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.

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.

Jenny Donath explores how the decision to lift ban of bee-harming pesticides will negatively affect the bee population. Photo by Bianca Ackermann In 2018, bee-harming pesticides had been banned across Europe due to heavy scientific evidence regarding its harmful impacts on bees and other pollinators. Now, they are back in the UK. Using Thiamethoxam Since the UK’s exit from the European Union, the government has granted permission to use thiamethoxam, which is part of the neonicotinoid group, as an emergency use on sugar beet crops. The decision was made because of the potential risk of the spread of aphids, which can cause virus yellows disease and negatively impact the growth of sugar beets. “The decision to approve an emergency authorisation was not taken lightly and based on robust scientific assessment. We evaluate the risks very carefully and only grant temporary emergency authorisations for restricted pesticides in special circumstances when strict requirements are met and there are no alternatives” (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). According to the government, the decision was made due to several reasons. There has been a 69% prediction of a potential virus spread this year, which has dramatically exceeded the 19% threshold. In 2020, there had already been crop losses as high as 80%. With 3,000 farmers growing sugar beets across the UK and 500 jobs in England depending on them, the government believes a temporary lifting of the ban is an appropriate measure. However, the ban has caused outrage under campaigners and activists, who believe the government had enough time to invest in research to find alternative ways to deter pests in the farming industry. Even a temporary and strictly observed application has long-term effects on bee populations, which already suffer tremendous strain. The Protection of Bees Across the world, over 200,000 bee species face extinction, with more in decline because of human intervention, including farming practices, pesticides, environmental pollution, and climate change. Since 1900, 13 bee species have become extinct in the UK and another 35 species are threatened by extinction. On top of this, there is no UK law that protects bees. It is crucial to avoid any further harm to their lives and prevent any further negative impact on their environment. Some might believe that bees only make honey, but their duties extend much further. As the main pollinator, bees pollinate about 80% of UK’s wildflowers as well as edible plants. They are overall essential to a functioning ecosystem, contributing to the growth of edible plants for humans and a rich plant diversity, like colourful flowers. The economy relies on bees as well, since they pollinate crops, fruit, and vegetable patches. Without them, farmers would need to invest 1.8bn pounds on pollination substitutes; food production would become more expensive, and drastically increase in price. Phasing out Pesticides According to studies, pesticides are damaging to pollinator’s navigational abilities, their nervous system, and breeding success. Due to a decreased number of genes that detoxify chemicals, the receptor nicotinic acetylcholine easily binds with the specific enzymes to causes these detrimental effects. Moreover, it is not only pollinators that face harm from the admission of pesticides on crops. Instead, a causal chain would be set into action, affecting biodiversity and other animal lives. Neonics are persistently applied throughout spring and are absorbed by all parts of the plant, with the chance of them reaching bodies of waters and damaging aquatic life, polluting natural habitats further. The application of neonics opposes any of the government’s goals to protect nature. Craig Bennet, the environmental campaigner of The Wildlife Trusts, had said, “The Government has outlined ambitions to restore nature, promising to protect 30% of land by 2030 and reverse declines of precious wildlife - but at the same time, it is giving a green light to use a highly toxic chemical that could harm pollinating insects and pollute soils and rivers.” Farmers will be banned from growing any flowering plants on fields, and surrounding areas, for 32 months after the use of the pesticide to avoid harming more bees. It is also unknown whether this time frame could be delayed by even more months if the UK government decided to allow pesticides in the coming years. Stephanie Morred, who works for RSPB, stated that instead of allowing harmful pesticides, the government should support farmers in other ways than purposefully continuing to induce harm on the already declining natural environment: “Highly toxic pesticides like neonicotinoids have no place in a sustainable farming system.” A five year old study showed that 86% of farmers could be able to improve the level of food production, or at least 94% of farmers not experiencing any losses, if pesticides were completely cut. Instead of using harmful short-term solutions, the government should find long-term options. Otherwise, the world, as we know it, would cease to exist without the help of bees. Similar: Pollinators Poisoned as Pesticide Companies Profit 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 looks into the environmental impact our coffee addiction has on Earth's rainforests. Photo by Nathan Dumlao Next to water, coffee is the world’s second most-consumed drink, with hundreds of billions of cups being drunk every year. It’s no surprise then to hear that with the world's population increasing, the consumption of coffee has also been steadily growing, with a new demand to produce even greater quantities of the bean. But with this ever-growing demand, the environmental impact of coffee production on the rainforests in which the beans are commonly grown is having momentous effects that will likely continue to worsen. Cutting down forests for caffeine Agriculture is the leading factor in global deforestation, accounting for 80% of tree loss in the world’s rainforests. From the start of the 1990s to 2016, the World Bank estimates that the Earth lost an area of forest larger than the whole of South Africa. What makes deforestation even more of a threat is the impact rainforests have in fighting climate change, given that forests act as huge carbon sinks absorbing 40% of the world's manmade carbon dioxide annually, not to mention being home to 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. But where does coffee fit into this? Well, for every cup of coffee produced it is estimated that one square inch of rainforest was destroyed. The reason for this is to do with the types of coffee grown – there are two types of coffee plant, those that grow under direct sunlight and those that grow under shade. The kind that grows in the open can produce a yield three times as great as its counterpart, making it easy to understand why it’s a favourite amongst coffee farmers. We are a start up charity. You can support us with our mission to help people #stayinformed by joining us today from just £1pm. Coffee beans start off as cherry plants, requiring specific environmental conditions to grow. Humid, high altitude areas along the equator are perfect for coffee growers to produce those beans we all love. These conditions require trees to be cleared for the plantations, thus depleting the nutrients in the soil and altering the temperature and moisture of the land, as well as having permanent effects on the biodiversity which relies on the rainforest’s delicate ecosystem. The process of producing the beans from the plants is also environmentally damaging. Removing the bean from the cherry fruit requires a process of large-scale fermentation of the fruit to remove the outer layers. This excess waste product, as well as pesticides used, is then disposed of in local rivers and streams, killing aquatic life as it breaks down, depleting oxygen in the water. Economics vs Environment In 2019, the Sustainable Coffee Expo held in the US outlined a number of issues the coffee sector was facing. Along with correct certification, the need to have better legislation regulating how coffee farming can be done with the environment in mind was top of the agenda. Although a coffee-producing country may have laws surrounding the protection of its forests, enforcement of them may be weak, and breaking them may even be tolerated if exploiting the forests’ resources is lucrative. These economic incentives continue to drive rainforest clearances, as the financial opportunities available to poor locals eclipse the moral principle of leaving the land untouched, especially as our appetite for the beans is ever-increasing. Due to the particular growing conditions coffee plants require, a rapidly warming climate is having consequences on our ability to produce coffee in keeping with demand. The land that can support coffee production is diminishing at an alarming rate. A study has projected that by 2050, coffee-growing regions such as Central America could see reductions in suitable crop land from 89% to just 38%, and some countries like Brazil could be unable to grow coffee all together. With coffee consumption slowly emerging at the forefront of the issue global deforestation, perhaps we ought to consider the challenges involved in growing those beans which some of us require to just to start the day, and the challenges involved in acquiring them. You may also like: The Indigenous Use Tech Innovation to Fight Amazon Deforestation We are a socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

An Examination into the Citrus Fruit, By Farihah Choudhury Food as medicine In the age of Berocca and paracetamol, the monumental advancement of pharmaceutical drugs in the 21st century has revolutionised the way we view and handle ill health. Although Nobel Prize winning pills and potions have vastly improved healthcare in many ways and improved human longevity and vitality, the downside of our solutions being boiled down to a miraculous white pill is that we have become detached with the power of nature to cure ailments. Instead of looking at the cause of colds or headaches we are inclined to just take an ibuprofen and get on with our day to day lives. However, addressing the issue with every day, natural remedies may provide long term preventative solutions to aches and pains, and bring us back to the healing capacities of the world around us. One of these such naturally sourced solutions is lemon, a staple citrus fruit with multiple health-promoting uses. Loveable lemon The lemon (Citrus limon) is the fruit borne of a small evergreen tree, from the flowering plant family Rutaceae. It was first cultivated when the bitter orange was crossed with citron fruit, and is thought to be native to the Assam region of Northern India. In 1795, the Navy were convinced to regularly give their sailors lemon juice to treat scurvy, though it was not known at this time to be caused by Vitamin C deficiency. Deficiency in the U.K. is rare, though severe deficiency of Vitamin C, afflicted sailors on long distance sea travel, and killed many, inititally causing gum disease, weak muscles and joints, and fatigue. We now recognise the lemon fruit as a household staple, but are we aware of all of its amazing properties? Citrus fruit is characteristically high in Vitamin C (also known as ascorbic acid), which is important for the functioning of your immune system, protecting cells from oxidative stress, formation of collagen for normal blood vessels, skin, muscles and bones which helps wound healing; as well as aiding iron absorption. Lemon also contains potentially beneficial phytochemicals such as tannins, polyphenols and terpenes. Savvy citrus Lemons are a go-to when experiencing cold and flu-like symptoms, as the Vitamin C is an immune system booster. As well as Vitamin C, the phytochemicals in lemon are thought to work together to have an antioxidant effect, which prevents cell damage in the body. The main sugar in lemon, pectin, is slowly absorbed by the body and helps maintain low blood sugar levels. Lemons also contain trace amounts of many vitamins and minerals including Vitamin B3, folate, and choline, the most significant of which are Vitamin B6 and iron, both are important for haemoglobin formation to allow red blood cells to transport oxygen around the body, and a healthy metabolism. Vitamin B6 is also important for the use and storage of energy. Five ways to incorporate lemon into your diet Freshly squeezed in tea or lemonade Used as a dressing on top of leafy green vegetables to aid iron absorption (e.g. from spinach) Half a lemon squeezed into soups, stews and curries for a hidden kick Zest grated onto desserts Lemon water – soak thinly-sliced lemon in water and allow it to diffuse Tru. 🌱 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: Miles, E. (2017) Requirements & Recommendations, Nutrition in Health & Disease Pt.1 NHS (2018) Scurvy, Health A-Z [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Scurvy/] Hemila, Harri (2012)"A Brief History of Vitamin C and its Deficiency, Scurvy" Hai Liu, R. (2003) Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from additive and synergistic combinations of phytochemicals. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 78, Issue 3

Jenny Donath reports on why Insulate Britain has organised protests disrupting national infrastructure and how the UK government has extended policing powers in response. Photo by Mathaia Reding In 2021, Insulate Britain activists made a statement by taping themselves to the M25 highway. Their appeal to the government, urging them to launch a national home insulation programme to reduce the use of fossil fuels, was to prevent any further greenhouse gas emissions and the complete exhaustion of fossil fuels. Extreme forms of protest have become more and more common in the last few years. With Insulate Britain blocking the highway, a disruption for over 18,000 drivers was caused, including an ambulance carrying a patient who needed urgent care. Consequently, the obstructive protest had resulted in over 520 recorded offences and the arrest of 174 Insulate Britain members and 129 supporters. Imposed fines ranged from £120 to £400 pounds, making these specific protest tactics extremely controversial amongst the British public. How Insulate Britain Responded Burning gas and oil to heat homes causes 16% of all UK gas emissions, and insulation is key to cutting this figure down. David Cameron’s Conservative government notoriously had a lack of funding for the 2013-15 green deal policy, further scrapping rigorous standards for insulation in new homes in 2016. At least 1.5m homes are inadequate for the UK’s 2035 carbon emission goal. Insulate Britain responded to the UK government’s mistreatment of insulation schemes with an open letter to thank their supporters, appeal to public conscience, and express their frustration at UK citizens going cold during the winter: “It is shameful that there are currently people in prison for doing what is right at this point in history. We want to be clear that at this time ‘reducing your own impact on the planet’ is a completely inadequate response to a crisis that will destroy the law and order you are there to uphold. Those who hold positions of responsibility have an even greater responsibility to step up at this time” (Insulate Britain, Insulate Britain). Criticism from the UK Government Criticism has risen regarding the possible danger of the obstructions caused by Insulate Britain activists. For instance, police officers are forced to oversee protestors’ campaigns instead of pursuing their regular duties, like focusing on crimes or ensuring safety by policing neighbourhoods. In response, the government has imposed heavier measures as part of the Public Order Act 1986, to deal with protests that affect everyday life. The Public Order Act 1986 currently ensures a balance between the rights of protestors to engage in peaceful protests and the rights of people affected by protest campaigns that have a “significant impact on persons or serious disruption to the activities of an organisation by noise; serious disorder; serious damage to property; serious disruption to the life of the community”. Along with implementing this law, the government has heavily criticised the actions of protests organised by groups such as Insulate Britain, using labels like “selfish”, “anti-social”, and referring to their protests as practicing “criminal, disruptive and self-defeating guerrilla tactics”. Extending Policing Powers The UK government has consequently extended the scope of the police’s power to prevent a further increase in extreme protests. New measures allow the police to stop and search protestors, allowing them to confiscate objects which could be used to cause disruption. Furthermore, they can prohibit people from being in a particular place, being with particular people, and forbid them to use the internet to possibly encourage others to commit a protesting offence. To ensure these preventions are possible, powers to take these measures have been extended to police officers from the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police. Furthermore, the seniority level of police officers who can apply such prohibitions has been changed in the London area. Protestors who now make use of the locking-on method, like taping yourself to the ground, or obstruct major transport works, will now face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or an unlimited fine upon arrest. Interfering with key national infrastructure is now punished with a maximum imprisonment of twelve months or an unlimited fine. Tunnelling could even result in a penalty as high as three years imprisonment. However, the government ensures that protests are generally still legal, and those new measures only affect a small minority of protestors who otherwise would cause serious disruption to the everyday life of the public. Challenging the Jury This makes it even harder for activists to raise awareness about important matters, like the climate crisis. Insulate Britain claimed that all other attempts of peaceful campaigning had not led to the wished results and therefore drastic methods had been used to raise awareness, further stating in court that the “criminalisation by the judiciary of ordinary people attempting to preserve lives and the very fabric of our society is abhorrent.” According to Insulate Britain, unjust laws need to be challenged and an extreme situation, like the climate crisis, demands extreme action as the consequences will be felt closer to home. In October 2022, the UK’s gas and electricity bills soared, with middle income families struggling to pay the hefty £285 bill per month, let alone less affluent families unable to afford the most necessity like boiling potatoes. Although the UK government has pledged to phase out gas boilers by the late 2030s, heat pumps would be ineffective without well insulated homes. “There’s no silver bullet,” says Juliet Phillips of climate thinktank E3G, as every house is different. Yet, we cannot let Insulate Britain’s protests go to waste. The UK government needs to prioritise refitting social housing and poorer-occupied houses first with, what Phillip called, “an Olympic-style employment and skills taskforce”. Solid wall insulation, maintained heat pumps, and solar panels are what we all need in a united front against climate change. Similar: Downgrading of Democracy: The Police, Crimes & Sentencing Bill 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.

Jonny Rogers explores how new regulations on financial disclosures for the UK’s largest companies aim to redistribute wealth towards sustainable initiatives. Photo by Alexander Kotlyar On 6th April 2022, the British government enforced mandatory climate-related financial disclosures for the UK’s largest companies. These new regulations require listed companies to provide a clear description of how they identify, assess and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, thereby helping investors better understand their financial vulnerability to the challenges posed by climate change. Marking the first time a G20 country has enshrined recommendations from the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the new laws are seen as a pivotal move in the transition towards a greener financial system. As Greg Hands, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, explains: “If the UK is to meet our ambitious net-zero commitments by 2050, we need our thriving financial system, including our largest businesses and investors, to put climate change at the heart of their activities and decision making” - Greg Hands, GOV.UK. The Scope of the New Regulations While companies listed on the London Stock Exchange’s premium segment have been required to declare their climate-related disclosures since December 2020, the new regulations significantly increase their scope. Those included under the new requirements include all UK-registered companies and LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships) which have more than 500 employees and a turnover exceeding £500m. This accounts for over 1,300 of the largest UK-registered companies and financial institutions. While these mandatory financial disclosures do not require companies to detail the environmental impact of their operations, they still aim to incentivise investment in organisations which can demonstrate greater adaptability to the demands of a rapidly-changing planet. Vice versa, businesses which depend on diminishing natural resources or heavily polluting practises are less likely to receive long-term investment if investors are suitably informed about their investee’s climate-related risks. “To meet our ambitions to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change and tackle biodiversity loss, we need to realign the way our economy interacts with the natural environment.” – George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Roadmap to Green Finance In September 2021, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Sixth Assessment Report, consolidating the latest scientific evidence on climate change. Without large-scale reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the global temperature will continue to rise, and the atmosphere will become increasingly hostile to the flourishing of both human and non-human life. In the lead up to COP26, hosted in Glasgow last November, the UK declared their intentions to become a world leader in mitigating the impact of climate change - including a plan to cut emissions by 78% by 2035, on top of plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. As stated in the government’s Roadmap to Sustainable Investing (published in October 2021), the demands of the IPCC report will not be achieved without the prioritisation of sustainable investment: “The financial system is […] critical to achieving net zero and protecting the UK’s natural environment.” Shortcomings and Opportunities Nevertheless, mandatory climate-related financial disclosures will not alone redeem a broken economy. The new regulations, for example, only have power over UK-registered companies, and thus hold no accountability for those looking to invest wealth abroad; and there is no legal penalty for investors choosing to invest in unsustainable companies with full knowledge of potential or likely ecological consequences. However, while every individual arguably has an obligation to align their lifestyle and patterns of consumption with the interests of the planet and its inhabitants, it cannot be ignored that environmental responsibility is disproportionally congregated around wealth; the UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report, published in 2020, found that the richest 1% of the global population are responsible for over double the quantity of carbon emissions than the poorest 50%. As such, any legislation that aims to shift the flow of wealth towards sustainable initiatives should be welcomed; not as a scapegoat for environmental accountability, but as a blueprint – or perhaps a greenprint – for how governments can incentivise ethical and sustainable investment. Similar: Conscious Investing: New Finance is Supporting 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.

Ziryan Aziz reports on the businesses still operating in Russia, over two hundred days into the invasion of Ukraine. Photo by Damir Babacic After 32 years since McDonald’s first opened its doors to curious Muscovites, all the way back in the 1990s Soviet Union, the American fast-food conglomerate will be closing its doors for the last time. But is this the only company to shut down operations within Russia? McDonald’s has chosen to leave Russia for good, citing the Russian Invasion of Ukraine as reason for the unstable conditions for operating. In mid-May, the company announced that it had finally found a Russian buyer, Alexander Govor, who will take on the company’s 850 stores and 62,000 staff. Govor had pledged to rebrand the McDonald stores in Russia, and established a new fast-food chain called Vkusno i Tochka ("Tasty and thats it") Other western brands, like Nike, Adidas, and Renault who had initially only suspended their operations, have also decided to abandon the Russian market altogether. With a pricey cost to remain, and with the threat of having their assets seized by the state, the departure of western companies operating in Russia has only accelerated. However, despite the international pressure, several well-known brands continue to do business, for varying reasons. Complex Franchise Agreements One such reasons why some companies have found it difficult to remove their brands from the Russian market, is because they do not directly own their stores in Russia. They are locked in franchise agreements. In March, the popular British supermarket chain, Marks & Spencer (M&S), still had 48 outlets open across Russia. However, it's stores were operated by a Turkish company called FiBA, who had the right to sell M&S products, but M&S did not own the operations bearing their name. Breaking franchise agreements can be difficult legally, and in response M&S suspended its supplies to FiBA before it was agreed all its stores would close in late May. Other chains like Burger King have been less successful in leaving the Russian market. The producer of the Whopper burger, which is owned by the parent company, Restaurant Brands International Inc (RBI), still has its estimated 800 franchise locations open. Much like Marks & Spencer, RBI doesn’t own any of its restaurants In Russia. Instead, Burger King has a complex joint-venture-style master franchise agreement. RBI has a 15% stake in Burger King Russia Ltd, and 30% of the joint venture is owned by Alexander Kolobov, Burger King’s master franchisee in Russia. The rest is divided between VTB, a Russian state-owned bank, and Investment Capital Ukraine, an equity and asset management firm in Kyiv. But, there is an ongoing dispute between RBI and Kolobov as to who has the authority to close the stores, and whilst RBI would like its Russian based stores to close, legally, it has little right to enforce this. However, Burger King is not alone with the challenges of breaking away from the Russian market. The Swedish homeware giant, IKEA, is facing a similar issue. In March, the company made a statement on their website, claiming: “The war has had a huge human impact already. It is also resulting in serious dis-ruptions to supply chain and trading conditions. For all of these reasons, the company groups have decided to temporarily pause IKEA operations in Russia” – IKEA Franchise, IKEA. IKEA has closed 17 stores in Russia to date, and pledged €20 million to help Ukrainian refugees, with a further €10 million worth of products for international charities. However, INGKA Group, a holding group based in the Netherlands, has chosen to keep all 14 of its MEGA shopping centres open. The Netherlands based group was created by the founder of IKEA, operating 86% the IKEA’s global stores, and manages sales channels un-der the IKEA Concept and IKEA Brand. In the same statement, IKEA said that MEGA sites will remain open, so “people in Russia have access to their daily needs and essentials such as food, groceries and pharmacies.” The Russian MEGA Shopping centres are managed under IKEA Centres Russia and attracts over 250 million visitors a year. Still Operating As mentioned, many Western companies have suspended their operations in Russia, and some for legal reasons are unable to completely detach. But there are some who choose to actively remain within the Russian market. Some of the more well-known corporations and businesses include banks like Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase, who have all publicly stated that they are in the process of winding down their operations in Russia, but are committed to leaving in the near future. Others are less keen. Hard Rock, best known for the Hard Rock Café chain, is keeping its Moscow and St. Petersburg stores open for business. Hard Rock has said it will donate the profits from its franchises to humanitarian causes in Ukraine, but like all foreign businesses that still operate in Russia, the taxes generated through sales and other means could be used to fuel the Russian war effort. The popular online dating platforms Tinder and Match.com, are also continuing to do business in Russia, unlike their competitor Bumble, who removed their app from the Russian and Belarusian Google and Apple stores. Domino’s Pizza has chosen to keep its 188 stores open across the country but said it won’t accept any royalties from its Russian franchise operations. This is a similar pledge by TGI Friday’s, who will also keep its stores open, but will donate franchise fees to Ukrainian relief efforts. It is unclear whether either company has suspended shipments of ingredients and other materials to their franchise locations. PepsiCo, the American multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation, best known for producing the Pepsi drink, is still selling its goods in Russia. The corporation has suspended the sale of its major drink brands, capital investments, advertising and promotional activities. However, due to what it describes as a “humanitarian” effort, it still sells dairy produce in the country, such as cheese, and baby formula. It is unclear at the time of writing, what percentage of baby formula in Russia is trademarked under PepsiCo. A major competitor, Nestlé, is also promising to only sell ‘essential’ items, like cereals, specialist pet foods, and baby food/formula. In 2014, Nestlé trademarked baby formula accounted for a staggering 48.7% of all baby formula in Russia. Closing Remarks The examples used in this article make up only a small percentage of the 247 international businesses identified as still operating, in some capacity. In total, there are 11 major United Kingdom based businesses that have either only scaled back operations, postponed investments, development, marketing, or outright continue to do business as usual. For businesses based in the European Union, this number is much higher. Many companies based in China, India, and further afield may seek to take advantage of the departure of Western businesses and look to fill the void left behind. Chinese businesses are currently in a good position to increase their presence in the Russian market, as China seeks to strengthen its relationship with Russia, and Russia needs foreign investment to recover lost revenue. Indeed, it is incredibly important to highlight the evolution of businesses during this volatile period of Eastern European history. For the companies that remain active within Russia, during its invasion of Ukraine, this only emphasises that shareholder profits will always be the primary objective, whatever the cost. A comprehensive and updated list on these businesses has been provided by Yale University’s School of Management, and can be found in the attached link here. Similar: The Cost of Living Crisis in the UK 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 how EU member states have responded to three new taxes to help repay funds borrowed during the Covid-19 pandemic and whether they are efficient enough. Photo by Gayatri Malhotra Covid-19 was at the forefront of our day-to-day lives. The events of recent years have caused governments worldwide to be in desperate need of funds to help support the country throughout the pandemic. Sufficient funds were required for the furlough schemes, grants for struggling businesses, and to support the Covid-19 vaccination research and distribution program. However, now that things are slowly returning to a state of normality, governments are assessing how they can repay the €800 billion euros that was borrowed during the pandemic. The European Commission have proposed three new taxes in order to help repay these collective debts. The Taxes The first tax to be introduced is a legal seizure under a brand-new carbon market. They will continue to use the European Union's existing trading system for carbon in order to help them impose CO2 costs on ships and increase the payments that come from various airlines. This came under scrutiny from some member states, such as Poland, who state that by increasing the carbon prices, household bills will also increase. Despite these claims, it is estimated that the pros, outweigh the cons, as this new tax is estimated to provide 12 billion euros on average each year from 2026 to 2030. The second proposed tax was to impose carbon costs on the importation of goods from countries that have weaker CO2 emission standards. From this tax, three-quarters of the money will go towards the EU budget and is estimated to provide 1 billion euros per year. This strategy is a key aspect of preventing businesses from transferring production outside of the EU, to countries with more laid-back climate rules, often referred to as carbon “leakage”, which may have a disproportionate impact on developing countries. As a result of carbon leakage, some countries may refuse to accept these proposed tax changes. It is possible to make things more evenly distributed, for example, the CAMB could impose tariffs or taxes on the imports of such products (iron, steel, cement, aluminium, electricity and fertilisers) rather than being used as a protectionist measure which will keep such goods out of developing countries in particular. The last new tax to be proposed is to give 15% of residual profits from multinational companies to the EU Covid-19 recovery fund. Residual profits refer to any profits that are left after the company has paid all of its capitol bills. This could potentially offer between 2.5 billion euros to 4 billion euros per year. What Happens Next? The first steps toward this new tax proposal were made earlier in 2021. It was expected that all 27 member states would agree with one another regarding the finer details of the proposal within the first 6 months, although some capitals had some concerns. Countries, such as Hungry and Estonia, voiced their concerns around the new percentage for corporate taxes. All countries have various levels of funds available to them, with some far better off than others. Paolo Gentiloni, a commissioner for the economy, explained that this was not replacing tax competition. Instead, Gentiloni stated that each country would still have different levels of corporation taxation, which was to be seen as a ‘ceiling, a limit, to the race to the bottom.’ It is understandable that changes need to take place in order to help repay the borrowed Covid-19 funds. But are these changes sufficient? Currently, the total amount owed by member states is approximately €800 billion euros, which is estimated to be fully repaid by 2058. Therefore, it is clear that more efficient taxation on importation, carbon leakage, and multinational companies must be implemented soon so that the financial damage of the pandemic can remain in the past. Similar: European Union Fails To Take Climate Emergency Seriously 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.

Nina MacPherson reports on new legislation requiring newly built homes to include electric vehicle charging points. Photo by Jonas Alert Boris Johnson has announced that new legislation will be introduced requiring all newly built houses with off-street parking in the UK to feature electric vehicle charging points by May 2022. At the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in November 2021, Johnson said: “We have to adapt our economy to the green revolution.” One of Theresa Mays’ last actions as Prime Minister was to sign into law the UK’s ground-breaking target of hitting net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, which has contributed the recently published energy white paper announced by Kwasi Kwarteng MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This has motivated government plans to ban the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, allowing hybrid vehicles to be sold for another five years. Net-Zero Future The new law will make England the first country in the world with all new homes featuring electric vehicle chargers, putting the country at the forefront of addressing climate change when it comes to residential infrastructure supporting EV's. It is expected that 145,000 extra charge points will be added to the network each year, encouraging buyers of new-build homes to make the switch to electric cars. The government has already supported 250,000 home and workplace chargers, as well as pledging £350 million in funding for the electrification of UK vehicles and their supply chains and £620 million for EV grants and infrastructure. Is It Enough? There is concern from some that this plan is merely a drop in the ocean in terms of what needs to be done to meet the target of being a ‘zero emission’ country by 2050. Nigel Pockington, CEO of Good Energy, has said: “Flexible charging at home and work during the day is going to be crucial to decarbonising… as will electric heating and solar power on 13.5 million homes. We hope to see these as part of the plans for new homes too.” Former climate change secretary Ed Miliband also voiced concerns, saying: “The government is failing Britain’s automotive companies and workers. Rather than step up to support the car industry in the global race for green technologies, ministers have stepped back and left manufacturers, workers and the public on their own, failing to take the action necessary to make the switch affordable for families hit by a cost of living crisis.” Further concerns come from government ministers who think that increased demand on the electricity grid could cause blackouts. However, Graeme Cooper, the director in charge of National Grid’s electric vehicle project, told The Guardian that fears over the UK electricity grid’s ability to cope with a boom in electric vehicle charging were unfounded. He said the grid operator was “confident that a faster transition is possible”, and that it is “suitably robust” to cope with a rise in electricity demand. Concluding Comments Despite these doubts, the government remains committed to its legislation, and in a bid to align the legislation with consumer interest, have created a free app called EV8 Switch. The app aims to provide practical tools and advice to drivers thinking about making the switch to electric, as well as calculating potential savings made through switching from a fossil fuel to an electric vehicle. Installing a home electric car charger costs between £800-£1000, but savings can be made with help from the UK government whom, in conjunction with the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), are offering grants of up to £500 towards the cost of installing smart EV home charging stations. The RAC's Director of EVs Sarah Winward-Kotecha has welcomed the move, but said more focus is needed on electric car charging in urban areas with no off-street parking. She said: "It’s important to remember that a lot of new housing stock – especially in cities – doesn’t even come with any car parking at all, let alone provision for electric charge points. It’s for this reason that the RAC continues to call for the installation of rapid charging hubs to also be a priority." Regardless of the difference in opinions on the new law, the UK Government and other world powers have a limited window to meet the targets set at COP26 for reaching zero-carbon emissions by 2050, and this could be a step in the right direction. Similar: Green Steel: Coal-Free Innovation in the Auto Industry 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.

Ziryan Aziz reports on how the government’s new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will shape our right to protest. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona The House of Lords has now passed the government’s most controversial proposals in its policing bill, after a final 3rd reading. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has been floating in and out of Parliament since March 2021, though it was struck down by the House of Lords in January 2022 after a debate on protesting rights. In the vote held in late March 2022, Peers voted in favour of two alterations they had previously made: removing noise as a criterion for disbanding a protest, and proposing police powers to restrict one-person demonstrations. The bill was in a procession of ‘ping-pong’, where it bounced back between the Commons and the Lords. MPs continued to reject the lord’s amendments, which target the bill’s more controversial policies, whilst Peers continue to accept their own altercations. On the 26th April the bill finally passed through the Lords, and is now law. What is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill? The bill is a flagship piece of legislation that Home Secretary, Priti Patel, alongside other key government backers have pushed through Parliament. It made headlines in November 2021, when the Home Secretary came under fire for adding an additional 18 pages of amendments to the final draft, after it had already passed through Parliament. The move was criticised as anti-democratic, both from within the opposition and public organisations who have expressed grievances with some of its contents. Overall, the bill aims to overhaul the criminal justice system, with a raft of changes to how certain crimes are punished, introducing new laws and penalties, and strengthening the powers of the police force. The bill has been praised for the introduction of new offences, such as making it illegal to film someone breastfeeding without consent, increased jail sentences for assault on emergency workers, and potential life sentences for child murderers. The bill will also address a lack of police powers with regard to monitoring suspected terrorists, and the ability of the police forces to share data with councils and other local bodies. However, what’s caught the attention of former Prime Ministers, police chiefs, and civil liberty organisations, is specific changes to the right to protest in the UK, with the potential to impact British democracy and citizen rights. Why is the Bill Controversial? The controversy surrounding the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is centred on multiple core components. Some that have gained the most attention include: Police are to be given powers to prevent or disband any protest if it is considered “too noisy”, and/or a “public nuisance”. The responsibility of this decision is squarely on the shoulder of the police officers at the scene, who will need to provide their subjective judgement. Under previous UK legislation, police would need to prove that a protest may cause “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” before putting any restrictions. The bill would have also introduced a number of new protests related offences, including a parole process for those encouraging others via social media to attend a protest deemed potentially “likely to result in serious disruption”. Police would no longer have a duty to inform protests if they are breaking a police-enforced condition on a protest, and “It will be possible for anyone to receive a criminal conviction for breaching a police condition placed on a protest despite having no knowledge of it,” according to the Friends of the Earth. Organisers of a protest, where police conditions have been breached can also serve time in prison. New rules would have seen protesters receiving jail sentences of up to 6 months and an unlimited fine for “locking on”. The protest method has been popularised recently by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, and Insulate Britain, whereby protestors chain or tie themselves to immovable objects. The protesting tactic has extensively been used in protest movements across the ages, famously by the Suffragettes. Police would be given the powers to stop and search any protester, without suspicion of having committed an offence. Under current UK law, a police officer can only stop and search an individual without suspicion using a Section 60, which is only authorised under certain conditions and restricted to a 24-hour time limit. The new powers imposed in the government’s bill could see anyone who resists a search with up to 51 weeks in jail. Police are to be given the power to stop and search a vehicle if they suspect they’re on their way to a protest, including if they are carrying protest materials (e.g., banners, placards.) The government will introduce changes to the Public Order Act 1994, giving police greater powers to remove and punish vehicles temporarily residing on private land. Whilst the move is welcomed by some, the law specifically focuses on the Gypsy, Traveller, and Roma community, and many within the community feel that this is a direct attack on their right to a nomadic lifestyle. The Reaction The reaction to the government’s new legislation has been mixed. From within the police force, the Police Federation of England and Wales has welcomed the bill, however this view is not universally shared. Leaders from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, a body that overlooks policing practice and policy, have openly criticised the bill as having gone “too far”, stating that “…When you make these laws, you can’t pick laws for the protests you like and don’t like.” Michael Barton, the former chief constable of Durham, has warned that Britain is moving towards ‘Paramilitary Policing’. In an open letter to Priti Patel, senior police leaders, such as the former deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, and former Met superintendent, Leroy Logan, expressed their concerns that the new bill could undermine police trust, and “exacerbate” violence. Commenting on the new stop and search powers, they stated: “As experts on police use of force, racial profiling, and stop and search, we believe that this Bill has dangerous implications for the fight against serious violence, an issue that demands police work in service to, not against, the communities facing its harms.” Outside of policing, more than 700 legal scholars and 350 charities have called for the bill to be scrapped, including Sacha Deshmukh, the CEO of Amnesty International UK, who compared the government’s plans to those used in Russia, Hong Kong and Belarus. Faith leaders have raised their concerns on what the bill will mean for those who will be subject to increased profiling. Both the Bishop of Manchester and Gloucester have spoken in the House of Lords on the bill’s proposed restrictions on travelling communities, and life sentences on young offenders. Politicians such as former Prime Minister Theresa May has spoken up in defiance of the government plans, stating she would “urge the government to consider carefully the need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist.” What Happens Next? As the bill is now an act of parliament, it is officially law. It will be difficult to predict the extent upon which police will act on these new powers, and legal challenges to the government could be expected. The British public will need to reach a consensus on what value the right to protest has in modern Britain. Much like the discourse around free-speech, this bill signifies a shift in the government consensus away from traditional British values, placing a greater emphasis on security. In light of Matt Hancock breaking lock down rules in June 2021, the home secretary has already introduced a law which can dish out a 14 year jail sentence to journalists who handle leaked government materials. It seems the question of what happens next is very much an open one. Similar: Restrictions on Protests are Undermining Democracy 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.

Euan Cook summarises the science behind anxiety disorders, the potential causes, and what we can do to help improve our mental health. Photo by Adrian Swancar Anxiety is what individuals feel when they’re worried, tense, or afraid, and the symptoms can present themselves differently from person to person. Someone who is suffering from anxiety may feel inclined to avoid a wide variety of situations. In the US, 31.1% of the population experience anxiety in their lifetime; in the UK, only 4.7% have anxiety problems, with as many as 9.7% suffering from a combination of depression and anxiety, proving that this issue is not simple or singular. Social Media and Societal Pressure Dr. Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli states that about half of diagnosable mental health disorders start by age 14. Social anxiety disorder, or social phobia, affects both men and women equally: a total of about 15 million US adults. Whilst generalised anxiety disorder affects nearly 7 million US adults, it is twice as common in cisgendered woman as in men. Geo-societal situations like the cost-of-living crisis, cultural trends in fashion and lifestyle, and the political and humanitarian crisis in the Middle East or the Russian invasion of Ukraine are all factors that can worsen anxiety disorders. However, the relatively new digital age the Western world has entered is a leading cause of wanting to ‘fit in’ and, ultimately, anxiety disorder. Social media has been the focus of a lot of research surrounding the acceleration of anxiety disorder in young adults. Some estimates suggest that there are 3 billion active monthly users of social media. Consequent addiction is thought to affect 5% of the younger generation, and has been described as more addictive than alcohol and cigarettes. A users’ ‘obsession’ could be linked to instant gratification and dopamine production. For example: the number of ‘likes’ could lead to negative self-reflection. The continual ‘refreshing’ of the page is symptomatic of an continual desire for personal validation. Symptoms of Anxiety Anxiety can be a general sense or feeling which can become crippling for some, and at its worst it can be mistaken for a heart attack since they have very similar symptoms. Although anxiety can be harmless in the short term, it can increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, substance dependency, and depression. The symptoms of anxiety can be unique to each individual, but here are some of the more common symptoms: a churning feeling in your stomach or IBS feeling restless or unable to sit still headaches, backache or other aches and pains faster breathing a fast, thumping or irregular heartbeat sleep problems nausea (feeling sick) having panic attacks and catastrophising The Central Nervous System To understand the science behind anxiety, its worth understanding the central nervous system, which is where we process many of our emotions and situations. The Sympathetic Nervous System: on an evolutionary level, anxiety is the feeling that stems from our ‘fight, flight or freeze’ response. Certain hormones and chemicals are released, such as adrenaline and cortisol, from the endoctrine system, which accelerate our heart beat and makes us feel more alert; this directs blood to the organs and muscles required to help us react to a perceived danger. Parasympathetic Nervous System: this nervous system is often referred to as the ‘rest and digest’ system, functioning to conserve the body’s natural activity. Once an emergency has passed, there is a decreased arousal on areas such as the eyes, saliva glands, stomach and bladder nerves, and blood vessels. The key component to regulate the parasympathetic nervous system is the vagus nerve. The Vagus Nerve: an increase in the ‘vagal tone’ activates the parasympathetic nervous system, meaning we can relax quickly after an emergency. However, most anxiety sufferers experience persistent symptoms due to their vagal tone not being effectively stimulated. Our overall mental health, biological sex, and coping skills are critical factors in our susceptibility to developing anxiety; for some, this is rooted in unresolved past traumas or insecurities in early life and relationships. If you develop anxiety of this nature, a PTSD diagnosis may follow if one experiences flashbacks or nightmares about a specific traumatic event or a longer series of trauma. When unregulated, the nervous system can develop ‘triggers’ for anxiety sufferers, which can be similar to PTSD. After a traumatic event, these triggers may be activated and can cause someone to potentially experience various symptoms, leading to a panic attack. Panic attacks are one of the leading consequences of anxiety disorders, exaggerating your body’s normal response to danger, stress or excitement, and can last between 5 and 20 minutes. If someone has experienced trauma in their lives, our nervous system can become unregulated and could take some time to re-balance. Techniques to Help Tackle Anxiety There are three main ways which can help battle anxiety involving how you regulate your body and your thought processes: Breathing exercises can help manage anxiety and make you feel a lot calmer. Gently breathe through your nose and mouth at a regular pace. At the same time, slowly tense then relax the muscles in your body from your toes to your head. Physical exercises can achieve the same effects. For example: going for a walk, trying yoga or going for a run can help relieve built up tension, lighten those thoughts and practice being in the present. Diary keeping every time you feel anxious or have a panic attack can help spot triggers of these experiences. This certainly helps people feel more in control of their anxiety. Bonus tip: If possible, surround yourself around positive, non-toxic people, whilst ensuring that your environment is one that is safe and nurturing for you. Being in nature has been scientifically proven to be great for your mental health If you or someone you know is struggling with their mental health, it is worthwhile to seek professional support to discuss these issues. There's a lot of support and proven-to-work therapy such as CBT available for those who need it. For more information try calling Mind on 0300 123 3393 or Samaritans can be contacted for free at 116 123, or by emailing jo@samaritans.org. More advice on anxiety can be found on the NHS website. Similar: Understanding of Borderline Personality Disorder 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 reports on data revealing the adverse impact of raw sewage discharged into England’s waters. Photo by Jakob Owens The government has released data showing that water companies have been regularly discharging massive amounts of raw sewage into England’s bodies of water. Water companies admitted to doing this roughly 1,000 times a day in 2021; that is around 372,000 times and 2.6 million hours in total. According to the Environment Agency (EA), it is only permitted during heavy rainfall to prevent floodings of living areas and streets. Releasing raw sewage too often affects the water quality and has a negative impact on the environment. However, water companies do it more often to relieve pressure on the pipes. In addition, increased extreme weather conditions, a growth in population and England’s antiquated infrastructure have also contributed to the frequent discharges last year. The chief executive of EA, Sir James Bevan, said that water firms had to “act now to reduce their overflows to the minimum possible.” In 2020 alone, there have been over 400,000 discharges of sewage into England’s waters. This is a 27% increase compared to 2019. As Dr Richard Benwall, who is part of the Wildlife Countryside Link, a network of environment groups, commented, “These figures show another year of our waterways being choked by sewage pollution. This must change.” Regularly discharging sewage via storm flows heavily pollutes the rivers and seas, creating a health risk for the public when swimming in designated bathing waters. It is also a threat to the biodiversity, as the pollution compromises the natural habitats of wildlife and plant life. The River Trust has provided an interactive map that monitors discharges in real-time. It shows water locations across England and Wales and the number of hours and the amount of storm overflow spillages in 2021. In those locations in which fewer spillages have occurred, the state of the local water is cleaner. Their campaign, ‘Together for Rivers’, is supposed to raise awareness of the current issue and make sewage pollution data accessible to the public. Their goal is to achieve cleaner designated bathing waters. They have achieved this in Ilkley so far, where the local river has received safe bathing water status – the first one in England. If more rivers, or waters in general, would receive such status, it would provide not only safe bathing places for the public, but also improve the natural habitat for wildlife. Storm Overflowers Discharge Reduction Plan To tackle this issue, the government has come up with the ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan’, aiming to overhaul the old sewer system and minimise discharges of raw sewage into seas and rivers. On 31st March 2022, the government released a press statement promising to impose strict limits on the use of storm overflows and additional monitoring measures to better restrict its usage. Furthermore, the sewer networks of all water companies should be mapped out to eliminate any ecological and public harm. The Environment Act from 2021 states that a new monitoring and reporting framework will give the Water Services Regulation Authority and the Environment Agency the possibility to act against water companies that do not meet the newly imposed expectations. “We are the first government to set out our expectation that water companies must take steps to significantly reduce storm overflows. Today, we are setting specific targets to ensure that those storm overflows are used only in exceptional circumstances – delivering on our Environment Act and building on wider work on water quality.” – George Eustice, Environment Secretary Between 2020 and 2025, £7.1 billion will be invested by water companies to ensure improvement and protection of the environment: £3.1 billion will be used directly for the improvement of the storm overflow, including £1.9 billion for the Thames Tideway Tunnel super sewer. Water companies are expected to publish real-time information about their storm flow discharges so that their frequency can be monitored. Furthermore, they must come up with a plan on how to develop their drainage and sewer system in a ‘Drainage and Sewage Management Plan’. Long Term Goals of the Reduction Plan The reduction plan aims to completely eliminate any harmful effects on the environment from storm overflows. By 2035, the government hopes that storm flows shall no longer impact human health. They intend to have 70% fewer raw sewage discharges into bathing waters, removing all pathogens — organisms found in sewage that cause diseases — from sewages that are discharged into designated bathing waters. This can be achieved by applying disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation; heavier screening controls can be used to separate persistent inorganic material like faeces and organic solids before discharge. 75% of all storm flows must no longer be discharged either in or near water sites that are of high priority. High priority sites include eutrophic sensitive areas, chalk streams, conservation areas (SAC), and water places that are currently over-polluted by storm flows and therefore fail to meet the ecological standard. By 2045, 100% of all those sites must be free from storm flow discharges. By 2050, all remaining stormflows affecting various other bodies of water must be eliminated, so that the ecology is no longer impacted by them. The ultimate goal is for all bodies of water to have ‘good ecological status’ so as to protect local biodiversity. After 2050, storm flows should only be used during extreme weather circumstances, like extraordinary heavy rainfall. However, the number of discharges should not exceed ten rainfall events per year. “The Environment Agency will continue to work with government, the water industry, the other regulators and the NGOs to ensure we have healthier sewers, cleaner rivers and a better environment for all.” – Sir James Bevan Similar: The Unspoken Impact of Noise Pollution 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.

Jonny Rogers reports on the shocking decline of koala populations in Australia and how scientists, activists and local authorities are working to turn the tide. Photo by Valeriia Miller Koalas have been formally listed as an endangered species in three states, inviting activists and politicians alike to take urgent action in protecting this icon of Australian culture and ecology. In 2020, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Humane Society International and WWF-Australia submitted a proposal to recognise the marsupial as an endangered species to the federal Threatened Species Scientific Committee. The decision, made in February this year, means that koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are now formally classified as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) 1999. “This decision is a double-edged sword. We should never have allowed things to get to the point where we are at risk of losing a national icon. If we can’t protect an iconic species endemic to Australia, what chance do lesser known but no less important species have?” – Josey Sharrad, IFAW Wildlife Campaign Manager. A Sharp Decline The proposal to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee cited strong scientific evidence from Biolink, who reported that Queensland’s koala population has halved since the beginning of the century, with nearly 62% of the population in New South Wales declining in the same period. This devastation is consequent to a variety of factors, including prolonged drought, bushfires, diseases, urbanisation and habitat loss. Over the past few years, Australia has witnessed the devasting ecological impact of climate change-related extreme weather events. An estimated three billion animals were either killed or displaced during the 2019-2020 bushfires, including 2.46bn reptiles, 180m birds, 143m mammals and 51m frogs – and thousands of koalas. In late 2020, after a heatwave left the ground completely dry, another wildfire – most likely started by an illegal campfire – tore through Fraser Island, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the world’s largest sand island. Even if creatures are not directly killed by these fires, such events can have a long-lasting impact, destroying habitats and reducing both the quality and quantity of the resources necessary for the survival and flourishing of native wildlife. “The bushfires were the final straw. This must be a wake-up call to Australia and the government to move much faster to protect critical habitat from development and land-clearing and seriously address the impacts of climate change.” – Josey Sharrad. Funding, Conservation and Cryopreservation While the formal change in conservation status both affords assurance to committed eco-activists and promises a wake-up call for many others, it must be partnered with a holistic revolution in how the Australian population relates to and manages its environment. Thankfully, some have already begun to take action. In January, it was announced that funds to protect, conserve and recover koala populations would increase by $50m over 4 years, in addition to the $18m conservation package announced in 2020. This investment includes $20m in grants for large recovery projects, $10m to extend the National Koala Monitoring Program, $10m in grants for small-scale community projects, £2m in grants to improve Koala health through applied research, and £1m to expand the national training program in Koala care. Researchers from the University of Newcastle have suggested that ‘biobanking’ – the practise of using IVF technology to freeze koala sperm – might be essential in recovering the declining populations; a strategy that is, they claim, significantly cheaper than breeding captive koalas. In addition, 54 hectares of land have been transferred to the New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service for the creation of a new koala reserve in west Sydney, designed both to boost their habitat and facilitate wildlife movement across the state. While these decisions and strategies might offer hope, the urgency of the situation cannot be unstated; little will be achieved if this research is not applied, if these grants are not fulfilled or if these promises are not delivered. As Alexia Wellbelove, Senior Campaign Manager for Humane Society International, reminds us: “This uplisting is an urgent cue for governments to take a stand against the continued clearing of koala habitat. If business as usual continues, extinction is predicted for east coast koalas by 2050” - Alexia Wellbelove, Human Society International. Similar: Conservation Victory: Giant Pandas No Longer Endangered 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.

Jonny Rogers reports on three separate environmental disasters at sea, and explores whether the right people are being held accountable for them. Photo by Julian Bock In less than seven days, oil spills appeared off the coast of three nations: Russia, Trinidad & Tobago and Japan. Environmental disasters like these are a consequence of the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, and will remain a disturbing reality for as long as we delay the development of renewable infrastructure. There is, however, a lot to be learned from how these oil spills were managed (or otherwise), though they raise questions about whether corporations and governments are currently being held sufficiently responsible for polluting our oceans and atmosphere. Images of marine life and sea birds covered in crude oil might be deeply upsetting, but the scale of the damage extends far beyond what can be seen. Black Sea, Russia On the 7th August, oil being pumped into the Minerva Symphony tanker near the Russian port of Novorossiysk began to spill into the Black Sea. The terminal belongs to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which is responsible for the transportation of crude oil from Kazakhstan. Satellite imagery revealed that the spill had contaminated an area of 80 square kilometres, which is 400,000 times larger than was first claimed by CPC. Although a storm was initially thought to have pushed the spill further out to sea, traces of oil were also found at a dolphin aquarium in Bolshtoy Utrish 25 kilometres west of the accident, as well as other areas along the Black Sea coast. Within a few days, Russia’s Investigative Committee began conducting a criminal probe on the charge of inflicting damage to marine resources. However, Veniamin Kondratyev, the governor of the Krasnodar region, claimed that he saw no traces of the oil after flying over the area in a helicopter. Gulf of Paria, Trinidad & Tobago A leak along a 12-inch pipeline near an oil refinery in Pointe-à-Pierre, Trinidad & Tobago, lead to volumes of oil spilling into the Gulf of Paria. The Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd confirmed that the spill had been discovered on the evening of Saturday 7th August, and claimed that they had installed absorbent booms to limit its migration. However, fishermen in the area have criticised the company for its ‘half-hearted’ clean-up attempt, not least given the apparent lack of evidence that booms had actually been used. Fisherman and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) documented boats speeding through the spill, most likely to break up the oil without having to remove it. Instead, dissipated oil sinks to the ocean bed, where it will cause long-term harm to both oceanic and terrestrial life as it enters the food chain. Gary Aboud of FFOS has called on the authorities to publicly reveal the cause, volume and nature of the spill, noting the present lack of accountability for environmental negligence: “There have been in excess of 377 oil spills since 2015 and no one has ever been charged or prosecuted. Every drop of hydrocarbon has an ever-lasting impact on our marine ecosystem.” Thousands of people in the area depend on fishing as their main source of income, and oil spills can severely impact the industry: oil can render fishing nets useless, force marine life to migrate to cleaner areas and cause a decrease in sales of fish. A study in 2019 found that samples of fish caught in the Gulf of Paria had unsafe levels of carcinogens. Aomori Prefecture, Japan On Wednesday 11th August, strong winds forced the Crimson Polaris - a cargo vessel carrying woodchips from Thailand - to run aground in shallow waters off the coast of north-eastern Japan. Although the ship was initially freed, it was then forced to anchor a few miles from Hachinohe harbour due to severe weather where it proceeded to split in half, leaking oil into the ocean. Although none of the 21 crew members were harmed in the accident, the real damage will be seen over the coming weeks, months and years, and will most severely impact the surrounding marine life. Within hours, the oil spread across an area 24 kilometres in length and 800 metres in width, with an estimated 1,600 tons of oil remaining inside the ship. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK), the ship’s charterer, confirmed that the Maritime Disaster Prevention Center quickly arrived on the scene to control the spill with oil-treatment agents and absorption mats. By Friday, however, the oil had reached the nearby coastal city of Misawa. NYK previously claimed that recovery companies will be prepared to perform beach cleaning as soon as oil is found on the coast. Concluding Comments Thankfully, August hasn’t been all bad news on the topic of oil spills and corporate responsibility. Following a long legal battle, the Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay £80 million to the Ejama-Ebubu people in southern Nigeria for a spill that occurred during the 1967-70 Biafran War. Although this compensation has inarguably come many decades later than it should have, the news follows another blow to Shell’s business: in a landmark court case at the end of May, the fossil fuel conglomerate was forced to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% before 2030, marking the first time that a corporation has been legally obligated to comply with the Paris Agreement. The effective management of environmental disasters demands full transparency and accountability. As the recent oil spills demonstrate, authorities and corporations are often very quick to downplay the scale of damage, and instead jump to short-term ‘solutions’ that might only exacerbate the environmental consequences; we should, at the very least, prioritise the account of scientists and independent investigators over corporate or political spokespersons. It is in the interest of our health, economy, and planet that we can track and respond to accidents as they arise, and that our legal system successfully delivers justice for those directly impacted by pollution. Article on a similar topic: Another Oil Spill Threatens Ecosystems in Mauritius 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.

Jenny Donath reports on new research which shows that home education is becoming more and more popular. Photo by Ketut Subiyanto More and more parents have taken their children electively out of school and have decided on home schooling as an alternative approach to education. According to BBC’s research across 153 out of 205 councils in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there has been a 75.6% increase in home schooling within the first eight months of the 2020-2021 academic year. In north-west England, there has been a rise as high as 92%. In total, 40,000 pupils have been taken out of school during that time; this is a drastic change compared to the 23,000 pupils in the two previous years. Reasons for Home Education There are various reasons why parents might choose home education for their children. Some of those could be religious, ideological or philosophical viewpoints, dissatisfaction with the school system, or bullying of the child in a school setting. Varying educational needs and physical and mental health reasons are also playing a big factor. For instance, parents of children with asthma or an autism diagnosis figured that home-education might be more suitable, as there had been difficulties with providing special needs support at school. A father living near Hull took all his children out of school in March 2020 as one of his children has autism. He claimed: “I think we had reached the limit of what we could do in the structure. [...] From the experience we are having, I’d be hard pressed to think about going back.” Several children who have electively been taken out of school seem to be thriving in the safety of their own homes and feel better supported and more comfortable in the new learning environment. However, other parents warned that there are also downsides to home-education. Victoria, a mother of an 11-year-girl in Peterborough, warned that parents should carefully think about whether it is the correct choice for their children. She took her daughter out of school due to the school’s unwillingness and inability to accommodate to her daughter’s ADHD and Asperger syndrome. She said, “It’s not easy. You’re talking about being with your child 24/7. Other than groups she goes to and the tutoring she has. The rest of it is down to the parent — it’s up to you to organise all that and to pay for it. You have to know what you’re taking on.” The Department of Education The Department of Education have shown concerns about the rise in numbers and whether educational approaches at home were appropriate. A registration system has been suggested to means of keeping track of home educated children by checking up on them at least once a year and by providing guidelines and accessible online tools to support the education at home. “We can only support children’s education and safeguard the children who are known to us,” said Gail Tolley, the chair of the ACDS educational achievement policy committee. However, parents are currently not obligated to register their child. The Department of Education have emphasised that the move to home education should be carefully evaluated: “Although many parents provide a good standard of education, home education is never a decision that should be entered lightly. Now more than ever, it is absolutely vital that any decision to home-educate is made with the child’s interests at the forefront of parent’s minds.” Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders' union NAHT, has observed that home schooling increased following the Covid-19 pandemic. He believes that many parents feared that schools would not provide a safe place for students despite the decision of the Department of Education to introduce regular Covid testing and putting students into bubbles. “Many appear to have chosen home education because they have lost faith in the government’s approach to school safety during the pandemic” – Paul Whiteman While several regions had seen a rise of at least 50% in home education, five areas have especially stood out: Hounslow, which has seen the biggest rise of home schooled children, followed by Barnet, Nottingham, Blackburn-with Darwen, and Warrington. In those areas, almost five times as many students had been taken out of school compared to the previous academic years. Home Education During the Pandemic During the Covid-19 pandemic, an Opinion and Lifestyle Survey was undertaken to analyse parent’s and pupils’ experiences with home education (between the ages of 5-18). The survey assessed that a home-schooled pupil’s learning ability, their focus on their schoolwork at home, and usage of provided resources have been dependent on age and occasionally whether one or two parents were part of the household. For instance, the older the child was, the more time they spent studying or referred to interactive online learning resources as a beneficial way to educate themselves. Children between 16 and 18 years old were also more concerned whether home-schooling negatively affected their future life plans. The survey looked at two different times frames, the first month of the first lockdown from beginning of April to 6 May, and from 7 May until 7 June 2020. Since most parents were forced into home-schooling due to the imposed lockdown guidelines, only 49% felt strongly or somewhat confident in their home-schooling abilities. 34% of women and 20% of men claimed that home schooling was negatively affecting their wellbeing; 43% of parents agreed that it negatively affected their children’s wellbeing. Furthermore, 52% of parents said that a child in their household was struggling to continue their schoolwork effectively at home; 77% of those stated that their children mainly struggled with their education because they were lacking motivation. Lack of guidance and support was another reason for their struggle, with the number as high as 43%. Nevertheless, although many parents were put into that situation because of the pandemic, more and more parents see advantages in opting for home education. Paul Whiteman has called on the government to “find out the reasons behind so many more families choosing home education.” It is more important now than ever to ensure that those families have all the support they need; and to promote and foster constructive discussions about how the government might restore the faith many parents have lost in the school system. Similar: Child Development: The Impact of the Pandemic 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.

Euan Cook reports on the fertile research behind psychedelic treatment and how psilocybin mushrooms could become a significant antidepressant in tackling mental health. Photo by Andre Moura Major depressive disorder affects approximately 10% of the general population in the United Kingdom: approximately 6.7 million people. However, research is edging into a new field of study, one which involves mushrooms as a possible solution to improving mental health. There are over 180 species of mushroom which possess one hallucinogenic compound thought to be valuable in limiting depressive symptoms: psilocybin. Psilocybin occurs naturally in the psychoactive psilocybe genus of mushrooms and targets the serotonin receptor agonism: a primary cog functioning in the complicated pathway implicated with depression. Currently, those who suffer from depression are prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, to monitor the levels of serotonin in one’s body, low levels of which are linked to depression and anxiety. With psychedelic treatment, however, your body breaks psilocybin down into psilocin, a chemical similar to serotonin which induces increased sensory perception, heightened emotions, hallucinations, and even euphoria. Specifically, psilocin targets a part of the brain called the claustrum which is responsible for processing sensory information, playing a significant role in increased emotional processing and, consequently, improving depressive symptoms. The Harris Poll and Public Sentiment One methodology of gauging public opinion on mushrooms is through surveys, the most prominent survey being The Harris Poll which has tracked public opinion, motivations, and social sentiment since 1963 in the US. The study was conducted in December 2021 among 2,037 adults, among whom 953 suffer from mental health issues. 65% of Americans want access to psychedelics for mental health, including psilocybin mushrooms, ketamine, and MDMA, proving that there is certainly a demand for mushrooms in mainstream treatment. Moreover, 83% of Americans who experience mental health issues would be willing to try alternative treatments, with 62% wanting to trial psilocybin. A desire to stray away from traditional antidepressants, such as SSRIs, seems to reverberate off a minority who are dissatisfied with the effect of SSRIs. 18% of surveyed individuals reported that there was no improvement to their condition or, even worse, a back-slide in symptoms. Matt Stang, co-founder and CEO of Delic, has pointed out how valuable psychedelic treatment is medicinally and financially: “This promising family of new medicines has the potential to be more effective than traditional medicines with minimal side effects, giving people their best selves back. Our country’s mental health crisis not only impacts public health, but also the economy–each year, untreated mental illness costs the U.S. up to $300 billion in lost productivity” - Matt Stang, DelicCorp Given that there is a slowly increasing demand for psychedelic treatment, how has the efficacy and safety of psilocybin been measured? Psilocybin versus Escitalopram One study into psilocybin was conducted at Imperial College London. Men and women between the ages of 18 and 80 years were formally recruited, except for those with a personal history of psychosis or other medically significant health conditions. The patients were separated into two groups: psilocybin and escitalopram (SSRI) recipients. On Visit 1, all patients underwent a functional MRI, completed cognitive processing tasks, and attended a preparatory therapeutic session. Visit 2 ensured that the psilocybin group received 25 mg of psilocybin, where the escitalopram group received 1 mg of psilocybin. The results, despite not demonstrating the full efficacy of psilocybin in treating depression, were still relevant in a field of extremely fertile and necessary research. A Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology-Self Report (QIDS-SR-16) response occurred in 70% of patients in the psilocybin group compared to 48% of those in the escitalopram group. Moreover, the former group of patents reported greater perceived improvements in the ability to feel intense emotion and pleasure, suggesting that depressive symptoms were improved in those who underwent psychedelic treatment. The Practicality of Psychedelic Treatment There is a catch, though, on implementing mushrooms into mainstream antidepressant pharmaceuticals: they are highly restricted and criminalised in many countries. Although psilocybin is not considered addictive, per se, this class of mushroom has been assigned the same category as other narcotics with “a high potential for abuse”, like heroin. In the US, psilocybin is still considered a Schedule 1 drug and is therefore illegal. Conversely, the tide is beginning to turn. In 2019, psilocybin has been decriminalised in three locations: Denver, Oregon, and Santa Cruz. Psychedelic treatment is, moreover, becoming increasingly mainstream with the anaesthetic uses of ketamine. Delic even operates the largest chain of psychedelic mental health clinics in the US with 12 centres fully functioning today. As Dr Marcus Roggen, President and Chief Science Officer of Delic Labs, has concluded: “In the area of medical developments, psilocybin and other plant-based compounds show great promise, but also have their limitations. With our medicinal chemistry expertise as the foundation, we will continue to explore these novel psychedelic compounds and other drug candidates with the goal of adding them to this exciting field of medicine” – Dr. Marcus Roggen, Forbes. Mushrooms are certainly on the rise and multiple clinical studies have affirmed psilocybin’s efficacy in treatment-resistant depression. Perhaps, the medical sphere can take a more conscious approach to mental health and reframe fungi not as something to be feared, but as a resource to be utilised. Similar: Plants vs Pills: The Solution that Could Transform Health 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.

Mary Jane Amato reports on the current cost of living crisis in the UK, what support the government is providing, and how the country can evade a poverty crisis altogether. Photo by Timur Weber In the last few months, the UK is seemingly heading towards one of the most catastrophic economic moments of recent history, and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The country is facing a heinous financial crisis that will most certainly lead to an increasingly severe recession, with the real risk of driving a vast section of the population into poverty. How did we get here? The road to such a dire situation has been complex and lengthy. Starting with the country massively readjusting from the impacting effects of the Covid-19 pandemic to the rising inflation, made worse by the ongoing war in Ukraine, Britain's economy has taken some significant blows. What’s more, Brexit also has a role to play in the disruption of trade, further adding fuel to the fire. Presently, inflation is at its highest rate in thirty years, with the consumer price index (CPI) projected to rise by 7% in April 2022 if spiralling heating costs are not capped. A brief explanation of why this has happened can be given by analysing the post-Covid economy reopening. According to some economists, such an increase will remain high for quite some time. This soaring rate is consequential to the renewed demand for goods and services post-lockdown and the global trades impacted by the supply chain disruption, caused by multiple national lockdowns. These slowed down or even temporarily interrupted the circulation of raw materials, stalling the manufacturing process. Furthermore, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has raised the CPI expectation from 7.25% to 8%, and possibly higher later in the year. With Russia being one of the largest producers and exporters of oil and gas and a crucial gas supplier to the EU countries, the oil prices have peaked at $100 per barrel, which is the highest rate since 2014. The overall gas price increase has also affected the cost of UK natural gas, influencing a rise in petrol and energy fees and constituting a continuous restrain of global and UK activity growth. What is the Current Situation Looking Like? UK households currently face a 54% price cap on bills reflecting the soaring wholesale gas prices, and a new price cap increase is expected in October. The results of these increases mean that within the year, bills are going to be doubling, leaving the poorest households in a deplorable state, where they might be forced to choose between heating their homes or being able to put food on the table. Citizen Advice has warned that many people will be unable to pay their energy bills across the UK, and that figure stands at around a shocking 14 million. The Bank of England expects the inflation to cool at the end of this month, but prices will stay high for much longer. This will determine a decrease in spending power from the lower-income households, resulting in a high risk of recession. In the latest report of the Deutsche Bank, the chief economist Sanjay Raja has stated that the “recession risks remain on the rise as Consumer confidence data are already consistent with recessionary levels.” This trend will most likely rebound after June, but it will eventually flatline by the end of the year due to an ulterior price rise in energy bills in October. Another point to consider is last year's tax increase, which has been the greatest since 1993, with an increment of 1.25% in National Insurance contributions at the start of April. In addition to this, a health and social care levy will take place in 2023, and the income tax personal allowance will be frozen for four years from now. The above situation is likely to determine the impossibility of wages to mitigate the effect of such high-cost rises. Moreover, rent costs are rising at the fastest rate known so far. With an increase of 8.6% as of February 2022, they mark a stark difference from the 2% increase of 2021. This makes private renting in England for the lowest-earning people and women on an average salary impossible. Mortgages base interest rates will also be subject to an increase, making repayments more expensive. The poorer households will be hit much harder than the higher-income ones, and this is also because those that receive benefits from the government in the form of working-age benefits or pensions will see the inflation rates soar. Another issue will be the changes to Universal Credit which have sustained a decrease of £20 a week due to the pandemic, with those who do not work at all losing their entire Covid advance. On the other hand, changes are being operated to personal taxes in 2022/23, making it possible for those earning less than £25.000 a year to pay less income tax and NICs, while those earning above such threshold will pay more. This means the Treasury will raise about £14 billion and most of the cost will be concentrated at the top of the income distribution. Government Support During Unprecedented Times In the face of such impacting cost rises, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has put together a support package targeted primarily at those most in need. This package comprises an Energy Bill Rebate consisting of a £200 discount on bills from October, repayable over the next five years, starting in 2023. This is when it is predicted gas wholesale costs will start lowering. The package also provides a £150 rebate for households in Council Tax band A-D, which will not have to be repaid. This one-off payment is expected to benefit 80% of all homes in England. In addition to the above, there will be £144 million provided to vulnerable people and low-income households who either do not pay Council Tax or are in band E-H. In his Spring Statement, Chancellor Rishi Sunak also announced three immediate measures to support people. He stated he would help motorists by cutting fuel duty by 5 pence per litre, with the cut lasting until March next year. Next, he announced that for the next five years, homeowners having materials like solar panels, heat pumps, or insulation installed would no longer pay 5% VAT, making tax savings of around £1.000. And finally, he communicated he wants to do more for vulnerable households by saving the abovementioned £300 on their energy bills. Therefore, he will be doubling the Household Support Fund to £1bn with £500m of new funding, with the Local Authorities receiving this funding from April. Regardless of the above measures put in place to ease the population of the incredible burden this crisis has set upon them, as food campaigner Jack Monroe put it in a Twitter thread, the most vulnerable are the ones that seem to be at the bitter end of all of this. For too many lower-income households, children and disabled people, there is a risk of being trapped in a "never-ending loop of difficulties", which could take them through several issues that stem from the economic crisis but branch out into serious health and wellbeing issues. Monroe has highlighted the unstable situation of millions, stating that if the social security benefits are not levelled up with the increasing inflation, this will be fatal for many. Many have heavily criticised the government for its minimal support package, which will likely have a minimal impact for those who need help the most. What Needs to Happen to Avoid a Poverty Crisis According to UNISON, the largest union of public sector employees in the UK, there must be an increase in the public sector pay and an introduction to emergency measures to support people at a time of enormous financial pressure and rising costs. Without such a plan, workers will not be able to access essential products and services, and subsequentially, the public sector may be starved of skilled staff, and services might be cut off, pushing many over the brink of poverty. UNISON's general secretary, Christina McAnea, has stated that the government seems to be unaware of the enormity of the problems ordinary people face in this dreadful crisis and that it is utterly shameful highly skilled employees do not get paid a decent salary. But the public sector is not the only one that needs to be taken care of. According to the New Economic Foundation, more than 23.5 million people across the UK will be struggling to afford the cost of living this year. A benefit increase of 3.1% will not be able to counteract the inflation rate, which is predicted to hit 8% soon, and £300 total in electric bills and Council Tax rebate is still not enough to help the lower-income households resettle themselves. A substantial rise in benefits will be necessary to mitigate the impact of the dangerously ascending living costs. Steffen Ball, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, has brought forward this unique situation where the benefits increase of this year is nowhere near the inflation rate surge, and this has never been the case since 1980. The government must at least push the rise to a decent level, sufficient to cover the cost of the crisis for those most in need. Failure to do so will lay the ground for an overall rise in poverty that will affect the country, lowering the spending power and consequentially pushing the UK intoa full-blown recession. Similar: Universal Basic Income System to be Tested in Wales 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 the role of fashion brands in the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest and what we, as consumers, can do to limit damage to the environment. Photo by Peter Plashkin Between August 2020 and July 2021, the Amazon Rainforest lost approximately 10,476 square kilometres to deforestation: the destruction of forest areas in service of agricultural croplands, mining activities, and urbanisation. This equates to an area almost seven times bigger than London and is more than 57% higher than the previous year's figures, proving that deforestation is on the rise. Since the 1960s, deforestation has increased because of human activities, such as supplying materials to the fashion industries. Recent studies have investigated some of the world's most complex global supply chains as the perpetrators of this increase. A large number of fashion brands are contributing to the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest based on their connections to various other companies involved in the trading of leather goods. What is a supply chain? Trading is an essential element in a supply chain. As a long process, where various companies are involved in the creation of the final product, a link of activities are required by the seller to enable them to deliver goods and services to the consumer. Ultimately, it is the process in which raw materials are converted into their final state, which is unfortunately desirable at the cost of the natural environment. JBS, specifically, has been linked to the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, as brands are exclusively dependent on their services within the supply chain. One of the main activities that JBS have been known for is using cattle supplied from a farm in the Brazilian Amazon, which is under sanction for illegal deforestation. 45% of forest area was lost because of the cattle industry in Brazil, equating to 21.8 million hectares between 2001 and 2015. Moreover, it has been found that over 50 big brands, such as Nike, Dr Martens, H&M, Zara, and New Balance, have multiple supply chain links to Brazilian leather exporters and the meat supplier, JBS. 22 out of 74 companies are even breaching their own policies when it comes to sourcing leather from deforestation. Shockingly, two-thirds of the companies in question did not have any policies in place regarding deforestation, underlying a wider issue which is endemic to corporations unwilling to adapt to eco-friendly operations. Limiting the Scope of Deforestation Fortunately, JBS has promised to eliminate illegal deforestation in other Brazilian biomes by the year 2030 and eradicate deforestation across their entire supply chain in five years’ time. But is this enough? Many believe that their goal is insufficient, as it is set 8 to 13 years from now - a wide ballpark for further environmental damage – not to mention their initial statement condemns illegal deforestation exclusively, which is far from a complete reprehension of the practice. To fight back, Sara Slavikova summaries various ways that we can help to reduce and prevent deforestation: Plant more trees Recycle (especially paper and cardboard) and use more recycled goods Avoid buying products which contain palm oil Support organisations that are fighting deforestation Reduce meat consumption If we, as consumers, wish to limit the scope of deforestation, these are examples of eco-conscious lifestyle changes that should certainly be prioritised in our battle to protect the environment. Similar: Global Forest Regrowth: 58.9m Hectares in 20 Years 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.

Emily Davies examines how while more people drink plant-based milks every year, it is important to consider their impact on getting nutrients into diets. Photo by No Revisions Research by Mintel has found that 25% more UK citizens now drink alternatives to cow’s milk than in 2020, with 44% more people aged 25 to 44 ditching the dairy version. The study also showed that a quarter of the 2,000 people asked said the pandemic was a factor in switching to a more sustainable and eco-friendly diet. Unsurprisingly, younger people are more willing to change to oat or almond milk, with the Mintel study showing 84% of those aged 16 to 24 still drink cow’s milk compared to 96% of people over 65. It also revealed oat milk overtook almond in 2020 as the plant-based drink of choice, with consumption having almost doubled between 2019 and 2020. The average person in the UK drinks 50% less dairy than 70 years ago, but the shift away from dairy has increased exponentially since COVID-19, with sales rising by £100m. Planetary Impact While plant-based milk isn’t completely green, it is significantly better than cow’s milk. Soya is used in alternative products and soybean production is a leading cause of deforestation, but it still uses much less land and water than dairy products. While it is estimated that it takes 15 gallons of water to grow just 16 almonds and most are grown in drought-prone areas, one glass of cow’s milk produces three times the emissions of a plant-based milk glass. However, clotted cream seems to be an exception to the dairy-free revolution. The use of clotted cream almost doubled over the last year. Amy Price, Senior Food and Drink Analyst at Mintel, said: “Clotted cream has benefited from Brits spending more time in the home, including enjoying more afternoon teas and the rise in cooking and baking.” Health Implications Lifestyle changes led by millennial and Gen Z generations have triggered a vegan trend, but nutritionists had been recommending plant-based milks to alleviate health problems for years before avocado toast become all the rage. Those who are suffering from autoimmune diseases or gastrointestinal problems like irritable bowel syndrome are advised to drink non-dairy alternatives. They are also free from cholesterol and lactose, so are well-known alternatives for people with lactose intolerance and cardiovascular issues. However, despite the multiple benefits for both health and the environment, these alternative milks often have an insufficient amount of protein, calcium and other vitamins to fuel a well-rounded diet. The New York Times has reported that because so many plant milks don’t provide enough protein, potassium or vitamin D, manufacturers sometimes add sweeteners like cane sugar and rice syrup. Before you think there is no winning and start taking your coffee black, it is possible to add the required nutrients to plant-based milks and incorporate protein into a plant-based diet in general. Healthline has compiled a handy list of protein plant sources, and LiveKindly has listed some high protein plant milks. However, it is important to note that younger children should not be drinking exclusively plant-based milk, despite the advantages. Unless there is a medical or special dietary reason for it, they should still drink cow’s milk because alternatives cannot provide the sheer volume of nutrients they need to grow, according to the New York Times. So, while the societal shift away from cow’s milk is beneficial to both health and the planet, it is important to consider your diet as a whole when deciding what type of alternative milk is best for you. Similar: Beef and Soya Imports Linked to Amazon Deforestation 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.

Jenny Donath reports as two of the world’s biggest tech companies are fined for violating data privacy regulations. Photo by Nordwood Themes Every internet user is likely familiar with the little pop-up bars asking them to either accept all cookies, only essential cookies, or refuse cookies. Now, the French administrative regulatory body CNIL has charged Google and Facebook for failing to give their users fair options – imposing fines as high as 210 million euros against the tech conglomerates. Google was fined 150 million euros and Facebook was fined 60 million euros. The regulatory body claimed both companies have violated data privacy regulations; additionally, CNIL claimed that it was an infringement of Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act. The Purpose (and Danger) of Cookies Although every internet user comes across cookies regularly, it is not always clear what they mean. Cookies are little packets that create a data profile for each user; they allow web browsers to store information and then target users with specific adverts to enhance their experience. It must be differentiated between first-party and third-party cookies. First-party cookies are directly placed by the visited website, third-party cookies are placed by advertisers to figure out a user’s interest and then place adverts when a user is browsing the internet —independent from whether the user stays on the original website where they accepted the cookies or leaves it. Those cookies keep track of your browsing history throughout the whole web, e.g. remembering passwords. Cookie pop-ups became a legal requirement in the UK and the EU after tech conglomerates faced wide-spread condemnation for having repeatedly and covertly recorded tracking data of its users for years. However, several websites still make it impossible for users to refuse cookies at all. Instead, users must accept cookies to get access to websites. Given that most users are intending to easily and quickly search for information online, it is more convenient to allow cookies without reading any of the privacy policies. This way, their target websites are only one click away. This breaches fair options of consent, since refusing cookies sometimes takes longer. According to CNIL, this was an unfair presentation and a restricted freedom of choice. Karin Kiefer, CNIL’s head of data protection and sanctions, said, “Rejecting cookies should be as easy as accepting them.” CNIL added, “several clicks are required to refuse all cookies, as opposed to a single one to accept them.” Targeted Advertising For Google and Facebook, cookies are valuable because showing personalised adverts thanks to data storage is their main income source. However, privacy concerns have been raised about what type of information is collected and whether it is well-protected. It should be ensured that hackers cannot easily get hold of private user information. In addition to asking a user to accept cookies, the pop-up bars also refer to their private policies, but hardly anyone ever reads them, as they usually are deliberately formatted with loads of text, jargon, and are harder to read. Companies want to be on the safe side by mentioning them. Joseph Jerome, formerly part of the policy counsel for the Privacy and Data Project at the Centre for Democracy and Technology, said, “Everybody just decided to be better safe than sorry and throw up a banner —with everybody acknowledging it doesn’t accomplish a whole lot.” However, it does not make a difference if users do not read the policies, as research shows. They are left in the dark, nonetheless. It is more important to users to get easy and fast access to the websites. Therefore, having fair consent options is important; having an easy option to refuse cookies altogether could save users any possible trouble. Proper cookie configuration helps to secure cookies. For instance, using session cookies instead of persistent cookies; session cookies expire after the user closes the browser. Therefore, sensitive data has a shorter longevity. Furthermore, cookies should always be encrypted and expire sooner rather than later to avoid easy exposure to hackers. These measures, combined, creates securer data storage. Response from Google and Facebook Google and Facebook responded to CNIL’s imposed fines. A spokesperson for Google said, “People trust us to respect their privacy and keep them safe. We understand our responsibility to protect that trust and are committing to further changes and active work with the CNIL in [the] light of this decision.” Meta also agreed to investigate this issue: “Our cookie consent controls provide people with greater control over their data, including a new settings menu on Facebook and Instagram, where people can revisit and manage their decisions at any time, and we continue to develop and improve these controls.” Facebook and Google have three months to fix those issues and create equal options or face further fines as high as 100,000 euros for every delayed day. The European ePrivacy Directive is planning on releasing a new regulation which generally applies to all countries in the EU to ensure data is secured and confidential in an effort to force these powerful companies to adhere to rules that aim to make the internet space safe for everyone. Similar: The Facebook Whistleblower: Effects of Social Media Condemned 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.

Euan Cook reports on why affluent donors are donating smaller proportions of their annual incomes to charity. Photo by Rondnae Productions Donations from the UK’s top earners dropped by 21% in the last decade, despite the average annual income rising by 10% during the same period. With charities missing out on more than £2 billion from a widening “generosity gap”, are the rich becoming stingier? Giving to charities has increased from £14.8 billion in 2011/12 to £19.6 billion in 2018/19. This is fantastic news on the surface. However, there may be an underlying issue with how this wealth is distributed. The Truth About Donations The UK’s richest 1,700 people made close to two-thirds of the donations made by the 1%, typically donating 0.21% of their income. Annual incomes around £187,000 typically declare donations of £33 per month. With those whose annual incomes average at £722,000, the typical donation rises to £113 a month: just 0.16% of their income. However, donations across the whole population in 2019 amounted to about £20 a month, roughly 0.80% of the average income. It is clear, then, that the lower the average annual income in the UK, the greater the portion of an individual’s salary they are willing to donate. To help close this “generosity gap”, Lord Gus O’Donnell has offered a solution: “The Commission is calling for a collaborative effort between philanthropists, the government, business, and the charity sector to help close this gap. […] At a local level, the nomination of Philanthropy Champions working with Metro Mayors could help to ensure philanthropy is directed to the communities that need it the most” – Lord Gus O’Donnell, Pro Bono Economics Ultimately, the commission floated the idea of a philanthropy commissioner last October, urging the government to create a funding pot to run civil society infrastructure pilots. Yet is this enough to solve the emerging crisis brewing in less affluent communities? The UK Winter Crisis The UK’s most vulnerable have faced dire living arrangements this winter, with one in 10 UK families — around 3 million households — being unable to cover the cost of food and heating. 400,000 households have been left with just £50 a month after paying bills, offering little room for a comfortable lifestyle. Last January, the UK government finally offered adjustments to the universal credit taper rate, promising 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year to live off. This money, a government spokesperson has said, will become “available through our new £500 million support fund” that pledges to support those who have suffered on low incomes. Considering that the country’s poorest rely heavily on charities for support, it is important to emphasise that the steady decline of donations is not endemic to the UK. Charity Across the Pond In the US, income inequality is at a 50-year high. Consequently, American households have reduced their charitable giving by over $15 billion. From 1980 to 2015, households in the top 1% saw their incomes rise by 226%. Comparatively, the bottom 20% saw their incomes grow by 47%. Despite this disparity, the wealthiest Americans contributed approximately 1.3% of their income to charity in 2011, whilst Americans at the base of this income pyramid donated 3.2% of their income. Thus, those in lower-class brackets generally exhibit higher levels of donation generosity. The congressional economic committee found that of the 50 largest donations to public charities, prolific universities received 34. Other donations were trickled down to medical facilities and other fashionable charities, leaving much smaller donations (by less wealthy donors) to services pledged to aid those in poverty. Social-service organisations, such as United Way, the Salvation Army, and Feeding America, received zero of the 50 largest donations. Is it Psychological? For Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, there is an inextricable relationship between wealth and an increase in unethical behaviour: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything, the rich are way more likely to prioritise their own self-interests above the interests of other people” – Paul Piff, The Atlantic Furthermore, Patrick Rooney concludes that greater exposure to, and identification with, the challenges of basic living requirements create “higher empathy among lower-income donors”. Wealthy households, who reside in homogeneously affluent areas, were less generous than comparably wealthy individuals who lived in more socioeconomically diverse surroundings. Conversely, when two polar opposite income groups were exposed to a sympathy-eliciting video on child poverty, the compassion of the wealthy began to rise and the generosity of the two groups became near identical. Therefore, those who fall into the wealthier bracket are arguably more disconnected from the challenges that lower income living presents. Indeed, the statistics show that although the rich are sympathetic to charities that support those in poverty, they are not empathetic to the cause: they continue to grow more affluent as charitable donations continue to decline across the globe. Similar: Pandora Papers: World Leaders Connected to Offshore Tax-Havens 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.

Jenny Donath reports on the consequences of fur farming within the fashion industry and why Italy has decided to ban the practice altogether. Photo by Gerardo Marrufo In December 2021, the Italian Senate Budget Committee decided to completely ban fur farming, making Italy the 16th European country to abolish the practice. Furthermore, all remaining farms that breed foxes, racoons, chinchillas, and especially minks, must be closed within the next half year before 30 June 2022. Until now, over 60,000 minks were killed per year on Italian farms before the amendment became effective on 01 January 2022. The amendment covers the ban of breeding fur-bearing animals, the shutdown of all remaining active fur farms, and the compensation of all farmers for their financial losses due to the law change, with funds as high as three million euros. According to the amendment: “[T]he breeding, breeding in captivity, capturing and killing of minks (Mustela vison or Neovison vison), foxes (Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes Lagopus or Alopex Lagopus), raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) are prohibited, of chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger) and animals of any species for the purpose of obtaining fur” - Just Style The Consequences of Fur Farming The decision of the Italian Senate Budget Committee to amend the budget law rounded up the year well, following several Covid-19 outbreaks in fur farms due to lack of health and safety measures. PETA, who has repeatedly raised awareness of the poor treatment of minks on fur farms, released evidence showing minks turning to self-mutilation or cannibalism as a result. Shoved into tiny cages, they have no possibility to pursue their natural activities like roaming and swimming. If they don’t die because of stress, their short life is ended by using gas: a cruel method, as minks are semi-aquatic and can hold their breath for a long period of time. PETA’s active engagement across social media platforms and collaborations with Italian celebrities, such as model Elisabetta Canalis, have contributed to the Italian Government’s increased awareness of this issue. The demand for fur has been in decline for a long time and keeps decreasing. Fashion companies, such as Gucci, Versace, or Valentino, have already stopped using fur. Even ELLE Magazine has announced that they never want to work with fur-using companies again, nor promote such firms or products ever again. Mimi Bekhechi, vice president of international relations at PETA, has said: “Grazie mille to the Italian Senate for recognising that fur belongs to the animals who were born with it and ushering in a new era – one in which minks will no longer be caged, tortured, and gassed in the name of fashion. […] It’s clear that the industry is truly dead and gone” - Mimi Bekhechi, Just Style A Step Forward for Animal Rights This decision was also recommended by the Humane Society International/Europe (HSI), considering the cruel animal treatment that was once standard on fur farms has now been condemned. Organisations like Animal Law Italy, Animal Equality, LAV, and Essere Animali also supported the passing of the new law. President and CEO of HSI, Kitty Block, said in a statement: “We couldn’t be happier about this news […] 2021 was a monumental time for our fur-free campaign. […] We were there every step of the way to celebrate these victories and shine a continuous light on the millions of animals still suffering and dying for the frivolous fur trade. Ending the fur trade for good is one of our top priorities, and we won’t stop until every cage and trap is empty” - Kitty Block, The Humane Society of the United States Moreover, a significant regulation was published at the end of January 2022. The regulation determined the future whereabouts of the remaining minks, meaning that possible relocation to shelters managed by recognised animal rights associations is now in progress. The banning of fur farming in Italy is certainly a massive step forward for animal rights activism, ensuring a quality of life for all animals across the globe that have been neglected and endangered by the fashion industry. Similar: Canada Goose to go Fur-Free by 2022 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.

Euan Cook reports on why the UK Government has been sued over their Net-Zero Strategy and how those in poverty will be affected by a neglect of climate pledges. Photo by Klim Musalimov Friends of the Earth (FE) and ClientEarth (CE) have announced that they are suing the UK Government, filing papers for a Judicial Review at the High Court over the government’s “inadequate” Net-Zero Strategy. The UK Government has failed to set out sufficient policies to tackle climate change and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The desired strategy would enact policies ensuring that, by mid-century, the volume of emissions released by the UK as a whole is equal to the volume of emissions removed from the atmosphere. It is clear, however, that the UK will not meet these specific targets that were published in preparation for the COP26 conference in Glasgow. The UK Government’s Promises To begin, it’s important to summarise what the economic and environmental stakes are for the UK due to the climate crisis. Economic damages could exceed £1 billion per year by 2050 with a temperature rise of 2°C, including the cost of climate change in the UK rising to at least 1% of GDP by 2045. Last year, the government committed to a series of adaption projects, including: Investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences by 2027. Strengthening the Green Finance Strategy to align private sector finance with clean, environmentally sustainable growth. Increasing funding for the Nature for Climate Fund for peat restoration, woodland creation, and management to more than £750 million by 2025. Ensuring climate research, such as the UK Climate Projections 2018, is fully integrated into planning and decision-making, including major infrastructure. However, FE and CE argue that the UK Government has breached its legal duties to the 2008 Climate Change Act and the ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ legislation under the Paris Agreement, which is a commitment to reduce emissions by at least 68% from 1990 carbon levels by 2030. Sam Hunter Jones, the senior lawyer for CE, argues that: “It’s not enough for the UK Government simply to have a net-zero strategy, it needs to include real-world policies that ensure it succeeds. Anything less is a breach of its legal duties and amounts to greenwashing and climate delay” - Sam Hunter Jones, ClientEarth While the Paris Agreement target commits the UK to be over three-quarters of the way to net-zero in the next 13 years, the UK’s projected emissions for 2037 are more than double the government’s legally-binding carbon budgets. According to CE, this is due to the UK Government relying on “unproven technologies whilst overlooking viable solutions” that would have an immediate impact. An Unaddressed Social Inequality Policy recommendations put forward by CE to improve the Net-Zero Strategy include a push to improve home energy efficiency and stricter targets for aviation, agriculture emissions, and sustainable transport. Notably, the FE and CE disapprove of the Heat and Buildings Strategy’s reckless disregard of the UK’s most vulnerable communities: acknowledgment which is legally required under the Equality Act 2010. The Strategy simply doesn’t consider the detrimental effect climate change will have on these groups. Research shows that more than three million people live in fuel poverty across England. Factors such as age, sex, and race, can make individuals more vulnerable to climate change. Typically those with a low income, poorly insulated homes, a disability, or people of colour (who are twice as likely to be living in fuel poverty as white people) are most affected. These social, ethnic, and economic groups of people are certainly over-represented in the UK’s cohort of fuel-poor homes. FE argues that this unaddressed inequality from the UK Government requires “transparency and political accountability”. Despite this, the Heat and Buildings Strategy pledges £3.9 billion to scale up energy efficiency after MPs and Treasury staff fought over how to phase out gas boilers in England. Yet Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer for FE, believes this funding isn’t enough to achieve the UK’s net-zero target. “With characteristic sleight of hand, the government has set out an imaginary pathway for reducing carbon emissions but no credible plan to deliver it. A rapid and fair transition to a safer future requires a plan that shows how much greenhouse gas reduction the chosen policies will achieve, and by when. That the plan for achieving net-zero is published without this information in it is very worrying, and we believe is unlawful” – Katie de Kauwe, Friends of the Earth A Failure in Leadership? Unless the policies agreed on in Glasgow are turned into physical action very soon, global heating will perpetuate with disastrous consequences. The UK Government is arguably drowning in policies to meet “costly” net-zero emission targets. Instead of blaming geopolitics and global gas markets, “green taxes” have been weaponised as a scapegoat for the UK Government’s passivity on climate change action. While Boris Johnson previously boasted that Britain will “lead the world” on climate action and create “the greatest opportunity for jobs and prosperity since the industrial revolution”, quite the opposite is happening. In fact, the same stupor that the Conservative party has used during the trivial “partygate” scandal has led to a neglect of their own climate pledges. Indeed, Johnson’s loss of authority and desire to appease colleagues have led to not only half-truths about climate action but has also led to a reality where the status quo in the UK is cheaper than climate action itself. Similar: The Hypocrisy of National ‘Climate Champions’ 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.

Toni Mallen reports as France announces new policies to phase out plastic packaging. Photo by Cotton Bro France started 2022 with a ban on plastic packaging on 30 different types of fruit and vegetables. This will eliminate 1 billion single use units of plastic per year, with aim of banning all plastic food packaging by 2026. This is a popular move, with 77 countries initiating bans on plastic carrier bags. China, for example, has already banned non-compostable carriers and, along with several European countries, has introduced a fee to customers for robust, reusable bags. These improvements must be welcomed in a time when disused plastic products are rampaging across the globe, causing what the United Nations has dubbed a ‘planetary crisis’. The Scale of Pollution The scale of plastic pollution cannot be understated. In 2014, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that 63% of the 258 million tons municipal waste generated in the US was attributed to packaging material, only 35% of which was likely to be recycled. A study in the 2019 journal, Science Advances, analysed the production and fate of all plastics ever produced. As they discovered, 8.3 billion metric tons have been produced since 1950, of which only 9% has been recycled. As National Geographic states, “…if present trends continue, by 2050, there will be 12 billion metric tons of plastic in landfills. That amount is 35,000 times as heavy as the Empire State Building.” Once plastics are deposited into the ground, more problems will occur: as plastics degrade, they will absorb PCBs and pesticides such as DDT, both of which can be found in landfills and are highly toxic should they find their way into the waterways and food chain. Another reason to reduce the production of this ubiquitous material is that all plastics used in food packaging are derived from fossil fuels. With this in mind, it might be difficult to imagine why plastic packaging was ever considered a sensible option. Origins of the Problem While its consequences are clear today, at the time of creation, plastic was, and indeed, in many circumstances still is, a magnificent and essential invention. Its use extends the shelf life of vacuum-packed meat, for example, by ten times. This is especially significant when we consider that the developed world wastes almost as much food (222 million tons) as sub-Saharan countries produce (230 million tons). While France may be banning use of plastics for fruit and vegetables, we must consider the alternatives for all food packaging. Some people argue that a plastic carrier has a smaller carbon footprint when compared to either paper bags, which would require reusing three times to account for the carbon used in production and transportation, or cotton bags, which would need to be reused 131 times to match the efficiency of plastic. In 1959, Sten Gustaf Thulin designed the carrier bag we know and loath today. His reasoning was that it would help to reduce the number of trees being felled to make paper bags; he was trying to save the planet, and surely, if we had used those precious bags in the way that he intended us to, he may well have achieved a cleaner future for us all. Thulin wanted us to reuse these bags, repeatedly; in fact, he always kept one in his pocket, ready for use. The modern world, however, has become very lazy, instead relying on using new bags every shopping trip. A Changing Tide With plastics seeming so indispensable in the modern day, it could appear an impossible task to rein-in production and usage. However, governments are starting to employ taxes, such as the Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT), applied to all plastics containing less than 30% recycled materials in the UK from April 2022. In the business world, furthermore, companies who are slow to react to environmental, social, or governance pressures will have their shareholders revolting. In the long-run, humanity will need to reassess our relationship with our long-lasting products, guided by organisations and initiatives such as Common Seas. This social enterprise offers educational programmes to help steer the next generation towards new strategies to deal with the challenges we find today, having developed the ‘Plastic Drawdown’ assessment tools for governments to map all uses of plastics within their country, offering both advice on how one might cut waste and strategies for effective action. Should Thulin’s vision, modern technology, eco-conscious initiatives, and common sense prevail, the children of today might be able to avoid the dreadful repercussions of today’s plastic plague. Similar: Pandora Papers: World Leaders Connected to Offshore Tax-Havens 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 explores the health benefits of whole grains and how they can support a healthy diet Photo by Marta Dzedyshko Whole grains have been found to be extremely beneficial for our health. There has been significant research into these benefits, leading to whole grains becoming a popular food choice when it comes to healthy eating. But what are whole grains? Where can we find them? And what exactly are their significant health benefits? Whole grains are made up of three main components: The Outer Layer (Bran): this layer is rich in fibre and contains important nutrients such as B vitamins, copper, iron, magnesium, zinc, antioxidants, and phytochemicals. Phytochemicals are known for helping to prevent diseases, as well as helping to protect cells from damage that can lead to cancer. The Core (Germ): this is the component of the grain that harbours growth. It is rich in healthy fats, vitamins E and B, as well as more antioxidants and phytochemicals. The Interior Layer (Endosperm): this interior layer is a source of carbohydrates and protein, including more vitamin B and minerals. The Verdict Bran and fibre have some important benefits of their own. They can help slow down the process of turning starch into glucose, which helps to maintain a healthy blood sugar level and minimises the risk of high sugar spikes. Fibre is also known for helping the digestive system in helping lower cholesterol levels. Whole grains can be found in many different foods. Some of the most popular alternatives include: Oatmeal Quinoa Brown rice Wild rice Whole grain corn Popcorn Whole rye After looking at ten different studies, it was found that having just 28 grams of whole grain per day within your diet can significantly lower your risk of heart disease by up to 22%. A further review looked at 6 studies of over 250,000 people. It was found that people who consume more whole grains are 14% less likely to suffer from a stroke, compared to non-consumers. Other research suggests that eating whole grains regularly, as part of a low-fat and well-balanced diet, can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 30% and can also aid in maintaining a healthy weight. Making the Switch While whole grains have many health benefits, they may not be the best choice for everyone. Some grains, such as wheat, may also harm those who suffer from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), as they are high in short-chain carbohydrates and are known for exacerbating IBS symptoms. What’s more, some individuals have an intolerance or an allergy to gluten that can be found in some grains (wheat, barley, and rye being the most common). There are other sources of whole grains that may be more suitable for intolerant individuals; buckwheat, rice, and oats, for example, are appropriate for people who have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Nonetheless, how can we incorporate more whole grain alternatives into our diet? Individuals can choose to snack on air-popped popcorn, as 3 cups of popcorn contain 3.5 grams of fibre at just 95 calories per serving. Other snacks might include whole grain crackers, oat biscuits with hummus, whole grain protein bars or breakfast bars, and rice cakes. Making small changes, such as changing white rice for brown rice, quinoa, or barley, can be extremely beneficial for your health, as well as choosing whole grain pasta and bread alternatives. Indeed, switching to whole grain products compared to refined grains can significantly improve one's health and is a step towards consumers being more conscious about their diet. Similar: The Health Benefits of Garlic 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.

Milly Letcher reports on the supposed breakthrough in sustainably aviation using biofuels. Photo by William Bayreuther United Airlines has become the first airline to launch a passenger-carrying flight using ‘100% sustainable aviation fuel’ (SAF). On 1 December, United Airlines flew 100 passengers from Chicago to Washington DC in a Boeing 737 using ‘100% pure SAF’ produced by partnering company World Energy. Despite previous test flights by Rolls Royce, UA says this is the first flight to transport people using sustainable aviation or SAF. Aviation is now responsible for 2-3% of all global carbon emissions, and the IATA (International Transport Association) predicts that the number of air passengers will double in the next 20 years. This puts considerable pressure on airlines to drastically reduce their carbon footprint, especially following COP26 which reinforced the need to halve emissions by 2030 and achieve net-zero by mid-century. “There is no other human activity pushing individual emission levels as fast and as high as air travel”. - Dr Stefan Gössling, Lund University What is Sustainable Aviation Fuel? United argue that SAF will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% on a lifecycle basis compared to standard jet fuel. The fuel used in the Boeing 737 flight was produced by World Energy and developed by Virent – oil giant Marathon Petroleum’s subsidiary company. According to Marathon, the bio-based fuel was produced using corn sugar, and combined SAF with synthesised aromatic kerosene (SAK) made from renewable plant sugars. Pure SAF can’t be used as jet fuel because it lacks the compounds (known as aromatics) which are required to meet today’s jet fuel specifications. In the past, hybrid blends of conventional and sustainable aviation fuel were used. United claim that the combination of SAK and SAF produces a fuel that can compete with conventional jet fuel without having to blend biofuels with petroleum. However, the Boeing 737 aircraft did not technically fly using 100% SAF. Only one of the two engines onboard used SAF (50% as per the Federal Aviation Authority regulations), while the other ran using petroleum-based jet fuel which United stated was to "further prove there are no operational differences between the two". Critics are now branding UA’s claim that the flight was ‘100% sustainable’ as an attempt at greenwashing. Are Biofuels the Future? Just as with conventional fuels, SAF releases carbon dioxide when it is burned inside a plane’s engine. But unlike conventional jet fuel, the CO2 released has previously been absorbed by the plant as part of the normal growing process, so in theory, net CO2 emissions should be a lot lower than fossil-based fuels. However, CO2 is not the only aviation emission – nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water vapour are also produced and have global warming potential. It has also been argued that the emissions emitted in the process of actually growing the corn for fuel are equivalent to those emitted by conventional jet fuel. There are still flaws behind biofuels that must be addressed before they are adopted at-scale. Scalability But how sustainable and scalable is this idea in the long term? With the number of flights predicted to increase dramatically in the next few years, can we grow enough feedstock needed to produce SAF to match these high demands? According to the IATA, only 1% of the global demand for jet fuel was met using SAF in 2019. With a finite supply of land, allocating spaces for growing crops for SAF production reduces the land available for food and puts a strain on water resources. For fuels produced from waste products like cooking fats and oils, there is also doubt about limited availability. Then there is the cost of SAF to consider. According to IHS Markit, "SAF prices are currently about five times higher than prices for conventional jet fuel". The Future of Flying With growing pressure on airlines to make drastic cuts in emissions, it’s easy to see why they are looking for solutions such as SAF. But despite the claims by United and others, there are no easy answers. Ultimately, reducing the impact of aviation may come down to flying less. As Cait Hewitt, policy director of the UK non-profit the Aviation Environment Federation, put it recently: “Given how far we are from knowing how to decarbonise flying, we really need to be downsizing aviation demand.” This might even mean giving up flying altogether. But if that’s not an option for you right now, FlyGrn provides tips on how to fly as sustainably as possible. Similar: The Excessive Aviation Emissions of the Elite 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.

Emily Davies reports as the world’s largest machine to suck CO2 from the air and turn it into rock has switched on. Photo by Fernando Puente The world’s largest machine to such CO2 directly from the atmosphere and convert it to rock, permanently trapping it underground, has begun operation in Iceland. It is the first machine to permanently trap the CO2 rather than recycling it, and has the potential to not only negate greenhouse gas emissions, but deliver negative emissions in the future too. The plant is named ‘Orca’ after the Icelandic word for energy (‘orka’), and was set up by Swiss company Climeworks and Icelandic company Carbfix for the price of between $10 million and $15 million. A Work in Progress The two companies say the machine can take up to 4,000 tons of CO2 from the air every year – equivalent to the annual emissions of about 870 cars or 250 U.S. residents. Even though this is a small amount, Jan Wurzbacher, one of Climeworks’ co-founders, told Bloomberg: “Already the demand for carbon removal at Orca is so high that we have decided to scale up this plant and build a roughly 10 times larger plant in about three years.” Climeworks’ goal is to capture 1% of global emissions with a range of carbon capture infrastructure by 2025 – this is more than 300 million tons. Orca could be a big step in the right direction, and Climeworks is now aiming to capture 500,000 tons of carbon by the end of this decade. The machine uses fans to draw air into a collection system which filters material, with high temperatures isolating the CO2. Next, the CO2 is mixed with water and injected into basalt rock, where the process of mineralisation begins. Over the course of two years, this is turned into stone. Carbon Capture Tackling global warming by removing CO2 from the air is becoming a more and more popular idea, but critics of this method say it is too expensive, especially when trees do the same thing naturally. Besides replating trees, the use of microalgae has become a popular carbon capture solution. The plants efficiently capture large amounts of CO2, and can then be used as biomass for a range of purposes such as fuel and high-value chemicals. This method both captures carbon dioxide and utilises it. Other methods currently being researched include reducing CO2 to its constituent parts for use in other substances like methanol, urea (for use in fertiliser) or polymers (for use in building materials), and combining CO2 with hydrogen to produce hydrocarbon fuels. According to the IEA, carbon capture projects could reduce the cost of dealing with climate change by 70%, but costs are still high and more research is required to hone the practice. An Opportunity for Greenwashing? Anything that removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is a good development for the planet. However, the idea of carbon capture can easily be exploited. While not as obvious as carbon off-setting, carbon capture has been used by some companies to make it seem like are doing more to reduce their carbon footprint than they actually are. For example, Inside Climate News examined how Exxon - one of the world's largest international oil and gas companies - is exploiting this technology. It sells the CO2 it captures to companies that use it to revive depleted oil fields. Exxon often boasts about its efforts to improve its environmental impact through carbon capture, but it is important to examine what actually happens to the captured CO2. Is it turned into rock, like in Iceland? Or used for some other, more damaging purpose? So, as more carbon capture plants and technologies emerge, it is crucial that the practices involved are kept both ethical and efficient to ensure the best is being done for the planet. Similar: Green Steel: Coal-Free Innovation in the Auto Industry 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.

Jenny Donath examines Frances Haugen’s revelations about Facebook, Instagram and Zuckerberg’s Metaverse. Photo by Nordwood Themes Last year, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaked thousands of documents to the Wall Street Journal regarding Meta’s (formerly Facebook) inadequate safety measures and deficient attempts to prevent hateful speech on their social media platforms. Haugen’s testimony, along with unprecedented documentary evidence, points to Facebook’s internal structure and algorithms aggravating political division and misinformation on the platform, and indicates that Instagram does not adequately protect its users from being continually exposed to harmful content. Concerns About User Safety Haugen has years of experience in the tech industry, and began working at Meta (then Facebook) in 2019. After the company’s decision to close its civic integrity department after the US election in November 2020, Haugen felt she could no longer trust it. Before officially resigning in May 2021, she copied various important documents which she later publicised in this damning whistleblowing incident. According to Haugen, Meta has repeatedly lied to the public regarding its progress in reducing hate speech and misinformation, and the network does not provide sufficient safety measures to protect its users. Her decision to come forward was influenced by her belief that every user should have a right to know this. “During my time at Facebook, I realised a devastating truth: almost nobody outside of Facebook knows what happens inside of Facebook,” Haugen said. Meta has objected to her claims: “We continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content — to suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true.” Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, claims Haugen’s accusations paint a “false picture” of the company’s efforts to protect its users, which include hiring 40,000 employees to regulate content. Despite this, Haugen asserted that Meta would not police content in multiple languages because not enough employees specialised in those languages. She said non-English Facebook posts were often a “raw, dangerous version”. This may have contributed to Facebook’s damaging role in Myanmar’s military coup, as the platform was allegedly used to incite political panic without sufficient controls. She states that Instagram poses another serious threat in the form of aggravating mental health and eating disorder struggles. For many users, the platform’s focus lies with lifestyle and physical image, and Haugen says not enough is done to protect people - especially younger women and girls - from the dangers of constant comparison. One of the key features of Instagram’s algorithm is that it shows you want it thinks you want to see, so if someone searches for eating disorder or suicide-related content, the algorithm will provide them with more of the same, resulting in potentially disastrous effects for users’ mental wellbeing. In her speech in front of the UK Parliament’s Online Safety Bill committee in October 2021, she said: “I am deeply worried that it may not be possible to make Instagram safe for a 14-year-old girl, and I sincerely doubt that it is possible to make it safe for a 10-year-old.” “I came forward because I believe that every human being deserves the dignity of the truth — and the truth is that Facebook buys its astronomical profits by sacrificing our safety.” – Frances Haugen Change is Needed Despite refuting several of Haugen’s accusations, Zuckerberg agrees that updates on internet regulations need improvement from the government’s side. In the UK, the proposed Online Safety Bill would introduce tighter restrictions on social media platforms through criminalising promoting violence against women, glamourising self-harm and cyber-flashing – the act of sending unwanted naked images. The Bill, if passed through Parliament and made into law, could also address online scams, harmful algorithms and general repeated failings by tech giants. It is yet to be seen whether the Bill will be passed, or indeed whether its measures could help begin to remedy this huge problem. Haugen’s revelations show that much change is necessary within Meta itself, and the same might be the case for other social media giants. If these networks which are so ubiquitous in our lives do not serve us well and benefit us, then what are they there for? Similar: Norway: New Law Targets Social Media Image Retouching 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 explores how campaigners are finding new ways to bring back Britain’s ancient rainforests. Photo by Jacob Colvin An ecosystem is a geographic area in which various elements come together to create a ‘bubble of life’: animals, plants, weather and landscapes. Campaigners are fighting for the protection and growth of rare ecosystems within Britain - including temperate rainforests. Temperate rainforests occur in areas that experience a high volume of rain, often as a result of being within an oceanic climate. They are home to damp woodlands, within which some plants are able to grow upon other plants (known as ‘Epiphytes’). In areas such as this, you are also likely to find a large presence of various mosses and lichens. Britain once supported large expanses of temperate rainforests, mainly across the west upland areas of the country. Many of these areas were destroyed thousands of years ago by Bronze Age settlers as they cleared spaces for their farmlands. More recently, some of these areas have been turned into timber plantations, leaving only a small, rare portion of them alive today. Temperate Forests in the UK Today Christopher Ellis mapped out the areas of Britain within which temperate rainforests can survive. However, just because these areas hold the potential for thriving rainforests, it does not mean that they are currently thriving. While 20% of Britain has a climate that is suitable for the growth of temperate rainforests, only 1% of these areas are still home to such beautiful ecosystems. Until fairly recently, these little fragments of temperate rainforests had lay forgotten, with many people simply considering them ‘woods’. Nevertheless, a campaign to restore these ‘green cathedrals’ was recently supported by the Government, indicating a renewed appreciation for the diversity of British ecology. Guy Shrubsole, a nature writer and campaigner, was determined to find the surviving British rainforests. As he argues, “knowing where the rainforests are is a crucial part of knowing how to save them.” In order to do this, Shrubsole approached the public and asked them to submit any locations where they had come across temperate rainforests, along with any pictures of the areas. People can submit their findings via the website LostRainforestsOfBritain.org. Two Ways to Restore Temperate Rainforests In order to restore these rare ecosystems, it is important to research their survival and take things slowly. Sarah Stirling researched Britain’s rainforests and found that there are a number of things that can be done to try and save them. One of the tactics involves establishing a healthy balance of grazing in those areas. Too little grazing can cause the fast-growing plants to take over the rainforests, causing other plants and organisms to die; too much grazing, on the other hand, can impact on the regrowth of the rainforests by not allowing the plants enough time to spread and thrive. Therefore, it is important to manage the amount of sheep and cows within these areas to promote a healthy level of regrowth and maintenance. Another tactic is to eradicate the plant known as Rhododendrons. These plants are known to thrive within woodland areas. As pretty as these plants may be to the human eye, however, they are actually rather toxic to other areas of wildlife: Rhododendrons cause harm by changing the acidity within the soil, thereby causing a stunt in their growth or killing them altogether. A group of students are working together to try and eradicate Rhododendrons and save the growth of temperate rainforests. However, the eradication of these shrubs can take many years to complete. Patience and commitment is, as such, required for this process, with the students having to return frequently to remove the shrubs from the woodlands and surrounding areas to prevent further spreading. Most of the work that has been carried out so far has been within Scotland and Wales. There have been campaigns to protect and restore their temperate rainforests: for example, Scotland currently have two projects underway with an additional four in the pipeline, ready to go. Celtic Rainforests Wales are following closely behind. Campaigners are continuing to fight for similar projects to be carried out throughout Britain. Similar: A New Palm Oil Alternative Could Save Rainforests 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.

Anna Kedge explores how environmental initiatives and campaigns are maintaining beach quality in Scotland. Photo by Ajda ATZ As a much-loved destination for anyone looking for a change of scenery to either urban or rural landscapes, to release pent-up emotion and to partake in calmer leisurely activity, it is important to understand that how we spend our time on the beaches will have a direct impact on beach health. In the same way that natural erosion and climate change can create lasting damage to beaches, our own pastimes, from engaging in fishing, sailing and even walking along the sea front can disrupt and threaten the life found on the beach. Seaside Wellbeing Since the easing of lockdown restrictions back in the spring of 2021, the natural urge to return to the remote areas of the country that promised peace, natural beauty and a sense of freedom once again was felt by most of the population. As we recover from the tumultuous changes brought about by an airborne virus, it is down to us to ensure that other harmful chemicals and gases within the air are not transported into the seas through the many activities that are engaged in by tourists and visitors to the seas. During the summer of 2020, as many as 30 beaches were polluted due to heavy rainfall, meaning that overflowing sewers washed subjects of contamination, such as animal faeces, into the seas, risking the health of those who approached the waters. Having to adapt to the pandemic restrictions, more and more individuals frequented the beaches while indoor swimming pools were closed. The Scottish seas cover the equivalent of roughly six times the UK's land area size, providing a promising supply of fresh air for residents and tourists of the country. However, they are also home to some of the most beautiful places in the world. Peter Ross argues that four of the five reasons for Scotland’s reputation as the most beautiful country in the world (according to a Rough Guides poll conducted in 2017) were the bodies of water, highlighting Rannoch Moor and Glencoe, the Whaligoe steps on the Caithness coast, Loch Coruisk, and Calgary Bay for their depth and tone, drawing tourists to the rich natural history that the country has to offer. Campaigns and Initiatives in Scotland Whilst many seaside economies encourage the visitors to utilise the sites as much as possible, Scotland prefers to maintain the care and attention placed on their beaches. With a £10 million investment, Scotland set themselves an important task, requiring the efforts of the public as well as new initiatives; the Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS), for example, was established in October 2021 to ensure that the UK’s exit from the European Union did not affect the environmental standards of Scotland or detract from the progress made by Scotland. A 16% increase in people checking water quality when visiting the beaches has been reported following the 2018 launch of the My Beach, Your Beach campaign, encouraging beach stewardship and communicating with the public through surveys and messaging via online channels throughout the lockdowns. “Scotland’s bathing waters are so important to our environment and to people's health and well-being and it is great to see hard work and investment delivering results.” – Environment Minister Mairi McAllan According to the European Environment Agency’s ‘Dobris Assessment’ in 2016, the environmental impact of the tourism industry on coastal areas is a result of the heightened use of water and land for leisure pursuits at certain times of the year. Many of these coastal destinations are also standardised for the benefit of the tourists, satisfying their needs and their expectations of a holiday by recreating the attractions of an international holiday destination in Scotland. So, where to go this year? Perhaps, by investing in the UK’s seaside economies and beach conservation initiatives, we can create lasting memories and experiences whilst saving both our wallets and the planet along the way. Similar: Marine Sanctuary to Protect an Area Triple the Size of the UK 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.

Emily Davies reports on announcements that cheetahs will be reintroduced in India. Photo by Maurits Bausenhart In 1947, the last spotted cheetah in India died. In 1952, cheetahs were declared extinct in the country. However, State Forest Minister Vijay Shah has recently stated that cheetahs will be reintroduced to India at the Kuno National Park within a matter of months. Cheetahs are considered vulnerable under the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species, having a decreasing population of under 7000 found mainly in savannahs in Africa. The Reintroduction Project Minister Shah has announced that the cheetahs will be released into a protected area already containing a population of antelopes, chinkara (Indian gazelle), nilgai (large Asian antelope), wild boar, spotted deer and sambar (another type of deer). The Endangered Wildlife Trust of South Africa will be donating five males and three females to help the project. This project will be India’s first international big cat reintroduction project. It will help the species survive long-term after being extensively hunted to the point that they no longer roam  90 per cent of their historical range. However, the reintroduction is seen as controversial by some, as the African cheetahs are a different subspecies from those which lived in India natively until 1948. This type of cheetah is more petite, and could once be found roaming from Turkey to Iran, central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Some wildlife experts are anxious that the species could bring alien disease to the country and threaten already fragile ecosystems, or even that there might not be enough space for them to thrive. Why they are Endangered Cheetahs were once found throughout Asia and Africa, but there are now listed as 'Vulnerable' by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. There are various reasons for this population decline: Loss of suitable habitats and lack of prey. Animal trafficking and poaching (cheetahs are primarily smuggled into the exotic pet trade in the Gulf States). Cheetahs don’t cope well in wildlife reserves as they are often shared with larger predators like lions and leopards. They compete for prey, and cheetah cub deaths can rise as high as 90%. Therefore, most cheetahs in Africa frequent private farmlands, which often leads to human conflict. Farmers act fast to protect their livestock by trapping or shooting cheetahs, and as they hunt during the day, there are more run-ins with people. Cheetahs also have a narrow gene pool, so one disease could eliminate an entire population. Only 31 populations remain, and 20 of these contain fewer than 100 cheetahs. Effect on the Ecosystem Protecting cheetahs can have an ecological benefit that may not immediately come to mind – preserving grasslands by controlling populations of the species which graze on them. In the years of 2005-2015, India lost 31 per cent of its grasslands, and 19 per cent of common lands such as grazing grounds and forests (primarily to industrialisation and agriculture). This reintroduction project is also important because predators play an essential role in fortifying and balancing ecosystems, keeping their prey healthy by killing the weak, sick and old. Without cheetahs and other predators, savannah ecosystems would look very different, and the process of desertification would be accelerated. It is yet to be seen whether this project will develop and fortify Indian ecosystems, or prove to be a misplacement of funds which could have been used elsewhere to address existing ecological issues. Article on a similar topic: Egyptian Vulture Returns to UK After 150 Years 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.