Tori Scott reports on how waste paper could be beneficial for making road construction more sustainable for the environment. Photo by Levi Meir Clancy Asphalt and cement, the two main materials used in road construction, are contributing to a range of environmental issues. However, Canadian researchers are in the process of developing guidelines to bring a sustainable use for pulp and paper waste products in road construction. Although the production of paper and pulp is increasing worldwide, which means that waste is too, researchers at the University of British Columbia Okanagan are working to make this waste material useful in public infrastructure. “Anytime we can redirect waste to a sustainable alternative, we are heading in the right direction” – Dr Sumi Siddiqua, UBC associate professor More specifically, they are investigating whether wood-based pulp mill fly ash (PFA), a non-hazardous commercial waste product, has the potential to be used as a construction material for products such as bricks, cement-based materials, mineral filler, geo-polymers and composites. Disadvantages of Asphalt and Concrete 1. Resource Depletion For concrete to strengthen, it requires a balanced mixture of rock, sand and fabricated cement component. The process of obtaining these materials and applying them to the roads is a very resource intensive process. Re-using existing concrete and asphalt by remixing it with virgin materials allows for industries to decrease that resource depletion. In addition, asphalt is a petroleum-based product. To produce both asphalt and concrete it requires a lot of energy, so finding ways to reduce this use of energy is vital to minimise the ecological impact of public infrastructure and architecture. 2. Water Pollution Road and parking lot construction projects have to be innovative and elaborate with drainage networks to remove rainwater from surfaces and prevent any flooding from occurring on the building sites. If drainage networks are not in place, it brings the risk of exposing water to pollutants, surface debris and asphalt. Any polluted water will flow into municipal sewage networks and empty into lakes, rivers and streams. 3. Harmful Atmospheric Emissions The process to make asphalt releases harmful gases into the atmosphere. Furthering this issue, curing applied asphalt adds more harmful emissions to the air. Producing cement for concrete requires significant amount of heat, additionally generating substantial volatile organic compound emissions. Advantages of Paper and Pulp Waste Materials Most of the time, waste materials from paper and pulp end up as landfill. However, as the Canadian researchers have shown, there could be significant uses for them in construction, agriculture, and energy. For construction, paper and pulp waste could be used as possible fillers for building products. If ashes, green liquor dregs, skater grits, lime mud and pulp mill sludge are disposed of improperly, it can lead to structural changes of the ecosystem through water wastewater treatment otherwise known as “eutrophication”. “The porous nature of PFA acts like a gateway for the adhesiveness of the other materials in the cement that enables the overall structure to be stronger and more resilient than materials not made with PFA” – Dr Chinchu Cherian It has been proven that the pulp and paper mill industry could have high potential for sustainability, but using the pulp and paper by-production like black liquor could also displace a portion of fossil fuel use. As such, changing this industry is not only important for improving sustainability in construction but also in decreasing the pollution of the environment. Although there have been a number of concerns that the toxins used in pulp and paper mills could drain out of the recycled material, this has been disproven by Dr Siddiqua: “the use of the untreated PFA is so strong, little to no release of chemical is apparent. Therefore, it can be considered as a safe raw material for environmental applications” As of the end of last year, human-made materials now outweigh the combined mass of all living matter – and a large proportion of this is asphalt and concrete. Any innovation in making construction materials even a little more sustainable is therefore important in reducing the impact of urban development as the world's population continues to grow. Article on a similar topic: Human Materials to Outweigh the Earth’s Entire Biomass We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Annie Grey sheds light on the insincerity of the so-called climate champions. Photo by Brian Garrity Since the concept of net-zero was agreed in the 2015 Paris Agreement, at least 120 countries have made net-zero or carbon neutral commitments. However, many countries are still producing fossil fuels despite their commitments to combat climate change. Canada, Norway, and the UK especially stand out because they are producing fossil fuels while positioning themselves as ‘climate champions’. As published in Global Sustainability, Exeter University’s Global Systems Institute (GSI) stated that governments are engaged in “climate hypocrisy” by publicly supporting the Paris Agreement, in which nations agreed to limit global warming to “well below 2°C”, while subsidising the fossil fuel industry, destroying forests and pursuing other harmful policies. Smoke and Mirrors Supposedly, the UK is leading the world in the fight against climate change, being the first major economy to legislate for net-zero emissions by 2050 and having cut emissions by 43% since 1990 – the best in the G7. The UK government can make these claims because, under international agreements, each country is only responsible for greenhouse gas emissions produced within its own territory. The UK government announced in December 2020 that it is ending state support for fossil fuel industry exports and shifting government assistance to low-carbon and renewable energy projects abroad. This will end “export finance, aid funding and trade promotion for new crude oil, natural gas, or thermal coal projects, with very limited exceptions”. In light of this statement, it’s worth noting that fossil fuels have enjoyed a large share of UK export credits for decades, supporting 21 billion pounds ($27.8 billion) of oil and gas exports in the last four years alone. A new target to cut emissions by at least 68% by 2030 was also announced, compared with 1990 levels. The 68% cut was deemed by the EU to be Britain’s fair share towards combating climate change although Green groups have called for a 75% cut, and research by consultancy Cambridge Econometrics said a target of 70% by 2030 was necessary. There are also noticeable gaps in policy, in skills, in funding for net-zero infrastructure and in the emissions reductions required to keep the UK within the already agreed carbon budget. Moreover, the fourth and fifth carbon budgets were calculated to deliver an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, not to achieve the net-zero ambition as stated in law. Empty Pledges? Canada and Norway have also set ambitious targets – Canada has pledged to reduce their territorial emissions to net zero by 2050, and Norway strives to be carbon neutral by 2030. By focusing on territorial emissions, the countries are abiding by existing international agreements. However, the practice remains counterproductive, as emissions caused by the burning of their oil, gas and coal exported to other territories globally aren’t included in their carbon figures. Justin Trudeau was re-elected as Canada’s Prime Minister last year [2020], at which point promises were made to immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada’s 2030 climate goal and pass a new law mandating net-zero emissions by 2050. Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed climate leader is instead pouring tax dollars into an oil pipeline project. The planned Teck Mine would be the biggest tar sand mine yet: 113 square miles of petroleum mining, located just 16 miles from the border of Wood Buffalo national park. A federal panel approved the mine despite concluding that it would likely be harmful to both the environment and the land culture of Indigenous people. Canadian authorities ruled that the mine was nonetheless in the “public interest”. As Canada – currently representing 0.5% of the global population – plans to use up nearly a third of the planet’s remaining carbon budget, the Canadian Prime Minister stated: “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there”. According to Canada Energy Regulator, the country’s crude oil production is expected to keep increasing until 2039. Canada’s proven oil reserves stand at roughly 168 billion barrels, according to government data. If all that is extracted and burned, it would add an estimated 72 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, based on a calculation using IPCC’s figures for default carbon contents. Ottawa hides all this behind a series of pledges about “net-zero emissions by 2050”, while Trudeau offers few details as to how the country will achieve said targets. Territorial Trumps Global Likewise, much of the environmental innovation that Norway prides itself on is financed by its oil industry. Aside from being a ‘forward-thinking climate champion’, Norway is also a major fossil fuels exporter, with plans to continue being so for the foreseeable future. Norway’s annual domestic emissions reached around 53 million tons in 2017, according to its statistical office, and the emissions from the oil and gas Norway sold abroad reached approximately 470 million tons in 2017, according to the UN Emission Gap Report. Norway’s minister of climate and environment, Syeinung Rotevatn, confirmed that the country’s commitments are based on territorial climate targets, further stating: “Emissions related to the consumption of exported oil and gas products are covered by the importers’ emission accounts and targets”. Rotevatn also emphasised that “Norway strongly supported a transition from the use and production of fossil energy to renewable energy”. Andrew Grant, the head of climate, energy and industry research at Carbon Tracker suggested that many producers rely economically on revenues from fossil fuels. In an interview with CNN, Grant stated: “Everyone has reasons why they think it should be them that continues producing [fossil fuels] and no one else. In the Middle East, it’s because it’s very low cost; in Canada, they talk about their human rights record; in Norway, they talk about the low carbon intensity of their production; in the UK, it’s because they’ve got mature fields of infrastructure.” Journey to Real Change The Global Systems Institute (GSI) maintains that the fundamental reason we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions, rather it is that many governments persist with energy strategies that prioritise fossil fuels. “To bring about real change, we must address complex issues involving politics, fake news, human behaviour, government subsidies, taxes, international trade agreements, human rights, lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, and disinformation campaigns.” – Professor Baldwin, GSI GSI researchers call for a “comprehensive global plan” to solve the climate crisis, with seven recommendations: End all government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry Ban all exploration for new oil / gas / coal reserves anywhere in the world Enforce a policy that no public money can be spent on fossil fuel infrastructure anywhere in the world Stop justifying fossil fuel use by employing carbon offset schemes Redirect most fossil fuel subsidies to targeted programmes for enabling the transition to a green energy economy Minimise reliance on future negative-emissions technologies; they should be the subject of research, development and potentially deployment, but the plan to solve the climate crisis should proceed on the premise that they will not work at-scale Trade deals: Do not buy products from nations that destroy rainforests in order to produce cheaper, greater quantities of meat and agricultural products for export. At the time of writing, Canada, Norway, and the UK all plan to keep producing fossil fuels, investing in new projects and explorations. Article on a similar topic: The Climate Crisis is Causing Wildfires Globally 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 recent findings from the UN’s Emissions Gap report and why the world’s most affluent need to change their ways. Photo by Leonardo Miranda The goal of the Paris Climate Agreement is to keep the global warming of the Earth to within two degrees of pre-industrial levels. According to a recently published UN report, however, we’re “absolutely not” on track to meet this goal – and the richest people on the planet could be responsible. At the end of 2020, the UN published its Emissions Gap Report, which explored the difference between the current global carbon emissions and the levels we need to have to stay with the targeted two degrees. Based on the current levels of emissions, the report predicts that the global temperature will exceed three degrees above the desired temperature within the century. Since 2010, global greenhouse gas emissions have been steadily growing by an average of 1.4% each year. In 2019, a record 59.1 giga-tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) was produced, a 2.6% increase from the year before. This was in large part a result of forest fires, which are becoming more frequent due to climate change. What’s particularly evident from the report, however, is that the most affluent are responsible for this increase in carbon emissions, with over half being produced by the top 10% of earners. The top 1% of the global population, or around 70 million people, produce twice as much as the bottom 50%, or 3.5 billion. This emission inequality has existed for decades, and for too long has remained unaddressed. Major Sources of Emissions The Gap Emissions Report states that private households are responsible for around two thirds of global emissions, with residential, transport and food sectors each contributing around 20% of “lifestyle emissions”. With larger homes and cars, and often multiple properties, the world’s top earners are the worst offenders. A 2020 study estimated the top 10% most affluent use a colossal 45% of the energy used globally for land transport. They also used 75% of the energy in air travel, which is one of the most energy-intensive industries, and so environmentally damaging that there are only seven countries in the world that cause more pollution. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 62% of energy production was still tied to the burning of fossil fuels in 2019. However, the UK, which has a similar standard of living to the US, has much lower per capita emissions. This difference is primarily due to the method of energy production: in the UK, around 60% of electricity is generated using nuclear or renewable processes, resulting in per capita emissions which are approximately one third of those in the USA. The UN Gap Emissions Report states that the top 1% of earners need to curb their emissions by 97%, a factor of 30, to make a difference. Cycling, walking or car-sharing instead of driving can help, as can taking the train instead of a short-haul domestic flight or improving housing energy efficiency. Nevertheless, stronger governmental action is needed to create a lasting change. Policy Change The ongoing Covid pandemic and numerous lockdowns throughout the world could be responsible for an emission reduction of up to 7%, as people travel less, factories close and less energy is consumed. Unfortunately, however, the pandemic-related reductions probably won’t slow climate change if the world returns to ‘normal’: it has been suggested that last year’s reductions account for only a 0.01°C reduction by 2050. The pandemic does, however, create an opportunity to re-evaluate our habits and priorities . “UNEP’s Emissions Gap report shows that a green pandemic recovery can take a huge slice out of greenhouse gas emissions and help slow climate change. I urge governments to back a green recovery in the next stage of COVID-19 fiscal interventions and raise significantly their climate ambitions in 2021.” – Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme The gap report suggests that the post-Covid recovery could be a chance to implement green policies, which could keep emissions on track to meet the two-degree warming cap. By implementing green policies in the recovery process, 2030 emissions could be massively reduced from the predicted 59 GtCO2e to 44 GtCO2e. These particular policies would help reduce the impact of air travel, as the use of new energy-efficient technology, in addition to finding alternatives to fossil fuels, is desperately needed in the aviation sector. “Governments must enable and encourage consumers to avoid high carbon consumption. Stronger action must include facilitating, encouraging and mandating changes in consumptive behaviour by the private sector and individuals.” – UN Emissions Gap Report 2020 Although people at home can do a lot to reduce their carbon contributions, the world elite are the ones that need to make some big lifestyle changes, and it’s down to those in charge to help them do it. Article on a similar topic: The Excessive Aviation Emissions of The Elite We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Emily Davies reports on how hedges extract mass amounts of carbon dioxide but need to be maintained. Photo by Nahil Naseer The agriculture industry is both a carbon sink and a source of emissions. Farms in Britain currently constitute a hefty 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions . However, only a tenth of this is actually carbon dioxide — which is considered to be  the worst greenhouse gas , despite methane being the most potent — and more than half being methane. Recently, a particular feature of farms has attracted a lot of attention: hedgerows. It’s something that rural residents see along roads and across swathes of fields and never think about – but why would they? It is unlikely that they know these hedgerows are home to over 2,000 species . It is even more unlikely that they know about the potential role of hedges in the pursuit of carbon neutrality. Hedgerows and Carbon Storage Hedges can capture carbon , generating what is called negative emissions . According to a study by the Environmental Research Letters , in scenarios where mitigating actions against global warming aren’t good enough, NET (negative emission technology) will need to be used to prevent devastating climate destruction by 2050. However, this is about the natural carbon-absorbing greenery, not about technology. For 20 years, one new hedgerow can store up to the equivalent of 800kg of carbon per year per km, according to Hedgelink . In addition to acting as a carbon store, hedges have many benefits for supporting biodiversity and regeneration, such as: Helping birds, bees and butterflies navigate across the landscape. Extracting nutrients and pollutants out of water Reducing flooding Proving a home to many species: birds, mice, and bees among others Prevents soil erosion by cutting down wind speed However, as they need to be expanded and maintained, this requires money and work: it’s not just about the quantity of hedgerows, but their quality too. In England, only 42% hedgerows are in good condition , according to the most recent research (bear in mind this is from 2007) and this is mainly down to cutting them too much, too frequently. One method of maintaining hedges is known as ‘ coppicing ', a method which also produces wood fuel, a renewable energy source used in biomass burners and boilers. In an interview with ITV , the National Farmers Union’s president also explained that the agriculture industry can't achieve carbon neutrality through hedges alone. Nevertheless, more hedges in the UK will help Britain move further towards its carbon net-zero target. Regulations and Strategies Organisations are aware of the importance of hedges: the UK Committee on Climate Change’s 2019 report advises that hedgerows should be extended by 40% as part of the plan to achieve carbon neutrality in the UK.  Natural England , taking into account the biodiversity value of hedges, has pushed for them to be extended across the country. The role of hedges isn’t revolutionary: in 1997 the ‘Hedgerows Regulations’ made removing hedgerows without permission from the Council in England and Wales illegal. More recently, the government included hedges in the ‘Biodiversity 2020’ strategy that builds on the Natural Environment White Paper and sets out biodiversity plans across the land, rivers, and sea. Therefore, it is clear steps are being taken to improve the negative emission capability of Britain’s hedges, but this cannot be treated as a magical fix-all solution. Hedgerows can help build towards the carbon net-zero target, but in combination with other sustainable practices, like wind farms and solar panels — and not planning for a new coal mine, for example. Article on a similar topic: The Future of Sustainable Farming in Post-Brexit Britain We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kira Lomas sheds light on the environmental impact of disposable menstrual products. Photo by Ava Sol With the threat of single-use plastic pervading society, more pressure is being placed on people to reconsider and alter their habits of consumption, including the products women use to control their periods. Research and studies have highlighted that the disposability, synthetic properties and harmful chemicals involved in traditional menstrual items pose significant environmental damage to our landfills and oceans – an issue that is forcing consumers to adopt sustainable alternatives. With this resurgence of eco-friendly period products, women are now following sustainable, menstrual trends using organic pads/tampons, period underwear, reusable pads and menstrual cups as innovative sources to fight period pollution. However, in today’s climate of economic instability, not everyone has the choice or means to have a sustainable period, with a global figure of 1.2 billion women experiencing deprivation in terms of access to basic sanitation and hygiene. In this case, sustainability is not necessarily at the forefront of everyone’s concerns; comfort, affordability and access to menstrual care demand more attention in many women’s lives. Managing Menstrual Waste Evolving from pre-20th Century methods of repurposing commonplace materials into pads to the disposable products that have come to saturate girl’s and women’s homes today, the feminine hygiene industry has undergone many design transformations, each one providing women a degree of practicality, decency and reliability in their period products. Consequently, these revolutionary developments have fostered a plastic culture that has come to dominate the mass market of period products. Supermarkets and local shops have become inundated with disposable sanitary products, demonstrating their widespread popularity and convenience amongst female customers and overall thriving nature of the industry. However, damaging elements of this trade have passed unchecked in the UK, including the internal manufacturing of period products, riddled with bleach, rayon and pesticides contributing to polluting the environment, as well as the staggering 200,000 tonnes of menstrual waste accumulated in landfills as a result of sanitary usage. The concern over controlling this issue has created a new demand for sustainable period products, in particular the menstrual cup. Designed with medical grade silicone, this alternative item can last up to 10 years, ensuring considerable reductions in waste and low environmental impact, and ultimately saving a woman approximately £128 a year. Other eco-friendly options growing in intrigue are ‘period pants’ and reusable pads, the former promising to hold up to 3-5 teaspoons of menstrual blood and the latter apparently more absorbent than disposable pads. A switch to these alternatives and making an active effort to practise period sustainability, while at first daunting and unusual compared to your normal routine, creates a significant, lasting and positive impact on the health of the planet. Crucially, emphasising the benefits of ‘greener periods’ also opens up a discussion around menstruating in general – something that has typically remained stigmatised and silenced around the world. Barriers to Plastic-Free Periods Although period sustainability is becoming more widely acknowledged, not everyone can engage with it. This is particularly prevalent in developing countries, plagued with cultural taboos, poor washing facilities in schools and homes and a lack of period education. Misconceptions on menstruation have alienating and traumatising effects on women, forced into a life of restrictions on cooking, work activities, washing standards etc., and constantly in fear of being seen to be menstruating due to lack of privacy and adequate cleaning spaces to manage their periods. “A life void of plastic is neither attainable, nor a top priority for all people with periods.” – Zainab Mahmood, ‘We can’t all have sustainable periods’ In these poorer countries, using sustainable period products like reusable cloth pads or menstrual cups are not always a viable solution as these methods, require running water and laundry facilities to maintain. There are also deeply embedded beliefs in some cultures across the world that using tampons can lead to loss of virginity by breaking the hymen, presenting challenges to using the menstrual cup as it goes against cultural norms. In these circumstances, having a sustainable period is not a priority – surviving and making use of what you have matters the most to these women. Plastic is a ubiquitous product; everyone uses it in their daily lifestyles, and periods are no exception. With women choosing to implement sustainable period products into their lives, the environmental cost of disposables will decrease, positively impacting the environmental state of the planet. However, every woman's experience of having a period is different, emphasising the importance of choosing the products that best suit your needs. Article on a similar topic: Women's Rights: The End of Tampon Tax We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Ziryan Aziz explores how reducing meat and dairy consumption is better for your body, your mind and the world. Photo by Lisa Fotios A new study from The Boston University School of Medicine has found that plant-based diets may be linked to a decreased risk of heart failure, as well as a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. The researchers point out that adopting diets such as the Mediterranean and DASH diets (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension), which involve a high intake of plant-based foods such as berries & leafy greens and a reduced consumption of animal products or foods with high saturated fats, can be a way to significantly reduce heart failure. To put this into perspective, 7.6 million Brits currently live with heart and circulatory diseases, and 450 people die every year. MIND Diets, Heart Failure & Cognitive Function Previous studies have shown that heart failure is linked to an increased risk in the later decline of cognitive function, as well as the development of neurological disorders such as Dementia. Changes to cardiac structure and function (known as ‘cardiac remodeling’) preceding symptoms of heart failure are also linked to overall poor cerebral health and cognitive function. The researchers found, however, that adopting plant-based diets like MIND (which combines Mediterranean and DASH diets), is linked to supporting the heart’s left ventricular function, which pumps oxygenated blood around the body. This study focused on MIND diet scores, using echocardiographic data from 2512 participants of the Framingham Heart Study (Offspring Cohort) to measure cardiac structure and function. They observed that dietary patterns based on foods understood to improve neurocognitive function also prevent cardiac remodeling. The author of the study, Vanessa Xanthakis, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and biostatistics at BUSM, and investigator for the Framingham Heart Study, concluded: “Our findings highlight the importance of adherence to the MIND diet for a better cardiovascular health and further reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease in the community” However, she has noted that due to busy modern-day schedules, adopting these diets may not always be easy, but people should nevertheless make a concerted effort to adhere to healthy eating to reduce risk of disease. Other Benefits to Plant-Based Diets Additional studies have shown a number of physiological and health benefits to increasing the proporition of plant-based foods in your diet. These benefits include a reduced risk of cancer, as shown in a study of 70,000 participants, as well as a reduced risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, and a reduction in cholesterol levels. One of the non-health reasons for reducing your intake of meat and dairy – which is increasingly popular amongst millennials and younger generations – is to reduce the environmental impact that livestock farming is having on the environment. Intensive animal agriculture requires an increasing amount of land, water and energy to rear livestock, not to mention often facilitating inhumane living and transportation conditions. A recent report from Chatham House concluded that animal farming is disproportionately responsible for biodiversity loss, and a reformation in the global food system is necessary to mitigate rising temperatures and climate change. Nevertheless, with 850,000 people in the UK currently living with dementia, and that number set to double by 2040, the recent study provides an insight into the evidence that changing our diets to incorporate more plant-based foods can have a long-term positive impact on our health and wellbeing. 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 £2.

Bronagh Loughlin shares news of the decline in the global fur industry, hastened by the pandemic. Photo by Wolfgang Hasselmann As luxury brands and retailers decide to ban fur from their fashion lines and stores, vegan alternatives have soared in popularity. According to Vogue, in 2019, vegan products increased by approximately 258% in both the US and the UK . One of the most notable places to ban the sale of the cruelly derived material is Los Angeles , known for its luxurious shopping district Beverly Hills. Other American cities have decided to ditch the material, as well as other countries across the globe such as Finland . This boycott has become a widespread movement, as consumers, nations and businesses partner up, recognising that faux fur options are better for the environment and have the additional benefit of preserving animals’ lives. 2020 saw an almost 50% decline in the value of fur apparel imported into the United States compared to the previous year. Global fur auctions which still take place virtually in countries such as Finland and Denmark are selling a very small percentage of the pelts, according to data from the United Nations International Trade Statistics Database . The North American Fur Auction , one of the last fur auctions in the U.S., has lost its lender and declared bankruptcy. It seems the demand for fur is wavering. The Impact of COVID-19 The use of animal furs and skins – generally that of chinchillas, minx and foxes – are declining in popularity as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been contributed to by the link between mink and outbreaks of coronavirus mutations , most notably in Denmark where the virus has swept through a quarter of the country’s 1000 mink farms, leading to the culling of around 10 million animals. Infections of COVID-19 in mink have been detected in Spain, France, Sweden, the US, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece , and as a result, they are all now planning to ban fur farming by March, 2021. The practice has been illegal across the UK since 2002, and bans on the sale of fur products here are now being considered. Animal Welfare campaigns against fur farming have shifted public opinion over the years. As a result, many fashion brands have ruled out the option of using fur and have switched to synthetic, faux fur alternatives which can be just as fashionable without the need for cruelty. “Fur farms are not only the cause of immense and unnecessary animal suffering; they are also ticking time bombs for deadly diseases”. – Dr Joana Swabe , the Humane Society Ethical Consumers Although European consumers have largely turned away from fur, Chinese customers have taken their place. In the 2000s, the Chinese market grew and fur fashion became popular in the country as it is seen to represent wealth. Asia now accounts for between 35 and 40% of fur sales , with South Korea being another key market. Nevertheless, global fur exports are continuously declining. In 2019, the value of all fur exports totalled €312 million , down from €317 million the year before. The fur farming industry employed just 1207 workers in 2019, and the number of animals bred for their skins also dropped to 3.1 million animals from 3.46 million the previous year. The future of the fur industry is unclear, but its decline is undeniable. Whether or not that means we are waving goodbye to the trade for good is yet to be seen. However, the fur industry is fighting back by promoting fur as a natural and sustainable option. It is important that we continue to work to ban fur farming, and thankfully many countries across the globe are doing exactly that. You may also like: The Hidden Cost of Cotton We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Emily Davies explores the revelations of a new study about how much CO2 the ocean absorbs. Photo by Thach Tran Until recently, it was believed that the oceans absorbed 25% of all CO2 emissions. A Nature Communications study has revealed they actually absorb twice as much — having significant implications. As the ocean has been removing more emissions from the atmosphere than previously thought, this means one of two things: either our CO2 emissions are much higher than we thought, or the carbon sinks on land (like plants and soil) are much smaller than scientists previously believed. The study discovered that the skin of the ocean (the very top layer) is colder than water a few meters deeper, changing previous estimates of carbon capture. Oceans cover 70% of Earth’s surface and were already known to be one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, but this study means the oceans are an even larger sink and are working much harder than we thought. The world’s oceans absorb CO2 emissions and drastically slow the global warming process; however, this comes with the cost of changing the water’s chemistry. Carbon Sinks So, what is a carbon sink, exactly? Put simply, a carbon sink takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it. There are both natural and artificial variants, but the largest sinks are natural, like plants, soil and the oceans. An example would be forests, which extract carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; for this reason, deforestation is depriving the planet of natural carbon extraction. Over the span of 40 years, a Europe-sized amount of forest has been cut down. Combined, all of the natural carbon sinks only absorb 50% of all human CO2 emissions at their current level, as — through burning fossil fuels like coal — we have gone way over what they can handle. How Oceans Store CO2 On the surface of oceans live microscopic algae called phytoplankton. They take in CO2 and release oxygen, and when they die, they become biological debris called ‘marine snow’. Marine snow consistently falls from the surface down to the deep sea, taking nutrients to the seafloor. This is called the biological pump. As the marine snow brings carbon down from the surface to store in the deep sea, the surface can then collect new carbon from the atmosphere. This study published by NOAA found that as CO2 emissions have increased, the ocean has absorbed more emissions to try and keep up. In the pre-industrial era, the oceans were actually a source of CO2, but have been forced to absorb mass amounts to slow down global warming, acting like a sponge in a quickly filling swimming pool. This doesn’t come freely. By taking in so much CO2, our oceans are becoming more acidic. A more acidic ocean negatively affects coral reefs and marine life like fish, which in turn affects the coastal economy and food security. Southern Ocean The ocean around Antarctica, in particular, effects the global warming process significantly. This is because the ocean is a key connector between the deep sea and the atmosphere in transferring heat and carbon. Deep sea water rises to the surface and brings calcium carbonate with it. This then dissolves and makes the ocean water more alkaline, subsequently raising the ocean’s capability of coping with the increasing CO2 levels. From the Southern Ocean, either currents can drag this alkaline water north, or plankton in the Southern Ocean can capture it to make protective shells, keeping it in this ocean. The activity of plankton in this one ocean has the potential to affect global warming, according to Phys Org. So, oceans are picking up the slack even more than we thought. Our reliance on damaging fossil fuels has forced the world’s oceans to work in overdrive, and whilst we know this, it is broadly overlooked. How long can the oceans continue to desperately scramble to reduce our contribution to global warming? As the seas become more and more acidic, the coral reefs will die and soon after, many marine species will too. However, recent promising strides in renewable energy will hopefully lead to a drastic decline in fossil fuels and reduce the destruction of marine ecosystems. Article on a similar topic: 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 £2.

Emily Davies evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of continuing to work remotely after the pandemic. Photo by Elly Fairytale When the pandemic hit, everyone had to adjust to a lot of changes very quickly. One of these changes was an upheaval in the way we work. For some job roles, this meant remote working: a swift change from the busy, social office environment with limited distractions to working at a desk on your laptop a lot of technical problems as people try to figure out Zoom and discover their internet is a nightmare. But what about after, when staff are allowed to go back to the office safely? How many will actually want to go back to the old ways? This article may help you to decide, if you’re facing this dilemma. Benefits 1. Money Working from home can save a lot of money. In England, 67% of people ordinarily drive to work and 10% take the train ; think of the money saved on  train tickets and petrol if this were to change permanently,  let alone the environmental impacts of taking so many cars off the road. Emissions plummeted in lockdown – working from home could keep them down. How many of you buy lunch out when at work? Think of all the money saved by eating at home. Instead, this money would be spent on home office equipment and better Wi-Fi, but it would almost certainly add up to less in the end. Working from home would benefit employers financially too. A survey of office managers found that they expect employees to work from home up to  36% more once the pandemic is over . Pre-pandemic, staff were only at their office  50-60% of the time  anyway, which was a waste of money. If more work from home, then employers can save money by downsizing office buildings. Several businesses are already doing this, with the  BBC selling  some of their buildings in London and opening offices around the country to diversify and localise content, but also to save money on real estate costs. Smaller offices outside urban centres are hoped to increase companies’ budgets, so the spaces will be of higher quality and more technologically advanced, and employees can have a better experience when in the office. Microsoft  and  Spotify  are also offering options for workers to work from home or at the office permanently, or a blend of the two; increased flexibility will give employees more of a voice in their working arrangements. Spotify has gone into detail about this new work-model, explaining a redesign of offices will incorporate quiet spaces, shared-desk spaces and more lounging areas, providing more space. 2. Measuring Success One criticism of working from home is employers not trusting their staff to actually work.  This is something they’ve had to adapt to over the pandemic — not being able to walk around the office to make sure everyone is busy. Trust also comes into play if the job role involves responsibilities that can’t be monitored on a system, and frequent calls to catch up with every employee may be an annoying waste of time. However, this is probably a good thing. Instead of measuring success by appearances of hardworking staff, measure it by results. In the same vein, promotions to manager positions will change. Instead of promoting people on their technical skills and proficiency, promotions will have to factor in valuable people skills and an ability to communicate online. Drawbacks 1. Social Inequality Of course, remote working isn’t feasible for everyone.  Studies show  that the maximum potential for working from home is mainly spread among highly-educated workers in specific industries and countries. Jobs that cannot be done remotely tend to have the highest potential for automation and low wages. If remote working among those who can do it takes hold, this will exaggerate social differences across careers.  A McKinsey & Co. study has found that over 20% of workers could work from home as effectively as they would at an office. If the majority of those who can work remotely did so, this would impact transportation and consumer spending patterns, possibly causing a knock-on effect in other sectors. 2. Mental Health While most people typically complain about getting up for work on Monday morning, many have felt lost without their usual routines and missed the typical workday during the pandemic. For many people, their colleagues are their primary social circles, and not being able to see them every day for a catch up has an impact on mental health. A call on Zoom just isn’t the same.  Additionally, without the strict 9-5 routines, it becomes harder to separate work from home, and many can face  difficulties of unwinding and switching off  from work. This can lead to higher levels of stress and difficulty sleeping. Conclusion Remote working is probably here to stay for some, at least for now. For those who can effectively work from home, bosses are increasingly likely to offer more flexibility, allowing more workers to remain at home at least some of the time. Fully remote working may have profound impacts on mental health and widen the social divide, but a hybrid of remote and office will allow people to feel happier, spend more time with their family and save money. 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.

Nicole Nadler reports on the impact of screen time in the last year since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Photo by Marta Wave One year ago, the world went into a lockdown – something you likely never thought you would experience. Some people dug out 1000-piece puzzles, others learned how to bake bread but almost everyone around the world spent more time than ever in front of a screen. Between Netflix binges, Zoom quiz nights with friends, Facetime calls to family members and working or schooling from home, screen time has been the backbone for many to get through this pandemic. Experts, however, are divided on its impact: many say that the increase in screen time is okay, while many others vehemently disagree. From Education to Entertainment At the beginning of April, UNICEF delcared that “it is time to recognize the internet as a critical tool for children’s access to learning, play, entertainment and social interaction. In short, they might have a lot to gain from spending time in the digital space.” The article differentiates the ways screen time is spent; gaming, for example, for many children and adults is not only for entertainment but can also be a social experience as well. CNN also reported early on in the pandemic on gaming, with the author calling her partner’s purchasing of a Nintendo Switch, “the best decision he could have made for us.” CNN cites Kristopher Alexander, a professor of video game design, broadcasting, & esports infrastructure at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, who said that “Video games can be a positive activity during this time of self distancing if we can take the time to discover the types of games that are best for you.” The New York Times also wrote early on about being pro-screen time during a pandemic. As journalist Nellie Bowles writes: “Carolyn Guss, a mother of two... was once very screen strict. Her children, 8 and 9 years old, did not own any devices. ‘My son taught himself iMovie, and now the kids make videos of themselves doing basic things — making Jell-O, shooting hoops — then cut it into pretty professional looking footage... then they screen share it with their friends on Zoom. These kids had no screen access before, and they leapfrogged me within days.’” Mental and Physical Health When there isn’t a proper balance however, negative effects may begin to take hold. After a year in this pandemic, CBS news reported in early February 2021 that the average screen time per person rose 60%, to more than 13 hours a day, noting that doctors report they are seeing “an uptick of vision issues related to computer use including eye strain, which can lead to headaches, frontal headaches, pain around the eyes and pain behind the eyes, as well as dry eyes and related problems.” However, UNICEF also acknowledged that children who already spent a significant amount of time on screens, a need for balance with other activities was mandatory: “A small group of children will inevitably encounter adverse experiences when they use digital technology, this is not directly related to the time they spend online. Rather, when considering such experiences, more attention should be paid to what children do online, the content they encounter, and their life environment and support networks in general.” – Daniel Kardefelt Winther, UNICEF Psychology Today continues on the same theme with an article published at the end of February 2021 stating, that there is evidence that people who increase time working on a computer, or looking at a mobile device, suffer from poorer health decisions and outcomes. “Even before the Covid-19 pandemic forced many of us to increase our screen time,” the article continues, “research indicated that most adults spend as much or more time looking at a screen as they do sleeping.” This report echoes UNICEF’s thought of the necessary balance behind screen time, and that while when it is overused in the name of fun or recreation it may not have an overtly negative reaction – but when the overuse of screen time is combined with the stress of work (or school) from home the results could have long term downward effects. “Triggered by some combination of increased screen time, ill-defined work hours, social isolation and family pressures, patients reported feeling that their physical condition deteriorated, as there [sic] ailment progressed to a state that threatened their emotional well-being and livelihood.” – Maureen O'Reilly-Landry Ph.D., Psychology Today Finding a Balance Screen time, no matter how you felt about it before the pandemic, has become a necessary evil for almost all of us, and CNN agrees. The article which was written in mid-February 2021 argues that, with an increase of people working from home and children adapting to virtual learning schedules, “devices are more central to our lives than ever.” Many of us will see a display the moment we wake up, and many will see one moments before we fall asleep. While Brandon Russell admits that it’s unavoidable, he reminds us that “It’s still important to re-evaluate your screen time and consider what steps you can take for a better balance.” In 2020, the screen dominated our lives, and it won’t go away in 2021 – but maybe we can find a way to incorporate it into a healthier routine. 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.

Kira Lomas investigates the protective and robust nature of mangrove forests aiding in preserving coastlines. Photo by Constant Loubier Situated between land and sea and found primarily in subtropical / tropical countries, mangrove forests are one of the most important, richest and biodiverse wetland ecosystems on the planet. Providing a range of significant socio-economic benefits to coastal communities and shoreline marine life, mangroves play a vital role in maintaining the environmental equilibrium. However, as a result of damaging coastal development practices as well as other factors, mangrove swamps are becoming increasingly threatened and overlooked by humans, consequently leading to their decline. Despite only covering a small percentage of land and sea, representing less than 1% of tropical forests, mangroves are not to be underestimated in terms of their resilience in protecting against coastal hazards. Formed of intricate clusters of trees and shrubs, these rare specimens are able to withstand severe weather conditions, making them one of the most adaptable wetland environments in the world. As a result of their long-term sustainability, there is an increasing need to preserve and promote the coastal services of mangroves. Mangroves as Coastal Mechanisms Typically identified by their tightly-packed prop roots submerged in but simultaneously growing above the water line, mangroves have a distinctive structure that enables them to thrive in highly concentrated salt water conditions. The rigidness of their roots, combined with an efficient filtration system that ensures the extraction of around 90% of the salt found in the surrounding seawater, means they are able to control the amount of excess sediment accumulating on the shore. These remarkable functions create a physical barrier against the adverse effects of storm surges, tsunamis and erosion, as well ensuring survival in water that is 100 times more saline than most other plants can tolerate. Not only do mangroves provide regulatory services, they also act as a refuge for small fish populations, shielding them from predators until they are able to migrate further out to sea. With more than 300,000 fish species congregating within the dense harbour of roots, marine life is heavily reliant on the high food availability, cooler water and higher oxygen content that mangroves provide. With this in mind, it is evident that conserving mangroves is critical for sustaining and replenishing the abundance of fish stock inhabiting the ocean. Along with protecting against sedimentation and adapting to rising sea levels, mangroves have been widely recognised as sequestering massive amounts of blue carbon - organic matter specific to coastal and marine ecosystems. These forms of coastal vegetation reduce carbon emissions through the slow decomposition rate of the waterlogged soil, contributing to mangroves being able to store up to four times more carbon than other tropical forests. If left undisturbed, these habitats have enormous potential to combat climate change, stabilise coastlines and facilitate fish breeding. Threats to Mangroves Despite providing a number of ecological and economic benefits, mangroves are undergoing a decline due to exploitation, degradation and lack of management. Shrimp farming for aquaculture is one of the biggest issues these habitats face today. Proponents of this trade build artificial lakes to replace wetlands, using pollutants such as chemicals and antibiotics to sustain the shrimps’ health - avaricious processes that have destructive and contaminating effects on mangrove forests. Coastal development is another huge-scale human activity affecting the maintenance of mangrove forests. The ever-increasing demand for beach lifestyles that attract tourists and create infrastructure such as hotels and marinas means that mangroves suffer the ill effects of the industrial pollutants that accompany this industry. Mangroves are also being degraded and lost due to deforestation at an alarming rate, disappearing at a global loss rate of 1-2% per year. Desired for their ability to produce dense, valuable wood that is resistant to decay and the impact of insects, mangroves are being exploited and used in non-sustainable ways for timber and charcoal production. With mangroves experiencing numerous threats, restoration projects only form part of the solution to ensuring the survival of this species. More effort needs to be directed into protecting and managing these life abundant plants in order to preserve the beauty of our shores. Article on a similar topic: Hedgerows Could Help Towards Carbon Net-Zero Target We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Martha Davies sheds light on some of the less-discussed concerning effects of climate change. Photo by Long Ma The threat of global warming has been hanging over us for decades, yet we have grown accustomed to the menacing shadows it casts. It is both an environmental and humanitarian emergency , and in order to fight it, it is vital that we understand the wide-ranging risks it poses. Temperatures may be climbing, but there are many other issues to consider. Scientists have warned, for example, that extreme weather events are trending upwards as a result of climate change. Devastating wildfires in California , record-breaking heatwaves in Sweden and increasingly alarming floods in Bangladesh are only adding to the burden of bitingly cold winters and scorching summers . Extreme Weather Temperature spikes are becoming more deadly , with huge numbers of extra deaths recorded in the 2018 UK heatwave and an estimated 7,000 people a year predicted to die of heat-related deaths by 2050. Meanwhile, climate change is increasing the risk and severity of droughts, which can be the most expensive weather-related emergencies . Evidence even suggests that extreme droughts were an impetus for the unrest that preceded the Syrian civil war; combined with precarious social and political conditions, extreme weather can be just the beginning of a lethal catastrophe.  ‘Extreme weather attribution studies’ are being carried out with growing urgency to assess the link between these weather patterns and human activity, and the results are frightening. The Met Office reports that nearly all of the 150 studies performed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) suggest human influence. It is clear there is a lot more to this crisis than rising global surface temperatures; nature may seem to be fighting us, but we are the real culprits in this battle, and we must work to majorly reduce our negative impact on the planet.  Shifting weather patterns have a disastrous effect on the agriculture industry . Heatwaves, droughts and storms can wipe out livestock and crop yields and hugely affect water supplies. As conditions become ever more unpredictable, farmers are struggling to cope. The damage of extreme weather is far-reaching; an estimated 80% of the agriculture sector in Honduras was annihilated by two Category 4 hurricanes last November, crippling the livelihoods of farmers across the country.  The Health Risks of Global Warming Our reliance on fossil fuels has caused critical levels of air pollution and smog . Levels of greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are continuing to climb , despite the pledge made by numerous countries to become ‘net zero’ by 2050 . But rising temperatures pose further risks. Warmer freshwater sources are more likely to be contaminated by bacteria, for example, and pandemics may become a regular threat since more animals are being forced to migrate due to weather changes, meaning that diseases are being transmitted to humans in new ways.  Climate Disasters and Mass Migration  In the wake of the catastrophes triggered by climate change , record-breaking numbers of people have also crossed borders in the hope of rebuilding their lives. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) reported that weather-related incidents - some linked to global warming - displaced nearly 24 million people in 2019. Such displacement is known as climate migration , and it can be observed across the world . Droughts and irregular rainfall have crippled the so-called Dry Corridor running from Southern Mexico to Costa Rica, decimating immense portions of agricultural land and causing severe food shortages . The World Bank predicts that around 143 million people within South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America will become climate migrants by 2050 if we do not take drastic action against climate change. Yet this is not simply an issue for far-off lands; many people are migrating from Mexico to America as extreme weather makes farming almost impossible . Meanwhile, people are becoming climate migrants within America itself as the coast of Louisiana is obliterated by erosion and wildfires displace millions across the country. Hidden Impacts on our Oceans Rising temperatures cause glaciers and ice sheets to melt , triggering a terrifying rise in sea levels . But sea level rise is also impacted because the oceans themselves are getting warmer , leading them to expand. Coral bleaching is a serious consequence of this, meaning the starvation and death of many coral reefs . Other sea creatures are at risk because the oceans absorb almost a third of manmade carbon dioxide emissions and have therefore become dangerously acidic . By refusing to face the reality of rising temperatures and the innumerable impacts of human-caused climate change , we are putting every one of the planet’s inhabitants at risk. It is time to face these dark clouds. They are no longer signs of ominous threats to come; instead they take the shape of real disasters occurring across the globe. The crisis isn’t on the horizon – it is already here. Article on a similar topic: The Climate Crisis is Causing Wildfires Globally 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.

Cat Cunningham explores how this ancient medicine-turned popular beverage might improve your health. Photo by Nathan Dumalo Green tea comes from the Camellia Sinensis plant and remains unprocessed, unlike black tea (one example of which being English breakfast tea) which is fermented to change the colour and flavour. As it is one of the least processed types of tea, it contains the most antioxidants and beneficial polyphenols. The origin of green tea goes back as far as 5000 years. It is thought to have been discovered in 2737 B.C. when the Chinese Emperor Shennong drank water that had a dead tea leaf boiled in it by mistake. The Emperor found the flavour to be very refreshing and as such, a new drink was born. To begin with, green tea was very expensive and only available to the highest tiers of Chinese society. It took until the 14th Century for tea to be enjoyed by the general public in China and the Far East, before travelling across to the West in the 19th Century. The popularity of green tea has increased in the last few decades, with many discoveries about its impressive health benefits. A brief disclaimer: we are not medical professionals, so please consult your doctor before making any significant adjustment to your diet. 1. High in Antioxidants Green tea is rich in catechins and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) - active antioxidants that are able to prevent and fight against cell damage. They form an important part of a healthy diet and are also known to protect against disease. 2. Boosts Brain Function Green tea contains the mental stimulant, caffeine. Caffeine increases the firing of neurons and the concentration of neurotransmitters like dopamine and norepinephrine by blocking the inhibitory neurotransmitter, adenosine. It has consistently been proven that in moderation, caffeine improves various aspects of brain function such as memory, mood, vigilance and reaction time. Green tea also contains the amino acid L-theanine which increases dopamine levels in the body, the activity of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA and the production of alpha waves in the brain which regulate mental alertness. The combination of caffeine and L-theanine improves brain function and provides a more stable, productive energy than other drinks containing caffeine such as coffee. Research has also suggested that the brain’s cognitive functions could be enhanced by green tea, a discovery that could be promising in the treatment of cognitive impairments associated with neuropsychiatric disorders such as dementia. 3. Heart Benefits A 2006 study on the benefits of green tea followed 40,000 Japanese adults between the ages of 40 and 79 for 11 years. The study concluded that green tea consumption can be associated with reduced mortality, including death from cardiovascular disease. The study found that those who drank at least 5 cups of tea a day had a lower risk of dying than those who only drank one cup. 4. Protects Against Cancer Research has suggested that green tea has an impact on the following types of cancer: breast, bladder, lung, prostate, ovarian, bowel, throat, skin and stomach. The National Cancer Institute have claimed that the polyphenols in tea have been shown to decrease tumour growth in laboratory and animal studies. It is thought that the high levels of polyphenols can kill cancer cells and stop them from growing. It has also been observed that in countries where green tea consumption is higher, cancer rates are often lower. However, there is no way to know for sure if this comes as a result of drinking green tea or other lifestyle factors. These findings are up for debate as other studies have not found that green tea can reduce cancer risk, and the amount of tea required for cancer-preventative effect varies in studies from 2-10 cups a day. 5. Treatment for Inflammatory Skin Diseases In 2007, a study found that green tea could potentially be used to treat skin disorders such as dandruff and psoriasis. An animal model was studied for inflammatory skin diseases, often characterised by inflammation and overproduction of skin cells. They found there was a slower growth of skin cells, as well as the presence of a gene that regulates the cell’s life cycles, in those treated with green tea. 6. Lowers Cholesterol and Blood Pressure The catechins in green tea can also lower cholesterol and blood pressure, helping to protect against the damage that a high-fat diet can cause. As you can see, green tea is thought to have a range of health benefits; however, some of the evidence is inconclusive. Historically, it has been used in traditional Indian and Chinese medicine for years, which may explain the basis for some of the health claims. The information in this article has come from the expertise of different expert sources rather than the author herself, but there remain some conflicting opinions as to the extent of the various health benefits outlined. Article on a similar topic: The Health Benefits of Turmeric 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.

Annie Grey explores the economic and ecological consequences of a continued decline of the shark population. Photo by Greg Jeanneau The number of oceanic sharks and rays worldwide has fallen by 71% since 1970, according to the latest research from Nature . The study finds that more than three-quarters of these oceanic species are now threatened with extinction. Of the 31 oceanic species of sharks and rays, 24 are currently vulnerable to extinction, and numbers of three shark species (the oceanic whitetip shark, the scalloped and the great hammerhead sharks) have declined so sharply that they are now classified as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The risk to marine species is primarily caused by overfishing , with a threefold increase in global fishing rates of sharks recorded since 1970. Sharks are targeted by both small and large fishing operations for meat and other products, including shark fins. Across the ocean, an estimated 75 million sharks are brutally killed each year for use of their fins in traditional soup dishes found in Chinese cuisine. Global action is needed immediately to stop shark populations collapsing, which would result in countless negative consequences for associated economic and ecological systems. Ecological Disaster As well as sharp falls in the numbers of oceanic sharks, previous research has recorded a universal loss of sharks on tropical reefs, upsetting the ecological balance of these delicate coral-dominated ecosystems. Many types of shark are important to Australia’s coastal ecosystems , including great whites and the critically endangered scalloped hammerhead which, like other sharks, are still legally fished in Australia. Sharks alter the food webs they are a part of, often keeping prey numbers balanced through the alteration of diversity, behaviours, diets and even the shapes of their prey (e.g., coral reef fishes). When sharks feed on the dominant prey in an area, they promote biodiversity among those species they eat. Remains are also left for other animals to scavenge on, creating another food source for the community. For these reasons, the food web dynamics can change as the predator population declines. Remarkably, some sharks are even having a positive impact on climate change mitigation. Research has shown that the presence of Tiger Sharks in Western Australian waters has caused dugongs and sea turtles to limit how much seagrass they eat. By preventing overgrazing, these carbon absorbing habitats can continue to take in CO2 and alleviate climate change. The overfishing of large sharks, the primary green turtle predators, could facilitate turtle populations growing beyond historical sizes and trigger detrimental ecosystem impacts , mirroring those on land when top predators were wiped out. Shark Ecotourism In addition to their ecological role, sharks also act as an important economic value for many local economies. Ecotourism is one of the fastest growing sectors in the tourism industry, thus encouraging locals to utilise natural resources in a sustainable manner and can promote conservation. Currently, shark ecotourism generates $314 million (approx. £225.47m) annually worldwide, which encompasses all forms of shark-watching activities. Surges in shark tourism are particularly evident in the Caribbean and Australia. However, shark ecotourism is both popular and controversial – there has been debate based on the risks to human safety, such as associating food with humans, and perceptions of behavioural shifts. Public awareness of sharks increases with documented shark bite incidents, rather than issues addressing conservation, which further exacerbates the perceived human risk. Annual figures for 2020 showed that 10 shark-bite deaths occurred globally, of which six were in Australian waters. The fatalities, while tragic, were likely down to chance, as the number of shark encounters was only slightly above average, as reported by the ISAF. Shark diving has local economic benefits and encourages conservation by creating public awareness, but it is argued that ecotourism also has the potential to affect species by altering their natural behaviours. It is important to assess the impact shark ecotourism has on their natural behaviours to determine whether it is detrimental to their health. With the oceans holding around 96.5% of all Earth’s water , sharks play an important role in its ecosystems. As threats from climate change begin to build, it’s even more vital to protect shark populations, rather than fearing them. Article on a similar topic: Marine Sanctuary to Protect an Area Triple the Size of the UK We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £2.

Annie Grey reports on the developments of the controversial policing bill and its implications for democracy. Photo by Francois Olwage More than 150 organisations warned ministers that the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, handing police tougher powers to crack down on protestors would be “an attack on some of the most fundamental rights of citizens”. The wide-ranging bill has come under fire over measures included , which was announced in the wake of mass demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion and the Black Lives Matter movement. Although Labour vowed to oppose, the bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons on March 16th. Aptly referred to as the “ anti-protest bill ”, the proposal would make it a crime to cause “serious annoyance or inconvenience” by taking part in a demonstration. One of the controversial measures included increases the maximum sentence for defacing a memorial from three months to ten years, which Labour have argued would allow someone convicted of vandalising a statue to be sentenced to a longer jail term than a rapist. The bill allows police to restrict protests if the noise they make has a “relevant impact” on people in their vicinity. Since making an impact on people nearby is the point of protests, this bill would give police excessive powers to silence demonstrations. If this wasn’t enough cause for concern, the proposed legislation also gives the home secretary the power to change the legal meaning of the term “serious disruption” by statutory instrument – effectively sidestepping parliament . In the future, if Home Secretary Priti Patel or one of her successors decides that a protest was legal, but they still wanted rid of it, they could simply unilaterally change the law. Surprisingly, Theresa May, who was responsible for rolling hostile environment policies as home secretary, cautioned her predecessor (Patel) to think twice about the bill which could infringe on our freedoms. Taken aback by the proposal, May stated : “It’s tempting when home secretary, to think that giving powers to the home secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we’re reasonable. But actually, future home secretaries may not be so reasonable” Reclaim the Streets As MPs began a two-day debate on the controversial legislation, hundreds of protesters crowded Parliament Square outside demanding freedom of speech and better protection for women. Amid an atmosphere charged by the police use of force at a vigil for murder victim Sarah Everard (March 13th), people gathered outside parliament (March 14th –15th) to make their voices heard, with police this time taking a hands-off approach . Demonstrators chanted “kill the bill” and the Metropolitan Police were again criticised for their intervention at the vigil, held on Clapham Common the day before, which led to calls for Metropolitan Police commissioner, Cressida Dick, to resign. Officers grabbed women standing on Clapham Common’s bandstand before taking them away while others at the vigil screamed and cried out. The shadow home secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, told MPs that the scenes from Clapham Common should be a “red warning signal” of the dangers of draconian measures in the bill. A member of Sisters Uncut, a feminist direct action group involved in the Clapham vigil, said : “The police are institutionally violent against women. Handing them more powers will increase violence against women. This bill must be stopped”. This follows the arrest of a serving Metropolitan police officer, later charged with kidnapping Sarah Everard from a London street as she walked home and then murdering her. Given that the event had been staged to decry violence against women, and that a police officer had been arrested in Sarah Everard’s case, women’s rights activists and lawmakers have condemned the heavy-handed policing witnessed. An investigation has been ordered into the policing of the vigil, as Dame Cressida Dick rejected calls to step down. The police said it had to act to safeguard public health during the coronavirus pandemic. Deepened Racial Inequality The bill marks the biggest widening of police powers to impose restrictions on public protest that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. Experts have warned that minorities and disadvantaged communities are likely to be affected the most by the policing bill. A coalition of criminal justice and race equality organisations have written to the prime minister warning that the government’s plans for policing and sentencing will further embed racial inequality in the criminal justice system. The bill contains a number of proposals which the government itself has conceded might have a disproportionate impact on BAME people in equality assessments. Grace Bradley, director of human rights group Liberty, highlighted that parts of the bill will “facilitate discrimination and undermine protest, which is the lifeblood of a democracy”, claiming: “They risk stifling dissent and making it harder for us to hold the powerful to account […] If enacted, these proposals would expose already marginalised communities to profiling and disproportionate police powers”. The government has justified this inequality as “a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of protecting the public”. However, in another official document published , the government admits there is “limited evidence that the combined set of measures will deter offenders long term or reduce overall crime” and therefore cannot be guaranteed to actually benefit society. The organisations called for ministers to withdraw elements of the bill it acknowledges will increase racial inequality and to launch a public consultation around the changes “as a matter of urgency” to avoid discrimination. The bill is also set to criminalise trespassing and roadside camps targeted against Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, allowing the seizure of vehicles, larger fines, and the potential for prison time. It could have serious implications for the LGBTQ+ community as well, who have already been forced to cancel a major trans rights protest in London, following threats from the police. At the time of writing (March 18th)., the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill progress has been delayed. According to the Labour MP Victims and Youth Justice Shadow Minister Peter Kyle, the bill committee has been ‘pulled’ and ‘won’t start until later in the year’ after the bill had its second reading in parliament. Protests against the bill have swept the country in the past couple of weeks, which Peter Kyle, MP for Hove and Portslade, who has been appointed to the bill committee, credits with the delay to the start of the committee. In the attack on free speech this delay comes as a small victory, further demonstrating the power of protest. 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 £2.

Jonny Rogers explores how the recent rise of Bitcoin is contributing to climate change, and why everyone should be concerned Photo by İsmail Enes Ayhan In less than a year, the price of Bitcoin has risen roughly tenfold, reaching a height of £36,320 per coin in mid-February to become the ninth most valuable asset in the world (surpassing even Facebook and Tesla). However, while more people, companies and banks are investing in cryptocurrency, there is a hidden cost to the growing Bitcoin mining industry: as its value continues to soar, so too will the amount of energy it consumes. According to research from the University of Cambridge, if the Bitcoin mining industry were considered an independent country, it would be the 28th most electricity-demanding nation in the world (requiring roughly as much as Argentina, Ukraine and Norway), with 129.22 TWh consumed every year. To put this in perspective, a study from December estimated that a single transaction of Bitcoin has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions, or over 51,000 hours of streaming YouTube videos. Why does it require so much energy? Computers connected to the cryptocurrency network are rewarded for solving complex mathematical puzzles. Although it could take years for a computer to receive a single Bitcoin, ‘miners’ have set up entire warehouses filled with a large number of powerful computers to increase this probability. There is, however, a maximum of 21 million Bitcoins that can be mined, though the increasing complexity of algorithms mean that only very advanced computers are now able to make mining profitable. As such, Bitcoin miners have a strong financial incentive to seek the cheapest sources of energy, which are often not renewable. Around 65% of Bitcoin mining occurs in China, where 66% of all electricity comes from coal plants (though this does not mean that foreign organisations are not harvesting the benefits). In addition, since Bitcoin is not tracked or controlled by any governmental body, it is impossible to determine what kind of energy is being used, and thereby hold anyone accountable. While there have been concerns about the sustainability of Bitcoin since its birth in 2009, this did not receive considerable attention until a price rally in 2017 pushed up its energy demands. As Charles Hoskinson, CEO of the cryptography firm IOHK, explains: “Bitcoin's energy consumption has more than quadrupled since the beginning of its last peak in 2017 and it is set to get worse because energy inefficiency is built into bitcoin's DNA [...] the more its price rises, the more competition there is for the currency and thus the more energy it consumes.” Who will pay the price? Non-renewable sources of energy produce an excess of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and thereby contribute to climate change, causing temperatures to rise, seasons to change, landscapes to collapse, wildfires, flooding, droughts and the displacement of millions of refugees. It is most likely, however, that those who benefit greatest from Bitcoin mining are least likely to face the immediate consequences of their unsustainable practises: as research has shown, climate change disproportionately impacts nations in developing countries (predominantly those in South America, Africa and South Asia), even though the long-term consequences are global. Elon Musk’s recent investment in Bitcoin has received criticism for undermining Tesla’s mission ‘to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy’ (to quote their website). As David Gerard has pointed out, Tesla received $1.5 billion in environmental subsidies in 2020, which it then spent on the energy-intensive Bitcoin industry. Given, furthermore, the lack of traceability in Bitcoin trading, it is possible that unsustainable organisations could reduce their claimed energy demands by hiding wealth in Bitcoin, leaving other nations to deal with the environmental consequences. Nevertheless, while some Bitcoin advocates such as Tyler Winklevoss believe that the environmental cost of cryptocurrency is justifiable, many have argued that it ought to be supported entirely by renewable energy. Another form of cryptocurrency, Ethereum, has announced plans to reduce its energy consumption by 99 percent; as founder Vitalik Buterin argues, unsustainable cryptocurrency also draws energy away from more valuable uses: “Even if you don’t believe that pollution and carbon dioxide are an issue [...] there are real consumers — real people — whose need for electricity is being displaced by this stuff.” Thankfully, however, renewable energy sources overtook fossil fuels to become the main source of electricity in Europe last year, and more nations are making commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If the growth of Bitcoin were to continue indefinitely – and not everyone is convinced that it will – the beneficiaries have a responsibility to ensure that the trading of cryptocurrency works to support, rather than detract from, efforts to make a more sustainable world for future generations. Article on a similar topic: Europe: Renewable Energy Sources Overtook Fossil Fuels in 2020 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.

Cat Cunningham explores how the national lockdowns have impacted the live entertainment industries in the UK, and how artists, actors and musicians have failed to receive support. Photo by Donald Tong As Covid spread throughout the country, theatres around the UK along with London’s West End were forced to close on the 16th of March , as Boris Johnson advised the nation that public venues should no longer be attended. This was the beginning of a frustrating year for the entertainment industry: while venues were not initially forced to close, many felt they had no other option, which lead to concerns there would be no financial protection for the industry. The Chief Executive of The Society of London Theatres (SOLT) and UK Theatre, Julian Bird, stated that the decision would have a severe impact on the 290,000 individuals working in the theatre industry and encouraged those who could afford to do so to donate the cost of their ticket to support the sector. Many other industry figures also voiced their concerns regarding the government’s statement, with calls for clarification on how long the measures would remain in place and how the industry would be supported during this time. Tom Kiehl, acting Chief Executive of UK Music, argued that the virus was having a catastrophic impact on the UK music industry , with jobs and businesses under threat. Days later, the UK’s first national lockdown was announced – and was set to last three-weeks. However, as the scale of the crisis emerged, the entertainment industry faced two important questions: how could it stay financially afloat and how would it stay visible and relevant? The Struggle to Stay Afloat Finding financial support proved to be a challenge for venues and freelancers alike. Just under a month into the UK’s first lockdown, 2 out of 3 theatres claimed that they would need more government assistance if the lockdown was to continue past the 31st of May. Calls for support continued as many theatres announced they were facing severe job losses or complete closures if they were not granted some form of funding. Freelancers also began to struggle as the weeks of lockdown stretched on, with many turning to emergency charitable funds to support themselves as hopes for a return to employment in the near future began to fade. After several weeks of lobbying from theatres, museums and galleries all on the brink of collapse, on the 6th of July, Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden announced a £1.57 billion emergency rescue package of loans and grants to help secure the future of Entertainment and Culture. He aimed to preserve the ‘Crown Jewels’ in the sector alongside local venues, however he acknowledged that this would not be enough to save every job. The news was widely welcomed by the industry, with leading figures stating that this funding was the lifeline that was needed . For many, it signalled the start of a recovery process and a move to start trying to produce theatre within the Covid guidelines and restrictions. Unfortunately for some theatres, the lifeline came too late, as they had already been forced to close their doors permanently or make staff redundant. Throughout 2020, a selection of stars including Andrew Lloyd Webber, Sir Ian McKellen, Vanessa Redgrave and Phoebe Waller-Bridge provided support to the industry through fundraising and lobbying the government , highlighting the value of the entertainment industry. Sam Mendes persuaded Netflix to donate £500,000 to his Theatre Artists Fund to support freelancers, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge set up the Theatre Community Fund with Olivia Coleman and £500,000 from Amazon Prime . Taking a Stand By the end of the summer, coronavirus had hit the Arts, Entertainment and Recreational industry the hardest, with more than half its workers on furlough and the highest number of companies at risk of collapse. Around 51% of workers in the industry were still on furlough in August, compared to 13% across all industries. Many arts professionals turned to protest as a means of highlighting the challenges the industry faced throughout the pandemic. One such example is the 400-strong ensemble of freelance musicians who formed a socially-distanced gathering outside Parliament to perform a short segment of Mars, from Holst’s The Planets before holding a two minute silence. The musicians played just 90 seconds of the piece , twenty percent, to reflect the fact that eligible freelancers could only claim 20% of their income from the government. This did not include other freelance musicians who had slipped through the gaps and had not been eligible for any grants under the government’s self-employed income support scheme. A poll by the Musicians’ Union found that 38% of musicians fell through gaps in government support, 34% considered leaving the industry and 88% felt the government had not done enough to support them. As a result of this protest, and others organised by different sections of the industry, the percentage of income that could be claimed was increased, providing support to those who still had no idea as to when they would be able to return to work. Adapting to a ‘New Normal’ Like many industries, the sector spent the summer and autumn months trying to adapt. Drive-in performances and outdoor events sprung up around the country and towards the end of 2020, a small number of inside theatres opened , with strict Covid measures and social distancing in place. The measures put in place appeared successful, as after speaking to 17 theatres and circus operators that reopened after the first lockdown, The Stage found that none had been contacted by NHS Test and Trace about potential spread of the virus. One such venue was the London Palladium , operated by Andrew Lloyd Webber’s LW Theatres. The theatre ran a pilot event over the summer that pioneered Covid-secure theatre going measures, many of which exceeded government guidance at the time. The venue was open from September until the start of the second lockdown in November and did not receive contact from NHS Test and Trace or customers to suggest that a coronavirus case might be linked to the theatre. These were all important achievements, as they proved that theatres and entertainment venues could be safe. As more restrictions began to be introduced again, theatre producers fought for venues to remain open, using evidence like this to argue that entertainment could be accessed safely. The Third National Lockdown: a Fatal Blow? As Christmas approached, some venues managed to reopen with Covid-secure pantomimes and Christmas shows set to be performed to socially-distanced audiences. However, on the 16th December, the industry was dealt another devastating blow as London was placed into Tier 3 , forcing theatres across London to cancel or postpone performances, and causing significant financial difficulties for venues, producers and thousands of industry workers. This followed the closure of many regional theatres who had already been placed in Tier 3 weeks before. As the third national lockdown came into force on the 6th of January 2021 , any theatres that weren’t already affected by the tier restrictions were forced to close again. As in previous lockdowns, many companies have been forced to return to online offerings , with rehearsals and live streamed performances being permitted within the restrictions. However, the latest lockdown has had a devastating impact on plans for live theatre in the spring, with multiple productions already starting to push back to their reopening plans. The lack of definitive end makes scheduling and promotion difficult, with several companies starting to think of multiple versions of their plans to allow for different scenarios and restrictions. Whilst there had been some optimism for Arts and Entertainment as we move into 2021, cancellations are already beginning to take place. The organisers of Glastonbury have recently confirmed the festival will not take place in 2021 over concerns regarding safety and insurance and it is expected that many others will follow . As cancellations continue and insurance and concerns over financing events and productions remain in place, it seems the industry still faces an uphill battle to return to its pre-Covid glory. Article on a similar topic: Insight: The Hidden Cost of Film Production We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Martha Davies shares the alarming reality that 1% of the world’s population are causing more than half of all aviation emissions through frequent flying Photo by Idin Ebrahimi A new study has revealed that just 1% of the world’s population were responsible for more than half of aviation emissions in 2018 , prompting fresh concerns about the changes necessary to curb the impact of flying on the climate crisis. Researchers at Linnaeus University in Sweden estimate that 11% of the world’s population took a flight in 2018 , and 4% travelled abroad. The most significant finding, however, is that a small group of so-called ‘super emitters’ fly more than 55,000 kilometres (about 34,000 miles) every year: this may include flying once a month, or taking three long haul flights annually. These individuals are more likely to live in wealthy countries such as the USA, Luxembourg, and Canada. The USA itself is responsible for more aviation emissions than ten other countries combined, including the UK, Germany, Australia, and Japan. It is worrying that such a small section of the world’s population can account for such a large portion of aviation emissions. Stefan Gössling , professor at Linnaeus University, said, "In a world that seeks to reduce carbon emissions, we need to look at those emitting the most." Aviation itself creates around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 1.9% of all greenhouse gas emissions . In order to protect the planet and attempt to limit the impact of climate change we must drastically decrease the aviation industry’s emissions and, in particular, try to reduce the number of flights taken by these individuals. The Future of Aviation The aviation industry has taken a huge blow during the coronavirus pandemic, with pas-senger numbers down 50% this year ; however, it is predicted that flight numbers will return to previous levels by 2024 . This means that the aviation industry will have to make an enormous effort to cut down flights in the long term in order to tackle carbon emissions. As the study suggests, those taking the most flights should naturally be held accountable, but Gössling states that strategies targeting these passengers - including a ‘frequent fliers levy’ , higher ticket prices , or fuel tax - would likely have a limited impact , since the costs would not be a major hindrance to such affluent individuals. Airlines have already pledged to reduce their emissions in a number of ways, but they have been met with heavy scepticism by experts. For example, the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation has been seen as a slow and inadequate response to the ever-increasing urgency of the climate crisis. The Need for Net-Zero It is clear that we need to act fast to reduce carbon emissions. For the most part, aviation executives are not ignorant of this. In fact, they have pledged to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050 in a bid to delay temperatures reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels . Such a change is predicted as early as 2030 , and will have catastrophic effects on the planet, including more extreme weather patterns and sea-level rise. Members of the UK Sustainable Aviation coalition have stated that the nation should be able to grow passenger numbers by 70% while gradually cutting down net emissions to zero. However, this will involve an almost unimaginable change in aviation practices as well as in energy and transportation itself . To begin to reduce the environmental impact of flying , we must think extremely carefully about the role of aviation in our everyday lives, and this means first addressing the choices made by ‘super emitters’ . You may also like: Zero-Emission Planes Could be Flying by 2035 We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Ziryan Aziz explores how Reddit, Wall street, and GameStop help us understand wealth inequality in the stock market. Photo by Chris Liverani For many of us, 2021 already hasn’t lived up to expectations. The first three months have already seen a military coup in Myanmar, a failed insurrection in the US, and new strains of Covid-19 spreading across the world – but January also saw a notable, but often misunderstood, financial battle between Redditors and Wall Street. In the summer of 2020, GameStop, a well-known, but failing videogame and electronic store in the US, had a share price of $4. By last December, this had risen to $20, which gradually increased over the following month to reach a peak of $483 in late January , despite having struggled due to the pandemic. WallStreetBets Responsibility is owed to a subgroup on the online forum Reddit, r/wallstreetbets , whose 1-million strong group of ‘degenerates’ (the official name for their members) are comprised of every-day people who play the stock market. After the sub-Reddit's founding member identified GameStop as an undervalued company, there was a giant push to buy shares. The store showed promise after online sales increased by 309% , and a new investor, Ryan Cohen , made the company’s future look promising. WallStreetBets members started buying up and holding onto their GameStop shares instead of selling them, which caused the share price to skyrocket. With new media attention on the story, more people were buying stocks in the company, which only further increased the share price. Even SpaceX founder Elon Musk tweeted a link to the Reddit group with the caption “Gamestonk!!” In only a matter of months, these ‘misfits’ were making ground-breaking waves in the financial world. The subreddit’s Discord chat was going crazy , the group was filled with members spamming “hold!”, “To the moon!”, and “buy, buy, buy!”, and it looked to many that there was no limit to how far the price could go. However, not everyone was so excited. By holding onto their shares, the Redditors were causing a ‘short squeeze’ for investors who had other ideas in mind; big hedge funds like Citeron Research and Melvin Capital Management were largely capitalising on ‘shorting’ the shares of Gamestop. ‘Shorting’ refers to the process by which investors bet that a company’s stock will become less valuable by selling shares that they do not own with the hope that they will be able to buy the share in the future at a lower price. For example, if I sold you some shares of my company for £10, I could buy the real shares from this company in the future for £4. This £6 profit, however, would only work if the share price decreases. The Rise of DIY Investors Whilst the the Redditors were rejoicing in seeing their beloved store return to its former glory (albeit only artificially), and further making some money in the process, this shift in share price was even more significant — they were fighting against the established investors and hedge funds, who were clocking losses in the billions , since the decrease in share prices never came and there is no cap on how much these hedge funds could lose. WallStreetBets members knew this, and many were motivated by their attempt to dethrone the large financial companies; eventually, even Citeron and Melvin would have to legally buy their GameStop shares to close any deals they had formally made. The rise of DIY investors is, for many, a sign that even young and inexperienced investors wield power in a system thought to be dominated by established financial titans. These Redditors have seemingly unnerved some on Wall Street . Robinhood — the trading app popular with WallStreetBets members — temporarily started limiting the number of shares that users could buy . Other trading platforms followed suit, though some platforms like Webbull and M1 claim they were forced to do so by their clearing house Apex. US politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ted Cruz have argued that these recent events expose systems of inequality in the stock market, pointing out that hedge funds do not have the same restrictions as those temporarily imposed by Robinhood. The Whitehouse has even said that it is monitoring the situation , and many feel that the slew of negative articles brandishing the Redditors as irresponsible, foolish, and part of some wider sign of social decay , only reaffirm the existent inequalities in the financial industry. The current wealth inequality in the US is often overlooked, which has been increasing since the 2008 recession. Average salaries for middle-class families have remained relatively stagnant when compared to the ever-rising earnings of the wealthiest individuals, who, especially during the pandemic , have seen massive increases in their earnings.Taking this into consideration, you might understand how some Redditors see their battle with Wall Street hedge funds as a class war, exposing how the perceived elites are able to decide who can and cannot make money, who is regulated and who is not, and even what ought to be considered illegal. As of early March, the share price of GameStop sits at around $137; most WallStreetBets members have begun selling off their shares, and it is predicted that the hsare price continue falling. Nevertheless, the ‘revolutionary spirit’ of the Reddit group still remains strong; as user u/conciselouis puts it “ROUND 2! We've refuelled, and now we're going to pluto” Article on a similar topic: The Earnings of the Elite: 120 Times More Than Workers 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.

Kate Byng-Hall shares her thoughts as women’s lack of safety on the streets is marked by the tragic murder of Sarah Everard. Photo by Erik Mclean Disclaimer: The views expressed and experiences shared within this article are entirely the author’s own and cannot be attributed to Tru. as a whole. If you’re a woman, you know what it’s like to feel unsafe by yourself in public. This collective experience has made the recent kidnap and murder of 33-year-old Sarah Everard while walking home near Clapham Common on March 3rd all the more tragic, and has affected many of us deeply. The saddening (but unfortunately not shocking) statistic going round is that 97% of British women aged 18-24 have experienced sexual harassment, and 80% of women of all ages have suffered harassment in public. The general feeling among young women is a heart-breaking and unnerving one – Sarah could have been any of us. A Universal Experience I was first catcalled by a group of men leaning out of a car on the way home from school when I was 13. It was about 3pm and I was wearing my uniform. I remember my heart thumping for the rest of my walk home, concerned that they might’ve somehow followed me and were going to pull up beside me at any moment, and simultaneously disgusted that a group of lads had shouted obscenities at a young girl in her school uniform. This story might sound shocking considering my age, but research has shown that the majority of women globally first experience sexual harassment on the street between the age of 11 and 17 , and after that first time, most of us experience it pretty regularly. It’s impossible to escape. Some people struggle to conceptualise why it’s so wrong to shout or stare at women and girls on the street, but this must be telling: it’s highly threatening and scary, and makes us wary of our presence in public at all times. And it’s definitely not a compliment. It makes us scared that it could lead to something far more sinister. As women, we are constantly aware of any threat there may be to our safety in public, even in broad daylight. We’ve been conditioned to prevent sexual harassment or violence against us since we were girls, but it’s time boys and men were educated too – sexual harassment is a problem for all of us. W hat Men Can Do When women are walking alone, especially at night, we often take precautions to stay safe like taking a detour to remain in well-lit areas, visibly staying on the phone, carrying our keys as a potential weapon and wearing comfortable shoes in case we need to run from an attacker. However, a key way for men to support women so we don’t have to feel so wary is to ensure we feel as safe as possible in their presence. Here are some tips for a man wanting to make a woman feel confidence in their safety: Not approaching her, even politely Not blocking alleyways or underpasses Crossing the street away from her Non-threateningly overtaking her so she doesn’t feel followed Engaging in a phone call so he’s conspicuous Offering to accompany a female friend walking somewhere at night, especially if she asks, even if he would feel safe taking the same journey Intervening in situations in which it appears a woman may be in danger Calling out other men on discourses implying violence against women, even if they’re joking, and telling them to stop if they catcall Talking with female family members and family on their experiences (if they’re comfortable discussing it). This isn’t to say that men cannot experience sexual harassment too. In fact, a 2018 BBC survey found that 20% of men have experienced harassment, ranging from inappropriate comments to assault, but 79% of male victims keep silent about it: many, unfortunately, feel that it is their responsibility to deal with the inappropriate behaviour on their own. The shame around this experience is evident here, and this is not always any easier for men to deal with than women. The main difference which must be recognised is that most women are hyper-aware of the threat of sexual assault against us at practically all times, while most men seemingly become aware of it when they become victims themselves. This does not belittle male experiences, it merely highlights how wide-ranging female fear is, and how crippling the experience of our gender making us inherently vulnerable can be. Men need to speak up about the issue of sexual harassment and violence – if women are the only ones voicing their concern, it doesn’t help us feel any more confident that our struggle is being taken seriously by those who must help prevent it, nor does it help men feel less ashamed about experiencing it themselves. Structural Changes One of the most shocking elements of Sarah’s case is that the suspect in her murder, Wayne Couzens, is a police officer – one of the very people meant to protect us. And further, that crime reports were filed of him exposing himself in McDonald’s twice just three days before her disappearance; a report is currently ongoing as to whether the incidents were dealt with using sufficient severity. Here, the police seem to have failed in detecting an individual who was a potential threat to women. The police are under further scrutiny surrounding their response to a peaceful vigil held on Clapham Common in Sarah’s memory on March 13th. The Reclaim These Streets event was initially cancelled due to lockdown breaches, despite organisers’ proposals to make it Covid-safe, but hundreds of people (mostly women) still flocked to her memorial on the Common at 9:30pm to mark the last time she was seen alive ten days prior. The crowd organised without incident and stood in an orderly manner to pay their respects and listen to guest speakers, but some of the police in attendance proceeded to tackle some women to the ground, handcuffing them and forcibly removing them from the Common. As a result, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, has been accused of allowing actions which oppressed women and made them feel unsafe in public in a sick form of irony, with many calling for her to resign. She has since responded by saying she will not step down because the officers acted “quite rightly” considering the vigil was an “unlawful gathering” which posed “a considerable risk to people's health”. The Home Secretary Priti Patel has called for an independent investigation into the Met's handling of the event, with Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn calling the police’s actions “unacceptable” . Some are taking the incident as a sign that the police and its key decision-makers see people speaking up about sexual assault and violence against women as unjustified, despite the fact that the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Human Rights Act . It seems evident that the issue of women’s public safety needs to be given more attention and credence within the deepest corners of the state as well as of the population’s general consciousness. Now is a scary time to be a woman, and women are not the ones who need to change that. Article on a similar topic: Women’s Rights: The End of Tampon Tax 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.

Nicole Nadler reports on the developing story following over 2,500 cattle that are currently stuck at sea. Photo by Ralph (Ravi) Kayden In December 2020, two livestock ships, Karim Allah and Elbeik , left Spain with a combined total of 2,671 cattle on board. Originally, they were intended for Turkey, but there was a suspected outbreak of a bovine disease called Bluetongue onboard (a noncontagious, insect-borne viral disease which affects mammals but not humans), so the ships were refused entry. Since then, Elbeik is still at sea, while Spain’s High Court of Justice of Madrid has ruled that the inhabitants of Karim Allah will be destroyed despite activists’ efforts to gain a suspension of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s slaughter order. The Timeline December 2020 On 18 December, Elbeik departed from Tarragona in Spain, and Karim Allah from Cartagena. Both ships were headed for Turkey, with Elbeik arriving in Derince in Turkey on 29th December, and Karim Allah arrived in İskenderun on 27th December. However, upon arrival, both ships were blocked from docking by Turkish authorities who had suspended any live imports from Spain. Despite the fact that the Spanish government has stated that the cattle left Spain with clean veterinarian certificates, the Turkish government made the call after an outbreak of the insect-borne bluetongue disease was found in Huesca , a Spanish province. January 2021 On 1 January, both ships departed from Turkey, headed for Tripoli in Libya, with Karim Allah arriving on 6th January and Elbeik on 25th January. Again, both ships were turned away within a few days by Libyan authorities. Then, going their separate ways, Karim Allah reached the Italian port of Augusta on 27th January and was again turned away after 48 hours. February 2021 On 1st February, Elbiek arrived in Alexandria, Egypt, but left only three days later, heading to the coast of Northern Cyprus and arriving on 19th February. On that same day, Karim Allah arrived near Cagliari, Sardinia and a few days later returned to its original port at Cartagena. March 2021 On 5 March, it was reported that the 864 surviving animals out of the original 895 who were onboard of the Karim Allah will be slaughtered at the Port of Escombreras in Cartagena. The most recent reports from 9th March stated that Elbeik was still drifting through the Mediterranean Sea. Due to poor conditions compounded by the long journey and the fact that the ship is full of animals, leaving very little room for movement, over 50 cattle have already died. Recently, the ship docked in Crete to acquire supplies for the animals, but for now, it is waiting to hear from local authorities as to what will happen with the animals. So, Who is Responsible? It seems that no one wants to claim ownership of the situation. According to a spokesperson for Spain’s Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, “[it has] nothing to do with the actions of the Spanish administration”. The exporter for Karim Allah also eschews responsibility and Libya claims the same, saying it was not responsible as the cattle did not alight in the country. “It is imperative that the Spanish Government investigate who is ultimately responsible for this tragedy and hold them to account. My heart breaks for all those animals who have already died and for those who remain trapped on these ships. To ensure animals no longer needlessly suffer on these unregulated journeys, the export of live animals must be immediately banned.” - Sharon Núñez , President of Animal Equality 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 £2.

Shaun Britton explores some preventative alternatives to conventional medicines. Photo by Anshu A A Michigan hospital recently announced plans to give plant-based cooking demonstrations , in an effort to spread the news that a plant-based diet can prevent and even aid common diseases and conditions. Much discussion has taken place in recent years regarding our approach to food and the impact it has on our health, including how many of our most prominent diseases and health issues may stem from what we put on our plates. One such is person is Dr Michael Klaper. In his fascinating Tedx talk , Dr Klaper describes how pro inflammatory acid, carcinogens, hormones and antibiotics are in a typical day of the western diet, and states that a plant based diet can cure many serious conditions such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and atherosclerosis. Follow The Money: Drugs and Diet Why then, with this information, is a plant based diet not being more widely advised, and why are so many people still continuing to eat meat? Firstly, according to Dr John McDougall, a prominent physician, one of the key reasons could simply be profits. Speaking in an interview with Plant Based News , he says, of the ‘big food’ industries: “they have fought with every dollar, every lobbyist, every advertisement, every lie, everything they could gather together to ensure they didn't follow in the footsteps of big tobacco” He also describes how the profitable route in many medical industries is not suggesting a new diet but in manufacture of medicines and current medical practices: “Cash is king” Leading the public down a particular commercial avenue is not new, neither is the effort to provide a scientific basis for that approach to the consumer. Many industries have used scientific research groups to conduct studies or reports to bolster their claims in the media, or to seek to confront claims that may cast their products unfavourably. In 2015, a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that diets where meat and dairy where the main source of saturated fat had the best level of good cholesterol. Not only did the study only use 14 people, it was also funded by the Dairy Research Institute and the Danish Dairy Research Foundation . A letter to the editor of the journal criticised the study saying that the experiments were designed so the conclusion could be drawn. Greater Responsibility Whilst the nobility, skill and dedication of those in the medical profession can never be understated, neither can the influence of big food industries on our health, whose prime motivation is profit. That motivation taints the information we receive, and the advice we are given. ‘Big’ industries responsible for climate change, environmental destruction and waning health, rely on the consumer to continue. Such companies could be likened to a machine that only runs when we are pedalling to power it. Perhaps the best way to stop the machine, is to get off it. Article on a similar topic: The Health Benefits of Turmeric 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.

Kira Lomas investigates how the restoration and protection of peatlands is a vital component in the fight against climate change. Photo by Nils Leonhardt Large empty areas of partially decomposed plant matter are not the first sort of environment most people's minds would go to when imagining the forefront of climate change mitigation. However, recently, more and more research has gone into why this kind of ecosystem, known as peatlands, could be a game-changer in the fight against climate change. A study conducted in 2015 found that, despite peatlands covering just 3% of Earth’s land, they store more than a third of all the carbon stock contained within the Earth's soil. Given that the peat coverage in the UK is estimated to be 10% , much higher than the global average, we have a particular responsibility to conserve and regenerate our peatlands. The Current State of UK Peatlands Currently, 80% of UK peatlands have been damaged or affected to some degree. Usually thriving in wetland environments, peat is a highly effective carbon sink - meaning that it naturally stores carbon and prevents the greenhouse gas from entering our atmosphere. However, when that process is disrupted due to human activities such as agriculture, burning, and draining , peatlands are disturbed and the peat itself is removed, releasing carbon into the atmosphere and contributing to one of the most prominent issues of our time – climate change. To understand how vulnerable and unappreciated our peatlands are today, it is important to know what they are being used for and how these practices are resulting in their decline. From an agricultural perspective, peatlands are suffering repeatedly due to overgrazing and trampling by high populations of livestock, causing long term damage to the land surface, and thus stunting the thriving and growth of the vegetation. Another negative agricultural impact occurring is drainage, which has several implications like increased risk of flooding and fires , both adding to the overall environmental and socio-ethical costs of maintaining the land. Peatlands’ Positive Impact As the threat of climate change becomes more severe, researchers and governments have identified peatlands as ideal targets for stopping emissions , with Scotland being one of the leading countries in championing this environmental effort. Covering more than 20% of the land surface of the country, it is evident that peatlands are a vital part of Scotland's ecosystems. One prominent expanse of land in Scotland dedicated to the conservation of its peatlands is the Flow Country, with its peat bogs alone storing about 400 million tonnes of carbon – an enormous carbon store that would be disastrous to the planet if it happened to be released. Senior Conservation scientists recognise this peatland as a future component to help fight climate change, emphasising its potential to win world heritage status and become a leading example for peatland management. Overall, the degradation of peatlands in the UK is triggering an ecological reverse into carbon sources; they are emitting rather than absorbing the earth’s carbon, thus posing a real threat to the UK’s carbon footprint. By understanding the significance of restoring peatlands and the valuable services they provide society, the UK will become a step closer to reaching its target of zero net emissions and ensuring the fight against climate change continues, strengthening our environmental future. S imilar: Arctic Permafrost is Melting: What it Means for the Planet 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 Government’s proposed ‘pay rise’ for health workers in the midst of the pandemic. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona Everyday, NHS staff across the UK are putting their health and wellbeing on the line to provide care in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Yet, in response to their lifesaving work over the last year, the government plans to give health workers a pay rise of 1% . The move has been met by widespread criticism from nurses and supporting unions, who branded it an insult to those who have been at the forefront of the coronavirus pandemic over the past 12 months. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN), who have called for a 12.5% pay increase for nurses, said that a 1% pay rise would amount to only an extra £3.50 a week in take home pay for an experienced nurse. According to the Labour opposition, when taking into account an inflation forecast of 1.5 percent, this amounts to a pay cut in practise. Labour said the proposal goes against a government ‘promise’ made last year to give NHS workers a 2.8% pay rise . Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the chair of council at the British Medical Association, said : “This comes as a kick in the teeth after a decade in which doctors have experienced real-term pay cuts of up to 30% and in the same week as the chancellor [Rishi Sunak] has announced a huge increase in the taxation on doctor’s pensions that will leave virtually all doctors worse off” NHS Providers, which speaks for hospital trusts in England, said the 1% rise risked encouraging even more staff to quit the service – which will only worsen the already present staffing issues. This follows reports from 2020 that over 1,000 doctors planned to quit the NHS in the next three years due to disappointment with the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and frustrations around pay. As RCN Chief Executive Dame Donna Kinnair, has said : “Nursing staff would feel they are being punished and made to pay for the cost of the pandemic. It is a political decision to underfund and undervalue nursing staff”. An industrial action fund of £35 million was immediately set up by RCN leaders, should its members wish to go on strike. Political Failure Matt Hancock, the health secretary, had previously hinted that NHS staff would only get a small rise next year, saying that its size should be determined by “affordability”. Mental Health Minister, Nadine Dorries, defended the offer stating that “no other public sector employee is receiving a pay rise” and that 1 percent was “the most we think we can afford”. Listing “affordability” as the reason behind the decision could be considered counterproductive, due to the sufficient amount of public funds ‘wasted’ in the last year due to government mismanagement. It was revealed that the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, received a pay rise of at least £40,000 in the year before leaving Downing Street. The NHS Test and Trace system, run by the Conservative peer, Dido Harding , has so far received £22 billion despite being inundated with problems since it was launched on 28 May 2020. Tory donors, Randox Laboratories, were awarded a £133 million Covid-19 testing contract ; subsequently, 750,000 of the test kits were ordered to be withdrawn due to safety issues . Officials paid more than £5 million in consultancy fees to companies with close links to ministers and the Conservative Party. The government spent £364 million on contracts to produce coveralls for the NHS. The government received just over 430,000 coveralls for this cost, at £840 per unit . Rishi Sunak’s Job Retention Bonus scheme includes, by the Chancellor’s own admission , “dead weight” costs. Labour’s analysis puts the potential cost of handing this bonus to firms who would have retained staff anyway at £2.6 billion. Hancock stated that it was “just a coincidence” that around £2 billion worth of contracts were handed by his Health Department to firms linked with Tory party members or donors. The government was found to have acted “unlawfully” by high court judges , due to a failure to be open about the awards of Covid-related contracts worth billions of pounds. Shadow Chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, claimed that the Conservatives wasted £2.3 billion on contracts that didn’t deliver throughout the course of the pandemic. This equates to the salary costs of : 41k teachers, 55k police officers, 56k firefighters, 64k nurses, and 66k social workers. Broken Pledges Given the proven “unlawful” acts of officials throughout the pandemic, it comes as no surprise that the government has found itself scrambling to defend a wage increase for NHS workers, which critics have described as an “insult”. The NHS service as a whole faces future uncertainty, as NHS bosses claim the Chancellor has broken his pledge to give the NHS “whatever it takes” to fight Covid-19. This comes after Sunak did not increase the service’s core funding in the March budget . The budget failed to mention any significant additional funding for the NHS to cope with the impact of Covid-19 or ensure the sustainability of the NHS. NHS experts say that it has been left with too little money to properly tackle the massive backlog of surgery postponed during the pandemic’s first and second waves, or to expand mental health care for the significantly increased number of people with psychological problems. Urgent action is required to rectify years of underinvestment in public health and social care. Unison maintains that an earlier and more significant pay rise for all NHS staff is the right thing to do – and not just to thank health workers for everything they’ve given to provide care during this crisis, but to keep hardworking staff in the NHS for years to come. The Department of Health and Social Care has submitted its proposal to the NHS pay review body, which will decide in May [2021] how much of a salary uplift the vast majority of NHS staff across the UK should get in 2021-22. However, the proposed increase has to be approved by the NHS Pay Review Body before taking effect. Article on a similar topic: Peace to Pandemic: NHS Deserves More Than Applause 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.

Jennifer McDowall explains how global warming is causing wildfires to last longer and burn more intensely. Photo by Alfred Kenneally The uncontrolled burning of a wild landscape, also known as a wildfire , is a global phenomenon ; there is always somewhere in the world that is burning . However, the frequency and intensity of these fires is increasing, a fact that has been linked to the use of fossil fuels and global warming . Rising temperatures are causing droughts and early thaws , which in turn result in drier soil and vegetation, which are more likely to burn. Other weather factors such as humidity , length of intervals without rain and wind speed can also increase not only the likelihood of igniting a fire, but the length of a wildfire season and how large an area will burn . In 2020, one of the hottest years on record , over four million acres (16,187km2) of land burned in California; across the world each year, an average of 3.5 million km2 is destroyed by wildfires. In recent years, the US States Oregon and California , as well as the Arctic Circle , have been particularly affected; and in Australia, climate change has increased the likelihood of fires by 30% . Climate Change and Wildfires A study published in 2020 showed that in California, the amount of autumn days with ‘fire weather’ are twice as frequent now than they were in the 1980’s. Fire weather days exhibit increased temperatures together with decreased precipitation and have been shown to coincide with extreme fire events . As global warming continues to increase, so too will the number of fire weather days in these vulnerable areas, unless carbon emissions can be reduced and climate change slowed. To make matters worse, the Santa Ana winds that fan the flames of Californian wildfires are set to become even drier by 2050 . As around half of the increase observed in the total area affected by forest fire since the 1980’s is a result of the increased drying of fuel, this will most likely exacerbate the problem. An increase in weather conditions conducive to wildfires means seasons are now 53% more likely to be longer than average, and the areas experiencing longer seasons has increased by 108% since 1979. Seasons in 2013 were estimated to be 19% longer longer than those in 1979 for more than a quarter of the earths vegetated surface. In South America, for example, seasons are now on average 33 days longer than in 1979. The wildfires themselves also produce significant amounts of greenhouse gas , thereby contributing further to climate change. The amount of CO2 released can reach more than half the emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels each year. As our climate continues to change and become drier, conditions amenable to wildfires will increase . The longer seasons observed in recent years are also reducing the ability of the soil to absorb carbon and further increasing the carbon released into the atmosphere. Controlled Burns Although wildfires can occur naturally, ignited by lightning or lava , the majority are started by people . In the US alone, up to 90% of wildfires are ignited by humans; this includes accidents, arson and controlled or prescribed burns . Prescribed burns are positive ways to manage forests and grasslands: areas are burned in a safe manner so that the amount of fuel available to burn uncontrollably is reduced. The benefits of smaller natural wildfires, such as an improvement in soil fertility and an increase in resistance to both drought and fire , can be achieved by controlled burns. Many areas perform fire suppression, i.e. putting a fire out as soon as it starts, due to the increasing number of housing developments in the fire-prone Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), or the area between unoccupied wild land and built-up areas. Although fire suppression sounds like a good thing, it actually contributes to the severity of larger wildfires as it results in an accumulation of dry fuel . Practising controlled burns helps get rid of flammable debris and reduces fuel for future fires . Although more housing on the WUI and fire suppression increase the risk and severity of wildfires, these changes are not enough to account for the increase in wildfires seen today. Nevertheless, while fire management can play a role in reducing the occurrence and severity of wildfires, it is global warming that really needs to be addressed. Fighting climate change and reducing wildfires could prevent numerous deaths, poor air quality-related health issues, homelessness resulting from damage or loss of property, and interruption to both business and education due to closures of public infrastructure – in addition to the deaths of billions of animals . Article on a similar topic: Australia: Wildfire Blazes Through Fraser Island Heritage Site 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.

Jonny Rogers reports on an alarming study that shows how global agriculture is driving thousands of species towards extinction, and how we can change our habits to help. Photo by Reka Biro-Horvath Animal species are becoming extinct at a higher rate than any point in the past 10 million years ; and, of the 28 thousand species currently at risk of extinction, agriculture alone poses the biggest threat to the survival of 24 thousand (or 86%), according to a new report from Chatham House . Whilst policies and economic structures have promised a greater variety of food at lower costs to consumers, this has resulted in an increased dependence on fertilisers and pesticides (which are toxic to ingest) and excessive use of energy, land and water. With the global population rising at an exponential rate, more people have come to expect cheaper food, which thereby increases the demand for unsustainable agriculture and lowers the standard of produce. Intensified agricultural production degrades soils and ecosystems, while practices such as monocropping or heavy tilling destroys wildlife habitats. Furthermore, taking into account the systems of production, transportation, storage and distribution used, the global food system is responsible for at least a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions , rendering it one of the most significant contributors to climate change. Waste, Obesity and Malnutrition According to another report from the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization , we produce more food than we need, and as much as a third of this (or 1.3 billion tons) is lost, wasted or thrown away. At the same time, a report from 2020 claimed that around 750 million (or 10 percent of the world’s population) was exposed to severe levels of food insecurity, while 2 billion did not have regular access to ‘safe, nutritious and sufficient’ food. Continuing at the current rate, the number of people affected by hunger will surpass 840 million people by 2030 , even without taking into consideration the impact of Covid-19 – this alone could add over 100 million to the total number of undernourished individuals. In December, the international charity UNICEF was called to support projects to feed children in the UK for the first time in its 74-year history. Simultaneously, we have been hit by another epidemic : obesity. Nearly a third of Britons are now obese , having doubled since the beginning of the 21st century, though the responsibility can’t be placed entirely on consumers. Our food environment, as Caroline Cerny of the Obesity Health Alliance says , has “become increasingly flooded with calorific and sugary processed food” over the past 20 years, while countless money is poured into advertising for processed snacks, fast food chains and takeaways. Globally, obesity affects both developed and developing countries, with an estimated 115 million people suffering from obesity-related issues (diseases, diabetes, cancers, and stroke). Tim Benton, Professor of population ecology at the University of Leeds, explained to The Guardian : “Whether you look at it from a human health, environmental or climate perspective, our food system is currently unsustainable and given the challenges that will come from a rising global population that is a really [serious] thing to say.” Towards a New Agricultural Reformation While some of the damage already caused by human agriculture is inevitably irreversible, the report from Chatham House has proposed a three-point reformation of the global food system : 1. Shifting towards more plant-heavy diets The report states that animal farming is disproportionately responsible for biodiversity loss due to the large areas of land required to raise livestock, as well as the resources grown to feed them. For those who do not want to give up animal products entirely, the issue is not a matter of all-or-nothing: at the very least, meat-lovers might start by refusing to purchase any meat or dairy products which do not provide any considerable nutritional value (such as fast food or snacks), or trying to go for a few days each week without consuming animal products. Coupled with a reduction of food waste, prioritising plant-based products will reduce pressure on resources, benefit the dietary health of populations around the world and help reduce the risk of more pandemics. 2. Protecting more land The protection of land from agricultural conversion or exploitation will preserve global biodiversity, while efforts to restore native ecosystems can bring back species and change landscapes . Although some of these changes can only come about through government policies, consumers nonetheless have the responsibility to create demand for more sustainable systems of production; a greater demand for plant-based diets, for example, will minimise the land required to raise livestock. 3. Adopting more sustainable farming techniques For as long as there is civilisation, there will also be farming. However, some methods of farming are more conducive to maintaining biodiversity than others; the report suggests for example, replacing monoculture (one crop grown in a specific area) with polyculture (multiple different crops grown in the same area). Whilst monoculture is less efficient for farmers, polyculture is ultimately more regenerative and sustainable, better resembling the diversity of animals and plants found in natural environments. Concluding Comments Given the scale of damage caused by our current agricultural systems – to other species, to our environment and to ourselves – we are in need of a radical reformation in how we think about food. For all the changes that the coronavirus pandemic has brought about, and all that it has taken away from us, perhaps it will finally push governments and citizens alike to reconsider how we might all create a more just, healthy and sustainable future. As Philip Lymbery, the Global Chief Executive at Compassion in World Farming, concluded : “The future of humanity depends on us living in harmony with nature [...] Never has it been so timely for us to realise that protecting people means protecting animals too. The future of farming must be nature-friendly and regenerative, and our diets must become more plant-based, healthy and sustainable. Without ending factory farming, we are in danger of having no future at all.”  Article on a similar topic: The Future of Sustainable Farming in Post-Brexit Britain 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.

Tori Scott explores the potential health benefits of including garlic in your diet (as well as it being delicious) Photo by Mche Lee Garlic is widely known as a delicious flavouring for everyday meals, but according to several medical sources, garlic is not just tasty – it is also very good for maintaining and supporting systems within your body! Many of garlic’s major advantages originate from an amino acid called allicin – the vegetable’s major biologically active component – which is released when garlic is chopped, crushed or made into a powder. The enzymes it provides help cleanse the body of harmful bacteria, boost the immune system, and protect against serious ailments such as diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol, heart disease and even cancer. Here are some of the benefits that garlic can provide in more detail: 1. Fighting Bacteria Garlic has antimicrobial properties , meaning it is able to fight against infectious diseases caused by bacteria including salmonella, Escherichia coli, pseudomonas, Staphylococcus aureus, and Helicobacter. 2. Supporting the Immune System Alongside having antimicrobial properties, garlic also has antiviral properties which benefit in combatting sickness. These properties can help in staving off Influenza A and B, rhinovirus, HIV, herpes simplex viruses, viral pneumonia and rotavirus, although it should not be treated as an exclusive way to avoid infection. 3. Promoting Gut Health Garlic is proven to be antibacterial and prebiotic which is amazing for gut health . Prebiotics – live bacteria and yeasts – are beneficial for the gut because they aid the digestive system. Clinical pharmacist and nutritionist, Mike Wakeman , has stated that: “Research has documented that Garlic exerts a differential inhibition between beneficial intestinal microflora and potentially harmful enterobacteria ”. This means that garlic’s antibacterial properties help prevent harmful disease bacteria from growing in the gut, making way for the beneficial probiotics instead. 4. Reducing Blood Sugar Levels Garlic has antidiabetic properties which are beneficial in helping control blood sugar levels . This is effective because of the insulin found in garlic. Insulin is a hormone made in the pancreas which helps your body use glucose (blood sugar) for energy. Wakeman tell us that: “Sulfur compounds in garlic have been shown to decrease the blood glucose level by preventing the insulin activation caused by the liver,” and thus “ enhances the secretion of insulin… increasing the cell sensitivity to insulin” 5. Improving Bone Health in Women Garlic is seen to boost women’s bone health by increasing oestrogen levels . Shahid Saoughi of the University of Medical Sciences conducted a study based on menopausal women which concluded that taking dry garlic extract regularly ‘significantly’ decreased oestrogen deficiency. 6. Reducing Blood Pressure Heart attacks and strokes are the world’s biggest killers, and high blood pressure is one of the main key indicators and causes of such cardiovascular diseases. Over a 24-week period , a study was conducted in which 600-1,500 mg of aged garlic extract was given to participants with a view to decreasing blood pressure in comparisons to the drug Atenolol . Ultimately, it was observed that Atenolol and aged garlic extract had similar effects in reducing blood pressure . 7. Improving Cholesterol Levels Garlic supplements seem to play a part in reducing total and LDL cholesterol (but not HDL cholesterol), especially in those with high cholesterol . In some cases, supplements appear to reduce cholesterol by 10-15% . 8. Combatting Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia Garlic contains antioxidants which are known to support the protective mechanisms in the body against oxidative damage. Garlic supplements can increase antioxidant enzymes and reduce oxidative stress . The antioxidants, which can protect against cell damage and aging , may also reduce the risk of common brain diseases. 9. Providing Vitamins and Minerals Garlic is an excellent source of vitamin B6 , manganese , selenium, vitamin C , phosphorous , calcium, potassium , iron and copper . The information within this article is provided by reports from Dr Roger Henderson , Joe Leech, Ms , Natalie Butler, R.D.,L.D., and Jo Lewin who are qualified to provide you with reliable information about the benefits of garlic. Always consult a healthcare professional before taking supplements or replacing medical treatments with natural remedies. Article on a similar topic: The Health Benefits of Turmeric 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.

Elena Liciu analyses the threat of microplastic particle deposits in our bodies. Photo by Ketut Subiyanto Over the last decade, plastic pollution has been a continuous issue that the scientific community has tried to relentlessly tackle. Whilst we’ve been trying to protect our environment and marine life from plastic waste for decades, we’ve failed to consider that we too are at risk. A newly developed technique has discovered that plastic can also infiltrate the human body as microplastic particles, which build-up around our organs. The report, released at the beginning of the month, outlines the health risks posed by environmental factors. It reveals that 400,000 deaths in Europe were tied to air pollution in 2012 - the most recent year from which data is available - while noise pollution contributed to 12,000 deaths. What are Microplatics? Microplastics are unnoticeably small solid plastic residues measuring less than 5mm in length. They are produced as a result of many day-to-day tasks ranging from tires grinding down on the road, plastic litter disintegration, or simply washing synthetic clothing. As they cannot be seen, smelt, or detected without highly specialised equipment, we are blindly ingesting microplastic particles each day. Professor Kieran Cox from the University of Victoria in Canada has estimated that every individual will intake 100,000 microplastic particles each year . It is believed that most of the microplastic particles we ingest come from our water supply. Despite being very effective, water treatments can only remove 99.9% of all microplastic particles. This issue was represented in a 2018 World Health Organisation announcement, which stated that 90% of the most purchased water brands contained microplastic particle traces. An infected water supply can create a domino effect of greater microplastic particle exposure. If contaminated water is used on agricultural land, all crops produced will subsequently contain microplastic particles that we will ingest when consuming them. Effects on Human Health Analytical techniques reveal that we cannot excrete microplastic particles because their extremely small size makes them undetectable to our body’s filtration system. Instead, they are absorbed into our tissue, where they have the potential to collate and form alarming deposits. This ability to go undetected provides them with the means to leak into the bloodstream or lymphatic system , from which they can freely diffuse to any organ. This was discovered due to data showing traces of microplastic particles in human tissue samples of the liver, kidney, and lungs . Eriksen’s data notes that fish did not respond to the microplastic particles’ presence in any way, and their body physiology was in no way impacted. It was, however, observed that some individuals experienced blood clots due to particle build-up in the bloodstream. Nonetheless, this was rare and non-repeatable amongst all fish species, making it very possible that these observations may have been caused by other continuing factors. The experiment more alarmingly concluded that microplastic particle accumulation had a greater chance of causing damage to the offspring of the infected individuals, rather the individuals themselves. It was observed that offspring of fish with microplastic particles deposits had an overall significantly lower reproductive rate. As of yet, there is no experimental data clearly concluding that exposure to microplastic particles has any impact on human health. They remain classed as only a minimal risk. Combatting Plastic Waste The World Health Organisation has only responded to the threat of microplastic particles by encouraging a reduction in plastic waste . Currently, it is estimated that globally, we produce around 322 million tons of plastic each year . With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, plastic products such as disposable masks are in even greater demand. We are now exposed to microplastic particles more than ever. The solution to our problems is simple – fewer plastic products need to be produced. As individuals, we can make a change by easily replacing single-use plastics with reusable alternatives. It’s also imperative to properly dispose of plastic waste and ensure it is properly recycled. You may also like: Toxic Air Pollution: The Other Pandemic We are a socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall reports on the chilling imprisonment of Muslims in brutal Chinese ‘re-education camps.’ Photo by Paulo Marcelo Martins Shocking satellite imagery and drone footage , as well as first-hand accounts, have exposed the Chinese government’s sanctioning of ‘re-education’ camps imprisoning over a million Uighur Muslims in the north-western province of Xinjiang. Drone footage filmed by activists in August 2019 show hundreds of blindfolded and shaven prisoners in a railway marshalling yard, seated in rows and surrounded by guards in SWAT uniform.  A letter signed by over 130 British MPs , including Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey and former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, calls the footage “chilling” in its similarity to “historical footage of Nazi concentration camps”. The letter condemns the camps as “a systematic and calculated program of ethnic cleansing against the Uighur people”, going on to say: “When the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses, nobody can turn a blind eye”. Human Rights Abuses Chinese suppression and imprisonment of Uighur Muslims now qualifies for the UN’s definitions of genocide, mass sterilisation, forced abortions and mandatory birth control.   In an attempt to limit and reduce the Uighur population , a report by Chinese scholar Adrian Zenz has revealed that women are being involuntarily fitted with IUD contraceptive coils and coerced into sterilisation surgeries to prevent pregnancies, or forced to have abortions in order to fit birth quotas.  As a result, birth rates in the country’s largest Uighur populations fell by 84% between 2015 and 2018.  According to Mr Zenz , “this kind of drop is unprecedented, there's a ruthlessness to it. This is part of a wider control campaign to subjugate the Uighurs”. A video that surfaced earlier this year, filmed by Uighur model Merdan Ghappar , has exposed the harsh reality of life inside a camp in Xinjiang.  The clip , presumably filmed in secret on a smartphone, shows the 31-year-old handcuffed to a metal bedframe in a bare and grubby room, resembling a prison cell.  Propaganda announcements can be heard blaring from loud-speakers outside the room’s barred window. The camps, which have been coined “modern day gulags” by some, are almost certainly the largest example of mass incarceration of a racial or religious group since the Holocaust. Excuses for Persecution   During an appearance on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show in July, the Chinese Ambassador for the UK, Liu Xiaoming, was confronted with the aforementioned footage of a camp in Xinjiang, and appeared visibly flustered before saying, “I do not know where you get this videotape”. He has denounced the UK’s condemnation of the practice, stating that Muslims are not in concentration camps in Xinjiang, but are being retrained as artists, estate agents and chefs in order to deter them from extremism.  He asserts that the West’s backlash to the scheme, including a US Import Ban on cotton and tomatoes from Xinjiang which may have been produced using slave labour from the camps, is an attempt to spark a modern Cold War with China. He went on to affirm that “history has proved and will continue to prove that China is always a defender of world peace, a contributor to global development and upholder of international law”, and that criticising the Chinese government has “seriously poisoned” relations between the nations. Systemic Oppression  There has been an alarming resurgence of religious intolerance in China, especially towards Uighurs and Muslims, in recent years.  This is likely due to the ruling Communist Party’s atheism, the ideology of Han Chinese supremacism, and the idea of “national rejuvenation” .  A number of terrorist incidents have led to prejudiced condemnation of Muslims by much of the Chinese population as dangerous extremists. In 2017, Xinjiang first introduced its Regulation on Anti-Extremism , banning a wide range of activities deemed to constitute “extremist behaviour”, including rejecting mass media, practising a halal diet, wearing a religious veil, distributing ‘extremist’ propaganda, and violating birth control policies.  Local governments are legally permitted to set up ‘re-education camps’ to house anyone who violates these extremism laws. Leaked Chinese government documents from 2017 distributed from the Communist Party to those running the camps gave instructions including: “never allow escapes”, “increase discipline and punishment of behavioural violations”, and “encourage students to truly transform”.  The aim is to ultimately brainwash and terrorise the Muslims into abandoning their faith. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this oppressive practice is the apparent belief that the expectation of cultural and religious transformation is justified.  The Uighur are seen as a blemish in China’s efforts towards ethical homogenisation and universal obedience to the State.  Official condemnation of the goings-on from Western states is long-overdue, and more needs to be done to ensure the rights of this innocent ethnic minority are protected. You may also like: Satellites: Technological Advantage or Intrusion? We are a socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall sheds light on the numerous uses of an unlikely and underused resource. Photo by G ras Grun Hemp plants have long been a material used for a variety of purposes. In fact, it can be utilised in over 10,000 different ways . The plant has a multitude of advantages: it is able to grow in infertile soil where most other crops wouldn’t survive, it can grow in a variety of temperatures and light-levels, and grows to maturity within six months as opposed to the six decades it takes for an oak tree to reach the same level. Seemingly, it’s a wonder plant. The only problem is the stigma surrounding its close genetic relation to marijuana. Industrial hemp, otherwise known as sativa, is taller than marijuana, and contains a fraction of the amount of THC, the hallucinogenic chemical which makes marijuana a popular drug, in comparison. However, their appearances are very similar, and its growth is more restricted than standard crops. Despite this, it is an unbelievably versatile plant. Uses for Hemp The strength of the fibres in hemp’s stalks makes it a valuable material for a variety of purposes, and the high levels of CBD oil within it means it can also be put to use in a number of beneficial ways : Certain parts of the hemp plant are very nutritious for humans , and can be consumed as oil, flour, or even seeds in order to provide nutrients The CBD oil in the plant is an excellent moisturiser, so has become a fashionable ingredient in skin- and hair-care products Hemp oil can be used in paint , making it non-toxic, environmentally-friendly and longer-lasting than standard oil-based paints Hemp fibres can be used in clothing such as jeans, sportswear and lingerie, and is currently used by brands including Armani, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein The fibres can also be made into paper , and have been used for this purpose in China since 200 BC; the method reduces the number of trees felled and chemicals used to make ordinary paper Fibres can be compressed into a pulp and formed into hemp wood - a substance 20 times stronger than oak which can be used for furniture and other purposes as a more renewable substitute for wood Hemp can even be used to fortify concrete ; who would’ve thought a plant could be that strong! Perhaps the most promising potential use for hemp is as a biofuel . Industrial hemp seeds are a viable resource for creating sustainable diesel fuel, as they can be fermented to create ethanol. A hemp biofuel industry would need little investment because, with access to existing hemp farms, the plants’ seeds, which are normally discarded, could be harvested directly from the farms. Hemp in the UK In 1533, King Henry VIII made hemp cultivation compulsory by law. For every 60 acres of crops a farmer was cultivating, they had to use about a quarter of their land for the growth of flax or hemp, or else they would face a fine for breaking the law. This is likely because of the crops’ suitability for use in rope to provide for Henry’s growing navy. Hemp was so valuable in this period that people could even pay their taxes with it. Since then, the British hemp industry has dramatically declined. Now, there are only just over 800 hectares of hemp growing in the UK, compared to 33,000 hectares recorded across Europe in 2016. There are various drawbacks for British farmers wanting to grow hemp. It is obligatory to obtain a license from the Home Office before anyone is permitted to grow the plant, due to its links to marijuana. Growers must also inform the Home Office about the exact acreage of hemp they’ll be growing, as well as the level of THC (the mind-altering substance found in cannabis) in the seeds they are using. Location can also be difficult, as the government is reluctant to allow hemp to be grown close to public spaces , perhaps due to the potential for people to be alarmed by its familiar appearance. Furthermore, it is currently illegal to use the entire plant in products, meaning some farmers may think growing it isn’t worth it in the first place. Scientists are continually researching the benefits of hemp as a crop to be grown en masse, as well as supporting the idea that the entire plant can be utilised safely and without transgressing the law. If such research reaches strong positive conclusions, hemp could start making appearances in houses around the country and even in our cars, offering an environmentally-friendly alternative to wood and fossil fuels. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Cost of Cotton We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £2.

Annie Grey celebrates as renewables overtake fossil fuels in supplying EU's electricity. Photo by Luo Lei Renewable sources overtook fossil fuels to become the EU’s main source of electricity for the first time in 2020, according to a report co-published by Ember and Agora Energiewendie. This important environmental milestone was documented as fossil fuel usage in the EU decreased by 37 percent. Subsequently, the use of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass provided 38 percent of the continent’s electricity, up from 34.6 percent in 2019. The Rise of Renewables In a year that witnessed pandemic restrictions temporarily reducing energy demand across Europe, the drop in supply mostly affected expensive power from fossil fuels. Gas generation dropped only 4 percent in 2020 despite the low energy demand reported, as it remained the cheapest form of fossil generation. Most of the fall in fossil fuels was in the use of coal rather than gas. Figures show gas usage is still 14 percent higher than in 2015, as Greece, the Netherlands, and Poland saw gas generation growth. Coal generation, however, has halved since 2015, with a further 20 percent decline reported in the last year. Half of the drop was due to a decrease in electricity demand, which fell by 4 percent following the impact of the pandemic, and half was because of additional wind and solar resources. The utilisation of wind and solar power, the largest factors in the clean-energy switch, rose 15 and nine percent respectively. However, as electricity demand bounces back in 2021, wind and solar will need to rise at a faster rate if the recent falls in coal usage are to be sustained. The report suggested that wind and solar are “effectively replacing coal, rather than gas, across Europe currently”, which shows a need for increased focus on the reduction of gas usage. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that the EU’s electricity production was overall 29 percent cleaner last year than it was in 2015. The EU’s Climate Target Plan The EU Climate Target Plan proposes a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. This is a substantial increase in ambition compared to the previous target of at least 40%. However, following the report’s findings, the energy transition is still too slow to achieve this, raising concerns as to whether the EU will be able to fulfil its 2030 target, and consequently reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Biomass growth has effectively “stalled” since 2018, according to think tanks. There hasn’t been much change in hydropower either – while generation was up from 2019, that was due to precipitation changes, rather than new installations. The think tank, Ember, proposed that the EU will need to add 100 terawatt hours of renewable generation every year to achieve its 2030 target. Comparatively, wind and solar increased by 51 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2020 - well-above the 38 TWh/year average of the last decade - but renewable generation will need to almost triple to reach Europe’s 2030 target, according to the report. Reassuringly, limited impact from Covid-19 was identified on the overall trend of moving from fossil fuels to renewables, proving the rise in renewable energy to be robust despite the economic repercussions of the pandemic. In fact, findings suggested that the fall in fossil-fired electricity could have been more dramatic, had it not been for such a bounce-back in demand. To ensure steady progress, Dr. Patrick Graichen, Director of Agora Energiewende, stressed the need for strong climate policies, stating: “The economic recovery after the pandemic must not be allowed to slow down climate protection”. Although Europe has reached this environmental milestone, the future of green power is at a crucial tipping point. At the start of a decade in which vital climate action will be fundamentally necessary, the continuation of rapid growth in wind and solar power is of the upmost importance in ensuring Europe gets on course to meet its 2030 Climate Targets. Article on a similar topic: Germany Committing to Coal-Free Energy 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.

Jonny Rogers explores how recent scientific discoveries might aid our fight against one of the world’s biggest problems. Photo by Jaron Nix You might not expect that a story which starts with scientists accidentally creating a mutant organism would have a happy ending. Nevertheless, over the past few years, scientists around the world have discovered numerous bacteria that have evolved to degrade plastic compounds, and subsequent research has further improved this process. In 2016, a Japanese research team came across a colony of bacteria that were able to break down PET , or polyester – a plastic used in bottles. Within two years, research into the evolution of the organism accidentally improved the molecule-breaking enzymes – where it had previously taken a matter of weeks to degrade plastic, it now took only a matter of days . The resultant microplastics would make plastic recycling processes significantly more effective, and perhaps even 100% sustainable . A different enzyme was also discovered in a compost heap , and has since be reproduced and advanced by French chemical company Carbios . In a mere ten hours, this enzyme is now able to break down 90% of a tonne of plastic bottles . Alain Marty, the chief science officer of Carbios, is hopeful that they will be able to start mass-producing the enzyme by September 2021 . The Plastic Problem In the 1860s, a number of inventions changed the world : Alexander Parkes developed Parkesine, a material derived from cellulose which could be moulded into any conceivable shape; shortly after, John Wesley Hyatt developed celluloid to use as a substitute for ivory billiard balls, as the industry was struggling due to the over-hunting of elephants . By the beginning of the 20th century, the invention of formaldehyde-based plastics paved the way for Leo Baekeland’s creation of the first fully synthetic resin , which entered the market under the name ‘Bakelite’. Throughout the following decades, the production of synthetic plastics (such as cellophane, polystyrene and nylon) grew exponentially as they were cheap, shatter-proof, malleable, and allowed for the creation of identical items in large quantities. Nevertheless, while it promised convenience and economic security, synthetic plastics have also left a legacy of unprecedented environmental issues. In 2017, Dr. Chris Wilcox of CSIRO’s Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship estimated that the total amount of plastic doubles every 11 years : “To put that in other words, between [2017] and 2028 we will produce as much plastic as we produced [from the 1950s] until now.” Plastic pollution has spread into every corner of the earth, with disposable waste having been discovered on both uninhabited islands and in Arctic snow , near the peak of the world’s tallest mountain and at the bottom of its deepest ocean trench . An unsettling study revealed that the average person might ingest thousands of particles of plastic each week, equivalent to the mass of a credit card . The impact on marine life is already more visible – over 90% of seabirds are consuming plastic , killing many and causing significant health issues in those which survive . Will Plastic-Breaking Enzymes Save the World? Although recent years and months have seen a number of countries pledging to ban single-use plastics , this alone does not account for the management of plastic waste already in circulation – in our clothes, water, and food , as well as our landfill sites. The rapidly- growing scale of the damage caused by global dependence on plastic means a high possibility that we might see the start of the mass production of plastic-degrading enzymes by the end of the year, despite it being almost unthinkable even a decade ago. However, some scientists such as Emily Flashman of the University of Oxford are cautious to avoid over-embracing the new enzymes as the ultimate solution to our problem. As she points out , the plastic industry will need to find ways of preventing products from becoming contaminated with plastic-hungry micro-organisms. In addition, Professor Adisa Azapagic of the University on Manchester argues that we would also need to take into account the sustainability of mass production processes : “A full life-cycle assessment would be needed to ensure the technology does not solve one environmental problem – waste – at the expense of others, including additional greenhouse gas emissions.” Nevertheless, what these new enzymes will provide is an opportunity to reform our failing recycling system . It doesn’t mean that all types of plastic have become fully degradable. It doesn’t mean we don’t need to reduce our individual plastic usage, nor that we should forget the damage already caused by our collective ignorance. However, these discoveries do show that nature is often more complex and resilient than we can imagine, and that understanding even the smallest organisms might be the key to saving all life on this planet. Article on a similar topic: The Exportation of Plastic Waste by EU Ends 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 looks into how poor governance has resulted in increased neglect of human rights during the pandemic. Photo by Luis Galvez The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has fuelled a crisis for democracy around the world. Since the outbreak began, the condition of democracy and human rights has grown worse in 80 countries, according to Freedom House . Both authoritarian and democratic governments have taken the epidemic as an opportunity to erode human rights under the pretext of protecting their populations’ health . Some governments have responded to the unprecedented circumstances by engaging in abuses of power, silencing their critics and weakening or closing important institutions, often undermining the very systems of accountability needed to protect public wellbeing. Mass Oppression China is in the midst of its darkest period for human rights violations since the Tiananmen Square massacre, Human Right Watch has reported . China’s government initially withheld basic information about the coronavirus from the public, under-reported cases of infection, downplayed the severity of the infection and dismissed the likelihood of transmissions between humans . At the very beginning of the pandemic, authorities detained people for reporting on it on social media for “rumour-mongering” , censored online discussions of the virus and curbed media reporting . Further, oppression of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Tibet includes the detention and forced labour of more than one million Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims in a bid to pressure abandonment of Islam and their culture , as well as replacing Mongolian as the language of instruction in their schools with Chinese. This action triggered protests and class boycotts, with at least one reported suicide. The targeting of whistle-blowers, the crackdown on Hong Kong , and attempts to cover up the coronavirus outbreak are all part of the deteriorating situation under President Xi Jinping . In Thailand, whistle-blowers in the public health sector and online journalists have faced lawsuits and intimidation from authorities after they critised government responses to the outbreak, raised concerns about a possible cover-up and reported alleged corruption related to the hoarding and profiteering of PPE and other supplies. Key medical workers were also threatened with disciplinary action – including the termination of employment contracts and revocation of their licenses – for speaking out about the severe shortage of essential supplies in hospitals across Thailand. Free Speech Silenced In a number of countries, governments have failed to uphold the right to freedom of expression, taking actions against journalists and healthcare workers. This ultimately limited effective communication about the onset of the disease and undermined trust in government actions. In Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev reportedly implied “he would use measures introduced to slow the spread of the coronavirus to crack down on political opponents, whom he described as traitors and enemies”. Following this, Azerbaijani authorities arrested a number of activists and bloggers, most of whom had criticised conditions in government-run quarantine centres or the government’s failure to provide adequate compensation to individuals experiencing financial hardship due to the pandemic . Turkmenistan continues to deny it has any COVID-19 cases, despite strong evidence to the contrary. The country “experienced cascading social and economic crises as the government recklessly denied and mismanaged the COVID-19 epidemic within the country”, according to the HRW report . Other human rights issues observed include food shortages, restrictions on media and religious freedoms and the imprisonment of opposition activists . A Disaster for Human Rights The report described Former US President, Donald Trump, as a “disaster for human rights”, citing examples such as separating migrant children from families , befriending cruel dictators , selling weapons to regimes known to commit war crimes , slashing funding for reproductive health , withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement (although Joe Biden has thankfully subsequently re-joined it) and empowering white supremacists . And that’s not to mention inciting the first insurrection of the Capitol since the Civil War. The grossly disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on BAME people, connected to longstanding gaps in healthcare, education, and economic status, revealed the enduring effects of past racist laws and policies and the continuation of obstacles to equality in the United States . The police killing of George Floyd in May, and a series of other police killings of black people, inspired massive and largely peaceful protests , which in many instances were met with brutality by local and federal law enforcement agents. In the UK, as approximately 5,000 migrants and asylum-seeker arrived by boat from France between January and September, the government threatened to opt-out of human rights law s and use offshore detention and processing to facilitate the deportation of those arriving. The UK continues to detain asylum-seeking and migrant children facing deportation. UNICEF launched a domestic emergency response in the UK for the first time in its 70-year history to help feed children in need throughout the ongoing pandemic. A YouGov poll in May 2020, commissioned by the charity Food Foundation , found 2.4 million British children (17%) were living in food insecure households. By October, an extra 900,000 children had been registered for free school meals. The charitable act received backlash from government officials , with Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP, stating “UNICEF’s work was a ‘political stunt of the lowest order’ and the charity ‘should be ashamed of itself’”, prompting further public outrage. Anna Kettley, UNICEF UK’s Director of Programmes and Advocacy responded : “We believe that every child is important and deserves to survive and thrive no matter where they are born”. To end on a positive note, 2020 saw a “renewed outpouring of popular support for human rights” among the public as these rights violations were reported. In various countries, often at great risk, people took to the streets in large number to press abusive and corrupt governments to be more democratic and accountable . The impact of current events has resulted in increased amounts of people actively holding their governments to account. Hope remains that these actions will pave the way for a fairer society in the future. Article on a similar topic: The Hidden Cost of Cotton We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £2.

Martha Davies sheds light on some of the prominent adverse effects of the pandemic which are causing upset and unrest. Photo by Daria Nepriakhina Nearly a year after COVID-19 first swept the world, Britain now has three national lockdowns under its belt. Yet, aside from the bleakness of living out each day stuck in our homes, other serious issues arise when the nation comes to a standstill, and some people have had enough. Anti-lockdown sentiment has been felt recently across the UK and Europe , as people are getting increasingly fed up with the financial, medical, psychological and emotional costs of such extended isolation. Though lockdown is, in principle, a method of saving lives, those potentially shielded from the grips of coronavirus are still vulnerable to all kinds of medical issues that have received woefully little attention during the pandemic. Excess Deaths on the Rise  According to figures presented to the Government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in July last year, an estimated 16,000 people died because they did not receive the necessary medical care for other conditions between March 23 and May 1, 2020. Around 25,000 people died of coronavirus in the same period . People in need of medical attention are often reluctant to go into hospital as they are fearful of catching the virus, or they feel they are putting unnecessary pressure on the NHS.  Excess deaths have also been reported elsewhere: in November last year, the British Heart Foundation stated that nearly 5,000 more people died from heart problems in England since the start of the pandemic than would normally be expected. Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, a consultant NHS cardiologist and the associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, commented , “We wouldn't want the very people who need the NHS the most being the ones staying at home trying to protect it". Coronavirus has overtaken every aspect of our lives, but both the risks posed by the virus and the difficulties created by restrictions have had a huge impact on people requiring entirely separate but just as vital treatment.  Even cancer treatments have been pushed back or cancelled completely: UK experts have noted a worst case scenario figure of up to 35,000 excess cancer deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. Screenings have been hugely delayed , meaning that diagnoses have been spotted late or not at all. It is all too clear that the tragedies of COVID-19 are far-reaching and relentless. Faced with the misery of statistics like these, people around the world are begging for their governments to do better. Mental Illness: a Darkening Cloud Feelings of isolation and helplessness during lockdown have had catastrophic effects on mental health. According to a new model created by the Centre for Mental Health , up to 10 million people in England - nearly ⅕ of the population - will require either new or additional mental health support as a result of the pandemic. 1.5 million of these people will be under the age 18; many studies have suggested that young people are particularly at risk , with one in six young people now suffering from a probable mental illness, compared to one in nine before the pandemic began. There is a pressing need for greater acknowledgement of the mental health crisis that rages on amid the other tragedies of the pandemic. The situation will only deteriorate further as lockdown measures continue to pin us with an iron grip to our homes.  Reaching Breaking Point It is no surprise that people are feeling trapped, and such hopelessness has swelled into anger – since March 2020, more than 30 major protests have been staged against coronavirus restrictions in 26 countries. This year has already seen multiple demonstrations against coronavirus restrictions, from anti-lockdown protesters gathering in Hyde Park at the beginning of the month, to other well known cities in Europe such as Copenhagen , Vienna , and Amsterdam. While feelings of distress are understandable with lockdown measures constantly being extended and many governments management of the crisis, such protests are not only violating current regulations but risking the health of those around them, including police officers . The end of the pandemic feels impossibly distant as cases remain high and restrictions continue to impede on our lives. It is certain that lockdown has had widespread and extremely troubling impacts, and it is true that protesting is our human right, but it does also add to the pressures and dangers that we already face collectively.  Here is some information on current the Covid-19 restrictions and guidelines . If you are struggling with your own mental health, please check out these charities and healthcare providers . Article on a similar topic: Mental Health: Self-Isolation and Social Distancing Guide 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 investigates how the CEOs of the UK’s largest companies are receiving higher wages while unemployment soars amidst the pandemic. Photo by Ben Rosett While countless businesses have been forced to close and hundreds of thousands of people have been made redundant due to the pandemic, the UK’s top CEOs have earned more than the annual wages of average UK worker every 34 hours . According to the High Pay Centre think-tank , the bosses of companies listed on the FTSE 100 index (which lists the 100 largest companies on the London Stock Exchange, as measured by market capitalisation) used to earn 20 times the country’s median wages in 1980. Within 20 years, this would increase to 50. But this year, the top CEOs will earn around 120 times the wages of the average worker. Although the High Pay Centre acknowledges that their data is too limited to fully account for the impact of coronavirus on pay gaps in the UK, it is nevertheless likely that the pandemic will only aggravate economic division. However, even changing the wages of the top CEOs will do little to solve the current unemployment crisis. FTSE 100 Index It has been suggested that the growi ng wage gap is the result of the increasing role of the finance industry, the outsourcing of low-paid work and the decline of trade union membership. Luke Hildyard , director of the High Pay Centre, hopes that his research will incite further conversation about wages and employment in the UK: "These figures will raise concern about the governance of big businesses and whether major employers are distributing pay in a way that rewards the contribution of different workers fairly."  However, some have argued that these statistics fail to consider the importance of chief executives. Daniel Pryor of the Adam Smith Institute argues that the management of large companies will make a significant difference to “anyone with a private pension, and shareholders”, which hence justifies why large firms offer large wages to attract the best talent. Nevertheless, many believe that this scale of difference cannot be justified; for those receiving the minimum wage of £8.72 per hour, it would take 212 years to earn the annual average salary of these CEOs, even assuming a fixed-term contract. Unemployment and Inequality in the Pandemic The hospitality firm Whitbread PLC, whose CEOs already earn 143 times the median employee’s wages , cut 1500 jobs last year due to the impact of the virus on tourism and travel. Similarly, British Airways announced that they would make 10,000 cuts . Kate Nicholls from UK Hospitality predicts that over 660,000 people will lose their jobs by the end of March, 2021; as many as 80% of businesses in the UK might not be able to survive until April. On the other hand, a number of companies have benefited from being classified as ‘essential’ shops, with many supermarkets and retailers opening new stores and creating thousands of new jobs. The pandemic has, unsurprisingly, triggered a boom in both in-store and online food shopping over Christmas: a £11 billion boom, to be precise . However, this record-breaking Christmas period might only serve to reaffirm wage inequalities; the boss of B&M Bargains, which received £1.4 billion from Christmas sales, was recently granted a £30 million pay-out due to the company’s recent growth. Whilst at least 36 FTSE firms announced that they would reduce executive wages in the first half of 2020, most of these cuts were only short-term . About 9.6 million people have benefited from the furlough scheme at one time or another, but this has steadily declined over time due to its long-term unsustainability. Anticipating public criticism, fund managers and proxy advisers for FTSE firms are allegedly expected to oppose big bonuses and dividends for firms which have laid off large numbers of staff, as well as those which have benefited from taxpayer support. However, it remains to be seen what the future holds for employment in the UK, or indeed the world at large. You may also like: The Wealthy Get Wealthier Amid Pandemic We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Georgie Chantrell-Plant explores whether the UK government’s recent plans to tackle climate change are enough to make an effective difference Photo by Beth Jnr It is being heralded as one of the most ambitious targets in the world for the challenge of tackling climate change . Prime Minister Boris Johnson has set a goal for the UK to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 68%-69% less than they were in 1990 by 2030, inciting a faster pace of decarbonisation for industries & transport, as well as at the domestic level. This could mean a faster switch from gas boilers in our homes and an accelerated ‘phasing out’ of gas-guzzlers in favour for more environmentally-friendly vehicles. These goals are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) which were at the heart of the Paris Agreement signed back in 2016. They aim to cut emissions worldwide to keep the global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius. The NDCS represent the commitments made by each country to reduce their own national emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Nationally Determined Contributions The UK has assumed the presidency of the 26th Conference Of The Parties (COP) meeting in partnership with Italy, which is planned to take place at the end of next year. Further afield, President Elect Joseph Biden has made his intentions clear for the US to rejoin the Paris agreement in 2021 when he takes up office, after the USA's official withdrawal on the 4th November 2020. Johnson hopes that the goal set out by the UK will act as an example for other countries; the 68% cut is deemed by the EU to be a ‘fair share’ by Britain in the further tackling of climate change. "We have proven we can reduce our emissions and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process – uniting businesses, academics, NGOs and local communities in a common goal to go further and faster to tackle climate change […] the UK is urging world leaders to bring forward their own ambitious plans to cut emissions and set net-zero targets." – Boris Johnson This ‘world-leading’ 68% cut predicts favourable reactions and headlines for Johnson, particularly by environmentalists. However, some believe that this goal isn’t enough and are calling for the number to be higher given the undeniable impact that climate change has already taken. Various Green Groups have called for a cut of 75%; and research made by the Consultancy Cambridge Econometrics, which was commissioned by the Prince of Wales corporate leaders group, stated that a target of 70% is necessary to achieve by 2030. Tim Crosland of Extinction Rebellion said that 100% of emissions need to be cut by 2025 if the world is to avoid going over the 1.5 degree Celsius rise, which was the threshold agreed upon by the UN. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said it would not comment until official figures have been seen. The UK’s 10 Point Plan Johnson also laid out a 10 Point Plan for the UK to address the environmental issues, though this has also been criticised for being inadequately funded and not going far enough to respond to the root of the problem – and what does this number of 68% even mean? How can these targets reflect actual emission cuts? The true value of Boris Johnson's targets will not be made clear until details on background assumptions are officially revealed. Could the UK essentially use international credits to achieve this goal? Would paying other nations to cut their own emissions for the benefit of the UK be how it is achieved? The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has stated that credits would only be allowed if the target is more ambitious than the 68% set out by the UK: "This trajectory for UK emissions is eminently achievable, provided effective policies are introduced across the economy without delay. These would bring significant benefits for the UK's economic recovery." – report from The Climate Change Committee The CCC also claim that the NDCs which have presented should be accompanied by other climate commitments in order for any target to be reached: clear commitments to reduce international aviation and shipping emissions, for example, must also be made. Alongside this, there needs to be clear support for climate finance, particularly within developing countries. A recently published report by the Green Alliance states that there is a ‘significant gap’ between Johnson's world-leading plans. The current government plans add up to less than a quarter of the emissions cuts needed to achieve its 2030 climate goal. The report additionally estimates that £22.7bn of additional spending will be needed to tackle the climate and nature challenge. This annual sum includes: £9bn on accelerating the transition to electric vehicles, and on walking, cycling, bus and rail infrastructure £2.3bn on making buildings efficient and kickstarting the roll-out of electric heat pumps £400m on establishing a resource efficiency programme for industry £6.6bn on nature restoration and the food and farming sector "[...] policy and spending has fallen short of what's needed to achieve these aims [...] there is an immediate spending shortfall in meeting the UK's climate and nature goals to the end of this parliament in 2024." – report from Green Alliance The intended date of 2030 is important because CO2 concentrations within the atmosphere are cumulative. If the UK doesn’t dramatically reduce emissions by that date, there is no chance of being able to reach the long-term goal of net zero emissions by the middle of the century. You may also like: The Future of Sustainable Farming in Post-Brexit Britain 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.

Ellie Chivers investigates London's newest step towards going carbon-neutral by 2030. Photo by Felix Hanspach The London Underground: perhaps not the most appealing place to be in England’s capital city, but it’s about to become a lot cooler. Quite literally.  As a way to provide heating to Londoners that is both eco-friendly and easy on the wallet, excess heat from the Northern Line i s to be provided to 1350 homes, a school and two leisure centres in the borough of Islington. Not only will this move lead to underground tunnels becoming much cooler during sweltering summer commutes, it is also hoped that it will help significantly reduce carbon emissions.  How It’s Done This new project is housed in The Bunhill Energy Centre , located in the deserted City Road tube station which was once part of the Northern Line itself,and consists of a giant underground pump taking heat from the Northern Line. The excess heat is then warmed further, before being passed on to Islington’s heat network– a process flipped in summertime,as cooler air will instead be pumped into the tube tunnels. The initiative is a key element of Islington Council’s Bunhill Heat and Power Scheme , which outlines their plan to decrease fuel poverty in the area. Council tenants connected to this network will see reductions in their heating bills of around 10%. Helping the Environment According to the Environmental Journal , approximately 500 tonnes of CO2 emissions usually released during the generation of energy for domestic heating will be reduced each year thanks to this innovative project. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has praised it as an initiative that pushes the capital one step closer towards his 2030 goal of carbon neutrality in the city. Lucy Padfield , Director of District Heating at Ramboll – the engineering firm who designed the heat pump – has said: “We believe that the use of large-scale heat in this way connected to urban district heating systems will play a major part in decarbonising the UK’s heating energy demand.” While the scheme is the first of its kind anywhere in the world, it is hoped similar schemes can be rolled out across London, and perhaps further afield. It has certainly proved that ethical engineering is not only possible, but has the potential to be highly effective. You may also like: The Major Environmental Initiative for Transport by UK Government We are a socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. A not-for-profit initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Martha Davies reports on the EU’s latest legislation to reduce environmental damage caused by waste. Photo by Aron Yigin The European Union has announced new rules that ban the exportation of non-recyclable plastic waste, preventing richer nations from sending huge quantities of hazardous or difficult-to-recycle waste to poorer countries in order to prevent exploitation of lower working wages leading to environmental damage. The new legislation came into effect on January 1st , and forms part of the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan and the European Green Deal . It encompasses tighter restrictions on the shipment of plastic waste, meaning that importers and exporters must be in agreement with all waste that is transported. What do the New Rules Mean? EU environment commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius has stated that EU nations are now banned from exporting hazardous and difficult-to-recycle plastic to countries that are not a part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while shipping such waste to areas within the EU will require “prior notification and consent” . The transfer of clean, non-hazardous plastic waste to non-OECD countries will also be subject to stricter rules and will only be permitted “under the conditions laid down by the importing country” . The new rules have been decided upon in response to a 2019 conference in which 187 countries agreed to amend a United Nations treaty known as the Basel Convention , created in 1989. The ban does not apply to Britain now that the Brexit transition period is over; while no longer part of the EU, Britain now belongs to the OECD, meaning plastic exports are permitted but still subject to strict monitoring.  What Will the Ban Achieve?  Heavier regulation of plastic shipments will ensure that poorer nations will not receive waste that is dangerous or too complicated to recycle, meaning that less waste is burned or dumped in oceans . Of all plastic ever produced, only 9% has been recycled, while 79% has ended up in landfill or left to contaminate the natural environment. The remaining 12% has been incinerated - a process which increases air pollution and acid rain .  Such strict rules may have similar negative environmental effects in the short term, with countries simply incinerating more waste or sending it to landfill. However, it should eventually create a more “circular approach” to the disposal of plastic, according to executive director of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions , Rolph Payet. Banning hazardous waste exports signifies that the EU is aware of the damaging practices currently relied upon for plastic disposal, and demonstrates that an effort is being made to initiate positive change. Out of Sight, Out of Mind It is imperative that richer countries stop exporting hazardous waste to less industrious nations. The Environment Agency informed The Guardian that seven countries requested to return shipments of “illegal” waste sent from the UK last year; before the new rules came into force, recipient countries were not subject to specific details of waste shipments and therefore could not tell whether the plastic was recyclable. This means that less affluent nations were left to bear the brunt of first world negligence and the environment continued to be abused as huge amounts of waste were dumped in waterways or illegally burned. Tighter restrictions on waste exports should enable poorer countries to focus on recycling their own plastic waste, while more established nations like the UK develop their own systems for better waste management.  The EU’s environmental commissioner has declared that the new rules represent “an important milestone in fighting plastic pollution”. Many such milestones will be required to make a sizable change to our current attitude to plastic disposal - and to decrease pollution - but this is a welcome step in the right direction. Article on a similar topic: Single-Use Plastic Bans Coming into Force Globally 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 explores how the new strains of coronavirus have spread from mink farms, raising questions about the management of the fur industry Photo by Jo-Anne McArthur Coronavirus has dominated the news for the last 12 months. From the outbreak of Covid-19, through multiple global lockdowns, to the current spate of mutations; it has been (quite literally) everywhere. In November 2020, one of the first mutated strains of Covid-19 was discovered on a Danish mink farm. Parts of Denmark was placed under a lockdown after 200 people were diagnosed with the new variant that was originally detected in the weasel-like animals which are bred for fur. The strain was discovered on a farm in the Jutland region, and was believed to have originated from infected workers passing the virus to the animals, which has “spilled back” into humans. While in the mink population, the virus mutated in the spite protein, which is where viruses are targeting. The Non-Human Strain The World Health Organisation has stated that mink act as a “reservoir” for the virus, passing it back and forth within their own population, with a risk of spill-over back to humans. “If the mutation is on a specific protein that is being currently targeted by the vaccine developers to trigger an immune response in humans then it means that if this new virus strain comes out of the mink back into the humans, even with vaccination, the humans will start spreading it and the vaccine will not protect.” - Dr Marisa Peyre, epidemiologist from Cirad Millions of mink were culled in an attempt to slow the spread of the mutation; however, due to the rushed nature of the cull, thousands of the animals were buried in shallow graves, only to then be pushed out of the ground again as gasses forced the soil to move. Images of the “zombie mink” re-emerging led to concerns of contamination of both ground water and local lakes and reservoirs used as drinking water supplies. Over 50 million mink are bred worldwide annually for their fur, with the largest farmers being China, Denmark, The Netherlands and Poland. The WHO announced that so far six countries have found the virus in farmed minks. It is believed that other domestic animals could be susceptible to the virus, and Professor Joanne Santini from University College, London suggested that “mink is the extreme but it could be happening out there and we just don’t know about it and that’s something we need to be checking”. World Health Organisation Response The WHO have called on countries to step up surveillance and security measures in order to reduce risks of further infection. Scientists from Denmark, China and Malaysia have published a letter in Science saying that it is urgent to “monitor, restrict, and – where possible – ban mink production”. It is now believed that the mink strain of Covid-19 has died out, with no new cases of the titled “cluster 5” being found for a few months. That being said, there has recently been a spate of new, and more virulent strains of the virus, making it more important than ever to maintain security measures around animals and keep following guidelines to reduce the infection spreading through any species. Similar: Human Materials to Outweigh the Earth's Entire Biomass We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Nicole Nadler explores how small, affordable changes in our lifestyle can have a big positive impact. Photo by Alleksana Google searches for "how to reduce your carbon footprint" soared during the COVID-19 lockdown. Now more than ever, people are tuning in on how their day-to-day life can have a drastically damaging impact on the planet – and what they can do to change that. A 2016 Huffington Post study in America found that the biggest reason people don’t recycle is because it is inaccessible or inconvenient. According to The Independent, many Britons would like to be more environmentally conscious but find it financially impossible. The article states: "The poll of 2,000 adults found 59 per cent did not feel they could make any eco-friendly changes to their current lifestyle, because their bank balance would not allow it. The average person had just £159 disposable income per month, but seven in 10 wished they had more to allow them to live a greener lifestyle." However, there are countless ways that we can make small changes in our lives for a big impact in the health of the planet that fit in seamlessly with our lifestyle and budget. With that in mind, here are three ways that you can start 2021 on a more eco-friendly note without even having to change up your daily routine. Investing in Reusables Single use plastics have been continually been more and more reduced and banned in the UK with the Government proposing an “ambition” of zero avoidable waste by 2050. Many people have opted to carry their own bags and use their own travel mugs for some time now, but now reusable straws and cutlery are also becoming more popular and available-especially in the age of COVID-19 upping single-use plastics. There are many options for lightweight and easy to carry sets that can easily sit in your car or bag so you never have to reach for the single-use options again. Many shops such as John Lewis and Morrison’s carry reusable cutlery sets as well as a wide variety available online, especially on Etsy- all for under £15. Buying Local & Home-Grown Food It would have been almost inconceivable even a few generations ago that pineapples, bananas and watermelons would be a common sight in British supermarkets – but this probably isn't a good thing. Buying fresh food from around the world requires quick and (economically) efficient transportation methods, though it’s easy to forget just how much energy is used in the process. One estimate suggests that for every 10 kcal of fossil fuel energy put into the US food system (agriculture, preservation and transportation), only 1 kcal of energy is received in consumption. The environmental burden of our consumption habits will only increase as the world’s population continues to grow. While a number of initiatives such as the Slow Food and Local Food Britain aim to support a shift in food production systems towards more sustainable and region-specific practises, there will always be an endless supply of flavourless exotic fruit and questionably cheap fast-food as long as there is enough consumer demand. Many people will not have access to a garden large enough to create an allotment, not least depend on one, but most of us will have a spare shelf or windowsill to supplement our meals with home-grown produce: whether that’s a tomato or two, a courgette, some lettuce, or even parsley and mint. When you do need to go to the shops, see if you can find somewhere you can walk to – and always be on the lookout for local brands and fair-trade labels. Reducing Food Waste and Footprint According to food share app Olio, globally speaking 33-50% of all food (worth over $1 trillion) produced is never eaten. In the UK, the average family throws away 22% of their weekly shop, worth £730 per year. In contrast, over 1 million people accessed a food bank in 2019 in the UK. Apps like Olio, TooGoodToGo, Karma (London only) are all apps that are free to download and use that connect the user to food that would otherwise go to waste. Olio users will be connected to their neighbours and local restaurants to get surplus food (or other household items), which TooGoodToGo and Karma are strictly for restaurants to offer heavily discounted food that needs to be sold before the day is over. While a packed lunch may be the most affordable and eco-friendly option, using one of these apps to find last-minute meals (often under £5) is affordable for most budgets and keeps the bins empty. Concluding Reflections So there you have it: 'Going green' doesn’t always have to be a drastic change. There is no shortage of articles discussing how if we all make conscious, albeit small changes to our everyday life, the ripple of change will soon take hold. Consider what you can do in the new year to give back to the earth that has given us so much. You may also like: Plastic: Bans Coming into Force Globally We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kira Lomas reports on the UK government’s abolishing of the tampon tax, a longstanding issue and unequal measure that has faced backlash from women’s rights activists and campaigners since 2001. Photo by Josefin One biological and natural process women experience every month is menstruation: it’s uncontrollable, overwhelming and stressful. Along with all the often insufferable physical symptoms the female body endures during this time – cramps, mood swings, fatigue, etc. – there is also extra financial pressure placed on being able to afford the appropriate period products. The regular costs include sanitary towels, tampons, period pain relief, as well as other mood lifting pleasures such as chocolate to satisfy increased hunger cravings. From a feminine perspective, there is no denying that these items are charged at questionable prices, igniting a feeling of injustice and desperation amongst the poorest of women. Therefore, the decision by the UK government to finally end the tampon tax has been praised by activist Laura Coryton – who has dedicated herself to achieving menstrual equity since the age of 21 – as a historical move in “ending a symptom of sexism’’ , and one which will hopefully benefit women on low incomes by lessening the burden of paying for period items. Sanitary Savings The tampon tax is an umbrella term that refers to the 5% VAT applied to the sales of menstrual hygiene products classified by the European Union as luxury, non-essential items – a classification which has faced strong discontent from unprecedented numbers of women around the globe. The taxation on menstruation has been profusely criticised as part of a wider issue of gendered tax policies which send a discriminatory message to society on women’s bodily functions. The discourse attached to period products as luxuries, not necessities, implies a sense of pleasure or comfort that almost all women would agree is simply not the case. Looking at this discourse more closely, it is clear that there is a definite misconception, or lack of attention, towards menstrual hygiene products within many countries' tax systems. Estimates suggest that the average woman is expected to have approximately 450 periods in her lifetime , spending around £10-11 a month on purchasing menstrual hygiene products, and £128 a year in total . These statistics not only expose the enormous amounts of money women are spending on period products, but further reinforce the underlying fact that women’s health is not prioritised or taken seriously within discussions surrounding taxation. However, with the new implementation of the tax exemption, women will see an immediate reduction in their monthly outgoings on period essentials, saving around £40 over a lifetime . With this tampon tax in effect, credit has to be given to Laura Coryton, who initiated the Stop Taxing Periods campaign in 2014, gaining remarkable levels of support – with more than 300,000 signatures on her petition . “Ending tampon tax is about so much more than this price drop, although that is of course very important particularly to people struggling with rising levels of poverty. It's about ending a symptom of sexism that has cemented the period taboo for decades.” – Laura Coryton, founder of Stop Taxing Periods Campaign Not only has her dedication to challenging the tampon tax influenced government policy, it has also demonstrated how change can be induced by the power of online platforms such as change.org , which allow people to voice their opinions on issues deemed to be disadvantageous and discriminatory. Period Poverty and the Pandemic Whilst the tampon tax may not seem like a noticeable difference in savings for female buyers, it will have a positive impact particularly on those who come from low-income families struggling with rising levels of poverty, where young girls are forced to resort to unsanitary means to control their periods, using rags, toilet paper or socks that will absorb the blood flow, for example. These stressful occurrences are supported by a survey conducted in 2017 by a charity called Plan International UK, which discovered that 1 in 10 girls had been unable to afford sanitary products , as well as having to be resourceful in their sanitary wear. This highlights that period poverty is having detrimental effects on the wellbeing and livelihood of women in this country: period poverty can be extremely distressing and humiliating for women, inhibiting them from going to work or school, and ultimately limiting their access to opportunities for success. Furthermore, in light of the global pandemic, period poverty has surged in the UK, according to the Bloody Good Period charity, which has supplied 53,000 products to people struggling to obtain menstrual products – including NHS frontline workers, homeless shelters, women fleeing domestic violence and refugees . Women in these vulnerable groups and positions are relying heavily on the support of charities and community help to ease the demoralising aspects and hardship of the pandemic by being comforted in the fact that there are places to go to where period products will be easily accessible. The ending of the tampon tax, as Laura Coryton says, is about so much more than just saving money on menstrual products: it reflects a progressive move in promoting a positive image surrounding women’s bodily functions. As an issue which has received impoverished media and political attention, this change is essential in building the next step towards ending period poverty, and creating a safer and fairer world for women. Article on a similar topic: The Ethical Concerns of the Cosmetics Industry We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Jonny Rogers explores how America might change if Joe Biden fulfils the promises made in his election campaign. Photo by Andres Herrera As we come to the end of an eventful few weeks, Joe Biden has been inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States. Unlike an ordinary inauguration, people were urged to avoid travelling to Washington DC, and only around 1000 seated tickets were available to members of public. For the fourth time in American history, the preceding president Donald Trump has chosen to sit out the event. Biden will, of course, face a situation almost unthinkable even a year ago: an issue that seemed all but a distant threat this time last year, tackling the Coronavirus pandemic has, needless to say, become the most pressing global challenge since the Second World War. In the United States alone , there have been over 24 million reported cases and more than 400,000 deaths. But how has Biden said that he will manage the pandemic in the coming months and years? And will the pandemic give him a chance to re-shape America's environmental policies? In light of this, here is a brief look at how America might change under the Biden-Harris Administration – if, of course, they are able to deliver on what has been promised. Coronavirus On his first day in office, Biden has promised to sign an executive order requiring everyone to wear facemasks for the first 100 days of his administration. Although this only applies to buildings controlled by the federal government, Biden nevertheless claims that this is a “patriotic act” which will start to “change life in America for the better”. Within this time period, he also aims to deliver vaccinations to 100 million Americans . In addition, a $1.9 trillion ‘American Rescue Plan’ has been proposed to increase support for struggling businesses, the unemployed and those experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the pandemic. This includes investing $3 billion in helping women and children secure food and $1 billion to assist in securing nutrition. Another $40 billion will be used to boost a grant programme helping child-care providers pay for rent and utilities, while $350 billion will be sent to local governments to keep frontline workers employed, distribute vaccines and maintain important services. Minimum Wage & ‘Buy American’ As part of his election campaign, Biden has promised to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour (equivalent to £11.50) – a decision that earned him the support of many younger voters. Although he acknowledged that this change will be difficult , he declared that “nobody working 40 hours a week should be living below the poverty line”. Boosting the minimum wage will also support many people working at the forefront of the pandemic. To help support the U.S. economy, Biden has also claimed he will boost the existent ‘Buy American’ practises with a $400 billion investment for infrastructure products which use American materials and products, and another $300 billion grant for the research and development of new technologies and clean-energy initiatives. However, some companies have argued that tightened rules could raise their costs and complicate supply chains. Gun Control & Law Enforcement Biden has promised to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which was passed in 2005 to ensure that gun manufacturers could not be held liable for any injury or death caused by the use of their weapons. Nearly 40,000 Americans die in gun-related incidents every year. In addition, he aims to enact a universal background check to further prevent guns from falling into dangerous hands. After the United States’ police force came under widespread national and global criticism last year, Biden and Harris aim to reform the nation’s law enforcement system . This includes a ban on chokeholds, stopping the transfer of weapons of war to police forces, and improving oversight and accountability to create a standardised model for use of force. In addition, they have promised to work towards overcoming the racial, gender and income-based disparities in the criminal justice system, ensuring that prisons are focused on “redemption and rehabilitation”. Climate Change & Environment On his first day in office, Joe Biden has promised to cancel the controversial Keystone pipeline , which is set to carry oil nearly 1,200 miles from Alberta in Canada to Nebraska. The project had been fought by environmentalists for over a decade, having been vetoed by Obama in 2015 and reapproved by Trump in 2019. However, this move has already caused a mix reception by officials in Canada . Nevertheless, this follows from Biden’s pledge to prioritise climate change in the next few years. As we reported at the time of November’s election , Biden promised to re-join the Paris Agreement after Trump decided to withdraw from the deal , further aiming to reach net zero emissions by 2050 . As one of the world’s largest polluters , this change – which will see the United States join other countries in a pledge to minimise the global temperature rise – is one which should benefit the whole world. In addition to re-joining the Paris Agreement, Biden’s climate and environmental justice proposal includes a $1.7 trillion federal investment in clean energy infrastructure over the next decade, which will be funded in part by reversing Trump’s tax incentives. It has also been argued that investment in green energy will support working-class union workers. Concluding Reflections After Trump’s persistent refusal to concede defeat to Biden culminated in a public display of mob brutality and violence, perhaps the new President’s greatest responsibility is the restoration of confidence in a political system which in recent years has provoked increasing dissent and division – saving one of the world’s most powerful countries from entering the prophesied “death spiral” . Whatever changes America will experience under the Biden-Harris Administration, public trust in the democratic system depends on our world leaders keeping to their promises. You may also like: 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.

Monica Hayford introduces the exciting prospect of rewilding projects across Britain and Ireland Photo by Artur Stanulevich One of the most effective and inexpensive ways to combat the climate crisis is to ‘rewild’ areas in order to boost dwindling wildlife populations. ‘Rewilding’ can be described as the process of restoring natural habitats which may have been degraded due to human activity to their former glory in order to reinvigorate the nature in those areas to the point at which it can look after itself again. Benefits of Rewilding At least 300,000 acres of land could be “rewilded” in the next three years with the aid of a scheme that claims to tackle the nature and climate crisis. Rewilding Britain is a campaign group that is the first and only country-wide organisation in Britain focusing on rewilding. They want to see rewilding flourishing across Britain and encourage a wide diversity of views on how the country’s wildlife can be looked after, inspiring creative thinking in the process. The charity is encouraging all of us to engage with rewilding by getting involved with broader projects in areas such as forests, meadows and rivers, but it’s also something everyone can do on a smaller scale. Planting plants which are particularly helpful to species such as bees in your own garden can be enough to help the local ecosystem. 10 Exciting UK Rewilding Projects Intriguing rewilding projects are already popping up all over the UK and Ireland in an effort to promote biodiversity and protect species on the edge of extinction. Carrifan Wildwood, Scottish Uplands: Carrifran Wildwood in the Moffat Hills in southern Scotland is a 1600-acre ice-carved valley. This project (the Wildwood Project) began when a group of friends gained over 1000 supporters and purchased the glen in 2000. Since then, they have planted over 600,000 native trees. Dingle Marshes, Suffolk: The biggest freshwater reedbed in the UK is here, as are 93 hectares of wild marshland protected by the RSPB. This location is on the coast, meaning a mixture of freshwater and coastal water birds can be spotted. The Great Fen, Huntingdon: This project in Cambridgeshire was started in 2001, and joined two nature reserves that were threatened. A vision of land and wildlife restoration at the new reserve has led to big things being achieved, such as stabilising water levels and restoring reedbeds. Knepp Wildland, West Sussex: My family have visited this place and say it is lovely. The castle estate in which the project lies was taken over by Charles Burrell (an English landowner and conservationist) in 1987. He and his wife were inspired by the undisturbed Oostvaardersplassen Reserve in Holland, and wanted to emulate the natural haven on British soil, centred around natural water courses. Nigg Bay Nature Reserve, the Cromarty Firth: This is a coastal realignment scheme that involves breaching sea walls to flood a 25-hectare area of farmland in 2003 to create a haven for water birds who have limited spaces in which to live and breed. Pumlumom Project, Welsh Uplands: This project began in 2007, and aims to build a sustainable upland habitat across 40,000 hectares of the Cambrian Mountains. The aim is to do this through storing flood water, reintroducing species, changing livestock grazing patterns, and developing green tourism. Soar and Wreake Valley Living Landscape, Leicestershire: The longest river in Leicestershire is the River Soar which has been industrialised over the years. Now the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust are working to rewild the floodplains here, preventing further building along the river. Pine Marten Recovery Project, Mid Wales: The Vincent Wildlife Trust (founded 1975) focusses on conserving threatened mammals such as bats and mustelids in this area. They plan on reintroducing pine martens into the area by transporting a population from Scotland and releasing them into the wild into the Welsh forest. Wild Ennerdale, Cumbria: This is a partnership between the Forestry Commission, National Trust and United Utilities. They want to create a wild valley on the edge of the Lake District National Park where natural processes decide how it is shaped. Wild Nephin Ballycroy National Park, County Mayo: In Ireland’s first wilderness project in which nature itself will dictate how the area is rewilded, 8,000 hectares, including one of the last intact active bog systems in Western Europe, have been set aside for the ambitious project. The project site will be split into three main areas: Primitive; Semi Primitive; and Developed Natural (Greaves), allowing for different species to flourish. It’s hoped that these projects will aid in reinvigorating regional ecosystems, and if the initiative catches on at a national level, such rejuvenation could be seen to improve the overall environmental status of the whole country. You may also like: The Mission to Bring UK Animals Back From Extinction We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Tori Scott celebrates as H&M owner, Stefan Persson, advocates for the safety of foxes by banning all hunting on his English estate. Photo by Sunyu For decades, there has been a battle between hunters and wildlife. Fox hunting was a regulated and legal activity until the Hunting Act of 2004 was enforced to protect wild animals. Stefan Perrsson, H&M owner, has joined this battle and banned hunting on his estate with “immediate effect” , marking a key step forward in stopping trail-hunting in the UK. Multi-billionaire owner of high-street fashion brand H&M, Stefan Persson, has made it his mission to remove all hunting on his English estate by banning the activity after allegations were made about illegal practice taking place on his grounds. Persson has owned Ramsbury Estates for 23 years, which covers 19,000 acres across Wiltshire, Berkshire and Hampshire . Trail-Hunting Trail-hunting entails using hounds to follow an artificial scent often from the carcass of a fox in order to hunt foxes, hares and deer . This form of hunting is legal in the UK, but heavily scrutinised. Before 2004, dogs were explicitly allowed to hunt down these animals, but animal welfare campaigners argued that this form of hunting was causing wild animals unnecessary suffering. However, this law doesn’t prevent dogs being able to ‘flush’ out the animals from hiding for specific and controlled reasons, essentially legalising the killing of the animals once they’ve been ‘flushed’ out. The decision to remove hunting on Ramsbury Estate came as a result of an incident involving Vine and Craven Hunt being accused of using voice notes . This can be known as traditional fox hunting which has been illegal since 2004. Vine and Craven Hunt was previously allowed to hunt on Ramsbury Estate, but after illegal allegations were made on December 6, 2020 , Ramsbury Estate decided to suspend hunting all together. This law being made to decrease fox hunting is not enough for anti-bloodsport supporters. They believe that the trails used to hunt involve killing foxes to provide carcasses , and hunters cannot avoid their hounds picking up the scent of a living fox . Prohibiting hunting on the grounds prevent potential illegal activity and prevent damage to flora and fauna . Mr Persson is not the only well known individual to ban hunting; French footballer Djibril Cisse , Forestry England , the National Trust , Lake District National Park and more have decided to suspend hunting on their grounds to contribute to maintaining good animal welfare. "Finally, 15 years after the Hunting Act, the tide is finally turning and hunts are fighting for their very existence" - Hunt Saboteurs Association Ramsbury Estate & Animal Welfare By making this decision early December, Ramsbury estate is on a growing list of UK landowners to suspend hunting . Many landowners committed to this suspension after ITV revealed that police were investigating the blood sport . "Every acre of hunting territory being lost is a great win for wildlife and we look forward to other landowners following suit" - Reading Hunt Saboteurs Persson is not only protecting animal welfare through this action, but also through his brand. H&M has banned the use of fur , angora and exotic animal skins in their products. It does not eliminate all animal products like leather and exotic animal hair, but by 2025, H&M is hoping to be fully traceable. More bosses of big brands need to take visible action to become more sustainable in order to promote eco-friendly lifestyles and consumerism habits. Let’s hope Mr Persson can be an inspiration to other brand owners, or to other landowners who are contemplating the morals behind trail-hunting. You may also like: 100+ Gather for Stag Hunt with Taxpayer Loan 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 plans for Paris’ Champs-Élysées and its green makeover. Photo by Madalena Veloso The Champs-Élysées in the French capital is set to be given a €250 million (£225m) green makeover, the mayor of Paris has announced. Anne Hidalgo, the city’s mayor, told French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche that the work would make the 1.9km (1.2 mile) long road – one of the most famous streets in the world – into “an extraordinary garden”. The Champs-Élysées committee have been campaigning for a major redesign of the avenue and the infamous Arc de Triomphe roundabout since 2018, as the area has lost its ‘splendour’. What was once called the “most beautiful avenue in the world” now features cracked pavements, and the trees that line the cobbled, traffic-clogged road struggle to survive in one of Paris’s most polluted areas. The Destructive Impact of Tourism The committee held a public consultation over what should be done with the avenue. The plans include reducing space for vehicles by half, turning roads into pedestrian and green areas, and creating tunnels of trees to improve air quality. Before the coronavirus pandemic brought a stop to international tourism, there were approximately 100,000 pedestrians on the avenue daily; 72% were tourists and 22% work in the area. The eight-lane highway is used by an average of 3000 vehicles an hour, significantly contributing to the worsening air quality. Philippe Chiambaretta, the architect whose firm PCA-Stream drew up the makeover plans, said that the Champs-Élysées had become a place that summed up the problems faced by cities around the world – “pollution, the place of the car, tourism and consumerism” – and needed to be redeveloped to be “ecological, desirable, and inclusive”. The Benefits of Green Space in Cities Green spaces in cities mitigate the effects of pollution and can reduce a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect, which refers to heat trapped in built-up areas. The heat generated by people, transport, shops, and industry is trapped in the narrow roads and concrete structures, unable to escape to the atmosphere, in turn potentially increasing the temperature in urban areas to 3-4°C higher than the surrounding countryside. The creation of an urban biodiversity layer acts as a solution to these issues, as they significantly contribute to the improvement of environmental conditions: Green roofs act as sinks for carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for climate change. For each 100 square metres of green roof, CO2 levels are reduced by 1.8 tonnes per year. The pollution emitted by 15 cars in a year can be removed by 100 square metres of green roof, since the leaves of the green roof plants can retain these harmful particles on their surfaces. Green spaces can reduce the ambient temperature of cities by 1°C, further reducing the urban heat island and harmful city smog. Green rooves also retain 40% of rainwater and can delay water discharge by 18 minutes in episodes of intense rain, preventing the collapse of urban drainage systems. The ‘greening’ of the Champs-Élysées will reportedly start with the highly frequented Place de la Concorde square, which is expected to be completed before the Paris Olympic Games in 2024. Afterwards, the mayor’s office plans to transform the entirety of the avenue, with plans to finish the project by 2030. Planning cities to include green spaces, wherever possible, is the first step in creating healthy urban areas which are both sustainable and beautiful in the long-term. You may also like: 'Green Streets' are Rejuvenating our Urban Areas We are a not for profit socio-ethical impact initiative advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. Support our journalism by considering becoming an advocate from just £1.

Jonny Rogers investigates how the cotton industry is involved in supporting the detainment of minorities in China. Photo by Magda Ehlers Cotton might well be one of the most important plants in the world, being invaluable to the cosmetic, fashion and textile industries alike, but a fifth of the world’s cotton supply could be connected to slave labour in China. As reported by the BBC in December, a recent investigation lead by Dr Adrian Zenz has uncovered new evidence suggesting that upwards of half a million minority peoples in the Xinjiang region of China could be involved in a state-run coercive labour program disguised as a voluntary ‘poverty alleviation’ scheme. "For the first time we not only have evidence of Uighur forced labour in manufacturing, in garment making, it’s directly about the picking of cotton, and I think that is such a game-changer." – Dr Adrian Zenz This report follows the increasing exposure of China’s ‘re-education’ camps, in which Uighur Muslims are being forced to learn Mandarin, renounce their faith and swear loyalty to President Xi Jinping under strict surveillance. Some are even being tortured, separated from their families and sterilised, before being forced to work in factories and farms – a system which has been described as “the largest internment of an ethnic and religious minority since the second world war”. Which Brands are Connected to Uighur Cotton? Although the UK government passed anti-slavery legislation in 2015 under the Modern Slavery Act, the traceability of cotton products, as Kate Larsen reports, is notoriously challenging. In 2019, Amy Lehr of the CSIS Human Rights Initiative told the BBC that Xinjiang cotton can go through “several stages of transformation” before being sent to Western companies. In response to the recent investigations, the BBC approached 30 international brands to explore which retailers source cotton from Xinjiang. Whilst many said that they have policies in place to avoid connections with China, others were unable to ensure that unethical cotton did not unknowingly enter their supply chains. Last year, the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region published an extensive list of brands and retailers linked to Uighur cotton – a list which includes H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Gap and Calvin Klein – though some have already severed connections to the region. On the other hand, a number of fashion brands are more transparent about their use of Xinjiang cotton, with the Japanese brand Muji even launching a controversial ‘Xinjiang Cotton’ collection in 2019. One haunting advertisement proudly declared that their ‘organic cotton’ was “delicately and wholly handpicked in Xinjiang”. Nevertheless, Kate Larsen hopes that the recent investigations into Chinese cotton will provoke wider change throughout the fashion industry: "The increase in forced labour of Uyghurs [...] presents an opportunity to come together, deepen supplier insight, improve collaboration to reduce forced labour and other risks, and influence and deliver positive social impact for Uyghurs, Chinese and many more." How to Support Sustainable Fashion Given the permeance of Xinjiang cotton in the international cotton trade, it is, unfortunately, all but unavoidable for those who cannot afford or are unaware of the increasing range of ethical clothing brands. Thankfully, however, a number of independent initiatives, such as Yarn Ethically & Sustainably Sourced (YESS) and the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), have promised to increase transparency and accountability in the garment industry, already influencing a number of brands. Nevertheless, although this article has focused on political injustice in cotton production, unethical working conditions is symptomatic of broader issues within the ‘fast fashion’ industry which notoriously underpays workers, supports excessive wealth disparity and condones over-consumption and pollution. Last year, a report published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment concluded that the fashion industry produces over 92 million tonnes of waste each year, with 79 trillion litres of water utilised in the production of new materials. It has even been suggested that the fashion industry accounts for 10% of global yearly carbon dioxide emissions. As a result of the first Covid-19 lockdown, fashion brands suddenly cancelled orders for items already in production, leaving countless garment workers without payment. The entire industry – and the world at large – would benefit from our mutual support for a radical change in attitude towards what we buy and wear. Before purchasing anything online or in-store, take a moment to check whether there is a clothing rental service, charity shop or clothes swapping event nearby – and if nothing else, always look closely at the label (and not just the big name at the top). You may also like: Billions Owed to Fashion Industry Garment Workers 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 reports on the increasing loss of lake ice in the northern hemisphere and explains the social and economic impacts. Photo by Louis A recent study of historical data has revealed that lakes in the northern hemisphere are becoming increasingly ice-free, a trend that is predicted to continue in coming years. Researchers discovered the ice loss was linked to rising air temperatures, meaning decreased ice cover is another symptom of climate change . Due to its sensitivity to changes in the weather, lake ice formation is considered a good indicator of climate change. Many different factors can affect the formation of lake ice, such as varying weather conditions , but also physical lake characteristics like lake depth, elevation and shoreline features . Around 117 million lakes are present in the non-glaciated regions of the world, covering nearly 4% of the world’s surface. Over 50 million of these are frozen during the winter months and, in the northern hemisphere, ice can be present on lakes for six months out of the year, normally with reliable freeze and thaw cycles. That’s beginning to change. Alarming Data To investigate changes in lake ice coverage, a research team at York University in Canada studied eight decades of lake ice records, between 1939 and 2016, for 122 lakes in the northern hemisphere. The data, provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre , contained freeze and thaw dates and allowed the authors to discover emerging patterns. Any year which had at least one day with 0% ice cover was classed as an ‘ice-free year’ for a particular lake. Almost 11% of lakes included experienced ice-free years within the time frame studied. In fact, by comparing the first forty years of the studied time period to the last forty, the researchers found that these extreme events now occur three times more frequently since 1978 and are becoming more severe in nature. The team also determined that extreme temperatures are linked to respective extremes in lake ice cover and that local air temperature is the best predictor of ice cover, linking the ice loss directly to climate change. If temperatures increase to a relatively warm -4 degrees Celsius , then an ice-free year is more likely, with southern and coastal lakes being more prone to these events. In addition, it was predicted that large-scale ice-loss would result from increasingly frequent ice-free years in years to come. Alessandro Filazzola , lead author of the research paper , emphasised that this is a growing problem, and a global one: "This isn’t just happening in one lake in the northern United States, it’s happening in thousands of lakes around the world. Even in the last 40 years versus the last 80 years, there’s already an obvious pattern that’s occurring and it’s showing that we’re already experiencing a response from warming, which will likely get worse." Social and Ecological Impacts The authors of the study believe that unless measures are put in place to reduce carbon emissions substantially, the loss of lake ice could have significant socio-economic and ecological implications. This is because ice plays an important role in many cultures, ecosystems and lifestyles. In Japan, for example, Shinto priests see the appearance of ice on Lake Suwa as a message from God and have celebrated the appearance of ice since 1443 , with formal celebrations performed on the ice itself. Lake Suwa now only freezes over two out of every ten years , meaning this tradition is in danger. Many northern areas rely on lakes and ice roads for transportation , which links communities and allows for trade of produce. In addition, winter festivals, involving ice fishing or ice sports for example, are hosted every year. Both festivals and transportation are economically important for many communities, and ice fishing can also be an important part of cultural identity and vital for food security. It’s not only humans who will feel the loss of ice. Without it, more sunlight will be able to penetrate the water which will cause its temperature to rise. Higher temperatures can affect the life cycles of both plants and animals, increase water evaporation and also make it more likely for toxic algal blooms to form , which could affect wildlife and humans alike. Currently, there is a global demand to reduce carbon emissions in an effort to slow climate change. However, the number of ice-free years is expected to increase even if carbon emissions are reduced, with a plateau predicted in 2050 . If no action is taken, this loss will continue until at least 2100. It remains to be seen whether the world can rise to the challenge and prevent lasting damage. You may also like: Arctic Permafrost is Melting: What it Means for the Planet 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.

Georgie Chantrell-Plant reveals some of the cracks illuminated by the 'Clap for Carers' movement. Photo by Luke Jones Starting on the 26th March, near the peak of the coronavirus pandemic in the UK, a national movement swept across the country as millions took to their doorsteps to take part in a weekly clap for our NHS Heroes on the healthcare frontline – the Clap for Carers This lasted for 10 weeks with each instance becoming more and more powerful, evolving into a symbolic break from the monotony and severity of lockdown. A shining light of hope for the country and its residents, with mottos such as “Thank You NHS” and “NHS Heroes”, the weekly round of applause presented the narrative of a huge swell of appreciation for all of the doctors, nurses, paramedics and healthcare assistants up and down the country for saving countless lives. The event was first established by Londoner Annemarie Plas, who desired to give something back and show some much-needed and deserved appreciation for all frontline and key workers during the crisis. The feeling of gratitude across Britain while everyone joined together to applaud our heroes was palpable. Now it’s over, perhaps it is time to take stock and analyse the movement’s benefits in uniting a nationwide community to show support for those saving our lives, but also for the inadequacy of rewarding our saviours with a mere clap. One NHS Consultant feels that the clapping overshadows the support that is actually needed: “Are we still allowed to complain about poor resources and potentially unsafe working conditions now we’ve had clapping, rainbows, free doughnuts and a centenarian walking round his garden for us? How dare we?” You can help support our journalism by donating from £1 per month. Clapping Over the Cracks The Clap may not have been sincere from everyone who participated, as it represented an opportunity for politicians to improve their image by taking part, yet simultaneously failing to provide appropriate funding for the NHS and enough supplies for PPE. In April, the Guardian provided a timeline on those shortages whilst the clapping was happening. Home Secretary Priti Patel offered what many are deeming a ‘non-apology’ by responding to claims of shortages by stating: “I’m sorry if people feel that there have been failings”. This was after it was revealed 19 UK healthcare workers had died after contracting the virus, however now that death toll has risen exponentially, as it is reported that 200 have now died, yet it is feared that the total may be far higher. It is no secret that the pandemic has placed a huge strain on the NHS, but even before that the NHS was struggling due to lack of funding and constant budget cuts. So, when the statement ‘Protect the NHS’ became PM Boris Johnson’s pandemic-slogan, it begs the question–why wasn’t it properly funded and protected from the get-go? Could his involvement in the weekly ritual along with so many other government officials have been solely a front and a pacifier to hide the previous negligence of the country’s greatest asset?  With it being such a heavily televised weekly event, could it have been a thinly-veiled attempt to refuse to face up to other shortcomings in the response to COVID-19? Abandonment of Healthcare It was recently announced that thousands of 3rd Year student nurses who were recruited into the healthcare system early during their studies to help during the pandemic are now having their placements cut short, leaving many in financial turmoil. This has sparked unsurprising outrage as the nurses have been told by Health Education England that the NHS can no longer afford to keep the paid placements going until the end of September despite their dedicated work on the frontline in the past months. Lead Organiser of Nurses United UK, Anthony Johnson states: “Student nurses are not all young, they have families and mortgages to support. And if there is a second peak, we're going to be asking them to get involved again.” Shadow Health Minister Justin Madders also commented: “Their personal commitment should be recognised and reciprocated by the Government. They do not deserve to be cast aside like this and ministers must explain exactly what is happening.” So, with these reports arising, it brings forward new waves of concern as to how the NHS has been treated and may continue to be in the future. Many NHS workers constantly sacrificed and worked long hours even before the pandemic, and their commitment to others and their work has remained unchanged. It seems shameful that it took a worldwide pandemic for us to truly notice the hard work and selflessness of the individuals who save lives day in and day out, and that the government is still lacking in their appreciation and dedication to helping the invaluable Service. What’s Next for ‘Clap for Carers’? It is hoped that now the weekly iteration of ‘Clap for Carers’ is over, the nation's attitude towards the NHS will be changed for good, and more people will notice that it needs to be protected and cannot continue to go underfunded. Plas has stated that now it has ended, she hopes for her vision to evolve into an annual event so that the continual efforts of our invaluable NHS staff are not forgotten.  But it is important to remember this: “The NHS is not a charity and it isn’t staffed by heroes. It has been run into the ground by successive governments and now we are reaping the rewards of that neglect, on the background of the public health impact of years of rampant inequality in the UK.”– Anonymous NHS Consultant You may also like: Lessons from Lockdown and the "New Normal" We are a socio-ethical impact charity advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. A charitable initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Kate Byng-Hall investigates the environmental and humanitarian emergency taking place across China Photo by Chi Chen China has announced a state of national emergency of the second-highest level as it faces the most severe flooding for decades. 433 rivers across the southwest and east of the country are under flood alerts as a result of ‘once-in-two-centuries’ torrential rain which began in June. Over the past weeks, thousands of troops have been deployed across the affected regions, using “wartime” measures to shore up flood defences as people panic that the floods could reach the severity of those seen in China in 1998, during which 2000 people died and three million houses were destroyed. 1.8 million people have been evacuated from their homes thus far. Widespread Chaos The extreme rainfall has led to 33 rivers in the country reaching record-breaking water levels. The Yangtze River, the largest in China, has reached its fourth-highest water level since records began. The Three Gorges Dam, the infamous hydroelectric structure holding back billions of gallons of water across a stretch of the Yangtze River, narrowly avoided bursting by opening three of its floodgates when the water levels at the dam rose by 50 feet and the pressure on the walls reached a critical level. Fourteen people were killed at the dam while using sandbags to build makeshift barriers. If the dam’s integrity had been compromised, the massive torrent of water released would have displaced and possibly killed millions of people, and destroyed countless architectural and archaeological sites. Elsewhere, in Anhei province, the dam at Chu River was purposefully destroyed in order to lower water levels by 2 feet in the surrounding area. The water from the reservoir was filtered into two nearby storage ponds. Such tactics have not been seen since the 1998 floods. You can support us with our mission to help people #stayinformed by joining us today from just £1pm. We are a start up charity. Serious Repercussions Concerns are being raised that continuation of such heavy rain could mean more flooding further downstream towards densely-populated metropolises like Wuhan, where residents are being told to stay in their homes due to the dangerous rainfall. The consequences of the floods are also felt in the West, as delays in shipments from Chinese manufacturers means some PPE deliveries to the USA are arriving as much as three weeks behind schedule. “It's just creating another major roadblock here in terms of PPE getting into the United States – it is the worst of times for it to happen but that's what we're dealing with right now” – Michael Einhorn, President of Dealmed, US medical supplier 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. People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s daily newspaper, reported in April that the coronavirus pandemic put a strain on flood preparations, meaning the country was not as ready for heavy rainfall as it may have been otherwise. On top of this, many of the country’s smaller reservoirs were built in the 1960s and 70s, thus do not meet current constructions standards to withstand extreme weather. As a result of the damage caused so far, China’s National Development and Reform Commission is sending £35 million in relief funds to affected areas. However, this amount has been criticised as being too small as the estimated damage caused directly by the floods is currently estimated at around £5.5 billion. Scientists have suggested that climate change has most probably had a hand in the extreme weather which is causing these floods, but it’s yet to be seen whether this will have any effect on China’s approach to sustainability. You may also like: The Democratic Battle of Hong Kong We are a socio-ethical impact charity advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. A charitable initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.

Nick Webb looks into what the potential benefits a 'meat-tax' could have on public health and the environment. Photo by Chi Chen Scientists are recommending governments impose a new “meat tax” in order to help lighten the burdens on global health services. New research from the University of Oxford shows how consumption of red meat vastly exceeds suggested levels in mid to high income countries, reaching an extent of consumption which can cause serious health risks. Significant Health Risks In 2015, the World Health Organisation confirmed that eating large quantities of processed red meats such as beef, lamb and pork can be carcinogenic to humans, meaning it can exacerbate the risk of getting cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has also linked unprocessed forms of these meats to increased risk of strokes, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and overall mortality. You can support us with our mission to help people #stayinformed by joining us today from just £1 per month. We are a start up charity (CIC). The suggestion raised in the new paper, published in PLOS, calls for red meat to be treated the same as some countries treat sugary drinks and fatty foods. In the UK alone, a meat tax could save the NHS more than £700 million annually and save around 6000 lives by encouraging people to consume it less frequently. Dr Marco Springmann, the lead author on the paper “Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts”, has suggested that the optimum levels of taxation added to products would be 14 per cent for red meats, and up to 80 per cent on processed meat. He claims these increased prices on meat products could lead to a 22 per cent drop in deaths and 19 per cent drop in healthcare costs currently linked to excessive consumption of processed meats. “The consumption of red and processed meat exceeds recommended levels in most high and middle-income countries. This is having significant impacts not only on personal health, but also on healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded. It is a similar argument to taxing smokers. We are not saying do not have any meat, just pay a fair price for it that reflects the cost to your health and the pressure on the NHS.” – Dr Springmann This research comes after 11,000 scientists at the Alliance of World Scientists co-signed a letter which, among other things, has suggested that the raising and consumption of livestock is a major factor in serious global warming.  Substantial scientific evidence has proved that humans eating meat has negative effects for both the environment and human health, and both suggest that a more plant-based diet would be better for everyone. 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. A Viable Change? While it is easy to see the benefits of reducing the amount of meat consumed, many critics of the ‘meat tax’ claim that it would hit less-wealthy groups the hardest. Processed meats are typically the cheapest, making them the most easily available for lower-income households, so some say that taxing such products most severely would make “taxing food the next battleground for the nanny state.” Ultimately, as Dr Springmann has said, “a health levy on red and processed meat would not limit choices, but send a powerful signal to consumers and take pressure off our healthcare systems.”  The question remains how such a tax could be instigated realistically without further disadvantaging already-struggling members of society. You may also like: Germany Takes Action Against Meat Industry We are a socio-ethical impact charity advocating for topics that matter, whilst supporting wider planetary change and acknowledgement. A charitable initiative funded by readers like you. | To support our work and journalism, consider becoming an advocate from just £1.