UK court acquits climate scientists who glued their hands to government building

/ activist360
Photo by NOAA on Unsplash
A calving glacier. Witness to global warming. Photo by NOAA on Unsplash

By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Climate action advocates around the world on Friday celebrated a London-based court’s acquittal of five scientists who in April glued research and their own hands to a U.K. government building.

The members of Scientists for Extinction Rebellion (XR) faced charges of criminal damage for their nonviolent civil disobedience at the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) building to stress the danger of new fossil fuel exploration.

“The rush for new oil and gas being enabled by the U.K. government is completely at odds with what the scientific research is telling us needs to happen,” defendant Stuart Capstick said Friday. “The consequences of ignoring that science will be devastating climate impacts that threaten the lives and well-being of people around the world.”

“Under normal circumstances, the last thing I would want to do is glue myself to a window, be arrested, and put on trial,” he added. “Unfortunately, this type of action seems to be one of the few ways left to draw attention to the urgency and scale of action needed to tackle the climate crisis.”

XR highlighted in a statement that the scientists, who also wrote messages in chalk spray, “took great care not to cause any lasting damage by using easily washable and removable substances,” and “the prosecution could not produce any evidence of the alleged damage or actual costs” to clean up.

Four other scientists who participated were tried separately and found guilty in September. One of them, Colin Davis, said Friday that “the chalk I sprayed on the windows of the publicly owned BEIS department building needed only a damp cloth to wipe away, unlike the millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution that will be dumped into the atmosphere if the U.K. government proceeds with its plan to license new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.”

“Those gases will persist for hundreds of years and will heat our planet even more, directly contributing to millions of deaths from heatwaves, flooding, extreme weather events, and crop failure,” he warned. “We need the government to start listening to the warnings coming from scientists and bodies such as the United Nations and the International Energy Agency.”

Defendant Abi Perrin, who was acquitted, said that “when governments ignore the warnings of the world’s scientists and even their own climate pledges, it’s hard not to feel desperate. I took part in this peaceful and nondestructive protest action in the hope that it would help raise the alarm about policies that exacerbate the loss, suffering, and violence already being experienced around the world.”

Similarly noting that “scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades but have been ignored by governments,” fellow defendant Emma Smart declared that “with knowledge comes responsibility and more and more scientists are mobilizing in civil disobedience around the world as we are running out of time.”

In a series of tweets about the court’s decision, defendant Aaron Thierry said that “if there are scientists reading this who are considering taking part in civil disobedience, or still uncertain but want to know more, then please check out our recent article” in the journal Nature Climate Change, which argues that the time is now for experts to join activist efforts.

The court’s decision comes as world leaders prepare for the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month and as the U.K. government is in turmoil following the Thursday resignation of Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss.

The acquittal also comes as British policymakers crack down on protests, from the recently enacted Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act 2022 to an ongoing push for the Public Order Bill.

“In worrying echoes of the tendency towards authoritarian suppression of protest in countries like Hungary and Russia, it is unclear what will happen to the ability of citizens to make their concerns heard, when the only form of protest allowed in the U.K. will be obedient and approved marches on the street,” XR said.

Defendant Caroline Vincent also recognized that reality, saying that “with a raft of oppressive laws against legitimate protests being adopted in the U.K., it is becoming more and more difficult for the voice of reason to be heard.”

“The government would rather prosecute scientists and suppress legitimate protests than… act on the advice they receive from scientists and their own advisers,” she continued. “But today, the magistrates acknowledged that we were expressing our right to protest, which should be the cornerstone of any democracy.”

The same day as the BEIS protest, XR campaigners also occupied the London headquarters of oil giant Shell. Five people arrested for aggravated trespass in connection with the latter action had their charges dropped on Friday.

“I am glad that our attempts to inform Shell employees of the danger that their employer poses to our collective future, and to encourage them to take action, have resulted in all criminal charges against us being dropped,” said Dr. Elanor Lewis-Holmes, a clinical psychologist.

“Shell is a criminal organization, who have been found guilty of numerous climate-related crimes such as destructive oil spills in the Niger Delta and highly inadequate reductions in CO2 emissions,” she added. “If left unchecked, 1.6% of the entire world’s carbon budget will be used up by this one company in the next eight years.”

‘Silent Spring’ 60 years on: 4 essential reads on pesticides and the environment

/ activist360
Photo by Laura Arias, Pexels
Man Fumigating the Plants Laura Arias, Pexels

By Jennifer Weeks, The Conversation (US CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In 1962 environmental scientist Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” a bestselling book that asserted that overuse of pesticides was harming the environment and threatening human health. Carson did not call for banning DDT, the most widely used pesticide at that time, but she argued for using it and similar products much more selectively and paying attention to their effects on nontargeted species.

“Silent Spring” is widely viewed as an inspiration for the modern environmental movement. These articles from The Conversation’s archive spotlight ongoing questions about pesticides and their effects.

1. Against absolutes

Although the chemical industry attacked “Silent Spring” as anti-science and anti-progress, Carson believed that chemicals had their place in agriculture. She “favored a restrained use of pesticides, but not a complete elimination, and did not oppose judicious use of manufactured fertilizers,” writes Harvard University sustainability scholar Robert Paarlberg.

Rachel Carson. The author of Silent Spring (1962), the book that forced the nation to confront the toll of pesticides on the environment, Carson began her career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A refuge on the southern coast of Maine now bears her name. (USFWS) (CC BY 2.0)
Rachel Carson. The author of Silent Spring (1962), the book that forced the nation to confront the toll of pesticides on the environment, Carson began her career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A refuge on the southern coast of Maine now bears her name. (USFWS) (CC BY 2.0)

This approach put Carson at odds with the fledgling organic movement, which totally rejected synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Early organic advocates claimed Carson as a supporter nonetheless, but Carson kept them at arm’s length. “The organic farming movement was suspect in Carson’s eyes because most of its early leaders were not scientists,” Paarlberg observes.

This divergence has echoes today in debates about whether organic production or steady improvements in conventional farming have more potential to feed a growing world population.

2. Concerned cropdusters

Well before “Silent Spring” was published, a crop-dusting industry developed on the Great Plains in the years after World War II to apply newly commercialized pesticides. “Chemical companies made broad promises about these ‘miracle’ products, with little discussion of risks. But pilots and scientists took a much more cautious approach,” recounts University of Nebraska-Kearney historian David Vail.

As Vail’s research shows, many crop-dusting pilots and university agricultural scientists were well aware of how little they knew about how these new tools actually worked. They attended conferences, debated practices for applying pesticides and organized flight schools that taught agricultural science along with spraying techniques. When “Silent Spring” was published, many of these practitioners pushed back, arguing that they had developed strategies for managing pesticide risks.

Archival footage of crop-dusters spraying in California in the 1950s.

Today aerial spraying is still practiced on the Great Plains, but it’s also clear that insects and weeds rapidly evolve resistance to every new generation of pesticides, trapping farmers on what Vail calls “a chemical-pest treadmill.” Carson anticipated this effect in “Silent Spring,” and called for more research into alternative pest control methods – an approach that has become mainstream today.

3. The osprey’s crash and recovery

In “Silent Spring,” Carson described in detail how chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides persisted in the environment long after they were sprayed, rising through the food chain and building up in the bodies of predators. Populations of fish-eating raptors, such as bald eagles and ospreys, were ravaged by these chemicals, which thinned the shells of the birds’ eggs so that they broke in the nest before they could hatch.

“Up to 1950, ospreys were one of the most widespread and abundant hawks in North America,” writes Cornell University research associate Alan Poole. “By the mid-1960s, the number of ospreys breeding along the Atlantic coast between New York City and Boston had fallen by 90%.”

Bans on DDT and other highly persistent pesticides opened the door to recovery. But by the 1970s, many former osprey nesting sites had been developed. To compensate, concerned naturalists built nesting poles along shorelines. Ospreys also learned to colonize light posts, cell towers and other human-made structures.

Wildlife monitors band young ospreys in New York City’s Jamaica Bay to monitor their lives and movements.

Today, “Along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, nearly 20,000 ospreys now arrive to nest each spring – the largest concentration of breeding pairs in the world. Two-thirds of them nest on buoys and channel markers maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard, who have become de facto osprey guardians,” writes Poole. “To have robust numbers of this species back again is a reward for all who value wild animals, and a reminder of how nature can rebound if we address the key threats.”

4. New concerns

Pesticide application techniques have become much more targeted in the 60 years since “Silent Spring” was published. One prominent example: crop seeds coated with neonicotinoids, the world’s most widely used class of insecticides. Coating the seeds makes it possible to introduce pesticides into the environment at the point where they are needed, without spraying a drop.

But a growing body of research indicates that even though coated seeds are highly targeted, much of their pesticide load washes off into nearby streams and lakes. “Studies show that neonicotinoids are poisoning and killing aquatic invertebrates that are vital food sources for fish, birds and other wildlife,” writes Penn State entomologist John Tooker.

In multiple studies, Tooker and colleagues have found that using coated seeds reduces populations of beneficial insects that prey on crop-destroying pests like slugs.

“As I see it, neonicotinoids can provide good value in controlling critical pest species, particularly in vegetable and fruit production, and managing invasive species like the spotted lanternfly. However, I believe the time has come to rein in their use as seed coatings in field crops like corn and soybeans, where they are providing little benefit and where the scale of their use is causing the most critical environmental problems,” Tooker writes.

‘Dangerous moment’: record deforestation in Amazon shows stakes of Brazil election

/ activist360
A fire in a forest area and view along the BR-319 highway near Porto Velho, Rondônia. (Photo: Bruno Kelly/Amazônia Real, 8/12/20).

The runoff between Bolsonaro and Lula, warned one activist, is “not just about the future of Brazil, the result will have an impact on all of humanity.”

By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Conservationists and climate campaigners on Friday renewed criticism of Brazilian right-wing President Deforestation, Brazil, Jair Bolosnaro, Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, Fires, Amazon, Amazon Rainforest, Luiz Inácio Lula da SilvaDeforestation, Brazil, Jair Bolosnaro, Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, Fires, Amazon, Amazon Rainforest, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who faces a runoff later this month—after government data revealed deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest broke yet another record last month.

“The Bolsonaro government is a forest-destroying machine.”

—Marcio Astrini, head of the Climate Observatory

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), 1,455 square kilometers or about 562 square miles were lost, up 48% from the same month last year and the greatest loss of forest for any September since record-keeping began.

“Friday’s preliminary figures also pushed deforestation in the region to a record high for the first nine months of the year, according to INPE, with 8,590 square kilometers cleared from January to September, equal to an area 11 times the size of New York City and up 22.6% from last year,” Reuters noted.

Mariana Napolitano, WWF-Brazil’s science manager, told the news agency that rising deforestation had “pretty relevant impacts not only for the biome, but also for the weather and the region’s rainfall regime, as well as economic impacts for those who live in the Amazon and Brazil as a whole.”

The new deforestation numbers come in the lead-up to the October 30 runoff election between Bolsonaro and leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who nearly won in the first round of voting last weekend.

“This is a very dangerous moment,” Marcio Astrini, head of the Climate Observatory, told The Guardian. “The Bolsonaro government is a forest-destroying machine.”

The watchdog group’s leader suggested that illegal loggers and ranchers are working to clear parts of the Amazon—the majority of which is in Brazil— before Bolsonaro’s potential defeat. He said that “they can see that their president could lose the election so they’re taking advantage of this final stretch of Bolsonaro to tear down everything they possibly can.”

If Bolsonaro’s government “is given another four years, the Amazon’s future will be uncertain,” Astrini added. “What’s at stake here is either us continuing to have any hope that the Amazon can be kept from collapsing—or definitively surrendering it to environmental criminals.”

Greenpeace campaigners on Friday delivered similar warnings, highlighting how the destruction of the vital rainforest has ramped up since Bolsonaro took office in 2019.

“In recent years, the Bolsonaro government has shown complete disregard for a safe climate and for the Amazon rainforest, Indigenous peoples, and traditional communities,” said Greenpeace Brazil spokesperson Cristiane Mazzetti.

“His administration has actively promoted an anti-environment, anti-Indigenous, and anti-democratic agenda that has resulted in a severe increase in carbon emissions and that paints a grave scenario in Brazil,” the campaigner added. “This destructive project cannot continue.”

Not only has Bolsonaro “allowed and in fact encouraged catastrophic levels of deforestation in the Amazon and other climate-critical Brazilian forests,” but “his administration has also lobbied the U.K. and E.U. to try and block crucial legislation that could stop deforestation-linked products entering our markets,” noted Paul Morozzo, senior food and forests campaigner at Greenpeace U.K.

“The Brazilian elections are not just about the future of Brazil, the result will have an impact on all of humanity,” Morozzo warned. “If we lose the Amazon, we lose the fight against the climate crisis.”

Research released last month by Indigenous leaders and scientists showed that parts of the rainforest may have hit a tipping point and never recover from a shift to savannah.