Antics Autumn 2022 - The Environment Issue

ANTICS

CHAIR'S NOTE

Welcome to a brand new 2022 edition of Antics The Environment Issue. It’s been a challenging year for the world we are living in a severe cost of living and energy security crisis. These dual crises are inseparably intertwined with the existential defining challenge of our time the climate emergency.

Record temperatures in the UK this summer exposed the severity of the climate crisis. Wildfires and infrastructure failures highlighted the dangers of continuing to drag our feet when it comes to taking action. The climate emergency is happening to all of us now. The impacts have been felt in the global south for years, yet in the global north, in cities like London, air pollution has also reached record levels and we are living in a very real crisis.

The climate crisis also exacerbates existing inequalities, exemplified by the Covid 19 pandemic. Dr Halima Begum, CEO of the Runnymede Trust, in a report from Greenpeace and the Runnymede Trust highlighted that we must not only fight the environmental emergency, but we must build resilience and capacity to open up sealed spaces where the voices of people of colour are not being heard. This is essential to achieving both climate and racial justice worldwide.

Glasgow’s COP26 last November gave us indications of optimism around international co operation to address the climate crisis, but also showed how far we still have to go to reach climate justice. There are nonetheless signs of hope, evidenced recently through the historic recent UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution, that recognised a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right.

I’ve previously chaired discussions with both Luke Pollard and Jim McMahon, two fantastic Shadow DEFRA Secretaries that have focused on how can we use effective communications to motivate and get the public invested in tackling the climate crisis. Labour consistently has platformed climate issues but we must do more to ensure we are showing leadership on ambitious environmental policies to protect our planet.

Young people can show us the way. Our priority in the Young Fabians is amplifying the voices of young people, who have been such strong political actors in the climate crisis forcing older generations to pay attention. Whilst the outlook for our future as young people can often seem bleak, in the Young Fabians we have been looking forwards and asking ourselves the following question as our 2022 theme of the year: ‘What does a Labour Britain look like for young people?’ The innovative contributions and ideas put forward in this issue of Antics show that this future and the future of our planet does not have to be defined by the mistakes of the past.

Huge congratulations to the incredible, strong, powerful and creative Amber Khan for putting this impressive 2022 edition of Antics together that isn’t afraid to challenge ourselves as activists on the tough questions Amber is not only an fantastic Antics Editor but a wonderful friend, and I could not have been Chair this year without the support and counsel she has provided Women are always unstoppable when we have each other’s backs! I also want to thank every writer, and every Fabian reading this, for your contributions to our Society

We’re in the fight of our lives to save our planet from those who wish to turn the clock back on progress Young people need a seat at the table we can only tackle the climate crisis by working together intergenerationally The action we take now will determine the quality of life for future generations Let us face the future together

EDUCATING ON THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY

BY FINLEY HARNETT

The importance of education and skills in tackling the climate emergency cannot be overstated. Younger generations will suffer the most because of decades of climate inaction. As a result, young people need to be equipped with the knowledge and training to reduce carbon emissions, mitigate the impacts of global warming and end the climate crisis.

Far greater emphasis should be placed on climate education in schools, colleges and universities than is currently the case. According to research by Teach the Future, just 4 per cent of students feel they know a lot about climate change 7 in 10 teachers feel they haven’t received adequate training to teach students about climate change, while more than two thirds of students want to learn more about the environment.

These statistics put shame to the UK’s clearly outdated national curricula. The word ‘climate’, for example, is mentioned relatively few times in the English National Curriculum and only features in relation to Science and Geography. Though climate education appears to be more wide ranging in the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish curriculam, all nations and regions of the UK could go further

Since the climate crisis will affect all young people in decades to come, it should be taught across all subjects, including the humanities

For example, Art could provide an opportunity to learn about the importance of recycling materials. Language pupils could be taught about the repercussions of climate change on French speaking countries in Africa, or Spanish speaking countries in South America. Cycling proficiency training for all primary aged students would instill lifelong green travel habits Increased outdoor education would encourage a greater appreciation of nature and biodiversity.

Expanding climate education beyond the Science/Geography silo it is currently stuck in would ensure that all school leavers, not just the scientifically minded, would be proficient in issues related to the climate crisis At present, it is too easy for the climate crisis to fall off the radars of pupils who opted out of STEM subjects such as myself. Any reimagining of the curriculum must also focus on developing the skills needed for a green economy

A girl collects water pooled above parched terrain. © SAMRAT35/DREAMSTIME

As Nadia Whittome MP identified in a November 2021 speech: “We need to train the next generation of plumbers to install low carbon heat pumps, and teach the next generation of chefs about sustainable diets and sustainable food production."

A future Labour government ought to invest in adult education and night schools so adult learners can develop the skills to transition from carbon intensive jobs to green ones, particularly in housing retrofit, solar, and vehicle electrification. It should promote partnerships between further education colleges and businesses operating within these sectors so green vocational courses offer high-quality, sector standard training.

Retrofitting the approximately 27,000 existing educational buildings that are yet to meet net zero emission standards would provide another positive learning opportunity, and would promote the benefits of low carbon living. We should be aiming to complete this within years, not decades.

" 60 years ago, author and civil rights activist James Baldwin wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Any overhaul of the curriculum would require close collaboration with teachers, 90 per cent of whom, incidentally, support making climate change education mandatory. The Department for Education should establish a comprehensive program to reskill existing teachers, and make climate change education part of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education, so new teachers feel confident about teaching their students about these issues, irrespective of their subject area.

60 years ago, author and civil rights activist James Baldwin wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

He wasn’t writing about the climate emergency, but the aphorism holds true If young people are to have a hope of tackling the climate crisis, we need to know what we’re facing. We need to understand the crisis, and develop the skills and expertise to mitigate, abate, and end it.

We need to be educated The days of blissful ignorance are over.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE FASHION INDUSTRY: FITTING OR NOT FAR ENOUGH?

BY SARINA KIAYANI

What comes to mind when you think about industries with the most environmental impact? For most it’s large-scale production industries, such as aviation, oil and gas and the fracking industry. Even the food and drink industry. These are of course the industries with the most obvious environmental impact. And, whilst these industries are frequently named and shamed for their environmental impact, little noise is made around the environmental impact of the fashion industry. This is somewhat shocking, given how the industry is responsible for 10% of all CO2 emissions globally, with this on course to rise to 25% in the near future.

Although Government action to tackle the fashion industry’s impact is not talked about as much as other industries’, it is improving just not fast enough. Indeed, particularly over the last year, the Government is beginning to clamp down on the industry’s environmental impact and lay down legislation to uphold its responsibility for good environmental governance. Such action is outlined below.

Waste Prevention Programme

Alongside the Government’s landmark “go to green policy”, the Environment Bill, the upcoming Waste prevention Programme looks to be the beginning of real Government action to tackle the fashion industry’s environmental impact.

With its consultation asking recipients about options to cut waste in the textiles industry, its findings are set to shape Government action on the industry in particular.

The industry will also find itself caught up in broader environmental provisions in this Programme, with the consultation also seeking views on how the Government can use new powers in the Environment Bill to set eco design standards for sectors identified to have a high environmental impact. Based on its responses, it is very plausible that the fashion industry could find itself caught up in this

Such powers resulting from this could include requirements on manufacturers to set a minimum level of recycled content in products, or to ensure that products are designed for long-life, rather than disposal.

Garments discarded in the Atacama desert

© Martin Bernetti/AFP via Getty Images

Although these suggestions were made with the construction and furniture industries in mind, the inclusion of textiles waste in the Programme could provide an indication that provisions of this kind could be placed upon the fashion industry, too.

Sustainable Clothing Action Plan

Although not directly run by the Government, the work of WRAP is closely affiliated to, and endorsed by, the Government, so is worth a mention in this list

WRAP’s Sustainable Clothing Action Plan, although voluntary, is some of the sharpest requirements for fashion businesses Signatories, including major retailers such as M&S, ASOS and Next, have collectively reduced their water and carbon footprint per tonne of clothing by 19 5% and 15 9% respectively between 2012 and 2019 under the agreement

Although the Plan was a voluntary endeavour, the results shown above highlight what can be achieved when businesses pledge to follow such commitments. However, a lack of mandatory commitments can mean that several global retailers can still shy away from taking action

Textiles 2030

Another voluntary agreement – this time Government run Textiles 2030 commits signatories to several targets to reduce the environmental impact of the textiles sector by 2030.

Partners and members include several signatories of the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan, alongside “fast fashion” proponents Boohoo, Missguided and ASOS.

Getting fast fashion businesses on side businesses with some of the highest environmental impacts within the fashion industry – is undoubtedly a victory for the Government and its pledge to take action to tackle waste in the textiles’ industry. However, whilst potentially effective, the voluntary nature of the agreement still does not go far enough in holding all fashion giants to account

So, fitting or not far enough?

Whilst agreements such as the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan have proved effective in combatting the fashion industry’s environmental impact, the impact of other agreements is yet to be seen With the Waste Prevention Programme and Textiles 2030 only newly formed, their impacts cannot be effectively analysed as of yet.

However, if the latest Fashion Revolution Transparency Index findings are anything to go by, it may take more than voluntary agreements to cut the fashion industry’s environmental impact. Whilst many brands assessed in this were signed up to agreements such as Textiles 2030 and the UN Fashion Charter, less than two thirds disclose the emissions footprint from their own facilities. Perhaps this is because the above agreements are too new to have made any results for these businesses to be proud of?

Or perhaps this is because they do not go far enough?

Once again, only time will tell if current Government action on the fashion industry is fitting or has not gone far enough However, with the continued absence of strong mandatory action and an ongoing emphasis on voluntary commitments, we may have to be braced for disappointment.

RADICAL SPACES

BY ALEX CHITTY

Arriving at King Henry’s Walk Gardens on a Saturday morning in March you don’t feel like you are joining the frontline of a war. Hidden just behind Dalston Kingsland Road in East London, the garden holds plots that are tended to by members, and once a month the garden is open to volunteers who pitch in on tasks from woodland conservation to construction. However, this community garden, in conjunction with all the others in the capital and in cities across the UK, holds the potential to have a huge impact on how we fight the war on climate change and environmental degradation.

The social benefits of community gardens present themselves as soon as you arrive in one, volunteers greet each other warmly and share hot drinks out of flasks. Cities are notoriously lonely places, and these gardens provide a space for human connection and community, especially for older people living nearby. However, these spaces also create a wide range of environmental benefits. They improve biodiversity in cities and provide spaces for flora and fauna that is otherwise unable to flourish due to aggressive development This flora in turn helps combat air pollution through the natural process of photosynthesis, reduces urban heat islands, and increases storm water and carbon retention At King Henry’s many plots are filled with vegetables Growing food in the places that it is consumed shortens supply chains and reduces the carbon impact of shipping food into cities. According to a report from Sustain, green space in London, if turned to allotments, could produce one of every Londoners’ five fruit and vegetables a day. In this respect, it is the potential that community gardens hold that makes them such a strong weapon in the war on climate change.

It is probably difficult to square our perception of community gardens with the size of the challenge posed by the environmental crisis. Arguably, this stems from how we collectively understand our relationship with society; as one of individuals and big business and government, with very little role for civic society, especially at a community level However, research has shown time and time again that local organisations are essential to combatting climate change and environmental degradation To win a war you must win many battles Although the war is metaphorical, the battlegrounds are physical spaces. It is only with a deep understanding of those spaces can we win these battles, and this understanding resides with the communities that live in them.

There is also a third benefit that could be bracketed under both a social and environmental benefit. This is the benefit to those who visit and work on the garden that stems from forging a connection with nature. Living in an urban environment, such as London, people are physically cut off from nature and therefore are likely to be less concerned with its protection Research has shown that physical involvement in nature helps to foster greater respect for it and therefore greater concern about environmental damage and breakdown of biodiversity For those who are alienated from nature due to their everyday lived environment, a community garden provides a space for connection that is likely to foster further environmental action. For young people growing up in urban centres, the opportunity to be in nature is often rare. Community gardens engage with school groups, creating greater equity in access to nature. Therefore, these spaces double up as a training ground, to foster environmentalism in the next generation of soldiers. Through working on gardens, individuals and communities not only learn to respect and treasure nature, but also learn about the impact that they can have, empowering them to take action.

Seeing how the small team of volunteers at King Henry’s Walk Garden steward nature in this corner of London, it is impossible not to be inspired to make our own differences Visit a community garden and feel the earth in your hands Take up your arms against climate change and environmental degradation, whether they are shovels or trowels, your battleground awaits

Detroit’s MUFI, an urban ‘agrihood’ that distributes free fruit and vegetables to North End residents

© Michelle Gerard | michellegerardphoto.com.

The OmVed garden in Highgate, north London, a thriving community hub

GOING NUCLEAR: WHY LABOUR SHOULD CHAMPION NUCLEAR ENERGY

BY MARK WHITTAKER

The British public and politicians overwhelmingly agree on the need to tackle climate change, as recent polls and Parliamentary votes demonstrate. But this abstract consensus splinters when we’re asked to choose between climate action and other priorities.

Britain's most influential climate sceptics, like the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, understand this Nowadays they scarcely bother denying the reality of climate change. Instead they downplay it, and oppose each individual policy that might make a difference usually on the grounds of feasibility, fairness, or energy security.

Many people are receptive to such arguments. As the Fabians’ Talking Green polling project showed, phrases like ‘green industrial revolution’ and ‘green jobs’ provoke as much scepticism or confusion as enthusiasm. Labour must champion climate change measures that work effectively at scale, while helping to achieve other national priorities: including foreign policy, energy security and levelling up

Labour's net zero strategy must include wind and solar energy. However, these variable sources vulnerable to changes in weather conditions, at least until better battery storage systems are available. This means that Labour must also push for an expansion of large scale, low carbon, baseload energy sources: including nuclear

A comparison with other leading European economies shows that nuclear energy can help us reach a prosperous lower carbon future. France's energy sector produces one of Europe's lowest rates of CO2 emissions, at 4.24 tonnes per person each year. This means that France’s energy supply is greener than Britain’s, and much greener than Germany’s This is largely because France’s energy mix is dominated by nuclear and hydroelectric power, not fossil fuels.

Nuclear Power Plant. © Canva

Despite making some progress towards renewables, Germany remains highly dependent on oil and gas from Norway, the Netherlands and (via the Nordstream pipeline) Russia. The latter became hugely problematic from winter 2021 onwards, as Nordstream became used as a bargaining chip in the stand off over Ukraine, and in the sanctions debate which followed when Russia invaded. Meanwhile, pressure to reduce fossil fuel extraction is growing within Norway and the Netherlands, where environmental protection has risen high up the political agenda. Despite these risks, the German Government is now spending billions on decommissioning nuclear power stations early: leaving Germany’s energy security in an even more risky position.

Britain must do the opposite. The world’s largest producers and exporters of nuclear fuels include Canada and Australia. These countries are long term democratic allies of Britain, with values that largely align with Britain’s and nor are they seeking to reduce their involvement in nuclear energy.

Expanding nuclear energy would also have domestic benefits for levelling up and economic productivity. Nuclear power stations need to be based on the sea, so expanding nuclear capacity could boost coastal communities that need investment For example, Sellafield is a huge factor behind West Cumbria’s status as one of the most economically productive parts of northern England. Sellafield directly provides 11,000 jobs most of which are skilled and well paid, with high levels of unionisation. It sustains at least 16,000 more jobs in Cumbria and Warrington, along with investment in local services.

"Aside from facing down climate sceptics, Labour faces unique challenges when advocating the transition to a greener economic model. On one side, it faces competition from other progressive parties. On the other, several unions are reluctant to endorse measures that put existing jobs at risk."

British scientists are also driving development of innovative technologies, including nuclear fusion and small modular reactors. Britain’s expanding public R&D budget could help them make further progress, giving our economy a boost even beyond the places that host nuclear facilities.

As well as being good policy, advocating nuclear energy is good for Labour politically Aside from facing down climate sceptics, Labour faces unique challenges when advocating the transition to a greener economic model. On one side, it faces competition from other progressive parties. On the other, several unions are reluctant to endorse measures that put existing jobs at risk Backing nuclear gives Labour an opportunity to divide progressive opponents and unite their supporters: the Liberal Democrats and Greens are publicly split on nuclear energy, while major affiliated unions like GMB and Unite strongly support it.

By championing nuclear energy, Labour can seize an issue that plays to their strengths and give the British people a green new deal they can believe in

THE CASE FOR A CARBONBASED DIVIDEND

If there were a dictionary of environmentalist policy, it would be written by Margaret Thatcher. Though her time in office did little by way of environmentalism, our whole political lexicon has been fashioned in her ideological image. Our vocabulary, our policy, our positions on climate change are positions in which 1970s neoliberals would feel all too comfortable. Our most basic understanding of climate responsibility is stunted by a deficiency of collectivism – we must look upon the relationship between industry, the individual, and the environment with fresh eyes.

We do not each own a bit of Earth which we can call ours, independent of the influence of other individuals or industry, but we each represent a small, yet significant stake of interest in a wider public commons No single industry or corporation owns the right to pollute at the detriment of another stakeholder, and therefore, the 100 companies which account for 71% of global emissions carry an immense burden of social debt to each of us.

Is it not our right, therefore, to stake a claim for reparations from these corporations? A form of transitional justice, where we are compensated for the damage that we endure at the hands of the big polluters? Consider the habitats lost, the animals made extinct, the diseases to which you are at risk ends to which industrial pollution is almost exclusively the means aren’t we thereby victims worthy of recompense?

The left ought to not settle with a fiscal policy that focuses solely on taxation, nor consign our policy creation to an individualist outlook of which Thatcher would be proud Instead, the left ought to be fully aware of the moral imperative for environmental reparations. We, therefore, ought to place our faith in the carbon dividend. With a carbon dividend, the proceeds of a carbon tax would be redistributed back to households the most favourable method of redistribution following the same premise as a universal basic income. Redistributing carbon tax revenue to all citizens, without means testing or qualifying criteria serves a double function: a) to alleviate the acute financial woes of the working class in the wake of price rises caused by the implementation of the carbon tax, and b) to fulfil the moral need for a universal form of transitional justice.

A universal reparation would be further supplemented with funds following the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. As a 2011 basic income project in Iran demonstrated, a nationwide cash transfer policy facilitates the effective elimination of fuel subsidies. Such a policy doubled Iranian government revenue, generating wealth that was reinvested directly back in a basic income scheme – a transformative shift away from the fuel subsidies which benefitted the wealthiest 20% of households six times as much as the poorest 20%.

Despite the squirming of politicians who fear electoral backlash in removing such subsidies, their exodus is undoubtedly nearby Government efforts to insist that the Treasury no longer funds pollutive industry are undermined by the increasingly redemptive measures taken by our European neighbours. Post Brexit Britain should be trailblazing the push towards carbon neutrality and economic justice, yet the Conservative government fails to even acknowledge the existence of destructive policies that they undertake.

"The dividend is the only way to make our green economy one with socialism at its core, where corporations work for people and are accountable to them."

Few proposals would endear a Labour manifesto more than the creation of a carbon tax based universal dividend: it would tap into public indignation over the catastrophic measures to free conglomerates from blame and reflect a much needed ideological shift away from the failures of neoliberalism.

The dividend is the only way to make our green economy one with socialism at its core, where corporations work for people and are accountable to them. With a financial stake in the harvesting of communal resources, British society would become increasingly receptive to the importance of the community, thus holding corporations to public account over their management and destruction of our natural assets. This idea, known as environmental citizenship, is the left’s best fuel for a radical and equitable push towards sustainability

Avenue of the Baobabs, Madagascar

© Getty

Victoria Falls, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Banff National Park, Canada

© Getty

Las Salinas de Torrevieja, Spain

WHY PLANTING TREES IS NOT ENOUGH

BY BETH TURNER

In 1990, the first IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report was published, advising policy makers on steps that could be taken to reduce the rate of climate change. One of these recommendations was the role of sustainable forestry.

Every mainstream party in the UK has become increasingly interested in tree planting as a method of mitigating against climate change The appeal is clear planting trees has plenty of benefits, most notably in reducing flood risk and increasing biodiversity, and it is relatively uncontroversial Most importantly for policy makers, it requires relatively minimal research and investment. It is no wonder then, that in the run up to the last General Election, all the major parties pledged a substantial tree planting programme Most notable was Labour’s pledge that in government they would plant 2 billion trees in 20 years, which was widely criticised for being unachievable.

Despite its popularity, tree planting may not be the ideal solution it seems there is significant and ongoing debate by scientists over whether tree planting is the magic bullet politicians want it to be.

There are three main criticisms of tree planting as a mitigation strategy. Firstly, trees emit aerosols known as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These aerosols can then react to form ozone (O3), which increase the greenhouse effect and raises the Earth’s temperature. Given that tree planting is supposed to be reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere with the aim of preventing any further temperature increases, the VOC emissions cannot be ignored.

"There is significant and ongoing debate by scientists over whether tree planting is the magic bullet politicians want it to be."

Secondly, planting trees can increase the Earth’s ability to absorb solar radiation the tree canopy creates a darker surface, which results in more heat being absorbed (like wearing a black t-shirt on a hot day). This means that, while the trees may be absorbing carbon dioxide, Earth’s temperature will keep rising, and as a result, so will sea levels

Borneo Lowland Rainforest Alamy

Last but certainly not least, we are not planting enough trees The amount of carbon that we are emitting annually will not be even slightly offset by planting 30 million trees per year, as the Conservatives want us to believe. Despite the mockery Labour’s pledge attracted, the 2 billion trees would have made more impact than the Conservatives’ 150 million by 2025. But it isn’t as simple as just planting trees which trees are planted and where is crucial to make sure the trees take in carbon and don’t disrupt the fragile soil ecology. Politicians need to pay more attention to the species of tree they are planning to plant and on what land they plan to plant them on

Despite these criticisms, tree planting is not all bad news around 65% of studies on tree planting have found that planting trees does have benefits in preventing climate change. As a tree grows more mature, it is able to take in more carbon, so while planting trees is not a magic bullet, preserving existing forest is essential and should be at the forefront of all environmental decisions. Tree planting is also incredibly important for reducing flood risk, increasing biodiversity, creating habitats, and maintaining soil health.

Tree planting is not the foolproof solution to climate change some might want you to believe it is. We need politicians who understand the extent of the climate emergency Politicians who will pledge radical change and act on the recommendations of scientists. This government’s promise to plant trees is empty, oversimplified, and ineffective just like all Tory promises If they want to make any difference in the fight against climate change, they need to follow Labour’s lead and acknowledge the extent of the climate emergency and invest heavily in renewables, in heat pumps, in ultra low emission vehicles and in electric charging points. We need a green industrial revolution before it is too late.

Otzarreta Forest, Basque Country, Spain

© Alamy

Dragon's Blood Forest, Socotra, Yemen

© Getty

Valle de Cocora, Quindío, Colombia

NET ZERO FOR HOUSING

Net Zero is a buzzword in many sectors, as the British Government has set a net zero target emission for 2050 as well as legally setting a target to slash emissions by 78% by 2035. In addition to this housing providers to attain the minimum rating of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) C for rented properties by 2035 (2030 for ‘fuel poor’ households). So radical action will need to be taken by all if targets are to be met.

Why Housing?

Housing is a sector that makes a big impact on UK emissions and it's somewhere which is underinvested in and could benefit not just the climate but potentially people’s pockets Direct emissions from buildings are 17% of UK output and if you include indirect it is 23%, so we cannot meet our target without looking at our homes as well of course commercial and public buildings

The issues to address include how well insulated our homes are, the fuel used in them, as well as how these homes are designed. This includes for how long they can be used without updates to making sure that homes/offices are built with a wide of transport options rather than being designed around a car based lifestyle.

Poor quality housing leads to so many issues, from health issues to poor educational attainment Investment in net zero is a chance to boost our housing stock to make all homes ready for 21st century living.

Housing also has a knock on effect on the wider economy that it could be a real wealth/ skill generator for regions that have been neglected for decades . These regions are often where the worst quality housing is located, so there are rich gains in terms of economic as well as environmental benefits from any future investment.

What is to be done?

The obvious blocker to creating a net zero sector is cost. There is no uniform agreed amount for how much it would cost to bring each home in the UK up to the standard. The rough consensus figure is £20k per unit for social housing. This would vary based on size, location and age but it’s a sensible figure If you applied this to the roughly 5 million social housing units in the UK. You would need to spend £100 billion, and this only tackles the issues in the social sector and ignores people that own their own home or who rent and indeed other types of buildings. Lots of firms in the social sector are budgeting for this cost and so will likely not build as much as they would have unless the government acts instead. There has been some funding announced by Whitehall via funds such as Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund. This funding, while welcome is not enough to fix this growing crisis. Developers are trying to make their new homes more energy efficient and standards are being raised but even new homes are currently failing to meet the EPC C rating. So, things need to go at a quicker pace.

To this end, many in the social housing sector are doing a “fabric first approach”, which means maximising the performance of the components and materials of a building.

This can involve insulation as well as focusing on airtightness and ventilation. This approach can deliver quick gains and is cheaper, but it wouldn’t deliver the necessary cuts needed though it would save on people’s heating bills.

This is something that government should encourage among homeowners . Insulation is something that people understand and because it is not revolutionary, there is skilled labour that can install it. This can be an issue with more radical solutions as we simply don’t have enough people qualified for dealing with ground source heat pumps and the like. Ground source heat pumps raise an issue regarding awareness as having a house heated by one is very different to using gas For example, as it takes much longer to heat up, you need to make sure the public is aware of this as well other new developments which is a key role of government that isn’t often mentioned

The government and others need to intervene to allow investment to flow otherwise we will have a system of no investment, high bills and us failing our net zero targets.

We also need to to build better, whether in terms of quality of our homes, the materials and design and make sure they have thought about transport options or indeed biodiversity of surroundings Only the government can deliver the funding and regulations for social housing, owner occupiers, as well helping those in private rented accommodation in terms of addressing net zero

"High standards for the sector work for all and it could force the likes of landlords to act where they wouldn’t on their own."

Why must Labour act?

The future is at stake and any future Labour government needs to quicken the pace of change. The right investment would speed up the pace of change which could lower bills for people as well create long term highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships across the UK. High standards for the sector work for all and it could force the likes of landlords to act where they wouldn’t on their own Investment in net zero and housing would be popular. We have seen the worries about rising energy costs and anything that corrects that as well as creates decent jobs would be a winner

You also have a debate between heat pumps and hydrogen and no organisation whether it be a housing association, council or even developer wants to invest in technology that might be redundant within a decade or so

The government's failure to deliver has allowed Labour the chance to show they are a government in waiting and to promise practical policies that work for all.

BedZED the UK's first major zero carbon community

Record high temperatures in Alaska have melted permafrost on the tundra. As permafrost melts, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding fuel to the fire of rising global temperatures.

© GETTY IMAGES

Beijing is shrouded in air pollution on a winter morning. Breathing polluted air already to more than 5.5 million premature deaths a year, and researchers predict that by 2030, air pollution related deaths could rise by 60,000 a year due to the effects of climate change.

Nevada's Lake Mead has dried up as a result of the historic drought in the western United States. Tamarisk plants grow on cracked earth in an area that, up until recently, would have been underwater

A malnourished cow walks along a dried up river bed in the village of Chivi, Zimbabwe,

U.N. weather agency blames the dry, hot weather on an "increasingly visible human footprint".

Yuccas catch fire as hot and dry conditions fuel a 19,500 acre wildfire in California.

Scientists believe that, without a dramatic reduction in greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, West Coast wildfires will continue to increase in frequency and intensity.

Drought dries out spruces in Germany's Harz mountain region. For the past several summers, there has been only a small fraction of rainfall compared with normal conditions

IMAGES

THE POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

BY ADAM BERMAN

When the last Labour government announced a Climate Change Act in 2008, it was the first time any country had set legally binding targets for reducing emissions. Just as notable as the ambition it showed was the remarkably high level of political consensus behind it. Greg Clark, then the Shadow Climate Change Minister, observed that the bill “had attracted an unusual spirit of cross-party co-operation ” . That spirit has lived on in some shape or form ever since, enabling the UK’s Net Zero commitment and willingness to host COP26. But 14 years on, there are signs that the political consensus on climate action is disintegrating. The pushback against NetZero may be exacerbated by high energy bills in the short term, but it’s primarily driven by the fact that decarbonisation is getting more difficult.

The newly amended Climate Change Act requires the UK to cut 100% of all emissions by 2050 As of 2022, we’re about half way there. This is the result of sustained efforts to reduce emissions, and a by product of deindustrialisation. Whilst this represents a huge achievement, an inconvenient truth of climate policy in the UK is that the emissions reductions we’ve achieved have largely been invisible to citizens.

A small carbon price here. A subsidy there. Why would people oppose changes they could hardly see? Invisibility made it easier to maintain political consensus, thereby allowing climate policy to largely exist outside of the realm of partisan politics.

The next stage of decarbonisation will be different It will require substantial and tangible changes that we will all personally experience. Millions of leaky homes will have to be insulated and fitted with heat pumps Internal combustion engines across the country will be replaced with electric vehicles. Policymakers will have to work out how to change behaviours on flying and meat consumption This will be the first time that citizens will feel the significant impacts of climate policy on their daily lives.

Although this stage of decarbonisation has only just begun, there are already indications that some politicians are pushing back against the pace of change required to meet climate targets.

A fisherman in a rubber boat is surrounded by rotting cyanobacteria in the Kyiv Water Reservoir

© EFREM LUKATSKY / APr

Over the last 12 months alone, a ‘Net Zero Scrutiny Group’ has emerged in the Tory backbenches, and a so called ‘Net Zero Watch’ has been formed by Lord Lawson’s climate sceptic ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’.

While opposition to climate policy might traditionally have taken the form of climate denialism, this has become largely unacceptable in public discourse. Instead, contemporary political opposition tends to focus on issues like the cost of Net Zero, unaffordable high green taxes, opposition to ‘big state’ responses to climate, and concerns about changes to way of life. These critiques are being increasingly weaponised by framing climate action as an elitist project, orchestrated by ‘woke’ technocrats, which runs contrary to individual rights

The recent UK Climate Assembly shows people are willing to rise to the challenge of climate change when presented with the facts, but it highlights how important it is to make the argument in favour of climate action. The reality is that political consensus can breed political laziness. Reaching ambitious climate targets will involve profound changes to society.

The challenge for progressive politics today is to make the argument for why these changes are necessary. The spirit that gave birth to the Climate Change Act is starting to break down The best way to legitimise claims that climate action is somehow an ‘elitist’ agenda is to ignore the genuine disruption that the journey to Net Zero will entail. But disruption brings possibility. Steve Baker MP has spent months repeating the line that our climate targets will make us ‘poorer and colder’ Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone explained the truth that it'll make us richer and warmer? Only by winning the argument can we hope to keep Net Zero in sight.

"The recent UK Climate Assembly shows people are willing to rise to the challenge of climate change when presented with the facts, but it highlights how important it is to make the argument in favour of climate action."

TACKLING THE CLIMATE CRISIS THROUGH A CARBON TAX

BY MATTHEW OULTON

Economists agree on almost nothing. As a professor told me in my first term of university, ‘some person calling themselves an Economist will always disagree with anything you say, no matter how crazy they sound.’ When a policy becomes economic consensus, therefore, it’s usually long after it’s been implemented and everyone else has accepted it.

There is, however, one exception. A policy proposal that is accepted almost unanimously by Economists, that nevertheless, has not been widely implemented: the Carbon Tax

What is a Carbon Tax, and why do Economists love it so much?

A Carbon Tax is a tax on emissions. It is a price paid by consumers or producers on each kilo of carbon emitted in the creation of a good or service. It means that when weighing up what to buy, we will not be forced to choose between environmentally friendly and cheap, the cheapest option would be least carbon intensive.

Such a tax is not unique. Governments around the world levy taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and petrol for exactly this reason, successfully discouraging consumption of goods which are harmful to society

So why doesn’t the UK have a Carbon Tax?

Firstly, because climate activists have largely been focussed on bolder policies A focus on broader social justice opportunities distracts from the prosaic economic actions we could take today to improve things. A fraught discussion about the exact level of the tax and how to measure emissions is also inevitable. All too often, those on the side of protecting the planet end up squabbling amongst ourselves, to the benefit of climate deniers

East Antarctica © Andreas Kambanis via Flickr under CC by SA 2 0

Secondly, there are several implementation challenges with a Carbon Tax. The tax, in isolation, would be highly regressive. Since lower income people consume a greater proportion of high carbon goods, they will be more impacted by the increased costs. It would also render certain climate harmful activities the preserve of the rich. A carbon tax may dissuade working class families from taking a holiday abroad, whilst wealthy families may pay the tax.

That a Carbon Tax is not perfect, however, is not an excuse to do nothing. Distributional and fairness concerns could be addressed by the revenue raised from the tax. The goal of a Carbon Tax, after all, is to change behaviour, not to raise money Revenue could be delivered directly to the poorest, or invested in collective infrastructure, such as public housing, education, or transport, which lower income people are most reliant on.

There is also the issue of imported carbon. In the past, pollution regulations have sometimes advantaged foreign firms in jurisdictions without them Again, this is a real problem with an easy solution; foreign firms should be liable for the same Carbon Tax when they sell to the UK as well.

Thirdly, such a tax could potentially increase the cost of living in the short run After all, slapping a large tax on most UK goods would obviously make them more expensive Eventually, we should expect suppliers and consumers to adapt, but there could be a long and treacherous period of adjustment, in which inflation would be a problem. The Government, therefore, should temporarily cut VAT another regressive tax on all products at the same time as implementing the Carbon Tax High carbon products would thus be more expensive, but without the overall price level or tax burden increasing.

The final issue is that Economists are bad at selling policies. Many Economists don’t view advocacy as part of their remit This is a failure of the profession; the key role of the Economist is not to accumulate unimplemented policies, but to change the world for the better. The public will doubtless be resistant to the radical change a Carbon Tax would bring even if it resulted in no increase in their personal tax burdens. Holidays abroad would become more expensive, and no one wants to be the politician advocating that Politicians and Economists alike, therefore, have to take this on, selling it in the short run so we can all benefit in the end.

A Carbon Tax is not a panacea. Pricing carbon will not solve the climate crisis and, as with all climate policy, it would ultimately need to be implemented internationally. Furthermore, whilst the tax would hasten a transition, there would still need to be measures to avoid the harmful dislocation seen during other economic shocks. As in any market solution, there would remain a government role for investment in Research and Development, Green technology, and climate friendly public services. However, it is a clear, obvious, and actionable step forward. A Carbon Tax may not save the planet, but without one the planet cannot be saved

THE FUTURE IS PUBLIC TRANSPORT

BY JAMES BARTHOLOMEUSZ

Paddington Station, UK

When we talk about ‘public services’, most people think of the NHS or the education system – universally accessible goods which, at least in theory, are considered basic rights and provide a minimum standard of living for everyone in society. Many of us don’t think of transport in the same way. In fact, access to affordable, high quality public transport is a vital enabler of rights and a driver of equality and prosperity.

In July last year, scholars at New York University determined that the deregulation and privatisation of the UK bus sector has been so severe as to breach the human rights of British citizens That may sound like an exaggerated claim, especially during a global pandemic, but across most of the country access to a reliable bus service can make a dramatic difference to living standards It can decide where you go to school, what sort of job you can hold down, who you can care for or be cared by, and how regularly you see your friends and family If you don’t own a private car (and car ownership differs sharply along gender and age lines), then access to public transport is a key driver of how you live your life.

And it’s not just buses. Despite the hefty bailouts handed to private train operating companies during the pandemic, rail fares in Great Britain are increasing by around 3 8% this year

Meanwhile, Transport for London by far the best integrated and most efficient public transport system in the UK is on the verge of bankruptcy without further support from central government Where services still exist, there is a growing risk that ordinary people will be priced off public transport.

Behind this all lurks the spectre of climate change There is no pathway to meeting the goals of the UN Paris Agreement (limiting global warming to well below 2°C) without a substantial shift away from private cars and towards public transport, cycling and walking. The case is even stronger if public transport systems are electrified, with the energy drawn from renewable sources. Expanding public transport is therefore one of the few genuine win win policy decisions we can improve living standards and fight climate change at the same time.

That’s why trade unions, local governments, transport operators and community groups have come together to launch The Future is Public Transport campaign. Research produced in the lead up to COP26 showed that the right investment in public transport could create 4.6 million jobs in 100 cities worldwide, as well as contributing between 20% and 45% to the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions required by the Paris Agreement.

This transition will not be easy For one thing, even the Tories’ vanilla version of climate action is facing stiff opposition from powerful automotive interests and shady corporate lobbyists like Net Zero Watch. For another, the scale of investment required needs us to think beyond the neoliberal dogma of fiscal conservatism. As young people, we know that profligacy regarding the natural environment is far worse than anything to do with public borrowing (and I’m sure we’ll all be focussing on our debt to GDP ratio when much of coastal Britain is underwater).

Nevertheless, we’re already seeing the green shoots of change In London, Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with the ultra low emissions zone even in the teeth of government opposition. In Manchester, Andy Burnham has laid out his plan to re regulate and integrate the city’s broken public transport system. In South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard is campaigning for public control of the county’s buses in May’s mayoral election. And in Glasgow, the local authority is piloting public transport free at the point of use – treating connectivity in the same way as healthcare or education We need to see the same power and funding devolved to local governments outside metropolitan areas, so that they too can press ahead with reforming and restoring public transport systems.

It's clear that, for both our society and our environment, public transport is the winning choice. For young people, intergenerational justice and equality depend on it.

Laguna Colorada, Bolivia

Detroit’s MUFI, an urban ‘agrihood’ that distributes free fruit and vegetables to North End

Gerard

michellegerardphoto

Detroit’s MUFI, an urban ‘agrihood’ that distributes free fruit and vegetables to North End © Michelle Gerard | michellegerardphoto com

The Dark Hedges, Northern Ireland

Getty

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY

SHAW

The Problem

Climate change will have devastating impacts across the globe. Severe weather events and rising sea levels could cause mass refugee crises, loss of life, damage to national infrastructure and homes, farming shortages increasing food prices, widening of pre existing inequalities and poverty, increased insurance premiums, government debt defaults, and may make us more susceptible for new viruses, whilst heatwaves make us less able to work and reduce productivity. The World Bank states climate change could push 132 million people back into poverty by 2030 and global GDP could be 18% lower by 2050 if no mitigations are taken with worst case scenarios even suggesting a 1% reduction in GDP growth per year.

The benefits of tackling climate change will outweigh the costs The OBR estimate the net cost of the UK’s net zero transition as c.£300 billion over three decades (75% borne by households and businesses). This accounts for less than 1% of GDP (defence budget is c.2%). Relatively low interest rates make financing this even more feasible. However, this aggregate figure hides risks associated with timing, where investment costs predate savings

The Climate Change Committee, says annual net investment of £27 billion is required during 2021 30, £15.9 billion in the 2030s, before an average annual net payback of £11.2 billion by the 2040s.

However, the UK becoming net zero is not enough We’re a net emissions importer Even if everything we produce in the UK is net zero, it will have little effect if our consumption of goods from abroad is not

The UK must build on COP26 by showing leadership to bring the international community together, so the G7 Climate Club’s agreement on standards and rules to prevent green trade wars is especially welcome.

Disruption

The green transition means restructuring the economy: technology; agriculture; energy; finance; transport; industry and more. The government’s own net zero strategy includes support for up to 440,000 jobs across net zero industries by 2030. The LSE approximate c.6.3 million UK jobs (20%), could be affected by the green transition.

Disproportionate impacts

The IFS find that the carbon footprint of the richest 10% is on average more than three times as large as that of the poorest 10%.

Yet the transition to green will be less affordable for poorer households. For example moving away from gas boilers will take up a bigger share of their budgets. The government must find ways to compensate lower income households to ensure costs do not land on the shoulders of those least able to bear them

Negative impacts will be substantially greater in hotter, lower lying countries, disproportionately those in the developing world. This makes combatting climate change a social justice issue as well as an environmental and economic one

Governments must lead. The UK leading the way is nothing new. Blair and Brown’s governments made the UK the first country to subject themselves to legally binding cuts to greenhouse emissions And more recently, the UK was the first major economy to pass net zero commitments into law. But more is needed, especially when it comes to creating incentives to reduce greenhouse gases. There are too many different and contradictory taxes and subsidies in place to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More consistent carbon pricing and replacing fuel duty and vehicle excise duty with a road tax should be Treasury priorities, whilst better insulation would have better protected people from the cost of living crisis, and will help meet net zero targets.

Role for the private sector

Pivoting to green can provide monetary opportunities for the private sector

“Sustainability can be achieved by reorienting growth, rather than slowing or stopping it” One report estimates a direct gain of US$26 trillion, generation of over 65 million new low carbon jobs, as well as avoiding over 700,000 premature deaths from air pollution.

In 2017, businesses active in the low carbon and renewable energy economy employed 396,200 people, had turnover of £79.6bn, and grew faster than the whole of the UK business economy.

R&D is key for developing new technologies to bring down transition costs, as is mobilising capital Low carbon investment needs to increase from £7 billion in 2020 to around £50 billion by 2030. The UK has an advantage here with our leading financial sector. Inflows into ESG funds rose from $5 billion in 2018 to nearly $70 billion in 2021, with total global sustainable assets at c.$2.5 trillion.

We have a role in demanding change A trust survey across OECD countries showed half of individuals think that climate change should be prioritised by government and 70% of the UK public want their money to go towards making a positive difference to people or planet.

Going Green can be affordable. For example, you can save over £1,000 a year on running costs of electric vehicles (even more if you drive in areas with congestion charges) and claim government grants to purchase them Whilst changing your diet and reducing air pollution will mean you’re healthier and result in cost savings for the NHS

Cause for optimism

Over the past thirty years, greenhouse gas emissions in the UK fell by 44% in the 30 years to 201. The faster we adopt change, the cheaper the transition will be. Research points to savings outweighing costs sooner than expected in areas such as electric vehicles (EVs), so by 2025 it will be cheaper to purchase and run an EV rather than petrol or diesel cars over the vehicle’s lifetime In addition, between 2010 and 2019, solar photovoltaic costs are down 82% and on shore wind costs are down 39%. Furthermore, McKinsey estimates 200 million new jobs across the globe as a result of the green transition, replacing 185 million lost jobs.

The OECD suggests the economic benefits of avoiding climate damages could add almost 5% to GDP in G20 countries by 2050

Going Green

The transition to green does cost money. But nothing compared to future savings or the cost of delay. Going Green can be a quadruple win for the UK:

1) Post Brexit leadership

Economic growth & jobs

Levelling up

Achieving Net Zero

Post-Brexit, we could use net zero as a way to reestablish ourselves as a world leader, and with green hubs across the UK we can support: jobs, levelling up and the climate.

The transition to net zero is not a moral crusade, but an economic necessity And it can make government, businesses and individuals richer

A GREEN AGENDA IN HYNDBURN

BY KATIE-LOUISE WALSH

Before the pandemic, Hyndburn Borough Council declared a climate emergency, but much of its members' involvement in the borough's greener future was put on hold as pressure to tackle the emerging pandemic emerged.

Fast forward two years and the council is embarking on a huge decarbonisation programme which will go a long way towards helping us reach net zero by 2030. The UK has enshrined in law targets including to slash emissions by 78% by 2035, to bring the UK more than three quarters of the way to net zero by 2050.

Agenda? How can they make a difference? This is a big question. Councils could just aim to hit their own net zero targets by decarbonising their buildings and making sure the vehicles are electric Or is there more that Councils can do engaging with the private sector, being far more ambitious and setting wider targets?

In May I was made the Hyndburn Council's Green Agenda champion and I decided that as a Council there was a wider responsibility and that the Council had an opportunity to take a lead, be bold in ‘going green'

Community engagement is key, and during meetings with other members, it was apparent that councillors shared that opinion. Hyndburn has high levels of poverty and deprivation and for many families switching to a sustainable lifestyle is not part of their daily thought process The 50% of housing in Hyndburn doesn’t easily accommodate electric vehicles Government incentives require significant self funding.

When residents' biggest concern is getting food on the table, or paying for their heating, switching to energy efficient light bulbs or even considering an electric vehicle is not something they would consider important It is clear that the employment of a dedicated climate emergency officer should not undervalue communication. Councils are on the ground every day and it is vital to reach deeper and further into communities to be effective.

Hyndburn, UK

Hyndburn, UK

Some of the changes are practical to ensure a more sustainable future, and the changes don’t always have to be expensive. Many of them can end up saving families money. A green plan must also not just consider decarbonisation Energy efficiency, energy security and sustainable production and recycling of products play a part. As does working with other Councils and in two tiers, working in full partnership with Lancashire County Council, an authority with music, more resource and a greater footprint in the Borough.

During a recent working group meeting, I presented a vision for the council that could embrace a green agenda in four levels. Level One contains quick wins which cost little to no budget, whereas Level Four contains ambitious projects that would require external funding.

Level One

Department heads review the processes in each department to ensure that the council is reducing, reusing, and recycling, where it can. This would be run alongside staff training and would be included ascross cutting mandatory assessment in all council reports.

The Council should also tackle housing issues head on While the Council are restricted by planning law, it should use all means to influence developers and press housing developers to enter by agreement a contract that responds to the sustainability and energy challenges seeking gold standards in designs. This would stipulate that the Council would expect housing to be built in a sustainable way including provision for all renewable energy options such as heat pumps including pre development ground source, solar and wind energy on each property and the potential for similar community investments. Properties should contain the full gamut of energy efficiency measures as standard, from loft insulation, to much thicker walls, LED lights, energy efficient technology and solar hot water systems with the phasing out of gas boilers. To provide the facility to easily add such features as electric charging points.

Level Two

A new environmental officer and a communications programme that would focus on community engagement.

Community engagement could include a Business Summit and a public private retrofitting advice service The Council’s carbon footprint is a fraction of the areas carbon footprint; from agriculture to private cars, transport and industry, to inefficent homes The Council has a role to play in bringing confidence to providers and consumers - nearly all the investment will come from the private sector. The Council can lead on supporting Hyndburn businesses decarbonise and residents to retrofit their homes. We have a large stock of terrace housing which means retrofitting is very important for our borough

Level Three

As previously mentioned, our terraced housing causes some barriers for the borough, especially when we consider moving to electric cars. If we bought some of the brownfield sites in our towns and redeveloped them into car parks with electric charging points, this would aid the borough's transition. The Council should reverse the sell of pockets of land and consider how they might facilitate a greener agenda for residents

Apprenticeships within the Council would also be important for the future. There’s a shortage of electrical mechanics. The Council is intending to have an electric vehicle fleet our workplace could be the perfect place to train young people. This would ensure we will have the workforce within the borough in the future to maintain electric vehicles, while also offering young people new aspirations in partnership with training and apprenticeship/skills providers

By working with businesses and growing consumer confidence the Council could help

Hyndburn has a windfarm but this is fed into the national grid. The Council could consider facilitating and investing in renewable energy such as commercial solar farms and small wind farms as part of providing a housing or employment site with direct energy. Over a century ago our rivers provided huge amount of power for the many mills dotted along them and was the start of the industrial revolution. Farms were powered by water courses. Our canals provided an efficient transport system. Supplying low cost energy could start initially by powering council buildings. Council members were excited by the discussion and this reflects a real thirst for green ambition What are the modern day possibilities?

We are in the early stages of our green revolution at Hyndburn Borough Council but councillors are certainly engaged in the process and want to explore ambitious projects to bring real improvements to our borough. Council officers at Lancashire, Hyndburn and our neighbouring councils have a vital role to play and investing in skills is key Here at Hyndburn Council, we are aided by a fabulous group of officers with a desire to meet the environmental challenges

Hyndburn Wind Farm, Hyndburn, UK

Particulate Matter Molly Fisk

If all you counted were tires on the cars left in driveways and stranded beside the roads. Melted dashboards and tail lights, oil pans, window glass, seat belt clasps. The propane tanks in everyone's yards, though we didn't hear them explode.

R 13 insulation. Paint, inside and out. The liquor store's plastic letters in puddled colors below their charred sign. Each man-made sole of every shoe in all those closets. The laundromat's washers' round metal doors.

But then Arco, Safeway, Walgreens, the library everything they contained. How many miles of electrical wire and PVC pipe swirling into the once blue sky: how many linoleum acres? Not to mention the valley oaks, the ponderosas, all the wild

hearts and all the tame, their bark and leaves and hooves and hair and bones, their final cries, and our neighbors: so many particular, precious, irreplaceable lives that despite ourselves we're inhaling.

Water Devil Jamaal May

Spout of a leaf, listen out for the screams of your relentless audience: the applause of a waterfall in the distance, a hurricane looting a Miami shopping mall. How careful you are with the rain cradling curve of your back.

Near your forest, all are ready to swim and happy to drown in me: this lake of fire that moats the edges.

From my mouth, they come to peel the flames and drink their slick throats into the most silent of ashes.

'Nature' Is What We See Emily Dickinson

'Nature' is what we see The Hill the Afternoon Squirrel Eclipse the Bumble bee Nay—Nature is Heaven— Nature is what we hear The Bobolink the Sea Thunder the Cricket Nay Nature is Harmony Nature is what we know Yet have no art to say So impotent Our Wisdom is To her Simplicity.

Some Questions about the Storm Hilda Raz

What's the bird ratio overhead?

Zero: zero. Maybe it's El Niño?

The storm, was it bad?

Here the worst ever. Every tree hurt.

Do you love trees?

Only the gingko, the fir, the birch.

Yours? Do you name your trees? Who owns the trees? Who's talking

You presume a dialogue. Me and You. Yes. Your fingers tap. I'm listening.

Will you answer? Why mention trees?

When the weather turned rain into ice, the leaves failed.

So what? Every year leaves fail. The cycle. Birth to death.

In the night the sound of cannon, and death everywhere.

What did you see?

Next morning, roots against the glass.

Who's talking now and in familiar language? Get real. What's real is the broken crown. The trunk shattered.

Was that storm worse than others?

Yes and no. The wind's torque twisted open the tree's tibia.

Fool. You're talking about vegetables. Do you love the patio tomato? The Christmas cactus?

Yes. And the magnolia on the roof, the felled crabapple, the topless spruce.

Epithalamia Joan Kane

Butane, propane and lungful of diesel I did not stand a chance.

Always with poison breath, bill, responsibility: a man with rote hands.

Everything in exchange, rain in a frozen season. Our roof, roofs strung

with hot wire. Our love, what was, an impression of light, gaunt: there is nothing to get.

A Climate of Change By George the Poet

A paradigm shift is a change in common sense. But How do you go about re-arranging common sense? Especially with years of research and journalism Making the conversation long and dense. Well, “sense” isn’t something to try and enforce, it should be Kind of endorsed by a reliable source. And in the case of climate change, a Good place to start would be science, of course. You remember science from school, an essential subject? Let’s consider its standing with the general public: Our scientists are in a position to ad- vise us on some of our biggest decisions and it’s Probably in our interest to listen, but Also to invite others to witness the vision. The first way to do that is to be the vision. Through your lifestyle choices you can lead the mission. Bring the Future to your present when it seems a bit distant: The Cleanest existence is green and efficient. And You Haven’t really played your part until your Lifestyle reflects a change of heart. It’s a Continuous process, I’m still working on it myself but Technology plays a major part. I’m trying to play my part as an artist but all I Do is write verses and harmonise melodies. Now, the Point of us working together on this is that One of you knows how to decarbonise energy So if you could consider that when making your plans I’m Happy to leave it in your capable hands. This is the solution government can’t offer: ground-level collaboration. Doesn’t it Sound better than having patience? Instead of sleepwalking into the governance trap, using our Imagination to Take initiative as a nation, which involves Looking at our economic ambitions to ensure that As well as earning ourselves more and banking ourselves more we’re Actually doing things we’re thanking ourselves for in the long run. Because a lucrative plan is a smart one But a sustainable plan is a strong one.

: