Jonny Rogers explores how modern agriculture has aggravated environmental destruction, and explains why we need a new revolution. Photo by Hans Isaacson Revolutions in human civilisation are built on agricultural science: improvements to ploughs, crop rotation and selective breeding in 17th-century Britain paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, and the invention of chemical fertilisers, genetically-modified crops and gasoline-powered tractors supported the post-WWII economic expansion, through which a number of nations experienced significant and sustained growth. However, modern agricultural production – built on the premise that bigger is better – is costing us our lives, our animals and our ecosystems. We are in dire need of a new revolution – one that reforms how we think about, produce, distribute and consume our food. The Failures of Big Agriculture A report published in February found that the global food system is the leading cause of biodiversity loss on the planet, posing the greatest threat to 86% of the species currently at risk of extinction. Intensified agricultural production destroys habitats and degrades ecosystems, while pesticides, fertilizers and industrial waste pollute our environment. Animal agriculture and fishing further account for 14.5% of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention the deaths of 70 billion land animals and over one trillion aquatic animals each year. This situation is underpinned by what has been described as the ‘cheaper food’ paradigm – food becomes cheaper as we produce more (i.e. due to new technology and agricultural methods), meaning that we also consume more. However, the drive for exponential crop yields and economic growth incentivises the production of more food at lower costs, especially more processed and resource-intensive products. Hence, we find ourselves in a vicious cycle that rewards environmental destruction and the abuse of human rights. In India, the growth of agricultural industrialisation is contributing to a variety of socio-economic and environmental issues. Indian farmers have been unable to pay back the loans needed to finance their transition to industrial practices, while pesticide residues have contaminated drinking water. In the face of debt, bankruptcy and declining employment, further aggravated by the pandemic, an increasing number of Indian farmers are dying by suicide. While one might expect that the export of surplus crop production in one nation might yield benefit for others, this does not always work out in practice. The United States, for example, regularly dumps surplus grain in low-income countries, where the price of export is lower than the price of production. This means that farmers in the U.S. are paid less for their labour, and international farmers struggle to compete with cheaper exports. The impact of poorly-managed agricultural resources can, furthermore, have an unexpected impact on the wider environment. For example, an 8,000 sq. mile ‘dead zone’ – an area of low oxygen within which fish and other marine life cannot survive – has begun to emerge in the Gulf of Mexico every year. This is caused by nutrient pollution from human activities, including industrial agriculture; excess nutrients from farms cause an overgrowth of algae, which, upon decomposing, reduce the levels of oxygen in the area. If the destruction of natural habitats wasn’t upsetting enough, changes to ecosystems as a result of intensive agricultural methods directly impact the lives and livelihoods of people around the world. 52% of all agricultural land is either moderately or severely affected by soil degradation. An estimated loss of 75 billion tons of soil due to degradation costs the world around 400 billion USD every year; 12 million hectares of soil are lost each year due to desertification and drought, and around 700 million people could be displaced by 2030 because of water scarcity. Health, Malnourishment and Obesity Although proponents and beneficiaries of industrial agriculture might argue that modern practices, though imperfect, are necessary to maintain global health, there is good reason to doubt their efficacy. Despite the fact that we produce more food than we need – around a third is wasted, lost or thrown away – at least 750 million people are exposed to severe levels of food insecurity. Malnutrition is the biggest cause of child mortality across the globe. At the same time, over 2 billion people are now overweight or obese, with this number having doubled since 1980 in more than 70 countries. Although this phenomenon has emerged from a variety of factors, the proliferation of fast-food outlets and heavily-processed products are undoubtedly part of the problem, both of which are incentivised by the aforementioned ‘cheaper food’ paradigm. Moreover, automation in agriculture has meant that fewer people are employed in physically-active work, thereby contributing to our increasingly sedentary lifestyles. “Whether you look at it from a human health, environmental or climate perspective, our food system is currently unsustainable and given the challenges that will come from a rising global population that is a really [serious] thing to say.” – Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds The Future of Farming As with all global issues, there is no immediate or obvious solution to our current situation. However, this article will break down some ideas that have been suggested, and thus attempt to glean any common insight or theme. Perennial Agriculture Foreign Policy has advocated for a 50-year farm bill that would promote ecosystem diversification in the U.S. by reducing the production of annual grain crops (e.g. cereals, oilseeds and legumes), and boosting the production of perennial crops (e.g. fruit trees, berries, and herbs). Unlike the former (which take up 70% of croplands), perennial crops do not need to be replanted each year, perennial varieties of annual grains are currently being developed. The proposed bill would also discourage industrial-scale farming, as agricultural diversification is most effective on smaller farms. Polyculture Unlike monoculture practices, in which only one plant / animal species is cultivated in a defined area, polyculture promotes the production of multiple species in close proximity to each other. This has been the favoured form of agriculture for most of human history, though it fell out of favour in the mid-20th century as industrial practices, supported by pesticides, fertilizers and technology, began to favour standardisation and mass production. However, though it is more economically efficient to devote a large area to one type of crop, monoculture moves away from how species interact in natural ecosystems, thereby leaving farms more vulnerable to pests, diseases and weeds, and resulting in greater soil degradation and deforestation. Polyculture has, as such, been promoted as one of Chatham House’s three principles for reforming the global food system. Subsistence Farming A recent report found that Indigenous Peoples are responsible for maintaining 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Although the lifestyles and practices of indigenous populations are widely varied, many communities are subsistence farmers, meaning that they only grow enough food to feed themselves and therefore have little left for sale or trade. Although subsistence agriculture would likely not be effective on a global scale, it is apparent that the production and distribution of surplus crops are complicit in many of our present socioeconomic and ecological issues. If nothing else, subsistence farmers have an immediate interest in protecting the land they are responsible for, and do not require excessive emissions to import and export the foods they depend upon. Reduction of Meat and Dairy Products Finally, many people have argued that the world will need to shift towards plant-heavier diets to account for the disproportionate impact of animal farming on climate change, land usage and the reduction of biodiversity. It is important, however, that this is not separated from the increased production of alternative sources of protein under perennial and polyculture practices. A report from Nature Sustainability found that a global shift towards plant-based diets would significantly reduce both global carbon emissions and the amount of pasture and cropland required to feed the world’s population. Concluding Comments Many of our present problems – including the ignorance of wealthier nations towards their ecological impact and the violence inflicted on other creatures – stem from our collective disassociation with the systems that feed our habits and lifestyles. This disassociation manifests in our adoption of an economic system that incentivises the conversion of large areas into one type of crop, animal or resource in our dependence upon resource-intensive and heavily-processed foods, and in our expectation that all products should be abundant in all places and at all times. A new agricultural revolution must start with the recognition of our mistakes, and a greater awareness of the long-term consequences of our actions. Policies that helped to rebuild some nations in the wake of a violent and destructive war 80 years ago are not effective in adequately feeding a population which is now 3-4 times larger. Industrial agriculture is destroying our bodies and our ecosystems, turning a profit from subjugating animals, abusing the health and economic security of foreign workers and leaving pollutants in our soil, air and water. If, as the saying goes, we really are what we eat, then what does industrial agriculture say about us? If we want a culture that is happier, healthier, more compassionate and more diverse, we will need to advocate for an agricultural system that prioritises the security of the planet and workers alike Article on a similar topic: The Broken Global Food System is Harmful 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 looks at a new report exposing some of the largest entertainment companies for backing a ‘lobbying blitz’ to prevent Biden’s proposed $3.5 trillion ‘reconciliation’ bill. Photo by Odayaka Gurei Corporations might be quick to declare their ambitions to adopt green initiatives, but their intentions are often far less clear. At the beginning of October, a new report exposed how the likes of Amazon, Disney, Apple and Microsoft – who own some of the world’s most popular entertainment services – are actively undermining the progress they publicly endorse by funding groups which lobby against climate policy. The analysis was compiled by Accountable.US, a nonpartisan research organisation which aims to expose corruption and hold government officials accountable, and their findings were published through The Guardian. Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, said of the shocking revelations: “Major corporations love to tell us how committed they are to addressing the climate crisis and building a sustainable future, but behind closed doors, they are funding the very industry trade groups that are fighting tooth and nail to stop the biggest climate change bill ever.” Biden’s Reconciliation Bill President Joe Biden’s proposed $3.5 trillion ‘reconciliation’ bill contains a variety of initiatives to combat climate change and improve the wellbeing of citizens. This includes a ‘tree equity’ plan to plant saplings in neighbourhoods throughout the nation, funding electric vehicles for the U.S. Postal Service and the federal government, and increasing penalties for methane leaks from oil and gas operations. Unlike a standard bill, a reconciliation bill can bypass the usual debate and amendment from the opposition, providing that every Senate Democrat votes in agreement, which currently hangs in the balance. As the country’s “biggest climate change bill ever,” some political advisors have argued that this is America’s best shot at achieving 100% renewable energy by 2035, and an invaluable step towards achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. As the second largest contributor to rising global CO2 emissions, climate change mitigation can only go so far without the cooperation of the United States and improved legislation to hold the largest polluters accountable. Lobbying Blitz However, it has been revealed that a “torrent of political groups” are preparing to deliver a ‘lobbying blitz’ to stop Congress from enacting Biden’s plan, which includes a ‘seven-figure’ digital advertising campaign targeting Democratic lawmakers. A statement from the White House declared that the plan will “create jobs, cut taxes, and lower costs for working families”, which will be funded “by making the tax code fairer and making the wealthiest and large corporations pay their fair share”. Included among the organisations behind this ‘lobbying blitz’ are ExxonMobil, Pfizer and the Walt Disney Company, who are undoubtedly displeased with the proposed restrictions and increased taxation for large corporations. The Washington Post reports that there have already been aggressive adverts on changes to the pricing of prescription drugs. If this blitz successfully undermines Biden’s plan, it could also have serious ramifications for the reputation of both Biden and the US, and hence their potential to influence other nations at the upcoming COP26 conference. The Hypocrisy of the Entertainment Industry While the issue extends far beyond the entertainment industry, Amazon, Disney, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet Inc. (the parent company of Google, and hence YouTube) and AT&T (who acquired Time Warner in 2016) have all contributed to these efforts to undermine Biden’s plan, despite numerous public statements declaring their green intentions. Disney, for example, proudly boast that they have saved 300 million gallons of water over 6 years, installed 292 acres of solar panels at Walt Disney World and planted over 9 million trees, ensuring their ecologically-concerned followers that they are “committed to protecting the planet and delivering a positive environmental legacy for future generations”. Similarly, Apple announced that it was committed to 100 percent carbon neutrality in its supply chain and products by 2030, with Microsoft aiming to go ‘carbon negative’ in the same time-frame. “Hiding behind these shady groups doesn’t just put our environment at risk – it puts these companies’ household names and reputations in serious jeopardy.” – Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US In many ways, this shouldn’t be too surprising: over the years, large corporations have consistently lobbied against sustainable initiatives, funded false programs to undermine climate science and appealed against court rulings that impose restrictions on their operations. And yet, with an unrivalled influence on global media, it is deeply unsettling that companies responsible for shaping our culture are also responsible for suppressing efforts to save our world. Article on a similar topic: Insight: The Hidden Cost of Film Production 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.

Martha Davies gives some helpful hints on ways you can alter your lifestyle to benefit the environment. Photo by Alex Loup As a new year begins, new opportunities arise to make positive changes. It is more important than ever to take steps towards environmentally-friendly living. Here are ten tips to get you started - you’ll be living more sustainably in no time! 1. Eat flexibly Thankfully nothing to do with acrobatics, this simply means taking a more open-minded approach to eating. Cutting out animal products such as meat helps to lower carbon emissions, but it may not be easy to jump head-first into Veganuary. Think instead about adapting your diet over time so that any changes are long-lasting. A good starting point on any journey towards more environmentally-friendly eating is to veganise your favourite meals, such as trying bean patties instead of beef in your burgers. 2. Remember to recycle Recycling has become ubiquitous in UK households, and is certainly a vital part of a sustainable lifestyle. There is more to it, however, than turning food waste into compost and getting your paper, plastic and glass collected regularly: think about reusing bags at the shops, replacing plastic straws with metal alternatives and investing in a reusable water bottle. These little changes add up and create positive environmental change. 3. Buy second-hand The disastrous environmental impacts of fast fashion rival those of the oil industry, with carbon dioxide emissions and water pollution just a few of the issues associated with the creation and transportation of clothing. Shed the pressure to constantly update your wardrobe, and instead explore second-hand shopping. Vintage pieces most likely have a fascinating story behind them (and one that certainly involves less pollution!). 4. Make smarter shopping choices New Year is all about forming better habits, and this includes your weekly shop; one option is to opt for loose fruit and vegetables rather than buying products packaged in plastic. Simply throw them into your basket or use reusable produce bags at the supermarket, or browse the produce on offer at your local green grocers. Look out for other products with minimal packaging, and don’t forget a reusable bag when you’re finished for a successful, plastic-free shopping trip. 5. Look for organic produce While it may be pricier, organic produce is more sustainably grown, with less exposure to chemicals and pesticides. This not only benefits your health, but also ensures that water and farmland is less polluted. Perhaps try to incorporate a handful of organic products into your food shop each week, or check out food subscription services that will deliver right to your door. 6. Get from A to B sustainably The pandemic reminded us that long car journeys aren't always necessary to get everything we need. Check out the things on your doorstep for both necessity and leisure, and try to get to those places either by foot or by bike when possible. For longer journeys, opt for public transport where you can to reduce your carbon footprint. 7. Use natural cleaning products Switching out conventional cleaning products for more environmentally-friendly alternatives is another part of building a sustainable lifestyle. This includes seeking out non-toxic products containing reduced amounts of chemicals and artificial ingredients. Some cleaners use vegetable proteins instead of chemical detergents to break down bacteria, while others contain biodegradable or raw materials. 8. Avoid palm oil Palm oil is a key ingredient in many beauty products, and it can also be found in supermarket items such as confectionery and peanut butter. However, its extraction involves mass deforestation and the abuse of ecosystems and habitats, on top of the exploitation of rural communities. Making an effort to identify and cut down on products containing palm oil is a helpful way to reduce some of these environmental damages. 9. Discover eco-friendly furnishings January is a notoriously chilly month, but instead of cranking up the heating, think about other ways you can conserve energy in your home. Aside from layering up clothing and blankets to keep cosy, ingenious home improvements include thermally lined curtains and smart thermostats which will help cut down your energy bill. Using LED light bulbs is also a great way to be more eco-friendly at home. 10. Reduce paper use Why not give your home office a New Year makeover? Put a recycling bin in your workspace to remind you to recycle old documents, and help save trees by setting up online file storage and reducing the amount of pages you print. Additionally, by recycling ink cartridges and scaling down your use of disposable ballpoint pens and laptop screen wipes, you can lessen the amount of waste being sent to landfill. The changes which are necessary to turn the tide of the climate crisis are in the hands of governments and big businesses, but by making small changes in the ways we live and invest, these powers will get the message that the people want sustainable options, and the true transformation of society into a force for environmental good can continue to accelerate. You may also like: How to Make Small Changes for a Big Impact 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 explores how LED streetlights are affecting moth populations in the UK. Photo by Thom Milkovic Whether by campfire, candle or chandelier, human ingenuity has brought light to the shadows, blurring the boundaries of day and night. According to research from 2016, more than 80% of the world’s population live under light-polluted skies; the amount of land with artificial lighting at night is increasing by 2.2% every year. More than a third of all people can no longer see the Milky Way from where they live. Although a brighter world means that we can work longer and travel further, it also entails the tragic loss of insect populations. A recent study on moth caterpillars in 26 sites across southern England found that street lighting ‘strongly reduced’ their abundance: by 47% in hedgerows, and 33% in grass margins. Light Pollution and Moths The researchers chose to focus on moths for a number of reasons: first, they have been closely studied for a long time; second, they are important for terrestrial ecosystems, acting as both pollinators for plants and prey for other creatures; and third, a number of countries have seen a significant decrease in moth abundance and diversity over recent decades. In Britain, 34% of the most common macro-moths have experienced a notable decline between 1970 and 2016, accounting for a 39% decrease in the total number of larger moths in the south of England, and 22% in the north. One study from 2019 found that over 40% of all insect species worldwide are threatened with extinction, while some are also likely to bloom. Of course, moths are not the obvious poster child for wildlife conservation; many people would undoubtedly rather live in a world without them. However, changes to any insect population can have significant consequences for entire ecosystems, disrupting both plant pollination and animal food chains. This study takes place as the roads of Britain undergo a significant transformation – the orange aura of sodium streetlamps is being supplanted by the white glow of light-emitting diodes (LED). Although this shift is thought to be more energy-efficient, it will likely alter the navigation and interaction of the nation’s wildlife. As the recent study has shown, the negative effects of artificial light were more pronounced under LED than sodium lamps. As moths have evolved to lay eggs in darkness, artificial lighting most likely disrupts their reproduction process, explaining why fewer moth caterpillars were found near the streetlights. In addition, increased artificial lighting means that moths are easier to spot for bats and hedgehogs, causing a disbalance in species population and diversity. The study also observed changes to individual organisms – the caterpillars found in artificially lit areas were typically heavier, perhaps because the light increased the early rate of development. This might have a serious impact on the fitness of the adult moths, thereby affecting the health and abundance of future generations. The Wider Impact of Light Pollution While one might expect that the negative effects of artificial lighting would increase in proportion to its intensity, the impact of light pollution is, in reality, more complex. Research from the University of Exeter, for example, found that low levels of lighting (i.e. areas surrounding towns) gave parasitoid wasps an advantage in hunting aphids, while brighter lighting (i.e. urban centres) rendered the same activity more difficult. Of course, the harm caused by artificial light extends beyond the behaviour and reproduction of insects. As shown in the heart-breaking conclusion to David Attenborough’s Planet Earth II in 2016, baby turtles, which hatch on beaches and are naturally guided towards the water by moonlight, are attracted to the bright lights of coastal towns. Additionally, the glare of urban areas can disorientate migrating birds, resulting in fatal collisions with man-made structures. It might not be surprising to learn that light pollution is also a hazard to human health. As our minds and bodies naturally change in accordance with the 24-hour day/night cycle – our circadian clock – frequent exposure to artificial light, both in the home and outside, can contribute to depression, insomnia, cardiovascular disease and a range of other medical disorders. As Paolo Sassone-Corsi, chairman of the Pharmacology Department at the University of California, explains: “The circadian cycle controls from ten to fifteen percent of our genes [...] So the disruption of the circadian cycle can cause a lot of health problems.” Concluding Thoughts As with noise pollution, light is often underestimated as an environmental threat, largely because we often think and talk about pollution as a matter of physical substances accumulating in particular spaces. However, this study adds to the large body of evidence that artificial lighting has provided benefits for human navigation at the detriment of both our health and the ecosystems we live in. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the ecological impact of light pollution should not be taken in isolation from other activities associated with urbanisation and population growth. As Douglas Boyes of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology explains: “The main factors [of insect population decline] are climate change, habitat loss, agricultural intensification, and chemical pollution (including pesticides, nitrogen deposition), but lighting we expect will certainly be important in some contexts.” Unlike many other forms of pollution, however, artificial lighting is relatively easy to change: the impact of LED streetlights can be mitigated by reducing their intensity, employing motion sensors, adding shields to focus the light on the roads or changing their colour through filters. Although it is uncertain how and whether these factors will ever come into force, they must be taken into consideration as the world shifts towards more energy-efficient infrastructure. A greener future will have to be a little darker. Article on a similar topic: 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.

Shaun Britton reveals the devastating truth behind the palm oil industry, but offers some hope as an alternative may be on the way. Photo by Jessica Favaro Palm oil is in a bewildering array of products these days, so much so that it’s easy to forget both its origins and its impact. With such bad press surrounding it, notably the deforestation of rainforests leading to devastation of habitats and ecosystems, could hope be found in a new alternative? Elaeis guineensis, or palm oil, is an oil obtained from the fruit that grow on palm trees. Palm oil is harvested in a variety of ways, but the oils are derived from either the palm trees’ fleshy fruits themselves or by crushing their stones, referred to as the kernels. Production of the versatile ingredient increased 15-fold between 1980 and 2014, and is used in everything from cosmetics to shampoo, ice cream to laundry detergent, instant noodles to biofuel. It’s become such an integral and convenient part of everyday products that it can be hard to avoid without expressly keeping an eye out for it. Overwhelming Impact According to the WWF, Indonesia and Malaysia make up around 85% of global supply for palm oil production, with over 40 countries also producing it, including Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria. Around 4 million people in Indonesia depend upon palm oil production for their livelihoods, but the environmental effects of the industry have been innumerable. Across ecology, human and animal rights, palm oil’s shadow has begun to creep into the public consciousness, and several damning reports and exposés have pointed to its negative impact and the necessity of reducing its use. An issues-brief from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) states that palm oil directly threatens 193 critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species, including Orang-Utans. It also reports that on the island of Borneo, at least 50% of deforestation between 2005 and 2015 was as a result of palm oil production. The WWF have further reported that an area equivalent to 300 football fields in cleared every hour for palm oil production. In November 2020, the BBC in fact reported an incident involving the clearing of nearly 60,000 hectares of land in Indonesia by a company for palm oil plantations. These numbers are huge, yet so many people seem to remain unaware of the impact of the product’s manufacture, perhaps because from a distance the palm trees could look like part of the rainforest. In fact, rows and rows of identical and artificially planted trees make biodiversity on the plantations impossible, eliminating the species-rich habitats of the rainforests which formerly stood in their place. Academic Alternatives With the situation at an imperative juncture, there has been hopeful news from a team of researchers at Bath University, who have developed a method to mimic palm oil’s properties using a yeast called Metschnikowia pulcherrima. The scientists note that the land needed for this yeast to be cultivated would be anywhere from 10 to 100 percent less than needed for palm oil. Though the product is not currently economically viable, the scientists are confident they could have it running in a practical format within four years. Additionally, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has introduced a new Principles and Criteria (P&C) which any company seeking to produce certified sustainable palm oil would need to adhere too. As we seek to buy ethically where palm oil is concerned, we can start by seeking its sustainable counterparts. We have more power than we realise, and in each transaction, we send a message that makes its way to the producers of such products. While we wait for alternatives, we can make it clear to producers and sellers that we want the ecological damage to end, thus playing our part in protecting our world for all its inhabitants as it grows more fragile by the day. 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.

Euan Cook reports on the rise of authoritarianism during the Covid-19 pandemic and how Pope Francis calls for a return to democratic ideals. Photo by João Marcelo Martins In December 2021 on the penultimate leg of his Mediterranean trip, Pope Francis arrived in Cyprus from Athens — often considered the “birthplace of democracy” — to raise awareness of the plight of migrants and refugees. Francis warned that the common bonds of society were being severed by an “increasing scepticism of institutions, hyper-individualism and partisanship”, resulting in the birth of more non-democratic states. “Today, and not only in Europe, we are witnessing a retreat from democracy” - Pope Francis Infectious Authoritarianism The number of countries moving towards authoritarianism in 2020 was approximately three times as high as the number moving towards democracy. The Covid-19 pandemic has been reported to have prolonged this trend to a five-year stretch: the longest period since the third wave of democratisation in the 1970s. So, what are the main contributors to democratic decline across the globe? The rise of illiberal and populist parties Societal and political polarisation Economic crises Mimicking anti-democratic behaviour Balancing freedom of expression with the scourge of misinformation Pandemic responses, including travel restrictions, emergency powers side-lining governments and failing to mitigate the disproportionate impact of the virus on minorities, have contributed to democratic degradation. This threat to democracy led countries including Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Serbia towards less democratic systems in the past year. Myanmar has recently been added to the list following the military coup in 2021, which detained elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi and resulted in hundreds of deaths, including children. Equally, 30 per cent of formerly backsliding democracies have now turned into hybrid or authoritarian regimes, including Nicaragua, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela. Worryingly, as of August 2021, the only country likely to (re)transition to democracy is Zambia. Pro-democracy movements have, furthermore, braved repression in countries such as Belarus, Cuba, Eswatini and Hong Kong. Some ethnonationalist strategies (like in India) have even used religion as a political weapon, while other governments have attacked LGBTQIA+ rights in Hungary, Poland and Turkey, to name a few. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Pope, who lived through Argentina’s populist Peronist era as well as its military dictatorship, has continued to warn nations about the threat of populism and the danger it poses to democracy itself, praising the “necessary vaccination campaign” in the process. An Advocate for Democracy During the Dirty War (1976-83), the Pope’s public life became inextricably linked with politics. He aided in protests against Argentina’s military dictatorship which suppressed leftists and perceived subversives. Francis even hid several individuals from the authorities and aided them in fleeing the country, establishing him as a stringent advocate for democracy in his early life. Throughout the economic crisis in Argentina in the late 1990s, Francis acquired a public reputation for humility: living in a basic apartment, travelling by foot and becoming an outspoken advocate for the poor. In 2015, the “siren songs of authoritarianism and individualism” rang, and Francis published the first encyclical of his papacy - Laudato si’ (“Praise be to you”). He proclaimed that environmental degradation was “a moral issue” powered by the greed and inequality of unchecked capitalism. Promoting the concept of “integral ecology”, Francis connected the heinous actions of industry against the environment with the economic exploitation of impoverished human beings, fuelling the fire for his speech in Greece this month. The “Horrendous Modern Odyssey” The Western world, Francis stated, is trapped in a flurry of an “insatiable greed of a depersonalising consumerism”. He called for a transition from partisanship to participation in prioritising the “weaker strata of society”. The current Pope is certainly critical of the capitalist system which exploits the poor and benefits the rich, inflating the ego of politicians with what he calls an “obsessive quest for popularity, in a thirst for visibility, in a flurry of unrealistic promises”. Moreover, the Pope has openly criticised several politicians, including former U.S. President Donald Trump and Italian far-right leader Matteo Salvini, particularly on the topic of immigration. Memorably, Francis arranged asylum for three Syrian refugee families in Rome, and has arranged for fifty migrants from Cyprus to be relocated to Italy this month. The dissolution of multilateralism has sadly begun to be stifled by “excessive nationalistic demands”, resulting in the common voice not being heard on issues such as climate change, racial inequality and immigration. Democracy demands “hard work and patience” if society wishes to tackle the peremptory nature of authoritarianism and the answers of populism. Indeed, Francis recalled that it was in Greece, according to Aristotle, that man became conscious of being a “political animal” and a “member of a community of fellow citizens”. These values need to be upheld if we want to strive towards democracy, not retreat from it. 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.

Jonny Rogers reflects on some of the most shocking revelations in the Pandora Papers. Photo by Sebastiaan Stam For the past two years, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has been searching through millions of files with the help of over 600 journalists in 117 countries and territories as part of the “largest investigation in journalism history”. Their findings – the Pandora Papers – were published in October 2021, exposing the underside of a ‘shadow economy’ which conceals and fortifies the wealth of some of the richest people in the world through offshore dealings. Like the mythological figure after whom the Pandora Papers are named, the ICIJ claimed that they were “opening a box on a lot of things”. However, unlike the ancient myth, this particular box has not released evil into the world, but rather aims to expose the corruption that already pervades the global economy beyond public knowledge. How the Wealthy Benefit from Tax Havens Offshore companies are set up in countries or territories where there is low or no corporation tax, such as the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Cyprus or Switzerland. Legal loopholes enable people to avoid paying taxes in their native countries by transferring wealth to ‘shell companies’ registered in these places which typically do not have any employees or offices, but exist only as a name. A single office building in the Cayman Islands is the registered home for over 19,000 companies, for example. Although anyone is able to establish a shell company, they are usually managed by intermediary agents: banks, law firms or offshore providers. For a price, accountants can help wealthy clients establish a network of trusts to conceal assets from interested parties, such as law enforcement officials, spouses or even the general public. While there are legitimate reasons to secure assets in other countries – such as providing protection from unstable governments or criminal activity – the use of offshore companies to facilitate tax evasion is fiercely criticised within international media, forming the basis for numerous political campaigns. Former US President Barack Obama called for the cessation of offshore tax havens over a decade ago, with the US Treasury Department issuing regulations to prevent “corporate inversions” in 2016. However, Donald Trump later discouraged corporations from securing wealth in offshore companies by instead cutting taxes for corporations established in the United States. According to the latest reports from ICIJ, there are more than 800,000 known offshore entities (including companies, foundations and trusts), many of which can be directly traced to the global ‘elite’. This elite includes 35 current and former world leaders, more than 330 politicians and public officials, billionaires, celebrities and criminals. Some estimates suggest that up to $32 trillion (£24 trillion) is safeguarded by these offshore companies, while the ICIJ declare that “at least $13 trillion is held offshore”. Who is Benefiting from Offshore Tax Havens? Political figures listed by the Pandora Papers include Abdullah II, King of Jordan, who has used shell companies to purchase luxury properties worth more than $100 million around the world; the family of Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, who has traded London properties worth more than $500 million; and the current leaders of the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Kenya, Gabon, Congo, Lebanon, Côte d'Ivoire, United Arab Emirates, Dominican Republic, Montenegro, Ukraine and Qatar. Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair was revealed to have saved around £312,000 in tax after purchasing a London office worth £6.45 million by establishing another company which dissolved the offshore firm that owned the property. While this process is not illegal, it is strikingly contradictory with some of his previous remarks. In his first speech as Labour leader in 1994, Blair said: “Offshore trusts get tax relief, while homeowners pay VAT on insurance premiums. Middle-income taxpayers get stung, while perks and privileges at the top roll on unstopped.” It is worth noting, however, that the Pandora Papers are non-exhaustive as a list of tax haven beneficiaries; there is no reason, for example, why people cannot use family members or close associates as a means of hiding their wealth in other accounts. As such, there is no way of knowing exactly how many people are presently benefitting from offshore tax evasion, nor whether those connected to shell companies have legitimate reasons to secure their wealth (having declared these interests to the relevant authorities). One of the most surprising revelations concerns Svetlana Krivonogikh, a former cleaner who owns properties and other assets in Saint Petersburg and Moscow worth an estimated $100 million. In 2020, around a year before the publication of the Pandora Papers, Proekt Media claimed that Krivonogikh’s daughter is the child of Vladimir Putin. While Putin has not been explicitly traced to a shell company, many of his close associates – including oil magnate Gennady Timchenko and CEO of Channel One Russia Konstantin Ernst, in addition to Svetlana Krivonogikh – have been identified by the Pandora Papers. Injustice in an Age of Wealth Disparity While offshore companies most often operate within the law, it is apparent that some world leaders are using their position of power to protect personal wealth and conceal assets that could undermine their public integrity. For example, King Abdullah II was buying numerous luxury properties around the world while Jordanian citizens protested against unemployment, inflation and political corruption as part of the Arab Spring. Nevertheless, the Pandora Papers, like its predecessors, possess significant political and social influence. Former Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš lost the 2021 elections at the same time that the Pandora Papers exposed his use of shell companies to purchase a $22 million villa in France, despite his claims of innocence. In 2016, Iceland’s prime minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigned from office following the revelation that he and his wife bought an offshore company in 2007, having failed to declare his financial interests when entering parliament in 2009. Alex Cobham, CEO of the Tax Justice Network (TJN), claims that “about half the world’s GDP is potentially hidden from us”. According to research from TJN, around $483 billion (£365 billion) is lost due to tax evasion through both cross-border corporate tax abuse by multinational corporations and offshore tax evasion by wealthy individuals. “This is not a marginal practice. It is a dominant part of the world’s financial system.” – Alex Cobham, Tax Justice Network When public wellbeing is directly tied to access to healthcare, education, infrastructure and technology, many feel that avoiding investment in public interests – not least by those with the power, privilege and wealth to make a difference – is simply inexcusable. Although tax havens will not be dissolved overnight, the Pandora Papers are helping to expose the hidden structures that support wealth inequality around the world. Article on a similar topic: The Politically Connected Profiteers 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.

Jenny Donath reports that racially motivated hate crimes are still a major issue in 2021. Photo by Serhat Beyazkaya Since the outbreak of coronavirus, the number of reported hate crimes in the UK has risen by 9% to a record 124,000. Three quarters of these have been racially motivated. Racially motivated incidents made up 70% of the 124,091 crimes and increased by 12% between the beginning of the pandemic last spring and March 2021, including the time of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Hate crimes against people with disabilities increased by 9%, shortly followed by abuse against people’s sexual orientation (7%) and gender identity (3%). Religion was also repeatedly under attack. “The huge spike in recorded hate crimes in these statistics must be a wakeup call for urgent change,” said Labour MP Nick Thomas-Symonds.​ In June 2021 alone, 399 homophobic hate crimes were recorded, hitting a 10-year high for the capital. “The LGBTQ+ community in east London need reassurance that all the necessary measures are being taken to protect them from abuse and violence, and that they can feel confident in coming forward reporting hate crime incidents to the police.” - Unmesh Desai, Labour Assembly Member BAME NHS Staff and Racist Abuse BAME staff (Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups) in NHS mental health workplaces face particularly notable racism, including attempts or threats of injury, and verbal abuse. According to research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 32.7% of BAME employees (one in three people) have been victim of this. Across the whole NHS, it is 28.9%. Dr Ananta Dave, a medical director in Lincoln, had to seek professional help to deal with the trauma after facing discrimination from patients and colleagues, and even being threatened with a knife. “Patients and their families have often refused to accept that I was the doctor or that I was leading an assessment because of the colour of my skin, and would ask to see a ‘real doctor’,” he said. As Dr Lade Smith, the leader of the race equality group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, concluded: “Evidence from multiple surveys proves that ethnic minority staff continue to suffer racism and discrimination.” The report states that 16.7% of BAME staff have experienced discrimination directly from supervisors and co-workers during the last year of the covid pandemic. That is 2.2% more than in 2019. For white staff, the number has only increased by 0.2% from 6% to 6.2%.Smith insists that workplaces must improve how reports are being processed, and provide a safe space for staff to come forward. On Twitter, Prerana Issar, the NHS England’s chief people officer, said: “All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. Each of us has an obligation to speak out and stand up to #eliminateracism, and all leaders are accountable for creating NHS workplaces free from discrimination.” Urgent Improvements Necessary It is not only the handling of racially driven hate crimes that needs addressing. Protestors have repeatedly complained that hate crimes based on someone’s sex and gender should be added to the Home Office Statistics, since misogyny plays a significant role in violence against women. This movement has gained particular strength since the horrific killings of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa. They see this change as necessary, especially since the police and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have defined a hate crime as any type of offence that the victim perceives as hostile and is fuelled, among others, by spite, ill-will and prejudice. The high numbers over the past year show there is still a lot to be done to build a tolerant society in which everyone is perceived as equal in dignity and value. “It’s unacceptable that so many people are facing abuse and attacks just for being themselves.”- Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade Article on a similar topic: New Legislation: Protecting Women and Girls from Street Harassment 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 investigates how money is being used to fund innovations in clean energy and technology. Photo by Levan Badzgaradze How would you feel if you discovered that your money was being invested, against your knowledge, into a company or project that was completely against your values? What if your money supported a fossil fuel company, or palm oil plantation? For many investors, the idea of investing into sustainable and ethical businesses and projects is mired by a long-standing belief that in order to invest ethically and sustainably, one must expect to sacrifice their returns, or invest with high levels of risk. But this may no longer be the case. According to data from the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, in 2019, a record of US$30 trillion was invested into sustainable finance. This is doubled compared to how much was invested in 2012, and represents a growing trend amongst millennial investors who are looking for returns other than purely finance ones. How Well Do They Perform? What drives most people to invest into businesses, ideas, and projects is the promise of positive returns, namely, a return of more money than what they originally put in. The risk of losing money can have the opposite effect in deterring people from investing. Sustainable finance today appears to be overcoming yesterday’s concerns, as Research from the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Finance has found that investments offering an environmental, social and governance (ESG) impact could aid investors in achieving above-market returns, as well as offering comparatively low risks. These risks were low when compared to traditional funds, and there was a 20% smaller downside deviation in periods of global market instability. As a whole, sustainable indexes such as the FTSE4Good UK Index, which is composed of companies with strong ESG profiles, has been out-performing traditional, non-sustainable and unethical indexes over the last 10 years, according to Willis Owen, an investment platform. Groups such as ii ACE 40 Investments, from the website Interactive Investor, provide a grouping of ethical funds that adopt a sustainable Avoids, Considers, Embraces (ACE) approach. ACE 40 funds have proven to provide a positive performance over five years. In October 2020, the first UK green investment was a success, as the council for West-Berkshire received a £1 million ESG impact investment aimed at funding projects with the local Wildlife Trust, developing cycleways and installing solar panels on district buildings. The Leader of the West Berkshire council Lynne Doherty said that she’s "very pleased that this innovative way of funding the delivery of our Environment Strategy has had such a strong uptake from local people", and is confident that it is a step in the right direction to help the council become Net-Zero in the upcoming decade. The Future of ESGs The reason for this newfound success, as well as the relatively low risk of these investments, is up for discussion. Some argue that recent success can be attributed to the fact that ESG investments aren’t traditionally tied to the sectors such as energy and resource extraction, and thus aren’t as susceptible to fluctuating prices in the global market. Others argue that given there isn’t a solid criterion for what makes an impact investment, it may not always be clear whether it is the investment itself which is going to have the ethical or sustainable impact, or if it’s an ethical or sustainable company which is going to receive the investment. If there is a lack of transparency and clarity in the fund, or if it isn’t clear who the recipient of the investment is, it is possible that a non-ethical, non-sustainable industry may benefit from investments in their project that meets a marginal criterion for having an ESG impact. What should also be taken into consideration is where most ESG investing is taking place. The biggest source of ESG funds and investing currently is within the European Union and the United States. From the data of a 2020 ESG Distribution Study by Kurtosys Systems, the future looks bright for Europe, as European investing currently outmatches U.S. ESG impact investing by a margin. This lead shouldn’t be much of a surprise, given the EU’s goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, and the demand this has created for more ESG investments. The United States may also continue to ride the wave of ESG investing, as President-Elect Joe Biden has pledged a ‘Clean Energy Revolution’, and has promised that the U.S. will re-join the Paris Climate Agreement under his administration. These factors should, in theory, be a catalyst for greater sustainable investment opportunities. Overall, the future of ESG investing appears to be positive in a world that is transitioning its economies and cultures towards sustainability and ethical practices. Whilst this is a small step on a long and uncertain path, it is a step in the right direction, and a step towards ever-increasing possibilities and opportunities to spend our money in ways which will protect rather than compromise the interests of people and the planet. Similar: President-Elect Joe Biden to Re-join Paris Agreement 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.

Ben Dolbear celebrates an unlikely return of endangered sea turtles to Odisha Beach as national lockdowns allow global wildlife to thrive. Photo by Jolo Diaz After several years of increasing levels of aggressive over-tourism to India's famous Bay of Bengal caused a mass exodus of endangered sea turtles from Odisha Beach, the COVID-19 national lockdown that has swept the South Asian country has enabled a stunning return. For many years, the annual egg-laying of thousands of Olive Ridley sea turtles on Odisha Beach has attracted swathes of observant locals and tourists wanting to catch a glimpse of the magnificent birthing ceremony. A few years back, however, lethal poaching and over-tourism left the endangered turtles with no choice but to leave Odisha Beach in search of a safer environment. But recently, the species known scientifically as Lepidochelys Olivacea heralded a great surprise for marine conservationists when hundreds of thousands of the turtles made the perilous six kilometre journey inshore to lay their eggs. Despite the evolutionary maladaptive tendency of mothers to crush a small percentage of their eggs upon hatching, female Olive Ridley sea turtles can lay between 80 and 100 eggs each season. Posting on Instagram, online environmental community RoundGlass Sustain, self-described as 'a treasure trove of stories on India's natural world', posted: The arribada or the mass nesting of olive Ridleys is nothing short of magic. Olive Ridleys live in oceans and only come to land to nest. When the females grow up, they return to the same beaches to lay eggs. How they navigate back was a mystery for a long time but recent science suggests that individual beaches have magnetic fields unique to them. According to the Forest Service in India's Bay of Bengal, well over 250,000 mother turtles have built their nests in just one week, resulting in one of the most successful seasons in decades. Part of this success is being put down to lack of human rubbish attracting the turtles' natural predators, jackals and crows. According to local experts, there will be more than sixty million eggs laid this year. India's coronavirus lockdown is due to last for 21 days, with many people expecting a lengthy extension with the peak of the virus yet to set in India. Since 2018, we've seen some years of sustained population growth of Olive Ridley sea turtles around the Indian coast, and the next few years are expected to be even more successful for the second smallest species of sea turtles in the world, officially classed as vulnerable. Article on a similar topic: Indigenous Communities are the Planet's Best Guardians 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 as Indigenous populations in Chile adopt a variety of methods to reclaim greater autonomy and ownership of the lands of their ancestors. Photo by Wisnu Aditya Travel Coinciding with Dia de La Raza – formerly known as Columbus Day – the Chilean President, Sebastian Pinera, declared a state of emergency in October, spanning over four provinces of Chile’s southern Biobio and Araucania regions. The emergency measures were introduced following violent weekend clashes in Chile’s capital, Santiago, between the indigenous Mapuche group and Chile’s security forces. Similar clashes were seen in other southern cities. Protesting for greater autonomy in Chile’s Araucania region, which is regarded as the ancestral homeland of the indigenous group, and the return of land previously stolen by former governments, the clashes left 1 person dead and 17 injured. President Pinera extended the state of emergency by another 15 days, and increased the scope of the areas covered after further clashes turned violent, resulting in even more fatalities. Who are the Mapuche? Accounting for roughly 9% of Chile’s population, the Mapuche are the country’s largest indigenous population. Originating from areas that are now part of southern Chile and southwestern Argentina, the Mapuche have battled and survived the Inca empire and the Spanish conquistadors. Today, the group own little ancestral land for themselves, after violent land sieges in the late 19th and 20th century saw Mapuche land sold off to wealthy families, white-Chilean farmers, big logging companies and the state. Many Mapuche live in and around Chile's major cities, and in the regions of Araucania and Biobio, but still remain a highly impoverished community compared to the majority of Chile’s non-indigenous population, falling short in a number of social and economic factors: Mapuche people make around 60% less than the average Chilean, living in squalid conditions that lack basic amenities; more than half of the population have not graduated from high school, and older generations often don’t speak Spanish. Indigenous Rebels President Pinera’s choice to enact emergency powers, however, was not exclusively a response to the recent unrest in Chile’s cities. Over the last decade, there has been a growing escalation in violence between Chile’s security services and Mapuche rebels in the Araucanía region. Frustrated with the government’s apparent inaction on the issue of land restoration for the Mapuche people, a number of small, independent but heavily armed rebels have established themselves as a resistance to the presence of both big businesses and the government in the region. Many Mapuche people in Araucanía have seen what were once ancient forests inhabited by their ancestors for thousands of years – with a rich and unique biodiversity – replaced with profitable flora, such as eucalyptus and pine trees. Seeking spiritual and political autonomy, as well as exclusive rights to the lands, rebels have employed a wide range of tactics, ranging from the inconvenient to the fatal. Whilst most rebel groups operate with little communication between one and other, more established groups like CAM (Arauco-Malleco Coordinator) have been accused of orchestrating attacks that result in deaths of civilians. Moderate activists commonly burn crops, blockade roads and build settlements on private land owned by the farms and big forestry companies. However, more violent acts have become increasingly common. In early November, Mapuche rebels were suspected of derailing and destroying the contents of a freight train carrying cellulose used to make paper; the destruction of vehicles and equipment is increasingly costing hundreds of millions of dollars for the companies to repair. Armed rebels typically ambush lorries to set their contents alight, but they have also started forest fires, destroyed large haciendas, municipal buildings and even torched churches. Insufficient political action in the region has seen civilians caught in the crossfire, though the Chilean government has, itself, been accused of human rights abuses, which has only aggravated the rebel movement. These more violent actions are not, however, fully supported by all of the Mapuche population, and few are looking for a complete separation from the Chilean state. The majority rather aim at achieving designated self-governing areas and political recognition of their language and cultural bodies, something which has been denied to them for centuries. The Chilean government has, in the past, attempted to acquire more land on behalf of the Mapuche population through the National Corporation for Indigenous Development, with a plan to develop the local tourism, agriculture and energy industries in Araucanía. Whilst many welcome the chance to develop the landscape, as well as opportunities to improve living conditions, many remain sceptical that such political promises will ever materialise. A Cultural Shift Mapuche culture has experienced a revival in the last decade, and there is a renewed sense of appreciation for indigenous culture across the non-indigenous Chilean population. This includes government-led initiatives to incorporate indigenous medicines into the Chilean healthcare system, alongside supporting the continuation of the Mapuche language, through which pre-Hispanic traditional knowledge is being slowly introduced into modern Chilean life. Mapuche cuisines and cooking techniques are also growing in popularity, as many restaurants are now outwardly proud of showcasing indigenous cooking, while TV dramas based on historic battles between the Spanish Conquistadors and Mapuche warriors have become increasingly popular. In 2021, a Mapuche woman was selected to lead a committee in charge of redrawing Chile’s constitution – something that would have been unthinkable decades ago. As is the case in many Latin American states, indigenous communities have long suffered discrimination, abandonment, and outright rejection by the countries that govern over them. The Mapuche’s struggle for recognition and reconciliation is a testament to the willpower of indigenous peoples across the Americas, who continue to push onwards for their freedom and respect. Article on a similar topic: Indigenous Communities are the Planet's Best Guardians 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 explores how spyware has been used to hack the phones of hundreds of politicians, journalists and activists, signalling an unsettling lack of progress in digital privacy. Photo by Bernard Hermant At the beginning of November, the Biden administration placed the NSO Group, a company which manufactures spyware products, on its ‘entity’ list, effectively blacklisting the company in the US. Described as being involved in “activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States”, the move is in response to a scandal from July, when a leaked database of 50,000 phone numbers revealed that numerous government officials, journalists, political opponents, activists, and lawyers across the globe had been targeted with the company’s signature spyware, Pegasus. In light of these revelations, American whistle-blower Edward Snowdon has called for a total ban on the global spyware trade. Speaking to The Guardian in July, he stated that the sale of spyware is “an industry that should not exist”, and warned that if no action is taken the number of people targeted could grow exponentially. The NSO Group & Pegasus Spyware is a form of software that is installed on a user’s device without their knowledge or consent. This malicious software can then be used to steal internet data, track online and physical locations, and collect sensitive information such as banking details and passwords, all without the user being aware. Based in Israel, the NSO Group develops and sells surveillance products internationally. Its flagship spyware product, Pegasus, can access both Android and iOS devices, and can hack a victim’s email, WhatsApp messages, photos, as well as record audio, and activate a device’s camera. Shalev Hulio, founder and CEO of NSO Group, has conceded that “in some circumstances our customers might misuse the system,” though he maintains that Pegasus is exclusively sold to government clients, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies, and is only intended to be used in tackling crime and terrorism. Whilst the company insists that their customers are vetted for a good track record of human rights, Pegasus continues to be sold to oppressive regimes around the world. High-Profile Victims Some 600 Politicians, 189 journalists, 85 human rights activists and 64 business executives were amongst the 50,000 hacked. High profile names include the fiancé of the murdered Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, whose phone was hacked after her fiancé’s death. The NSO Group continued to do business with Saudi Arabia, despite the strong indication that his murder was orchestrated by the Crown Prince of the country. Multiple world leaders also count among the 50,000 victims, including French president Emmanual Macron, alongside Imran Khan, prime minister of Pakistan and Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa. The first female editor of the Financial Times, Roula Khalaf, was allegedly targeted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Princess Latifa, who claimed that she was held hostage by her father, the Prime Minister of the UAE, was also a target, alongside the ruler’s ex-wife. Edward Snowdon Today, Edward Snowdon is best known as the whistle-blower who exposed the invasive nature of mass surveillance programs conducted by global intelligence agencies, as well as igniting a public discourse on digital privacy. Born in North Carolina in 1983, Snowdon’s academic journey started when he dropped out of high-school due to illness, before taking up computing courses at community college in 1999. After briefly training with the US Army in between college, Snowdon graduated in 2004, and landed his first job as a security guard for the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language. The centre had ties to the NSA, but in 2006, he joined the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Working within the field of IT security, Snowdon was later posted to Switzerland in 2007. He later revealed that “Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world.” Resigning from the CIA in 2009, Snowdon first began working for Dell as a subcontractor at an NSA facility in Japan, then later Hawaii. It was during this time that Snowdon began downloading large quantities of NSA documents which detailed activities he found troubling. After what he describes as a “breaking point” – seeing the Director of National Intelligence lie on oath of Congress – Snowdon left Dell and joined the subcontractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, with the intention of collecting as many NSA documents as he could. Convincing his supervisor that he needed medical leave, Snowdon boarded a flight to Hong Kong on the 20 May and met with journalists from The Guardian newspaper and the filmmaker Laura Poitras. From his hotel room, Snowdon divulged large quantities of NSA secrets with the journalists and took part in a series of interviews. In June 2013, The Guardian began to publish Snowden’s revelations. The news made international headlines and Snowden chose to make himself publicly known as the whistle-blower. In response, the US government called for his arrest and extradition back to the US on charges of espionage. Evading capture in Hong Kong, Snowdon fled to Russia with the aim of seeking asylum in Ecuador, but became stranded in Moscow airport for 39 days when his passport had been annulled by the US government. He was eventually granted temporary asylum in Russia, where he, alongside his wife and son remain today, with the hope of one day returning to the US. Surveillance & Privacy Today The findings of the Pegasus leak have only added to growing concerns that the digital privacy rights of internet users are increasingly being ignored. More recently, popular tech giants have stirred up controversy for their plans to tackle the trade of explicit content of child sexual abuse. A report by ProPublica in September detailed how Facebook and its subsidiary, WhatsApp, have been sharing its users’ messages between the different platforms, despite Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying that “We don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp.” A spokesperson from WhatsApp has stated that this is limited to complaints and content that violates the company’s standards. This August, Apple revealed that they would be adding to their US products a tool called ‘neuralMatch’, which would enable the company to scan images on devices and compare them to a police database of missing and exploited children. Apple stresses this is an effective way of combatting the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but there are concerns that the technology could be abused by repressive regimes abroad, facilitating human rights abuses. Striking a balance between our collective security and our privacy is an age-old conundrum that has run through the ages, continuously debated in the public discourse. However, with the rise of spyware, mass surveillance programs and data collected on every aspect of our lives, running parallel to our democratic systems, serious questions and equally serious answers are needed for us to decide the value of our right to privacy when the line between the digital and real world is increasingly unclear. Article on a similar topic: Satellites: Technological Advantage or Intrusion? 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.

Annie Grey explores how the construction sector can become more sustainable through the adoption of natural materials. Photo by The Blowup “Over the next 40-years, the world is expected to build 230 billion square metres in new construction – adding the equivalent of Paris to the planet every single week,” wrote Dr Fatih Birol, Executive Directors of the International Energy Agency, in a 2017 report. Buildings emit more energy-related carbon globally than the entire transport sector (30% against 28%), with large amounts of that carbon being burned on site; only 6% of the UK population heat their homes with electricity from renewable energy sources. Buildings in the US currently represent 35-40% of the country’s energy consumption, and a similar percentage of national carbon emissions. To mitigate the environmental impact of construction at this scale, the sector has the opportunity over the short and long term to actively aim to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. We’ve seen increased attention of both companies and governments, globally, in assessing the environmental performance and material of buildings, in a bid to create a more sustainable end product. A Sustainable Alternative Resource? An increase in the use of wood products is thought to be part of the solution, as wood is a renewable resource than can contribute to sustainability in the construction industry. Due to its immediate association with deforestation, at first glance it may be difficult to think of wood as a sustainable material, but man-made construction materials such as concrete and steel have a large carbon footprint, causing far greater environmental damage. In fact, manufacturing wood products requires very little external energy input. As an example, 80% of the energy consumed by Sweden’s sawmills derives from biofuels from their own production lines, such as bark and shavings, though just 20% comes from electrical energy. When manufacturing other construction materials, such as concrete or plastic, the starting point is always finite raw materials. Both extraction and processing require energy, often in very large quantities and from fossil fuels. Not only is wood from a natural resource, but the material’s properties also enhance energy efficiency over the building’s lifecycle due to its natural cellular structure. Simply put, homes and buildings require less energy to maintain heating and cooling, plus wood can help control humidity levels to some degree. Even at the end of its lifecycle, when exposed to natural climate conditions, wood will break down much quicker than its less sustainable alternatives – concrete, steel, plastic – whilst replenishing the soil in the process. However, by optimising the conditions for the wood, the lifespan of the building can easily surpass the lifespan of the tree. A Carbon Negative Building Material The manufacture of cement generates substantial carbon emissions, as do the processes for making steel, meaning that all construction materials produced by these processes have a positive carbon footprint. In contrast, wood from managed forestry actually stores carbon as opposed to emitting it, through the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. A cubic metre of wood contains around a tonne of CO2 (more or less, depending on the species of tree), which is comparable to 350 litres of gasoline. As well as removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than it adds through manufacture, by replacing carbon-intensive materials such as concrete or steel, the contribution to lowering CO2 is doubled. As research from the Committee on Climate Change on the uses of ‘Biomass in a low-carbon economy’ concluded: “the greatest levels of [greenhouse gas] reduction from biomass currently occurs when wood is used as a construction material… to both store carbon and displace high carbon cement, brick, and steel” Between 15% - 28% of new build homes in the UK annually use timber frame construction, capturing upwards of 1 million tonnes of CO2 annually as a result. Increasing the use of timber in construction could triple that amount, the report concluded. Can Chopping Down Trees Actually Restore Carbon Levels? There have been calls for tree planting on a massive scale to capture CO2 and control climate change, which seemingly counteracts the proposal of wood as construction material. However, both are viable options in limiting environmental damage through excess carbon. Research has shown that while young trees are effective carbon sinks, the same cannot be said for mature trees. The Earth maintains a balanced carbon cycle: trees grow using carbon, but when they eventually fall and die, the carbon is released again. Many pine trees in managed forests take roughly 80 years to reach maturity, being net absorbers of carbon during the years of growth. Once maturity is reached, the trees shed roughly as much carbon as they absorb through the decomposition of needles and fallen branches. In fact, Canada’s great forests have emitted more carbon than they absorb since 2001 due to mature trees no longer being actively felled. Respectively, the most beneficial form of carbon reduction is to chop down trees to restore sustainable managed forests and repurpose the resulting wood as a building material. While the appeal to not rely on the world’s forests for building demands is well-intentioned, the advantages of wood as a building material, outweighs other products on the market when looking at the environmental impact and performance. Similar: Human Materials to Outweigh the Earth's Entire Biomass 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 reflects on the concerning developments as Turkey withdraws from the Istanbul Convention Photo by Mohsen Ameri On 19 March, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the arbitrary decision, without any preliminary parliamentary debate, to sign a decree to withdraw Turkey from the Istanbul Convention. This ruling came at a time of generalised nationalism for the Turkish state, with more and more political choices veering towards an increasingly conservative approach, threatening human rights and freedom. The Istanbul Convention is an international human rights treaty of the Council of Europe, which pledges to prevent violence against women, and combat domestic violence in general. The treaty was laid down on 11 May  2011 in Istanbul, Turkey, and was signed by 45 states, along with the European Union. The convention condemns and aims to combat sexual, psychological and physical violence, as well as stalking, forced marriage, abortion, sterilisation and genital mutilation. It was put in place to promote gender equality through the protection and support of all women, and the prompt prosecution of men enacting violence against them. Men are not excluded from the picture, and violence against men and boys is treated to the same extent of violence against women. The convention promotes a coordinated approach across organisations and agencies to support women in need, and guarantees adequate information on where to find that support. It also regulates the training of specific authorities to raise awareness of gender-based violence in society, educating towards a culture of zero tolerance to violence. Turkey’s Withdrawal Regardless of the backlash the decision has prompted, President Erdogan has proceeded to withdraw Turkey from the convention under the pretext of it supposedly triggering the deterioration of social and family values, encouraging divorce. Erdogan is sensitive to the concerns of the country's conservative parties, such as the Justice and Development Party and the Islamist opposition Felicity Party, which believe being part of the convention will lead to the normalisation of homosexuality and the installation of gay marriage in Turkey, solely because the signatory states have a duty to protect victims from discrimination regardless of their sexual orientation. The fact that the Istanbul Convention clearly states that the signatory countries are not obliged to change their national concepts of family has not made any difference in this crucial decision. The Convention explicitly says that: “traditions, culture or religion cannot be used as a justification for acts of violence against women”, and makes no other comment on how the countries should act regarding their personal views on family and marriage. Popular Backlash The response to Erdogan’s decision has not been a quiet one. From the CHP appeals to Turkish women protesting against the withdrawal on the streets, the aftermath of this presidential act has been both vocal and clear. Turkey’s main opposition party - the Republican People’s Party (CHP) - appealed the presidential decree in hopes that the Council of State would conclude that the most important thing here is the safety of women, and nullify the decree. Did you know? According to women’s rights groups, at least 300 women were murdered in Turkey in 2020. The deputy parliamentary group leader, Özgür Özel, has underlined that the convention had been originally approved by all parties in Turkish parliament, and also that the presidential decree is in breach of the constitution and therefore inapplicable.  Özgür stated back in April: “If you had asked what is the only good thing the AKP has done over the past 19 years in power, we would say it was the adoption of the Istanbul Convention. Now they’ve moved away from the only good thing they’ve done.” Furthermore, women took to the streets in March to protest against the government’s sudden and unexpected decision, displaying their disappointment and anger. Protesters actively voiced their concerns all the way through to July, asking for women’s rights to be better protected. Ironically, the Women and Democracy Association, which vehemently supports the whole movement in aid of women, is chaired by Erdogan’s own daughter. What is Going on Now? The CHP has still not given up trying to reverse the President’s decision, doubling down on campaigning to make sure the right information, rather than misguided propaganda, is being circulated. They have been informing the public on the true contents of the convention, highlighting that it does not contain any imposition on immigration laws nor on allowing same sex marriage. Their intention is to re-ratify the convention and until that happens, their prime concern has been to make sure additional support is put in place for both women and vulnerable groups by offering psychological support as well as legal and medical aid through a call centre which works 24/7 within the party’s headquarters. The withdrawal has been seen as a sign that the Muslim nation is embracing a more extremist conservatism that appears to contrast with neighbouring countries. This trend might also impact Turkey’s economy in a negative way, as women’s freedom to work might also be at stake in some circumstances. The idea that we are now four months into the effective withdrawal of a country that has too often been the centre of attention for honour killings and violence against women and the LGBTQ+ community is a concerning situation that calls for immediate action. Article on a similar topic: New Legislation: Protecting Women and Girls from Street Harassment 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 addresses the financial and ecological impacts of non-native plants and animals on British ecosystems. Photo by Taryn Elliott According to recently published research on NeoBiota – an online journal that focuses on the workings and consequences of alien species and biological invasions – invasive species of plants and wildlife have cost the British economy increasing amounts since the 1970s. The research found that trying to retain control of species such as the grey squirrel and Japanese knotweed have cost the UK economy £5 billion since 1976  – at least £122 million on average per year. However, the researchers point out that this is likely a considerable underestimate due to significant gaps in data on invasive species. The cost is due to structural damage to architecture, blocking waterways and interfering with crops. Additionally, plants and animals not naturally found in Britain are a leading reason for biodiversity loss as they can overwhelm habitats, disrupting habitats and wiping out more vulnerable native species. Dealing with invasive animal species has cost the most, followed by plants and then fungi. Unsurprisingly, damage costs were higher on land than aquatic environments due to effects on agricultural processes. This article details a few of the species currently disrupting Britain’s ecosystems. Grey Squirrels You may wonder how squirrels are disrupting the British ecosystem, but it is essential to distinguish between red and grey squirrels before this is addressed. Red squirrels have been wiped out across the majority of the UK, with only a few population spots remaining, predominantly in Scotland. The red squirrel is classed as ‘Near Threatened’ in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A massive reason for their decline in numbers is deforestation, but road traffic and other predators are contributing factors. However, the leading cause of the species’ decline is the other type of squirrel – the grey. Grey squirrels were introduced in the 1870s as an ornamental species, and since then, the number of red squirrels has dramatically reduce – falling from 3.5 million to between 120,000 and 160,000. In England alone, the number of reds is thought to be around 15,000. The primary reason for the eclipsing of the diminishing numbers of red squirrels is that when grey squirrels were released into the UK carrying a pox virus to which native reds are vulnerable. Additionally, greys eat green acorns before they ripen, meaning less edible food is available for the red variety. Japanese Knotweed One of the more well-known invasive species of plant in the UK is Japanese knotweed. While a functioning part of ecosystems in its native Southeast Asia, in the UK, it is not exposed to any of the organisms that restrict it in its natural habitat. A different climate and a lack of bacteria and fungi local to Southeast Asia have allowed this plant to easily and quickly spread across large areas. It was introduced to the UK in  1886 by the Victorians as an ornamental garden plant, but is now widespread and difficult to control, and is one of the most persistent invasive plant species in Britain and will be nearly impossible to eliminate entirely. The plant competes with and overwhelms British plants, thus damaging our ecosystems, reducing species diversity and increasing risks of soil erosion and flooding as it disrupts waterways. Its roots are so persistent they can even damage infrastructure and grow through concrete, adding to the costs involved in controlling the plant. Racoon Dogs Despite the name, racoon dogs are not a type of racoon – they more closely resemble foxes and badgers. They have a cute appearance which has led to a high demand as pets, with the dogs being sold for hundreds of pounds online. However, they are also known for their clever talent of being escape artists. The difficulty of keeping them captive along with their rapid breeding worries experts as this species could very quickly become an enormous problem for our ecosystem. In Finland, a million cubs are born in the wild annually, and the species is responsible for eliminating toads and frogs there as they are a predator to birds and amphibians. There is concern that something similar could happen in the UK if the species is not kept regulated, meaning more potential expense for the government. The NeoBiota report has emphasised the importance of thorough research of invasive species in order to highlight how interfering with the natural placement of plants and animals is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, let alone costing us money that could be used on flood defences or installing solar panels instead. Article on a similar topic: The Mission to Bring UK Animals Back from Extinction 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 explains the UK’s new Action Plan for Animal Welfare, and what the legal recognition of animal sentience will mean for our livestock, wildlife and pets. Photo by Alex Iby Following the Queen’s Speech in May this year, the UK Government launched a landmark plan to improve the welfare and conservation of animals, both across the nation and abroad. This includes, among other commitments, the legal recognition of animals as sentient beings; that is, capable of self-awareness, pain and suffering. Having now left the European Union, the Government claims that the UK is able to strengthen its own welfare standards by taking direct action to ban live animal exports and limit harmful practices. George Eustice, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has said that the pandemic has “put a spotlight on animal welfare”, highlighting both the comfort and support provided by pets and the importance of a secure food supply chain founded on high-welfare farming. “Legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare” – The Queen’s Speech, 11th May 2021 Action Plan for Animal Welfare The Government has previously agreed to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework set to be negotiated at the Convention on Biological Diversity in October, which currently includes a commitment to protect at least 30% of global land and sea area by 2030. The UK’s 25 Year Environment Plan has promised to establish “a cleaner, greener country for us all” by creating new habitats for wildlife, planting more trees, tackling waste plastic and reducing carbon emissions. In addition to these efforts to protect the environment and biodiversity, the UK’s new plan to improve animal welfare focuses on putting reforms in place across five key strands: 1. Sentience and Enforcement: A committee on animal sentience will report on decisions made by the government, holding politicians accountable for improving animal welfare in policy. Tougher penalties for animal cruelty will come into force, and the maximum prison sentence for the crime will be raised from six months to five years. 2. International Trade and Advocacy: Using the UK’s position as a global leader to advocate for animal welfare across the world, reforming trade negotiations by banning the sale of hunting trophies, ivory and shark fins. Although the production of foie gras by force feeding is already illegal in the UK, the Government will work towards banning its import or sale. 3. Farm Animals: Protecting and enhancing animal welfare for farm animals by ending the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening, and re-assessing the use of cages for hens and farrowing crates for pigs. The ‘Animal Health and Welfare Pathway’ plan includes improved financial support for livestock farmers in an attempt to improve the conditions of their facilities. 4. Pets and Sporting Animals: Recognising the importance of pets and sporting animals to the health and wellbeing of the population, and further tackling puppy smuggling and pet theft. Microchipping for cats will be made compulsory, and remote-controlled training e-collars will be banned. 5. Wild Animals: Ending the low-welfare practice of keeping primates as pets, and improving welfare standards in zoos. This also includes a commitment to protecting domestic biodiversity, such as for the UK’s small population of mountain hares. What Happens Next? The document concludes with the declaration that animal welfare will become a ‘key government priority’ going forwards, promising that Parliament will “engage with all key parties to develop and deliver our plans, including the public, welfare organisations and businesses”. The response from animal welfare advocates has been largely positive, including support from the British and Irish Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Chris Sherwood, Chief Executive of the RSPCA, comments: “These announcements will make a real and lasting difference to animals’ welfare, so we’re pleased the Government is committed to improving animals’ lives in the UK and abroad. We can no longer ignore the inextricable link that exists between the way we treat animals, our own health and that of the planet.” Thankfully, we can already begin to see how the plan is positively impacting animal welfare in the country. At the beginning of July, it was announced that boiling lobsters alive would be banned in the UK. This decision follows years of pressure from animal rights groups to recognise the capacity for shellfish and cephalopods to experience pain, and the unnecessary suffering involved in certain culinary practices as a result. If the Government are able to keep to and build upon their promises, the future will be brighter for many animals living in and entering this country. However, effective policy cannot be separated from our personal responsibility in both supporting sustainable systems and avoiding those that are harmful to animals, ourselves and the planet. Article on a similar topic: Global Calls for Live Animal Sales in Food Markets to be Banned 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 explores how the discovery of a new coral off the coast of Goolboodi has given scientists hope in face of a changing climate. Photo by Taryn Elliott A new, “exceptionally large” coral has been discovered in a surprisingly healthy condition. Estimated to be more than 400 years old, the coral is likely the largest of its type and one of the oldest on the Great Barrier Reef, according to the journal Scientific Reports. Other regions of the Great Barrier Reef have suffered from the warmer, more acidic ocean as global warming increases. However, this coral is much healthier, with 70% being live coral. Coral Bleaching Coral often dies from warm water and exposure to the sun from low tides too. Named Muga dhambi – “big coral” – the coral was found in a region of the reef that is very remote and well-protected. Nevertheless, it must have survived numerous bleaching events and 80 significant cyclones in addition to the generally declining ocean condition. Muga dhambi is a type of coral, 'Porites', and is one of 16 common species. Muga dhambi resides off the Goolboodi coast, part of the Queensland’s Palm Island Group and was found during citizen science research in March. It is measured to be 5.3 meters tall and 10.4 meters wide. The Manbarra people named it as it resides in their sea-country, and even they were unaware of its existence until its recent discover. The Great Barrier Reef The Great Barrier Reef is home to over 1,500 species of fish, 400 types of coral, along with a vast myriad of anemones, marine worms and other species. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, it is the only World Heritage site with such a broad scale of biodiversity. However, since 1995, over half of the coral in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has died because of warmer, acidic water caused by global warming. Although all types of coral have suffered, the biggest decline is of branching and table-shaped corals, which are habitats for marine life. A New Hope Although the Paris Agreement has committed to keeping global warming below 1.5C, this is looking increasingly unlikely. A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that 70% to 90% of the warm water coral reefs that are alive today will die by the time we reach 1.5C, and at 2C, it will be rare to find a surviving coral reef. Already, in Australia, marine life is being found in places they’ve never been, and many species are dying out. The good news is that projects to save corals not only on the Great Barrier Reef but worldwide are on the rise – for example, heat-resistant coral to protect against bleaching. The 'Coral Vita' project in the Bahamas, who have found a way to regrow coral 50 times faster than normal, were one of the recipients of the £1m 'Earthshot Prize' from the Duke of Cambridge. As with the discovery of the muga dhambi coral, scientists have expressed hope for the future of ocean biodiversity in face of a rapidly changing climate. Article on a similar topic: The Devastating Impact of Ocean Floor Trawling 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.

Euan Cook reports how some members of parliament have exploited lucrative second jobs and breached parliamentary lobbying rules, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Photo by Roman Fox Johnson’s notion that Britain is a shining beacon of integrity amongst the globe’s more developed countries is a complete farce. Robert Barrington reports that Britain ranks eleventh on the Transparency International corruption perceptions index, with MPs exploiting profitable second jobs and lobbying on the behalf of their financial interests. The first area to interrogate is the government’s unreadiness and ‘back-alley’ dealings throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, which have highlighted serious inequalities regarding how wealth is distributed in Parliament. Lord Deighton helped secure roughly 1,200 central contracts throughout the Covid-19 pandemic — together, worth nearly $22 billion. Contracts came from politically-connected companies, with no prior experience and histories of controversy, including scandals ranging from tax evasion to overt human rights abuses. "I genuinely believe that the UK is not remotely a corrupt country and I genuinely think that our institutions are not corrupt” - Boris Johnson, BBC News. The Pandemic Contracts The National Audit Office reported that ex-Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, secretly authorised a ‘V.I.P. lane' for these favourable companies who were 10 times more likely to win contracts. This comes as no surprise given that Hancock secured more than 15% of Topwood Ltd, where his sister owns a larger proportion of shares and is a director of the company. The Health Service Journal reported that Hancock did not declare his association with the firm until recently. These contracts did not prioritise the effectiveness of PPE, but rather ensured the ‘right’ ministers secured their desired payslips. Avanda Capital, for example, was awarded nearly $340 million to supply PPE. However, 50 million masks worth more than $200 million were ineffective, a disaster that mirrors the government’s order of 400,000 unusable gowns from Turkey. Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has agreed that “it was important [...] to be on the front foot about [corruption]”, further stating that Hancock, in particular, “has to answer the questions […] He can’t pretend that the responsibility lies elsewhere.” Instead of the nation’s health being upheld as a priority, Deighton and Hancock are prime examples of contracts being secured on the grounds of cronyism. Lucrative Second Jobs MPs are also allowed to work a second job alongside ministerial duties if they publicly declare any additional income over 15% of their salary. These jobs can range anywhere from serving as an NHS surgeon to serving as a lawyer. Currently, more than a quarter of Tory MPs have second jobs, including activities concerning gambling and private healthcare. These jobs generate more than £4 million in extra earnings per year on top of their £81,932 annual salary. Andrew Mitchell, for example, earned £182,600 for 34.5 days of work in a variety of financial advisory roles for firms, including Investec and EY. Equally, Sir Geoffrey Cox earned approximately £900,000 last year through his work as a lawyer. Questions have been raised, however, as Cox advised a corruption inquiry in the British Virgin Islands whilst carrying out ministerial work and even voting from the Caribbean. The equilibrium between public service and promoting financial gain has been tipped in favour of the rich, abandoning over half of UK constituents who opposed MPs having second jobs. While work shadowing schemes for MPs could immensely enrich parliament’s understanding of the outside world, second jobs with no social value instead allow MPs to venture for a lucrative profit and even breach lobbying rules. The Paterson Scandal Lobbying refers to an individual or group attempting to persuade a public figure, such as a government official, to support a policy or campaign. The November 2021, Owen Paterson scandal saw Paterson exploit his consultancy position to lobby for two firms, Randox Laboratories and Lynn’s Country Foods. They both paid Paterson more than £100,000 a year, respectively £8,333 a month for 16 hours’ work and £2,000 every other month for 4 hours’ work. Not only did Paterson actively approach and meet officials at the Food Standards Agency (FSA), but Paterson also used government time and stationery to aid his lobbying ‘campaign’, which he has since apologised for. However, Paterson refuses to apologise for lobbying, which he believed amounted to, at worst, “whistle-blowing”. Randox’s contact with the FSA was to warn them of illegal antibiotics that had been found in milk available in supermarkets. Although alerting institutions of “a serious wrong or substantial injustice” is an exemption to lobbying rules, Paterson’s failings come at a ‘incidental’ financial benefit for himself. £100,000 per annum, to be precise. Instead of challenging this injustice, a number of MPs, including Boris Johnson, voted against a proposed 30-day suspension for Paterson for this “egregious” breach, highlighting a larger issue of whitewashing within Parliament. The Heart of Corruption The UK’s very own prime minister is no exemption to Britain’s history of corruption, despite stating that he is confident in the government’s absolute integrity. In 2019, Johnson failed to declare a financial interest in a Somerset property in time, following his late declaration of £52,000 in book royalty payments in 2018. This only scratches the surface of his dodgy accounting and dealings, including his failure to successfully lead Britain through a deadly pandemic without a heavy death toll. 'Sleaze' remains a somewhat amorphous concept in politics, especially when politicians have hesitated to exclaim “corruption” due to legal sensitivity. Yet, if this Conservative government is not called out for multiple breaches of ministerial code, we could slip back into, what Professor Mark Knights calls, “a Walpolean era where patronage, patrimony and partisanship prevail.” The profiteers of British politics are certainly close to acquittal and may even succeed in evading accountability if they are not challenged. Article on a similar topic: The Wavering Principles of Politicians 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 breaks down a report revealing how child labour has increased across the world as a result of the pandemic. Photo by Cotton Bro For all that has changed over the past two years, a rise in child labour might have passed you by. Although the number of minors involved in child labour has fallen by 94 million between 2000 and 2016, recent years have seen 8.4 million more children enter into employment. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), someone is defined as being in ‘child labour’ if they are aged between 5 and 17 and are either employed in designated hazardous industries (such as mining, quarrying and construction), or are working 43 or more hours per week in any industry. In addition, children between the ages of 5 and 11 engaged in any form of employment, or those between 12 and 14 currently working more than 14 hours per week, are also considered instances of child labour. Child Labour and the Pandemic According to the criteria listed above, it was estimated that as of the beginning of 2020, there were 160 million children – 63 million girls and 97 million boys – involved in child labour, which accounts for nearly 10% of all children in the world. Of this, 79 million were engaged in work which directly endangers their health, safety and moral development. Furthermore, if the definition of child labour were to incorporate household chores for more than 21 hours per week, this would account for many millions more. Although child labour occurs across the globe, a large percentage is localised to sub-Saharan Africa, where there are presently more cases than the rest of the world combined. Throughout Africa, it has been estimated that more than one in five of all children are engaged in child labour. School closures and economic instability have meant that children currently in employment are often working longer hours, while many others have had to start working as a result of familial job and income losses. According to the ILO report, an estimated 8.9 million additional children will be in child labour by the end of 2022 due to the far-reaching impact of Covid-19. “The new estimates are a wake-up call. We cannot stand by while a new generation of children is put at risk.” – ILO Director-General Guy Ryder If proposed austerity measures turn out to cause a slippage in social protection coverage, child labour might rise by 46.2 million by the end of 2022, according to one model. However, if these measures were to be effective in preventing child labour, we might see a reduction of 15.1 million in the same time-frame. How Can Child Labour Be Overcome? These alarming predictions reveal the importance of inclusive social protection, as well as increased investment in rural development and agriculture; the majority of all child labour occurs in the agricultural industry, and is almost three times higher in rural areas than urban ones. Although child labour will, unfortunately, continue to pose a threat to the security and wellbeing of children for many decades, there are a few signs of hope. The Nigerian government, for example, has targeted an 80% eradication of child labour by 2025, including a school feeding programme to encourage children to return to education. There are also countless volunteers and charities working to provide education and employability skills to those most in need. In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, agricultural workers are often paid under $1 a day, and in many situations the corporations are not currently held liable for working conditions – or, indeed, the child trafficking and forced labour – involved in their systems of production. However, Germany has recently welcomed new legislation to ensure that manufacturers of confectionery, ice-cream and snacks are committed to transparency in their sourcing; a decision which might inspire change across Europe by creating a legal system to enshrine mandatory legislation on child labour and environmental sustainability. It is clear that effective action will not occur without strong international cooperation. UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore has called on world leaders to prioritise responding to child labour: “We urge governments and international development banks to prioritize investments in programmes that can get children out of the workforce and back into school, and in social protection programmes that can help families avoid making this choice in the first place.” Article on a similar topic: Child Development: The Impact of the Pandemic 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.

Ziryan Aziz explores how avocado agriculture is causing excess emissions, water shortages, earthquakes and violence in Chile and Mexico. Photo by Anne Nygård Smashed, on toast, and served for brunch, avocados have become a popular feature of many Western diets in recent years. Offering a wide range of health benefits, this ‘superfruit’ has become synonymous with healthy eating, Instagram-worthy aesthetics, and millennial culture. Due to its high monounsaturated content, it is also valued as an alternative to meat for those who adhere to a meat-free diet. Indigenous to Central and South America, avocados have been a staple food for indigenous cultures for over 3000 years. However, since the arrival of European powers in the Americas, avocados have been shipped across the Atlantic, and a growing market for the fruit has taken hold in Europe and North America. The UK is Europe's second largest consumer of avocados, behind only France, and demand for avocados is set to grow as a Chinese middle class look for a more Western diet. However, this global production of the fruit has begun raising eyebrows amongst environmentalists as the environmental and socio-economic strains of the industry come to light. In the UK some cafes have taken steps to begin stripping avocados from menus, such as the The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Buckinghamshire. The cafe made headlines when it became one of the few establishments to distance themselves from the green fruit, citing environmental concerns, criminal practices, and questions over sustainability. In 2018, the Tincan Coffee Co in Bristol also announced it would stop serving avocados to its customers due to ethical considerations. What Avocadoes Need to Grow Cultivating avocados on a mass scale comes at a cost to the environment that is different when compared to many other fruit. One problem is the CO2 emissions produced during the logistical transfer from tree-to-plate. Avocados, which are primarily grown in the Southern-hemisphere, have to be transported thousands of miles to the UK via sea and air before being bought and consumed. During that period, the fruit is constantly refrigerated due to its short shelf life, adding to its carbon footprint. According to a study by Carbon Footprint Ltd, two small avocados in a pack have an emissions footprint of 846.36g of CO2, almost twice that of a kilo of bananas (480g), and three times a large cappuccino with milk (235g). Another major concern is the water consumption required by avocado plantations. It has been estimated that the global avocado industry requires 9.5 billion litres of water daily, roughly the same size as 3800 Olympic swimming pools. A kilo of avocados requires 2000 litres of water, around ten times as much as is needed to produce a kilo of tomatoes, and four times needed for a kilo of oranges, according to the Water Footprint Network. Although this is significantly less than the water requirements for livestock like beef, because avocados are temperamental to grow and can take up to 10 years to bear fruit, the local ecosystem and biodiversity suffers over a long period. In 2018, major supermarkets in the UK came under scrutiny regarding the growing concern for the water crisis in the Petorca region of Chile, the country’s biggest avocado growing region, which was attributed to the increasing demand for avocados in the UK. In what is naturally an arid and dry region, human rights concerns have been raised as local people and small farmers have been at the mercy of big agribusinesses, whose large plantations have been building illegal pipelines, draining the local rivers and aquifers, resulting in a drought. Facing anonymous death threats for speaking out, activists and local residents now live on rationed water, brought in via trucks, and many smaller farmers are migrating North for other job prospects. Avocados in Mexico However, it's not just Chile that has felt the strain of avocado production. In the Mexican state of Michoacán, large scale avocado farming continues to bring both economic benefits and deadly problems for locals. The southern Mexican state of Michoacán is an important producer of the fruit, producing 8 out of 10 avocados grown across the country, and 5 out of 10 avocados globally. Annually, this generates over £1.8 billion a year for the economy, proving to be very lucrative for some local farmers. Since the US ban on importing avocados was lifted in 1997, the price of Mexican avocados has skyrocketed, turning the native fruit into a cash crop and kickstarting a green gold rush as farmers look to sell across the border to the world's biggest consumer of avocados, the US. One of the major environmental issues is the removal of pine forests to make way for plantations. In a study at the university of Miami, it was estimated that: “Approximately 20,000 hectares of forest in Michoacán are converted for agricultural use each year. In the years 2000-2010, it was estimated that the expansion of avocado farming contributed to 1,700 acres of deforestation per year.” Farmers are also exploiting loopholes in the law by burning fields and wooded land intentionally to be able to grow avocado, which further contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Much like in Petorca, Chile, larger agribusinesses have reportedly been illegally tapping into the water supply of nearby towns and villages to fuel their plantations, as the underground reserves and rivers have dried up. This stretch for water has even led to an increase in seismic activity in the area, as water extraction has opened up subsoil caverns. Further complicating the matter is the strong and violent presence of drug cartels in Michoacán. Gangs and cartels are known to demand protection money from farmers using violence, and are involved within the trade itself. As a consequence, there has been a rise in violent crime in the region, the exploitation of workers, and farmers investing in armed private security, also known as ‘avocado police’. This cartel intrusion into the sector has created concerns amongst some buyers that Mexican avocados are becoming a ‘conflict commodity’. Concluding Comments As more research is carried out on the negative environmental and social impact of the avocado industry, consumers can make a more informed decision on the source of their avocados, as well as begin to engage in a discussion about whether the quantity of avocados we consume is truly justified to offset climate change and resource depletion. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Cost of Cotton 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.

Kate Byng-Hall offers an update on Mary Jane Amato's report breaking down the UK government's environmental promises, and how they look set to be fulfilled. Photo by Filip Zrnzevic As part of a broader plan to reform the global energy sector by 2050, bringing it to net-zero emissions, the UK government has pledged to reach a net-zero wildlife loss by 2030. But is this actually achievable? Experts have warned that to tackle climate change and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, there are some priority actions that must take place. These include investing in clean energy such as solar and wind, while still ensuring that sustainable energy supplies will become widely-available and sufficiently affordable. The question that arises now, however, is whether this will be possible within the established timeframe – and what it would mean if the deadline isn’t met. Announcement of the Net-Zero Plans On 18 May 2021, during The Wildlife Trust Event, the Environment Secretary, George Eustice, announced the post-pandemic plans to return nature in the UK to a greener state. The devised strategies revolved around tree planting, species reproduction and peatland restoration in England, including subjecting peat sales to public consultation. The Wildlife Trust has called for the imperative application of specific actions to protect wildlife and endangered species. These programmes include: Mapping out new natural spots and placing them in areas convenient to both nature itself and people. Planning for the future of communities in a way that does not put nature in danger. Protecting marine areas for at least 30% of their extension. Banning the sale of peat in compost, and eventually ceasing its use altogether. Creating a specific habitat for the protection of trees, joining up woods in order to support wildlife while still allowing easy access to people. Craig Bennet, chief executive of The Wildlife Trust, has said of the Government's road-building projects: "Serious investment in nature could provide a green recovery which addresses the twin crises of our age – climate change and loss of the natural world – while simultaneously providing many more jobs." In his opinion, any economic recovery plan is vital to tackle the climate crisis and ensure the protection of endangered species. He has stated that there will be an amendment to the Environment Bill, requiring an additional target for 2030 to stop nature's decline and the loss of species, a plan that will be backed by £500 million in climate finance. The Cornwall G7 Summit of June 2021 On 11-13 June, the heads of state of the G7 came together in Cornwall to discuss global issues and economic ameliorations, including debates surrounding climate change. Conversations on progressing in climate change management and facing the climate crisis were at the centre of the Summit. The UK's Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was this year's host, seemed adamant in protecting the natural environment. A renewed commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set out a goal to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, emerged at the G7 Summit, and a decision to achieve this by blocking biodiversity loss was settled. The G7 world leaders unanimously vowed to increase their carbon reduction targets, cut all emissions by half by 2030 and accomplish net-zero emissions by 2050. Johnson has placed the stakes relatively high by pledging to a 68% reduction by 2030 based on 1999 levels. He stated that his goal is to "drive a global Green Industrial Revolution to transform the way we live". Moreover, the G7 leaders committed to offering developing nations $2.8 billion to help them switch to cleaner fuels, as well as deploying $100 billion from public and private sources until 2025 to help these countries front the effect of climate change. A Reality Check in July 2021 Between a promise and its realisation stand a number of challenges that might alter the course of events. Just a couple of months later, here we are, already witnessing a change of tide in this ocean of imperative pledges and bold statements. According to the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE), the UK, who has claimed to have already protected 28% of its land and 38% of its seas, has actually done nothing to practically enforce its commitments. Off on their new target, they still have not met the fourth and fifth carbon budgets targets in which they had promised to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050. Is this rise in commitment just a decoy used to distract from the fact that the actions taken are not nearly enough to reach the targets, or is there a genuine desire to meet these goals? UPDATE: Environment Act 2021 In a promising development, the Environment Act has just been passed, with aims of improving air and water quality, tackling waste, increasing recycling, halting the decline of species and improving the UK's natural environment. The government has stated the legislation will "protect and enhance our environment for future generations" through cleaning up the country’s air, restoring natural habitats, increasing biodiversity, reducing waste and better utilising national resources. One of the key objectives is to cease species loss by 2030 as previously promised, as well as to develop improved habitats and tackle overseas deforestation. People will also be incentivised to lead more sustainable lives through recycling, using sustainable packaging and stopping the exportation of plastic waste to developing countries. "The Environment Act will deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth. [...] We are setting an example for the rest of the world to follow." - Environment Secretary George Eustice Article on a similar topic: UK Climate Progress is Shadowed by Hypocrisy 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.

Elena Liciu reports on the alarming development research exposing the shrinkage of the planet’s stratosphere. Photo by Ante Hamersmit An international team of environmental experts has confirmed that our dangerously high levels of greenhouse gas emissions are diminishing our second atmospheric layer - the stratosphere. The stratosphere, much of which is comprised of the ozone layer, is the second layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, and lies around 15-30km above the Earth’s surface. It protects the planet by absorbing most of the sun’s harmful UV-B rays. Any threat to this layer is also a threat to us. Concerning Research Their new study involved the use of satellite images, spanning from 1980 to the present day, tracking how our stratosphere’s thickness has changed in the last 41 years. Analysis of these images revealed that our stratospheres’ thickness has been reduced by 400 meters since 1980. These findings, as well as chemistry-based climate models, have been utilised by experts to predict the future of our stratosphere. Shockingly, they have reached the conclusion that without any effort to reduce our current greenhouse gas emission, our stratosphere thickness will continue to diminish, shrinking by a further 4% by 2080. Scientists believe carbon dioxide to be the main driver behind stratosphere damage. It is currently hypothesised that carbon dioxide causes damage once it has penetrated the stratosphere by triggering a temperature decrease and subsequent layer contraction. Juan Anel from Vigo University, Spain, has labelled these findings “shocking”, pleading with the public to recognise the urgency this data is disclosing. An Alarming Loss The scientific community recognises that this stratospheric depletion has the potential to permanently distort our livelihoods. Anel predicts that stratospheric shrinkage may interfere with the use of satellites, GPS navigation and radio communications. However, greater concern lies in the fact that continual stratospheric depletion may have much more unpredictable and potentially graver outcomes. So far, our current understanding of the atmosphere allows us to appreciate that it is instrumental in regulating the earth’s temperature and blocking harmful UV radiation. Without temperature regulation and radiation protection, all biological life on earth would be under immense threat of extinction. Therefore, experts are extremely concentred that our recklessness with greenhouse gas emission will permanently dysregulate our atmosphere’s layers and its protection of all biological life on earth. Whilst this new discovery of stratospheric shrinking is shocking, it is not the first sign of greenhouse gas emission harming nature. Scientists have noted immense surges in global temperature, as well as shrinking snow covers and ice sheets. Experts are now desperately asking us all to change our lifestyles in a bid to protect our planet. Article on a similar topic: The Climate Change Report Warning of Devastating Future 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.

Samuel Dupret explores how a recent investigation has exposed the failures of the Greater Manchester Police, and how a new Chief Constable looks to reform a broken system. Photo by Gbarkz Two reports and many testimonies have shown that the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has been failing victims. As a result, a new Chief Constable has been brought in to respond to issues found within the force. HMICFRS investigated and declared in a report published in December 2020 that the service of the GMP was a serious cause for concern, especially in terms of crime recording and responding to vulnerable victims. In previous inspections and assessments in 2016, 2018 and 2019, HMICFRS had already found that the force needed to improve in these areas. Failures in Servicing Victims HMICFRS interviewed staff members, examined data from the force and had access to telephone recordings, investigation files, and crime and incident recording systems and reports. Correctly recording crimes is important because this data can help the force offer the appropriate support to victims. It also helps the force understand the current crime demand and predict its future. Whilst the GMP improved in recording of rape crimes and maintained general good recording for sexual offence, it drastically failed in other areas of recording. The GMP only recorded 77.7% of crimes reported during the inspected period, a decrease from the 89.1% found in the 2018 inspection. The inspectors applied this rate to Home Office police-recorded crime figures (excluding fraud) from July 2019 to June 2020 and estimated that, during this period, 80,100 crimes were not recorded. This works out to approximately 220 crimes per day. Recording was worst for crimes involving violence against the victim. This is concerning because crimes such as domestic abuse often involve vulnerable victims. Only 73.5% of these crimes were recorded; a decrease from the 86.8% recording rate found in the 2018 inspection. The quality of investigation plans varied and lack standards, making them hard to evaluate for supervisors and investigators. In some child protection cases, the recordings held insufficient information about both the risks faced by the victim and the safeguarding provided for them, therefore putting these victims at risk. Some rape cases were not progressed in a satisfying timeframe. The inspectors found that out-of-court outcomes such as cautions and community resolutions were too often (77% of the time) decided without taking into accounts the views of the victim and, on some occasions, were used for offence types they were not intended for. Similarly, 80% of outcome '16s' reviewed – when “there is a known offender but the victim does not support or has withdrawn support for police action” – lacked auditable record of the victims withdrawing support of prosecution. As Inspector Zoë Billingham says: “Without a clear and accurate audit trail, we cannot be certain that victims are not being placed at further risk”. The inspectors also reported that too many domestic abuse cases (70.5%) were resolved with outcome '16'. All these failures put victims at risk and limit opportunities to bring offenders to justice and prevent future crimes. The inspectors suggest that the GMP should identify and address issues in their systems, as well as introduce more supervision, training, and higher standards. A Broken Computer System Although not mentioned in the report, GMP’s new computer system, the Integrated Operational Policing System (iOPS), has also been impacting service to victims. It replaced the previous systems in July 2019, after 16 months of delays due to technical issues. iOPS encompasses a range of functions such as logging calls from the public, tracking where officers are and managing records and data. HMICFRS inspected iOPS in October and November 2019. Inspectors found that iOPS reduced productivity, especially as staff had to retrain and adopt new practices for this system. Even once trained, officers found that the systems search functions did not always return the correct or complete information. For example, a domestic abuse incident involved a high-risk sex offender, but the information about the offender was not visible on the new system. Unlike the previous version, phonetic searching (searching for different spellings of the same name in one go) was not possible. Quickly after iOPS’s implementation, officers shared their concerns with the Manchester Evening News about a complicated, failing system that was potentially putting the public at risk. The Inspectorate’s report found that staff lack confidence in iOPS, felt blamed for the backlog of cases it caused and did not feel listened to when they raised issues with the system. According to the testimonies given to BBC Newsnight, iOPS causes serious risks to the officers themselves. The system does not correctly inform officers about whether someone at a certain premise has access to firearms. Furthermore, pressing the panic radio buttons linked to iOPS does not accurately inform colleagues of an officer’s position, making it difficult to send backup. Reforming the Police Reactions in the media, such as those reported by BBC Newsnight, suggest that the public have a low perception of the GMP. One officer told BBC Newsnight that they "wouldn't feel confident reporting a crime to my own police force". Moreover, the BBC reported that 155 officers are applying for transfers out of the GMP. The HMICFRS has placed the GMP in the “Engage” stage of its monitoring process, which is a process for forces that have not succeeded at managing causes for concern. The GMP may also receive support from external organisations. The Inspectorate is monitoring their performance and will be conducting a new inspection. They told us that: “HMICFRS is committed to working with the force and other stakeholders to help drive the improvements needed to ensure that communities in Greater Manchester receive the quality of service they deserve.” Manchester Mayor Burnham commissioned an independent investigation of the GMP by Pricewaterhousecoopers (PwC) in January 2021, which was finally released in September. This investigation involved interviews, focus groups and surveys with the force. Core findings of the PwC report include issues with the leadership of the GMP, who are detached from the frontline and do not take responsibility. This has bred a culture of blame-shifting, reluctance to own up to mistakes and a disillusionment with leadership. In addition, the GMP does not have a performance framework and doesn’t correctly use performance information, thereby hindering its ability to improve and spot issues early. The PwC confirmed that victims need to be treated better. The iOPS system was found to be a hindrance to the force’s performance and a source of frustration for staff. The ‘omni-competency’ model – where officers are expected to be able to do everything – results in officers with workloads that are too large and negatively impacts the force’s service to victims. Officers are not receiving the training they want and need, especially for responding to mental health incidents. Finally, the force needs to improve its collaboration with other partners to aid its support for mental health and social care. New Leadership After the HMICFRS report was published, Chief Constable Ian Hopkins stepped down in December 2020 and new Chief Constable, Stephen Watson, was sworn in on the 24th of May. Watson’s plans for the GMP can be found in the interview he gave in the Manchester Evening News, in the official GMP post and the GMP’s series of commitments called ‘Our Promises’. Firstly, recording, investigating and arresting are to be increased. The new Chief constable isn’t “interested in determining that a particular crime is just not important enough to investigate”. Instead, every report from the public is to be followed up with appropriate scale. The promises from the GMP involve becoming a police force that responds better to reports of crime, is more accessible to victims, and builds a more trusting relationship with the public. Watson is planning to review iOPS and make decision about its future, depending on whether it can be fixed or if a new system will have to be introduced. According to the Manchester Evening News, Watson breaks from the narrative that the police doesn’t have enough resources, arguing instead that resources have not been used wisely. Consequently, he plans to restructure leadership, make new senior hires and introduce a ‘performance management’ framework so that leadership knows what is happening and how good or bad it is. The new Chief Constable also wants to restructure the way the GMP deals with crime reports: first, improving the speed and quality of responses to calls; and second, ensuring that the right tasks are forwarded to officers that are well equipped to tackle them, instead of the unpopular ‘omni-competency’ model. This should avoid being overloaded and improve services to the public. The failures of the GMP in terms of crime recording and victim support have put people at risk and need to be addressed very quickly. Hopefully, for the good of the Greater Manchester area, the GMP will tackle all causes for concern. HMICFRS new inspection and report will give us a better idea as to whether they are on good course to succeed. Article on a similar topic: A Woman's World: The Safety of Our Streets 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.

Emily Davies explores the use of ground-breaking ‘green steel’ in car manufacturing. Photo by Louis Tricot Car manufacturing companies are beginning to recognise the value of using ‘green steel’ in their vehicle production, including Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen. ‘Green steel’ is a newly-developed alternative to the original metal, using electricity and hydrogen power to generate the widely-used alloy rather than coal, which was previously necessary to complete its production. Revolutionising Car Manufacture This year, several car production companies have announced intentions to make the manufacturing of their vehicles more environmentally-friendly by beginning to use green steel to form the body of their vehicles. In March 2021, Volkswagen announced plans to produce electric cars with a carbon-neutral value chain, and shortly after, in April 2021, it was announced that Volvo and steel company SSAB signed a collaboration agreement to pursue vehicles made from fossil fuel-free steel. This September, Mercedes-Benz also launched a partnership with SSAB to use green steel in its vehicle production, hoping that its new passenger car fleet will be carbon neutral by 2039. The steel company SSAB wants to supply the market with green steel at a commercial scale by 2026, and is part of a partnership with power company Vattenfall and Swedish miner LKAB in the hope of doing so. They have formed HYBRIT (Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology), one of the leaders in zero-carbon steel technology. Making Steel Green The steel industry contributes between 6% to 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions every year because the process requires such high temperatures, and until recently, only fossil fuels were able to provide the intense energy needed. However, several methods that try to eliminate coal from the process are currently being piloted, the furthest developed being hydrogen-based direct reduction, whereby iron ore fines are directly converted to liquid, ready to be used in steel, via contact with hydrogen in ionised form. Another well-known strategy for reducing steel-making emissions is to move from blast furnace production to electric arc furnace production. Still, the Rocky Mountain Institute report clarifies that the electric arc furnace is not a direct substitute as it cannot create steel from pure iron ore. As electric arc furnace production increases, so must the supply of recycled scrap steel to replace the iron ore traditionally used, but there is not currently enough scrap available to fulfil demand. The Rocky Mountain Institute brief says that the demand for steel is forecasted to grow steadily from 1700 million tons a year to a staggering 2150 million in 2050. As scrap supply increases over time, it is hoped that the demand increasing for scrap to be used in green steel can be met. Further, some carbon is still needed for these types of production, but it can be sourced from biomethane or other biogenic carbon sources to bypass this problem. However, sourcing biomass sustainably and at scale would be difficult and would likely still create some fossil fuel emissions, so to make the process entirely, carbon neutral, those emissions would need to be captured and stored. Concluding Comments Seven out of the ten largest steel-producing countries have at least one green steel project currently ongoing, but right now, this effort is concentrated in places which already have ambitious environmental goals, rather than countries which are not yet prioritising environmentalism; even if the most progressive steel companies switched to zero-carbon steel processes, it would only represent 8% of the global steel market. It will be a long while before the entire industry shifts towards the greener alternative. Although utilising ‘green steel’ is a great method for reducing the emissions of the steel industry, it is not a magic solution. However, the fact that car companies are recognising the consumer appeal of greener products and are adapting to meet this demand is a great start. More investment in environmentally friendly products means there is more money being put into low-emission technology alternatives, which can only be a good thing. Article on a similar topic: Waste Paper: A Possible Solution for Sustainable Roads 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.

Kira Lomas reports on the 20-year success of a seagrass restoration project, shaping the future maintenance of marine ecosystems. Photo by Cotton Bro Seagrass are the only flowering plant able to survive underwater, growing densely in sediment on the sea floor, creating an ecosystem known as seagrass beds. These diverse plant species play an important role in maintaining the health of our oceans and provide a sheltered home to a variety of marine life. Yet, their endangered status means they have suffered huge declines globally; 35% of seagrasses have been lost or degraded over the last 40 years. As a result, scientists are pioneering new experiments to help restore these underwater meadows. The Sea Grass Restoration Project Over the past 20 years, supported by researchers and volunteers, more than 70 million eelgrass seeds have been spread across a 200-hectare plot off the Southern end of Virginia’s shore. Growing substantially to cover 3,600 hectares on the formerly cleared state, the team have observed the restoration process from birth to adulthood, laying the foundations of knowledge for marine preservation across the world. The most remarkable discoveries of the project concern seagrass’ relationship with climate change. Accumulating over time, seagrass can capture carbon 35 times faster than tropical rainforests, which is stored entirely in the soils, due to their slow decomposition rate. Researchers state that the success of this project provides a glimmer of hope for the future of climate issues and ecosystem function. The study also proves that marine habitats can be restored in a self-sustaining way, with seagrass beds now sequestering 3,000 metric tons of carbon per year. The Importance of Seagrass Conservation Being among the world’s most threatened ecosystems, seagrass faces numerous threats to their ability to store carbon. In face of coastal development, rising sea temperatures and storm and flooding events, protecting these coastal habitats is essential for mitigating climate change. To counter these threats, seagrass perform numerous functions. Habitat complexity is an important feature of seagrass beds, providing both food and a nursery habitats for several species of fish. Their dense network of roots provides refuge to endangered invertebrates, simultaneously deterring predators digging through to catch their prey. Sediment stabilisation is acknowledged as another important ecosystem function of seagrass. Extending both horizontally and vertically, the extensive root system helps to diminish the force of currents to prevent the seabed from potentially smothering coral reefs or being washed away in the event of a sea storm. Besides being beneficial for mitigating climate change, researchers hope that the seagrass restoration project will be an important system for understanding how coastal habitats work as well as offering a blueprint for reviving and strengthening other devastated marine ecosystems. Article on a similar topic: 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.

Jenny Donath reports about the new progress in the fight against animal testing. Photo by Dino Januarsa Mexico has become the 41st country in the world to ban animal testing for cosmetic products, including the marketing and import of cosmetics that have previously been tested on animals in other countries. Mexico’s decision to legalise the bill has been influenced by the non-profit organisation Human Society International (HSI) and the animal-welfare organisation Te Protejo. With support from cosmetic industries like Lush and L’Oreal, HSI and Te Protego have said: “We are thrilled to see Mexico become the first country in North America to outlaw cosmetic animal testing, and commend our bill sponsor Senator Ricardo Monreal, and all congressmen and women for voting to end cosmetic animal testing in Mexico.” With representatives across the globe, HSI is currently leading several campaigns to advocate the well-being of animals and promote animal-free testing methods. For instance, they released an animated film about a tester bunny – ‘Save Ralph’ – to raise awareness of the cruel procedures that animals must still undergo for cosmetics. HSI points out that several easier, cheaper, and more humane alternatives are available and can be used to create products that neither pose health hazards for humans nor exploit animals. Why is Animal Testing Being Criticised? Animal testing for cosmetic products has been criticised more and more frequently over the last years. Many animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing feelings like pleasure, distress, and pain. Every year, millions of animals — mainly mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs — are held in small cages and suffer from loneliness, stress, and fear, while they are forced to undergo painful experiments to evaluate whether products can be released for sale to the public. Acute toxicity testing is one of those cruel procedures. The animals are either forced to inhale, eat, or come into contact with high doses of substances to examine whether it could pose a danger to humans. Side effects often include seizures, bleeding, or abdominal pain to an extent that eventually leads to the death of the animal. One of the most-common tests is the LD50 test, for which increasing amounts of a given substance are forcefully fed to animals. The dose is increased repeatedly to predict possible effects of the chemicals in humans. Other tests determine the impact of a product on the eyes and skin (Eye and Skin Irritation and Corrosion Test) — causing side effects such as swollen eyelids, inflamed skin, or blindness — or to assess the risk of allergic reactions and infertility. All tests mean that the animals must endure a lot of pain and suffering. Alternatives to Animal Testing Instead of harming animals during the procedure, there are various alternative tests that don’t include animals. For instance, cell and tissue cultures or reconstructed skin can be used to analyse possible effects of chemicals on the human body; and a specific computer module can be used to predict the effects of a chemical based on pre-existing data. These tests are not only a humane alternative to animal testing, but they are also cheaper and provide more accurate results. For example, some animal tests have been found to be only 65% accurate, whereas human cell-line tests, which assess the risk of potential skin sensitivity to chemicals, are 75-80% accurate. More and more cosmetic industries are beginning to switch to cruelty-fee methods. In Chile, a bill to ban animal testing for cosmetic purposes has passed the initial stage. In August this year, the Chilean health commission has voted unanimously to review the bill in further depth. Furthermore, several surveys undertaken by HSI have shown that many consumers are against the exploitation of animals for cosmetic products. Earlier this year, around 90% of surveyed people in South Africa expressed support towards the ban of animal-tested products. With Mexico being the first country in North America to ban animal-cruel testing, they might be able to serve as an example for other countries to follow. Antón Aguilar, who is the Executive Director of the Mexican HSI described it as “a monumental step forward for animals, […] and brings us one bunny-leap closer to a global ban”. Article on a similar topic: Activists to UN: Make Animal Protections a Sustainable Development Goal 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.

Jennifer McDowall explores the reasons behind the banning of salmon farming by Argentina. Photo by Hatham Tierra del Fuego, an archipelago in southern Argentina, has become the first place in the world to ban salmon farming due to fears that it would negatively impact the area. The local authority voted unanimously against a proposed initiative to develop an Argentine salmon farming site in partnership with Norway. Salmon farming is a process of intense cultivation and harvesting of the species for commercial gain. The salmon are kept in high densities in open pens or cages along the coastline. This practice requires a specific clean, cold-water location. The only place suitable in Argentina is the Beagle Channel in Tierra Del Fuego, a biodiverse strait where ecotourism is one of the main economic activities. In 2019, the Argentine development was given the go ahead. However, after protests from local communities, the project was put on hold. A bill was then proposed to outlaw the process altogether. The Tierra del Fuego Authority then voted to ban salmon farming to ensure the “preservation and protection of the natural resources, genetic resources and lake and marine ecosystems” of the area. Salmon Welfare Issues The consumption of salmon has tripled since 1980 and is now one of the most popular fish eaten in Europe, the US and Japan. The farming of this fish is a rapidly growing industry, and salmon aquaculture accounts for 70% of the market. This practice has experienced exponential growth over the last thirty years or so, and this increase is projected to continue, but consumers are unaware of the environmental and economic costs of salmon farming. The process of salmon farming is damaging in several ways. Diseases, viruses and parasites, such as sea lice, spread easily among farmed salmon populations due to the high density of fish in pens. An investigation into salmon farming revealed conditions described as “a breeding ground for invasions of parasitic sea lice” and stated that farming causes “fundamental changes in the density and occurrence of lice in coastal waters”. Millions of salmon die every year due to sea lice infections alone, and damage to marine ecosystems costs around $50 billion. To prevent outbreaks of parasites and disease, farmers commonly use antibiotics, pesticides and banned chemicals, resulting in increased antibiotic resistance and damage to marine life, ecosystems and human health. Escaping salmon can transfer these afflictions to wild populations and can cross breed with wild salmon, altering the wild gene pool. According to Estefanía González of Greenpeace, as salmon are not native to Argentina, the required quantities of these compounds would be significant. She believes that the “impact they generate on the ecosystem makes it is practically impossible for this activity to be carried out without environmental consequences.” Environmental Consequences Waste from the fish themselves and excess fish food can cause a build-up of nutrients in the water. This not only reduces the oxygen levels of the water, which can harm aquatic life, but it also promotes algal blooms. These blooms can also prove fatal to the salmon and can be harmful to other wildlife including humans. David López Katz of the Rewilding Argentina Foundation, considers the environmental impact from salmon fishing a “threat to the economy” in an area like Tierra del Fuego, where tourism is important: “Half of the families depend on tourism, an activity that could not coexist with the environmental impact of the industry. In short, this law is an example of the care of a sustainable economic and productive model, which respects cultural traditions and artisanal practices that generate genuine jobs” Global Problem It’s not just areas local to salmon farms that feel the effect of the aquaculture industry. The process is causing a depletion of wild fish stocks globally, as salmon farms depend on other wild fish: rather than the krill and shrimp that wild salmon eat, farmed salmon are fed mostly small fish and fish oil. 20% of all fish caught each year (18 million tonnes) is used to produce oil and fishmeal, and approximately 70% of this is used to feed farmed salmon. 96% of the world’s salmon is produced by Norway, Scotland, Chile and Canada. While Scotland has plans to significantly increase its salmon producing capacity by 2030, in Norway the industry is expected to increase five-fold by 2050. Argentina may have taken a step in the right direction but there’s no sign the rest of the world will move to limit this $20 billion industry. Article on a similar topic: Seafood Fraud: The Global Food Scandal 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 breaks down the programme and priorities of COP26, exploring the challenges and opportunities afforded by the two-week conference. Photo by Sinitta Leunen Between 31st October and 12th November, over 120 world leaders and 25,000 delegates will gather in Glasgow to discuss the future of the planet. The outcome might well be one of the most important events of this generation, and may determine the future of human history. Following a World Leaders’ Summit hosted by Boris Johnson, the two-week programme will involve events centred on different themes, including energy, finance, youth empowerment, gender and science & innovation. The UK Presidency Pavilion will also host events from the UK Government and external organisations, including ‘The Power of TV to Combat the Climate Crisis’ and ‘Net Zero: Solutions for a Gender-sensitive Transition’. At the end of the conference, a document signed by all nations will be published. Alok Sharma, who will be hosting the event, believes that this will prove even more difficult than the Paris Agreement, which is not currently ratified by some of the largest oil exporting nations. As Sharma describes: “It’s like, we’ve got to the end of the exam paper and the most difficult questions are left and you’re running out of time, the exam’s over in half an hour and you go, ‘How are we going to answer this one?’” Targets of COP26 In light of the UN’s Sixth Assessment Report in August – which consolidated the latest scientific evidence on climate change, predicting catastrophic consequences for inadequate political action – the conference committee has published a list of goals and priorities: 1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach The Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce the global temperature rise to beneath 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, requires each participating party to present their nationally-determined contributions (NDCs), or the means by which they are reducing their carbon emissions. Every five years, each party is required to return with reviewed and updated NDCs, but the pandemic prevented this from happening in December 2020. COP26 is expected to come with a surge of “ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets” from each nation, with the view of reaching global net-zero emissions. To achieve this, countries will be encouraged to: Accelerate the phase-out of coal Curtail deforestation Speed up the switch to electric vehicles Encourage investment in renewables. 2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats The world is rapidly changing. Infrastructure is collapsing as permafrost melts in Arctic regions, while wildfires have spread throughout Australia, the United States, Canada, Greece, Algeria and Turkey in the past year alone. According to one report, only 3% of all ecosystems remain intact due to the impact of human activity over the past 500 years. To counter the effects of our changing climate, COP26 will encourage nations to protect and restore ecosystems by building defences, warning systems, new infrastructure and agriculture to prevent the further loss of homes, livelihoods and lives. “Around the world storms, floods and wildfires are intensifying. Air pollution sadly affects the health of tens of millions of people and unpredictable weather causes untold damage to homes and livelihoods too. But while the impacts of climate change are devastating, advances in tackling it are leading to cleaner air, creating good jobs, restoring nature and at the same time unleashing economic growth.” – UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021, ‘COP26 Explained’ 3. Mobilise finance Climate change disproportionally impacts those who are least responsible: the island nation of Vanuatu, for example, is rapidly shrinking due to rising sea levels, despite accounting for less than 0.01% of global carbon emissions. Oxfam’s Forced From Home report estimated that over 20 million people are displaced by climate-related disasters each year, with lower-income nations being most vulnerable. As such, wealthier countries will need to mobilise at least $100bn per year to achieve the first two goals of the conference: providing aid to those most impacted by climate change, and supporting the global transition towards sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy. Despite the commitment of wealthier nations over a decade ago to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020, climate finance only rose to $80bn per year in 2019. 4. Work together to deliver While the ten largest polluters are responsible for over two-thirds of all carbon emissions, the climate crisis can only be resolved through global cooperation. COP26 will need to inspire sustained collaboration between governments, businesses and civil society, as well as bring about the finalisation of the Paris Rulebook (the means by which the Paris Agreement is put into action). Concluding Comments The discussions and events of COP26 will shape the coming decades and centuries. Many alive today will not live to see whether we achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and many will not experience the most severe consequences of the climate crisis. As such, it should be encouraging that the programme places a particular focus on the younger generation, in recognition of the invaluable contribution of teenagers and young adults to the on-going climate discourse. Nevertheless, complacent optimism must not undermine the importance of the conference; world leaders cannot afford to offload responsibilities to their successors, as the consequences of our changing climate are prevalent even today. The host city of Glasgow is preparing to welcome protestors at the conference, citing Glasgow’s long history with protests and campaigns. City council leader Susan Aitken has said that “It's enormously important that civil society... [is] able to influence what those world leaders are discussing.” At present, only one country is set to achieve its contributions to Paris Agreement: The Republic of Gambia. We are, in fact, on track to produce more than double the amount of coal, oil and gas by 2030 than would be compatible with 1.5-degree temperature rise. China, the largest contributor to global carbon emissions, is still yet to declare an NDC to the COP26 committee, and there is no guarantee that world leaders will attend every event. We can only hope that those with the power to make a difference will approach COP26 as an opportunity for innovation and collaboration, guided by both evidence and compassion to prioritise the wellbeing and security of future generations. “COP26 needs to be decisive. Whether future generations look back at this time with admiration or despair, depends entirely on our ability to seize this moment. Let’s seize it together.” - Alok Sharma, COP President Article on a similar topic: The Summary of the G7 Summit in Cornwall 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.

Euan Cook breaks down the World Meteorological Organisation’s (WMO) ‘State of Climate 2021’ report, designed to inform world leaders at the COP26 conference about the globe’s climate emergency. Photo by Kaitlyn Baker The World Meteorological Organisation’s (WMO) ‘State of Climate 2021’ report combines scientific advice from multiple United Nations agencies, forming the backbone of the COP26 conference and the incentive for world nations to act immediately on climate change. With the WMO reporting that the past seven years have been the warmest on record, how were participating nations during COP26 informed about the globe’s current trajectory? Here's a breakdown of the data shared at the history-defining climate conference. Global Warming Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) in the atmosphere were recorded at 149%, 262%, and 123% respectively, compared to pre-industrial emissions. In turn, the global mean temperature for 2021 is approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. However, 2021 saw the atmospheric phenomena known as La Niña: strong winds blowing warm water across the Pacific Ocean, giving rise to colder water and effectively cooling the planet. Despite the last significant La Niña occurring ten years prior, 2021 was still on average 0.18 to 0.26 degrees Celsius warmer, proving an increasing global warming trend despite these anomalies. Oceanic Disturbances The ocean absorbs roughly 23% of annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2, and thus has become more acidic. The ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 has significantly decreased due to low pH levels, thus warming the upper-2000m depth. The mean global sea level rise was 2.1mm per year between 1993 and 2002. However, 2013 to 2021 saw a worrying average of 4.4mm per year. This is partly due to a mass loss from North American glaciers accelerating over the last two decades, nearly doubling in melting rate. The Impact on Society These damaging changes to our climate have led to damaging socio-economic and environmental impacts. Flash floods in China, for example, were linked to more than 302 deaths in 2021, with reported economic losses of $17.7 billion, proving that both human livelihoods and lives themselves are at stake. Scorching temperatures have devastated the south-central British Columbia town of Lytton, which was destroyed by a scorching 49.6 degrees Celsius on 29 June 2021. In California, Death Valley exceeded 54.4 degrees Celsius on 9 July, consequently fuelling the Dixie Fire that burned down 390,000 hectares by 7 October. Not only was California subject to the highest recorded temperature in the world, but also was witness to the state’s largest single fire on record. Moreover, January 2020 to August 2021 was the driest on record for the southwestern United States, with forecasted wheat and canola crop production for Canada dropping to 30% to 40% below 2020 levels. Therefore, a subsequent 19% increase in global hunger during the COVID-19 pandemic has hit those already suffering the most from food crises, with 26 million more people undernourished from 2020 to 2021. With the alarming evidence displayed at COP26, it is down to world leaders to enact policies that will ensure a united front against climate change. “At the current rate of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, we will see a temperature increase by the end of this century far in excess of the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. COP26 must be a turning point for people and planet.” – Petteri Taalas, World Meteorological Organisation. Article on a similar topic: COP26 Update: The Midway Point 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 explores the final days of COP26, where a single sentence caused widespread controversy, disagreement and hours of delays. Photo by Alin Rusu A final agreement has finally been singed at COP26 in Glasgow, aiming to reshape the global economy in light of the climate crisis. Ahead of the conference, the committee listed four goals: securing net zero emissions by 2050, protecting communities and natural habitats, mobilising climate finance and inspiring both national and international collaboration (including finalising the Paris Agreement). The first week alone saw a number of new commitments and ambitious plans, including a pledge to end deforestation by 2030 (signed by over 100 leaders), an initiative to reduce global methane emissions (signed by over 100 leaders) and a commitment to shift away from coal production (signed by over 40 leaders). Little Amal – a 3.5-metre puppet of a Syrian refugee girl – travelled nearly 5,000 miles from Turkey to arrive at the conference on Gender Day, calling on conference attendees to recognise the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and girls, particularly in lower-income nations. The Home Stretch Approaching the (intended) final day of the conference, UN Secretary António Guterres claimed that the aims of the Paris Agreement were on ‘life support’, fearing that world leaders will not make the pledges required to sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions. He argued that all bold statements are redundant if governments continue to invest in fossil fuels: “Promises ring hollow when the fossil fuels industry still receives trillions in subsidies.” China and the United States - the world’s two largest carbon emitters - did not agree to the earlier commitment to phase out coal in the coming decades, though both nations did announce a joint commitment to boost co-operation for limiting the rise in post-industrial global temperatures to 1.5°C. An eight-page draft text outlining the conclusions of the conference was published on the morning of Friday 12 November. The document offered few definitive statements or policies, with the majority of propositions serving to acknowledge the verity of the available scientific evidence (such as the IPCCC Sixth Assessment Report), or to encourage Parties to prioritise appropriate climate action (i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting ecosystems). Many of the draft revisions were concerned with changing the wording of the text, though there is considerable disagreement about whether these changes strengthen or weaken particular statements. ‘Phase Out’ Controversy On Saturday 13 November, over 24 hours after the initial deadline, the conference was brought to its conclusion. The delay was primarily a result of disagreements from nations including Iran, China, India and South Africa over the language surrounding coal power and fossil fuel subsidies. In the final few hours, the representatives for China and India proposed changing the “phase-out” of coal to the more lenient “phase-down”, receiving condemnation and declarations of disappointment from other nations. COP President Alok Sharma emotionally apologised for “the way this process has unfolded”, acknowledging the widespread disappointment at the amendment. However, he conceded that this compromise was “vital to protect this package”, as concluding the conference without establishing a deal would have been catastrophic. The controversy behind the delay concerns paragraph 36 of the final document, marking the first time that fossil fuels have been explicitly mentioned in a UN climate agreement: “[The Conference of the Parties] Calls upon Parties to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, recognizing the need for support towards a just transition.” The Glasgow Climate Pact As the proposals of the Glasgow Pact are not legally binding (and hence cannot legislate any punishment for failure), the text principally serves to establish the global agenda for the coming years and decades, particularly highlighting that effective climate action depends on both regional and international cooperation. Parties have been requested to “revisit and strengthen” their nationally determined contributions to the goals of the Paris Agreement, ahead of the next meeting in November 2022. In one positive update, the final text continually emphasises the importance of climate finance and technology transfer for developing nations, even urging wealthier Parties to “at least double their collective provision for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025”. Multilateral development banks and other financial institutions are also called upon to ‘enhance’ climate finance to achieve climate plans, and the exploration of “innovative approaches and instruments” from private sources is explicitly encouraged. While the failure to secure the guarantee the end of coal power is undoubtedly disappointing, the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement still remains a possibility. However, the best outcome of the agreement is projected at 1.8°C, with a more realistic growth being 2.4°C – both potentially disastrous for the planet. “We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive […] But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action. I am grateful to the UNFCCC for working with us to deliver a successful COP26.” – COP President Alok Sharma The extent to which COP26 can be seen to be a success will be based on the actions of the involved Parties in the months and years to come, and both whether they will stick to their commitments, and whether they are enough in the first place. Article on a similar topic: COP26 Update: The Midway Point 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as controversial luxury brand announces they’re replacing wild fur with a reclaimed alternative. Photo by Fran The luxury coat maker Canada Goose Holdings Inc. has announced their intention to become fur-free, ceasing to purchase the material by the end of 2021 and ending manufacture of fur garments altogether by the end of 2022. Going forward, they will only use reclaimed fur in their products. Canada Goose has been the subject of controversy and outrage for many years, being consistently targeted by activists - especially those representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - for its continued use of fur in their garments despite clear ethical issues surrounding the practice. A Cruel Practice For years, Canada Goose has used wild coyote fur to trim their expensive garments, trapping the animals using leg-hold traps which are banned across the EU due to animal cruelty concerns, despite being legal in Canada. They also stuff their coats with geese feathers from birds which, according to a PETA exposé, are kept in cruel and inhumane conditions. The condemnation of the brand by activists is not only due to their use of fur, however, but the ethics behind how they did so. Canada Goose stated back in 2019 that they abided by the standards of Canada's Agreement of International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS), which stipulates that at least 80% of animals trapped should not be subjected to “excessive immobility and unresponsiveness”, amputation or death in the process. The brand has stated in the past that they it did not regard trapping animals for fur as intrinsically cruel, stating that “we believe all animals are entitled to humane treatment in life and death, and we are deeply committed to the ethical sourcing and responsible use of all animal materials in our products”. Despite this, due to inconsistent implementation of the legislation in some states, there are concerns that some of the coyotes trapped for use in Canada Goose’s products were victims of greater cruelty than the AIHTS would allow. In fact, in 2015, Animal Justice Canada filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada arguing that Canada Goose’s claim that all their coyote fur is “humane” was misleading. The group stated that “by claiming the fur trim on its jackets come from humanely trapped coyotes, Canada Goose is preying on ethically conscious consumers”. While the complaint was rejected, the brand’s reputation was tarnished. “I don't think a reasonable person who learns what degree of suffering the law allows for could ever possibly say that Canada Goose's trapping practices are 'humane.' [That] word is most often used in connection with humane societies, which of course are places of compassion, not ones of suffering and death.” – Camille Labchuk, Animal Justice legal director (as of 2015) Turning a New Leaf The removal of all fur from Canada Goose’s products by the end of next year coincides with similar commitments from other brands including Gucci and Michael Kors. Since the announcement, PETA has stated that they will end their campaign against the brand, but will continue to request it ceases to use goose feathers in its products. “When it comes to brand growth, it’s more about the younger generation, and there are so many more vegans in the world. This is really a great example of brand evolution for Canada Goose.” – Farla Efros, president of HRC Retail Advisory These changes signal a shift in the mindset of both consumer and regulatory boards to value ethics and animal welfare over luxurious fashion statements. One senses that it’s only a matter of time before no more animals are killed for their fur at all. Article on a similar topic: The Failing Industry of Fur 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.

Samuel Dupret explains Iceland’s recent trials for shortened working weeks, exploring whether other countries might benefit from similar experiments. Photo by Bogan Pasca The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the way people work, with many jobs going remote. Some businesses and governments are taking this opportunity to consider other changes; Iceland, for example, has successfully trialed shorter working weeks. ‘Shorter working weeks’ entail fewer weekly hours without a reduction in pay, and hours above the limit considered overtime. This is sometimes presented as a four-day working week, but the important factor is the number of hours: four days with 32 hours is different from four days with 40 hours. The idea is that staff can maintain (or even increase) productivity with fewer hours. The Icelandic Trials It is important to note that information in English about the Icelandic trials comes from a report by Alda and Autonomy - two groups in favour of shorter working weeks - who did not participate in the trials but reviewed the data. The Icelandic Federation of Public Sector Unions (BSRB) negotiated two shorter working week trials: one with the city of Reykjavík (2015-2017), and one with the Icelandic Government (2017-2021). Participation in the trials grew overtime to reach a peak of 2,500 staff, accounting for around 1.3% of the working population. Some of the staff reduced working hours from 40 hours to 35 or 36 – not four-day working weeks per se, as many headlines wrongly suggested – while other staff in ‘control’ workplaces did not, meaning results could compared. A range of workplaces were involved, such as care homes for special needs, a police station, the Reykjavík City Mayor’s office and more. The trials seem to be a success. With the exception of some offices and smaller departments who needed to use overtime, staff worked fewer hours while maintaining the same levels of productivity and service provision. Shorter working weeks produced a host of positive effects for staff. These include improved wellbeing at work, reduced stress and a better work-life balance, allowing more time for family, friends and hobbies. As such, extended family not directly involved in the trials, like grandparents, also enjoyed more family time. The trials likely gave momentum for lasting change in Iceland. New contracts negotiated between the trade unions and public and private sectors have led to 86% of Iceland’s workforce moving to shorter hours, or at least having access to the option. These new contracts will come with some costs for workplaces where more staff will need to be hired. The police are worried they will require new staff, and therefore more funding. The report estimates that the Icelandic government will have to spend £24.2 million for new healthcare staff. Nevertheless, according to the authors this is just a fraction of government’s budget (£5.1 billion in 2019). Evaluating Shorter Working Weeks Although it seems counterintuitive that working less can lead match or boost productivity, OECD data suggests that the most productive countries tend to work fewer hours. For example, the French are reported to be more productive than their British neighbours, while working less. Humans are not machines - we get tired, and our productivity decreases as our hours increase. Long hours can lead to fatigue, stress, poor mental health and burnout. Not being able to mentally ‘switch off’ from work is related to higher levels of emotional exhaustion, and poorer levels of work engagement. Not only are these issues bad for staff, but they also lower efficiency, increase turnover and cost employers. Sweden has already seen a series of public and private initiatives with shorter working weeks to combat these issues. Swedish health and day care workers, nurses from the Svartedalens nursing home and staff from Sahlgrenska University Hospital’s orthopaedics unit all showed benefits in terms of health, stress or sleep from trials with six-hour days (30-hour weeks but paid full-time). Not only did the Svartedalens nurses take fewer sick days, they also organised more activities for the patients. However, this trial was met with criticism and political opposition over high costs. In the Icelandic trials, productivity was maintained by rethinking and reorganising how tasks were accomplished, and shortening or cutting other tasks. Notably, meetings were shortened or communicated through email instead. Perpetual Guardian – a New Zealand estate planning company – trialed having all 240 employees work 30-hour weeks, but be paid for 37.5. Pre- and post-trial measures revealed that performance was maintained, stress was lowered and work-life balanced improved. Founder Andrew Barnes mentioned that employees engaged more fully at work. For example, staff kept non-work activities outside of work, and used social media on the job a lot less. The 2021 Stop the Clock report suggests that shorter working weeks will benefit the environment because people will engage less in high carbon activities such as using energy at work, commuting and relying on ready-made meals or deliveries. Furthermore, when people get more time off work, they usually engage in lower carbon activities such as family time. These studies have not gone uncriticised. Some have noted that the maintained productivity might be due to the Hawthorne effect - a change in behaviour because you are aware of being observed or studied, although the likelihood of this is reduced by the use of 'control' workplaces. The Future of Shorter Working Weeks The Icelandic trials shine due to their their large samples and positive results. However, are these results likely to be replicated in other countries with larger populations and weaker unions? The Spanish and Japanese governments have pilots and guidelines for shorter working weeks on the cards. In the UK, the Trades Union Congress have been calling for a four-day week. Large-scale change might be coming in Scotland first, as the SNP’s manifesto includes a pledge for a 10 million pounds fund for companies to pilot a four-day workweek. There is also a push for companies themselves to transition to four-day weeks. The 4 Day Week Global Foundation has launched a petition to show companies that employees want a four-day week (32 hours). The foundation will launch a 4 Day Week Global Pilot in 2022. Shorter working weeks are gaining traction. If more countries see benefits similar to those in Iceland, it might well be the next big change in how we work. If this is well implemented, it may boost employee wellbeing, and could be an important step in organising work for coming changes such as increased automatisation due to artificial intelligence. Article on a similar topic: 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.

Kate Byng-Hall catches us up on all the biggest revelations, statements and promises of the first week of COP26. Photo by Kaique Rocha Since Sunday 31 October, COP26 has been running at the SEC Centre in Glasgow. The 26th Conference of the Parties has been seen by many as the last chance to address climate change, and make the international commitments needed to resolve it. Over 100 countries are represented at the conference, and have four main aims: Secure global net-zero by 2050, and limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This is a huge challenge, as COP26 President Anok Sharma stated that we are currently on-track for 2.7°C warming. Step up protection of threatened communities and habitats across the world. Increase financial support for vulnerable countries to $100 billion annually, something that richer countries have failed to do since they initially committed to it in 2020. Finalise the 2015 Paris Agreement to ensure co-operation between governments, businesses and the public in fighting climate change. Let’s take a look at all the biggest developments over the first week. Big Statements For the first two days, world leaders from both some of the world’s smallest and biggest polluters attended the event (despite notable absences from Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping), with many making speeches about the challenges ahead. Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not hold back, saying, “if Glasgow fails, then the whole thing fails”. He asserted that: “eighty per cent of the global economy will wipe out its contribution to climate change by the middle of the century, up from 30 per cent, thanks to the UK’s COP26 leadership.” “We’ve failed to meet our commitments to provide $100 billion a year to support developing countries to grow in a clean and sustainable way. […] The countries most responsible for historic and present-day emissions are not yet doing their fair share of the work” - Boris Johnson US President Joe Biden said: “None of us can escape the worst that’s yet to come if we fail to seize this moment. […] We are standing at an inflection point in world history. We have the ability to invest in ourselves and build an equitable clean-energy future, and in the process create millions of good, plain jobs and opportunities around the world.” Iconic environmentalist David Attenborough made an impactful appearance, sharing some optimism before negotiations began: “If, working apart, we are a force powerful enough to destabilise our planet, surely working together, we are powerful enough to save it.” The First Commitments Although the majority of the solid decisions and detailed negotiations are yet to come, some commitments have already been made. The Global Methane Pledge has been joined by over 100 nations representing 70% of the global economy, with the goal of limiting methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Methane currently accounts for 20% of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and has caused approximately 50% of all global warming. Cutting methane levels is much easier than doing the same for carbon dioxide, so there are high hopes for this pledge. One hundred and ten nations made a pledge to end deforestation by 2030, with a notable signatory being Brazil – the location of the majority of the Amazon Rainforest. Boris Johnson said: “We have to stop the devastating loss of our forests [and] the role of humanity as nature’s conqueror, and instead become nature’s custodian.” Alok Sharma said the “end of coal is in sight”, as a further pledge was made by more than 40 countries to shift away from coal production in the 2030s for major economies, and the 2040s for poorer nations. However, the absence of big emitters including China, India, Australia and the US from this calls its potential success into question. The Glasgow Breakthroughs agenda was also announced, with the goal of scaling up funding of green technology. The plan will increase global funding to cleaning up power, road transport, steel and hydrogen. Lord Deben, former MP and chair of the Climate Change Committee, said that he believes major companies, as well as national economies, are “really committed” to the environmental agenda. As he said: “It is a fundamental change, and it is the financial world that has pushed that change because it seems to me that the people who invest have now realised that if you are going to invest with certainty, you have to invest in a green future” Mass Protests Despite not receiving an invite inside the conference, Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg has been in attendance outside the venue throughout, and emphasised her scepticism from the outset. “Inside COP there are just politicians and people in power pretending to take our future seriously, pretending to take the present seriously of the people who are being affected already today by the climate crisis,” she said. Protests have been staged every day of the conference so far, but a week after it began, 100,000 people took to the streets of Glasgow in the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice to demand action. The movement was echoed around the world, including a huge march on Trafalgar Square in London. Speaking at the march, Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate said: “The climate and ecological crises are already here. But so are citizens from around the globe. Leaders rarely have the courage to lead. It takes citizens, people like you and me, to rise up and demand action. And when we do that in great enough numbers, our leaders will move.” The International Energy Agency has come forward and said that if the commitments made at COP26 so far are adhered to, then a 1.8°C warming rate is ahead of us. While this is not enough to stop potential disaster of an even greater scale than we are already seeing, it is progress that we all hope will continue. Article on a similar topic: What to Expect from COP26 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.

Jonny Rogers reflects on the importance of virtue in a political climate characterised by deception and hypocrisy. Photo by Jordhan Madec A new day, a new scandal. Whether claims of personal misconduct or deceiving their supporters, it seems that every week provides more evidence that politicians are becoming increasingly unprincipled and untrustworthy. What might be shocking in other circumstances has, in a sense, become tiresome. The intention of this article, however, is not to convince you that members of any one political party are in reality more principled than any other, nor to speculate the cause of individual misconduct; rather, it is an invitation to consider the value of honesty and integrity in an age characterised by disinformation and distrust. Lying & Deception Last year, former cabinet minister Rory Stewart described Prime Minister Boris Johnson as “the most accomplished liar in public life” and “perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister”, disclosing a number of occasions in which he had failed to deliver action on projects he had professed to support. “He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy.” Many of Stewart’s claims rest on private correspondence with Johnson, thus I have no additional knowledge that might affirm or question their accuracy; however, the claims he has made are not wholly surprising, not least because similar headlines are published every hour. Stewart argued that Johnson’s misbehaviour is facilitated by a culture that accepts and expects deception. As such, holistic reformation must occur in both the private and public domain, and indeed across all areas of society: “Unless we begin to repair our political institutions and nurture a society that places more emphasis on personal and political virtue, we will have more to fear than Boris Johnson.” It is deeply unsettling that parliamentary regulations currently prevent politicians from calling each other out. At the end of July, Labour MP Dawn Butler was thrown out of the House of Commons for accusing Johnson of repeatedly lying to the country and “misleading this House” during the pandemic. Under the rules of parliament, MPs are not allowed to make such accusations in the House of Commons, as certain words are considered ‘unparliamentary’. Butler cited an extensive montage of Johnson’s incorrect statements compiled by lawyer Peter Stefanovic, which was later projected onto the side of the Houses of Parliament. If lying is a matter of intentionally uttering incorrect statements with the purpose of misleading other people, then evading questions is a matter of not revealing unpreferable truths with the purpose of misdirection. The result is that many of us have come to expect politicians to talk without actually saying anything; to call someone ‘political’ is, in one sense of the word, to say that they are unforthcoming with information that might bring them disfavour, opposition or controversy. Public figures who are able to ‘say it as it is’ – or at least appear to speak with unbridled directness and honesty – often gain traction among the disenchanted. As the past decade has shown, many are compelled to vote for the anti-politician – someone who represents a rejection of the misdirection that we have come to associate with our world leaders – even if their brashness is really a cover for deception similar to their less-radical counterparts. Hypocrisy & Misconduct Hypocrisy is not just a matter of someone changing their mind on something they had said before, as when an MP advocates for a position they had previously campaigned against, after all, there might well be a legitimate reason their beliefs had changed. Hypocrisy is a matter of keeping one’s words and actions separate – of behaving in direct contradiction with what one believes or professes. Hypocrisy is, as Pope Francis recently put it, “like putting makeup on the soul, like putting makeup on your behaviour”. When the media ignited over the revelation of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock’s affair with political adviser Gina Coladangelo, the emerging public outrage was not merely a matter of disgust at the violation of a marital covenant (this kind of activity, regrettably, occurs all around us), rather, it was indignation that a man who had publicly called for people to make personal sacrifices was failing to live by the same regulations he advocated, not least for such a dishonest and reprehensible purpose. As prominent political scientist Hannah Arendt argued, hypocrisy brings into question the very integrity of the individual: “What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one [...] only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.” – Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (1963) If a leader is not wise and noble in their private lives, can we trust that their actions will truly serve the interests of the public? David Runciman, a Professor of Politics at the University of Cambridge, argues that hypocrisy is an inevitable part of democracy that we should learn to accept; we are voting for someone who represents rather than lives out an ideal. Since at least the early twentieth century, the term ‘champagne socialist’ has been used to describe left-wing politicians who advocate for the demolition of socio-economic inequality while enjoying the pleasures of wealth and luxury. Friedrich Engels, one of the leading figures behind the popularisation of Marxism, inherited his wealth from his father’s textile factories; Ramsay MacDonald, the first Labour Prime Minister, is said to have lived a lavish lifestyle in the company of Britain’s high society, resulting in him disbanding the party to form a National Government in 1931. It may well be the case that hypocrisy has always been a part of political history, and an aspect of it that is all but impossible to completely uproot. Nevertheless, it seems that Runciman has missed something important; as if accepting the inevitability of hypocrisy is cultivating greater distrust, and thereby enabling even more insidious forms of corruption. Certain kinds of hypocrisy, furthermore, actively work against the fulfilment of the ideals these politicians represent, giving fodder to the opposition and power to those who represent a radical alternative. Lobbying Lobbying is the process of attempting to persuade someone of significant political influence to support a particular policy or campaign, as when citizens raise an issue with their local MP to bring before Parliament. However, politicians are not always successfully prevented from lobbying on behalf of organisations or causes for which they also receive an independent financial benefit. In November 2021, for example, Owen Paterson resigned from his position as MP for North Shropshire after an investigation concluded that he used his political influence to benefit two organisations, Randox Laboratories and Lynn's Country Foods, for whom he serves as a paid consultant. He was found to have approached ministers and public officials 14 times to promote products and technology associated with these organisations, even if never successfully establishing a government contract. As a result, the Commons Select Committee on Standards suggested that Paterson should be suspended from the Commons for 30 days, though the government attempted to block this from happening. The resultant black-lash from some politicians, however, forced the government to recall its decision, though Paterson later resigned due to the way the investigation was carried out. He criticised his inability to appeal against the investigation, and argued that the commissioner's pursuit of the inquiry contributed to the declining wellbeing of his late wife, Rose. While MPs are ordinarily prevented from taking bribes to raise particular issues, support a policy or campaign, or use their position to benefit their personal interests, an exemption permits lobbying to alert the government of "a serious wrong or substantial injustice", regardless of whether this might also yield independent benefits. Paterson claimed that he was simply whistleblowing to express concerns over milk and pork standards, though the investigation concluded that this did not account for the volume of his documented approaches to political officials. Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major criticised how Paterson's case has been dealt with by Johnson's government, even claiming: "It seems to me, as a lifelong Conservative, that much of what they are doing is un-Conservative in its behaviour." While paid lobbying and advocacy are outwardly condemned by Parliament, however, it is unclear how MPs' private interests are in fact shaping public policy, and whether the current investigative process might successfully expose such egregious acts of political abuse. In the United States, lobbying from organisations funded by large corporations might well be the fatal blow to the legislation of world-changing environmental policy. Concluding Thoughts My intention, to reinforce my introduction, is not to persuade you to adopt any particular position on the political spectrum. It is, after all, important to recognise that the revelation of deception and hypocrisy does not invalidate the ideals which the individual has failed to uphold. Rather, I hope that this article offers a chance to reflect, reinforce and reorientate ourselves in relation to these ideals. How might we, as individuals, enable those around us to be more honest, compassionate and loyal? Are we willing to be part of the problem, or become part of the solution? After all, it is in our collective interest that we nurture a culture that neither encourages nor condones misconduct at any level. How much more could be achieved if we did not need to spend so much time calling out our leaders? Article on a similar topic: UK Climate Progress is Shadowed by Hypocrisy 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 explores how extended waiting lists for mental health services have affected children’s wellbeing during the pandemic. Photo by Juan Pablo The Covid-19 pandemic has been extremely damaging for everyone’s mental health, particularly our younger generation. Forty-nine per cent of young people seeking mental health support waited more than four weeks to be seen between April 2020 and March 2021, leaving many feeling abandoned by the system. The longer the wait times, the more vulnerable children will be. The NHS has historically struggled with limited funding and soaring waiting times. Increasingly longer periods between referral and treatment can be attributed to the legacy of the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in 2010, which instigated a decade of austerity funding for the NHS. With a squeeze on capital funding and consequent staff shortages, the NHS today is short of approximately 100,000 nurses and doctors, contributing to limited access to mental health services. For every 100,000 patients in England, there are just 246 hospital beds available. Compare this to Germany’s health care system, for example, where there are 800 beds per 100,000 patients, and the deficiency is evident. How can we expect our public health service to adequately refer and treat “distressed” children who suffer from mental health disorders, especially when they end up in A&E with nowhere else to go? Buckling Under Pressure The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), run by the NHS, offered treatment to 420,000 young people during 2020-21, despite 1.5 million under 18-year-olds suffering from mental health disorders. Lockdowns and proto-online education have led to children struggling with “isolation, loneliness, and concerns about the future”, inducing a cascade of referrals to mental health services. With limited funding and limited workers to fight this battle, the NHS simply cannot survive in the current climate. Half of those who were seen by CAMHS waited longer than four weeks, while a fifth waited more than 12 weeks. Although the average waiting times floated around 2 months across the nation, some cases topped the 8 month mark, which is simply unacceptable. According to a CareQuality Commission, it is “unusual to rate a service as good” if the national standard of waiting times—between referral and treatment—exceeded 18 weeks. Currently, Regulation 17 of the Commission has been breached, as the “provider is not managing the waiting list well [and] does not operate an effective system”. Unhappiness Amongst the Young If children are not receiving desperately needed treatment for their mental health, there are fears that our younger generation will continue to struggle with their wellbeing as they grow into adolescence. According to a survey sampling more than half a million children, orchestrated by England’s children’s commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza, 57 per cent of children aged 9-17 are happy with their mental health, while one in five young people are unhappy. De Souza’s survey concluded that 40 per cent of girls aged 16 to 17 are unhappy with their mental health, more than double the statistic for boys. The severity of young people’s mental health has been highlighted by the headteacher of Moon Hall School in Surrey, Michelle Catterson. One of her students attempted suicide earlier this year, but they could not be seen by a professional. The student’s family was unfortunately cornered into paying for private healthcare due to excessive waiting times. Families that are already experiencing financial inequalities will, therefore, be “disproportionately affected” by this waiting time crisis, emphasising the dire need for accessible services to tackle the exponential rise of unhappiness in our younger generation. A Three-Year Resolution Plan Despite Regulation 17 being breached, the government arguably has an “effective plan to resolve the problem”. NHS England has promised it is investing in existing mental health services, which, by 2023, would support an additional 345,000 children. Although 735,000 children are excluded from this scheme, pumping an additional £40m into CAMHS is a step in the right direction. Staff will be provided with adequate mental health training, including the implementation of necessary support networks to prevent children from being directly admitted to hospital. Education has also not been forgotten. De Souza has endorsed a “comprehensive” three-year catchup package for schools, calling for improved services for children struggling with attendance, faster implementation of tutoring support and a voluntary “third session” for the school day incorporating catch-up lessons and extracurricular activities. Ultimately, de Souza has called for upwards of £5.8bn to tackle children’s mental health disorders across the country. De Souza praises the younger generation who has grown up during a global pandemic. They have “seen how colossally frightening life can be”, and deserve the very best health care to thrive in the future. This is certainly “not a ‘snowflake generation’”, she concludes, but rather a “heroic generation”. Pragmatic, civic-minded, yet vulnerable. Article on a similar topic: 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.

Emily Davies reports on how young people globally are taking those in power to Court over climate change – and winning. Photo by Daniil Onischenko Since 1990, over 1,300 climate change-related lawsuits have been filed globally with varying degrees of success. The number of these cases doubled between 2017 and 2020, according to the United Nations Environmental Programme. Many of these are younger people accusing the government of not doing enough to combat global warming, of contributing to climate change, and failing to take action to protect them from the dangers of a heated planet. Human Rights One of many arguments the people taking the government to Court are making is that — in failing to combat climate change — they are violating human rights. One of the more prominent cases that employ this argument involved 25-year-old activist Luisa Neubauer, an environmentalist central to the Fridays for Future movement in Germany. While the Guardian and many other news outlets have named her “the German Greta”, she has rejected this comparison, saying: “We’re building a mass-movement and reaching out quite far in our methods of mobilising and gaining attention. What Greta does is incredibly inspiring but actually relatively far from that.” Neubauer took the German government to Court in 2019 and won, with the court ruling that Germany’s climate change laws are lacking and violate vital freedoms of young people. This is because, by staving off significant climate change action, the burden of managing the effects of global warming will be on today’s younger generations. The Court also ruled that the law was too lacking in detail about how Germany was going to cut CO2 emissions after 2030 – when the current targets should be met. According to the BBC, Neubauer described the ruling as a “huge win for the climate movement”. Youth Discrimination: The Agostinho Case Climate change being a violation of human rights isn’t the only argument being taken to Court – there is also the argument of youth discrimination. This falls along a similar line to the Neubauer case – with the burden of dealing with global warming falling on future generations. The case of youth discrimination was brought to Court by six Portuguese children and younger people with the support of the Global Legal Action Network. They pointed out the obligations of 33 Member States of the Council of Europe under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 2: the right to life Article 8: the right to have a private and family life Article 14: prohibition of discrimination (youth discrimination in this case) Perhaps more surprisingly, however, the Court also invoked Article 3 alongside the other violations: Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment The case was fast-tracked, with the 33 European States being obligated to give information on how they will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. A main complaint of the case is that the states must take responsibility for emissions relating to fossil fuels which they export, the production of imported goods, and the overseas activities of multinationals within their jurisdictions. Juliana vs United States Another prominent climate change case in the U.S. has been ongoing since 2015. 21 young people accused the U.S. government of aggravating climate change and subsequently violating constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. In January 2020, the case was dismissed because the plaintiffs (those who brought the case to Court) lacked substantial grounds for suing. This month, a settlement conference will be held. Many cases like this one are held around an area of environmental law called “atmospheric trust litigation”, which surrounds the public trust doctrine and international responsibility relating to the natural resources of the planet. While taking to the streets to protest inactivity to prevent climate change and the contributions of governments, banks, and polluting industries is great for raising awareness and pressuring those in power to do better, these cases are creating case law for environmental accountability. It shows that there are many ways to help combat global warming – from activism on the streets to creating new case law to helping implement clean power sources. Article on a similar topic: Only 3% of the World's Ecosystems Remain Intact 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.

Nick Webb explores how the slowdown of lockdown has provided an opportunity for environmental change within work and the household. Photo by Roberto Nickson As many countries around the world struggle under various levels of lockdown due to the Coronavirus, the situation has given some a new outlook on becoming more eco-friendly. With more people working from home, less traffic on the roads and in the skies, and a winding back of many heavily-polluting industries, the world saw an overall drop in emissions of around 8% during the first months of 2020. With this, more and more people are realising the extent of their personal carbon footprint and considering change. A poll commissioned by Avocado Green Mattress and undertaken by OnePoll has determined that since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, 64% of 2000 Americans have experienced an “eco wake-up call” since the beginning of the pandemic and have decided that they need to make some lifestyle changes to become more environmentally friendly. This is largely due to the extra time at home giving increased focus on choices being made around the home. The results show that 70% of those polled said that being at home has made them more aware of needing more eco-friendly habits, including being more aware of wasting food, more sparing with paper products, and more considerate when purchasing meat. What About After the Pandemic? While these changes in behaviour were inspired by the Coronavirus, the poll also suggests that 81% of responders are planning to continue with these better habits once the lockdowns are lifted and life can return to normal. Most people are planning to continue their new habits by recycling more (55%), and using fewer paper products. Moreover, many are planning to work from home, with 42% of the sample saying that they would try to work from home at least one day a week. As well as reducing the carbon footprint caused by commuting, it has also been shown that working from home has many other benefits, including better employee happiness levels, and the ability to be more flexible with schedules. “We’re living in unprecedented times. Now, more than ever, we’ve been presented with an opportunity to reflect on and reassess our current way of living as a society, and help make strides towards adopting more thoughtful, sustainable habits.” – Mark Abrials, Chief Marketing Officer of Avocado Green Mattress The survey indicates that people are becoming increasingly interested in ecological issues, both close to home and on a global scale. 79% of the respondents said that they are thinking more about global connectivity between nature and humanity as it is suggested that Covid-19 has its origin in human activity. Abrials has said that “Covid-19 hasn’t just changed our habits, but the survey found it’s also affected the way we think about the world.” The real question is whether these good ecological habits will continue after lockdowns end; how far will people continue to monitor their behaviour responsibly to have a positive effect on the world around them? Hopefully the photos of clean air over China and dolphins in Venice’s canals will inspire greener mindsets for years to come. You may also like: Nature in Repair as Society Slows We are a socio-ethical impact charity advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. A charitable initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall explores the complex and controversial subject of how Britain’s colonial past is still reflected in our museums. Photo by Jeff Siepman Museums are widely accepted as one of the symbols of modern culture. The opening of free museums in Victorian times represented the democratisation of historical and cultural leisure, and allowed mass education to extend beyond the elites. Today, visits to museums and galleries can leave you awe-struck and hungry for more in a way that little else can. They motivate children to become artists, historians and archaeologists, inspire stories of ancient worlds and elicit passionate reactions from young and old alike. One of the most intriguing things about the UK’s famous and treasured museums – the British Museum, the Victoria & Albert Museum, the Natural History Museum and the National Gallery, to name a few – is the cultural and geographic variety of their collections. The wide range of countries and civilisations represented in our establishments provides us with a window to the rest of the world, and can promote tolerance and appreciation of other cultures, as I believe was the case in my experience. However, the origins of such varied collections are nothing if not dubious. In some cases, and certainly not uncommonly, the artefacts on display were collected by colonial force rather than gifted or lent voluntarily by their country of origin. This fact has been brought increasingly into the spotlight in recent years, and has led some to become disapproving of museums altogether. I believe it is essential to national culture and education that our museums and galleries remain central in society, but, looking to a more enlightened future, this may not be possible if they do not alter the narratives surrounding their collections or reconsider how they regard the artefacts they keep. Britain’s Colonial Past In the 19th century, Britain was the biggest colonial power in the world. The British Empire was at its peak midway through the century, and Queen Victoria was the most powerful person on the planet. While this fact elicited pride and patriotism at the time, British imperialism is deeply problematic, built upon a Eurocentric superiority complex which cast all non-western cultures under an umbrella of ignorance, savagery and inferiority. The belief in this inferiority justified an era of vicious colonisation, invading countries across Africa and Asia, then claiming them as the latest addition to the Empire. While British occupation in the colonies did afford some natives new opportunities in education and employment, cultural erasure and aggressive racism were arguably the defining features of the period. Historical artefacts from these places were treated either as badges of honour – the spoils of yet another imperial conquest – or an amusing demonstration of the primitive nature of foreign ‘savages’. Despite the fall of the Empire many years ago, many of the spoils of colonial plunder remain in our museums, with little to no recognition of how they got there. In the wake of last year’s Black Lives Matter protests, which forced anti-racism and decolonisation into the spotlight, this needs to change. People argue for two differing approaches to do so. Some say that all objects obtained through imperial pursuits should have this fact clearly marked on their displays, so visitors reading about the collection will be fully aware of the history of the objects. Others go one step further, saying that artefacts taken unwillingly should be repatriated, i.e., returned to their nation of origin. Demands for Repatriation British establishments have been facing increasingly urgent calls to give up some of their artefacts for a number of years now. Last year, this came to a head, as Arts Council England released a document addressing the ethical and practical issues surrounding the repatriation of objects, as more and more restitution claims are being made against UK museums. Perhaps the most infamous artefacts in any British Museum are the Elgin Marbles – a collection of marbles taken from the Parthenon in Greece by Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, in 1816. The collection currently in the museum represent around half of a 160-metre frieze which originally adorned the iconic temple located in Athens. Elgin did receive permission from the Greek government to take some of the marbles, but, according to environmental philosophy scholar Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, “few (if any) scholars are willing to defend the view that formal permission was given to remove as many of the Marbles as Lord Elgin did in the end.” Despite the Acropolis Museum in Greece having to use plaster replicas of the original marbles currently in UK, the British Museum’s trustees have defended their choice not to return the objects, claiming that “the breadth and depth of [the museum’] collection allow a global public to examine cultural identities and explore the complex network of interconnected human cultures”, and the marbles “are a vital element in this interconnected world collection.” The British Museum has also come under fire for not returning Hoa Hakananai'a – an ancient Chilean statue taken from Easter Island in 1868 as a gift to Queen Victoria. Indigenous tribes from the iconic island argue that the statue should be returned as it has both spiritual and historical significance, but the museum is determined to hold onto it. Carlos Edmunds, the president of the Council of Elders, states that “It embodies the spirit of an ancestor, almost like a grandfather. This is what we want returned to our island – not just a statue.” “Museums, state officials, journalists and public intellectuals in various countries have stepped up to the discussion. The British Museum, born and bred in empire and colonial practice, is coming under scrutiny. And yet it hardly speaks.” - Ahdaf Soueif Soueif is an Egyptian writer who resigned as a trustee of the British Museum due to their failure to consider repatriation. The Beginning of Progress Some countries have already begun repatriation projects, with a recent announcement that Germany will return their entire share of the long-disputed Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. The bronzes – a large collection of 16th-century bronze plaques and sculptures – were previously on display in the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg after being plundered from Nigeria by British soldiers in 1897. This move puts the British Museum under even greater pressure to return 900 Benin artefacts they gained in the same raid, especially since both the Horniman Museum, London and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge have volunteered to return their Benin items. In recent weeks, many have called upon the British Museum to exploit a discretionary loophole to return items, in particular, a selection of Ethiopian sacred tablets (tabots) claimed while the country was in the British Empire. The loophole would allow for items to be repatriated if the museum brands them “unfit” for display. A letter to the museum’s trustees, signed by peers and celebrities including Stephen Fry, states that “We believe that today the British Museum has a unique opportunity to build a lasting and meaningful bridge of friendship between Britain and Ethiopia by handing the tabots back to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.” The museum has yet to respond. Few people believe that all British museums and galleries should be emptied of all artefacts with foreign origins, but it is crucial that they recognise and are vocal about the ethical issues surrounding some of their displays, both in terms of the future of UK cultural representation and in how younger generations engage with the results of colonialism. The only thing that should be stuck in the past is these establishments’ displays, not their mindsets. Article on a similar topic: Science Museum is Paid by Shell to Hush 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.

Jonny Rogers breaks down the IPCC’s latest report on climate change, explaining why scientific evidence is invaluable in an age of hypocrisy and disinformation. Photo by Jo-Anne McArthur The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its Sixth Assessment Report, reviewing and consolidating the latest scientific evidence on climate change. “It is unequivocal”, the report confidently declares, “that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”. With contributions from 234 scientists across 66 countries, the report tracked a wide range of changes and patterns in the Earth’s atmosphere. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres described its conclusions as “code red” for humanity: “The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible.” The IPCC Report The Earth’s climate has seen a lot of changes throughout its long history, though the present rate of change is the primary cause for concern – global surface temperatures have risen at a faster rate over the past 50 years than at any other point in the past two millennia. The last five years have been the hottest since at least 1850, and sea levels have risen faster since 1900 than any other century on record. In 2019, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was the highest it has been in at least 2 million years. Without large-scale reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, the coming decades will see the global temperature increase to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial levels (temperatures recorded in 1850-1900). This revelation highlights the importance of the Paris Agreement – which aims to keep the global temperature rise beneath this range – and illustrates the catastrophic consequences of our failure. If we continue on our present trajectory, sea levels will continue to rise and extreme weather events will become more frequent. We will see an increase in flooding in low-lying coastal areas, which will severely impact both oceanic ecosystems and the people who rely on them. Arctic permafrost will continue to melt, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby further accelerating climate change. Many of these changes will be irreversible for centuries or even millennia. Even if, however, we never reach the 1.5-degree temperature increase, the impact of our changing climate is already evident. The past few weeks alone have seen wildfires breakout in the United States, Canada, Greece, Algeria and Turkey, while much of Western Europe and China have experienced unprecedented rainfall and catastrophic flooding. Truth in an Age of Hypocrisy Prior to the publication of the IPCC report, Alok Sharma, who will be leading the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November, said that the next decade will be “absolutely decisive” in terms of climate action. “[The IPCC Report] is going to be the starkest warning yet that human behaviour is alarmingly accelerating global warming and this is why Cop26 has to be the moment we get this right. We can’t afford to wait two years, five years, 10 years – this is the moment.” – Alok Sharma, President of COP26 However, the UK has recently come under criticism for its apparent hypocrisy. In May, the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for governments to end all investment in oil, gas and coal, and to terminate the production of fossil-fuel cars beyond 2035. However, the UK has recently permitted exploration of the Cambo oilfield near Shetland despite promising to end new oil exploration licences, justifying this development as an expansion of an existing oilfield. In addition, the government has failed to rule out both the exploration of the North Sea for oil reserves and the construction of a new coal mine in Cumbria. Although it may be easy to feel powerless when the biggest decisions are made by only a handful of people, many of whom do not seem to have the interests of the planet in mind, journalists and activists must remain vigilant in observing and pointing out the hypocrisies of world leaders and corporations. Unearthed - Greenpeace UK’s investigative platform - recently posed as head-hunters to stage an interview with Keith McCoy, a senior lobbyist from fossil fuel conglomerate ExxonMobil. He revealed to them that the company has lobbied US senators (both Republican and Democrat) to weaken Biden’s plans for green infrastructure, and has fought against legislative action using ‘shadow groups’ which undermine the scientific evidence on climate change. Nevertheless, the IPCC report will hopefully go a long way to dissuade climate change denial, and will instead motivate the drastic action which is urgently needed. We still have the chance to minimise catastrophic suffering in both the near and distant future if we act in accordance with the scientific evidence. “If we combine forces now, we can avert climate catastrophe.  But, as today’s report makes clear, there is no time for delay and no room for excuses. I count on government leaders and all stakeholders to ensure COP26 is a success.” – UN Secretary-General António Guterres Article on a similar topic: Only 3% of the World's Ecosystems Remain Intact 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 alarming new figures surrounding food waste. Photo by Joshua Hoehne How much of your food ends up in the bin? Vegetables that you forgot were in the fridge, cheese that goes off before you have the chance to eat it, the yoghurt you picked up in the shop and never felt like eating. What about the bread which seems to go mouldy after you’ve eaten two slices? The UN Environment Programme’s Food Waste Index shows that 900 million tonnes of food are thrown away annually – that’s 17% of all food available to consumers. That number consists of the bread, cheese and vegetables you and your friends and your friends’ friends discard every week. It also contains all the food waste from your favourite restaurant and takeaway. It’s also all the weirdly shaped carrots and off-colour bananas in shops that you don’t want to buy because they don’t look good. Over seven billion people live on this planet, and 925 million of them are starving. The food we waste every year is equivalent to 23 million trucks of food – enough to feed almost three billion people. The good news is that during lockdown, domestic food waste has gone down in the UK. Wrap, a sustainability charity that partnered with the UN on this report, says UK residents have been planning their shopping and meals more considerately since the beginning of the pandemic. Whether this is because people don’t want to spend as much time browsing the shelves in a COVID-19 environment or if more people are becoming aware of their environmental impact, food waste is decreasing. Nevertheless, this issue remains ongoing and is having a detrimental impact on the people and the world around us. Why is Food Wastage So Bad? Apart from the food waste in Europe being able to feed 200 million people, food waste is also an issue for global warming. Food waste accounts for 4.4 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions each year; if food waste was a country, it would be the third-largest emitter, according to the Stop Wasting Food Movement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most developed countries have the most detrimental impact on global food waste, with richer countries wasting as much food annually (222 million tonnes) as the entire food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes). The shocking statistics of the most wasted food groups globally are as follows: 40%-50% of root crops, fruit and vegetables are wasted, as well as… 35% of fish 30% of cereals 20% of dairy, meat and oilseeds. By 2050, the world is projected to be housing nine billion people. To keep up with this acceleration in the number of hungry mouths to be fed, food production has to increase by 70%, and reducing food waste will a long way to meet this goal. How is the Food Waste Number So High? Right now, you might be trying to wrap your head around the 900 million number – I don’t blame you, it’s a big number. How could we possibly be wasting so much? Apart from household waste, restaurants’ food waste and unsold food in shops, other factors are contributing to our wasteful culture. For example, in Africa, post-harvest food losses could feed 48 million people – food processing and poor storage significantly contribute to food loss. This issue is not discussed nearly enough in the media, nor within our households. While the problem rests predominantly on the shoulders of the food production, sale and hospitality industries, there are things we can bear in mind so our habits have a positive impact too, including: Meal-planning to ensure we don’t buy too much food Use the freezer to preserve food we can’t eat right now Research how to store foods properly – refrigerating certain foods and vice versa could speed up the rotting process Consider making stocks, broths or other recipes out of left-over vegetable trimmings Buy the fruit and veggies in the shop which are less perfect – they’ll taste the same! Grow your own if possible; this will also reduce your carbon footprint – always a plus. Article on a similar topic: The Broken Global Food System is Harmful 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 studies showing that suicide has increased in recent decades, and how suicide prevention should be prioritised. Photo by Arif Riyanto In 2018, there were over 6.5 thousand registered suicides in the UK – 11.2 out of every 100,000 people. Around three-quarters of these deaths were men, and the largest age group was 45-49 years. It is important to remember that each figure represents real lives that have been lost, and that no suicide rate, as Professor Louis Appleby says, is an acceptable one. According to Our World in Data, around 800,000 people die from suicide each year, while around 150,000 are killed in conflict and terrorist activity. As Yuval Noah Harari puts it, “of all the people in the world, you are most likely to be killed by yourself”. Covid, Mental Health and Suicide Although there were concerns that the national lockdowns caused by the coronavirus pandemic would see an increase in suicides in the UK, a study from the University of Manchester found no evidence that was this was the case. Another study showed that suicide rates even decreased in the first few months of lockdown across a number of nations. However, it will likely take a few years before we can begin to understand the impact of the pandemic, as the residual effect of limited social contact, health-related issues and increased unemployment will, for some, last for many years. In October 2020, paramedic callouts to suicides and attempted suicides in London doubled in a year. Other reports have claimed that the suicide rate in Thailand has increased over the past year due to bereavement, financial insecurity and the loss of support networks. Thailand had previously been found to have the highest rate of suicide amongst Southeast Asian nations. In March this year, the UK government announced a mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan, which includes a £500 million investment targeting individuals who have been most impacted by the pandemic. The government aims to provide mental health care for an extra 2 million people every year by investing £2.3 billion more per year. Suicide Prevention There is no one cause of suicide, and therefore no easy solution. It has been suggested that middle-aged men are more likely to die by suicide due to an inability to attain certain ‘masculine ideals’ which often encourage resistance to showing vulnerability and openness. However, the rate of suicide amongst females under 25 in England and Wales has increased by 93.8% since 2012; and, in the United States, suicides amongst black adolescents increased from 2001 to 2017. Studies have shown that socio-economic disadvantage is a key risk factor for suicidal behaviour, with suicide rates often increasing after economic recessions. As such, it is believed that investment in welfare, education, housing and employment will help save many lives. It is also important that those working in news, journalism and entertainment are responsible for representing suicide in an appropriate and sensitive way. A study from the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry found that the release of Netflix’s 13 Reasons Why in 2017, which revolves around the aftermath of a teenager’s suicide, coincided with “a significant increase in monthly suicide rates among US youth aged 10 to 17 years”. According to Samaritans – a charity aimed at providing support to those in emotional distress – excessive media coverage of celebrity suicides has resulted in an increase of suicides from members of the public, and reports that detail methods and locations can encourage imitators. On the other hand, stories that show people seeking appropriate help can testify that it is possible to get through a difficult time. Samantha Lovell, whose brother took his own life last year, offers the following advice for those who are struggling, and those who know others that are: “My message to someone thinking about taking their own life is, talk to people, get help, do anything you can to stop yourself from doing that. You think people are better off without you, that’s not true at all.” Samaritans can be contacted for free at 116 112, or by emailing jo@samaritans.org. If you have any reason to believe that a friend, neighbour or member of your family is having a difficult time, take a moment to reach out and invite them to seek the appropriate support. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Concerns of a National Lockdown 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 explores how garment rental is key in promoting ethical consumer action and combatting the fashion industry’s environmental qualms. Photo by Parker Coffman A report by the World Economic Forum has stated that the fashion industry generates 5% of global carbon emissions, suggesting that the traditional consumer model has to adapt in order to be more environmentally friendly. The global production of clothing has doubled in the past 15 years to keep up with the rise of fast fashion. Yet, the growing demand for clothes does not mean every bought item is worn. Reportedly, UK adults wear just 44% of the clothing they own, resulting in the disposal of 350,000 tons of clothes in landfills (with an estimated value of £140 million) every year. If consumers are simply investing and, just as flippantly, disposing of these items, our climate crisis will only keep spiralling out of control. A New Perspective Garment rental services have previously lived in the shadow of the UK’s most prolific designer outlets. Often described as the Airbnb of the fashion world, renting clothes has opened up a growing market in the distribution of (once) private property. While this service was, frankly, unheard of before the coupling of “social” and “distancing” entered our everyday vernacular, garment rentals have had a soaring popularity due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Garment rental services such as My Wardrobe HQ, By Rotation and OnLoan are now targeted to be worth a total of £2.3 billion by 2029, with Carrie Johnson applauding and promoting the service after renting her wedding dress as well as several outfits for the G7 summit. The desire to temporarily invest in expensive garments as one-hit-wonders is thought to be the solution to the fashion industry’s immediate problem of wasting perfectly fine clothes. This demand for ethically sourced clothing is reflected in the 66% increase in internet searches for “sustainable fashion” since 2018. How Does it Work? The idea is simple: businesses or private lenders offer a fee to consumers for hiring a single item for a set period. For example, a Chanel quilted handbag has a retail price of £3,000 but can be offered to a consumer for £18 a day. Payment depends on the asking price of the lender, the set rental duration varies, and there is no regulation on the age of the garment. It must merely be in excellent condition. “Rather than deny the innate human desire for newness, which we associate with pleasure and reward, fashion rental can give us the dopamine release we need - maybe more so during tough times.” - Carolyn Mair, The Guardian If the human desire for “newness” is quenched through renting clothes, perhaps the mass production of new garments will be reduced if a competing market fiercely enters the fashion scene. Breaking Down the Logistics Garment rental services tread a fine line between promoting a “circular economy” - where clothes are recycled between consumers as a form of “greenwashing” - and ironically encouraging excessive investment in rented clothes. The question has been asked whether garment rentals could be equally, or even more, damaging to the environment than the usual consumer pattern. The abundance of access-based consumption is the main point of contention. Steven Curtis argues that encouragement of increased consumption means consumers have access to a greater selection of goods at a reduced price. Transportation, in particular, is one of the top sources of carbon emissions in the U.S, which could spell disaster for the environmental benefits of garment rental services seeing as home deliveries are key for a successful operation. Sacha Newall optimistically compares the growing garment rental industry to car rentals: “For every one car shared, 11 are taken off the road”. However, in this case, cars are not being taken off the road. Instead, more vehicles are seemingly deployed to transport more rented items of clothing. Josué Velázquez-Martínez builds on this, explaining that a returned item that is ordered online can emit 20 kilograms of carbon for each journey, soaring up to 50 kilograms for “last-mile deliveries”, which comprises a quarter of the transportation carbon footprint. If you were to purchase, wash and wear garments outright, that figure could be reduced to 33 kilograms of carbon. Striving Towards Conscious Fashion What Velázquez-Martínez does not consider is that, to date, the fashion industry is responsible for 1.2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year (more than flights and maritime shipping combined). To tackle this, garment rental services like Rotaro enforce biodegradable and recyclable packaging, carbon-neutral delivery and wet-wash laundry, which is considerably more eco-friendly than dry-cleaning. Eshita Kabra-Davies rightly points out that “A lot of people have noticed how small their space is and how much stuff they’ve amassed, and realised they don’t need that much”. Therefore, garment rental services that are conscious of the waste they produce and actively promote more eco-friendly operations are certainly stepping in the right direction. These services are not designed for everyday use, nor should they be abolished altogether. They are best used in moderation for special occasions such as weddings. Fashion businesses that adopt a rental service are not replacing the traditional consumer model, but instead are an evolution that can operate alongside Dana Thomas’ “buy less, buy better” mantra of shopping. Indeed, garment rental services shatter the traditional mould of profligate lifestyles in a campaign to make consumers more conscious of the fashion they are investing in. Article on a similar topic: Minimalism: Benefiting the Planet and Mind 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.

Jenny Donath reports on the unusual sighting of a Egyptian vulture on the Isle of Scilly despite its rapid global decline. Photo by Aurore Murguet The rare spotting of an Egyptian Vulture on the Isles of Scilly has caused astonishment among dedicated birdwatchers. The Egyptian vulture, which was perceived as a sacred animal by Egyptian pharaohs and represents the letter A in the Egyptian hieroglyphic alphabet, was sighted on the Isles of Scilly back in June of this year. The bird was first spotted over St. Mary’s, and had later moved on north to Tresco. Will Wagstaff, a bird guide, recorded the spectacular bird with his camera, which promptly resulted in amazed birdwatchers travelling to the Isles to catch sight of it themselves. There are only two other recorded sightings in the UK, in 1825 and 1868, as the bird usually resides in warmer regions. Ecologist prof. Stuart Bearhop states that seeing an Egyptian vulture in the south of the UK “is an incredibly rare sighting”. The Egyptian Vulture? With a length of 65 centimetres and a weight of only 1.9 kg on average, the Egyptian vulture, formally known as Neophron percnopterus, is one of the smallest vultures in the world. Its plumage is a mixture of black flight feathers and white neck feathers, but they are usually tinged in red and brown since the vulture tends to rub itself in iron-rich mud. Despite its small statue, they can reach a maximum wingspan of roughly 170 centimetres, and have a life expectancy of at least 37 years in captivity. The Egyptian vulture’s typical diet is carrion such as livestock and small wild animals, as well as insects and plants. To get easy access to its food sources, it usually nests and hunts nearby. Its intelligence can be observed by its use of tools, which is common for only a few birds. For instance, they sometimes feed on large eggs such as ostrich eggs, which they crack open by throwing stones at them. The vulture usually nests amongst the rocky cliffs found in the dry areas or deserts of Southern Europe such as Spain or Turkey, and rarely settles in parts of Italy, Greece or France. Groups can also be found in the western and southern parts of Asia, or in the north of Africa. In August or September, the European populations migrate to warmer regions such as the southern grass regions of the Sahara. Regarding its breeding behaviour, the Egyptian vulture is a solidary bird. Usually nesting in groups, they begin reproducing when they are four to five years old. They lay two eggs which take around six weeks to hatch. The chicks remain in the nest for another eighty days on average. A Rare Phenomenon The Egyptian vulture is one of many endangered bird species, with only 12,000 to 23,000 mature individuals worldwide of which 25-49% reside in European regions, but the overall number is decreasing. For instance, for the past thirty years, the colonies on the Balkans have experienced a yearly decline of 7%. This massive decline is due to a variety of threats such as accidental poisoning through contaminated livestock carcasses which were fed with medicine. Furthermore, in some areas, highly toxic pesticides such as strychnine are used to regulate carnivores. In other regions poachers are responsible for the decline in vultures, as they attempt to sell body parts for spiritual uses. Concerns have been raised surrounding whether the bird simply got lost and crossed the English Channel by accident, or whether more serious matters like rising temperatures due to changing climate gave reason for the vulture to fly northwards. Either way, it was a welcome visitor while it was here. Article on a similar topic: Beavers Brought Back to Help Prevent Flooding in 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.

Jenny Donath reports about the lobbying of US firms despite underlying evidence of the effect of animal agriculture on climate change. Photo by Subtle Cinematics The emissions of greenhouse gases keep on increasing while meat and dairy companies try to erase link between animal agriculture and global warming. CO2 emissions are the number one driving force behind the imminent ramifications of climate change. Over the last seventy years, emissions have increased drastically. In 2019, overall emissions accounted for more than 36 billion tonnes compared to the six billion tonnes recorded in 1950. With animal agriculture accounting for 16.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions, it is undeniable that leaders of the meat and dairy industries need to take responsibility for their impact on the planet. However, a new study reveals that they have are spending large amounts of money on covering their tracks. Lobbying and Lies According to a NYU-based study, the meat and dairy industry are trying to undermine the output of their greenhouse gases. Of 35 companies, only four — Nestle, Danone, Danish Crown and Dairy Farmers of America — have decided to support the net-zero emissions goal. In Switzerland and New Zealand, where some of those companies’ headquarters are based, other firms choose to omit the improvement of animal agriculture completely. Furthermore, the study has revealed that the ten biggest US-based companies, e.g. Cargill and Tyson, financially support organisations that attempt to combat the scientific evidence of the urgent climate emergency and their responsibility, by publishing unsubstantiated and questionable climate change research. Researchers unveiled that almost $200 million were spent on lobbying to distort the effect of meat and dairy production on climate change between 2000 and 2019. One of those companies is the National Pork Producers Council, who voted against a so-called Cap-and-Trade bill which would intervene with their allocated cropland. Others are the National Chicken Council, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI), of which the latter defended its impact on the environment by comparing their emissions to Brazil, which has even worse annual agriculture emissions. Jennifer Jacquet, who is one of the authors of the study and a professor of the Department of Environmental Studies at NYU, said that “US industry really leans on Brazil’s terrible carbon footprint to compare its own” and is not surprised “that they’re this active in shaping climate discourse.” Animal Agriculture and Climate Change The dairy and meat industries are significant factors in the continuous increase in greenhouse gases. Beef meat and cattle milk production have the highest emissions in total, shortly followed by pig meat, chicken meat, and eggs. Of all livestock, cattle contribute 62% to those emitted gases. “Part of that is because digestion by ruminants produces a lot of methane,” says Prof. Sir Charles Godfray, a population biologist. The more cows are raised in one farm, the more methane will be released. Hence, why a lot of criticism has been directed towards this type of animal farming. As a result, more crops must be grown to feed the animals. Alternatively, that land could be used to grow food, e.g. vegetables for human food consumption. Pig housing and chicken keeping equally contribute to the raise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as pigs and chickens in farms mainly rely on soya as a food source. This means that large parts of rainforests in Latin America get logged despite trees being well-known for absorbing carbon-dioxide and converting it into oxygen. The International Energy Agency (IEA), an alliance of countries, shares a common goal — net-zero emissions by 2050. The focus lies on achieving a maximum rise in temperature of 1.5ºC by creating, among others, a functioning electricity system and eliminating the use of fossil fuel and coal plants. Large corporations such as oil or automotive industries must completely overhaul their approaches to lower their CO2 emissions. Furthermore, meat and dairy industries, — which count as “some of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change” — must change their strategy to more environmentally friendly. Concluding Comments If the nations and industries most responsible for those greenhouse emissions don’t begin to make a difference now, the world will be facing devastating effects. The increase of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere through human-made constructs has already begun to have a massive impact. For instance, the ocean alone absorbs thirty percent of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which leads to an increase in water acidity. Since carbon dioxide plays a key role in controlling the temperature of the earth, the ongoing decline of the Arctic ice caps will result in a much wider water surface. This means that even more energy will be absorbed by the ocean. Furthermore, if we exceed the 1.5ºC goal, we will be facing more frequent and extreme hot weather, beyond what has been recorded today. Agricultural droughts, a rise in sea level, and monsoon-like rainfall are just a few irreversible effects which would change life as we know it. Article on a similar topic: Big Agriculture is Leading to an Ecological Breakdown 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 President Daniel Ortega’s prosecution of political rivals, former allies and critics of his government. Photo by Scott Umstattd At the beginning of September, Sergio Ramirez, a prominent novelist and former Vice President of Nicaragua, was detained on the charge of conspiring to destabilise the country. This story is not the only one of its kind - as the nation approaches November’s general election, critics of President Daniel Ortega are being silenced. In 2018, demonstrations against social security reforms to decrease pensions grew into wider anti-government protests that have continued to this day (despite protests having being declared illegal by Ortega). Since authorities first responded with lethal force, at least 300 people have been killed in these demonstrations. As sociologist Oscar René Vargas explains, the past few years have unsettled Ortega’s control, provoking him to subdue anyone who might inspire another uprising: “In 2018, they lost the streets [...] The repression was carried out so that people wouldn't return to the streets again.” Political Rivals and Former Allies The murder of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro in 1978, who was a leading journalist and opponent of the Somoza dictatorship (1936-1979), was a catalyst for the Nicaraguan Revolution (1978-1990). The Sandinista National Liberation Front overthrew Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979, seizing power over the country. Between 1979 and 1985, Daniel Ortega served as the coordinator of a provisional government - the Junta of National Reconstruction - before becoming President of Nicaragua in 1985. In 1990, however, Ortega lost an election to Violeta Chamorro, the widow of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro. Although Ortega returned to presidency in 2007, the Chamorro family, who are widely influential in Nicaraguan media, are frequently targeted by the president - in 2018, a media channel run by Carlos Fernando Chamorro was raided and had equipment confiscated by Nicaraguan police. This year, Christiana Chamorro Barrios, a pre-candidate for presidency and former director of the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation, was formally charged with money laundering by Ortega’s regime, thus disqualifying her candidacy. Before her house arrest in June, Christiana tweeted: “My commitment is to the people who want unity against Ortega. I am not and we are not afraid.” Dora María Téllez, a commander for the Sandinista National Liberation Front who had fought against Somoza alongside Ortega (serving as health minister under his leadership), was also arrested in June this year. In 1995, she co-founded the Sandinista Renovation Movement standing in opposition to Ortega, though the party was stripped of its legal status in 2008 after Téllez criticised the president. As a family member of Téllez has claimed, “We live in a prison called Nicaragua”. A report from Amnesty documents 10 public figures who have ‘disappeared’ after speaking out against Ortega. Insecurity and State Control It is clear that Ortega is not only afraid of his political rivals and former allies, but anyone who might ‘destabilise’ the country through questioning the authority and integrity of his government. As with any tyranny, the insecurities of a few are causing the suffering of many. Doctors in Nicaragua have been accused of perpetuating ‘health terrorism’ by First Lady and Vice President Rosario Murillo for claiming that Covid has been far more widespread than government officials have acknowledged. A number of health experts, including Dr. Leonel Arguello, a prominent epidemiologist, have fled the country following months of death threats and harassment. Some doctors report having been called into the Health Ministry and told to stop providing statistics which diverge from official statements under threat that their medical licence could be revoked. Other arrests include environmentalist Amaru Ruiz, who was charged with “spreading false news using information and communications technologies”. He was the president of the River Foundation, an environmental organisation whose legal permission was withdrawn after Ruiz spread awareness about a huge forest fire in a tropical nature reserve in 2018. Ruiz’s recent arrest, however, follows his alleged criticism of the government for failing to investigate the murder of 13 indigenous people on the North Caribbean Coast. The Nicaraguan government has, in addition, cancelled operating permits for six non-governmental organisations from the United States and Europe, including Oxfam and the International Republican Institute. This followed sanctions from the European Union on a number of political figures, including Murillo, on the grounds of “serious human rights violations”. This will severely impact the potential for international aid organisations to offer support on human rights, environmental issues, poverty alleviation, health and education. The next few months and years will be turbulent for the people of Nicaragua, but Ortega’s failures and insecurities are becoming more transparent across the globe. As Gioconda Belli, an author and poet, describes, “The emperor has no clothes, the emperor is naked”. Article on a similar topic: Nigeria: 12 Killed in Protests Against Police Brutality 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.

Martha Davies explores the complex issue of accepting refugees into the UK in the wake of the crisis in Afghanistan. Photo by Christian Lue Every day, people are forced to flee from conflict and persecution that occurs across the world. Today, such displacement is more of an issue than ever before. COVID-19 has added another terrifying obstacle to the lives of refugees, with lockdowns exacerbating already perilous and impoverished conditions, while the looming threat of climate change means we can expect increasing numbers of people forced to leave their homes to escape dangerous weather conditions such as floods and heatwaves. The matter of wealthier countries accepting refugees has always been a point of contention for politicians and citizens alike, not to mention the refugees themselves. Due to concurring conflicts in the Middle East, 2015 saw a sharp escalation in the number of people seeking refuge in European countries; consequently, hostility to refugees began to grow significantly, ushering in the so-called migrant crisis. Compounded by the vitriolic xenophobia of both the Trump and Brexit campaigns, such hostility is becoming a serious issue, as people facing violence and persecution continue to require support from countries ever more hesitant to provide it. The issue crystallised after Afghanistan was taken over by the Taliban in August, creating an unprecedented wave of refugees. The UK has pledged to resettle a target number of 20,000 Afghans in the wake of this emergency, but are we doing enough? The UK’s Resettlement Scheme On April 1st 2021, the UK launched its Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme, which was designed to resettle Afghans who worked with the UK government. After Afghanistan was seized by the Taliban, however, an additional programme called the Afghan Citizens' Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) was announced. The government has pledged to welcome 20,000 Afghan refugees into the UK, with 5,000 resettled in the first year. Those in particular danger from the Taliban, such as women, children, and minority groups, will be prioritised. Dubbed ‘Operation Warm Welcome’, the government’s new plan for integrating the refugees will be overseen by Victoria Atkins, the new Minister for Afghan Resettlement. The plan will support refugees in matters of education, housing, healthcare and employment, and it involves a £5m boost for local authorities in order to assist with finding and renting properties. Previous Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, has stated that almost all those in Afghanistan who hold single UK nationality and required documentation have returned to the UK, but exact numbers are difficult to estimate, and it is unclear how many dual-nationality Britons are still stranded in Afghanistan. It has been reported that many Afghans who worked as contractors on UK aid projects were not granted resettlement by the government or simply did not receive a response after sending off their applications. In fact, criticism has arisen over the government’s creation of the resettlement schemes in favour of traditional routes of asylum, which are better equipped to accept people entering the country unexpectedly. With such formal methods of resettlement, many Afghans are unable to seek asylum in the UK, while others who have already made the journey have had their applications put on hold. A Rocky Start to Resettlement? A serious issue affecting the UK’s intake and integration of Afghan refugees is Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill, which has been put forward as part of the government’s new approach to immigration. The stated aims of the bill are to deter illegal entry to the UK and remove those with no right to live here, ultimately reforming the ‘broken’ asylum system and theoretically making it fairer. However, multiple aspects of the bill are extremely alarming; crucially, people entering the UK via illegal routes, such as crossing the Channel in small boats, could have their asylum claims rejected and receive a jail sentence of up to four years. This could create a situation in which Afghans forced to undertake illegal journeys to escape the Taliban will be treated as criminals simply for attempting to seek refuge in the UK. The Bill also sets out the aim to divert boats carrying illegal migrants in an effort to prevent them from entering the UK, and it has been revealed that Border Force officials have been trained in turning back vessels in the Channel, sending them back into French waters. This tactic is reportedly only allowed with the permission of the Home Secretary herself, but it remains deeply troubling. French politicians have expressed extreme concern, saying that the tactics breach maritime law, which states that anyone at risk of losing their lives at sea must be rescued. With such fervent attempts at driving migrants away from British shores, the government’s promised ‘warm welcome’ seems almost ironic - nothing more than a hollow promise. But accepting refugees is not simply the duty of more developed countries like the UK, it also boasts huge cultural and economic advantages. How Refugees Can Help Us Taking in refugees may feel like an immense challenge, but many countries have created extremely successful resettlement and integration schemes, and reaped the rewards. Germany is perhaps the most prominent example: as huge numbers of people fled terrorism and war in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq in 2015, German chancellor Angela Merkel announced that the country would take in an unlimited number of refugees. Although such a brave decision was met with apprehension, policymakers worked to overhaul the asylum processing system and streamline its procedures. Infrastructure, housing and integration courses were also improved in order to aid resettlement. Such improvements, it seems, would be hugely advantageous for the UK, which is already concerned about taking in a fraction of the number of refugees now successfully settled in Germany: over a million currently reside in Germany, and over half are employed in stable jobs. Refugees have helped to boost the country’s aging labour market; in general, they are a vital addition to the national workforce, and an overwhelming number are highly skilled even if they have received no formal education. Combined with the cultural enrichment provided by refugees, such advantages cannot be overlooked. We must do what we can, then, to foster an environment of both tolerance and generosity as Afghans start their new lives in the UK. Fighting back against nationalism and xenophobia is vital if we are to help those simply taking up their right to seek asylum and pursue a better life. Article on a similar topic: Taliban in Afghanistan: 20 Years of Progress Undone 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as the coronavirus pandemic causes NHS waiting lists to reach a devastating high. Photo by Clay Banks The National Health Service’s waiting list for medical treatment in England has hit 5.3 million patients – the highest number since records began in 2007. The latest figure has exacerbated fears that the list could reach a huge 7 million patients by the end of the year. Experts warn the “unprecedented” backlog – which has been caused largely by the coronavirus pandemic – could have a detrimental impact on both the waiting patients and the Service itself. The greatest concern is currently held for patients who are waiting for cancer treatment, heart operations, hip and knee replacements and cataract-removal surgeries, as all these procedures can be significantly life-improving or life-saving. Another Epidemic The extent of the NHS delays caused by Covid-19 cannot be understated. By the end of March 2021, more than 436,000 patients had been waiting for over 52 weeks to receive treatment, compared with 387,000 in February and just 3,097 back in March 2020. As of June 2021, 2,722 patients had been waiting for treatment for over two years. The numbers are rising rapidly, with more and more people every day being told they may not be eligible for treatment for months. This unprecedented problem for the NHS is set to continually worsen, with healthcare leaders saying there is an “immense task ahead” to provide everyone with the care they need. “Waits of this magnitude are not acceptable to anyone and we know that the NHS and government are working hard to find a solution.” – Tim Gardner, senior policy fellow at the Health Foundation thinktank Macmillan Cancer Support has highlighted how many cancer diagnoses may have been missed due to lockdowns, saying 300,000 fewer patients than usual have seen a specialist for suspected cancer since the pandemic began, and 35,000 fewer have started treatment for the disease. They project that the NHS would have to work at 110% of pre-pandemic levels for 18 months to pick up the missing diagnoses. A Systemic Problem According to the NHS constitution, 92% of patients should be treated within 18 weeks, but this target has not been sustained since 2016, indicating a more deep-rooted issue in the service. The NHS has struggled with underfunding and understaffing for years now, and the coronavirus pandemic has only aggravated these existing problems. “The reality is years of Tory underfunding and cuts across healthcare left our NHS weakened and exposed entering the pandemic, with patients now left waiting even longer in pain and anxiety for treatment.” – Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary Despite this, the Service has begun to “bounce back” slightly since lockdowns have ended and vaccination has increased, partly contributed to by a £1 billion government investment funding extra operations. More than 230,000 patients received cancer checks in March 2021 alone, mental health treatment has returned to pre-pandemic levels, and hospitals in England are now performing surgeries at a rate of 90% compared to pre-pandemic rates. Nevertheless, there is a massive hill to climb to ensure that everyone in England is able to access the treatment and care they need within an acceptable timeframe. This will not happen before Covid-19 dies down even further, but attitudes also need to change within government to recognise how invaluable the National Health Service and its employees are for our country. Article on a similar topic: NHS Becomes First to Commit to Carbon Neutrality Target 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.

Kira Lomas reports on the controversy surrounding the right to protest in the UK. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Protests, large or small, have stretched across different generations, characterised by one common agenda: to express dissent towards an issue affecting society. These social movements are predominantly fronted by members of the public that, to some degree, feel marginalised in political policy. Providing people with a legitimate means to voice their concerns and demand change, protests are fundamental to democracy. However, recent parliamentary discussions have seen protests of all kinds come under scrutiny. Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, a ban has been proposed that seeks to impose restrictions on ‘noisy’ protests, limiting freedom of speech and increasing penalties on people who breach the conditions. Effects of the Ban Over recent years, the nature of protests have led to controversy amongst police, local authorities and government officials. Measures have been employed by these groups to manage protests in terms of punishing behaviour deemed to cause unease, distress and alarm to people in the vicinity. This new piece of legislation aims to place rules on static protests, including imposing start and finish times, setting noise limits and applying these regulations to demonstrations by one person. Implementing this ban will allow police to crackdown on acts of public nuisance, handing out fines of £2,500 to people who do not comply with the rules. Essentially, this bill will provide police significant power to decide the overall deliverance of protests – the when, how and where. Recent events that have prompted this new call for a ban on noisy protests include the Extinction Rebellion Movement (2019), and last year’s wave of Black Lives Matter protests that saw the toppling of a statue of a Bristol slave trader. Ministers argue that these protests interfered with the lives of ordinary people, causing ‘serious annoyance, serious inconvenience and serious loss of amenity’ – offences that could warrant up to 10 years prison time. An Issue of Basic Human Rights Protests hold incredible amounts of social value and are inextricably linked to policy. Without them, the concerns of many citizens would go unaddressed and there would never be a chance to implement structural change. Yet bodies of power around the world have a tendency to treat protests as an inconvenience or a threat that needs to be diminished. Opponents of the bill – including many Labour MP’s, members of the public and influential figures part of the Human Rights Committee – argue that its vague wording allows for any and all dissent to be quashed. This means that protests will fail to materialise, as police officers will be handed significant power to anticipate the impact of noise on the organisation facing backlash and thus render it ineffective. Considered by these groups as an anti-democratic piece of legislation, these measures prevent people from holding the powerful to account and act as a means to silence and disempower minorities. ‘Kill the bill’ protests have been instigated in response to the recent legislation, defending freedom of speech, arguing that the law reads as a direct attack on ordinary people. At the time of these protests, Avon and Somerset police put forth claims that sought to criminalise the protesters’ actions, asserting that officers endured ‘considerable levels of abuse and violence.’ However, further inspection reveals this to be untrue as Bristol’s police force admitted the falsity of their statements. This incident serves to impeach the legislation, highlighting possibility that it may have been informed by exaggerated evidence. Protesting, whether to raise awareness about a perceived injustice or unite with like-minded people who feel passionate about a particular issue, helps to strengthen public influence and involvement in shaping society. Article on a similar topic: A Social Trend in the Decade of Dissent 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 explores how Madrid’s new green infrastructure project offers a promising model for combatting climate change. Photo by Javier Martinez In an attempt to reduce heat levels and air pollution, Madrid is set to plant a new forest around its 46-mile perimeter: the Bosque Metropolitano. Half a million trees will be involved in this project, which may well be “the largest green infrastructure to be built in Europe” over the next decade. Native trees have been chosen, as these neither require foreign soil conditions nor excess volumes of water; as a forest, it will be preserved with minimal external resources or maintenance. When the forest reaches maturity in around 12 years, it is estimated that it will absorb 175,000 tons of CO2 every year and reduce surrounding temperatures by 2 degrees, as well as provide a new habitat for birds and other wildlife. Madrid’s Need for Green Infrastructure In January, more than 400,000 trees in Madrid were damaged by Storm Filomena as the city experienced its heaviest snowfall in over a century – 1,250 metric tons of snow hit the city over a 30-hour period, costing the city around 1.4 billion euros in damage. Conservationist Mariano Sánchez attributed the storm’s impact on urban trees to the city’s practice of systematic annual pruning. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report concluded that extreme changes in weather will become more frequent as the global temperature continues to rise. Furthermore, parts of Europe are already experiencing desertification as a result of climate change and agriculture-related land degradation; green infrastructure projects are necessary both as a mitigation and adaptation to our rapidly changing climate. Madrid is directly impacted by the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’, according to which heat generated by human activity causes metropolitan spaces to experience higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas, in part as a result of decreased green coverage. In addition, high levels of traffic reduce the local air quality, causing a wide range of health issues; according to a report from the World Health Organisation, 93% of children around the world are breathing toxic air every day. As Mariano Fuentes, Madrid’s councillor for the environment and urban development, explains: “What we want to do is to improve the air quality in the whole city... To fight the 'heat island' effect that is happening inside the city, to absorb the greenhouse emissions generated by the city, and to connect all the existing forest masses that already exist around the city.” Cities and Decarbonisation Cities consume two-thirds of the world’s primary energy demand, and are responsible for 70% of all CO2 emissions. As such, it is clear that decarbonisation – a shift towards an economy that does not depend on carbon-intensive power sources – cannot occur without significant changes to the structure of our cities. However, this will require urban planners to do much more than simply improve recycling services or restrict private car usage, though these are, in principle, valuable efforts. Rather, we need to reshape our understanding of the spaces we inhabit, and facilitate the coexistence of plants and pavements in and around our cities. Madrid’s green border is a promising step in the right direction, and other cities are beginning to implement similar changes. Glasgow recently announced that it will plant 18 million trees over the next decade, Paris is set to transform the iconic Champs-Élysées into green space and Barcelona has launched a 10-year plan to reclaim the street from vehicles. As Mariano Fuentes explains, Madrid’s development of green infrastructure will have to be understood as a part of a wider “global strategy”: “It’s not only about cars, but also a pedestrianisation strategy, the creation of environmental corridors in every district... and most of all... to engage citizens in this new green culture, it is essential for every city to face the near future in the best conditions.” Article on a similar topic: ‘Green Streets’ are Rejuvenating our Urban Areas 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.

Samuel Dupret reports on recent plans to increase taxation for multinationals, and explores how and whether this can be achieved. Photo by Olia Danilevich On the 5th of June 2021, the G7 nations committed to global tax reforms concerning multinational companies. These reforms are aimed at countering some of the ways in which multinational companies have avoided paying their fair share of taxes. Multinational companies have been reducing the size of taxable profit of many countries (i.e. ‘base erosion’). One technique they use is ‘profit shifting’, wherein they have subsidiaries in tax havens (countries with low or zero corporate tax rates) charge their other subsidiaries in countries with higher taxes for ‘services’ – such as marketing, intellectual property, or office supplies – usually with inflated costs. This process reduces the profits in high-tax countries and move (‘shift’) the profits to low-tax ones. Tax-Related Issues Caused by Multinational Companies A 2017 analysis from the Tax Justice Network suggested that profit shifting leads to $500 billion in lost tax revenue each year. These losses represent a large part of the total tax revenue for low-income countries. According to Alex Cobham from the Tax Justice Network, this money could eliminate extreme income poverty. Multinational companies have also caused a ‘race to the bottom’ where countries compete with each other to attract said companies by lowering their corporate tax rates. An analysis from the Tax Foundation shows that the worldwide average corporate tax rate (weighted by GDP) has gone from 46.52% in 1980 to 25.85% in 2020. The Tax Reform Proposed The G7 countries have committed to a two pillars solution based on the first action of the OECD and G20’s (139 countries) 15-action Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). For Pillar One, they agreed that multinational companies with at least a 10% profit margin will have 20% of any profit above this 10% margin to be reallocated from their headquarter country to be taxed in the countries in which the company actually operates and earns profit. Pillar One should tackle base erosion and profit shifting and increase tax revenue. For Pillar Two, they agreed to a global 15% minimum corporate tax. According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, this will: “end the race to the bottom in corporate taxation and ensure fairness for the middle class and working people in the U.S. and around the world” as well as encourage countries to compete in more positive ways – with research and development for example. A simulation from the EU Tax Observatory suggest that a minimum 15% rate could generate 50 billion euros in tax revenue for the EU in a year. Advances and Hurdles in Implementation The G7 does not have formal powers to bind the countries to this agreement, nor to force the rest of the world to join in with the global minimum tax. However, these are powerful and influential nations. The good news is that, on the 1st of July 2021, 130 countries from the OECD have agreed to join in with the two-pillar framework. However, a few countries are still holding out. European nations with low corporate tax rates, such as Hungary, Estonia and Ireland oppose the deal. Hence, this is making it difficult for the global tax rate to be implemented in the EU where tax proposals must be agreed upon unanimously. In the U.S., the global tax reforms will face the same hurdle as the Biden Administration’s other tax plans; namely, passing the reforms through a split congress. Multiple Republicans are intent on stopping these reforms. In a communiqué from the 9-10th of July Venice meetings, the G20 members have confirmed their endorsement of the two pillar framework. Other members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS that have not yet endorsed the agreement are urged to join. The finals details should be finalised by the G20 Rome summit in October. Problems with the Tax Reforms Commentors have noted that the 15% global tax rate is too low – especially considering Biden’s initial proposal was 21% – and that it should at least be considered a floor from which to go higher. Alex Cobham has criticised Pillar One for only reallocating a fraction of the profits above the 10% margin. Instead, Alex Cobham puts forward the Tax Justice Network’s alternative plan, the Minimum Effective Tax Rate for Multinationals, which would allow countries to tax all profit – not just a fraction – that is due to the real presence and value produced by multinationals in these countries. As expressed by the Tax Foundation, there is uncertainty concerning exactly how and which companies will be evaluated according to Pillar One, as well as general questions about potential ‘carve-ins’ and ‘carve-outs’. As mentioned before, some countries oppose the minimum global tax rate and might want to be carved out. The UK has pushed for financial services to be carved out of Pillar One. On the other hand, there are concerns that the “any profit above this 10% profit margin” part of Pillar One might rule out certain companies – especially Amazon, whose 2020 profit margin was 6.3%. Measures are being explored to ‘carve in’ Amazon by targeting the very profitable Amazon Web Services division. On the 1st of July, the OECD released a preview of new details in the implementation of the two-pillar solution. This still has to be finalised, and with the G20 summit coming up we can imagine that some changes might occur. However, it includes a carve out from Pillar One for extractives (e.g. mining, oil, gas, forestry) and financial services. This seems to undercut the commitments for a greener and fairer financial system taken at the G7 summit. In conclusion, the new global tax reforms will be an important step towards a fairer global economy where multinational companies pay their fair share in taxes. However, there is still more to be done in implementing these reforms and preventing unfair carve-outs. Article on a similar topic: The Summary of the G7 Summit in Cornwall 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.