-month period; and BP hit $27.7bn (£23bn), up from $12.8bn in 2021. These massive profits are directly tied to higher commodity prices of oil and gas sold on the global market. Falling UK imports from Russia Whilst the UK's dependence on Russian energy imports is lower than other European countries, the country is still at risk of disruption in global energy markets due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2021, only 4% of its gas, 9% of its oil, and 27% of its coal were imported from Russia. This fell to £2.2 billion in 2022 and £1.3 billion in the year to January 2023. However, the prices of gas, oil, and energy bills in the UK have still gone up. Although oil companies have some control over oil supply as they control its exploration, drilling and extraction, the global oil market is highly competitive. Prices are ultimately determined by the complex interplay of factors such as global economic conditions, geopolitical tensions and changes in production levels. According to API, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a significant impact on the global oil market, There was global concern that significant volumes of Russian oil and gas could be affected by physical disruptions, sanctions prohibiting exports, or Russia threatening to withhold it from the global market. These fears over a reduced supply increased global market prices. The retail price of gas people pay at the pumps includes additional taxes mandated by national and local governments, and refining and distribution costs, all of which become more expensive to import as gas is the main fuel used for transporting the product globally. As an economy grows, the demand for oil increases. When there is uncertainty around the economy or market fears amongst investors, demand for oil decreases. Furthermore, due to the length of time it takes between resource discovery and acquisitions, there is a cautious approach to investment and capital funding, creating a more limited oil supply. Events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine created ripple reactions across global markets, decreasing the global supply of oil available on the market, and causing price volatility. How we are paying for oil and gas company profits With oil and gas prices rising since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, energy companies have profited significantly. For instance, BP used its profits to buy back 'an additional £2.5bn of its shares to increase its own company's stock prices and increase shareholder's profits.' However, these profits have exacerbated costs, contributing to inflation that has hit consumers the most, with the rate reaching 10.1% in September. The surging oil and gas prices have also directly increased the cost of household energy bills, thereby contributing to the cost of living crisis. Furthermore, everyday items, goods, and services have also become more expensive due to rising oil/gas prices, which are integral to the global supply chain and are necessary for transportation. World leaders such as US President Joe Biden have threatened energy companies with higher taxes to increase production, which would help lower the cost of oil and gas under the supply and demand scales. Many European governments have tried to institute windfall taxes on oil and gas company profits to offset the cost of ever-increasing energy bills. Companies like Shell, BP, and Centrica have announced taxes paid, but some have managed to pay little to nothing in windfall taxes in the UK by accounting for financial losses or spending money on environmentally geared actions such as shutting down North Sea oil rigs. After factoring in the money received back from the UK government every year from 2015 to 2020, Shell and BP ended up paying a negative amount of tax, amounting to -£685m for Shell and -£107m for BP. "[BP profits are] damning evidence of the failure of the government to levy a proper windfall tax" - Ed Miliband MP, Shadow Climate Change Secretary Why the UK faces higher costs than Europe The UK faces 30% higher electricity prices than other European countries. But why are their energy bills so much higher? For one, the UK depends heavily on natural gas for electricity and heating, generating 44% of its electricity from gas-fired power stations, compared to the EU's reliance on gas for only 22% of its electricity with nuclear and renewables comprising the rest. Additionally, a majority of the UK's housing stock, built before 1980, is poorly insulated and energy-hungry, making energy consumption and bills higher. The UK's much smaller gas storage capacity than Europe’s, up to five days compared to up to 90 days in Germany, leaves the UK more dependent on purchasing gas in short-term markets, resulting in price fluctuations. Finally, even low-cost renewable energy is sold at the same price as expensive gas-powered electricity, as UK electricity prices are determined by the cost of the last unit of energy acquired to meet the country’s electricity demand and balance the grid. This means that the cost of electricity in the UK is closely linked to volatile market prices for gas. Policy changes and market reform are required to lower electricity costs in the long term, according to Professor Paul de Leeuw, director of the energy transition at Robert Gordon University. Reform calls involve capping household gas and electricity costs, introducing additional windfall taxes, and decoupling electricity prices from gas prices, enabling the UK to price electricity costs closer to the cost of electricity generation, lowering utility bills. The Energy Prices Bill, a landmark bill aimed at addressing energy costs, includes a 'Cost-Plus-Revenue Limit' designed to ensure households do not pay more for electricity from renewable and nuclear energy, thus preventing high gas prices from setting the cost of electricity for cheaper energy sources. The efficacy of these bills in reducing household energy costs remains to be seen. Did you know? Shell reported profits of $39.9bn (£32.2bn) in 2022, the highest in its 115-year history - BBC Concluding thoughts The significance of understanding global market prices for gas and oil and why they are so volatile is that it can better empower people to effectively push for protective legislative policies from their governments. This in turn can reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis so many people are facing across the UK. By understanding what is causing the fluctuations in market prices, we can better address disruptions and points of weaknesses in the supply chain. Thus, it is important to understand the interconnectedness of these issues to find sustainable solutions that reduce the impact of global price fluctuations. A call to action is needed for individuals and governments to work towards sustainable energy solutions to offset the dependence on volatile oil markets. The article notes that the recent price rises have led to renewed pressure on governments to institute windfall taxes across the oil industry. However, these windfall taxes have been shown to be largely ineffectual as companies find ways to avoid paying a large portion of them. Provided changes were made to prevent companies from skirting the windfall taxes, such measures could be used to fund sustainable energy initiatives. Meanwhile governments should invest in sustainable energy solutions such as wind and solar power to promote a cleaner, greener future. Similar articles: The Countries Leaving the Controversial Energy Charter Treaty Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Vanessa Clark / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Jenny Donath investigates the repercussions of Russia’s new law which further curtails LGBTQ+ expression in a country clamping down on ‘Western values’ Photo by Zoe The Kremlin recently passed a new bill to ban all forms of ‘propaganda’ that expresses support of the LGBT+ community. A history of LGBT legislation in Russia Homophobic agendas have been around for quite some time in Russia. In 2013, the country passed a law that forbid any ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’ among minors. Shortly after, LGBTQ+ activists (who expressed their support to the community) began to be arrested. Since then, matters have deteriorated, with pride events being banned and journalists no longer allowed to publish anything that discusses different sexualities. Law enforcement in Russia records very few violent acts toward LGBTQ+ individuals, completely dismissing people’s right to safety. The new bill is built upon the 2013 law and extends across all age groups, making it effectively impossible for people to support or identify with the community. Russia’s reasoning is the preservation of ‘traditional values’ and a promotion of conservatism. The bill was passed unanimously on its first reading and its view is backed by the Russian Orthodox Church. It includes any form of promotion of sexual orientations different from heterosexuality, be it in advertising, the entertainment sector, online or in a public setting. The Guardian reports that individuals who decide to continue to support or display affiliations with the community could pay fines up to the value of £5400. Organisations associating themselves with the community can face up to 5m roubles (£68,000). Foreigners could even be arrested for 15 days or deported. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concludes that Russia’s politics against rights of LGBTQ+ people and their activists are discriminatory. In Germany, the ECHR has even filed a lawsuit against violence in Chechnya towards LGBTQ+ people. 'From anti-LGBT+ legislation to Chechen atrocities, the Kremlin uses state-sponsored homophobia as a part of its strategy to maintain power and influence at the expense of its own citizens fundamental rights' - Elene Kurtanidze, Freedom House Furthermore, ILGA Europe (an independent, international, non-governmental organisation that works to protect the equality, freedom, and safety of LGBTQ+ people) released their annual Rainbow Europe Map and Index in May 2022. The map showcases Europe’s countries’ adherence to those principles. Russia’s representation of basic LGBTQ+ rights lie only at 8%, suggesting strong discrimination and violations of human rights. Human rights groups and activists pointed out that Russia’s new law makes it impossible and basically illegal to express support for or identification with the LGBTQ+ community. However, Alexander Khinshtein, one of the lawmakers of the bill, claimed that the new bill was not supposed to be censoring: ‘We are not banning references to LGBT as a phenomenon. We are banning propaganda and the wording is extremely important here.’ The LGBT Network counters that ‘what is happening is the total state abolition of LGBT+’. A representative of the network goes on to say, ‘They want to ban us not only from talking about ourselves or somehow demonstrating our feelings for our partners, but also to completely erase any mention of us in culture: books, films, media and the like.’ The geopolitical context Lawmakers reportedly justified their decision by claiming it would protect against ‘un-Russian’ values. It comes as no surprise that the situation has intensified since Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, a country backed by West and its values - Western countries have become more liberal and accepting of LGBT+ people, continuing to pass new laws to further protect their rights.The Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) wrote an article featuring Igor Kochetkov, co-founder of LGBT Network, who believes that the mere purpose of the 2013 law was to create an ideology to ‘generate hatred [...]’. He said that activists are being prosecuted because they are perceived as ‘hidden enemies’. He also claims that the Kremlin tries to distract from the losses caused by the war in Ukraine. The Western world is accused of attempting to ‘destroy Russia from within’ by ‘promoting homosexuality as an instrument of political influence’. Apparently, Russia uses this as justification for confronting Western countries. He also claims that the Kremlin tries to distract from the losses caused by the war in Ukraine. Did you know? Under the new law, individuals can be fined the equivalent of £5,400 and organisations £68,500 for 'propagandising nontraditional sexual relations' - The Guardian According to Freedom House, it is all part of Russia’s political strategy; the Kremlin tries to gain control by disinforming and manipulating, to repel the public from Western countries. Kochetkov said, ‘This is part of a broader attack on anything the government deems ‘Western’ and progressive’. Putin had recently called Western countries’ promotion of gay and transgender rights as ‘moving towards open satanism’. Gleb Latnik, an LGBTQ+ activist and head of the RUSA LGBT DC immigrant organisation had recently fled Russia in fear of violence. In an interview with CEPA, Latnik’s opinion is that half of Russian LGBTQ+ people are naturally afraid of expressing their true sexuality; he believes that they are terrified of disagreeing with the government. Concluding comments While there appears to be some consensus in Russia in relation to the new legislation, many argue that the legal decision is discriminatory and restricts the human right to freedom of expression. Faced with ever-tightening laws around basic expressions of their identity, the country’s LGBTQ+ community are caught in a maelstrom of political fervour which may not die down for a very long time. Similar articles: Uproar in EU Over Hungary LGBTQ+ Legislation Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Mia Caisley / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Aimee Louise Jones analyses the effects of recent global crises on life expectancies, incomes and social inequalities worldwide Photo by Jonathan Moy de Vitry The United Nations recently released a report which details a drop in life expectancy, education and income over the last two years. It portrays a lack of recovery since the global pandemic and other factors possibly causing this fall in statistics. It is said that decades of progress have been unravelled in just two years, with 9 out of 10 countries slipping backwards on the United Nations Human Development Index. Changes in life expectancy In 2021, global life expectancy dropped to 71 years, down from 72.8 years in 2019, with coronavirus initiating the largest drop in life expectancy since World War Two. A study by the International Journal of Epidemiology examined impacts of COVID-19 on life expectancy for 29 countries, explaining that few people recovered in 2021 while many experienced further declines. There was a slight rise for England and Wales but lowered in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The countries who distributed the COVID-19 vaccinations quickly and to all ages bounced back much faster than those unvaccinated. Only four countries - France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland - have recovered the same life-expectancy rate that they had prior to the pandemic. Another negative impact on life expectancy is climate change. Climate change affects both the social and environmental determinants of health, such as clean air, sufficient food, clean water and safe, secure shelters. The World Health Organisation (WHO) predicts that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will cause 250,000 additional deaths per year because of malnutrition, malaria and other related illnesses. According to the WHO, there are many other climate-sensitive risks: Injury and/or death from extreme weather events Respiratory illnesses Water-borne diseases Mental and psychological health. In turn, the increases in such illnesses are having a negative impact on health sectors. Changes in income According to The World Bank in 2020, it was predicted that COVID-19 would push as many as 150 million people into extreme poverty by the following year. During 2020, the world's collective Gross Domestic Product decreased by 3.4%. Inflation is outstripping wage and benefit increases, meaning that people are finding it hard to pay for everyday necessities such as food, gas, electricity, rent and mortgage payments. There has been pressure on cost since mid-2021 when global lockdowns were lifted and most of the world’s advanced economies reopened. The main price increase that many of us are struggling with is the cost of gas. After the pandemic, there was a larger demand for gas in Asia, along with unexpected shortages worldwide. On top of this, the war between Russia and Ukraine has also had an impact on price increases. Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of gas for European countries, though many now refuse to trade with Russia. On the other hand, Ukraine has been a major global supplier of agricultural goods. The disruption to this trade could mean that people will also see an increase in food cost too. "Inflation is outstripping wage and benefit increases, meaning that people are finding it hard to pay for everyday necessities" Changes in education Due to global lockdowns throughout 2020, education was disrupted. The first set of test results after the pandemic looked specifically at seven and eight-year-olds in England. Students tested much lower than those in previous years when it came to reading, mathematics and writing, scoring 11% lower overall than those examined prior. The United Nations Human Development Index looked at the difference between one of the top-rated countries in the world and one of the lowest-rated countries, in terms of education. In 2022, the statistics show that the Swiss population attend on average 16.5 years of education in their lifetime. In comparison, the people of South Sudan only have access to an average of 5.5 years of education in their lifetime. Did you know? In 2021, global life expectancy fell to 71 years, from 72.8 years in 2019. - United Nations Concluding comments These facts and statistics lay bare the impacts of the pandemic on people across the globe and show us how other pressures affected these statistical changes. COVID-19, climate change, and the war in Ukraine have contributed to the unwanted losses of recent years. Though the losses in life expectancy, income and education may appear out of our control, they are simultaneously affected by presenting environmental dynamics, and we are a part of those dynamics. Similar articles: Toxic Air Pollution: The Other Pandemic Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Mia Caisley / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

In the wake of the most significant period of industrial action in the UK for decades, Jonny Rogers explores the causes of the discontent and likely outcomes of the strikes. Photo by Cedric Fauntleroy The end of 2022 saw countless workers across Britain – including nurses, ambulance drivers, rail workers, teachers, university staff and civil servants – declaring strike action in demand of better pay and improved working conditions. In November, the United Kingdom experienced the highest total number of working days lost to labour disputes for over a decade. With many strikes extending into the new year, joined by an expanding range of workers, there is no apparent end in sight for Britain’s new ‘winter of discontent’. The Cost of Living Crisis While the demands vary between sectors, these strikes have been primarily catalysed by the cost of living crisis, and the failure of employers to offer wages that reflect the current economy. Inflation reached a 41-year high in October with an 11.1% rise over 12 months, rendering household goods, fuel and education increasingly unaffordable for the UK population. The Confederation of Business Industry predicts that Britain’s economy will shrink 0.4% in 2023. One key factor in the present economic crisis is rising energy prices. While global energy demand dropped during 2020's national lockdowns, oil and gas usage has increased as many have returned to work and facilities have reopened. It is believed that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the imports of Russian oil being restricted or banned to curtail the nation’s revenues and impede its war efforts, has had an impact on driving up the cost of fuel in Britain. However, the UK imports only a fraction of its oil from Russia, leaving people wondering if the increases are legitimate, directly relatable or just a result of big companies profiteering. “Like so many workers, our members are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. They are desperate. They are being told there is no money for them, while they watch ministers giving out government contracts worth billions of pounds to their mates” – Mark Serwotka, Public and Commercial Services Union Research from the Sutton Trust found that more than 60% of UK students in are spending less money on food and essentials, with nearly a quarter claiming that the crisis has decreased the likelihood of completing their degrees. A report published by the Child of the North all-party parliamentary group revealed that children in the North of the UK are most affected by the economic crisis, with over a third living in poverty during the pandemic. With the National Education Union (NEU) recently voting in favour of strike action in England and Wales, further concerns are raised for the wellbeing and development of British youth – having already been impeded by the pandemic – many of whom are presently preparing for important examinations. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the NEU, acknowledged the potential cost of strikes on younger generations, but argued that discussions about pay, workload and teaching conditions are long overdue: "It's not something we want to do at all, but ministers have to now engage seriously and have to begin negotiating." Industrial action and the future of Britain A new YouGov poll has shown that public support for strikes vary between jobs, with nurses and ambulance staff receiving approval from over 63% of the population, while over 48% oppose the strikes of rail workers, university staff and driving examiners. Over half of all Britons blame the government for the strikes of nurses and ambulance staff, while trade unions are blamed for rail strikes by 32% of the population. Several disputes have been resolved in the past few months: criminal barristers have agreed to a 15% fee rise, BT workers have accepted a 6 to 16% rise, and two NHS Scotland unions have settled for a 7.5% rise. Sharon Graham, general secretary for trade union Unite, congratulated the NHS workers for their resolve and commitment: “Unite makes no apologies for fighting for better jobs, pay and conditions in the health service because NHS Scotland workers should be fairly rewarded for the outstanding work that they do day in and day out.” Nevertheless, union negotiations in the public sector have generally seen little progress, with the Conservative government arguing that pay rises would only reinforce and exacerbate inflation. Perhaps this is symptomatic of the disparity between pay in the public and private sectors: the Office for National Statistics found that wages in the private sector grew by 7.2% between September and November, compared to only 3.3% in the public sector. Did you know? Between June and October 2022, more than 1.1 million working days were lost due to strike action, the highest in a five-month period since 1990. - Reuters Standing their ground in rejecting the pay demands, the government are instead planning to introduce new legislation that aims to limit how many workers can abandon their duties during a strike. Accordingly, employers would be given the legal authorisation to fire employees who ignore a ‘work notice’ that stipulates their continued labour during industrial action. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argued that this measure is necessary to sustain a minimum service for critical sectors such as emergency care and public transport, though the bill has received widespread criticism from both trade unions and other politicians. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, believes that it would only “prolong disputes and poison industrial relations”, thereby leading to more frequent strikes in the future. Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to repeal the legislation if it were to become law. Concluding thoughts Some commentators are drawing comparisons between the current situation and the 'Winter of Discontent’ of 1978-79. Like today, Britain was experiencing high levels of inflation in the mid-1970s, provoked by an energy supply crisis. After a strike by Ford workers was settled with a pay increase of 16.5%, significantly exceeding the 5% limit set by the government to control inflation, other industries joined in taking industrial action. In this period, 4.6 million workers in Britain – including those in the automobile, rail, haulage, fuel, nursing and refuse collection industries – went on strike. With disruptions to healthcare services, petrol stations closing and litter collecting in the street, the resulting chaos yielded public resentment for the Labour government and energised Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power, who then implemented measures to control union activity. While the situation has been reversed, with the Conservative government now failing to settle trade disputes, recent history has shown that mass strikes might serve as a prelude to wider political change. As University of Kent Professor Matthew Goodwin notes, “History is a really big warning sign for Sunak and company […] It was the industrial chaos of the late ’70s that paved the way for a decade of Thatcher. This is compounding a sense in the country that nobody is really in control.” Similar: The Cost of Living Crisis in the UK Researched by Alexandra Kenney / Edited by Ellis Jackson / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Mary Jane Amato breaks down the behaviours associated with OCD, how sufferers can harness these traits to their advantage, and the support that is available. Photo by Rumman Amin There are many misconceptions and cliches that still surround obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Many continue to associate this condition only with fixation on order and/or cleanliness. In actuality, OCD is a highly complex and often debilitating disorder. However, with the correct understanding and attention, OCD can be handled and, in certain cases, almost completely subdued. OCD: A brief history and description of the disorder OCD is a chronic mental health disorder that implicates obsessions and compulsions, often simultaneous and present in all forms of OCD. Compulsions are repeated physical or mental behaviours carried out to alleviate distress and anxiety, whereas obsessions are unwanted and intrusive thoughts, feelings, urges and doubts. The World Health Organization states that OCD is among the top ten most disabling illnesses. People affected by this condition typically experience persistent and unwelcome thoughts, known as ‘intrusive thoughts’, which cause unwanted feelings and trigger specific compulsive and ritualistic behaviours that often fall within the following behavioural categories: Organisation, Symmetry and Order Contamination Checking Rumination Hoarding 1. Organisation, Symmetry and Order This behavioural category for OCD is most common and refers to obsessions with objects being in exact locations, symmetrical or ordered in very specific manners. Someone affected by this form of OCD often feels heavy pressure to maintain said order. Disorganisation can cause great discomfort or pain, leading some to believe disorganisation will hurt them or their loved ones indirectly if compulsions and order are unfulfilled. 2. Contamination Ritualised washing and cleaning are also widely acknowledged OCD symptoms, being compulsive actions of purification. Sufferers may be worried about physically harming or contaminating others, or may feel uneasy or contaminated by substances. Sufferers may be concerned about contracting or spreading diseases or ailments from contamination. In these cases, ritual washing will be carried out as prevention. Perceived contamination can also be mental, with less clearly defined obsessions; cleaning compulsively to alleviate the discomfort of feeling soiled or unclean. In this case, human interaction (rather than an external contaminant like blood or dirt) is the source of the discomfort. Degradation, humiliation, severe criticism and betrayal are examples of emotional violations that can lead to mental contamination. 3. Checking Checking compulsions are intentional and performed repeatedly to lessen the anxiety created by the certain thoughts and beliefs, though often resulting in the opposite effect. Some checking rituals include repeatedly checking to see if windows and doors are locked, ensuring all appliances are turned off or repeatedly scanning the road for accidents. Other manifestations of checking behaviour are even more subtle and mentally draining. Some re-read or re-write words, sentences or entire paragraphs repeatedly. Some think the same thought while completing a different action, such as looking at oneself in the mirror or exiting a door until the feeling is “just right” – or turning light switches on and off, continually. 4. Rumination Rumination is a compulsion based in the mind, generally understood as compulsive and repetitive thinking about a particular matter to the extent that suffers may loop and spend excessive amounts of time engaged with such thoughts without demonstrating any visible external behaviours. Rumination may occur as an attempt to relieve anxiety or uncertainty, or to find answers to evasive questions – to explain something. However, sufferers often find themselves exhausted after the behaviour is habituated and control is lost. 5. Hoarding The hoarding behavioural category covers the struggle to dispose of belongings. Sufferers accumulate things continually across time, storing them (typically in an unkempt manner) leading to clutter or unhealthy or dangerous environments. Although some people gather and store a lot of expensive artefacts, the goods are almost invariably of little or no monetary value. Sufferers typically feel an emotional connection to each object, attributing sentimental value to them, experiencing extreme anxiety about being separated from them. The impacts of compulsion OCD compulsions usually follow patterns that tend to be repeated precisely and consistently. Such rituals can impact lives in ways that can become extremely impairing. Compulsions are physical and mental, consuming a lot of time and affecting social lives. Knowing you might be performing rituals that could be perceived as highly unusual may prevent you from attending social scenarios to avoid judgement or anxiety. Did you know? It takes the average OCD sufferer over seven years to reach a diagnosis. - Made of Millions.com Relationships Relationships for people affected by OCD can become very challenging. OCD sufferers may often feel anxious or insecure, requiring frequent assurance in relationships. Compulsion in relationships can be challenging, demanding, exhausting and require patience. Taking care of duties that OCD sufferers are unable to may also be difficult for some families or partners. It takes resilience and understanding to support a loved one as an ally, rather than an enabler. Many engage in the therapeutic process as a family, to understand what they are going through and to receive the appropriate support. The other side of OCD Though OCD can cause much hardship, especially on the more severe end of the spectrum, it is important to remember, during the initial phases of recognising symptoms and the subsequent assessments, that looking solely from a medical perspective gives us only half of the picture. From a more holistic standpoint, traits that fall under the OCD bracket, though sometimes impairing in everyday life, are also well-defined characteristics that accompany the artistic and creative minds. In the words of Rose Cartwright, an OCD advocate and member of the Made of Millions team: “Many experts have observed that people with OCD often possess a range of positive character traits, such as inquisitiveness, creativity, and empathy. I like that idea: the brain which gives you misery is the same brain which can give you great joy”. Attention to detail, creativity and a great deal of resilience, related to a single task, are traits that can be harnessed. Well-known individuals affected by OCD include David Beckham, Jessica Alba and Daniel Radcliffe. Sufferers are found in creative industries, using hyperattention to their advantage. Support and treatment Those recognising compulsive behaviours affecting their lives often consult a healthcare professional to be referred for diagnosis. The most common treatment is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), involving the alteration of thought processes and behavioural patterns. Another type of therapy is called Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP), pushing clients to confront obsessions whilst resisting the urge of acting on compulsions. In more persistent cases, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) are prescribed. Acting on chemicals of the brain, SSRIs have proven effective in cases of OCD-induced depression. Concluding comments Complex conditions like OCD can be scary, strenuous and isolating, but we are experiencing a shift toward further understanding of and lesser stigma around the mental health. Overcoming fear of judgement and actively seeking help are steps toward a more sustainable and richer quality of life. Useful links: Mental health support charities: Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, OCD UK. Diagnosis support: NHS, Awakn Clinics. Psychological support: Better Help, List of CBT Therapists. Similar articles: Understanding of Borderline Personality Disorder Researched by Alexandra Kenny / Edited by Mia Caisley / Online Editor: Harry Hetherington A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Aleksandra Bienkowska reports on why the switch to a four day week is being described as a transformative change. Photo by Vahid Moeini Jazani One hundred UK companies have changed the five-day working system to a four-day week, encouraged by the 4 Day Week Campaign. The Campaign argues for a four-day, 32-hour work week without reducing any pay. It is supposed to benefit everyone, starting with workers, employers, the economy, society, and the environment. A Transformative Change According to 4 Day Week Campaign, a reduced week would help workers towards a more improved work-life balance, better wellbeing, and help towards the cost of living. Whilst employers could benefit from higher performance and profit, and greater talent for longer due to having less stressed and happier employees. There's other potential benefits too with lower unemployment, increased productivity, and a boost in localised tourism, being beneficial for the economy, whilst a reduction in workers commuting could reduce our carbon footprint and make a positive impact on the environment. The Largest Trial for a Four-day Week The initiative was launched as a large trial to prove the truth of their concept, from June to December 2022, with more than 70 UK companies and organisations trialling the shorter working week, without any changes in pay. Over 3300 employees were offered 100% pay for the 80% of work time, in exchange of maintaining 100% of work but within fewer hours. The results are already visible. The two notable companies in the UK that have signed up to the new working idea are Atom Bank and the marketing company Awin, which currently has 450 members of staff in the UK. Adam Ross, Awin’s chief executive, made a statement to The Guardian that switching to the four-day working week was: “[O]ne of the most transformative initiatives we’ve seen in the history of the company. Over the course of the last year and a half, we have not only seen a tremendous increase in employee wellness and wellbeing but concurrently, our customer service and relations, as well as talent relations and retention also have benefited” (Adam Ross, Awin) A Hangover from an Old Economic Age? Supporters of the initiative say that a five-day working week pattern is just “a hangover from an old economic age” and that it's no longer necessary. Proponents of the four-day week state that reducing workdays to four per week would change and improve many factors in the UK’s economy, environment, and society. It would also help people working at the companies and supplying work. They argue that working more hours does not make people more productive, and it is making people more stressed and burnt out. If the four-day week improves employees' mental and physical health, it would also benefit the employers by having more productive and high-quality workers. Switching the working system from five to four days a week can bring a big change, as it happened almost a century ago when the decision of the 48-hour weekend was made. The USA officially adopted the five-day system in 1932, in a bid to counter the unemployment caused by the Great Depression. Due to mostly religious reasons, Sunday has been a day off for everyone to rest and to pursue the spiritual matters. Henry Ford, a founder of Ford Motor Company, made Saturday and Sunday off for his staff in 1926 and he also set down a 40-hour working week. Did you know? The UK works longer hours than almost any country in Europe – 4dayweek. The Result In conclusion, the idea may have its opponents and proponents. However, most people taking part in the trial consider it a good change. Indeed, when asked in the middle of the trial, 88% of companies said that it was going well, and around 95% of companies said that the employees’ productivity had either increased or stayed on the same level. The push for a four-day work week is certainly strong among the UK public. Similar: Iceland: Trialling a Shorter Working Week A not-for-profit company, advocating for those topics that matter. Join us today.

Jenny Donath explores the ethical debate over factory farming in Switzerland and Swiss voters' decision to reject the motion to end it. Photo by Edmond Dantès On 25th September 2022, polls opened on whether intensive factory farming should be banned forever in Switzerland. The proposal suggested that farmers would have to cut down their livestock size significantly and adjust their farming practices within the next 25 years. Reasons for the referendum include the growing movement for animal rights across Europe, with calls to reduce meat consumption and improve livestock conditions. In 2019, a coalition of various institutions like Greenpeace, Vier Pfoten, and NGO collected over 106,000 signatures to put forward their proposal to eliminateintensive farming. Switzerland has historically been forward-thinking and strict when it comes to animal welfare. In 1893, it had become prohibited to slaughter animals without first putting them under anaesthetics. As part of the Animal Welfare Act, it had prohibited any infliction of pain on animals without justification in 1978. Various other animal protections have been passed in recent decades, protecting animals by law. What is the Swiss Animal Welfare Act? The new amendment would have become part of the Swiss Animal Welfare Act. The act already states that no-one may subject on animals “pain, suffering, harm or fear, or otherwise violate its dignity”. A few vertebrates, however, are not included in the act. The Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance also lists requirements for housing animals appropriately. Switzerland’s new proposal would mean more necessary steps toward a complete elimination of intensive farming. The proposal includes various things that need to be changed within the next 25 years. Farmers shall ensure that livestock get access to outdoor spaces, that their housing aligns with the necessities for each species, and that the transport of animals all the way up to slaughter is humane. Is new legislation necessary? However, Swiss farms already seem relatively small with a limit of 300 veal calves, 1,500 pigs, or 27,000 broiler chickens per farm. For instance, comparing the average Swiss dairy farm of 24 cows with 250 cows in Germany, the number of animals held on one farm does not necessarily mean an issue in Switzerland. Only an estimated 6.6% of all Swiss farms would need to expand their animal houses and reduce their animal herds. This would mean an increase of consumer prices. Martin Haab, dairy farmer and president of the Zurich Farmers’ Union, said: “We already produce on a high level, and they want to put another load of laws on our shoulders. But consumers are not ready to pay a lot more for their food.” (Martin Haab, Time) Despite this, animal rights supporters ask for more. Martina Munz, legislator of the Social Democratic party, said: “It’s true that we don’t have a lot of big farms in Switzerland, but we have a lot of things we can do better when it comes to animal welfare. […] it’s also about how they’re kept, it’s about slaughtering and transportation.” The previous laws don’t mean that those animals are receiving the standards they need. “Pigs are kept in barns too, up to 1,500 per farm, with 10 pigs sharing the space of an average parking spot. It is not possible to treat animals in a dignified way in those conditions,” said Silvano Lieger, who is the managing director of Sentience Politics, an animal protection group. “You can keep 27,000 chickens in one barn and their room to move is about the size of an A4 sheet of paper.” The new amendment would mean that organic standards will be met. The result However, after polls closed on 25th September, it was clear that Swiss citizens did not want more rules to improve animal welfare on farms. 63% rejected the ban on intensive farming. Only the state of Basel approved the proposal with 55% of voters saying “yes”. All other 25 areas turned it down. Several opponents, such as director Martin Rufer of the Swiss Farmer’s Federation, argued that the result showed that the Swiss population are confident in their farming systems and rejected the risk of higher prices for buyers and competition issues for farmers. Supporters of the campaign, like director Philip Ryf, expressed their disappointment. The ban on intensive farming was not only supposed to bring better welfare to animals, but also tackle climate change by reducing meat consumption and shifting land use toward vegetable crops instead of feed for animals. After all, 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to animal husbandry. Similar: Factory Farming is Risking Future Pandemics We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Aimee Jones reports on a recent monumental and encouraging breakthrough in cancer treatment. Photo by Priscilla Du Preez Over the last 40-years, the survival rate for cancer has doubled. Now, whilst this is great progress, we still have a long way to go in terms of finding a cure, or a more effective, less damaging form of treatment. The Fight Against Cancer Cancer still claims the lives of millions of people each year, with approximately ten million people losing their life to cancer in 2020 alone. Some of the most common forms of cancer are, breast, lung, colon, rectum, and prostate cancers. In 2020, for example, rectal cancer took the lives of approximately 339,022 people across the world. The estimated 5-year survival rate is 67%, or, if diagnosed when in the localised stage, 90%. The Effects of Dostarlimab A recent study, conducted by American scientists, took a group of twelve rectal cancer patients to undergo experimental treatment. The twelve participants of the clinical trial all had advanced localised rectal cancer, with tumours that had a genetic mutation known as ‘Mismatch Repair Deficiency (MMRD)’. These types of tumours often do not respond well to typical cancer treatments such as chemoradiotherapy and tend to lead to surgical removal. The clinical trial spanned across a minimum of twelve months; six months of treatment and at least six months of follow-ups to monitor the results and side effects. Once every three weeks, the twelve patients were each given the experimental drug, Dostarlimab. Dostarlimab is not a new drug in the cancer world, however it is typically used to treat endometrial (womb) cancer. As an immunotherapy drug, the drug unmasks cancerous cells, making them known to the body’s natural immune system and giving the individual a chance to fight the disease for themselves. Dostarlimab works by blocking a certain protein within the cancerous cells, this helps the immune system to fight the cancer and slow down the growth of the tumour. A Monumental Turning Point? All twelve patients showed a complete clinical response to the medications, meaning that while the cancer may not be cured in general terms, there was no longer any signs of illness on any physical exams, colposcopies, PET scams or MRI scans. They were all in remission and ‘cancer free’ within sixth months. No other clinical trial in the history of cancer research has ever experienced this. The patients then continued to have regular follow-ups to monitor their progress and it was found that two-years after the experiment, all patients confirmed that neither of them required any chemoradiotherapy or surgery after, or during the trial. There were no significant side effects reported during or after this trial. However, as the sample was so small, there can be no definitive answer the trial goes public. The picture-perfect results would need to be replicated in a larger scale experiment and longer follow-ups would need to be conducted to fully assess the response. Nonetheless, it is fair to say Dostarlimab is a monumental turning point in cancer research, promising a brighter future for cancer patients. Similar: Medical Breakthrough: Confirmation HIV is Curable We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

The UK government is trying to combat greenwashing by requiring certain sustainability disclosures, reports Emily Davies. Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen The environment is at the top of many people’s priorities right now, especially after COP26. But it can be challenging to separate the eco-friendly products and companies from those that are merely pretending to be. This is called greenwashing – the act of misleading customers about the sustainability of a brand or product. The government has now released guidelines to help combat greenwashing in the UK. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak has published a roadmap setting out new Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDRs) for businesses, meaning they have to disclose their environmental impact. Both businesses and buyers will now have a more developed understanding of whether they are spending in a way that aligns with the UK’s goals of reaching net-zero carbon emissions. These new requirements, which aim to create a greener financial system in the UK, will apply to pension schemes, investment products, and asset managers and owners. “We want sustainability to be a key component of investment decisions and our plans will arm investors with the right information to make more environmentally-led decisions.” - Rishi Sunak Greenwashing The Corporate Finance Institute defines greenwashing as when “a firm spends time and money advertising and marketing that their goods/services are environmentally friendly”, even when they are not. With environmental considerations growing in consumer preferences, companies that aren’t ‘green’ are losing business. The cheap and easy solution is for them to use buzzwords like ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘natural’ with no evidence or criteria, thereby tricking buyers into supporting them. On top of manipulating consumers, doing this is an easy PR gambit that boosts brand image with little effort. Being ‘eco-friendly’ is more attractive than not caring. According to the government, 70% of people in the UK want their money to help the planet, not harm it. However, there is a problem wherein there is a lack of environment-related terms for use in describing products, let alone legal definitions, making greenwashing easy for companies. The new SDRs will make sure investors have all the information they need to ensure products are actually green, not just appearing to be. Every investment product will have to set out the planetary impact of what it finances, and clearly give evidence for any claims of “green credentials” it makes. The guidelines will also highlight expectations for transition plans to be published by some firms to show how they align with the UK net-zero goals. Why Now? In 2019, the UK enshrined the net-zero emission ambition into law, and in 2021, announced a plan to cut emissions by 78% by 2035 (compared with 1990 levels). This month, Boris Johnson hosted COP26 in Glasgow. While he has been heavily criticised for his handling of the conference, with activist Greta Thunberg calling it just more “blah, blah, blah”, the UK does seem to be making some progress in transitioning to a greener economy. Hopefully, these new government guidelines will help consumers and investors spot greenwashing, resulting in more money going towards companies and products with genuinely green priorities, instead of cheap, green-washed marketing. Article on a similar topic: Greenwashing: The Impression of Sustainability We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Aimee Jones reports on how many fish communicate with one another, and that now we can hear their voices. Photo by Luis Vidal Although we have known for many years that fish can make sounds, it was assumed that they primarily rely on other means of communication, such as colour signals, body language, and electricity. However, when 34,000 species of ray-finned Actinopterygii were studied, 66% of the fish families were found to communicate via sound. The Nature of Fish ‘Voices’ For most fish, the swim bladder produces the many sounds they make. The ‘purr’, ‘croak’, and ‘popping’ sounds are some of the most common we record from fish. The sonic muscle relaxes and contracts and, in turn, makes the swim bladder vibrate and produces sound as a result. Alternatively, sounds may be produced by tough parts of the body hitting one another, such as bones and teeth. Robert McCauley conducted a study in Perth over an 18-month period to research the nature of these underwater sounds. Acoustic communication amongst fish has evolved approximately 33 times due to habitual diversity over 150 million years. Therefore, McCauley found that two fish from the same species may have difficulty understanding one another based on regional accents. For example, the ‘boops’, ‘honks’, and ‘hoots’ used amongst three-spinned toadfish would resemble more the croaking of a frog, where midshipman fish emit a low hum. Most of his recordings depicted a solo fish. But when the specific calls of fish overlap, they form a chorus - a primary mode of group communication. McCauley discovered seven distinct choruses, which sounded at dawn and dusk, that were unusually similar to sounds expected from birds. However, these sounds are believed to share a similarity to human communication, ranging from interactions concerning sexual, nutritional, or territorial desires. Despite regional differences, though, there is something more malicious that affects the communication between our underwater friends. Too Loud for Water? Human noise pollution, from practices like commercial fishing, shipping, and military sonar, has been found to interfere with the fish's health and the way in which they communicate. Over 21 species of fish rely on sound in order to thrive, so intervention from man-made infrastructures has not only made oceans noisier, but has believed to drown out communication between fish. Ecologist, Ben Haplern, has iterated that: “The landscape of sound – or soundscape – is such a powerful indicator of the health of an environment. […] Like we have done in our cities on land, we have replaced the sounds of nature throughout the ocean with those of humans” - Ben Haplern, YaleEnvironment360. This kind of noise can dramatically impact acoustic communication between fish, not only causing them a great deal of stress but can even force fish to leave their habitats. Their ability to navigate their surroundings, communicate with one another, locate their prey, escape their predators, and even finding a mate, are all disturbed. Letting Nature Be Heard Aurore Morin, a marine conservation campaigner for International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), states that only 1 in 5 people know what ocean noise pollution is. A lack of education on what acoustic communication is and how it has been negatively affected is a product of the matter not being considered ‘urgent’. However, IFAW have arguably given fish a voice. Across six continents, IFAW have saved more than 200,000 animals who have been harmed by human intervention, although this is only a fraction of the true number of animals living in distress. Researcher Aaron Rice believes that more studies researching and capturing the complex acoustic environment will help connect people with life under the water and, ultimately, encourage them to speak out against industries that invertedly harm marine ecosystems. As both inhabitants of the earth, we should not be complicit in harming the lives of fish. It is our job to preserve them. Similar: Sentient Beings: UK Government Pledges Animal Welfare Plan We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Ziryan Aziz reports on the health benefits linked to the consumption of fermented food and drinks. Photo by Dina Light Recorded to go as far back as 7000 BC, the process of fermentation is an efficient and effective method to extend the shelf life of our food. A method used by cultures and peoples across the world, fermentation not only allows humans to store perishable dairy, meats, cheeses, and vegetables for longer durations, but it also comes with a spectrum of health benefits that have only recently received scientific attention. What is fermentation? The expansive-global food supply system means it’s now easier than ever to purchase off-season goods in the UK, such as winter strawberries from Egypt, and tomatoes from Spain. Relative to how we live today, most people have historically relied on preserving their food using fermentation to carry them through periods of food scarcity, like winters and on long journeys via marine trade networks. So, what can be fermented? All food groups can be fermented. For example, milk can be converted into cheese, vegetables can be pickled, and meats and fish can be cured. Even grains can be made into beer and sourdough, which has a reduced likelihood of mold growth which is perfect for a longer lasting loaf. Fruits can be dried, stored in fermenting syrups, or made into beverages like wine. The list of possible fermented food and drinks is in the thousands: they all help to increase the specific food’s longevity. The process of fermentation is very simple, involving an anaerobic process where microorganisms like bacteria, yeast or fungi convert organic compounds such as starch and sugars, into alcohol and organic acids. These acids act as a natural preservative that slows down the process of spoilage. It also gives the food that unique zesty taste and texture that fermented products are known for and promotes beneficial enzymes, B vitamins, and omega-3 fatty acids, as well as other species of good bacteria. The Health Benefits? The following are some of the health benefits associated with fermenting food and drinks: 1. A Source of Probiotics Fermented foods like yogurts, pickles, sourdough bread, and some cheeses can contain a natural number of probiotic bacteria. Probiotic cultures help to restore the natural balance of bacteria in your gut. Bacteria, viruses, and eukaryotes in the gut have been shown to interact with one and other, and with the immune system, influencing the development of disease. With the addition of probiotics, some studies have shown them to be generally beneficial in the prevention and treatment for gastrointestinal diseases. Other studies have linked probiotics to reducing the duration of illness in adults and children. 2. Assisting Digestion During fermentation naturally present sugars and starches are broken down which can aid digestion. For example, when making cheese, lactose in the milk is broken down into simple sugars like glucose and galactose, which makes cheese much easier to digest for those who are lactose intolerant. 3. Improving Health and Availability of Nutrients Fermentation can increase the volume of minerals and vitamins available to our bodies for absorption and eliminates antinutrients. In cereals and legumes there is a naturally high concentration of antinutritional compounds such as phytic acid, tannins, lectins, and other enzyme inhibitors, for example. Studies have shown that roughly half of humans globally are malnourished of micronutrients, especially in developing countries where there exist major health problems associated with zinc and iron deficiencies. A significant antinutrient such as Phytic acid is a food inhibitor, which prevents micronutrients from being available to humans, but also in animals such as dogs, chickens, and pigs. These antinutrient substances interfere with digestibility of proteins and carbohydrates, reducing the nutritional value of food. Fermentation can eliminate these antinutrients. For example, whole wheat bread, which when including varying amounts of sourdough has seen a reduction of phytate content by up to 97%. Other plant-based foods see improved mineral solubility when fermented (See Table 2. here). 4. Better Heart Health Studies have shown that consuming the probiotics found in fermented foods can have a modest impact on improving your blood pressure, when consumed regularly over a long period. Fermented dairy products have been identified as having beneficial effects on cholesterol levels – especially yogurts. Other studies involving soy protein – a fermented product used in tofu, miso, tempeh, natto, etcetera - have shown a decrease in bad cholesterol levels when consumed. However, more research is needed to confirm benefits associated with cardiovascular health. 5. Psychological Benefits Certain strains of probiotic cultures like Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175 – commonly found in fermented food like certain cheeses and dairy products – have been shown to have a anxiety reducing effect, and produce psychological benefits in animal and human studies. Furthermore, studies have shown that consuming probiotic rich foods can have positive effects on depression, particularly in men. Concluding Comments Introducing fermented food and drinks into your diet is a great way to not only broaden your palate with new zesty, fresh and colourful flavours, but also reap the health benefits of the probiotic cultures, greater bioavailability, and nutritional properties. Whilst more research is severely needed on the wide range of health benefits attributed to fermented food and drink, the functionality and increased shelf life of fermented goods is one of the reasons why this tradition of food preparation has been passed down through the generations for thousands of years. Similar: The Health Benefits of Whole Grains We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Aimee Louise Jones reports on how more US military personnel are seeking plant based options in a diet dictated by meat. Photo by David Vazquez In general, veganism and vegetarianism have grown significantly in the last couple of years. In 2021, The Vegan Society registered an impressive 16,439 products with the Vegan Trademark. They explained that 82% of their product registrations have taken place in the last five years, showing rapid growth in plant-based products. However, despite an overall increase in people opting for plant-based foods, those who serve in the United States Armed Forces (USAF) are not given the option. Requests from Military Members A recent survey of 226 members of the USAF, led by animal-rights group Mercy for Animals (MFA), found that 81% of USAF members are wanting vegan-based meals, therefore it is quite surprising to find that 83% of the ready-to-eat meals offered to soldiers are meat-based, with the remaining 17% being suitable for vegetarians but not for vegans. The survey results captured the following: 118 respondents agreed that plant-based foods are healthier than animal-based foods. 115 agreed that plant-based foods offered more energy to the soldiers than animal-based foods. 141 agreed that plant-based foods are more sustainable. 182 stated that they think that the Military should be offering more plant-based options. While the US military will accommodate for halal and vegetarian troops, there are no military Ready-to-Eat meals (MREs) that are completely plant-based, yet MREs are heavily relied on for all main meals throughout the day. Vegan troops are left relying on snacks to keep their hunger at bay and their energy up. The vegetarian options are also vastly outnumbered by meat-based options: of the 24 meal options available, 4 of them were suitable for vegetarians. Also, 63% of service people said that they would choose plant-based MREs if given the option. On top of requesting more plant-based foods, soldiers have also requested vegan-friendly uniforms to align with their dietary requirements and ethical perspectives. For example, offering an alternative to the leather boots that they are currently required to wear. Benefits of Plant-Based Foods Oxford Martin School researchers found that a global shift to plant-based diets could save up to 8-million lives by the year 2050, as well as cutting greenhouse gases by two-thirds and save $1.5 trillion in healthcare-related costs. The British Nutrition Foundation’s research on plant-based food has found that people who commit to a full, plant-based diet or a reduced meat diet are less likely to be at risk of heart disease, strokes and type 2 diabetes by lowering blood pressure, reducing cholesterol and helping to maintain a healthy weight. Furthermore, Nature Reviews Endocrinology published a report on trends, risk factors and policy implications in relation to global obesity. A link between increased consumption of animal products, refined grains and sugar was established, as factors influencing worldwide obesity increase - with our diets among the top global risk factors for illness and early death. The summary Following on from the US military survey, a detailed report is due to be completed by September of 2023 to steer forward provisions for plant-based eaters. Mercy for Animals are working very closely with the US military to facilitate the provision of plant-based meals for service people. Meeting the dietary preferences, needs and requirements of all walks of life is essential to nurture the health of individuals and the environment alike. Gaining insights into levels of accommodation for plant-based eaters in perhaps lesser-considered spheres and learning of dedicated initiatives and action in implementation to cater for said needs is assuring. Similar: Go Vegan To Reverse Climate Change, Says UN We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Mary Jane Amato reports on the history and intricacies of privatisation in the UK and what the benefits and disadvantages are for consumers and the public sector. Photo by Polina Tankilevitch As the Ofgem case hits hard on the domestic economy of consumers, talks around privatisation and the pros and cons have resurfaced, inviting us to reflect upon what selling off public sectors to private companies means. An explanation of Ofgem Ofgem is the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. It is an independent body that regulates the electricity and natural gas markets in Great Britain. Since June 2021, an alarmingly high number of energy suppliers have completely gone bust due to the increase in wholesale gas prices and the government’s price cap, preventing them from increasing costs for consumers. As a consequence, the public will now be burdened with a 2.7 billionpayment to cover these failing suppliers. The latest report from the National Audit Office, NAO, found that Ofgem took a hazardous approach when it licenced and monitored energy suppliers in an attempt to lure new companies into the market. This has meant an incredibly loose investigation of the companies’ financial circumstances at the time of acquisition. The result has been that by 2021, many of these suppliers could not face the surge in wholesale prices of gas, with 28 of them already collapsing in 2019. Allowing publicly owned sectors to be privatised or outsourced, and enter the market on a profiteering basis, has been a common practice in the UK, not only in the energy sector but in various others, since the 80s. Privatisation in the UK and Its Impact on the Economy Privatisation is the practice of selling state-owned assets to the private sector. The privatisation process in the UK began after the Thatcher government of 1979 worried that trade unions and public ownership were impeding productivity and profitability. Prior to this, the “Winter of Discontent” during Callaghan’s government was a moment of social unrest and economic unsettlement when strikes against unfair wages occurred due to the 5% cap on wage increase implemented by the Labour Party to combat inflation. The uprisings, together with other collateral causes, led to a motion of non-confidence against Callaghan in 1979, which opened the door to the election of Margaret Thatcher. Although the plan was initially to shift from public to private ownership and management only the nationalised aerospace and shipbuilding industry, several other businesses were privatised in the years from 1979 to 1983, such as Amersham and half of Cable and Wireless. The initiative accelerated after the Tories were re-elected in 1983, and other state-owned companies were privatised, including essential utilities like British Telecom (1984) and British Aerospace (1986), as well as other companies in 1987 like Rolls-Royce and British Airways. The objectives of this operation were to make the privatised businesses more profitable, increase labour productivity and effective industry regulation and boost societal ownership of shares. By the time Margaret Thatcher’s’ mandate ended in 1990, more than 40 UK state-owned enterprises had been privatised. The share of employment accounted for by nationalised sectors declined then from 9% to under 2%. Privatisation Acquisitions in the UK from the 1980s to Today In the UK, privatisation peaked in the early 1990s. Many known public giants have since been turned into privates. Others have undergone public-private partnerships in the form of outsourcing, like in the case of the NHS, which has not been sold off but had some of its bodies contract private companies to deliver specific health services, often to help meet high demand. Let’s look at some cases of Privatisation in three main sectors in the UK: Water, Mail and Telecom. The Privatisation of Water in the UK At the beginning of the 19th century, privates owned and operated water. Later on, since it was deemed a public health necessity, it started being provided by the government, without metering and with bills being estimated on property value. With the 1989 Water Act, water and wastewater in England and Wales were privatised entirely on the back of a proposal of the conservative government. Together with the 10 privatised regional water authorities, three controlling bodies were created as well: The Drinking Water Inspectorate for potable water, The National Rovers Authority (now Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales) and the Ofwat, which deals with setting the price regime. Privatisation invested around £160 billion in improvements to drinking water as well as sewerage functioning and beaches and riverside maintenance. According to those who support and applaud the process of privatisation, it was thanks to it that in the UK, there is now a high quality of water as well as social and environmental progress connected to the correct upkeep of the water supply. Average bills are roughly the same now as 20 years ago,  at £1 per day after accounting for inflation and, according to Ofwat, they are about £120 less than they would have been in the absence of privatisation and strict independent oversight. The Privatisation of British Telecom in the UK By far, the most crucial privatisation in the UK regards British Telecom. In this instance, ministers were especially eager to examine strategies for liberalising the market and fostering competition in the industry. The British Telecommunications Act of 1981 made it possible to free BT from the Post Office's direction. The Act's primary goal was to privatise British Telecom, but it also attempted to provide provisions for the efficient management of the telecommunications sector. As a result, the monopoly that had existed since the industry was nationalised in 1912 was broken. The government formally announced plans to sell up to 51% of BT shares to private investors on July 19, 1982. The Government sold its remaining stake in further share sales in 1991 and 1993. The unions were worried that privatisation would result in job losses. According to the British Telecom unions, up to 4,500 of their members' employment was in jeopardy. The Privatisation of Royal Mail The 2015 privatisation of Royal Mail was possibly among the greatest ones in the UK, together with the Railway and water. Since the government first revealed its aim to privatise in 2010, opposition from unions and consumer advocacy groups increased, including the Communication Workers Union's threat of a strike. A nearly 500-year period of governmental control ended with the privatisation of the Royal Mail. "It is clear that the Government met its objectives in terms of delivering a privatised Royal Mail. However, it is not clear whether value for money was achieved; it appears that the taxpayer has missed out on significant value” (Business, Innovation, and Skills Committee, UK Parliament). The Threat of Passport Office Privatisation Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently threatened to privatise the Passport Office on the basis of a massive backlog on renovations and allocation. Since 5 million people put off renewing their passports during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unprecedented spike in demand after the restrictions were lifted. UK citizens are required to have at least three months of validity on their passports under post-Brexit EU travel regulations, which might add additional stress to the system. According to the PCS union, the backlog of applications is caused by staff shortages, poor management, and problems with private contractors. Yet, even though this move might make the service faster and more efficient, what would it actually mean for consumers? The truth is that a brand-new passport is not inexpensive. For an adult over 16 years old, a regular 35-page passport already costs £85.00 in person or £75.50 online, and a 50-page frequent traveller passport costs £95 in person or £85.50 online. Prices will very likely go up if private companies are given control over the passport with only their shareholders being responsible for holding them accountable. The Pros and Cons of Privatisation There have been arguments that have supported privatisation since the beginning of time, as well as views that have been clearly against it. Generally speaking, the main reason to justify the process of privatisation is that it increases efficiency, incentivising profit-driven businesses to reduce expenses and increase productivity. On the other hand, government-run businesses typically do not receive profit sharing. A private company more likely to reduce expenses and be effective because it is motivated by making a profit. Historically though, there have been many disadvantages as well that have come from privatisation. One prominent trend that seems to occur is that government funding of public services is usually reduced often to the detriment of the functionality of the service, and then the assets and services are passed onto private companies thereafter. For certain assets, there is a competitive model that comes into play which means that privatising such an industry would only create a private monopoly with higher prices for consumers rather than the need of nominalisation. Furthermore, privatisation often benefits at most, the individuals at the top of the hierarchy and as such, much of the money hoarded at the top rarely returns to the public purse. In Conclusion It is undeniable that in the UK, historically speaking, there have been countless benefits stemming from the privatisation of certain public sectors. However, after many years of mismanagement and misplaced values the practice has generated problems that deeply affect the public wealth and the wellbeing of the state. The Ofgem case and the consistent surges in prices of privatised services go to show that these companies have not been regulated appropriately by the designated bodies. As such, a fair and effective regulatory system is one way we can develop a framework that promotes a more balanced approach, with priority’s moving away from profit first and more towards the public and planets interests. Furthermore, It could be said that it would be more in the interest of the public if certain sectors are in some capacity reserved for the enrichment of the collective such as basic housing, natural resources, healthcare and even education. Similar: UK Supermarkets Threaten to Boycott Brazil Exports Over Privatisation of Amazon Rainforest We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Mary Jane Amata reports on how, despite banning the use of harmful pesticides in-country, the UK are still exporting agrochemicals to developing nations. Photo by Juan Pablo Daniel Due to a loophole in UK legislation, a Greenpeace report has found that seven agrochemicals, that have long been banned in the UK, are still being exported abroad. Over 10,000 tons of pesticides related to high toxicity, birth defects and even death, have been shipped to countries across the globe and are causing disastrous consequences to the population and ecosystems of developing nations. The Deadly Seven and More... A report conducted by Unearthed has found that in 2020, the UK exported products containing seven banned pesticides. What’s more, the UK applied to obtain permission to ship a further six, which was in virtue of their exit from the EU and not conforming to the European Commission proposal to draft an EU-wide ban on said chemicals. Although these pesticides have long been banned on British soil, however, there is no interdiction for them to still be produced and exported to foreign countries. The pesticides found in the exported products include Paraquat, Diquat and Asulam, (herbicides), Imidacloprid and Cyhalothrin (insecticides), and Chlorothalonil and Propiconazole (fungicides). But what are some of the reasons these pesticides should be banned? Paraquat is known to be the most toxic pesticide in the world, causing an alarming number of deaths and increasing the risk of Parkinson’s disease. This weedkiller has now been banned in 50 countries, as statistics show that paraquat is 65% deadlier than other pesticides when ingested. The company that produces this agrochemical, Syngenta, has objected that Paraquat is safe when used according to directions. They have even taken precautions to avoid accidental ingestion by giving Paraquat three distinguishable features: a strong chemical odour, a specific dye, emetic qualities to induce vomiting in those that inadvertently swallow it. Propiconazole is known to be highly toxic to babies in the womb. Studies have found that Propiconazole may change the activity of the CYP51 enzyme, which is necessary to produce sexual steroid hormones and can therefore become an endocrine disruptor. This fungicide can also inhibit the aromatase enzyme, which transforms androgens into oestrogens, and may have detrimental effects on the reproductive process. Imidacloprid, one of three "neonicotinoids", was exported from the UK in 2020 following the prohibition of outdoor usage in 2018. The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN have issued a warning that a "rapidly growing body of evidence" strongly suggests that "existing levels of environmental contamination" by Imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids are "causing large-scale adverse effects on bees and other beneficial insects”. Numerous samples of produce examined in 2020 and earlier years still contain residues of bee-toxic neonicotinoids which is highly concerning. The recent losses in populations of bees and other pollinators have been linked in large part to this class of insecticides and the UK and EU have rightly prohibited their usage. Banned in the West, Destined for Developing Countries Considered unsuitable or dangerous in western countries, these pesticides are being exported to developing countries that have less restrictions. Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, India, and Indonesia are among the developing nations that will receive some of these pesticides. But it is not only developing countries that have bought large quantities of paraquat, for example. The US, Australia, and Japan likewise purchase large amounts of pesticiees, such as 1,3-dichloropropene. As Başkut Tuncak, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances, stated: "Just because a country is wealthy does not mean there are not grave human rights violations and abuses being committed against vulnerable communities. […] In the US, where three times more pesticide products are registered for use, farmworkers suffer more chemical-related injuries and illnesses than any other workforce. The racial dimension can not be ignored, with so many agricultural and food workers from migrant and minority backgrounds” (Başkut Tuncak, The Guardian). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that people of colour (POC) and lower income communities are more at risk of pesticide exposure. A study has found that 90% of pesticides employed in the US are intended for agricultural use making farmers the most vulnerable to them. Among these, 83% identify as Hispanic. This goes to show that structural injustices, regulation loopholes and the inadequate protection of farmers and generally lower income workers, have been the reason for the disproportionate effect on POC by the handling and utilisation of harmful pesticides. How These Pesticides Affect Our Food Traces of pesticide residue from agricultural practices can often end up in, or on, our food. Several pesticides, for example, have been found in fruit, vegetables, and grains. Glyphosate and chlormequat, that have been found in barley, oats, and wheats, are both a probable carcinogen and plant growth regulator respectively. Research from the Pesticides Action Network UK has analysed something called the “Cocktail Effect” which happens when pesticides are combined and become more harmful. Although increasing evidence of this effect has been gathered, the regulatory system which should protect people from pesticides continues to carry out assessments for one chemical at a time. Unfortunately, a false perception of the number of pesticides present in our food is created, and the true number of harmful chemicals remains to be hidden. A Plan Forward? Even though the UK has banned certain pesticides and chemicals from being used on the country’s ground, it has still found a viable way to produce and export the same dangerous substances to other parts of the world. The quality control is weaker, therefore harmful chemicals are still used for farming. Although the UK has set out a post-Brexit 25 year environment plan in order to protect and enhance the country’s natural landscapes and nature, this won’t be enough to protect the world’s population and ecosystems, and it will eventually backfire as the UK imports about 46% of the food it consumes. This means that, if the UK is indeed exporting toxic pesticides to other countries that employ them for farming, it will not only become part of the problem in those areas, but at some point, that very produce will end up back on the UK’s tables. Similar: UK Government has Lifted Ban on Bee-Harming Pesticide We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Euan Cook reports on the University of Sydney’s study about how cows can communicate complex emotions and the importance of farmers respecting their livestock. Photo by Morten Hornum Humans have often felt detached from understanding and accepting the complex emotions and intelligence between our pets and “food” animals. However, a recent study from the University of Sydney records the “first evidence of cows maintaining individual vocalization” where cows are empirically proven to alter vocal pitches according to their emotions. “Cows are gregarious, social animals. In one sense it isn’t surprising they assert their individual identity throughout their life.” (Alexandra Green, Power of Positivity). Domesticated for human use since the early Neolithic period since 10,500 BC, semiferal cows have undergone between 80 and 200 generations of mostly natural selection following their introduction to the Americas in the late 1400s. Now, cows are the most common type of domesticated ungulates, being raised for meat and dairy products along with their role as draft animals for labour. The Physiology and Psychology of Cows Mostly considered as a passive agent in the meat industry, it is often overlooked that cows rely upon all five sensory modalities. As a prey animal, they have a wide field of view of at least 330 degrees and their hearing ranges from 23 Hz to 35 kHz. Moreover, cows have a well-developed gustatory sense and can distinguish the four primary tastes: sweet, salty, bitter, and sour. Cows’ macrosmatic nature mean they have a keen sense of smell, along with being incredibly sensitive to touch. Although they are sensitive to pain, cows sometimes suppress signs of pains to evade predators. Ultimately, they feel emotion. The three areas that define emotional experience in cows are the following: 1) emotional reactions to learning, 2) cognitive bias, 3) emotional contagion and social buffering. Emotional Reactions to Learning The first of these factors refer to the emotional effects of improving on a task separable from reactions to a reward itself. A cow, for example, may become excited because he or she can control the delivery of a reward, demonstrating some level of self-awareness such as self-referral or self-agency. Cognitive Bias Secondly, cognitive bias, or the effects of negative or positive emotions on judgements, has been observed before and after cows are separated from their mothers. Before separation, cows responded to positive stimuli 72% of the time. However, after separation, this response dropped to 62%, highlighting that when cows are distressed, they exhibit a relatively more negative response bias towards ambiguous stimuli. Emotional Contagion and Social Buffering Thirdly, emotional contagion is the oldest level of empathy, allowing cows to imagine the capacity for empathy with the ability to share or match emotional experiences at some level. Furthermore, social buffering refers to the idea that social animals react less intensively to negative stresses when they are in the presence of conspecifics. Therefore, the mere presence of unstressed conspecifics is calming and social animals, likewise, find is extremely stressful to be socially isolated. Vocal individuality of Holstein-Friesian Cattle In 2019, Professor Alexandra Green studied a herd of 18 Holstein-Freisan heifers and progressively collected 333 samples of cow vocalisation which are encoded with an individual identity. According to her research, an alteration of the pitch of cow’s moos can express a wide range of emotions from distress, excitement, and arousal. Within a herd, demonstrating individuality in high-frequency calls would be biologically advantageous by helping to receiving support from other cows. Green and her colleagues measured over 20 vocal features of moos, including pitch, duration, amplitude and vocal “roughness”. Vocalisations are produced by two independent processes: sound generated by vibrations in the vocal folds and sound filtered by the vocal tract. Using 170 putatively positive calls, Green produced eight significant discriminant functions, which were used to identify 78.2% of the calls to the correct heifer. Ultimately, high frequency cattle calls were assigned to the correct individual at least 60% of the time within the same emotional valence and least 49% across all emotional valences. Confronting the Food Industry Ultimately, all through their lives, cows keep their individual moos, even if they’re talking to themselves. Cows even take turns in conversations, which is beneficial in the animal kingdom to communicate needs such as the location of food sources or incoming threats. With this knowledge, along with the multiple scientific studies discovering how cows emote more and more like humans, the question of their role in the food chain becomes more pressing. An increase of cattle farming has attempted to accommodate a rising global population, but with a rise in consumer consciousness and the highly gregarious nature of cows, we as a society should promote more ethical cattle rearing to help farmers, and the general public, understand animals better. “Anecdotally, farmers claim to know a lot of information about their cattle based on their voice,” Alexandra Green says. “I’d love to scientifically prove this through psychoacoustic experiments, such as playing cow sounds to farmers and seeing what they can identify, such as individual animals or stressed animals” (Alexandra Green, Psychology Today). Despite slaughterhouses being strongly advised to maintain humane and painless practices when processing cattle, cows raised for factory farms undoubtedly experience distressful and unnatural conditions that no animal should be subject to. Livestock farming contributes to 14% of greenhouse emissions globally, particularly methane and carbon dioxide, which makes the ethical restructuring of the practice on a national scale that much more urgent Similar: Record Number of People are Ditching Dairy We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Ottilie Von Henning reports on the ban of single-use plastics in India and the backlash Prime Minister Narendra Modi has received from affected corporations. Photo by Sara Bakhshi Currently, India is the third highest polluter in the world and is estimated to generate 14 million tons of un-recyclable plastic each year. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposing a new ban in 2019 to eliminate all single-use plastics by 2022, the Indian government has sought to temper climate change with long-overdue action. What are Single-use Plastics? Single-use plastics are products made predominantly from fossil fuel–based chemicals (petrochemicals) and are meant to be disposed of right after use—often, in mere minutes. Although plastics - a chain of synthetic polymers - were invented in the mid-19th century, their popularity grew in the 1970s to become one of the primary offenders in the escalation of global warming. More than half of non-fibre plastic comes from packaging alone, most of which is for single-use products. Since the 1950s, 8.3 billion tons of plastic has been produced overall, with the last 15 years being responsible for 50% of this total. Now, 8 million tons of single-use plastic waste is released into the oceans per year from coastal nations. Modi’s new ban is an attempt to eliminate one of the major environmental enemies on the planet, with 380 million tons of plastic produced each year and half destined for single-use products, like packaging, cutlery, and straws (all of which have been forbidden in EU Market States). As a result, India is home to vast trash mountains that loom over the outskirts of major cities, with the River Ganges being the second largest plastic contributor to the world’s oceans before China’s Yangtze. One trash mountain looms in Ghazipur, east of New Delhi, and is just months away from rising higher than the Taj Mahal at 73 meters tall, making the implementation of Modi’s ban as urgent as ever. The Backlash from Corporations The ban has, nonetheless, been met with significant opposition. Several corporations, such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, India’s Parle Agro Pvt., David and Amul, have all protested the including of plastic straws in the ban, arguing their current demand is far too large to sustain the necessary changes. It is estimated that Indian manufacturers of biodegradable plastic can meet up to 8% of demands and the beverage companies would be unable to import more that 20% of their desired amounts. Schauna Chauchan, chief excectuive officer of Parle Agro Pvt., one of India’s largest beverage makers, has commented on Modi’s expectations, saying: “The industry is being forced to import at a time when costs are soaring and there are huge disruptions in shipping globally” (Schauna Chauhan, Business Standard). A plethora of issues have been opened up for these companies, not to mention the fact that paper straws could add between 0.25 and 1.25 rupees to the cost of each unit, according to Kotak Institutional Equities. Such a surge in prices would certainly damage the business and their profit margins and those 1,000,000 employees working for the industry, yet these financial losses are merely collateral damage in the quest to save the world from climate change. In India, 88,000 companies produce single-use plastics, and US consumers throw away at least 170 million plastic straws each day produced by companies such as Parle Agro Pvt. Considering 80% of marine litter is plastic, this can no longer be ignored by the Indian government, hence Modi’s desire to act immediately. Contributing to Change Despite having a population of 1.4 billion, India has not been a historical contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1870 and 2019, India only contributed 4%of the global total. Moreover, as the third highest polluter, India generates 2.88 CO2 gigatonnes (Gt) annually. Initially, this certainly strikes as a large number, but compared with China as the highest polluter at 10.6 Gt and the second highest polluter the United States at 5 Gt, India’s ban cannot be the only source of resolve if the globe is to fight climate change. Once plastics enter the ocean, they are difficult to retrieve. Mechanical systems, such as the Mr. Trash Wheel in Maryland’s Baltimore Harbor, is effective in collecting larger pieces of plastics, but microplastics are virtually impossible to recover. Therefore, Modi setting the ambitious goal of cutting emissions by 22% before 2030 will be an incredible feat towards reducing plastic waste, but not without the aid of other countries in achieving substantial change. Similar: France: Plastic Packaging for Fruit and Veg Banned We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Aimee Jones reports on carbon emissions and puts into perspective, those who are contributing most to climate change. Photo by nikldn According to the Cambridge dictionary, emissions are defined as the “production and discharge of something, typically gases and radiation which are harmful to our environment”. Harmful emissions have increased exponentially since the Industrial Revolution and it is no surprise that the richest 10% of the population emit over half of all global emissions. What Are Greenhouse Gases? Greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, trap heat from the sun inside the ozone layer, acting as a “glass wall” for our planet. Thus, greenhouse gases keep earth habitable for both humans and millions of other species by preventing freezing temperatures as low at -18 degrees Celsius. However, a great increase in these gases can have detrimental effects to our planet by initiating a knock-on effect of global warming. Humans release these emissions by burning fossil fuels; some of the main contributors are non-renewable modes of transport, such as diesel cars, airplanes, and public transport. The most prevalent greenhouse gas that threatens our planet today is carbon dioxide, which is at its highest level ever recorded increasing by 47% in concentration since the 1800s. Who is Responsible? While we can all play a part in reducing our carbon footprints, in the United States, the poorest 50% of the country emit approximately ten tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. However, when you take a look at the richest 10% of the population, they emit roughly seventy-five tonnes per person. One reason for this disparity stems from the inequalities amongst the distribution of goods and services. For example, the rich can purchase more goods and services, as well as invest, in comparison to less affluent individuals. Those who are in the bottom 50% net personal wealth share only contribute to a stark 1.8% of the world’s total in 2022, meaning that owning less assets - that may consume non-renewable energy – produces a significantly reduced carbon footprint. Some celebrities, or high-profile individuals, have been found to recklessly increase their carbon footprint. Jeff Bezos, for example, took an 11-minute trip into space which emitted more carbon per passenger than the entire lifetime emissions for any one of the world's poorest people. Funding unnecessary space missions when environmental charities are underfunded in a ‘vicious cycle’ is a prime example of the ignorance towards global warming among the elite. Celebrities have also been known for extreme use of private jets for small haul flights which could have been made using an alternative, less damaging, method of travel. A prime example would be Kylie Jenner using her jet for a 17-minute flight after sharing a photograph on social media showing both hers and her partner's jets, trying to decide which one to take for the journey. Moreover, a recent survey found that Taylor Swift’s private jet had taken 170 flights between January 1st and July 29th of 2022. This totals approximately 15.9 days in the air, with the average flight lasting 80-minutes. The emissions that were produced were 1,184.8 times more than the yearly average for any individual. Funding unnecessary space missions when environmental charities are underfunded in a ‘vicious cycle’, or exploiting extreme modes of transport, is a prime example of the ignorance towards global warming among the elite in service of ‘convenience’. Levelling Out the Carbon Footprint There have been various policies and procedures that have been made to tackle the increasing emissions and start bringing them down. However, these changes are disproportionate for the middle and the lower classes. A generalised carbon tax seems to be unfair to those who are already struggling. For example, most of the emissions from middle and lower-class citizens come from the use of cars and general heating; they may need a car to travel to work and will need to heat their homes during the winter. These are seen as essentials. Yet, the wealthier families' emissions mainly come from making extravagant purchases and investments, therefore making them more deserving of taxation when it comes to their carbon footprint. To even out the carbon footprint in the U.S, the top emitters would need to decrease emissions by 87% by the year 2023, while the bottom half could afford to increase their emissions by 3%. Authors of a 2020 Natural Communications journal wrote: “Many people do not see themselves being part of either the problem or the solution but look for governments, technology and/or businesses to solve the problem” (Thomas Wiedmann, nature communications). Yet, they conclude that people, not institutions, need to solve the problem as ultimately legal or social structures are designed and made up by people. If people don’t change, the institutions won’t either. Similar: World’s Richest Must Cut Carbon Footprint by 97% We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Jenny Donath looks at the hidden ethical and environmental consequences linked to cheese. Photo by Polina Tankilevitch New investigations have identified a direct link between deforestation in Brazil, and beloved cheese products in UK supermarkets. In recent years, the welfare complaints associated with cattle rearing have been increasingly brought to the public’s attention. The argument by advocates, being against the cycle of artificial insemination, constant pregnancy, mother-child separation, and the eventual forced lactation. These are the current UK dairy farm practices, that are based on a US model which also severely limits the cow’s ability to graze, naturally. This process being predominantly for the production of cheese, for human consumption. Practices and Beyond Additionally, there are various environmental concerns that go hand in hand with the dairy industry. For instance, 22 million tonnes of cheese are made annually across the globe. The mean average CO2 footprint is 9.8kg per 1kg of produced cheese, and for some cheeses like gouda, the footprint is as high as 16kg of CO2. One might associate soya as predominantly being only used in the production of protein-rich foods like tofu, soya drinks, or edamame beans. But, 80% of all soya harvests are being used to feed livestock. Furthermore, what used to be grass and food waste as the main food source for cattle has now mainly been replaced by soya grains. Based on data from 2019, the British dairy industry imports around 360,000 tonnes of soya per year, from countries like Argentina, Brazil, and the US. This makes UK Dairy farms the second biggest soya consumer after UK poultry farms. Soya is being directly linked to deforestation. How are Supermarket Products Linked to Deforestation? New investigations revealed that various UK supermarket brands are linked to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, and the Cerrado ecoregion. The soya crops that are grown instead provide a food source to cattle on UK farms, which supply companies such as Cathedral City, Anchor, and Davidstow Cheddar, with milk. Anna Jones, from Greenpeace UK has stated that, ‘Many people will be appalled to hear that their cheese and butter are linked to forest destruction on the other side of the Atlantic.’ These tropical regions are homes to various animals and plants, and are hotspots of biodiversity. 10% of all known species on Earth inhabit the Amazon rainforest, and 5% of the world’s animal and plant species live in the Cerrado ecoregion. Moreover, the forests play a big role in maintaining a good climate. Cargill, one of the biggest US grain companies, also supplies UK farms with soya bought from Brazil. Already named the “Worst Company in the World” in 2019 and having been under criticism for lobbying, they have faced new allegations surrounding deforestation. Investigations by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), Greenpeace Unearthed, and ITV News revealed that Cargill’s Brazilian soya supplier, Grupo Scheffer, has been responsible for several environmental damages like logging or burning down large swathes of forest in the recent years. What is the Damage? In 2021 alone, Grupo Scheffer produced over 560,000 tonnes of cotton, corn, and soya and has been producing soya for 30 years across the amazon rainforest, the Cerrado ecoregion, and the Pantanal, which is the world’s largest tropic wetland. According to satellite images taken by the NGO AidEnvironment, Grupo Scheffer farms cleared 10sqkm of forest in 2019 and 2020, but when questioned, the company stated that they didn’t manage those areas, although they have been fined for clearing woodlands before. However, other Cargill suppliers have also been linked to logging 800sqkm of the Cerrado region’s forests. Furthermore, there have been over 12,000 controlled burnings since 2015 for crop production, according to TBIJ. Cargill responded to accusations stating that: “We take this type of grievance against a supplier very seriously […] If violations re found in any area, we will take immediate action in accordance with our Soy Grievance Process. Cargill has worked relentlessly to build a more sustainable soy supply chain.” Cargill holds a Triple S certification, which is supposed to mean that they use sustainably certified soya. However, sustainable soya can be mixed with non-certified beans from deforested regions, which makes the sustainability factor questionable, and weighs down the ethical value of dairy products like cheese in the supermarket. Mole Valley Feeds, another soya feed supplier, is one of the main suppliers in the UK. Their soya is used on cattle farms that supply cheese manufacturers, like Saputo. Saputo produces cheese brands like Davidstow Cheddar and Cathedral City. Following investigations, Saputo have publicly stated that: "Our Davidstow Farm Standards will mandate that all farms which supply to Saputo Dairy UK’s Davidstow creamery must source feed from suppliers with a sustainable soy purchasing policy." Concluding Comments The hidden environmental impact of UK dairy is widely unknown to consumers. It is important to ensure that suppliers are transparent in the environmental impact of their products, allowing consumers to make informed choices. Head of Forests Policy and Advocacy at Global Witness, Jo Blackman has commented that, ‘Time and time again we have seen commodities like soya linked to tropical deforestation entering UK supply chains. This is a systemic problem, and we need strong legislation to tackle it.’ There has been an urge for new laws and proposals made against deforestation and a demand for better management of supply chain origins. Greenpeace UK has commented that, ‘The government knows this is a huge problem, yet its own proposals on eliminating deforestation from supply chains will only apply if that deforestation is illegal.’ Similar: The Hidden Cost of Avocados We're a not-for-profit initiative advocating for those topics that matter, whilst supporting socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. Support our projects and journalism by becoming a member from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall reports on the latest Extinction Rebellion protest against the UK’s print media tycoons. Photo by Waldemar Brandt On 27th June, Extinction Rebellion (XR) led the ‘Free the Press’ march through London to protest against print media’s handling of the climate crisis. The organisers of the protest have explained that they are targeting the four biggest print media tycoons in the UK – Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere, Sir Frederick Barclay and Baron Evgeny Lebedev – to protest their monopolisation of the industry and what XR believe to be insufficient coverage of the climate crisis. Free the Press Extinction Rebellion announced a “day of protest” targeting the “four billionaire owners of 68% of the UK’s print media”, carrying effigies of the men along their route. The organisation said the protest was made “demanding an end to media corruption that suppresses the truth from the public for profit”. “The arenas of power in this country are rotten, and where the billionaire-owned press is concerned – corruption is the business model. It’s time they cut the crap and stop acting as though they are providing a noble service to the public, while greenwashing the climate crisis and stoking the culture war to divide people.” – Gully Bujak, Extinction Rebellion Six activists were arrested after dumping seven tonnes of horse manure on the pavement outside the offices of the Daily Mail in Kensington on the morning of the 27th. Protestors allegedly scaled scaffolding outside the building and hung ‘Free the Press’ banners from it. Extinction Rebellion said that they intended to make the same protest outside the Daily Telegraph office, but we stopped before they could go ahead. The police have condemned the act as a disruption to the public. Why Protest? Extinction Rebellion decided that the ‘Free the Press’ protest was needed to expose the shocking power of the four billionaire tycoons who collectively own The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun (Murdoch), The Daily Mail and The Metro (Rothermere), The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph (Barclay), The Evening Standard and The Independent (Lebedev). Essentially, the entirety of the country’s mainstream print media is owned by four individuals, none of whom pay UK tax. The organisation opposes the extent of these individuals’ influence over the rest of the media, especially TV news. XR claims they “scapegoat minorities” and “obscure the truth on the climate crisis”, controlling the dialogue on nationally important topics. “Whilst we become even more divided and disillusioned, they grow in power and wealth. They have unfettered access to our elected officials and they undermine our democracy with their propaganda and hate. We are in desperate need of a free, fair and democratic press that serves the public interest.” – Extinction Rebellion online Reports have claimed that these individuals consistently have close relationships with government officials, meaning they have the potential to control coverage on various issues to favour certain people or messages. XR deplores this, saying “independent, unbiased journalism is vital to a functioning democracy”. Extinction Rebellion has stated that none of the papers owned by the four tycoons give adequate coverage to the severity of the climate crisis, even going so far as to accuse Rupert Murdoch of giving a platform to climate change deniers. “We are experiencing an existential crisis. The climate emergency is the biggest threat to have ever faced humanity. But our press barons – who pretend to speak for us, to represent us, to fight for us – have failed again and again to equip us with the facts to help us understand the reality and act accordingly. They have done so cynically, failing in their duty to their readership and to the public.” – Extinction Rebellion online While it is essential that there are multiple sources of news available to the public, and the various print newspapers on sale in Britain form an incredibly substantial facet of keeping us informed, it is crucial that this is done with accurate and sufficient facts about the topics that matter. And, arguably, in the long run, climate change matters above every other subject for now. Article on a similar topic: Earth and The Sixth Mass Extinction We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.