Jonny Rogers explores how intentional and simple living can improve our mental health and reduce excess waste and energy. Photo by Phil Desforges The thought of selling even a fraction of what you own might well be a terrifying one. However, the goal of minimalist living is not to give up absolutely everything, but rather to purchase and keep only what is absolutely necessary, or at least work towards achieving this. There is, of course, nothing new about minimalism; simple living has been at the centre of countless religious, spiritual and philosophical traditions throughout human history. As the 17th-century polymath Blaise Pascal put it, “all of human unhappiness comes from one single thing: not knowing how to remain at rest in a room”. And yet, simple living has gained a new meaning for an age in which superfluous possessions are not only increasingly accessible, but also increasingly harmful to both our wellbeing and our environment. Minimalism and Happiness At one level, it makes sense that we should always be generating new desires. Since human bodies require a variety of resources and nutrients to remain healthy, it is ultimately good that we desire different kinds of food at different times. However, I am often drawn towards what advertising companies and food engineers have calculated will appear most attractive, which only sometimes corresponds to what I actually need. I think something very similar is going on with non-consumable goods such as furniture, clothing and novelty items. Entire industries exist simply to calculate how to make us buy certain products, which in many instances does not correspond to what people need to flourish. Furthermore, the abundance of material possessions – large houses, expensive cars, fashion, technology, rare collectibles and so forth – is often presented as the pinnacle of success and fulfilment. According to research published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, however, individuals who engage in a low-consumption lifestyle tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction. Additionally, those who intentionally minimise working hours and levels of consumption have been found to have more time to invest in meaningful activities and relationships. In one sense, the connection between simple living and happiness should be intuitive – owning and wanting less naturally means that you have less you have to worry about, organise and maintain. We would do well to learn from infants, who often delight more in a puddle or cardboard box than even the most luxurious toy. Minimalism and the Environment Another benefit of purchasing fewer possessions is that less materials, packaging and energy will need to be wasted. According to some estimates, there will be over 12,000 million metric tons of plastic waste in landfill sites or natural environments by 2050; although much of this will be unavoidable without institutional change, disposable products and needless wrapping are also a large part of the problem. Around 80 billion new pieces of clothing are sold each year alone – 400% more than even 20 years ago - and a large proportion of plastic waste is composed of microplastics produced in the textile industry. In addition, a study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concluded that household consumption is responsible for 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions and between 50-80% of land, material and water usage. Further research found that 86% of every house’s environmental impact is associated with its energy use, including heating, lighting and electronic appliances. As such, many advocates for a minimalist lifestyle have opted to live in smaller houses or apartments, with some choosing to go entirely ‘off the grid’ with private solar or wind-powered energy. Political efforts to respond to climate change often depend on setting national targets to reduce waste and emissions. However, frequently purchasing either foreign products or goods which depend on foreign resources makes buyers complicit in other nations’ emissions. As Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution for Science explains: “Today, developed countries have to report their CO2 emissions, but we consume a lot of stuff that is produced in China and other developing countries. Their CO2 emissions are helping support my consumption.” Working Towards a Minimalist Lifestyle Minimalism might well vary greatly for different people, or even the same people over time. Nevertheless, we would be wise to adjust our habits and patterns of consumption around the interests of our wellbeing and environment, rather than passively accepting what adverts, films and celebrities are telling us we ought to desire. Some aspects of society are shifting towards a ‘sharing economy’ whereby services and resources are used by multiple people for limited periods of time. Organisations such as Uber, Airbnb and Whirli, for example, allow people to use vehicles, accommodation and toys for only as long as necessary. Placing greater value in shared goods might be one way to minimise how many possessions you own and give a purpose to the things you no longer need, while also reducing how much ends up in landfill. Whilst many are compelled by the idea of living in a white-walled hut with hand-crafted Scandinavian furniture, minimalism is more than a preference for certain styles of interior decoration. Rather, it is a disposition to resist the culture than constantly expects us to keep accumulating needless things and focus more on appreciating what one really needs. Article on a similar topic: How to Make Small Changes for a Big Impact 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports on the concerning developments in Afghanistan as the Taliban regains control, casting uncertainty over the country’s future. Photo by The Raven After over forty years of on-off war and terror threats, the Taliban have taken back power in Afghanistan only a matter of days after the last US troops left the country, marking the start of a new and unsettling period for the nation under a “strong Islamic” government dictated by strict Shariah law. One of the primary concerns surrounding the Taliban’s return is that they may transform Afghanistan into a safe haven for terrorist activity, potentially providing a hub where al-Qaeda could reform and provide a serious threat outside the country’s borders as well as within them. The Beginning of the Struggle The first Afghan war of recent years began in 1978 with the Soviet-Afghan War, resulting in the withdrawal of USSR forces in 1989. During that time, an Islamic group named the Mujahideen was formed in order to fight the Soviets for an independent Afghanistan; this force received funding from the West in the fight against the USSR. Almost all of the original members of the Taliban fought for the Mujahideen. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was followed by a decade of civil wars running up to the start of the millennium due to fractious relations between different military groups in the country. The Taliban itself came into existence in 1994 with the professed aim of ridding Afghanistan of the corrupt warlords from the country’s 90s leadership and restoring true Islam to the nation, and took power in 1996. In 2001, the most recent and longest-running conflict of modern Afghanistan began – the War of Afghanistan between the Afghan National Army (backed by US and UK troops) and the Taliban. The war became an international affair after the 9/11 attacks on New York, because at the time, the Taliban was sheltering Osama Bin Laden – the then-leader of terrorist group al-Qaeda and self-proclaimed mastermind of the attack – thus implicating themselves. Because of this, US troops remained in the country for two decades fighting the terrorist organisation, marking the start of the American War on Terror. Over the past twenty years, total US expenditure on the war have reached $778 billion, while the UK (the second largest coalition force during the conflict) spent an estimated $30 billion. Around 241,000 people have died in the warzone since 2001, including over 64,000 members of Afghan forces and roughly 71,000 civilians. During the conflict, 3,500 coalition troops have lost their lives, including 2,300 US soldiers and over 450 British troops. The Afghan people haven’t known true peace for over four decades. Recent Collapse In early July of this year, it was announced that the remaining US troops in the country would be withdrawn with very little notice. The decision followed the Doha Agreement, signed by the Trump administration and the Taliban in February 2020. The agreement stipulated that the Taliban would proceed with national peace talks without American supervision, but it seems they have already contradicted this, attacking Afghan national forces almost immediately after the American exit. Some see the speed of the Americans’ retreat as facilitating the Taliban takeover, as a strong national leadership did not have the time to form independent of foreign aid. Back in July, 30-year-old Afghan Sayed Reja told CNN that “[the US troops] could have stayed for longer until the Afghanistan government was on its feet. But now they have left, and we cannot stop them from leaving Afghanistan.” Others have even seen the US withdrawal as a symbolic victory for the Taliban, with a spokesperson for the group calling it a “positive step”, going on to say that “if foreign forces leave Afghanistan, Afghans can decide future issues among themselves. We will step forward for the security of the country and our hope for the peace would increase and inshallah we will have development.” And, just as Mr Reja feared, the Taliban rapidly took control of the country’s biggest cities, eventually gaining complete power on 15th August by taking the capital Kabul and driving the president Ashraf Ghani to flee the country just weeks after America’s exit. The Taliban had not occupied Kabul since 2001. All the progress generated through twenty years of fighting, billions of dollars of investment and thousands of lives lost was undone in a matter of days. It is nothing short of a cataclysmic failure. The Afghan people have been thrown into panic, as their rights, livelihoods and lives themselves are in potential danger because of the Taliban’s return. Women are at a particular risk, especially those with careers which Islamic extremists consider unwomanly and thus ungodly, thereby endangering female journalists, lawmakers, judges, academics, activists and more. As of early 2021, 27% of the seats in Afghanistan’s Parliament were held by women, but now, if the same laws are implemented as were during the Taliban’s rule in the 1990s, women may not be allowed to work at all. The Taliban has stated that women will be permitted to work as long as they do so within a Shariah Islamic framework, but there is concern that if this is the case, men and women will not be allowed in a room alone or in the same room at all, thus excluding women from many positions, especially if the opposite genders are not allowed to speak to one another. There have been a few glimmers of hope, as female anchors and reporters have remained on Afghan television unlike in the ‘90s. The Taliban has also stated that they want to initiate an amnesty across Afghanistan and include women in its government, but it has not made clear how this could be compatible with Shariah law. Girls’ education is threatened at a fundamental level, with doubts about the extent to which girls will be able to receive any kind of non-domestic education under Taliban leadership despite claims that they will, as it was banned completely during their previous leadership. Across the country, images of women’s bodies and faces are being removed, erased and defaced, and all women are being forced to cover themselves completely when outside, regardless of whether they would choose to do so of their own will. The Taliban has claimed that these restrictions have been implemented because they “don’t want women to be victimised”, but the reality is more sinister. Amnesty International have stated that under the Taliban’s previous leadership, “women were essentially invisible in public life, imprisoned in their home”. The expression of female existence is at risk once again for Afghan women. The Possible Future The Taliban has been confident in asserting that they have changed since their last stint in power, with a spokesperson saying that “when it comes to experience, maturity, vision, there is a huge difference between us in comparison to 20 years ago”. This has been widely regarded with scepticism considering they have already contradicted the stipulations of the Doha Agreement, with US national security adviser Jake Sullivan stating that “the [Taliban’s] track record has not been good”. There is widespread concern that former coalition military facilities could be used by the Taliban not to train troops to protect the Afghan people and promote diplomacy, but as bases for terrorist groups to either grow or reform. This anxiety is exacerbated by the fact that many see the Taliban and al-Qaeda as inextricably linked; if this is true, Afghanistan could become the prime location for the terrorist organisation to regroup after the death of Bin Laden in 2011. These threats loom large, as the departure of American influence in the country makes it a “hard target” in intelligence terms; monitoring potential terror threats has been made a lot more challenging as a result of American’s withdrawal. International leaders, including Boris Johnson, have expressed particular concern that terrorist resurgence in the country could threaten global peace once again, with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urging the UN Security Council to “use all tools at its disposal to suppress the global terrorist threat in Afghanistan”. “The Afghan people deserve to live in dignity, peace and security, reflecting the last two decades of their political, economic and social achievements, in particular for women and girls. Afghanistan must never again become a safe haven for terrorism, nor a source of terrorist attacks on others.” – G7 Leaders Statement on Afghanistan, 24th August 2021 It’s an even scarier time for the Afghans stuck in the country as the Taliban takes over. Their rapid return saw thousands flock to Kabul Airport in a desperate attempt to flee the country. In a record airlift campaign, US forces have evacuated 70,000 American citizens, NATO personnel and Afghan refugees from the capital since 14th August. UK forces have evacuated a further 10,000, and is now flying out 2,000 Afghans a day in the biggest evacuation effort in living memory. However, the Taliban has stipulated that foreign aid must leave the country completely by 31st August. The group has made it clear that foreign presence in the country must end by the end of the month and not a day later, with spokesperson Dr Suhail Shaheen ominously stating: “If the US or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations – the answer is no. Or there would be consequences. It will create mistrust between us. If they are intent on continuing the occupation it will provoke a reaction.” Despite this deadline, on 26th August, Kabul Airport and a nearby hotel were targeted by a bomb attack from an as-yet-unconfirmed source, killing at least 60 people and injuring 140 others, including US personnel helping with the evacuation effort. Boris Johnson has called the attack “despicable”, but has stated that it will not deter UK forces from continuing their evacuation efforts, saying they “will keep going to the last moment”. The attack came as concerns about potential terror threats to the evacuation site escalate as the withdrawal deadline approaches. After the deadline passes, there are fears that the Afghans left behind will have to live in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, with the risk of famine, drought and widespread Covid-19 alongside political turbulence. David Beasley, executive director of the UN World Food Programme, has said “the number of people marching towards starvation [in Afghanistan] has spiked to now 14 million”, and that the international community must donate $200 million in order to provide sufficient food aid to the nation. After a crisis meeting, the G7 countries (the UK, the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) have issued a statement detailing their cautious view of the Taliban leadership, and their commitment to protecting both Afghan citizens and the international community: “We will work together, and with our allies and regional countries, through the UN, G20 and more widely, to bring the international community together to address the critical questions facing Afghanistan. As we do this, we will judge the Afghan parties by their actions, not words. In particular, we reaffirm that the Taliban will be held accountable for their actions on preventing terrorism, on human rights in particular those of women, girls and minorities and on pursuing an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan. The legitimacy of any future government depends on the approach it now takes to uphold its international obligations and commitments to ensure a stable Afghanistan.” Article on a similar topic: Belarus; The End of 'Europe's Last Dictatorship'? 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 the arguments for and against the introduction of vaccine passports in the UK. Photo by Hakan Nural On Monday the 19th of June, Boris Johnson announced the long-awaited ‘Freedom Day’, which saw the removal of all legal requirements for common covid rules. Rules such as wearing a mask indoors, social distancing, and handwashing are now purely a matter of internal policy for businesses and institutions. However, after a last-minute diversion, the government announced that venues and spaces hosting “large crowds” would require “proof of double vaccination” come the 16th of August. Now available on the NHS app, the ‘covid pass’ will enable vaccinated users to access these spaces that are currently unavailable to the unvaccinated. The news has caused a stir for some, both politically and publicly. A petition against introducing Covid vaccine passports was signed by over 375,000 people, and 79 MPs across the political spectrum have signed a declaration against introducing vaccine passports. There are several ethical and legal challenges brought about by the introduction of vaccine passports: Reasons Against Vaccine Passports 1. Division Introducing passports effectively creates a two-tier society, in which only the vaccinated will have access to certain activities and employment opportunities. Furthermore, taking into consideration that black and South Asian communities in the UK have the lowest uptake of the vaccination amongst all ethnic demographics, inadvertently excluding ethnic minorities could cause further widening of divisions within the country. This also raises the question of legality. If someone were to be denied, e.g., employment on the grounds that they were not fully jabbed, is this a form of discrimination? A lot of the questions are still being asked about how the vaccine passport still adheres to the rules set within the Equality Act (2010), particularly in potential cases of age discrimination, especially since many younger people have only recently been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and many come under an extremely low risk group. 2. Privacy Vaccine passports could set a precedent for a further invasion of our right to confidentiality when it comes to our personal medical information. If society were to become accustomed to the idea of requiring personal health information to be made public, people may be required to disclose other diseases or conditions they have in the future, which infringes on democratic rights to privacy. What’s more, given that covid passports will be predominantly electronic, there are questions on how safe our personal data is to potential fraud. 3. Science One of the overarching issues with the vaccine passport is that they may become obsolete when a new variant of the virus becomes prevalent. Whilst it’s undisputed that the current vaccines provide protection from serious illness and mortality, they do not stop transmission. If the government allows for vaccinated people to congregate in areas deemed safe, the virus could still pose a threat by being passed on to vulnerable individuals. An example can be seen in Israel, a country praised for its rapid vaccination program, but last month saw a spike in covid cases and a drop in the Pfizer vaccine efficacy rate, due to the delta variant. 4. Poor Consistency Internationally, there is no standardised vaccine passport that can cover all demands for each country, regarding the type of vaccine countries, are willing to accept for entry. For example, the European Union, which has its own vaccine passport, does not recognise the Indian-produced AstraZeneca vaccine, Canada doesn’t recognise two Chinese-based vaccines, and the NHS covid pass doesn’t recognise vaccines received abroad. However, whilst there is a strong case against vaccine passports, there are legitimate arguments in favour of keeping them: Reasons For Vaccine Passports 1. Public Health The world over, governments have a duty to maintain good public health, and it should come as no surprise that the UK government has taken steps-by introducing covid passes-which ensure a duty of care towards citizens. There have historically been many positive, public health initiatives (e.g., a ban on indoor smoking) aimed at improving health and quality of life for people, but which have also caused a debate over personal freedoms. Ensuring that people can enjoy a venue, or close-quatre setting, safely, with the knowledge there is a reduced risk of infecting vulnerable individuals shouldn’t be a surprising exception. 2. Opportunities Covid passports could allow for greater freedom back into society, and for the economy to reopen. For those eager to travel, providing an effective solution to ensure UK visitors to foreign destinations are fully vaccinated is a necessary step considering many European and international countries require proof of double vaccination. Sectors of the economy could reopen safely, and industries and businesses that require close physical contact with customers could benefit from providing a guarantee that precautionary covid measures are not necessary. 3. Representation Vaccine passports enable the vulnerable to be represented. For those who are medically unfit to have the vaccine or vulnerable, a covid pass is an effective way to protect them, by enabling this minority to partake in some normal activities, with the knowledge that those around are keeping safe. 4. Incentives One of the biggest reasons why covid passports may be a force for good is simply the incentive it provides for people to get vaccinated. By promising greater freedoms in return for having both jabs, those who are reluctant or refuse the vaccine on non-medical grounds may priorities the vaccine over their own opinions. The Reality of the Situation Whilst only time will tell if vaccine passports were the right or wrong step forward in ensuring public safety, there is some debate as to whether they will be around for long. Across the English channel, when the French President Emmanuel Macron announced that vaccine passports would be mandatory across the country, 3.7 million people booked an appointment for their first jab in the following week. In the UK, an additional 1.3 million people had their first dose 1 week after the announcement. Could vaccine passports potentially become redundant once most of the population are vaccinated? That is the question some analysts are asking, believing that introducing the passports is merely an initiative to get more people vaccinated. As throughout this pandemic, the debate on whether our democratic values are under threat in the name of public health has come up numerous times, and vaccine passports are unlikely to be the last time British society tackles the question of power or protection. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Impact 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.

Martha Davies reports as Priti Patel introduces extensive proposals to crack down on casual street harassment and improve investigation of harassment cases. Photo by Filip Mroz Home Secretary Priti Patel has proposed a new strategy to protect women and girls against sexual harassment, providing much-needed improvements to current laws. The Home Secretary’s plan is set to include the creation of a new national police lead to push police to take offences more seriously and improve response times to claims of sexual harassment. A review of offender management has also been promised with the aim of enabling the police to better target repeat offenders. The strategy outlines a commitment to appoint two “Violence Against Women and Girls Transport Champions” to provide increased protection for those on public transport, and additional support is set to be offered in the form of a new 24/7 rape and sexual assault helpline. A £5m ‘Safety of Women at Night Fund’ has already been created to help local authorities and transport workers improve safety provisions at night time. The government has added that the Department for Education will work with the Office for Students to better address sexual abuse and harassment in school; this may include changes to personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE), where boys will be taught more about respecting women and understanding consent. In cases of sexual harassment taking place in higher education settings themselves, the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) could be banned in order to prevent cases of harassment being covered up. The government is also likely to outlaw so-called virginity testing, whereby the hymen is examined or repaired. Change is Vital Updates to the current laws surrounding sexual harassment have been long-awaited: existing legislation - including The Public Order Act of 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997 - does not cover crimes with any sexual element, including one-off comments or other instances of harassment on the street, and the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 usually requires physical contact in order to be enforced. The Home Secretary’s plans reflect a growing concern about the safety of women and young girls that was sparked by the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by police officer Wayne Couzens. Yet the risk of sexual harassment is ubiquitous: it exists not just in the headlines but in the everyday lives of women around the world. A 2018 survey by Plan International shows that 66% of girls in the UK aged between 14 and 21 have experienced some form of public sexual harassment. Over 51,000 women and girls have shared stories of sexual abuse on the website Everyone’s Invited; the government’s new strategy, in fact, was developed using a consultation that saw over 180,000 responses, with members of the public offering feedback and recounting their own experiences. The Effects of Sexual Harassment The Home Secretary’s plans could see acts like wolf-whistling become a specific crime, marking a more forthright attempt from the government to make the streets less hostile for women and girls. Cat-calling, wolf-whistling and other forms of public sexual harassment has alarming effects on both the mental and physical wellbeing of women. One study published in 2008 demonstrates that instances of harassment and unwanted public attention can cause women to “self-objectify”, leading them to experience greater body shame and even obsessively monitor their external appearance. Objectification and harassment in public places can also heighten the fear of rape for many women, meaning that they alter or restrict activities such as going out at night in order to reduce the risk of harm. These behaviours are routine for women because the threat of sexual harassment always lingers. To truly make the streets safer, the government will have to implement profound and lasting changes in legislation. Hope for the Future? A system better designed to listen to and process concerns is vital. Reporting sexual harassment is a historically challenging task, and it often comes to nothing. Reports of rape, for example, are increasing, but conviction rates are disturbingly low, with only 1.6% of offenders last year being charged. Even cases that go to trial are often hugely delayed due to backlogs in the Crown Court. Women must feel that their stories will be heard and taken seriously, and that any reports will lead to action. The Home Secretary’s plans are promising, but what we need is a radical alteration to the entire system of both reporting offences and protecting women and girls. Whether the new strategy will deliver this remains to be seen. 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 from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall relates the happy news that China’s national animal – the giant panda – is no longer an endangered species. Photo by Ningyu he In a landmark moment for wildlife conservation, it has been declared that giant pandas are no longer an endangered species. After exceeding a total of 1800 animals living in the wild, the bears are now instead considered by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Chinese officials to be ‘vulnerable’. Chinese officials have credited the progression to a dedicated conservation effort to protect the country’s national animal, including extensive expansion of the bamboo forests which comprise their primary habitat. Cui Shuhong of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment said that the achievement “reflects their improved living conditions and China's efforts in keeping their habitats integrated”. A Much-Beloved Species Alongside the red-crowned crane and the Chinese dragon, the giant panda is the national animal of China, and is considered one of the country’s most cherished symbols as well as a significant source of tourist revenue. However, the species has been struggling for decades due to the very specific conditions they require to live and thrive, so much so that they feature in the WWF’s logo as an icon of the importance of conservatism. Currently, the species’ pickiness means there are only six mountain ranges in the whole of China where they are able to live in the wild. Giant pandas eat almost solely bamboo, and bamboo forests have been the target of extensive deforestation in China in recent years. Pandas are sensitive to any change in habitat as different varieties of bamboo bloom at varying points in the year, so if just one variety is eliminated by deforestation, the panda population in that area may starve while waiting for the next variety to become edible. The bears also only reproduce once a year, with just one cub typically surviving due to their tiny size at birth. Female pandas are only fertile for around six weeks of every year, meaning it’s not unusual for them to not become pregnant at all in a year if they do not find an appealing enough partner, a problem exacerbated by smaller populations. Essentially, giant pandas are especially vulnerable to changes in habitat or circumstance, meaning they require more intensive conservation attention than other species may. Inspirational Conservatism In order to protect this cherished animal, the Chinese government imposed strict regulations on the destruction of pandas’ habitats in a move which many argue should be emulated in the protection of other species. Statistics tracking the giant panda population over hundreds of years suggest that the reason for their decline in recent decades is, unequivocally, human activity, a pattern which is seen repeated in many other stories of extinction or endangerment. China has been applauded for their stringent promotion of conservation efforts, first established in 1988 with the Wildlife Protection Law which introduced legal measures to protect endangered species from human disruption. One implication of this was the implementation of strict sanctions for anyone found to be hunting endangered species; since 1988, poaching of giant pandas has been eradicated. The giant panda is so well-loved in China that the government has decided to open Giant Panda National Park – a protected area spanning multiple provinces and encompassing 67 existing panda reserves. While a gesture of this nature may not be possible in every country and for every endangered species, the sheer dedication to the conservation effort is undoubtedly inspirational. Many argue that strict legislation, extensive breeding and reproduction schemes, habitat rejuvenation and national surveys of the animals make giant panda conservation a model campaign which the rest of the world should be following in the global effort to preserve species. Article on a similar topic: Global Forest Regrowth: 58.9 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.

Kate Byng-Hall explains how immersive experiences in woodland – shinrin-yoku – can be significantly beneficial for mental wellness. Photo by Evgeny Tchebotarev In a hectic world full of traffic jams, high-rise buildings and fast-paced expectations, it can be hard to catch a break. In fact, it’s easy to get caught up in the rush and forget the essence of what it means to be alive on planet Earth. That’s where forest bathing comes in. The ancient Japanese practice of forest bathing (‘shinrin-yoku’ in Japanese) is considered a process of relaxation which can contribute significantly to wellbeing, and it makes total sense. All you need to do is retreat to a wooded area, forest or any other natural environment, and immerse yourself in the quiet while making sure you breathe deeply to absorb the calming energy of the trees. An Age-Old Tradition Shinrin-yoku has been a national pastime in Japan for centuries. It is designed to reignite individuals’ unity with nature and reduce stress in the process. The premise is that rather than walking briskly through forests or using them as a through-route to a destination, they’re treated as a destination in themselves; it’s by moving through them slowly and reflectively that their full benefit can be absorbed through an immersive sensory experience. However, the practice was developed into a therapy in the 1980s when Japanese psychologists proposed that it could be used as a foundation for preventative healthcare and mental healing in Japanese medicine. Researchers found that spending time in forests initiated calming neurological patterns in the nervous system, reducing the stress hormone cortisol and boosting the immune system through the release of phytoncides. In fact, just 15 minutes of forest bathing can be enough to reduce blood pressure and improve mental clarity, although two hours is the optimum time for the experience to have a lasting effect. The practice is so simple that you can do it yourself, or treat it as a more formal form of ecotherapy and go on guided, meditative excursions. Ultimately, you don’t need any help to go forest bathing. Just turn off your phone, throw away the map, tune into your senses and wander aimlessly and silently through the trees. Nature and Mental Wellness This practice is not the only time the benefits of nature for mental wellbeing has been recognised. In 2018, research from the University of Derby found that ‘nature therapy’, or ‘ecotherapy’, can lead to significant increases in mental wellbeing. Moreover, Stanford University researchers found in 2015 that using nature as a ‘treatment’ for mental illness can lead to a reduction in activity in the region of the brain associated with depression and anxiety. According to Gretchen Daily, co-author of the study and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, “these results suggest that accessible natural areas may be vital for mental health in our rapidly urbanizing world”. If you want to try your hand at forest bathing or any other form of immersive natural meditation, it’ll be easier than you may expect. Even if you live in an urban area, there are always natural areas and woodlands a short distance away, and even local parks or commons can be sufficient to engage in a truly de-stressing experience. Everyone deserves access to the calming effects of nature. We are creatures of the earth, after all. 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 from just £1.

Jonny Rogers explores how the horseracing industry is complicit in the export of compromised meat to European markets. Photo by Jamison Riley A shocking investigation from BBC’s Panorama revealed that thousands of racehorses are being sent to slaughterhouses every year, the majority of which coming from Ireland. While this is often justified as providing euthanasia for injured horses, the real beneficiary is the international meat market. Footage recorded by Animal Aid exposed the violation of multiple regulations in an abattoir owned by F Drury & Sons: horses were shot from across the room rather than close up, and some were killed in front of others. In addition, many were transported more than 350 miles by road and sea while suffering from “career-ending injuries”. “Animal Aid wants to send the message out loud and clear to all horse breeding societies: Stop trying to label it euthanasia; these horses are being transported and slaughtered for their meat. Stop blaming the slaughterhouse and get your own house in order. Take responsibility.” – Iain Green, Director of Animal Aid Contaminated Meat Although horse meat is rarely consumed in the UK (at least, not knowingly) there is a significant market in Europe. If the hidden abuse of horses wasn’t already too much to stomach, contaminated meat is entering the supply chain. Only 347 of the 2,165 horses slaughtered in the UK in 2019 held passports, and many had microchips that were swapped or tampered with. These regulations are necessary to track which horses have been treated with painkillers and medication that could be harmful for humans. It is unclear how much the horse racing industry is knowingly complicit in this system. Trainer Gordon Elliott, who was banned from the sport after being pictured sitting on a dead horse, claimed that he did not send any horses to the abattoir, instead favouring for them to be rehomed, given to other riders or humanely euthanised. However, as veterinarian Dr Hannah Donavan argues, the fact that the horses are being transported to slaughterhouses at all, let alone over long distances, undermines any claims of humane treatment: “This is unnecessary suffering. The bottom line is these horses, if they are to be euthanised, could and should be euthanised at home. Simple as that.” Taking Responsibility Thankfully, recent years have seen the UK introduce new measurements to monitor animal welfare: CCTV is now mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, and the footage must be easily accessible by Official Veterinarians. However, the recent revelations raise serious questions about the enforcement of welfare regulations. Horse Racing Ireland was quick to condemn the practices shown in Animal Aid’s footage, instead shifting blame to the Food Standards Agency for failing to maintain appropriate welfare standards. Nevertheless, as Iain Green responded: “The sheer amount of finger-pointing and blame-shifting over the last week has been astounding and shameful. Get to the heart of the problem by reducing the number of foals being bred, and ensure that there is funding and homes for every single horse – regardless of type.” Although the horse meat market is directly benefitting from the violation of regulations in UK slaughterhouses, responsibility is largely owed to the overbreeding of racehorses. Animal Aid have launched a parliamentary petition to place a restriction on how many equines can be bred in the country, with a view to minimising the number of unwanted horses available for slaughter. It is clear that the entire industry, and the culture surrounding it, will need to undergo significant changes before horses and other farmed animals are treated with the compassion and dignity they deserve. 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.

Jonny Rogers reports on proposed changes to secrecy laws that could have severe consequences for media and journalism in the UK. Photo by Sebastien Bourgue The Law Commission have proposed the strengthening of espionage laws to align leaking and whistleblowing with previous legislation for spying on behalf of foreign powers in a move that many fear would limit the ability of journalists to criticise the Government. The proposed changes are said to improve legislation to better reflect “the nature and scale of modern threats”, having last been updated in 1989. Over the past few decades, the exponential development of internet and communications technology – and their centrality to our lives – have changed how we share, receive and store information. Accordingly, the nature of domestic and international conflict has evolved; hypothetically, cyber-attacks on a few servers could bring about mass disruption to entire economies. However, while there are legitimate reasons to maintain the integrity of the UK’s cyberinfrastructure, state control over the distribution of information through digital services also plays a central role in silencing opposition. In Belarus last year, for example, President Alexander Lukashenko shut down the internet to prevent citizens from criticising his administration and arranging protests. The problem, however, is even closer to home. In 2018, two journalists were arrested for suspected theft of police documents on a massacre in Loughinisland during the Troubles, in which six men were murdered while watching the 1994 World Cup. Thankfully, however, the journalists reached a settlement with the Belfast High Court last year. Reforms to the Official Secrets Act Over the past few years, there have been numerous attempts to review the Official Secrets Act. In 2017, a consultation paper was published to “ensure that the law is keeping pace with the challenges of the 21st century”. This publication received much attention, with an article in The Register claiming that journalists could be jailed as spies. Alan Rusbridger, a former editor-in-chief for The Guardian who was involved in the Edward Snowden revelations, said, of the 2017 proposals: "It is alarming that such a far-reaching proposed reform of laws which could be used to jail whistle-blowers and journalists should have been drafted without any adequate consultation with free speech organisations." Published in September last year, the most recent recommendations from Law Commission would provide the following changes: The ‘archaic language’ of the Official Secrets Act 1989 would be updated, including to replace ‘enemy’ with ‘foreign power’. Public servants can be prosecuted for leaking information without the requirement of proof that the disclosure actually caused damage; instead, there must be proof that they believed they would cause damage. Anyone could be prosecuted, irrespective of whether they are a British citizen, so long as there is a significant connection between their behaviour and the interests of the UK. A statutory public interest defence would be available for anyone, including for journalists and civilians; if the disclosure serves the public interest, the individual would not be considered guilty. However, what counts as ‘public interest’ would be defined at the Government’s discretion. Public servants and civilians would be able to report concerns of wrongdoing to an independent commissioner. The maximum prison sentence for leaking information would be increased, without a recommendation on what this should be. Between May and July this year, a consultation on legislation to counter-state threats set out to put the Law Commission’s proposals into practice. In addition, the consultation proposed the creation of a ‘Foreign Influence Registration Scheme’ which would aim to “help combat espionage, interference, and to protect research in sensitive subject areas”, in addition to providing a greater awareness of foreign influence on the UK. How Have Journalists Responded? Boris Johnson has said that he does not believe a review of the Official Secrets Act would result in the prosecution of journalists, nor would it limit their ability to carry out investigations. However, the National Union of Journalists have criticised the proposals for ‘blurring the distinction’ between whistleblowing, journalism and spying, for reducing protections for journalistic material in police searches and for rejecting calls for statuary public-interest defence for whistle-blowers. Writing for The Conversation, Paul Lashmar, a former investigative journalist and author of Spies, Spin and the Fourth Estate, believes that the new legislation “seems more designed to prevent government embarrassment” than maintain national security. He argues that this is just the latest development in a long history of the state suppressing of journalists: “There is a wealth of historical evidence that demonstrates the UK government and intelligence services’ ingrained tendency to suppress journalism in an effort to cover up its wrongdoing. Indeed, many illegal operations have been exposed only by the collaboration of whistle-blowers and journalists.” – Paul Lashmar, former investigate journalist and author In a world shaped by the production and distribution of ever-increasing volumes of digital information, journalism plays a central role in monitoring and exposing the issues that really matter. However, media controlled by the market has given us a wealth of clickbait headlines, intentional misinformation and the commodification of private data, resulting in much of the media controlled by the state silencing criticism and preventing conservation. As such, it is in the interests of human rights and our collective security that we maintain the value of a free press that is informed by reason, evidence and the highest standards of moral integrity. Article on a similar topic: Free the Press: The Monopolisation of the Media 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.

Ziryan Aziz explores the key figures behind Israel’s new government, and what this could mean for Israel-Palestine relations. Photo by Shlomi Platzman Despite risking the country going to the ballot box for the fifth time in two years, Yair Lapin, head of the centrist Yesh Atid party, submitted a proposal in early June to Israel’s president, for the creation of a new coalition government. On the 13th of June, Israel’s parliament swore in the new government coalition, in what was a monumental political shift that could see changes to longstanding foreign and domestic policy. The eight-faction coalition is made up of parties that ideologically vary from the far left to the far right. The country’s first Arab politician has also been elected, and almost a third of the ministers are women. Who is in the Coalition? Neftali Bennet - Prime Minister A millionaire who made it big in Israel’s tech boom, Naftali Bennet (49) is the ultranationalist leader of the Yamina Party. He’s opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, wants to annex 60% of the West Bank, and champions settlement building in the Palestinian territories. In an agreement with the Foreign Minister, he will pass on the role of Prime Minister to Yair Lapin after serving 2 years in power. Yair Lapin - Foreign Minister A former news presenter, the 57-year-old secular-centrist is the mastermind behind the coalition, having served as Finance Minister under a previous Netanyahu government, before joining the opposition in 2015. Mr Lapin is in favour of an independent Palestinian state and has recently overseen the opening of the Israeli embassy in Dubai. Domestically, he will seek to ease financial constraints on the middle class and overturn the privileges Orthodox Jews enjoy under Israeli law. Benny Gantz - Defence Minister Best known as Israel’s 20th military Chief of General Staff, the centrist Benny Gantz (62) came the closest to defeating Netanyahu in 2019 elections. Unlike Netanyahu, Mr Gantz is seen as a more humble and less divisive figure in Israel. The former military man’s views on Palestinian statehood aren’t clear, however he is warm to the idea of a Palestinian ‘entity’ existing, but favours annexing the Jordan Valley as part of an agreement. Avigdor Lieberman - Finance Minister A far-right Moldovan who lives in an illegal settlement, Liberman (63) had previously served under Netanyahu’s government as Defence minister before starting his own party. His party favours a hawkish foreign policy, settlement building in Occupied Territories, but supporting a two-state solution to the conflict. Top on his party’s agenda will be to integrate Israel’s orthodox-Jewish minority into the work force and make conscription into the IDF mandatory for Orthodox Jews, of which they are currently exempt. Mansour Abbas - Deputy Minister of Arab Affairs in the Prime Minister’s office Mansour Abbas will be Israel’s first Palestinian citizen to hold a government position in the country’s history. The 47-year-old will concentrate on improving living conditions for Arab citizens. Arab’s make up almost 21% of Israel’s population, yet many Arab majority towns have been subject to a historic discrimination in receiving inadequate public funds, and a lower number of planning permission grants compared to Jewish majority towns. What can Israelis and Palestinians expect from the coalition? Previously, it would have been inconceivable for a government like this to exist given the ideological diversity of the parties. What has united this unlikely government is a common interest in unseating Benjamin Netanyahu from his 12 years in power. The former Prime Minister is currently facing a number of criminal charges related to corruption. As previously mentioned, some of the coalition’s ministers hold far-right views which are at odds with their left and centre wing colleagues. Moderates will have to rub shoulders with big names in right-wing Israeli politics, such as the populist Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, Avigdor Lieberman, and the Prime Minister himself. For now, the government is focusing on domestic issues relating to cutting bureaucracy and funding education. For the Palestinians, there is uncertainty about what to expect. Within Palestine, political parties have already stated their indifference to the new government, believing that Netanyahu’s legacy of “…racism, extremism, violence and lawlessness” will continue. So far, the new Prime Minister has been giving out mixed signals. Whilst he is open about annexing sections of the West Bank regardless of a solution to the conflict, he recently claimed that he would seek to improve living conditions and increase business opportunities within the Palestinian territories. However, parallel to this, his own Yamina party sought – and failed – to extend a discriminatory law that bars West Bank Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens from receiving citizenship rights. Some are speculating that given the heavy influence of moderates within the new government, radical steps like annexation will be held off, so as not to cause an internal split. However, as with all coalition governments, compromises are made, and Palestinians could see major positive, or negative, steps in finding a resolution to the conflict, something radically different to the sluggish status quo experienced under Netanyahu. Article on a similar topic: Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as Norway introduces a law requiring influencers to label when social media images have been manipulated. Photo by Nathan Dumlao Norway has taken a new step in the regulation of online content, with changes to the country’s Marketing Act requiring influencers, celebrities and advertisers to clearly state when retouching, Photoshop or filters have been used in their social media posts. Failure to do so could result in a fine or even a prison sentence. The legislation is aimed at undermining unrealistic beauty standards, and is intended to “reduce body pressure in society due to idealised people in advertising” by stipulating that a label must be added to content when “the body of the person in the advertisements [deviates] from reality in terms of body shape, size and skin”. A Growing Concern This legislation was passed in a landslide vote on June 2nd, reflecting the growing concern in Norway regarding “kroppspress” (literally “body pressure”), and the effect beauty standards are having on people, especially consumers of social media. The issue is seen as so severe as to be a genuine “societal problem”. “Through the media and the improvement industry, we are pushed into a ‘false’ perception of reality of what is a normal, desirable and achievable body.” – KariAnne Vrabel, specialist in adult psychology, PhD/researcher The problem is seen as most prominent among young people, particularly young women and teenage girls. As KariAnne Vrabel explains, “this is probably due to the fact that women's roles are narrower and more strictly defined than men's roles. Moreover, the ideal of the body for women is farther away from an average female body than is the case for men.” There is significant concern that vulnerability in this area means seeing altered images of female bodies online can be significantly damaging for young women’s selfhood, and “increases the risk of eating disorders, depression, low self-esteem, concentration problems and other psychological ailments”. It is seen as a “societal problem” that people affected by manipulated images will become distracted from what’s really important in life through preoccupation with conforming to the standards which are set online, despite them not existing in reality. “Body pressure is always there, often imperceptibly, and is difficult to combat. A requirement for retouched or otherwise manipulated advertising to be marked is one measure against body pressure. The measure will hopefully make a useful and significant contribution to curbing the negative impact that such advertising has, especially on children and young people.” – Norwegian Ministry of Children and Family Bigger Changes Needed? The law has received some criticism due to the difficulty of enforcing it when it can be difficult to discern whether or not an image has been altered, but it has been widely applauded as a step in the right direction. Em Clarkson, a British influencer, has said that the UK should introduce similar legislation: “There has to be some base of which we agree to act responsibly, and I think [Norway's law] is a really good start. We can't say to people stop editing your images, that's not feasible. But to say to them, 'if you're going to do it, you need to be honest', that's great.” The effect of social media cannot be underestimated. A UK study conducted in 2020 found that the majority of under-18s found social media to be “extremely influential” on their body image, with under 5% of respondents saying they had never felt inclined to engage in dieting or cosmetic procedures to emulate bodies they see online. According to Time magazine, spending more than two hours a day on social media – as many young people do – makes people more likely to report psychological distress through constant comparison. “Our resources are bound up to understand ourselves based on the body, rather than community engagement, joy of coping, relationships and traits. This marginalises self-life. Nothing else matters. There are other more important things in the world to master that are lost in this [preoccupation].” – KariAnne Vrabel 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 examines how the UK says it's committed to sustainability while allowing the coal industry to progress. Photo by Kelly Lacy The opening of a new mine, which would have produced coking coal in Cumbria, goes against the UK's commitments to reach net-zero by 2050 and phase out coal use. To make these goals realistic, steelworkers would have to stop using coal by 2035. The new coal mine, however, would throw these promises into doubt, jeopardising the UK government's credibility. These goals surrounding coal reduction are vital, as the shift away from coal towards gas and renewable energy has been the biggest factor in the UK's falling emissions, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Robert Jenrick has called in the plans for the mine, and a public inquiry is underway, but this is a pause, not a definite cancellation. The inquiry brings relief to those who have been busy making their voices heard, desperately trying to convince those in power to prevent the mine from going forward. How did the mine get this far? In October 2020, Cumbria County Council approved the mine, triggering a massive uproar from environmentalists, climate scientists and MPs alike. Following the backlash, Jenrick reversed his earlier decision to avoid getting involved and called in the plans while announcing a public inquiry. The response by environmentalists was ecstatic. Dianne Moyes, a member of Friends of the Earth Cumbria, described the moment she heard about the development: "I was in the middle of a Zoom meeting with Climate Action West Cumbria when my husband came in with the news that Jenrick had called it in and there would be a public inquiry. It was a great feeling, and we enjoyed the moment together." This news wasn't welcomed by everyone, as the £165m mine would provide 500 jobs to an area with high unemployment levels. West Cumbria Mining had previously told locals that they have the opportunity to generate "many hundreds of skilled and well-paid new jobs." Moyes claimed that locals had expressed concerns about this too: "The people who just think any jobs are good are upset that it has been called in. Those who think we would gain more in the long term from green jobs are glad that it is to be looked at again." Worries around employment are understandable, but a report published by Cumbria Action for Sustainability (CAfS) reassures those concerned by demonstrating that Cumbria has more potential for green jobs than those produced with the mine. The UK's Reputation Each development in the Cumbria mine situation has been watched closely, not only by local environmentalists but also by the world, as it has turned into a global political row. The new mine opening would show the UK in a hypocritical light for many reasons, the main one being that the UK initiated the "Powering Past Coal" initiative. Moyes and many others are sceptical of government promises surrounding sustainability: "The government is still supporting oil and gas exploration schemes in the North Sea which completely undermine its credibility. I think the government want to host a big conference for the status of it, but I am not sure how committed they are. I look at all the houses that have been built in the last ten years, very few of which are zero-carbon when they should have been." So, while the decision to call a public inquiry and halt the mine's development is great news for the planet, it has put the UK's credibility surrounding climate change goals in doubt, both within the UK and abroad. The UK isn't the only country promising climate leadership but whose actions contradict the claims. Germany, for example, is a member of the Powering Past Coal Alliance too, yet last year opened a new coal-fired power plant. Likewise, Canada is committed to phasing out coal-powered electricity but is planning for an expanded coal mining production in the West. Countries can easily pledge to be carbon neutral, and they all want to be the world leader in climate change progress, but actions speak louder than words. Do they hope that no one will notice? The backlash against the Cumbria mine has proven that people are paying attention Article on a similar topic: Greenwashing: The Impression of Sustainability We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Annie Grey reports on the negative impact of the fishing industry on our oceans. Photo by David Clode At a time when the world faces an unprecedented biodiversity crisis, methods of fishing that cause damage to such slow-growing ecosystems can no longer be afforded. Scientists have concluded that a third of the world’s oceans must be protected by 2030 if there is any chance of saving them from collapse. Currently, only 2.7% of the ocean is under some kind of protection. As coastal and open-water fisheries have become ever more depleted and overexploited, industrial fishing fleets have turned to deep-sea species, with many using highly destructive bottom trawling techniques in their fishing practices. To capture a handful of ‘target’ species, deep-sea bottom trawl fishing vessels drag huge nets armed with steel plates and heavy rollers across the seabed, annihilating sea life in their path. A large portion of deep-sea catches are taken in the North Atlantic where vessels will typically target a range of fish species such as ling (Molva dypterygia), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), round nose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris), black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo), a few species of sharks and more recently exploited species such as Baird’s slick head (Alepocephalus bairdii) and deep-sea red crab (Chaceon affinis). Fleets worldwide are now fishing on seamounts, deep-sea canyons and the rough seafloor – areas that were once avoided for fear of damaging nets. They plough through biologically rich and diverse seamount ecosystems, crushing corals, sponges, marine life and habitats as they go. Many species of unwanted fish are caught as ‘bycatch’ and thrown back dead into the ocean. In a matter of weeks, bottom trawl fishing can destroy what took nature many thousands of years to create. The End of Carbon Sinks Alongside being critical for biodiversity, bottom trawling produces a gigaton of carbon every year, as reported in Nature. Marine sediments are the largest pool of carbon storage in the world and ocean phytoplankton absorb about 30% of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, but by releasing more CO2 underwater, the amount the ocean can absorb from the atmosphere is drastically reduced. For example, when carbon is released from the seabed sediment into the water, it can increase ocean acidification, which may well dissolve the calcium carbonate that makes up mussel shells and coral skeleton, as well as interrupt processes like fish breathing. This is alongside adversely affecting productivity and biodiversity. A group of scientists and economists are pushing for bottom-trawling fishing emissions to be added to nations’ greenhouse gas inventories. Although these underwater emissions cannot be translated directly to atmospheric emissions, Nature study co-author Trisha Atwood said a “substantial” amount ends up in the atmosphere. The researchers aim to estimate this amount by the end of 2021, making it possible for bottom-trawling emissions to be included in countries’ greenhouse gas inventories. For some coastal countries, counting this released carbon would drastically alter their emissions figures. For example, the study estimates that Croatia’s bottom-trawling CO2 emissions stand at 23 million tons-a-year; if this was attributed to Croatia’s official greenhouse gas inventory, it would more than double. China is also thought to be responsible for 769 million tonnes of underwater CO2 a year, and the EU is estimated to have released 274 million tonnes. Tip of the Iceberg Earlier this year, it was announced that two of the UK’s most sensitive fishing sites were set to receive better protection, with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) reporting that it plans to safeguard fishing areas in Dogger Bank and South Dorset by completely banning bottom-trawling. The sites are already designated as protected areas, but in reality, they are not patrolled and are both over-fished. “Many of these species have declined so far that they are on the endangered species list. But, so far, marine conservation efforts in the UK have completely neglected doing anything to bring about their recovery.” – Professor Callum Roberts of Exeter University Dogger Bank is the largest sandbank in UK waters, and underpins the North Sea’s ecosystem. It provides a vital habitat for a wide range of species which live on and within the seabed, including flatfish, starfish, sand eels, crabs, clams, worms, scallops and more. These species in turn provide a vital food source for predators such as porpoises, dolphins and seabirds. Other ‘protected sites’ off the coast of Land’s End and Lincolnshire are under government consideration to move from ‘full’ to ‘partial’ bottom trawling practices. As Chris Thorne from Greenpeace UK explains: “Action in these four sites is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the scale needed to solve the crisis facing our oceans.” Protecting the Oceans In the blueprint provided by Nature, outlines are given to which areas of the ocean should be protected to safeguard marine life, boost seafood production and reduce greenhouse emissions. Scientists argue that by identifying strategic areas for stewardship – for example, regions with large-scale industrial fishing and major economic exclusions zones or marine territories – nations could reap “significant benefits” for climate, food, and biodiversity. They predict that protecting “strategic” ocean areas could produce 8 million tons of seafood. These protected areas should be where bottom trawling is common and vast amounts of carbon are present. Some examples include the South China Sea, Europe’s North Sea, the US Aleutian Islands and the West and South-West Coast of Africa, where trawling is carried out by local, European and Chinese-owned fishing fleets. If we want to prevent more marine species from going extinct or joining the growing IUCN red list, we must take decisive action to restrict activities that are known to destroy and disturb vital ecosystems that support life on Earth. Article on a similar topic: Oceans Absorb Twice as Much Carbon Than Previously Thought 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.

Mary Jane Amato explores how the pandemic may have hampered children’s development, yet also prove their resilience. Photo by Austin Pacheco The highly challenging situation resulting from the COVID 19-pandemic has put everyone to the test, physically, economically and mentally. Children have been the silent victims of this unforeseen disruption to life as we know it. As the least impacted by the virus from a medical perspective, their issues have been put on hold while significant changes have taken place in their lives without them having a chance to have their say on the matter. The pandemic’s effects on children between the ages of 5-16 have been severe on multiple levels, especially in social and educational development. Lockdown restrictions leading to subsequent school closures nationwide have played a major role in slowing down the usual advancement of children, both intellectually and in their capacity to interact. The lack of contact with others may have caused setbacks in their linguistic abilities and capability to manage their feelings. Isolation might also have a lasting impact on the educational progress of children. For the younger children, this has meant a significant and abrupt halt in relation-building, connection and communication, but for the slightly older ones, it has consisted in an unexpected capsizing of the solid structure that school provides them. An example of this hasty overturn is the cancellation of the 2021 GCSEs and A-Levels along with the consequent decision to have teachers award grades based on coursework and mock exams. This measure, taken without consulting students beforehand, has caused mixed feelings amongst them, with some welcoming the break from standardised testing and others worrying that the quality of their coursework would not be good enough for them to pass the year, causing great distress. Moreover, long-distance learning may have impacted students’ performance, altering an already delicate balance during the central years of their formation. Although online teaching is not new to most education providers, it had previously only been experimented within a mixed context where in-person learning was also provided. What emerges from studies around this issue is that vulnerable and disadvantaged students may struggle more with online instruction; children with an unstable family condition tend to have more trouble keeping up with schoolwork and staying on top of project deadlines when left to their own devices. An Educational Development Matter, But Also One Regarding Mental Health Education and learning development are not the only areas that have been subject to the detriment caused by the pandemic. Studies conducted by the National Institute for Health Research have seen an increase in apprehension in children in their teens. Worrying about catching COVID-19, or that a loved one may do so, as well as a fear of missing school, are some of the concerns that cause the most anxiety and distress. Young people’s mental health and wellbeing have been further jeopardised by many other factors, a prominent one being vulnerability. If the situation at home was already precarious, lockdown may have made matters unquestionably worse, forcing them to be even more exposed to stressful household conditions and making the pandemic an additional obstacle to their already unstable lives. Low-income households might have been impacted even more severely by the loss of jobs and financial cuts, with parents becoming more prone to developing depressive symptoms. Forced to stay at home, children will have absorbed negativity, possibly translating into anxiety, PTSD and mental strain. A Possible Silver Lining and The Right Steps to Take Going Forwards Even though the inconveniences and problems generating from the pandemic have unquestionably weighed upon the wellbeing of children, some positives have emerged from it. Their innate adaptability can in fact prove very resourceful, and taking the opportunity to build resilience during such stressful times could change the perception of this moment. Making sure their basic needs are met is an essential part of this process, together with keeping children connected and supervising their screen-time, avoiding mindless scrolling and the negative influence of the excessive use of social media. Furthermore, supporting children’s Social and Emotional Learning, also known as SEL (the way they manage emotions and create and maintain positive relations), will be of primary importance while returning to school. This will be a critical step on the road to recovery, both for children and for each and every one of us. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Impact 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 today.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as scientists from Arizona propose a lunar ark to protect the Earth’s biodiversity in case of emergency. Photo by Eberhard Grossgasteiger A group of scientists from the University of Arizona have proposed the construction of a solar-powered facility on the moon to store seed, spore, sperm and egg samples from 6.7 million different species in case of disaster on Earth. Jekan Thanga, an aerospace and mechanical engineering professor from the University of Arizona, has called the plan a “modern global insurance policy” to protect our species against threats to the planet, many of which are caused by human activity. An Out-of-this-World Plan The scientists’ proposed ark, which drew inspiration from the Biblical narrative of Noah’s Ark, would be contained within a network of 200 empty lava tunnels on the moon. These tunnels have been undisturbed for three to four billion years, meaning they are practically impenetrable except from a direct nuclear missile strike or a large meteor, making them a lot more secure than any location on the Earth. As Thanga explains: “Earth is naturally a volatile environment. As humans, we had a close call about 75,000 years ago with the Toba super-volcanic eruption, which caused a 1,000-year cooling period and, according to some, aligns with an estimated drop in human diversity. Because human civilization has such a large footprint, if it were to collapse, that could have a negative cascading effect on the rest of the planet.” In addition to the unpredictability of the Earth’s climate, we are subject to threats from potential nuclear wars, asteroid strikes, pandemics, solar storms and global droughts, none of which are outside the realms of possibility. The scientists behind the project argue that “humanity has a fundamental responsibility to protect the diversity of life on Earth”, and that preserving a collection representing the planet’s biodiversity separate from our influence is the best way to ensure this. Is it Feasible? The idea of a ‘doomsday’ store isn’t a new one, and it doesn’t just mean nuclear bunkers for the uber-rich. There is already the Global Seed Vault on Spitsbergen, part of Norway’s Svalbard archipelago right next to the North Pole, which holds seeds for 930,000 varieties of food crops in case of emergency. However, some scientists have already expressed concern that the seed bank is vulnerable to rising sea levels attributed to climate change. A lunar ark seems to be a sound logical jump to avoid the Earth’s issues, but will come at a cost. The technology required to complete it doesn’t exist yet, as a method called quantum levitation would need to be confirmed and put into practice in order to fix the stored objects in a magnetic field rather than securing them with gravity. This is required as the stored objects would need to be kept extremely cold – between minus 292 and minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit – at which temperature they would fuse to the ground, as would the robots facilitating their storage. This all sounds very theoretical and complicated, but some believe that it could be accomplished within thirty years, or even fewer if the situation becomes desperate. However, this would only be feasible if the plan secured hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of investment: as Thanga explains, “this is a project that would require real urgency to have a lot of people energized enough to go after it”. Thanga argues that “we need a modern ark that is safe and away from all the possible cataclysms”, but this concept of ‘need’ is a controversial one. Do we as humans – only one of millions of species on the Earth and potentially trillions in the whole universe – have the right to stray across the milky way and spread our seed, as it were, beyond our atmosphere when the destruction of our planet is largely our fault? This is an ethical question we must ask continue to ask ourselves over the approaching decades, and one which will require significant soul-searching as well as just a selfish will to survive. 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.

Jonny Rogers breaks down what was discussed at the latest G7 Summit, and how people have responded. Photo by Simon Godfrey After last year’s G7 summit was cancelled due to Covid, this year’s event took place in the Carbis Bay Hotel in Cornwall, from Friday 11th to Sunday 13th June. Some of the world’s most influential leaders came together to discuss the biggest issues facing today’s world. The G7 is composed of leaders of the world’s seven largest economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US, though the EU also often partakes in summits. Leaders from Australia, India, South Africa and South Korea were also invited to attend this year’s summit. The main topic of conversation was the global recovery from Covid, focusing on strengthening resilience against future pandemics, promoting “future prosperity by championing free and fair trade”, tackling climate change and biodiversity preservation, and “championing our shared values”. Ahead of the summit, the UK pledged to donate more than 100 million surplus doses to countries most in need, including 5 million in the coming weeks. In a press release, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “[...] The G7 has long been the catalyst for decisive international action to tackle the greatest challenges we face. From cancelling developing world debt to our universal condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the world has looked to the G7 to apply our shared values and diplomatic might to create a more open and prosperous planet.” Another significant topic of focus was China, who in recent years have received global criticism for their reported detainment of the Uyghur population and other Muslim minorities, as well as a new security law that makes it easier to punish protestors in Hong Kong. The committee also demanded a thorough investigation into the origins of Covid-19. In response, China has denounced G7, accusing the world leaders of “political manipulation” and vowing to seek a “blood debt” from NATO. Did you know? Banks globally have funded fossil fuel industries with £2.7 trillion since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2016. Protests and Backlash Over the weekend, countless protests occurred across the area: Surfers Against Sewage staged a mass ‘paddle out’ to call for urgent action to protect our oceans, Greenpeace produced a lights display demanding leaders to ‘act now’, and members of Ocean Rebellion dressed as Boris Johnson and set fire to a boat. A number of people were arrested after protestors glued themselves to the road, while others locked themselves to a minibus at a roundabout. At least 15 more people were arrested at another campsite near the location of the summit, while many activists affiliated with Animal Rebellion took part in a sit-in protest at a local McDonald’s restaurant. Over 6,500 officers were involved in policing the summit, including extra officers residing on a cruise ship docked in Falmouth. The Devon and Cornwall Police established four approved sites for protests, though admitting that they expected they would extend beyond these. Since the end of the summit, the police have thanked the protestors for remaining largely peaceful. The Prime Minister was heavily criticised for having travelled from Cornwall to London by plane while declaring his green ambitions. As the Green Party responded, “there's a big gaping hole between Boris's climate talk and climate action”. Greta Thunberg also criticised the G7 leaders for hosting a “steak-and-lobster-BBQ-celebration” while jet planes performed aerobatics above the resort. What Was Discussed? At the end of the event, G7 published a ‘communiqué’ which summarises what was discussed, as well as the following agenda for global action. The ‘Carbis Bay G7 Summit Communiqué’ highlights the following areas as priorities for the global agenda: Ending the pandemic and preparing for the future by speedily distributing safe vaccines to as many people as possible, creating the appropriate frameworks to strengthen collective defences against threats to global health and supporting science in the development of safe vaccines, treatments and tests. Reinvigorate our economies by advancing recovery plans, shifting the focus from crisis response and towards promoting future growth, supporting both people and public services. Secure our future prosperity by collaborating to ensure “future frontiers” of the global economy, seeking to increase the prosperity and wellbeing of all people through championing free and fair trade within a reformed trading system and a fairer global tax system. Protecting the planet by supporting a ‘green revolution’ which, among other goals, promises to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and conserve or protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. Strengthen partnerships around the world by supporting the International Monetary Fund for countries most in need of support, which G7 hopes will ‘deepen’ their current partnership with Africa. Embrace our values by harnessing the power of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights to “answer the biggest questions and overcome the greatest challenges”. This includes a target to support 40 million more girls in education, with a $2.75 billion investment in the Global Partnership for Education. As the conclusion states: “We shall seek to advance this open agenda in collaboration with other countries and within the multilateral rules-based system. In particular, we look forward to working alongside our G20 partners and with all relevant International Organisations to secure a cleaner, greener, freer, fairer and safer future for our people and planet.” Whilst the G7 body itself cannot pass any laws, the meeting will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the decisions and policies made by the constituent members in the coming months and years. Although some of the communique’s conclusions are vague and presently lack detailed plans, it is important to hold world leaders accountable for the promises they make, as the decisions we commit to today will shape our future. Article on a similar topic: How to Make Small Changes for a Big Impact We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Jenny Donath reports as activists call for the UN to recognise the severity of global animal cruelty. Photo by Zan Beyond Cruelty and other animal welfare charities have united to campaign for an 18th UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) which focuses on the abolition of animal exploitation. In order to achieve a more sustainable world, the UN has developed ‘the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or SDG for short, stand in focus of this plan and build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from 2015. These goals intend to help tackle climate change and boost international economic, social and environmental growth. Among others, they include the reduction, or preferably complete eradication, of global poverty, inequality, injustice and polluted environments. The Impact of Animal Farming Beyond Cruelty - a charity which promotes a cruelty-free world for animals - criticises the neglect of animal welfare on the agenda, saying it does not address certain core issues. For instance, two of the goals - No. 14 Life Below Water and No. 15 Life On Land - address the necessary conservation of marine life and the reduction of deforestation, but do not take into account the impact of agriculture or fishing. Agriculture especially has a severe impact on the environment and its habitats due to the use of unsustainable techniques. According to National Geographic, 70 percent of all freshwater is used to irrigate crops alone. Furthermore, the provision of land for livestock can cause damage to the soil and a decrease in grass regeneration. This counteracts the SDG No. 2 Zero Hunger and No. 6 Clean Water and Sanitation, as agricultural practices currently render it impossible to provide sufficient clean water worldwide. Why Should Animals be Considered? Beyond Cruelty argues that the current goals are only human-centred, saying they exclude the mistreatment of animals despite underlying scientific studies that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing a variety of feelings. Billions of animals are killed each year for human gain. Livestock are exploited for food, such as meat and dairy products, and for the fashion industry, leather and wool being key chief examples. Especially livestock in factories are often the victim of intentional abuse, such as beating, suffocation, or captivation in small, confined spaces, hence why the chicken - the most quantitively exploited land animal - was chosen as the representative symbol for the proposed 18th SDG. Multiple cases of animal cruelty are reported per day, but the number of unreported cases is certainly far higher. Not much protection from animal cruelty is ensured by law, therefore giving room for damaging behaviour to continue. Common examples of animal cruelty include domesticated cats becoming victims of unhealthy hording behaviour from overzealous owners, while dogs and chickens suffer under organised cruelty for entertainment purposes, such as cock or dog fighting. Beyond Cruelty hopes to improve these conditions by distributing information and raising awareness of their campaign on social media platforms. Claire Smith, president of the Beyond Cruelty foundation, states that ‘the addition of SDG 18 – Zero Animal Exploitation, will accelerate the transition to a compassionate, kinder, cleaner and healthier world for all’. Article on a similar topic: England and Wales to Ban Trade of Live Animals for Slaughter 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.

Jennifer McDowall explains why air pollution is causing millions of premature deaths in China. Photo by Maud Beauregard The World Health Organisation (WHO) has described air pollution as “the greatest environmental risk to health”. Low quality air is taking a particular toll on the population in China, one of the most polluting countries in the world, where it’s estimated that 4,000 people are dying every day due to poor air quality. Based on the measure of air quality used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a massive 38% of Chinese people are currently living in areas with ‘unhealthy’ air quality. Pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, ozone and particulate matter contribute to the death of seven million people around the world every year. Particulate matter is a mixture of solid and liquid particles of varying sizes, suspended in the air. Particles less than 2.5 micrometres, known as PM2.5, are produced mainly as a bi-product of burning fossil fuels. These particles reduce air quality, are the primary cause of smog and are extremely detrimental to human health. It’s estimated these particles alone cause 4.6 million deaths a year. Particulate Matter and Human Health The small size of the PM2.5 particles allows them to penetrate the lungs and blood stream, damaging the respiratory and vascular systems. This damage is worsened with increased exposure, in terms of either concentration or duration, and has been linked to lung cancer, asthma and heart disease. In fact, for every 10µg/m3 increase in PM 2.5, the risk of developing lung cancer, childhood asthma or a heart attack increases by 16%, 36% and 44%, respectively. According to WHO, the maximum daily amount of PM2.5 exposure considered safe is 25 particles per cubic metre of air. In China, this figure often exceeds 200. This is a regular occurrence during winter, when weather conditions help keep pollution at ground level and more power is generated for heating. In addition to electricity production, transportation emissions are a major source of air pollution, especially in urban areas. To make matters worse, China also has to deal with annual sandstorms, which carry sand and dust from the Gobi Desert, which lies to the north of China. These winds have increased in frequency over the last two decades and are sometimes bad enough to turn the sky brown. In a recent study, researchers analysed satellite imagery along with PM2.5 concentration data from several locations in China. Using this data, the researchers estimated that 30.8 million people have died prematurely as a result of PM2.5 between 2000 and 2016, that’s between 1.5 and 2.2 million deaths per year during that time period. But now, at least, China is taking action with a plan to bring back its blue skies. Blue Skies Ahead The aim of the Blue Skies Project was to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide levels by 15%, relative to 2015 levels, and reduce PM2.5 concentrations by 18%. To reach these goals, the major causes of air pollution were targeted. Transport systems were upgraded to be more eco-friendly and fuel efficient. This involved heavy investment and uptake of electric vehicles and a reduction, including bans in certain areas and sectors, of vehicles running on fossil fuels. In addition, a national pricing system was introduced for carbon emissions as well as charges for polluters. Over the last few years China has also shifted away from coal towards natural gas for electricity generation in an effort to improve air quality. Although it has already made an impact, the programme has not been without controversy. In 2017, officials from seven different cities were charged for manipulating official Chinese PM2.5 air pollution data on high-pollution days to bring them within acceptable levels. Despite this setback, the concentrations of PM2.5 have shown a significant drop over the last few years, though many areas remain heavily polluted where infrastructure upgrading has not been completed. Following China's first Covid lockdown, greenhouse gas emissions plummeted by 40% as polluting industries such as coal-fired power generation closed down. Once the country re-opened, however, emissions quickly rose above pre-pandemic levels, proving that a quick green recovery wasn’t on the cards for China. Although an effort is being made, it’s clear China still has a way to go to prove its commitment to improving air quality. It may take a little longer before the Chinese see blue skies again. 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as a Pride controversy at the Euros sparks outrage surrounding Hungary’s new anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Photo by Alexandr Bormotin Hungary has come under fire after refusing to play a Euro 2020 match at the Allianz Arena in Munich due to plans to light up the stadium with rainbow colours to mark Pride Month. As a result, UEFA blocked the proposed display, leading one German fan to run onto the pitch before the game waving a Pride flag in protest. This incident comes after the Hungarian government passed new legislation banning any material promoting or even portraying LGBTQ+ rights or awareness to anyone under the age of 18. The law change has received backlash from EU member states, being criticised as discriminatory. Conservative Censorship On 15 June 2021, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced new legislation prohibiting the exposure of minors to material including any trace of gay or transgender people and/or relationships. Schools will no longer be able to teach any material including LGBTQ+ issues, and parents are being encouraged to bar children from such material too. The law could also mean popular media which includes portrayals of LGBTQ+ people, including shows such as Friends, will not be shown on Hungary television until late at night. The country’s government has justified this move as an attempt to protect Hungary’s traditional Christian values from Western liberalism, and says the legislation is aimed not to target LGBTQ+ people, but to protect children, with Mr Orban saying, “this is not against homosexuality. It's about the right of the kids and the parents.” However, the change has sparked widespread concern that young people will be deprived of the education and support both to make them tolerant of people’s differences, and accepting of their own sexualities. The majority of the EU member states united to condemn the new legislation at the European Council in June, with 17 of the 27 member states signing a letter confirming their support for the LGBTQ+ community. The criticism was led by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who said the laws defy fundamental human rights “which are not negotiable”, and that the country has to respect them or they will have “no business being in the European Union any more”. “They've gone too far... it starts with discriminating against LGBT and ends up with silencing people who say what they don't like.” – Alexander De Croo, Belgian Prime Minister Right-Wing Regression This legislation is just the next stage in a series of hyper-conservative changes implemented by Mr Orban during his leadership, with the PM himself describing his government as an “illiberal democracy”. Since he gained power in 2010, many argue that Mr Orban has in fact undermined the country’s democracy, prompting concerns about the legitimacy of election results, filling the government and courts with allies, cutting the funding available to opposition parties and taking control of 90% of the country’s media outlets. In 2020, the pro-democracy group Freedom House ranked Hungary as only Partly Free, meaning they no longer consider the country to be a democracy. This reflects, perhaps, a concerning trend for far-right popularity which is currently spreading across Europe. There is considerable risk that other countries may adopt similar legislation in the near-future as hyper-conservative candidates gain traction across other regions. Article on a similar topic: Gay Men Allowed to Give Blood in Britain 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as two pairs of lesbian penguins have formed at London’s Sea Life aquarium. Photo by Pam Ivey The emergence of two lesbian penguin pairs at London’s Sea Life aquarium is the latest development in substantiating the theory that homosexual behaviour is a natural biological phenomenon. The two pairs of female gentoo penguins – Marmalade and Chickpea, and Marama and Rocky – have been seen carrying out the mating rituals of bringing each other pebbles which they will later use to build a nest. While the former couple are newly-formed, the latter have already raised a chick together back in 2019 after its biological mother couldn’t cope. “Gentoo penguins are the ultimate romantics, and their dating techniques are truly unique – so much so that as humans, we could certainly learn a thing or two from their passion and commitment to finding a mate. As well as our male-female penguin couples, this breeding season we also have two female same-sex couples who are also going through their nesting rituals.” – Catherine Pritchard, Sea Life Manager Same-sex behaviour like this is not uncommon among penguins, and is substantial proof that homosexual tendencies are not reserved solely for humans, and thus cannot simply be a man-made social construct or (as some see it) a manifestation of ‘unnatural’ sin. A Long-Established Trend The observation of homosexual habits in animals isn’t a recent one. In 1910, scientists on an expedition to Antarctica observed sex between male adélie penguins, yet the research paper including the information was only published in 100 copies. More than a century ago, much of the world was far from ready to accept homosexuality in humans let alone in the animal kingdom. For years, the idea of animals subverting heteronormativity was dismissed as defying Darwin’s theory of evolution as they are unable to conceive offspring themselves, but it’s recently been theorised that homosexuality in animal populations can support evolution by strengthening communities and reinforcing social bonds. Penguins are not the only species for which homosexual behaviour has been reported. In fact, there is evidence that at least 1,500 species throughout the animal kingdom have tendencies to form same-sex couples. Whether practising same-sex intercourse or committing to long-term same-sex relationships, species ranging from insects to birds to mammals frequently exhibit bisexual or homosexual individuals. “Being homosexual is very common and no problem in the natural world at all. In fact, we see more heterophobia than homophobia in the animal kingdom.” – Jasper Buikx, biologist at Amsterdam's ARTIS Zoo Various species which have been seen to display homosexual behaviours include giraffes, lions, dolphins, vultures, bison, albatrosses, walruses, beetles and sheep. It’s even been estimated that a fifth of all swan couples are homosexual. There seem to be no boundaries on which species can display homosexual patterns and under which circumstances. Scientific Proof Some scientists have attempted to explain the manifestation of homosexuality in animals. U.S. researchers collected a sample of domesticated rams and provided the option of a mixed-sex group of other sheep/rams from whom to select a partner – between 6 and 12% of rams chose another ram to mate with. Research found that in the brains of the rams who chose a male partner, their hypothalamus (the part of the brain which releases sex hormones) was smaller, suggesting that homosexual behaviours could be dictated by a tangible biological difference. While research on this subject is likely to remain at least partly speculative as it’s impossible to ask animals to explain their sexual preferences, the exhibition of same-sex behaviours among animals who are uninfluenced by societal factors can be seen to provide evidence that homosexual tendencies are naturally-occurring. Article on a similar topic: Men Who Have Sex with Men Allowed to Give Blood in Britain 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.

Jennifer McDowall reports on the threatened boycott of Brazil by UK supermarkets and outlines the reasons behind it. Photo by Julia Volk British supermarkets have taken a stand against the National Congress of Brazil in response to a proposed bill which could accelerate deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. In an open letter, 40 different retailers, including Tesco, Greggs, Aldi and Sainsbury’s, pledged to cease sourcing produce from the area if the law is passed. This is the second time British retailers have banded together in an effort to influence the Brazilian Government. They rallied against a similar proposal in 2020 which was eventually shelved to avoid the loss of business from the UK. In the letter, the signees urged the government to abandon the bill, saying “we will have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. It is hoped that the letter will have the same effect this year as the situation in the Amazon is getting worse. Deforestation The Amazon rainforest covers a massive 2.72 million square miles and is an important haven of biodiversity, being home to 10% of all species on earth and many groups of indigenous people. The forest is also vital to the planet’s health as it acts as carbon sink with the capacity to store 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon. Although the forest is spread across nine countries, 60% of it is located in Brazil. Sadly, much of the Amazon rainforest is lost to deforestation every year, for growing soy, farming cattle or for logging. Although a lot of deforestation is illegal, logging and farming are not prohibited in the Amazon. In 1965, Brazil introduced the ‘forest code’ which allows people to purchase land in the Amazon but requires them to keep up to 80% of the land unfarmed. However, the level of deforestation in this vulnerable area is at its highest since 2008. The Bill The proposed Land Reform Bill would allow the purchase of land illegally occupied since 2014. This would not only legitimise the illegal occupation of public land; it is thought that the bill would also lead to an acceleration of deforestation and development of land seized illegally. Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, is in favour of commercial farming and mining in the Amazon as he views it as a means of reducing poverty. Although the production of agricultural commodities can be positive at a local level, campaigners believe this will only encourage illegal farming and logging and cause further damage to the rainforest. The clearing of the Amazon is driven by demand. Brazil is the biggest exporter of beef in the world with one fifth of its total production exported overseas. Its trade of cattle and beef products is worth a staggering $5.4 billion a year. This meat production is the biggest driver of deforestation in the country, with nearly two thirds of the land cleared in the Amazon used for cattle pasture. A research study of rural Amazon properties, published in Science magazine, revealed that only 2% of properties were responsible for 62% of illegal deforestation. In addition, the majority of this deforested area was used to produce soy and beef to be exported to Europe. Exports to Europe As well as beef, Brazil is also a major exporter of corn, leather and soy, which is used as animal feed throughout the world, and so is crucial to many global supply chains. 41% of all soy imported to Europe comes from the Amazon and disturbingly, 22% of soy and 60% of beef consumed in Europe comes from land that has been illegally deforested. Now, at least, food retailers have realized there is a problem and the threat of the loss of their collective business is a powerful one. In the open letter, food giants pledged to support sustainability and acknowledged the role the Amazon plays in the world’s climate, stating: “We consider the Amazon as a vital part of the earth system that’s essential to the security of our planet as well as being a critical part of a prosperous future for Brazilians and all of society.” In the closing section of the letter, the companies say that their “door remains open to work with Brazilian partners on supporting the development of sustainable land management and agriculture” and also that they “are willing partners to enable this in a way that supports economic development whilst upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities”. This is a step in the right direction for British supermarkets, but it’s just the beginning. Changes have to be made to ensure supply chains are sustainable to protect vulnerable areas like the Amazon. 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. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Annie Grey delves into the unethical practices of the multi-billion-pound cosmetics industry, including the exploitation of child labour in many supply chains. Photo by Cotton Bro Make-up is a multi-billion-pound industry, as cosmetics usage has soared over the years.  While demand has risen, so has the number of shoppers making a conscious effort to consume ethically. The rise of ethical consumerism has resulted in an increased scrutiny of the cosmetics industry, with shoppers calling for transparency about not only products’ ingredients, but also supply chains. Pressure on the industry from ethical consumers has had its successes, with the European Union, Israel, and India banning the sale of any cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients that have been tested on animals. But this is just one of many ethical concerns that plagues the industry. The Problem with Mica Children in India are being exploited in the dangerous search for mica, a natural mineral found in large quantities in the region that is used in cosmetics to add pigment and shimmer to products including eyeshadow, lipstick and blush.The first mica investigations in the country by children’s rights organisation, Terre des Hommes, in 2015, estimated that up to 22,000 children were involved in illegal mica mining in the Indian states of Jharkhand and Bihar. Indian law forbids children below the age of 18 to work in mines and other hazardous industries, but many families living in poverty depend on children to boost household incomes, which average around 200 rupees (£2.05) per day. This has resulted in children risking their lives working in these mines for a sum of 20 – 30 rupees per day [GBP £0.21 - £0.31] to supplement their parents’ measly salaries. This shows a clear indication that industries and companies using mica sourced from India are directly contributing to child labour. Most of the mica mines in the region were shut three decades ago, when a forest protection law came into force, and only a few legal mines operate today, which has consequently pushed the industry underground.  Up to 60% of the high-quality mica used in cosmetics today is sourced from India. Many cosmetic brands, such as L’Oréal and Maybelline, are known to source mica from the region, so we can’t be sure if all the ingredients they use are ethical. Helping society stay informed. The Price of Beauty Roughly 70% of mica produced in India comes from illegal mines that are completely unregulated by the government. With no other industries in the region, many families are forced to continue working in high-risk environments. Breathing in the dust in mica mines can prove fatal, causing infections, disease, and permanent lung damage. There is also a catastrophic risk of cave-ins, with locals reporting: “Deaths are so common that the traders who control this particular cluster of mines have a set rate they give to families who lose loved one while mining”. Reportedly, the set compensation rate for each person who dies is 30,000 rupees [or about £307 GBP]. Family mining is common in the region, and a child’s small build and nimble hands are unfortunately  valuable for entering narrow mine shafts and sorting smaller pieces of mica. International cosmetic companies benefit financially from obscuring the origin of the mica they use, as it keeps costs low by allowing exporters to exploit those mining it. Due to this, most cosmetic brands don’t want to talk about mica mining. Lush Cosmetics is an exception. In 2014, the company was tipped off to potential child labour practices in their supply chain. Following an investigation into the claim, the brand began replacing the material with ‘synthetic mica’. The implementation of this alternative – a biodegradable shimmer pigment created in a lab – makes all its products guaranteed to be free of mica as of the end of 2018. Given the depth and breadth of the cosmetics supply chain, tracing and monitoring the tiers of production is virtually impossible. Although Lush Cosmetics has since committed to the removal of child labour from their supply chain, the question remains of how they could have done more as an ‘ethical brand’ to help these children? Ethical consumerism is here to stay, and it is the significant influence that consumers have over their shopping decisions that holds the power to push cosmetics companies to not only operate ethically, but also give back to those whom have been previously exploited. You may also like: Talking Textiles: Do We Really Need Any More Clothes? We are a socio-ethical impact initiative 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 sheds light on one of the planet’s most important but often overlooked organisms. Photo by Benjamin Sow We all know that oxygen is essential to support life on this planet, but the biggest contributor of oxygen to our atmosphere is largely overlooked. Where rainforests are responsible for providing 28% of our oxygen, 70% actually comes from the ocean through marine plants, such as kelp, and phytoplankton – in fact, plankton produce 50% of the Earth’s oxygen supply. Its name derived from the Greek phyto (plant) and planktos (drifter), phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that live in both salt and fresh water. Some plankton are bacteria and some are protists (single-celled organisms), but most are single-celled plants such as kinds of algae. Although small, these organisms are absolutely invaluable to life both in the oceans and on land. Planktons’ Role Just like the plants found on land, phytoplankton undergo photosynthesis in the water to keep them alive, using the chlorophyll in their bodies to convert the sun’s rays which filter through the water into chemical energy. Through this process, they simultaneously absorb carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen on a similar scale to forests and other land plants; plankton absorb roughly 50 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. Some plankton survive solely through this photosynthetic cycle, while some also eat other organisms. In addition to contributing to the world’s oxygen, plankton are the foundation of the ocean’s food chain, feeding everything from microscopic zooplankton to huge whales. Put simply, without plankton, there would be no sustenance for any of the fish we eat, the seabirds we see near the coast, or some of the planet’s most extraordinary creatures like the baleen whale, the world’s largest mammal. The Threat to Oxygen Even a small adjustment in phytoplanktons’ absorption of carbon dioxide affects atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and consequently influences global temperatures. Scientists are concerned this is already happening. Plankton are incredibly sensitive to slight changes in their environments such as the changes which oceans are undergoing due to rising water temperatures caused by global warming. The fluctuating temperatures have significant ramifications on plankton populations, thus affecting the marine food chain, ocean ecosystems and atmospheric oxygen levels. Changes in water condition can also cause too many plankton to drift into one area and reproduce en masse, leading to oversaturation of an area known as a ‘bloom’. These mass gatherings of certain types of plankton can release dangerous toxins into the water which cause ‘red tides’ in which other organisms are killed by the toxins and ecosystems are disrupted. On top of this, all the plankton die, thus releasing the carbon dioxide they had absorbed when their bodies break down. Blooms are more likely to occur when varying sea temperatures affect plankton movement and reproduction. Essentially, global warming is doing even more damage to atmospheric levels of both CO2 and oxygen than we realise. Because of the ocean’s distance from our everyday lives, it’s easy to forget how integral its processes are to the fabric of life on Earth, but the time has come to acknowledge and protect the tiny organisms which quite literally keep us alive. Similar: Coral Reef Discovered in Australian Ocean 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.

Nick Webb discusses the environmental impact caused by the consumptive lifestyles of the affluent classes. Photo by Roberto Junior Human beings have an undeniable tendency to want and to consume more than we need. This is what fuels the aggressive consumerism in our society. While there are those of us who seek to be more environmentally conscious by cutting out plastics, recycling as much as possible, and using public transport, the current model of modern society still severely dilutes these efforts. The Research New research suggests that economic growth and increasing reliance on new technologies in everyday life is having negative effects on the planet. The study, published in June, clearly shows a link between the wealthy and increased emissions, with the richest 0.54% of the world’s population (around 40 million people) being responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse emissions. The top 10% are responsible for up to 43% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. These numbers do not merely include the super-rich, but also those who are considered ‘globally affluent’. This means that many in wealthier countries like the UK who do not consider themselves as being rich have a disproportionate environmental impact. The Corporate Impact The corporate drive to grow the economy promotes a high-consumption lifestyle, and creates a barrier to more sustainable living. While many governments are instigating new green policies and trying to promote more sustainable consumer activities, these only partially offset the mechanisms of ‘positional consumption’, where by people consume products they believe will increase their perceived social status once basic needs have been met. This “growth spiral” merely serves the super-affluent and increases overall consumption at all levels of society. Thomas Wiedmann, Manfred Lenzen, Lorenz T. Keyẞerand Julia K. Steinberger, who published the article “Scientists warning on affluence”, say that “since the level of consumption determines total impacts, affluence needs to be addressed by reducing consumption, not just greening it.” This attempt to make the manufacturing process, and thus also the products themselves,more environmentally-friendly is by and large the favourite method used by governments, as it continues to encourage the levels of consumerism to grow,and therefore stimulates economic growth. Our annual publication highlights the challenges faced and the achievements we've made whilst aiming to set a precedent for the sentient, environmental and planetary needs of the future. All money raised is directed to socio-ethical impact and acknowledgement. The arguments put forward for considerable change, however, suggest a mass shift in consumer and manufacturing patterns is needed. This includes dramatically greener manufacturing – more recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels, moving towards public transport and walking or cycling wherever possible, and changing nutrition to a larger plant-based diet. “It is now commonplace to acknowledge that humankind would need more than five planets if North American lifestyles were universalised” – Samuel Alexander, Office for Environmental Programmes, University of Melbourne While there are many small-scale attempts by individuals and communities in wealthier nations to live in a way that is more eco-friendly, their effects will be marginal without larger-scale policy change. The threat, however, of economic decline brought about by lowering consumption makes many governments reluctant to investigate sustainable alternatives to existing consumer practices. While social movements are crucial in pushing for reforms in consumer patterns and continue to raise awareness of the ecological damage excessive consumption can have, it is more necessary than ever for governments to bring in more policies that protect the climate rather than sacrificing all for just to line the pockets of the super-rich. You may also like: Consumerism: From Individual Need to Corporate Greed We are a socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. An initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Nick Webb investigates the tide of change in Hong Kong and the key factors surrounding this Battle of Democracy Photo by Pixabay The increasing antagonism towards the democratic world by the Chinese government continues to dominate headlines. Economically, the Chinese are increasing their grip on the South China Sea, and are engaged in a trade war with the USA. Closer to home, they are increasing control of their borders around India. The story that is most prevalent in the in the world press today, however, is the ongoing struggle for democracy in the principality of Hong Kong. Hong Kong, located to the south of China with a population of 7.5 million, currently enjoys a certain amount of autonomy from mainland China. Since it was handed back to the Chinese in 1997 after being a British Colony since 1842, it was agreed to be ruled under a “one country, two systems” model, allowing the region to retain a large amount of the Western influence it accessed under British rule. The Chinese government, however, has slowly been implementing ever-more aggressive strategies in order to bring Hong Kong more in line with the mainland’s pseudo-communist and anti-liberal ideology, which has sparked a series of protests lasting on and off since the middle of the last decade. China Taking Back Control Chinese President, Xi Jinping has been strengthening his control over China as a whole, and attempting to absorb Hong Kong more into these plans. This includes plans to enable him to extradite criminal suspects from Hong Kong into mainland China, where the laws are a lot stricter and the punishments more severe, which many see as a direct affront to their freedoms, and against the “one country, two parties” policy. This Extradition Bill and the protests against it is one of a series of popular protests within Hong Kong, including the largely peaceful Umbrella protests against proposed electoral reforms in 2014. In May 2020, the Chinese government in Beijing moved to further reform the “one country, two parties” framework, as well as Hong Kong’s Constitution – the Basic Law – a development which is seen as undermining the freedoms that Hong Kong enjoys. The People in Protest The urgency with which Hong Kong’s people oppose Chinese intervention has been expressed through widespread protests, largely driven by the youth. Peaceful protestors have been tirelessly campaigning for their five democratic demands to be met, one being the scrapping of the Extradition Bill which they were successful in achieving. Protestors have been met with shocking violence from the police despite their largely pacifistic approach, as tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and occasional live ammunition have been used in an effort to stem protests. One man was even set on fire by police during a protest. However, despite these efforts, Beijing has just succeeded in passing new national security laws which give the Chinese government more powers to interpret and control the goings-on in Hong Kong as they see fit. This would also include banning secession (i.e. the principality would not have the ability to withdraw from the People’s Republic of China), foreign interference, terrorism, and all seditious activities aimed at toppling the government. Along with these new censorship laws, the legislation effectively forbids peaceful protests and freedom of speech. Autonomy to Autocracy This erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomous state, it is feared, may do serious damage to the city’s reputation as a global financial centre. Dennis Kwok, a Democratic lawmaker in Hong Kong said: “If this move takes place, ‘one country, two systems’ will be officially erased. It will be the end of Hong Kong.” With all this said, it is understandable that the people of Hong Kong are increasingly worried about how their rights are being worn down by the central Chinese government, and this erosion appears to be continuing despite the popular opinion of a large proportion of the principality’s population. Xi Jinping’s proposals represent a deeply concerning trend towards Chinese isolationism and a more restrictive Communist government evocative of the disastrous conservatism of Mao Zedong’s China which could be detrimental to millions of lives. You may also like: The Potential Virtues of Civil Disobedience We are a socio-ethical impact initiative 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 reports on the historic ruling that allows more LGBT+ men to donate blood in England, Scotland and Wales. Photo by Renate Vanaga In a historic ruling, gay men in sexually active, monogamous relationships in England, Scotland and Wales are now permitted to donate blood. This means that the majority of people aged 17-65 are now eligible to donate blood in Britain. Before this new legislation, any man had to wait three months after having sex with another man before being able to donate. Anyone who engages in anal sex with a new or multiple partners – regardless of gender – will still have to abstain for three months before making a donation of blood, platelets or plasma. The new rules came into effect on 14th June 2021 – World Blood Donor Day. Why Did the Rule Exist in the First Place? Men who have sex with men (MSM) have been prohibited from donating blood in Britain until now because of the HIV/AIDS pandemic of the 1980s. In 1980, the UK government ruled in favour of a lifetime blood donation ban for any MSM and the legislation stood for 41 years, arguably partly due to persisting stigma around both HIV/AIDS and gay sex itself. Considering the AIDS pandemic was one of the biggest health scares of the decade, and HIV can be passed on very easily through contact with contaminated blood, the implementation of the ban is unsurprising and was certainly crucial to protect the health of transfusion recipients at the time. However, the ban has been controversial for several years considering the end of the pandemic and modern HIV screening techniques which campaigners say make a delay in donation unnecessary. Campaigners argued that if MSM engage in safe, monogamous sex, do not have an STD and are not receiving treatment for HIV, there is no reason they should not be eligible to donate blood. "It is great to see these changes coming into force, especially after so many people in the LGBT+ community have fought and campaigned for changes to the rules around blood donation for such a long time. These changes are welcomed, but there is still a great deal of work to do in achieving absolute equality in the blood donation space." – Blood Equality Wales A Step Towards Equality A potential increase in blood donors across England, Scotland and Wales will be a welcome development. Blood donations are in high demand across Britain, with around 5,000 donations required every single day to meet the needs of the NHS. This means that 135,000 new donors are needed every year, and sign-ups consistently fall short; allowing a new portion of the population to donate could make a real difference to people who desperately need transfusions. These developments have made Britain one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of allowing MSM to donate blood, and it’s a hopeful step towards creating parity between heterosexual and LGBT+ individuals. "It is only fair in today's society that everyone's behaviours should be treated the same and not by the gender of their partner." – Carl, a married gay man who’s already donated in Wales If you want to sign up to donate blood, you can check your eligibility here. 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. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Mary Jane Amato reports as the UK government announces extensive foreign aid cuts. Photo by Mathilde Langevin The decision of the UK Government - one of the principal allies in UNICEF’s global activism for children - to cut their funding by 60% has put the organisation in a challenging position. According to a Foreign Office spokesman, this step has been taken following the devastating impact the pandemic has had on the national economy, which has “forced us to take tough but necessary decisions, including temporarily reducing the overall amount we spend on aid”. After an incredibly difficult year for the British economy, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has concluded that cuts will be necessary for the nation to recover from the financial distress the pandemic has created. This, unfortunately, means funding for one of the most prominent charities working around children’s rights and wellbeing will be substantially reduced. A Significant Reduction UNICEF - a world-renown organisation established 70 years ago by the United Nations - will have 60% of its core funding from the UK curtailed, and these cuts will affect more than just one cause. A massive 85% fund reduction on the UN sexual and reproductive health agency has also been announced. This means a $180 million withdrawal from the UNFPA Supplies Partnership, which currently prevents around 250,000 maternal and child deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions. UN charities are not the only ones which will suffer; the government has announced an overarching cut of foreign aid from 0.7% of national income (the UN aid target) to 0.5%, effectively bringing foreign aid spending down from £14.5 billion in 2020 to £10 billion in 2021 – the lowest total spent in nine years. Chancellor Rishi Sunak has stated that “our intention is to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows”. Nevertheless, this cut – which is substantial despite perhaps sounding small – has been condemned by some MPs and charity experts as “unprincipled, unjustified and harmful” even if it is temporary. In April 2020, the UN Foundation, together with many academics, civil society groups, farmers’ organisations and established multinationals, urged governments to keep borders open to allow regular trade and act in unison to prevent the Covid-19 pandemic from becoming a full-blown food and humanitarian crisis, but they seem to be contradicting this principle by introducing such extensive aid cuts. Having said this, with a 0.5% donation rate, the UK will still be the world’s third highest in the percentage of Gross National Income spent on foreign aid, surpassed only by Germany and France. Severe Consequences As Jean-Michel Grand, executive director of Action Aid Hunger, brazenly put it in his response to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab: “Right now in DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], 27 million people are going hungry and… our teams are still waiting on assurances on the funding.” Mr Grand has also estimated that the cuts will affect as many as 3 million women and children who will be prevented access to life-saving nutrition services, with children losing their lives as a direct consequence. Millions of pounds, the bulk of which is sent to Africa and Asia, are also spent on helping developing countries improve their infrastructure in light of managing climate change risks. The government has justified such cuts by saying they are necessary in order to revive the UK’s floundering economy and ensure business owners and employees are supported through this difficult time. However, MPs have been discussing an amendment in the last few days, and several senior conservatives are backing them in their quest. Andrew Mitchell, an MP for Sutton Colfield, feels they have enough consent to overturn the government’s decision by proposing an amendment that would enforce the 2015 International Development Act. The act obligates the government to restore the 0.7% target in the expenditure of the Gross National Income towards Official Development Assistance by 2022. The government’s decision to substantially cut foreign financial aid has caused a far-reaching and robust backlash. Their reasoning, despite being intended to protect the UK economy and British businesses, has been perceived by many as outrageous and unempathetic at a time of major distress for the whole world. Article on a similar topic: UNICEF to Feed Children in UK for First Time in History 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.

Kira Lomas reports on the inaccurate and misleading nature of BMI in diagnosing eating disorders. Photo by Jennifer Burk Characterised by different behaviours related to weight control, such as undereating or overeating, vomiting, meal skipping and calorie counting, eating disorders are complex and debilitating conditions affecting around 1.25 million people in the UK. The diagnosis stage comprises a combination of physical and psychological evaluations of the patient, alongside laboratory tests to determine if they require treatment. However, due to the current economic climate that has seen public services, especially the NHS, go severely underfunded, these thorough tests have been replaced with an inaccurate and misleading tool - BMI. In simple terms, BMI (body mass index) is widely used to measure population health, dividing an individual's weight by their height. Although a straightforward tool, it has faced backlash from a number of groups including healthcare professionals, eating disorder victims and government advisors, all sharing the same message: BMI needs to be scrapped. Barriers to Receiving Treatment A report from the Women’s and Equality Committee states that using BMI as a measure for health systematically fails people with eating disorders. Further to the inquiry, several drawbacks were identified for BMI’s use within the healthcare sector in terms of inspiring weight stigma, contributing to eating disorders and disrupting people’s body image and health. With the government’s focus on healthy eating to curb obesity, as well as the lack of diversity of body types in advertising, more and more people are becoming susceptible to developing an eating disorder. Not only are cases increasing, but patients are struggling to get the help they need based on their BMI being too high or too low. The system essentially implies that if you’re overweight or of a healthy weight, you cannot have an eating disorder worth treating. This type of weight-based stigma can have counterproductive effects, not to mention driving sufferers deeper into their illness and prolonging recovery rate. “BMI should never be used as the sole factor in diagnosing eating disorders, or for determining who is ‘unwell enough’ to access to treatment.” - Beat, lead eating disorder charity Despite improved research, public understanding of eating disorders remains limited, surrounded by a number of misconceptions. Victims of restrictive eating struggle to be taken seriously if they fail to look (what most people see as) ‘emaciated’. Whilst severe malnutrition is a common symptom of anorexia nervosa, it is not universal to all eating disorders. Bulimia and binge eating are examples of restrictive eating disorders that do not necessarily result in an extremely thin appearance, yet they pose severe health risks and high mortality rates. The reality of these conditions points to an important fact: eating disorders can manifest in individuals of all weights. New Strategy With up to 2 million people estimated to be living with an eating disorder in the UK and hospital admissions on the rise, NHS services have struggled to cope with the demand, leaving sufferers to reach the lowest depths of their illness. Psychiatric experts have raised concerns to government officials about a ‘state of emergency’ for eating disorders, arguing that this issue needs to be tackled with early intervention and ongoing support for patients. The lack of funding for healthcare services means that staff are not equipped with the right training to identify when someone should receive help for their eating disorder. Instead, doctors are relying on BMI as a quick determinator of a person’s right to treatment. The Women’s and Equality Committee are calling for government action against the use of BMI thresholds, and the implementation of a new national strategy that will be effective in providing patients with the support they need. Using BMI to diagnose eating disorders has proven to be an ineffective and outdated approach. It is merely a number to define an individual that ignores other sociological markers of health, such as access to nutritious and affordable food, income and awareness of healthy eating. Understanding a person’s physical and emotional health in relation to their eating disorder, as opposed to judging them solely on their weight, is the next step to ensuring full recovery and a new, positive perspective on how sufferers view their bodies. If you’ve been addressed by any of the issues discussed in this article, visit Beat, Mind or NHS support. Article on a similar topic: The Health Benefits of Dark Chocolate 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as Wales plans to trial a Universal Basic Income system to cover the population’s basic living costs. Photo by Lisa The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has announced that the country will be trialling a Universal Basic Income (UBI) system. Under this system, every adult in the country will receive a regular sum of money to cover basic living expenses, regardless of income or employment status. This pioneering trial aims to alleviate poverty and ensure that everyone in the country has sufficient funds to allow a basic standard of living. It also has the objective of giving people who are out of work the time to find employment or retrain without worrying about basic living costs in the meantime. Wales’s Plans Mr Drakeford said a pilot would aim to “see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered” to the Welsh people, and would “need to be carefully designed to make sure that it is genuinely adding income for the group of people we are able to work with”. As he goes on to say: “It'll have to be carefully crafted to make sure that it is affordable and that it does it within the powers available to the Senedd. We need to make an early start on designing the pilot to make sure that we have the best chance of operating a pilot that allows us to draw the conclusions from it that we would all want to see.” However, the Conservatives have said that Wales should not become “a petri dish for failed left-wing policies.” Nevertheless, research conducted in Finland has found that receiving UBI left people happier and less stressed, but did not aid them in finding employment. UBI: A Good Idea or a Pipe Dream? A Universal Basic Income system has multiple potential benefits which have led people like Elon Musk to publicly advocate for it. Many believe that UBI promotes equality among the population, with some choosing to work less because of the added financial safety net, thus opening up more vacancies for the jobless to find employment. The greater financial freedom allowed to families because of the regular pay-out would also create more time for families, as well as more equal distribution of unpaid domestic labour. Others see the UBI system as a means of future-proofing the economy, meaning people can still afford to invest in leisure culture and commodities even if economic hardship means they temporarily lose their jobs or choose to retrain. It is also projected to improve working conditions, since having basic living costs unconditionally covered by UBI means that workers will have more freedom to challenge unacceptable workplaces without having to worry about losing their entire income. It could mean workers take on a more powerful position in relation to big corporations. However, others may have concerns around the dis-incentivisation of work which may arise as a result of the introduction of Universal Basic Income – if basic living costs are already covered, some members of society may choose to give up work altogether, instead relying on the government to fund their lifestyles. This would potentially promote laziness and delinquency, and undermine the value of work as an invaluable social institution. Others take issue with the fact that even the richest in society would receive UBI pay-outs, as they argue that giving money to those who really don’t need it detracts from the level of funding which could be invested in assisting those in need. Additionally, there are concerns that those already living on low incomes may have their salaries reduced by employers if they know they’re receiving UBI, essentially cancelling out any benefit the scheme may have brought. Although Universal Basic Income sounds an advantageous idea on the surface, allowing greater financial freedom and preventing more people from descending into poverty, it’s more complex than it sounds. Time will be needed to discern whether the system will improve the average quality of life in Wales, or have a catastrophic effect on the country’s economy. Article on a similar topic: Basic Income for All: A Real Possibility 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.

Shaun Britton crafts together a controversial comparison of the conditions of past inhumane crimes to those of farmed animals of today. Photo by Matthias Zomeer During the Second World War Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz, a survivor of the Dachau concentration camp, wrote: “I refuse to eat animals because I cannot nourish myself by the sufferings and by the death of other creatures. I refuse to do so, because I suffered so painfully myself that I can feel the pains of others by recalling my own sufferings.” Controversy surrounds the comparison made between the experience of an animal in a slaughterhouse or a laboratory and the horrific revelations of the holocaust. If such a comparison is possible, directly or indirectly, then it spells a deeply important message for humanity. The message is about the grim reality behind the practices we take for granted - and a secret at the heart of our darkest hour. Auschwitz and Abattoirs: Comparisons of Cruelty The Oxford Dictionary's first definition of holocaust is ‘destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.’ The word holocaust is Greek in origin (Holos meaning 'whole' or ‘completely’, and Kaustos meaning ‘burnt’.) Amongst other uses, the term has been used to describe large scale destruction by fire, and then most commonly linked with the shocking Nazi campaign in World War Two. Proponents of the comparison cite the shocking treatment animals receive from humans in industry. That the animal industries carry out their business without animals consent, or recognition as individuals with a right to life, is sadly only the tip of the comparison’s iceberg. The comparison between concentration camps and slaughterhouses depicts a macabre backdrop to our modern age, with abject cruelty claimed in both the method and the motive of animal industries. The comparisons are often difficult to digest, as much of the practices in these industries are not directly publicised to consumers, and hence remain largely out of sight. The UK charity VIVA reports that 25% of pigs are slaughtered using gas chambers or tanks filled with C02, and the rest, like other animals, largely with electrocution. Pigs take 30 seconds to asphyxiate and will squeal, hyperventilate and try to escape. News of gassing still being used hit the media in August, with chilling footage to accompany it. An undercover investigation by Animal Aid in 14 UK slaughterhouses found acts of abuse and lawbreaking in 13 of them, including those labelled high welfare and RSPCA assured. These acts included pigs burnt with cigarettes and animals beaten. In just November 2018 in the UK alone, 952,000 pigs were killed for meat, in an age where using animals for food has been argued to be unethical, unnecessary and unsustainable. The appalling images of mass graves, and bodies of victims being used as material resources at concentration camps, haunt our collective history and will never be forgotten. These acts, all sadly can be argued to have their counterparts in the animal experience. How do we compare and contrast the two? Put simply, we don't. Two Branches Of The Same Tree Seeking to Resolve The Controversy Speciesism is at the heart of the controversy and, it is argued, the reason for our treatment of non- human animals in general. If both atrocities are judged solely by the internal suffering of the victims, the chasm between them begins to narrow. One atrocity should not, and does not rob from the other. Rather than comparing the animal atrocity to the human, both can be recognised as holocausts in their own right, in their own time and in their own context. They are both branches of the same tree, and both should move us to ensure that each catastrophe is placed firmly where it belongs - in the past; remembered, but not repeated. In suffering, we are the same. Terror for an animal is no less or greater a terror than for a human. The steadfast perception and belief of another being's right to life and inherent value, regardless of whether they have hands or hooves, is at the core of the capacity to dominate the innocent. We learn the programming code of oppression the moment we are told to pet the dog and eat the cow. As Jewish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote “As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.” | Tru. 🌱 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. Sources: 1.) Kupfer-Koberwitz, Edgar. Dachau Diaries 1942-45. Special collections research centre, University of Chicago Library 2.) Viva!. [Online]. [19 December 2018]. Available from: https://www.viva.org.uk/what-we- do/slaughter/slaughter-farmed-animals-uk 3.) Daily Mail. 2018. Mail Online. [Online]. [19 December 2018]. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6016465/Pigs-die-kicking-screaming-packaged-high-welfare-meat-products.html 4.) Animal Aid. 2018. Animal Aid. [Online]. [19 December 2018]. Available from: https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/slaughter/ 5.) 18. United Kingdom Slaughter Statistics – November 2018. [Online]. [19 December 2018]. Available:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/763961/slaughter-statsnotice-13dec18.pdf 6.) Kemmerer, L (2012). Animals and World Religions. England: Oxford University Press.p186

Ziryan Aziz offers an in-depth overview of the recent conflict between Israeli and Palestinian groups, alongside essential background on the issue. Photo by Cole Keister On May 21st, the government of Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire, ending 11 days of fighting between Israeli and Palestinian forces, with over 256 estimated casualties. Understanding the current and previous events of the conflict is key to comprehending the wider legal and moral complications in what has easily been one of the most divisive subjects in global relations for several years. Why were there Clashes in Jerusalem? When Ramadan began on the 12th of April, Muslim worshipers in Jerusalem reported an increasing number of restrictions, with Israeli police blocking gatherings near the Damascus Gate for prayers and scuffles between police and protestors breaking out. The city experienced stand-offs between far-right Jews, who marched chanting “death to Arabs”, and Palestinian counter-protesters. According to medics, 21 people were hospitalised and 50 were arrested. Two days later, 35 rockets from the Gaza Strip were fired into Israel, followed by retaliatory airstrikes by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). A Jihadist group, not affiliated to the Hamas militant group who controls Gaza, claimed responsibility. On the 7th May, violent riots took place outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque - the 3rd holiest site in Islam, standing on the Temple Mound complex which housed a now-destroyed Jewish temple from 70AD. Around 90,000 worshipers had been praying outside the mosque before protestors and police clashed. More than 205 Palestinians and 17 police officers were wounded. On the 10th May, during clashes, police fired stun grenades within the Mosque as protestors sought refuge along with worshipers. Tensions were high due to a planned ‘flag march’ by Israeli nationalists who want to celebrate Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem in 1967. The flag march was initially postponed by police, however, on the 15th June it went ahead. The frequency in the clashes was due to several factors: being the holy month of Ramadan, there are often bouts of violence, but Palestinians had also been recently enraged by the news that Palestinian families in East Jerusalem could be facing evictions to make way for Israeli settlers. The court appeal by the Palestinian families was delayed by the Supreme Court to avoid any potential provocation. What is East Jerusalem? In 1947, the British government laid out proposals for the creation of a separate Jewish and Arab state within the British Mandate of Palestine. Jerusalem was destined to be an international city, given its religious and historical importance. Upon declaring itself independent in 1948, the neighbouring Arab countries declared war on Israel. The aftermath was an Israeli victory, leaving Israel in control of much of the proposed Palestinian state, including the Western sector of Jerusalem; the Eastern half was under the control of Jordanian forces. These borders remained intact until the Six-Day War of 1967 when Israel and its neighbours Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon went to war once again. The war of 1967 saw Israel’s land size increase by three and half times, with the country gaining control of all former Palestinian land, East-Jerusalem, Syria’s Golan Heights, southern Lebanon and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Immediately after this, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdraw from all ‘occupied territory’. Whilst in 1982 Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for a peace deal and withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in the early 2000s, the Knesset - the Israeli Parliament - voted to annex East Jerusalem. Today, Israel exerts its sovereignty over East Jerusalem and regards the city as its ‘undivided’ capital, whereas the Palestinians, hoping to build a state of their own, claim East Jerusalem as their future capital. Palestinians living in East Jerusalem live in a complicated situation. Some hold Israeli citizenship and others have Jordanian citizenship, whilst the majority live in a state of limbo as stateless people. What are Israeli Settlers and Settlements? The eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem is a major point of friction within the wider context of Israeli settlements, scattered across East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In 2017, 620,000 Israelis lived in these settlements, of which 210,000 lived within East-Jerusalem. Israeli settlers are Jewish-Israeli citizens who choose to live beyond the borders of the country in territories which the international community considers ‘occupied’. The settlers justify this by stating that these territories are the birthplace of the Jewish people and were home to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1047 BCE–586BCE), predating the presence of Arabs who conquered the area in 634AD. However, many Israeli settlers relocate for affordable housing prices and financial government incentives while Palestinians, who have lived and worked on the land for centuries, are often forcibly removed. The Israeli government justifies this by declaring areas ‘state land’ or needed for ‘military needs’, or by providing financial assistance for Israelis to purchase land. The settlements are condemned by the United Nations and much of the international community, who claim they are a violation of international law as it’s prohibited for an occupying power to settle its civilian population within a territory that it militarily occupies (Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 - Article 49, para. 6). Israel rejects this assertion, claiming that the land is instead disputed since Jordan was the last official state to own it, and renounced its claims to East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1988. Additionally, Israel believes Palestinians hold no legal basis to own the land as their independence was never formalised. Why are Palestinian Families being Evicted from Sheikh Jarrah? The evictions are in relation to a dispute that began in 1948. After the war, Palestinian families were relocated by the Jordanians into the abandoned homes of Jews who had fled East Jerusalem. Following the war of 1967, during which Israel captured East Jerusalem, two trusts sought to resettle Jews into previously owned Jewish properties. Following a legal battle, an agreement was reached between the families and the trusts. The Palestinians could remain as long-term tenants on the condition that they recognise the homes as Jewish property, and that they pay rent to the trusts. The families facing potential eviction are in court due to not paying the agreed rent. The Israeli government argues that the evictions are only righting a historic wrong, and that Palestinians are not being evicted for political reasons. The Palestinians claim that this is part of a wider movement to change the demographics of East Jerusalem through illegal means. There is currently no legal framework within Israel that allows Palestinian-Arabs to reclaim their abandoned properties. However, through the Legal and Administrative Matters Law (1970) Israeli-Arab citizens can claim monetary compensation. Why was there Fighting between Gaza and Israel? The coastal enclave of the Gaza strip holds a population of over 2 million Palestinians, and forms, alongside the West Bank, the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Ownership of the territory has shifted numerous times between Egypt and Israel, however, following the Oslo Accords (1994), limited autonomy was granted to the Palestinians via a newly established Palestinian Authority. By 2005, Israel had militarily disengaged from the territory, dismantling all its settlements, and in 2006, Hamas won the Gazan elections. Shortly after, Hamas fought and won a bloody civil war with Fatah - the main party of the internationally recognised Palestinian authority - over control of the territory. Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organisation by Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States, but some countries view the group as freedom fighters. On May 10th, Hamas publicly demanded Israeli security forces vacate the Al-Aqsa complex and the neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah before firing rockets into Israel. What followed was retaliatory Israeli airstrikes, leading to another conflict that has escalated to the worst violence since 2014. Palestinian activists and Human Rights groups state that Israel is acting disproportionally, potentially committing war crimes with the intentional destruction of hospitals, schools and houses, leading to a large number of civilians, including children, being killed. On the 15th of May, Israel destroyed a media tower that hosted the Qatari-based Aljazeera network and the American Associated Press in a move the Committee to Protect Journalists has called a potential violation of international law. The IDF claimed that the tower had been housing Hamas military intelligence, but has not made evidence public. The Israel Defence Force has further stated that their bombings have been acts of self-defence, and the destroyed buildings were housing weapons and militants. They argue that airstrikes on residential buildings were delivered with a forewarning to evacuate, and that Hamas militants position themselves within public and private properties, increasing risk of civilian deaths. The level of destruction in Gaza, the blockade on the strip and the continued occupation of the West Bank is considered by some in the Islamic world as evidence of a form of genocide against the Palestinian people, something Israel rejects and is debated. What is the Blockade in Gaza? In 2007, Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on the Gaza strip in response to attacks from Hamas. The blockade limits Gaza’s access to its sea, land and air borders, causing a decline in living standards, and severely restricting Gaza’s economic potential and the inhabitants’ access to the outside world. As a result, Gaza has extremely high unemployment figures, which, alongside a high population density and a lack of arable land, has led to concerns that the territory will be unable to sustain its own population in the future. Israel argues that the blockade is necessary for its security in order to hamper Hamas’ ability to conduct military campaigns. They also argue that Hamas mismanages Gaza’s resources to build war infrastructure such as ‘terror tunnels’ and rockets. The international community argues that the blockade has ‘locked in’ Palestinians who are unable to freely access the outside world. Furthermore, they claim that Israel’s tough blockade is more harmful to civilians than Hamas, and purposely allows for a worsening humanitarian crisis. Israel disputes these claims. The Aftermath The international community has welcomed an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, and both sides have declared a victory. Israel has begun permitting some aid into Gaza, and the United Nations has sent financial aid. After years of rocky relations under Donald Trump, the current US administration will offer a total £79.2million of relief money for Gaza by the end of 2021. The US has also agreed to replenish the missile stock of Israel’s Iron Dome system, which intercepted 90% of the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel. However, a fresh wave of clashes occurred in the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex between Palestinians and police, and the dispute over the eviction of Palestinian families is still ongoing. In another East Jerusalem neighbourhood called Silwan, another Trust is spearheading a court case against Palestinian families, looking to evict 100 families from the neighbourhood. Increasing Anti-Semitism Since the start of the clashes in Jerusalem, activists, the Palestinian mission to the UK and Islamic religious leaders across Europe have denounced antisemitic attacks on Jews outside of Israel. In May, a rabbi from Essex was beaten while leaving his synagogue. In North London, four men were arrested for shouting anti-Semitic slogans. In Germany, a pro-Palestinian march in Gelsenkirchen saw protestors parading and waving Turkish and Palestinian flags, shouting anti-Semitic chants. Anti-Semitic attacks have continued to rise yearly, often fuelled by baseless conspiracy theories. However, often with antisemitic attacks, there is an inability to differentiate between being Jewish, and being a supporter of controversial Israeli policy under the ideology of Zionism. Simplified, Zionism is the belief in the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the ancestorial homelands of the Jewish people, the self-determination of the Jewish people and the right for Israel to be spiritually and characteristically Jewish. However, critics of Zionism argue that the ideology has been used to justify ethnic cleansing, the racist treatment of non-ethnic Jews, ‘colonialism’ in the Occupied Territories and alleged apartheid. What Happens Next? Fighting resumed on the 17th of June, when Israel launched airstrikes against Hamas targets in the coastal territory in response to incendiary balloons sent over the border. Within Israel, Naftali Bennet - a hard-right nationalist Israeli politician – has taken up the position of Prime minister forming an umbrella coalition that toppled the Prime Minister of 12 years, Benjamin Netanyahu. With the coalition’s mix of left, right, and centre parties, it is hard to predict just how long the union will last, but with many high profile right-wing members in key positions, Israel’s shift further right could be disastrous for Palestinians. Article on a similar topic: Insight into Israel's Intended Annexation of Palestine 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 reports on the problematic nature of global ag-gag laws in restricting agricultural whistleblowing, including an exclusive interview with L214, a French animal rights organisation. Photo by Quinten de Graaf You have probably seen horrifying footage of the conditions in which animals are raised for meat (or eggs and milk). However, the influence of animal agriculture industries on law makers has created numerous risks for people who choose to expose such conditions. Some of the following information is gathered from private correspondence with L214, translated from French to English by the author. Warning: references marked with * contain footage that might be graphic and / or disturbing. Whistleblowing about animal conditions does benefit animals and consumers. For example, in 2008, a video distributed by the Humane Society showed workers hitting cows that couldn’t walk which led to an investigation, a massive recall of beef - cows who cannot walk present a higher risk of disease - and two employees being charged with animal cruelty. Further, French activist group L214 investigated violations regarding the stunning and bleeding of animals at the Boischaut slaughterhouse*. This led to a temporary closure of the slaughterhouse as well as a trial and fines. According to L214 cofounder Brigitte Gothière, the slaughterhouse would still be operating illegally if it wasn’t for their investigation. However, whistleblowers often take risks when denouncing the practices of animal agriculture, notably because of “ag-gag” laws. These are laws that make it illegal to collect and distribute footage of what happens in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Sadly, ag-gag laws are effective. As Vox reported, major animal organisations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Humane Society have refrained from conducting investigations in U.S. states such as Kansas or Iowa, where they would have risked breaking the law by doing so. Those who still whistleblow in those states, like DxE*, often face severe charges. Ag-Gag Laws in North America The U.S. is infamous for having a range of ag-gag laws across its states. Usually, these laws make it illegal to enter animal facilities as well as collect and distribute footage. Iowa used to have a law that made it illegal to use “deception” (such as getting a job in a factory farm to become an insider) to collect images or videos without authorisation from the owner of the facility. States like Missouri have “rapid reporting laws” where evidence of animal cruelty must be reported to law enforcement within 24 hours of recording. Whilst these seem less extreme, they hinder the work of animal activists because they prevent them from building a case and showing patterns of abuse, which might lead to punishing employees without ever punishing industry owners. Arkansas and North Carolina have laws where businesses could sue activists for collecting footage. Whilst primarily meant as ag-gag laws, Arkansas and North Carolina’s laws are wide ranging enough that whistleblowers collecting footage in businesses beyond animal facilities (e.g. nursing homes) could be sued. However, there is some good news for animal welfare activists because many ag-gag laws are being struck down. In 2020, North Carolina’s wide ranging ag-gag law and Kansas’s 1990 ag-gag law (the oldest in the country) were ruled unconstitutional by the federal court because they infringed on freedom of speech (i.e. first amendment rights). However, many other laws are still standing and, as ag-gag laws in Iowa are struck down, new ones are signed in. 2020 also saw Ontario (Canada) sign-in an ag-gag law. Among other things, it contains prohibitions against interfering with motorised transport of farm animals and interacting with animals being transported. Actor Joaquin Phoenix mentioned the law in a tribute to activist Regan Russel, who was killed by a truck transporting pigs to slaughter: “The Ontario government can attempt to silence us with the passage of its Ag-Gag bill – Bill 156 – but we will never go away and we will never back down.” Ag-Gag Laws in France In France, activist groups who want to expose animal mistreatment must do so while facing large lobbies and a government that supports the private interests of the industry. In December 2019, based on demands from the FNSEA (France’s main farming union and lobby), the Ministry of the Interior created the Cellule Demeter - a special ‘task force’ in the Gendarmerie Nationale (a police force that is part of the military) to help ‘defend’ the agricultural industry. It has served to monitor, collect intelligence on and intimidate people who oppose the current agricultural model. It also serves as a partnership - of which information sharing is key - between the Ministry of the Interior and the FNSEA. The then Minister of the Interior had openly declared that one of the aims was to gather intelligence on anti-speciesist groups. Thirteen groups, including the Confédération paysanne (a farming union), have written a letter to the government asking for the dissolution of the Cellule Demeter and for it to plan a transition to a more sustainable agricultural model. Clearly, the position of the FNSEA isn’t representative of every farmer. L214, with the support of the Human Rights League, has decided to sue the Cellule Demeter for impeding fundamental freedoms. We asked L214 about the threat the Cellule Demeter represents to their activity. Brigitte Gothière told me that: “We [L214] know that by questioning the system supported by the major agricultural union (FNSEA), by raising thorny questions about animal welfare, we are taking risks. This isn’t new. We live with it.” In January 2021, members of Macron’s parliamentary majority presented a report investigating new legal solutions regarding those who obstruct activities such as animal agriculture and hunting. Animal welfare groups were invited to participate in the report, but groups like the WWF had refused to participate, explaining in a letter that they feared that its mission was to repress speech and information liberties. Indeed, some of the report’s propositions involve creating a punishment of one year in prison and 45,000€ in fines for discrimination or defamation against someone for their hobbies or professional activity, making it possible to punish people who publicly criticise farmers or hunters. In March 2021, the French senate approved an amendment of article 226-4 that would make it possible to punish whistleblowers who enter agricultural facilities with up to three years in prison and 45,000€ in fines. Right-wing senator Laurent Duplomb, who approved the amendment, made it clear that the intention is to prevent people from collecting footage in farms. Thankfully, the Conseil Constitutionnel declared this amendment unconstitutional because it had no link, even indirectly, with the content of the sécurité globale law to which it was attached. As L214 told me: “It is good that the Conseil Constitutionnel didn’t allow for this scandalous amendment aimed at intimidating whistleblowers, preventing people from making the conditions in which breeding and slaughter occur transparent, denouncing abuse and dysfunctions and raising essential societal questions”. For L214, this amendment, the report for new legal solutions and the Cellule Demeter “confirm the government’s will to suppress alerts”. As Brigitte Gothière explains: “When dysfunctions or serious offenses are brought to light, the government has two options: trying to correct and improve the situation, or silence any criticism. This last option is the one that has been chosen concerning animal welfare. No questioning of the failing state control measures and the prohibition of public debate about an agricultural and food model despite it being harmful to animals, humans and the environment.” The Industry’s Defence of Ag-Gag Laws and How it Fails Proponents of ag-gag laws often argue that the aim of these laws is to prevent activist from causing biosecurity risks (e.g. by introducing pathogens to the animals) or causing distress to the animals when they enter animal facilities. These are important concerns, but there are grounds to be sceptical about their genuineness. As Matthew Strugar - primary litigator striking down ag-gag laws such as Iowa’s 2012 law - told Vox: “If the concern is biosecurity, how does prohibiting lying on an employment application or taking a picture help?” Furthermore, Animal Justice have released a report suggesting that animal advocates have never been the cause of biosecurity incidents in animal facilities in Canada, whilst the industry itself has failed multiple times on this front. Similarly, considering the disturbing footage we see of animals in factory farms and abattoirs, we might not be so inclined to believe that the industry is deeply concerned about animal distress. Proponents also argue that people unfamiliar with farming might see disturbing practices without understanding that they are the ‘correct’ procedures. Others are more straightforward - as Matthew Strugar mentions in his interview with DxE* - and want to prevent the damage to the industry’s reputation and bottom line that whistleblowers can cause. It is baffling, and perhaps telling of its political power, that animal agriculture’s solution to these concerns is to lobby for ag-gag laws instead of improving conditions or investing in marketing. It is unclear whether this is a smart long-term move for the industry. A study showed that only few people knew about ag-gag laws. However, once people learnt about them (324 U.S. participants were given information about ag-gag legislation vs. 392 participants who were not), they trusted farmers less, perceived farm animal welfare to be lower and were more likely to support stricter laws for protecting farm animals. Clearly, the work of whistleblowers is important for revealing the mistreatment of animals that agricultural businesses are desperately trying to hide. In a letter to Le Monde denouncing the amendment of article 226-4, French academics noted that whistleblowers promote public interest when they reveal failures of the industry regarding global health, the environment or animal welfare. Furthermore, these issues touch upon our rights to exercise free speech and engage in informed public debates about these issues. If nothing else, perhaps this article will make you reconsider your perceptions about the agriculture industry and how it treats animals. How can lobbying to hide how animals are treated not make big animal agriculture look guilty? 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. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Jonny Rogers reports on a new vaccine that might save millions of lives in coming years. Photo by Wolfgang Hasselmann Nearly half of the world’s population is at risk of contracting malaria. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that there were 229 million new malaria infections across 87 countries in 2019 alone and a total of 409,000 deaths, two thirds of which were children under the age of five. However, a new vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Oxford has proven to be 77% effective in a 12-month trial in Burkina Faso. Although other malaria vaccines have been developed and trialled previously, this is the first to achieve the minimum 75% efficacy standard set by the WHO in 2013. Larger trials are set to take place across four African nations to confirm the latest studies. The Fight Against Malaria Malaria derives its name from the Medieval Italian ‘mala aria’ (meaning ‘bad air’) due the now-obsolete theory that diseases were caused by miasma, or contaminated air. By the end of the 19th century, however, it was discovered that mosquitos were involved in the transmission of the disease. Since then, scientists have discovered that malaria is caused by a single-celled parasite - Plasmodium - which requires more than one host for survival. The Plasmodium parasite is carried by the female Anopheles mosquitos, which most often infect human hosts by biting them between dusk and dawn. In areas of high transmission – primarily Sub-Saharan Africa, but also South America and South-East Asia – the most vulnerable people are children, pregnant women and migrants, all of whom have limited or decreased immune systems. Alongside the development of a vaccine, a number of charities and organisations have discovered additional methods to limit mosquito infection. The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), consistently rated one of charity-evaluator GiveWell’s top charities, has provided over 165 million long-lasting insecticidal nets since 2004. Antimalarial drugs have also been developed, though genetic mutations in the parasites have made them increasingly resistant. Nevertheless, the WHO report estimates that 1.5 billion infections and 7.6 million deaths have been averted since 2000 due to these inventions, among others. Malaria and Coronavirus Although the past two decades have seen a steady reduction in malaria-related deaths, the speed at which coronavirus vaccines have been developed in comparison to an effective malaria vaccine exposes a deeply troubling fact about disease prevention and global aid – most of the people in the developed world has less interest in dealing with issues which do not directly affect them. Professor Adrian Hill, Director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, has pointed out that Malaria killed at least four times as many people in Africa than Covid last year. However, it is worth noting that malaria contains thousands of genes compared to around a dozen in coronavirus, and covid vaccines were in-part developed on the strength of existing research into malaria. Nevertheless, Hill also points out that malaria aid has lacked the urgency and attention given to the pandemic, despite its significant impact on a large number of nations: “Nobody for a moment questioned whether covid should have an emergency use review and authorisation in Africa – of course it did, very quickly. So why shouldn’t a disease that firstly kills children rather than older people, certainly killed an awful lot more, be prioritised for emergency use authorisation in Africa?” Pedro Alsonso, Director of the WHO’s Malaria Programme, also predicted that the impact of disruption to malaria treatment caused by the global pandemic could result in more deaths than coronavirus itself: “There could be an excess of malaria deaths of somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them in young children [...] It’s very likely that excess malaria mortality is larger than the direct COVID mortality.” As one of the leading causes of child mortality in Africa, and a threat to around a half of the world’s population, the new vaccine might be the crucial breakthrough scientists have been working towards and anticipating for years. Article on a similar topic: Human Rights Abuses to Slip Under the Radar 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.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as construction of the controversial Canada-USA oil pipeline is halted on President Biden’s orders. Photo by Godwill Gira Mude In a major win for American environmental activists, work on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is to halt immediately. The pipeline, which was intended to carry oil 1200 miles from Alberta, Canada to the USA, has been a subject of outrage for environmentalists and Native American groups for over a decade. On his first day in office in January, President Biden denied a key permit for the project on the grounds that it was likely to worsen climate change, prompting celebrations from those fighting to protect the vast area through which the line would have run. What is Keystone XL? Keystone XL was designed to be an extension to the existing Keystone Pipeline System, run by TC Energy since 2010. The $9 billion extension would have boosted the line’s output running from Canada to America, transporting 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta mainly to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Alongside the sheer scale of this plan, the intended oil is different from standard crude oil, instead transporting tar sand oil – a sludgy mixture of sand, clay, water and bitumen which is used to produce gasoline and other petroleum products. Extracting the oil from tar sand is extremely costly, both economically and environmentally, which only reinforces the opposition to the project. After first being proposed in 2008, Donald Trump approved the pipeline expansion in 2017 – two years after Barack Obama denied it – despite significant backlash from experts with both environmental and public health concerns. The fight against the project has become symbolic of the future of the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. However, the project had employed 2500 people in high-paying positions, earning it support from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and a number of Republican senators have come forward to demand that Biden accounts for the jobs lost due to its cancellation. The Environment Wins The proposed pipeline brought with it a myriad of environmental concerns. Firstly, the tar sand oil carried is more corrosive than standard oil, with the Keystone Pipeline System already leaking more than a dozen times since 2010, thus increasing the risk of cataclysmic leaks which are very difficult to clean up due to the substance’s sticky consistency. Secondly, the pipeline would have crossed multiple agriculturally-significant and environmentally-sensitive areas, including hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers and water bodies. One of these was the Nebraska Ogallala Aquifer which provides drinking water for millions of Americans, as well as 30% of the country’s irrigation water. Any leak would have contaminated these areas, devastating agriculture and water supplies, and decimating vulnerable ecosystems. On top of this, various Native American territories were directly in the path of the proposed line, compromising sacred sites. Andrew Werk Jr., Fort Belknap Indian Community President, condemned the project forgoing forward “without regard to legality or safety”, as indigenous people’s “ancestral homelands [and water supplies were] in the direct path of the pipeline”. “This is great news for the Tribes who have been fighting to protect our people and our lands. The treaties and laws guarantee us protections, and we are committed to see that those laws are upheld.” – Rosebud Sioux Tribe President, Rodney M. Bordeaux The project would have also had an obvious impact on climate change, as it has been estimated that tar sand oil emits 17% more CO2 than standard oil. Leading climate scientist James Hansen has warned that exploiting the 168 million barrels-worth of oil currently under the ground in Canada would be “game over” in terms of climate change, and stated that it was best to “keep it in the ground”. Preventing the progression of the pipeline might prove to be a major key in preventing climate change escalating beyond recovery. It’s true that Keystone XL would have created jobs, boosted the Canadian economy and provided oil to many homes in the U.S., but it seems the disadvantages undeniably outweigh the potential benefits. Now is the time to think beyond corporate greed and convenience, and consider the significance of the land around us for both the people who live on it and the planet it affects. 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. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Ziryan Aziz explores how a new material could be used to cool buildings and limit global carbon emissions. Photo by Mathilde Langevin Researchers in the US have developed the whitest paint ever made. With the ability to reflect 98.1% of sunlight, it has the potential to cool buildings and fight climate change. Professor Xiulin Ruan at Purdue University, Indiana, is the lead researcher on the project. His team previously developed a paint capable of reflecting 95.5% of sunlight using calcium carbonate particles. By revising the size of the particles and replacing the calcium carbonate with barium sulphate, however, the paint now reflects 98.1% of sunlight back into space. Because the whiteness of the paint reflects so much of the sun’s light, surfaces of buildings will stay below the ambient temperature as infrared radiation cannot be absorbed by air, being dispersed into deep space instead. As such, the team hopes that the new paint will be able to help limit the global energy usage: “Our paint can help fight against global warming by helping to cool the Earth – that’s the cool point” – Professor Xiulin Ruan Tests have shown both that the paint is able to cool surfaces 4.5 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature, and that painting white rooftops on homes and buildings in cities will require less air conditioning (and hence limit the carbon emissions they produce). Prof Ruan has said that painting a 93 sq. meter rooftop with the new paint has the cooling power of 10 kilowatts, which is more powerful than the central air conditioners used by most houses. White painted ‘cool roofs’ are not entirely new, however, having been traditionally used in many countries to help cool homes. Currently, it is being applied in Ahmedabad, India and New York City, where 10 million sq. ft of white rooftops have already been painted. The Air Conditioning problem According to figures in 2020, there are at least 1.9 billion air conditioning units in the world, with that number set to rise to 5.5 billion units by 2050. The growing energy consumption of air conditioning is often overlooked in climate change debates: figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA) predict that air conditioning will be the biggest factor in electricity demand by 2050. The IEA also projects that by 2050 the CO2 emissions sourced from air conditioning will equate to 2 billion tonnes annually, roughly equal to India’s daily emissions. Aside from the emissions generated through electric energy consumption, older air conditioning units leak hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which are hundreds or thousands of times more potent than CO2. Although HFC-leaking units are being phased out, many older air conditioning units are still in operation around the world. The research team at Purdue University hopes that their ultra-reflective white paint may have positive effects in helping cool down temperatures to decrease the energy consumption caused by air conditioning. A study looking at the effects of employing white painted rooftops within cities has found that ambient city temperatures could be reduced by 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius, resulting in a reduction of water consumption of up to 9%, as lawns, parks, and other green spaces require less irrigation. What’s next? One factor that will need to be taken into consideration is the environmental impact caused by the mining needed to extract the barium sulphate required for the paint. It has been suggested that a more sustainable alternative is to plant more trees within cities, and on home rooftops. Trees, which are often removed in construction of suburban areas, provide a natural cooling effect; not only do their branches and leaves provide shade but the effects of transpiration allow for the water vapour generated from the sunlight hitting the leaves to cool the air below. Nevertheless, white paint might well be coming to your local towns and cities in the near future: a patent has been submitted by the researchers, who are currently working with a company to introduce the paint into the market. There is hope that it will have a similar cost to regular paint in the coming years. “We think this paint will be made widely available to the market, in one or two years, I hope, if we do it quickly.” – Professor Xiulin Ruan Article on a similar topic: World’s Richest Must Cut Carbon Footprint by 97% 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.

Emily Davies reports on the first major retailer to sell only lab-grown diamonds amid mining concerns. Photo by Nicolas J Leclercq Pandora is releasing a collection of lab-grown diamond jewellery named Pandora Brilliance, and suspending sales of all mined diamonds. Releasing in the UK at first, they will expand to other countries next year with prices starting at £250. In addition to being kinder to the planet in terms of mining, the lab-grown diamonds are being made with 60% renewable energy, with plans to increase to 100% renewables when the diamonds are launched globally next year, according to Pandora’s press release. The retailer is actively aiming towards becoming carbon neutral in four years’ time, with this development indicating they are taking this promise very seriously. This is refreshing to see in a time when greenwashing is rife. The Origins of Diamonds Diamonds form after carbon is exposed to extremely high heat and high pressure, forming about 90 miles under the surface of the planet before being pushed to the Earth’s crust by volcanic activity where they can be mined. Lab-grown diamonds are made by replicating the conditions of naturally formed ones. A common way of doing this entails putting a diamond seed into a piece of carbon, pressurising it with a belt press and exposing it to intense heat (HPHT). An alternate method involves putting the diamond seed into a heated chamber filled with gases like methane, which are then ionised into plasma that break down the molecular bond and pure carbon sticks to the seed to make a diamond (CVD). These processes take 5-10 days for yellow and blue diamonds, but white diamonds take over two weeks. Impact on People and Planet There are two main problems with mining diamonds: the impact on the environment and the impact on people. Downstream from diamond mines, the water of rivers and lakes is home to toxic materials which also leech into the soil, damaging wildlife and the health and livelihoods of inhabitants in surrounding areas. Even once the mines are abandoned, they can fill up with stagnant water that attracts mosquitos. The Kono District of Sierra Leone is a once-popular diamond mining area where malaria is now widespread due to an influx of the insect population. The landscape is pocketed with thousands of holes from abandoned mines, and the soil is no longer safe for farming. Areas like this are ravaged by disease, wildlife has vanished, and people unable to farm are left starving. Some of these areas can be saved, as local communities and international organisations are working to restore the land, and not-for-profit funds like the one set up by Brilliant Earth are helping these efforts. However, the use of lab-grown diamonds may be the answer to preventing the problems emerging in the first place. The Drawbacks Some critics claim that lab-grown diamonds aren’t worth anything because there is no limit to how many can be made, just like a factory churning out chocolate bars. They aren’t special. They aren’t rare. Not like a real diamond. Except, real diamonds aren’t rare either. As Ethica Diamonds puts it: “Diamonds are not rare. They are hoarded. There are hundreds of thousands of carats of diamonds stashed in warehouses across the world, waiting for the right time to bring them to market. A handful of men became very wealthy on the back of this, and from creating a market in which diamonds were a sought-after commodity, especially for engagement rings.” A notable limitation of a lab-grown diamond compared to a mined one is that a lab-grown diamond doesn’t retain value. You can’t sell your lab-grown diamond ring to a jeweller if you’re in a tight spot financially, while mined diamonds can be resold for 50% or more of their original price (despite the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that the two kinds are scientifically identical). Nevertheless, purchasing lab-grown gems means you’ll avoid inadvertently investing in ethical concerns such as blood diamonds (diamonds mined in a war zone and sold to finance insurgency or armies) and child labour (sometimes utilised in the cutting and polishing processes as well as in the actual mining). Your main concern when investing in such products is whether the manufacturer uses renewable energy. Pandora Brilliance may be a purely business-minded move intended to boost sales, or it may be a show of genuine concern for the planet and human rights abuses that go into producing the gems. If lab-grown diamonds catch on in other stores and consumer interest rises, then this will be good for both the planet and the people affected by the diamond mining industry. 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. You can support our journalism by becoming an advocate today.

Kate Byng-Hall reports as the NHS commits to becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral national health service by 2045. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona The National Health Service has announced its intention to achieve carbon net-zero by 2045, becoming to first national health service in the world to commit to such a goal. The NHS has launched a multiyear programme to reach carbon neutrality with the goal of benefiting the environment as well as reducing hospitalisations due to pollution-based ailments including asthma, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. “Cutting carbon emissions is essential to protect health, everywhere in the world. I welcome the leadership of the largest single health system in the world, the National Health Service in England, in committing to be carbon neutral in its own operations by 2040, and to drive emissions reductions in its suppliers and partners. Health is leading the way to a greener, safer planet.” – Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organisation The Current Carbon Footprint Earlier this year, Dr Marina Romanello and her team from The Lancet analysed data from 2019 to estimate that the NHS’ total emissions from that year were around 25 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent – roughly 7% of the country’s total output for the year. This is a shocking statistic, but perhaps not surprising considering all the vehicles, buildings and machinery required to maintain the service and keep us well. Having said this, the 2019 figure was still a reduction of approximately a quarter compared to 1990 levels, as various efforts have already been made to make the NHS more sustainable since the Climate Change Act of 2008. Indeed, emissions per patient have fallen by about two thirds since that time – a marked improvement. Nevertheless, big changes need to be made rapidly in order to fulfil the ambitious new target. A Greener NHS The NHS Net Zero Report states that intent to become carbon-neutral in the Services’ direct emissions (the NHS Carbon Footprint) by 2040, and in its wider supply chain (NHS Carbon Footprint Plus) by 2045, becoming the world’s first carbon net-zero national health service in the process. The report highlights a number of key areas where significant improvement needs to be made to achieve neutrality: Estate and Facilities Medicines Supply Chain Travel and Transport Food, Catering and Nutrition Research, Innovation and Off-setting. Experts also believe a reduction in climate change could mitigate health problems in the UK. Extreme weather events aggravated by climate change endanger health, with heatwaves increasing the triggering of cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, and floods accelerating the spread of infectious diseases. Furthermore, 18 million people in the UK currently attend a GP within areas with air pollution levels which exceed the World Health Organisation’s limit; it is believed that reducing air pollution levels will cut new asthma cases by a third. “It is not enough for the NHS to treat the problems caused by air pollution and climate change – from asthma to heart attacks and strokes – we need to play our part in tackling them at source.” – Sir Simon Stevens, NHS Chief Executive For significant change to occur, more countries beyond the UK need to commit. Healthcare in the world’s largest economies currently accounts for 4.4% of global CO2 emissions – reliable methods need to be generated to keep this essential industry running while also reducing its impact on the planet. In the end, we cannot be healthy if the planet is not. Article on a similar topic: Unrecognised Heroes: Outrage Over 1% NHS Pay Rise 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 how natural forest regrowth might fight against the threats of deforestation. Photo by John Towner Providing oxygen, food and shelter to the world’s land-based species, forests are essential to supporting life on this planet. Deforestation not only destroys habitats and displaces human settlements, but also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and renders land vulnerable to soil erosion, wildfires and flooding. According to Trillion Trees, however, thanks to a joint venture between a number of conservation NGOs, 58.9 million hectares of natural forest have regrown since the year 2000 – enough to soak up more than the annual emissions of the United States. Using satellite data to build a map of regenerated forests, contributors to the project hope that their discoveries can provide encouragement in the global mission to mitigate climate change: “Deforestation is at the center of our climate crisis, and we must do everything we can to halt it [...] the restoration of our natural forests will play an essential role in preserving these critical ecosystems.” – Josefina Braña Varela, vice president and deputy lead for forests at WWF Forest Regrowth and Tree-Planting One area that has experienced significant regrowth is Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, which is home to 5% of the world’s vertebrates and 8% of its plants. Although the forest has been reduced to less than 15% of its original size, it has also been the subject of focused conservation efforts over the past two decades, including the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact to plant or restore 15 million hectares by 2050. The study also highlights Mongolia’s boreal forests, which have seen 1.24 million hectares of regeneration and 32.7 million hectares placed under official protection. This is, in part, a result of an increased pressure on the Mongolian government to prioritise conservation after climate change and industrial activity increased the number of wildfires in the country. Recent years have seen world leaders, governments and large corporations pledging to plant millions of trees, in many cases as part of an effort to ‘offset’ carbon emissions without having to change other practices. Nevertheless, tree-planting might in practice cause more harm than good if it is not carefully planned and managed – planting only one species of tree in an area with no variation might leave an entire forest susceptible to the same pests and diseases, for example. Although forest regeneration might involve planting native trees and shrubs, common regenerative practices also often depend on letting ‘nature take the lead’. For example, ‘assisted natural regeneration’ involves removing invasive vegetation or fencing off territories to let former forests reclaim land, and ‘spontaneous natural regeneration’ involves outright stopping all human activity. Deforestation: A Bigger Threat It is important to recognise, however, that the rate of forest regrowth does not currently counter the rate of global deforestation. It has been estimated that 386 million hectares of tree cover were lost in a similar time-period to the Trillion Trees study – over seven times the area of the naturally-regenerated forests. In 2019, a study found that 26 million hectares of forest (an area comparable to the size of the UK) is being lost every year worldwide. In April this year, it was reported that only 7% of Britain’s native woods and trees were in a good condition. As such, forest regrowth, tree-planting and conservation laws will remain ineffective if they are not partnered with efforts to tackle deforestation. Deforestation is caused by a variety of activities, including unsustainable agricultural practices, mining, logging and public infrastructure projects. Slash-and-burn agriculture, for example, involves farmers burning large areas of forests to fertilise the ground for temporarily improved crop growth. However, as the soil soon loses its fertility, this process can only be repeated for a few consecutive years, after which a new area has to be decimated. Even if most people are not directly involved in clearing land or harvesting timber, our actions and choices are still complicit in global deforestation. At an individual level, we could all minimise our demand for paper by recycling and supporting sustainable organisations, as well reducing our consumption of meat and palm oil products. "To realise the potential of forests as a climate solution, we need support for regeneration in climate delivery plans and must tackle the drivers of deforestation, which in the UK means strong domestic laws to prevent our food causing deforestation overseas." – William Baldwin-Cantello, Chief Adviser on Forests for WWF UK 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.

Jonny Rogers explores how Indigenous communities are maintaining vital environmental conservation efforts, and what traditional knowledge can teach everyone. Photo by Ibadah Mimpi In 2019, it was estimated that around one million animal and plant species were threatened with extinction, many within the next few decades. However, the same report also discovered that land which is owned, managed, used or occupied by indigenous populations is generally declining less rapidly than elsewhere. A study from the University of British Columbia found indigenous-owned territories in Australia, Brazil and Canada contain the greatest biodiversity, or the highest total numbers of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Accounting for the management of at least a quarter of the world’s land and 80% of its remaining biodiversity, it is clear that indigenous populations play an important role in mitigating the negative effects of industrialisation on the planet. As of April this year, indigenous-lead projects have been included in the Canadian Government’s $2.3 billion investment in nature conservation. As Valérie Courtois, the director of the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, concludes: “This Budget confirms that the Government of Canada recognizes Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas and Guardians as central to achieving biodiversity and climate commitments.” At the same time, however, the effect of climate change, large-scale agricultural production, ecotourism and disease outbreaks are threatening the survival of the same indigenous cultures that the future of the planet is currently dependent upon. The Importance of Indigenous Knowledge The term ‘indigenous’ refers to a wide range of ethnicities, traditions and systems of belief around the world, accounting for an estimated 370 million people across 70 countries. Although the UN does not currently adopt any official definition, ‘indigenous’ primarily refers to people belonging to communities with a strong historical link to pre-colonial times, though self-identification is underlined in a number of human rights documents. Many indigenous populations are subsistence farmers, meaning they grow only what is needed for their families and communities. As such, indigenous territories are often more diverse than land used in industrial agriculture which depends on monoculture practices that are more cost-effective but generally result in greater soil degradation and deforestation. Indigenous populations play an important role in long-term ecosystem monitoring in remote areas such as the Arctic and Amazon rainforest. This does not require sophisticated technology or recording equipment, as communities with intimate knowledge of their surroundings are better able to track animal populations and changes to the environment through eye-witness reports. The Local Environmental Observer network, for example, was established to share knowledge from a range of communities witnessing unusual animal, environmental and weather events. In Angola, the Herero, Khoisan and Muimba communities were able to share ancestral knowledge with the Global Environment Facility to help rehabilitate land that had been devastated by drought and over-grazing. Tribal communities in the Pacific Northwest of the United States continue to play an important role in land restoration and conservation efforts. The Threat to Indigenous Communities The intimate connection between indigenous territories and their surroundings means that damage to biodiversity and environments has a proportionately larger impact on indigenous peoples. Over the past few decades, for example, the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw tribe, based on the Louisiana Gulf Coast island, has been displaced by climate change related hurricanes and flooding which have reduced the island from 34.5 square miles in size to only half a square mile. Even ‘conservation’ efforts have been used to justify pushing people out of their homeland. In 2017, thousands of members of the Maasai tribe in Tanzania were displaced and imprisoned after their homes were burned to attract more tourists by a U.S.-based conservation company and a UAE-based luxury hunting organisation. Furthermore, government-funded infrastructure projects designed to meet the demands of growing populations also encroach on indigenous territories. In Ethiopia, the construction of the 240-metre tall Gilgel Gibe III Dam on the Omo River has upended famers, cattle herders and fishermen who depended on the environment for their survival. Smaller communities without established health services or government support have been severely impacted by the pandemic. Tragically, however, many believe that Ebola epidemics in recent decades were connected to deforestation in West Africa, and some speculate that habitat loss might also be related to the outbreak of coronavirus. What Everyone Can Learn In the 1970s, Keep America Beautiful launched a popular anti-littering campaign featuring a Native American man devastated by the sight of a landscape overwhelmed with pollution. Make no mistake, this was a product of industrial greenwashing; not only was the Native American played by an Italian-American actor, but it was founded by beverage and packaging companies to promote ways of shifting the responsibility to manage waste onto consumers rather than changing their systems of production. However, if the campaign did get anything right, it’s that we have a lot to learn from how indigenous populations relate to the world. Intuitively, communities whose traditions, culture and knowledge relate to their immediate surroundings have a deeper and richer understanding of their local ecosystems. As such, indigenous populations are better able to put into practice what should be evident to everyone – the knowledge that abundant and sustainable resources depend on healthy ecosystems. Due to rapid developments in technology and transportation over the past century, many of us now only have a loose connection with where we live. Some people journey across the entire country for work every day, while others hardly need to leave their bedroom. We might even spend years dreaming of the time we can escape the glum greyness of Britain to fall asleep on tropical beaches. Our separation from our surroundings undoubtedly explains why many people don’t think twice when buying strawberries in winter or when topping our salads with Mexican avocadoes. Having become so accustomed to buying whatever we want whenever we want it, we have fooled ourselves into living as if our food, water, clothes and luxuries are plucked from thin-air. Because we don’t see most of the processes that sustain our lifestyles, we can afford to ignore the effect of our actions and habits. Building on thousands of years of careful observation, by contrast, indigenous wisdom better understands how human practices can align with the interests of healthy and diverse ecosystems. Mitigating the impact of climate change and environmental degradation does not require us to outright disregard scientific discoveries and modern technology, but entails a careful and compassionate effort to form alliances between communities, cultures, charities and countries working to understand and respond to our rapidly-changing planet. “As a global community, we have lost our way; we forgot what it means to have a relationship with the land […] Indigenous peoples have mastered the art of living on the Earth without destroying it.” – Jon Waterhouse, Indigenous Peoples Scholar at the Oregon Health and Science University Article on a similar topic: The Indigenous Use Technology to Fight 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.

Martha Davies looks at how the pandemic has aggravated alcohol-related issues in the UK. Photo by Biljana Martinic Provisional data provided by the government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicates that alcohol-related deaths jumped to a record high in the first nine months of 2020. The figures are a stark reminder of issues that have been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.   The figures demonstrate that there were 12.8 alcohol-related deaths per 100,000 people across England and Wales in the first three quarters of 2020. In total, 5,460 deaths with causes linked to alcohol were recorded between January and September – a 16.4% increase compared with the same period in the preceding year. This is the biggest toll since data first began being tracked by the ONS in 2001. What Does the Report Show? The study reports that rates of male alcohol-specific deaths were double those of females, a trend consistent with previous years, and they were also disproportionately high in more deprived areas of the UK.  It also indicates that the period spanning the first lockdown saw a sharp rise in alcohol-related fatalities. This is likely connected to the isolation that lockdown caused, as well as its impact on access to addiction resources and medical treatment. The bulk of alcohol-related fatalities resulted from chronic health conditions created by longer term heavy or dependent drinking. Although experts have emphasised the varied and complex reasons behind the findings, it is clear that the pandemic has had a notable effect on a number of already pressing medical matters . The Impact of Lockdown The country was brought to a terrifying halt on March 23, 2020, when stay-at-home orders were introduced in an effort to contain the first wave of coronavirus. The restrictions have taken their toll on people across the country, and they also served to aggravate issues like alcohol dependency. With pubs closed, alcohol consumption shifted entirely to the home, increasing the risk of frequent drinking. Alcoholic liver disease accounted for the majority of the deaths recorded by the ONS, and a factor contributing to 2020’s excess fatalities may have been fear of going into hospital when COVID-19 cases were soaring. Deaths also could have resulted from people not receiving their usual treatment , rather than because they were drinking more - experts have emphasised that the rise in deaths is likely due to more factors than simply an increase in alcohol consumption. The second highest cause of alcohol-related fatalities was mental illness , a problem which has dramatically worsened in lockdown. Restrictions on socialising and travel have generated feelings of loneliness for many, and prevented those struggling from being able to lean on family and friends or get help from treatment plans and support groups, which could also explain the rise in alcohol-related deaths. The ONS figures remind us of the indirect effects of coronavirus; beyond the immediate threat of infection, existing illnesses have been exacerbated due to restrictions and burdens on hospitals and support staff.  Time to Learn In spite of 2020’s record high, alcohol-specific deaths constitute a threat that has existed long before the pandemic ; in fact, alcohol-related hospital admissions had already reached a peak in the UK in 2018-19 . Experts have been warning us for years about the dangers of alcohol dependency and the inability of hospitals and addiction services to cope with the amount of people whose health is affected by drinking. What is required is government action , including increased healthcare funding to ensure those facing addiction can access the support they need. The UK would also benefit from policy changes including marketing control, reduced availability of alcohol, and increased pricing, as well as a higher rollout of alcohol-free beers, wines and spirits. Organisations like the Alcohol Health Alliance state that alcohol-related deaths can be prevented by reforms like these.  The pandemic has reminded us of the vital importance of a well-equipped public health system, but this goes further than infections and emergency treatment. We must remember the threats we were facing before coronavirus entered our lives, and think about the steps that must be taken to deal with these threats. The ONS data makes clear that alcohol dependency is one such urgent issue that must be addressed. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Impact 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 £2.

Samuel Dupret reports on proposed new regulations for the sale of live animals in an effort to prevent future pandemics. Photo by Alex Azabache Emerging zoonotic diseases (diseases caused by pathogens transmitted from animals to humans) like COVID-19 can have disastrous consequences on global human health. Many important health crises have been caused by zoonotic pathogens: think avian flu, SARS, Ebola, etc. Moreover, a large quantitative review has found that 75% of emerging pathogens are now zoonotic. The live wild animal trade in traditional markets (e.g. wet markets) play an important role in the emergence of zoonotic diseases. This is because different species that might never otherwise meet are held closely together under stressful conditions that weaken their immune systems, and where fluids - waste, blood from slaughter and preparation, washing waters - are prone to be exchanged both between animals between animals and humans. Hence, pathogens are more likely to mutate in such ways that they might jump from animals to humans. Furthermore, wild animal populations are hard to inspect for, and protect from, diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated in bats and jumped to humans in Wuhan City’s traditional market. Hence, on April 12th 2021, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released guidelines for national governments to reduce the health risks related to sales of live wild mammalian animals in traditional food markets. What are the Guidelines? The main recommendation is to introduce emergency, temporary suspensions of live wild mammalian sales and closures of traditional food markets areas where these sales occur. Making theses closures emergencies would hasten the otherwise slow process of changing food regulations. The closures should allow competent authorities to conduct risk assessments and introduce new regulations aimed at encouraging safer practices, such as making sure wild animals are not illegally introduced to wildlife farms. Making these closures temporary would allow these markets to reopen if they meet the required standards and follow the new regulations. Traditional food markets have “an important economic, cultural, and social role and are a source of livelihoods for millions of people in both urban and rural areas”. Permitting them to reopen after the implementation of new regulations would allow them to fulfil this role while greatly reducing the risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission. The other recommendations involve: Improving hygiene and sanitation standards in traditional food markets Increasing regulations and inspections in wild animal farms because of the high zoonotic risks involved Training food and veterinary inspectors in relation to new regulations and making sure they enforce regulations free from conflicts of interest Creating national committees to coordinate and strengthen disease surveillance in humans, domestic animals and wildlife Food safety information campaigns. The Possible Effects Calls to regulate live wildlife trade aren’t new. In 2006, the WHO released guidelines for “healthy food markets” in response to the role played by traditional markets in the emergence of SARS and H5N1. In 2020, animal welfare and conservation groups, as well as Elizabeth Maruma Mrema (UN biodiversity chief), were already asking for bans on live wildlife markets. Hopefully, this new call will lead to important efforts in preventing future pandemics. However, it must be noted that suspending and introducing new regulations to wildlife trade might be difficult. Firstly, neither the WHO nor the UNEP have the legal power to enforce their recommendations on states. Secondly, if a country’s wildlife trade is particularly strong, it might lobby against such regulations. For example, Peter J. Li (China policy specialist for the Humane Society International) told Deutsche Welle that the ban on wildlife markets in China following the 2003 SARS outbreak “was lifted largely because wildlife business interests launched a strong opposition to sabotage that policy”. Finally, as mentioned by Elizabeth Maruma Mrema and survey responses from live bird market stakeholders in Vietnam, temporary suspensions might lead to illegal trade which is even harder to regulate. Animal welfare groups including PETA or Animal Equality welcome the proposed guidelines, but have also criticised them for not going far enough. Notably, the guidelines neglect sales of non-wild animals and non-mammalian animals such as birds and reptiles. By focusing on wildlife trade, we might neglect the health risks caused by intensive animal farming. Researchers estimate that 50% of emerging zoonotic diseases since 1940 are related to agricultural factors. In a 2020 set of guidelines, UNEP and the International Livestock Research Institute recognise that agricultural intensification has an important impact on human, animal and environmental health. Economists Espinosa et al. note that guidelines like these usually focus on regulating and monitoring the supply of animal protein. They suggest that curbing demand for animal protein would help reduce the risk of emerging zoonotic diseases. This could be achieved by promoting and developing alternatives - i.e. plant-based options, insects or cultured meat - and/or a tax on animal products to compensate for the societal burden caused by zoonotic diseases. The impact of emerging zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 have important adverse consequence on our health and on the economy which warrant acting on their causes. However, these guidelines do not guarantee that states will follow them. Our focus should now turn to which regulations states do implement and what these will achieve for the health of humans, animals and the environment. Article on a similar topic: The U.S. Bill to Prevent Future Pandemics We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Ziryan Aziz reports on the conflict in Myanmar, and why protestors are calling for a Spring Revolution. Photo by Domi Chung Violent unrest in Myanmar continues as protestors and the military clash across the country, following a military takeover on 1st February. Protestors have called for a ‘Spring Revolution’ against the military, demanding a return to democracy. They have been met with deadly force at the hands of the military and police during both peaceful protests and riots. Over 700 people are believed to have been killed, with thousands more injured, arrested, and tortured. Why are People Protesting? On the 1st of February 2021, Myanmar’s military seized power in a coup d’état, ending almost 10 years of democratic rule. Broadcast live on state media, a state of emergency was declared by the military – known as the Tatmadaw – who cited the 2008 constitution, which grants the military certain powers under the law. The Tatmadaw ruled Myanmar (formally Burma) directly from 1962 to 1974 and then backed a one-party dictatorship up until 1988 before the Junta was dissolved in 2011 following civilian elections. The military has upheld that the coup was in reaction to alleged election fraud after civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won 83% of parliamentary seats in the November 2020 elections. Since the beginning of February, Aung San Suu Kyi has been placed under arrest and is facing possible imprisonment, on charges her lawyer calls “groundless”. She is Myanmar’s first democratically elected leader since the military coup in 1962. Although she is popular in Myanmar, she is controversial abroad for her role in the ethnic cleansing of Myanmar’s Rohingya ethnic group. The military had at first gone to the supreme court, seeking to overturn the election results. However, when the courts ruled the elections fair, the military responded by surrounding government buildings with soldiers and arresting government officials. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who is now the most senior member of the military government, has asserted that emergency powers will last for one year, though no dates for future elections have yet been released. A Timeline of Events The initial first weeks after the 1st February coup saw large peaceful protests across the country. However, on the 20th February two unarmed protestors were killed, one being shot in the head, in the country’s second-largest city Mandalay. On the 22nd of February, the country was gripped by a nationwide strike. The strike saw millions take to the streets in protests, with banking and services across the country ground to a halt. This was swiftly condemned by Myanmar’s military leaders who threatened further ‘loss of life’ for those who attended the protests. Protests continued into March, and the number of civilian fatalities increased. On the 27th of March, over 90 people across Myanmar were shot dead, the bloodiest day since protests began. The youngest victim was only 5 years old. Public and international anger was heightened when widely shared images on social media showed military leaders, who had been attending Armed Forces Day parades, celebrating with foreign dignitaries. According to the group Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) By the end of March the death toll had risen to over 500, further increasing to 765 by early May. Protestors Preparing to Fight Much like in Hong Kong and Thailand, the street protestors in Myanmar have adopted techniques and tactics to better coordinate their activities. For example, protestors in towns and neighbourhoods stand on night watch, alerting people to any military and police who have come to make arrests. During the day, flash mob protests erupt in cities and towns across the country. When met by a police / army presence, protestors retreat into practiced formations, using gas masks and makeshift shields to repel smoke and tear gas grenades. Where the differences lie from other regional protests, is the extent to which further armed violence is becoming a possibility. Some protestors – most of whom are students – are turning to military training in the jungle, learning guerrilla warfare tactics. The groups providing the training are ethnic rebels who operate in the borderlands of Myanmar. These groups, which fight for greater autonomy in their provinces, are known to clash violently with the government. Armed groups like the Karen National Union (KNU) have launched a series of attacks against the military government since February 1st. The National Unity Government, composed of civilian and political rivals of the military, who have since gone into hiding, has called for the establishment of a makeshift ‘federal army’ to fight the military. The International Reaction International condemnation has been widespread, with western countries like the United States and the European union block condemning and sanctioning military leaders. António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, condemned the military and called for its leaders “to respect the will of the people of Myanmar and adhere to democratic norms”. Neighbouring Asian countries, who normally refrain from criticising each other’s internal affairs, have also spoken out. Leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have condemned the use of violence, and the Brunei chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has been called to host an urgent meeting. China, which is a big investor and ally of the country, vetoed a joint condemnation of the coup at the United Nations Security Council. The country’s foreign ministry spokesman stated, on February 22nd, “we hope that all parties will properly handle their differences under the Constitution and legal framework to maintain political and social stability,”. With new and increasing violence between rebel groups and the military, and a generation of youth ready to fight for their democracy, the country’s future is looking more uncertain than ever – but the call for a Spring Revolution may soon become a reality. 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.

Samuel Dupret delves into Joe Biden’s newest plans to ensure the rich in American make a bigger contribution to society. Photo by Lo lo U.S. President Joe Biden has announced a three-part Build Back Better Plan to boost the economy, provide for families and children, create jobs and invest in infrastructure. Tax reforms are central to these plans, both to pay for the plans and as a policy to promote fairness in how taxation is distributed. As Biden puts it: “For too long we’ve had an economy that gives every break in the world to the folks who need it the least. It is time to grow the economy from the bottom-up and the middle-out.” The Plans Biden’s vision is comprised of three separate legislative plans: The American Rescue Plan (ARP) - signed into law on March 11, 2021 - is a temporary remedy against the coronavirus pandemic which provides direct cash payments, extended child tax credit, extended unemployment insurance and $360 billion in emergency funding for state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments. This plan benefits low and middle income households the most. The American Jobs Plan (AJP) is a $2.3 trillion investment in U.S. infrastructure and jobs. Among other things, it aims to improve transport, ensure clean water, boost the energy grid and broadband, modernise buildings and create caregiving and manufacturing jobs. The plan comes with a proposed 28% corporate tax rate, more than Trump’s 21% rate, but less than the 35% rate before Trump’s 2017 cut. The American Families Plan (AFP) is a $1.8 trillion investment in families, health and education. It will provide two years of free preschool, two years of free community college, paid family and medical leave, making childcare affordable and extending the tax cuts from the ARP. The plan would restore the 39.6% individual federal tax rate for earned income $400,000 and above per year; Trump had cut this rate to 37% in 2017. Wealthy individuals also make a lot of money with unearned income (e.g. selling shares), but the capital gains tax is only 20% for the highest gains. This plan will close that gap by increasing capital gains tax to 39.6% for those earning $1 million or more. Why Target the Rich? Biden’s proposed tax reforms are aimed at making the wealthiest “pay their fair share”. Indeed, individuals and corporations can only make so much money because people operate in a society where safety, energy, transport, education and the ability to work and consume are ensured by government. These reforms are, in part, a rollback of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that disproportionally benefited the rich, big corporations and Trump himself. According to Biden, tax cuts for the rich and ‘trickle-down economics’ do not work. Indeed, an LSE study has found that tax cuts for the rich increase income inequality without any significant effect on GDP per capita or unemployment. The companies that benefitted the most from the U.S. 2004 ‘tax holiday’ on overseas profits cut net jobs (more than 20,000) instead of creating them. Additionally, corporations have spent billions in stock buybacks - a practice where corporations artificially inflate the value of their shares by buying some of them back with their profits instead of reinvesting their profits in their workers and technologies - since Trump’s corporate tax cut. Biden’s reforms aim to close loopholes that are exploited by the rich and corporations to avoid paying their fair share through tax evasion. Reports show that profitable corporations regularly paid much less than the corporate tax rate, with 91 Fortune 500 companies paying nothing in federal corporate taxes in 2018. A study estimated that individuals at the top of the income distribution have both the highest levels of unreported income and the highest use of evasion methods like offshoring income to tax havens. Both the AJP and the AFP propose investing resources in the IRS so that it can better address tax evasion. AFP will also stop some loopholes for the rich by closing the carried interest loophole and repealing the ‘step-up in basis’ rule. The AJP has a series of measures to prevent corporate tax loopholes and shifting profits and jobs overseas, including a minimum 21% tax on U.S. multinational corporations. It will also eliminate tax preferences for fossil fuel corporations. The Biden administration is pushing for a global minimum corporate tax to reduce offshoring profits and avoid multinational corporations forcing nations into a ‘race to the bottom’. How Popular are these Plans? Different polls suggest that Biden’s plans are popular. However, the AFP and AJP still need to pass Congress, which will be complicated considering the Democrats only have a slim majority in the House, the Senate is split 50/50 and Republicans oppose the plans. Democrats would need 10 Republicans to join them to pass the plans in the Senate, but they could get it through if they use budget reconciliation. Meanwhile, Biden has said that he is open to negotiations and he is willing to compromise on the corporate tax rate if it is between 25-28%. Biden’s plans show a real and tangible commitment to assisting the disadvantaged members of U.S. society by ensuring the ultra-privileged play their part in social responsibility. We can only hope that the legislation will come into effect so the shocking distance between the economic strata can diminish, even if only ever so slightly. Article on a similar topic: Argentina to Tax Wealthy to Pay for Pandemic Measures 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 reports on the devastation in India where the new coronavirus variant is rampant. Photo by Fahrul Azmi Despite faring well at the beginning of the pandemic, India is currently experiencing a huge spike in cases, recording some of the highly daily infection rates in the world. Hospitals are struggling to accommodate patients, facing severe shortages in vital resources such as oxygen, while the Indian variant of the virus triggers anxiety across the world. Since mid-March, India has seen a staggering rise in coronavirus cases: 400,000 daily cases were recorded on Friday, 30 April, and though the numbers fell slightly in the days following this, they have begun to increase once again. What is the Situation in India? India emerged from their first wave of infections in a better state than most countries. When the pandemic began in March 2020, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered an immediate and strict lockdown, shutting down schools, workplaces and all shops except those providing essential goods. This helped to curb India’s Covid numbers, and despite cases climbing to almost 100,000 per day, the situation started to improve by September 2020. But with the government permitting people to gather in celebration of the Hindu festival Kumbh Mela in April, as well as those attending political rallies preceding state elections, Covid cases have spiked once again. The risk of infection is particularly high in impoverished regions, where people live in cramped conditions with shared sanitation and water access, meaning they cannot adhere to social distancing. Those living in rural areas - in which almost 70% of India’s population reside - are also seriously at risk as access to medical support is extremely limited. All this is compounded by contagious new variants that have materialised in recent months. What is Happening Inside Hospitals? Overrun with patients, India’s hospitals can no longer cope. Doctors have sent out urgent appeals for oxygen after resources have completely run out in areas such as Delhi. Small hospitals without storage tanks are struggling even further. Without adequate supplies of oxygen, staff have been forced to turn patients away, though portable oxygen cylinders are equally hard to come by meaning patients can no longer be cared for by their families outside of hospitals. People have been forced to queue for hours, frantically searching in nearby shops and clinics for extra supplies, while small networks of doctors and suppliers have been set up in the hope of helping more people access oxygen tanks. What Help is Needed? The rapid increase in cases is not only ravaging India’s healthcare system, but impacting both testing and vaccination programmes across the country. Testing rates have dipped since cases began to spike, and it is clear that with facilities and staff under huge pressure, India is struggling to test large numbers of people. Meanwhile, vaccination provision has also suffered amid the country’s second wave of cases; though 175 million doses have already been given out, vaccine rollout has slowed in recent weeks. The Indian government - already under fire for failing to contain the rise in cases - have emphasised that those administering vaccinations must continue to do so despite the difficulties posed by new infections. India is the largest supplier of vaccines in the world, but they are currently facing huge difficulties in manufacturing enough doses. The government has temporarily banned vaccine exports to other countries while they attempt to control their second wave. This decision is a serious one, as neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka rely heavily on India for their inoculations. The Indian Variant The Indian variant of coronavirus is also generating mounting global concern, as it is suspected to be more transmissible than other mutations of the virus. Questions have been raised as to whether the easing of lockdown in the UK will be affected, as a number of towns in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have reported a significant number of infections from this variant in recent weeks. Boris Johnson has expressed alarm, but has made no comment as yet about changes to the easing of restrictions, and surge testing is being carried out in areas in which the variant is particularly prevalent. India’s second wave of coronavirus is an urgent issue that must be acknowledged. Though the Indian variant poses its own risks closer to home, we must also focus our attention and support on the people within India who are battling the pandemic with severely limited resources. Article on a similar topic: Coronavirus Paranoia Exposes Entrenched Islamophobia in India 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 reports as the British government makes it easier for Hong Kong residents to relocate to Britain amid tightening security restrictions in the former colony. Photo by Ruslan Bardash Huge numbers of Hong Kong citizens are expected to move to the UK in the wake of numerous threats to free speech in the country, and with the help of a new visa scheme, they will be assisted in accessing jobs, housing and schools, communities secretary Robert Jenrick has stated. The UK’s new British National Overseas (BNO) passport scheme gives citizens of Hong Kong the right to live in the UK for five years and apply for permanent residency thereafter. Launched on 31 January, the scheme is backed by £43m of funding that will help new residents settle in the UK. The New Scheme A Welcome Pack put together by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government outlines resources to help BNO visa holders access employment, housing, education and healthcare in the UK. Twelve “virtual welcome hubs” will also be set up to assist in these matters. Schools will be provided with teaching material explaining the UK’s former colonial links with Hong Kong. The scheme was formulated in response to an alarming new security law passed by the Chinese government. The law restricts the autonomy of Hong Kong citizens and severely limits their right to protest by making it much easier for demonstrators to be punished in line with laws in the Republic of China rather than Hong Kong. Ratified in June 2020, the law criminalises acts of secession, subversion, collusion and terrorism. Anyone found guilty of such acts may receive a maximum sentence of life in prison. The UK has expressed its concern over the impact this will have on the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens, and the changes to the BNO visa reflect the severity of the political situation in the territory as a result of the new law. In response to the UK amending the BNO visa, the Chinese government has stated that the BNO passport will no longer be seen as a valid travel document. They argue that the security law is required in the territory to tackle growing conflict between citizens and the police. A Reduction in Rights A treaty signed in 1984 decreed that Hong Kong would be handed back to China in 1997 after more than 150 years of British colonial rule. BNO status itself was originally created for Hong Kong residents by Britain in 1987. The principle of ‘one country, two systems’ established once British ownership ended supposedly ensured that Hong Kong would still have extensive autonomy from mainland China in many matters, excluding foreign and defence affairs. This means that Hong Kong has separate borders and its own legal system. It also means, crucially, that rights including freedom of speech, assembly and the press are meant to protected. However, many citizens and rights groups have expressed anxieties in recent years that these freedoms are being threatened, and that China is interfering with Hong Kong’s politics. The new national security bill certainly appears to provide evidence for this claim. Looking to the Future As the Chinese government attempts to tighten its control of Hong Kong, more citizens are choosing to start a new life in the UK. An estimated 27,000 applications have been made for the BNO visa, and the government predicts that 322,000 people are likely to claim it in the next five years. With these Hong Kong citizens settling in Britain, it is vital that the government provides them with the assistance promised by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, facilitating their entry into the school system and the housing market, and ensuring that institutions like schools themselves are supported. Article on a similar topic: The Democratic Battle of Hong Kong 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 human activity has changed life on this planet, and why scientists believe that reintroducing key species might make a significant difference. Photo by Grant Ritchie According to a study published in Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, no more than 2.9% of the Earth’s land surface currently remains ‘faunally intact’, with animal or plant species undisturbed by human activity. Although ‘intactness’ is often loosely-defined, the study follows the Key Biodiversity Areas Standard established in 2016, according to which an ‘intact ecological community’ is one which has “the complete complement of species known or expected to occur in a particular site or ecosystem, relative to a regionally appropriate historical benchmark, which will often correspond to pre-industrial times”. However, by comparing the biodiversity of areas larger than 10,000 sq. kilometres with maps showing where animals have disappeared since the year 1500 AD (as included in the IUCN Red List), the study concluded that less than 3% of the world’s terrestrial surface could satisfy this description. Why Biodiversity Matters An ecosystem is defined by National Geographic as an area in which “plants, animals, and other organisms, as well as weather and landscape, work together to form a bubble of life”. These ecosystems are often connected to biomes, or larger sections of land, sea and atmosphere such as forests, ponds, reefs and tundra. Every factor involved in an ecosystem depends on the presence of every other factor: even a small change in temperature, for example, might affect what species of plants grow in the area, thereby forcing local animal populations to adapt, relocate or perish. As such, biodiversity – or the healthy presence of a wide range of plants, insects and animals (even including the ones we don’t like!) – is essential for our mutual flourishing. However, recent decades have seen a growing recognition that the impact of human activity on global ecosystems is one of the most important and understated issues facing contemporary civilisation. WWF’s Living Planet Report 2020 estimated that the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have dropped by 68% since 1970. Another study published this January criticised world leaders for underestimating the present threat to biodiversity, predicting a ‘ghastly future’ for all life on Earth if we fail to change our actions and priorities. Previous research, calculated through a combination of satellite imagery and computer algorithms, estimated that 20 to 40% of the planet’s terrestrial surface is under low human influence. However, the latest study showed that habitats which might appear intact are often missing species that play important roles in local ecosystems. Although habitat degradation as a result of human activity is one of the most significant causes of species loss, the study points out that this is not the only cause. For example, overexploitation, hunting, invasive species and disease, though harder to calculate or identify, can also severely disturb animal populations, thereby causing calamitous repercussions for entire ecosystems. An intergovernmental report in 2019 concluded that the biggest threats to global biodiversity are, in descending order: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution and invasive alien species. Some scientists, such as Professor Pierre Ibisch, have criticised the latest research for failing to properly take the impact of climate change into account: “Accelerating climate change is becoming the overarching threat to the functionality of entire ecosystems. Yesterday’s mammal intactness hardly tells us a lot about the functioning ecosystems in the [global heating] age.” However, Dr Andrew Plumptre, the paper’s lead author, acknowledges that the 3% figure is a “ballpark estimate”, suggesting that future research could focus on smaller regions and apply more detailed data. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that human civilisation has become a dominant force in shaping life on this planet. Species Reintroduction The few areas that currently remain unaffected by human activity include parts of the Amazon and Congo, east Siberia and northern Canada, and the Sahara Desert. However, only 11% of the areas defined as ‘functionally intact’ – habitats in which there is no reduction in faunal densities below ecologically-functional level – are included within existing protected areas, though many of these coincide with territories managed by indigenous communities. Although the study’s conclusions might be deeply troubling, the researchers do not intend to encourage despair or passivity. In fact, the study also suggested that up to 20% of the Earth’s land surface could be restored through the reintroduction of certain key species such as forest elephants in areas of the Congo Basin, or buffalo and giraffes in African savannas. The reintroduction of Yellowstone grey wolves in 1995 caused a ripple of positive changes throughout the entire ecosystem: deer populations were driven away to graze elsewhere, trees grew five time larger, bare landscapes became forests, migratory birds returned, new beaver colonies provided habitats for other creatures and so forth. Even the landscape was changed in the process - regenerating forests stabilised the banks of rivers and reducing deer populations limited soil erosion in the area. Nevertheless, such significant and lasting change can only come about if world leaders shift their priorities and introduce laws preventing restored animal populations or land conservation efforts from being later used for commercial purposes. As Paul de Zylva, senior sustainability analyst for Friends of the Earth, explains: “There are few truly wild places left and too many are under assault from oil and gas exploration, mining and land grabs. Our political and business leaders [...] need to stand up to vested interests who seek to profit at the expense of both people and planet.” How we act today will determine the future of life on this planet. Thankfully, some world leaders have already recognised this: at the beginning of this year, a coalition of more than 50 countries pledged to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and oceans to slow wildlife extinction. While this commitment will not restore what has been lost, it is certainly a huge step in the right direction. Article on a similar topic: Earth and The Sixth Mass Extinction We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Jonny Rogers explores how noise pollution is harming marine life, forcing birds to change their behaviour and preventing human flourishing. Photo by Gary Bendig Pollution is often discussed as toxic substances accumulating in natural environments and causing harm to living creatures, plants and landscapes. However, a growing body of research is showing that high levels of manmade sound – referred to as noise pollution – can have a comparable negative impact on many animal species, with potentially severe consequences for entire ecosystems. Sound plays a crucial role in communication for many forms of life, serving as a part of mating rituals and warning calls, as well as the detection of both predators and prey. However, anthropogenic (i.e. human-generated) noise is polluting the Earth’s auditory ocean, as it were, harming marine life, forcing birds to change their behaviour, and preventing humans flourishing. The Ecology of Noise Pollution In the early 2000s, large numbers of giant squid became stranded on beaches across the west coast of Spain. Although it wasn’t immediately evident what had caused their death, it was speculated that it might have something to do with powerful sound pulses from ships prospecting for petroleum beneath the seafloor. As later research confirmed, low frequency noise harms the bodies of cephalopods and other marine life, and also disorients creatures which depend on sound to navigate environments (such as dolphins and whales). The effect of noise pollution on bird populations around the world has also been widely reported. A study from 2007, for example, showed that European robins in urban environments with a high levels of sound during the day-time are more likely to sing at night (an unnatural practice), and another study from 2017 concluded that increased noise reduces the diversity of bird species in neotropical urban parks. As with marine life, anthropogenic sound has been found to change the behaviour of birds. Some species, such as great tits, are found to sing at higher frequencies to ensure that they can be heard above the predominantly low-frequency city noises, and zebra finches become less faithful to their partners and unable to acquire new motor skills when exposed to human traffic, thereby potentially altering the population’s evolutionary trajectory. As you might expect, disturbing animal populations can have a serious impact on the wider ecosystem, even including plant species. A recent study from California Polytechnic State University has shown that long-term noise pollution limited the ‘seedling recruitment’ of pinyon pine and juniper trees. By comparing the diversity of vegetation in locations with persistent high levels of noise – caused by 15 years of continuous natural gas well extraction – with those in which the noise had been removed, the researchers concluded that industrial activity was driving away species of birds and other creatures responsible for disseminating seeds. This research is notable for having shown that noise pollution can have a residual and long-term effect; the removal of the sources of noise did not guarantee the recovery of the local tree species or bird populations. As the paper’s lead author, Jennifer Philips, explains: “Animals like the scrub jay that are sensitive to noise learn to avoid particular areas. It may take time for animals to rediscover these previously noisy areas, and we don’t know how long that might take.” However, it is important to recognise that not all species of birds are affected by anthropogenic noise in the same way: for example, white-crowned sparrows in San Francisco were found to have returned to their previous frequencies after the streets quietened when the U.S. first went into lockdown last year. A Silent Protest If this evidence alone does not motivate action, the effect of noise pollution on human health should warrant serious concern, not to mention greater political attention. As many as one in five Europeans are currently exposed to harmful sound levels due to road traffic, with this statistic set to increase in the coming decades. As personal experience alone might testify, exposure to high levels of noise is closely associated with increased stress, sleep disturbance and impaired cognitive performance. However, studies have also observed a connection between environmental noise and a variety of cardiovascular problems including heart failure and stress-induced vascular damage, as well as obesity and diabetes. Children are particularly vulnerable, with exposure to noise from road and air traffic being linked to impaired reading and oral comprehension. Although large-scale change must involve effective policy and urban planning, we all have an obligation to care for the people, species and environments that surround us, as well as ourselves. Avoiding playing music in public, speeding through neighbourhoods on motorised vehicles or maintaining a garden for extended periods of time is a reasonable first step, though even limiting how much you listen to loud music through headphones might avoid long-term adverse health effects. Nevertheless, the recent study from California Polytechnic State University adds to the growing body of evidence showing that the ecological impact of human activity is far greater than we often acknowledge, and certainly extends beyond simply what we can see. Although research on the long-term effects of noise pollution is currently limited, what is yet to discover is often as much a cause for concern as what is known. As Professor Clint Francis concludes: “In essence our research indicates that the consequences of noise are far-reaching and reverberate throughout the ecosystem through lots of species.” Of course, noise – like many other forms of pollution – is largely an unintended by-product of activities either justified by convention or necessitated by the economic, technological and social demands of the modern world. However, if you were to discover that something you are doing is both harmful and avoidable, then refusing to change your behaviour is a moral choice – one that is complicit in our mutual self-destruction. Article on a similar topic: Environmental Agency: 12.5% of Deaths are Linked to 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.

Martha Davies explains the toxic concept of ‘greenwashing’, and how it’s preventing us from having truly sustainable lifestyles. Photo by Karolina Grabowska In the growing shadow of the climate crisis and a widespread yearning to make more sustainable choices, consumers are becoming increasingly environmentally-conscious. Yet many companies have reacted not by improving their practices to match this, but by turning to ‘greenwashing’, and making false claims about their commitment to the environment. Adapted from the term ‘whitewashing’, which describes an attempt to cover up misdeeds, greenwashing refers to the act of misleading customers about the sustainability of a brand or product, exploiting a desire to invest in goods that are environmentally sound. Consumers may thus be encouraged to align themselves with companies that appear to value sustainability and ethical practices but are not truly devoted to helping the environment. The term was first coined by American environmentalist Jay Westerveld in the 1960s to describe the actions of a hotel chain that was touting its environmental initiative in enabling guests to save the environment simply by encouraging them to reuse their towels. Greenwashing can now be identified in brands who exaggerate their sustainability, claiming to act sustainably while often having an extremely harmful environmental impact. The resort Westerveld wrote about, for instance, was expanding its business into the surrounding area while its management championed their apparently environmentally-friendly values. How Can We Identify Greenwashing? Companies begin to greenwash their products and practices when they find they can no longer live up to the environmental demands of consumers. With the future of the planet weighing ever more heavily on our minds, we expect big brands to support ethical and sustainable values, but our desire to make better choices can lead us to buy into greenwashing, accepting false or inflated statements about how ‘eco-friendly’ products really are. Although we hope brands have the right priorities, they may be disingenuous, marketing themselves as ‘green’ while ignoring their wider environmental impact, or glossing over other practices or investments that betray a lack of sustainability. We don’t have to look far to find examples of greenwashing. In 2018, Starbucks made headlines by announcing that it would halt the use of plastic straws in all its stores. Yet the cup lids now used are actually made of more plastic than the previous straws and lids combined. Starbucks has acknowledged this, arguing that the new ‘strawless’ lids are still preferable because they can be recycled, where plastic straws cannot; only a fraction of the world’s plastic is recycled every year, meaning that there is no guarantee that the new lids will be recycled, even if they are recyclable. Starbucks’ anti-straw initiative subsequently becomes a way to appear committed to sustainability without making any truly meaningful moves towards helping the environment. This is the essence of greenwashing. Where Do We Go From Here? Greenwashing feels demoralising, and, at worst, callous, as big brands capitalise on their consumers’ desire to improve the environment and make hollow promises they have no intention of acting upon. They must be held accountable for any deceitfulness. Transparency is key; the House of Commons' cross-party Treasury Committee has advocated for better environmental labelling on investments, for example, in order to ensure that financial regulation is not ambiguous or misleading. And just as many huge businesses attempt to downplay their transgressions, others are addressing their environmental impact. Clothing giant Patagonia is one such company: it confesses to using chemicals in its products and does not deny its carbon footprint, brazenly acknowledging the struggle to be sustainable instead of exaggerating its achievements. This kind of honesty is refreshing amid the murkiness of supposedly ‘green’ marketing. Yet the onus is not just on companies to be open and actively committed to the environment. It also falls to us as consumers to encourage this. Understanding the dangers of greenwashing allows us to identify any half-hearted attempts at sustainability, ultimately helping us to align ourselves with brands and initiatives that are genuinely devoted to positive change. Article on a similar topic: Period Sustainability: The Need for Eco-Friendly Alternatives 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 today!

Jonny Rogers reports on Google Earth’s latest update revealing how the planet has changed over the past 37 years. Photo by Marcin Jozwiak A growing number of scientists and activists have argued that we now live in the ‘Anthropocene’ – the geological epoch in which human activity has become a driving force in shaping the Earth’s atmospheric composition and its ecosystems. Although different people locate the inception of this epoch at varying points in history, it is broadly recognised that the past century has seen a rate of change like no other. Accordingly, the ‘Great Acceleration’ age refers to the exponential rise in a wide range of measurements of human activity over the past few decades: in global population, resource usage, transportation, carbon emissions, pollution and so forth. As such, the scale of the issues we now face have become so large that they exceed our comprehension. Nevertheless, the latest update to Google Earth’s ‘timelapse’ feature might go some way in helping us visualise the impact of human activity on the world we live in, allowing users to see how anywhere on the planet has changed over the past 37 years. How Does It Work? In 1972, NASA and the United States Geological Survey (UCGS) launched the first Landsat satellite to acquire images of the Earth. Unlike previous satellite spacecraft, the intention was not to monitor military sites, but rather observe how the world is changing. Since then, another seven satellites have been launched in the programme, with a nineth set to launch later this year. In 2013, TIME partnered with Google to release a series of videos showcasing a number of changes around the globe since 1984, using data from Landsat satellites. Google Earth Engine’s ‘Timelapse Project’ was subsequently updated in 2016, combining data from the European Commission’s Copernicus Programme. Described as the “largest video on the planet”, the project now comprises 24 million images, and has a resolution equivalent to more than half a million 4K videos. This takes up an incredible 20 petabytes (20 million megabytes) of storage space, and allows users to see observe the changes in both 2D and 3D formats. Of course, processing something this large undoubtedly takes a lot of power – precisely, more than two million hours of computer time, distributed across thousands of powerful machines. Although Google have announced that they are committed to becoming ‘carbon neutral’, this currently depends on investment in carbon offsets. What Does it Reveal? As of the latest update, Google Earth offers a number of pre-packaged timelapse tours across the globe, grouped into five categories: ‘Changing Forests’, ‘Fragile Beauty’, ‘Sources of Energy’, ‘Warming Planet’ and ‘Urban Expansion’. As decades are reduced to seconds, the impact of our rapidly growing population is undeniable: a desert is enveloped by the expanding city of Las Vegas; artificial sand islands grow off the coast of Dubai; green farmland turns to grey pavement in Shanghai. Of course, larger populations require more resources and energy: coal mines flash across the landscape in Wyoming and Inner Mongolia; the Amazon rainforest is stripped and turned into farmland; the Tar Sands of Alberta branch into the Canadian wilderness as oil extraction continues. Most alarmingly, the project also shows the immediate effect of our changing climate: the Alaskan Columbia Glacier all but disappears before our eyes; the Aral Sea and Lake Urmia shrink to a tenth of their former size; the white peak of Mt. Kilimanjaro turns to barren land. Rebecca Moore, director of Google Earth Engine and outreach, hopes that the latest update will improve public education on the world we live in: “The time-lapse distils that enormous archive of satellite data into an easily understandable picture of our changing planet [...] It makes the abstract concrete, and we hope that this can ground everyone in an objective, common understanding of what's actually happening on the planet and inspire action.” 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 from just £1.

Nicole Nadler reports on the widespread issue of seafood fraud, and how it could be impacting endangered species. Photo by Tessa Wilson British citizens eat 167 million orders of fish and chips annually from the over 10,000 fish and chips shops throughout the UK. Traditionally, the dish consists of either cod or haddock, but regardless of the chef’s choice, customers have the right to know what they’re eating. However, does the shop even know for sure what it is serving? Earlier this year, The Guardian investigated 44 recent studies that took over 9,000 seafood samples from restaurants, supermarkets, and fish markets in over 30 countries. Using a new DNA analysis technique, the analysis revealed that 36% of the samples were mislabeled. With the UK and Canada leading the trend of mislabelling at 55%, seafood fraud is classed as a global issue. What is Seafood Fraud? “Seafood fraud is the practice of misleading consumers about their seafood in order to increase profits. Along with ripping off shoppers, these actions can have negative impacts on marine conservation efforts and human health.” – Oceana The fraud can occur in numerous ways; most commonly, a lower quality fish is purposely mislabeled to a higher quality and more sought-after specimen (allowing a higher markup in pricing). There is also a significant concern that some of the mislabelled species are endangered or vulnerable. National Geographic has provided a detailed report on the issue in the United States and Oceana’s findings. Fish samplings, taken from restaurants, fish markets, and grocery stores in two dozen states across the country, evidenced overwhelming issues of fraud and corruption within the industry. Sea bass and snapper were the two species that were most commonly mislabelled. “Fish ordered at restaurants were more likely to be mislabelled than fish bought at markets or grocery stores. Mislabelling also occurred when cheaper, imported fish were sold as local catch and when farm-raised fish were marketed as wild caught.” – National Geographic What Can Be Done? This isn’t a new issue; Oceana has been reporting on seafood fraud for years, making headlines numerous times – and they aren’t the only ones. Over the years, news stories about seafood fraud have sprouted from major publications and local news outlets alike. With so much coverage and information, why isn’t this common public knowledge? And more importantly, why is it still happening on a global scale? “Seafood fraud misleads consumers about the true availability of seafood and the state of the marine environment, because mislabeling maintains the appearance of a steady supply of popular fish species despite severe overfishing. Mislabeling also makes it difficult for consumers to use seafood guides to find sustainable fish to eat and can, in some cases, pose a health risk when a species is swapped for one that can make people sick.” – Oceana There seems to be little opportunity for a consumer to be entirely sure of their seafood’s origin and how it was sourced – and even what species it truly is. The Marine Conservation Society has created the Good Fish Guide app, which allows the user to find out which fish are most and least sustainable. The app is a great start and is a helpful way for consumers to learn more about sustainability; however, if we cannot trust our food sources and subsequent labelling, we cannot determine if the food is or is not sustainable. In Scotland, Loch Duart, a high-end Salmon producer, uses their own forensic science to investigate those who sell a lesser fish species under their brand. The 20+ year strong brand’s co-owner, Andy Bing, spoke with BBC Radio’s Good Morning Scotland in late 2019 about their mission to end seafood fraud. “It normally happens in big cities where you get less scrupulous fish wholesalers who will go to a high-end restaurant, say they’ve got Loch Duart salmon, but they’re selling something from a cheaper provenance and invoicing it as Loch Duart salmon.” – Andy Bing In 2013, when the horsemen scandal rocked the headlines, there was an immediate response. The public and private sectors were both outraged, and immediate action was taken. Which? detailed a 24% drop in consumer trust of the food industry, while nearly one-third of shoppers purchased less processed meat. Despite the consistent news reporting of seafood fraud for nearly the last decade, the average consumer does not seem to have become aware enough to change their significant shopping habits, which in turn could force the supermarkets, restaurants, and fish markets to become more ethical and transparent in their practices. Article on a similar topic: 550,000 Salmon Escape Death Sentence in Scotland 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 the legal system might be changed to hold people accountable for perpetuating climate change and ecological damage. Photo by Annie Spratt The International Criminal Court (ICC) currently wields the power to prosecute four crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. However, some politicians, activists and world leaders – including Greta Thunberg and the Pope – are calling for the recognition of ‘ecocide’ as a crime worthy of comparable prosecution. Although recent years have seen increasing public pressure for governments around the world to prioritise ecological issues, this often manifests in what Sophie Yeo has described as “fluffy and arguably toothless rulemaking”. The Paris Agreement, for example, which aims to limit the global temperature rise over the next few decades, depends on nations setting their own emission reduction targets, with little legal consequence to their failure. However, by adding ecocide to the Rome Statute of the ICC, the perpetrators of serious environmental destruction could face arrest, prosecution and imprisonment – but will this deterrent change the discourse on the ecological crisis? The Ecocide Movement As it currently stands, the ICC can only prosecute environmental destruction so far, as it is associated with existing international crimes occurring during times of conflict. However, given that wildfires and rising oceans are harming and displacing millions of people, as well as causing thousands of species to go extinct, supporters of the criminalisation of ecocide argue that the current law does not go far enough in responding to the moral severity of climate change. Polly Higgins, a Scottish barrister, was an important figure in igniting the ecocide movement until her tragic death in 2019. In 2010, she defined ecocide as: “Extensive loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems of a given territory [...] such that the peaceful enjoyment of the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished.” Following Higgins, a growing legacy of campaigners have argued for the legal prosecution of those responsible for oil spills, deep-sea mining, industrial livestock farming and tar sand extraction, as certain industries and nations are disproportionately responsible for ecological destruction. While the ecocide movement has recently received support from European governments, smaller nations like Vanuatu – which has been severely impacted by rising sea levels – have challenged the ICC for failing to hold more powerful nations responsible. According to the Climate Accountability Institute, over a third of all fossil fuel and cement emissions since 1965 have come from the twenty largest oil, natural gas, and coal companies; furthermore, a recent report from Chatham House concluded that at least a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system. For ecocide to be recognised as an international crime, it would first take years to plan and process the proposal, which would need to be accepted by at least two-thirds of the ICC’s 123 member nations. Even then, the United States and China (the world’s largest polluters) are not signatories to the treaty that established the court, and therefore have no obligation to recognise its jurisdiction or authority. Nevertheless, supporters of the criminalisation of ecocide believe that their challenge to international law extends beyond legality. As Jojo Mehta, the co-founder of the Stop Ecocide campaign, has argued the criminalisation of ecocide will also provoke a shift in how people think about environmental destruction: “At the moment, you can still go into the environment and get a permit to frack or mine or drill for oil, whereas you can’t just get a permit to kill people, because it’s criminal [...] Once you set that parameter in place, you shift the cultural mindset as well as the legal reality.” What the Law Cannot Change Even if the formalisation of legal prosecution for ecocide might be effective in reducing certain actions, it is important to recognise its limitations: namely, even the strongest legal system depends on traceability, while the causes of many ecological issues remain more-or-less invisible. In 2017, the uninhabited Henderson Island was found to be the most polluted territory in the world. Investigators estimated that more than 17 tonnes (or 37.7 million pieces) of plastic debris were present on its beaches, despite the island being situated 5000km away from the nearest major population centre – but who is responsible for this travesty? No single person decided to outsource a nation or company’s waste to the South Pacific, yet neither did anyone successfully prevent it from occurring. If 38 million unique companies were each responsible for producing a single piece of waste, the accumulation of many apparently negligible actions can still produce an undesirable outcome. On the other hand, even if this accumulation of plastic did come from a single corporation or industry, it would be almost impossible to identify; from a study of 55,000 pieces of waste collected from the Henderson Island, only 100 could be traced back to its country of origin. As such, one of the biggest difficulties posed by ecological issues is our inability to conceive of the structures that result in specific events, and therefore attribute responsibility appropriately. Given that most people have in some part contributed to global warming and plastic pollution, it is not clear how any legal system could deliver the environmental justice required to hold everyone accountable for the consequences of their actions. Even if there were a means of tracing every particulate of pollution to individual nations, companies or industries, David Whyte, the author of Ecocide, has pointed out that the prosecution of ecocide under international criminal law can only sanction punishments against individuals. As far as the law is concerned, there would be no reason why corporations could not simply scapegoat CEOs or senior advisors without having to change the structure of their business. Nevertheless, Whyte recognises that the criminalisation of environmental destruction is an important step in the right direction: “It’s really important to change our language and the way we think about what’s harming the planet – we should push through this crime of ecocide – but it’s not going to change anything unless, at the same time, we change the model of corporate capitalism.” Article on a similar topic: World’s Richest Must Cut Carbon Footprint by 97% 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.