When picturing Egypt, it is hard not to think of the Nile. The landscape would simply be inhospitable desert without it. Its enduring indispensability is shown today by providing Egypt with services such as hydroelectric power. But in ancient times, the river’s features were just as crucial to forming the foundation of Egyptian civilisation. From agrarian uses to religious representation, the Nile was an everlasting gift which shaped the entire dynamic of ancient Egyptian life.
Every year, the Nile would go through a period called the Inundation during the summer. Heavy rains in Ethiopia caused the river to swell and, once it flowed to Egypt, it would burst its banks causing flooding. This was extremely beneficial to the Ancient Egyptians as this caused the land to become more fertile, allowing farmers to grow essential crops such as wheat and barley, which was important for their staple diet of bread and beer. Being an agricultural society, the Egyptian economy benefited from paying pyramid workers in these items and creating a potential surplus that could be traded. The Inundation has not occurred in Egypt since the completion of the Aswan Dam in 1970.
The river also had uses for construction. The Great Pyramids of Giza are made of stone blocks weighing 2.5 to 15 tons, meaning that the Egyptians needed a more efficient way of transporting them from quarries than simply dragging them across the desert. During the reign of Khufu in the 25th century BCE, there was a branch of the Nile (named the Khufu branch by modern Egyptologists) that brought the water closer to Giza. The Egyptians utilised this by engineering channels and creating a harbour which was filled during the Inundation, allowing them to transport materials to the construction site by boat. This method was then used again by later pyramid builders at Giza. The water from this channel has long dried out, but the sedimentary time-lapse researched at the harbour site provides evidence of its existence.
The Nile was not only useful during the Inundation. All year round it was used for transport across Egypt, allowing the movement of materials from mining areas to construction sites for the pyramids, temples, and obelisks. The Nile also connected Egypt to Nubia (modern Sudan) allowing for the trade of goods. Nubia offered luxury items such as gold, ivory, and incense, while Egypt offered agrarian products like grain, beer, and vegetable oils. Although the history between these two nations is complex, the continuous exchanges via the Nile meant that their economies could benefit from the selling of surplus goods.
The importance of the Nile’s seasons was reflected in the creation of the ancient Egyptian calendar. The year was split into 3 seasons based on the Nile’s influence on agriculture: Akhet was the Inundation season, Peret was the season of crop growth, and Shemu was the harvest season. The sophistication of their calendar shows that the ancient Egyptians were keen observers of the changes to their climate and could mould aspects of their society to accommodate them.
THE GIFT OF THE NILE
Ancient Egyptian Society and the River GRACE HOLLIFIED
Ancient Egyptian art aimed to depict the natural order of everyday life, meaning that the Nile was undeniably a dominant feature. Artistic representation reflected its vitality for life from providing fertile land and an abundance of agricultural produce. This theme was carried further into supporting life after death, as the Egyptians believed the dead had to travel along the river in the Duat (the Egyptian underworld). In preparation for this, ushabti boats and figurines were manufactured for tombs to provide the deceased with eternal transportation along the Nile in the afterlife.
Moreover, the Nile’s importance was reflected in Egyptian mythology. Although there was no specific deity for the Nile itself, there were gods for certain aspects that the river offered. The god Hapi represented the Inundation by being presented as an androgynous figure, having a rounded belly and breasts associated with women but wearing a loincloth and false beard associated with men. This appearance represented the fertility of the land which the Nile brought as Hapi displayed the fertility of both sexes. Sobek was another god associated with the Nile but presented a contrasting aspect. Sobek had the body of a man but the head of a crocodile, representing the dangers that the Nile could bring from animals such as crocodiles and hippopotami.
One thing for certain is that the ancient Egyptians understood that the Nile was central to their civilisation and respected the river as a result. However, the Nile is now facing the threat of climate change. Higher temperatures are increasing the likelihood of drought which could severely reduce Egyptian water and food supplies, and rising sea levels could cause devastating flooding in the Nile Delta and with it land loss and property damage. Human activity has also posed a threat to the river. The Aswan Dam, while arguably producing renewable energy from hydroelectric power, has disrupted the sediment flow between the Nile and the Mediterranean coast, depriving the coast of necessary minerals for its environment.
In our current climate, it seems that the Nile is now becoming a curse rather than the gift the ancient Egyptians believed it to be. Perhaps it would be wise to follow their example and protect the Nile’s natural features before it is too late.
THE IVORY TRADE
Organised Crime and Markets of Desire
SAMANTHA EDWARDS
For centuries, ivory has been considered a luxury item. It has been used to make tools, jugs, tableware, figurines, statues and carvings. The rich and powerful would use ivory to emphasise their high status within society, and it quickly became associated with wealth and influence. However, it is a status symbol that came at a very high price. The ivory trade and ivory poaching have destroyed lives and decimated the African elephant population. In 1800, it is believed there were 26 million African elephants roaming the Earth. Today, there are 500,000. 90% of African elephants have been killed in the last 100 years. These truly devastating figures emphasise just how widespread and deeply-rooted the problem is. This article will examine the history of poaching and the ivory trade, and how it continues to flourish despite heavy worldwide restrictions, causing mass destruction in its wake.
The ivory trade began to take hold in the 16th century, as international trade routes were established. European colonial powers such as Spain, Portugal, Britain and France capitalised on these new trade routes, shipping ivory from East Africa to Europe as members of the aristocracy wanted this luxury material. It is no coincidence that the ivory trade dramatically expanded at the same time as the slave trade. Many Africans were captured and forced to become porters, harvesting and delivering ivory. This was dangerous work, and for every five tusks exported, one porter died. Families were broken up as parents were forced to be porters and children were sold into slavery elsewhere. Even in the early period of the ivory trade, devastation and turmoil were rife.
In the 19th century, increased prosperity in Europe and North America led to an increase in the demand for ivory as it could be used to make piano keys, knife handles and carvings. Rather than waiting for ivory to be exported, many members of the European aristocracy went to Africa themselves to kill elephants. This is what led to the rapid decimation of the elephant population, as for many years poaching was left completely unchecked. Between 1850 and 1914, 44,000 elephants were killed annually, creating a total of 2.8 million. In the early 20th century, measures were taken to curb poaching, but the wealthy were still granted licences. The act of brutally killing an elephant was seen as the ultimate sign of manliness and wealth for many white Westerners. Celebrity hunters such as Walter Bell and John A Hunter promoted poaching as a fun, macho activity. Bell was famed for his ‘Bell Shot’, shooting large elephants in the head. By the 1930s, Bell was responsible for the deaths of
over 1,000 elephants. Hunter organised safaris in Kenya, where the most rich and powerful could go on elephant hunts as late as the 1950s. Elephants were not viewed as sentient, intelligent and emotional animals. Instead, they were viewed as objects to be used and abused.
By 1989, there were only 600,000 African elephants left in the wild. The West had largely rejected poaching by this time, and a worldwide ban on the ivory trade came into effect. Ivory stockpiles were destroyed and the transportation of ivory became illegal. However, the worldwide ban had several major loopholes. ‘Antique ivory’ (that had been harvested before 1947), raw ivory and pre-convention ivory could still be traded. This led to many illegal traders artificially ageing ivory so they could still sell it. 86% of the time, experts could not tell the difference between old ivory and ivory that had been artificially aged, creating a thriving black market that is worth a total of $23 billion.
As demand from the West dried up, demand in the East flourished. This led to the establishment of an illegal trade route between Africa and Asia. Ivory is smuggled through similar networks as illegal narcotics, and relies heavily on corrupt governments that are willing to turn a blind eye to trafficking. Those who participate in ivory trafficking often do so out of necessity. The ivory trade relies heavily on poverty and desperation, making it extremely predatory. The United Nations has described the ivory trade as a transnational environmental crime, as it is a global operation that harms the biodiversity of many African nations. The ivory trade peaked in the early 2010s, with 2011 being the worst year on record. Over 25,000 elephants were killed between 2011 and 2012 alone, highlighting how the ivory trade is still a serious problem.
As individuals, this may seem like an issue that is out of our hands but there are things we can do to make a difference. We can look out for ivory that is being traded online. Sites such as eBay use codewords such as “bovine bone” as a cover for ivory. If you see this, report it immediately. If you have the financial means to do so, you can donate to organisations such as the WWF, Wildaid, The Elephant Foundation and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. All of these organisations do fantastic work in protecting elephants, and any donation, big or small would help them to continue this work. Progress is slowly being made, and hopefully, the African elephant population will increase.
‘Carbon footprint’, ‘net zero carbon’, ‘eco-neutral’, ‘earth positive’ –buzzwords saturating ads, media and marketing campaigns, all vying for consumer approval under the guise of sustainability. But are these claims genuine or just polished greenwashing?
The concept of a ‘carbon footprint’ – now a go-to measure of personal environmental impact – wasn’t born from environmental activism but from a public relations campaign. In 2004, BP, one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, worked with advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather to popularise the term. As journalist Mark Kaufman describes, the strategy was clear: shift the blame for climate change away from Big Oil and onto individuals making consumers feel responsible while the industry kept profiting.
This strategy worked brilliantly – casting consumers as the culprits’ while BP positioned itself as a champion of green initiatives. But behind the carefully crafted messaging, the company avoided real accountability for its own emissions. In February 2020, BP announced its ambition to become a net-zero company by 2050, or sooner, while also pledging to help the world reach net zero. Yet in 2023, the company emitted 315 million metric tonnes of carbon, 8 million more than the year before. To put this in comparison, the average individual ‘carbon footprint’ is around 4.7 tonnes.
THE ILLUSION OF SUSTAINABILITY
Greenwashing’s Role in Shaping Modern Consumer Behaviour
LYDIA MARTIN
Who is the ‘we’ in discussions about climate responsibility? Are all consumers equally to blame? The reality is that while individuals are encouraged to make ‘greener choices’, those choices exist within a system deliberately designed by the fossil fuel industry and major corporations to ensure their own survival. The global economy has been structured in a way that makes fossil fuel dependence practically inescapable. Meanwhile, the narrative of personal responsibility, popularised through terms like ‘carbon footprint’, has been one of the most successful distractions of modern times–diverting attention away from corporate accountability and onto individual consumers.
So, how exactly do companies create these distractions? What are the telltale signs of greenwashing?
You don’t have to go far to see greenwashing in action, simply look at your high street. The fashion industry is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to performative environmental action. H&M, a fast-fashion giant, has faced long criticism for its exploitative production practices and environmental impact. In response, the company introduced the “Conscious Collection”, marketed as a sustainable alternative. However, independent audits revealed that the environmental benefits of this collection were minimal at best. Despite the branding, H&M continued to produce vast quantities of clothing, with no real reduction in carbon emissions or waste.
While corporate greenwashing is widespread, it’s important to distinguish between performative eco-gestures and genuine efforts to reduce environmental harm. One widely used approach is carbon offsetting, where companies compensate for their emissions by funding projects that absorb or reduce CO2 elsewhere: such as reforestation, renewable energy or carbon capture technologies. In theory, this sounds promising but it’s like wearing noise-cancelling headphones because your smoke alarm won’t stop beeping. It helps, but your kitchen is still on fire.
Many brands rely on offsetting as a smokescreen rather than a solution. Instead of cutting emissions at the source, they purchase carbon credits – effectively paying to pollute while outsourcing responsibility to external projects. Worse, studies have found that many offset schemes fail: trees planted for carbon sequestration are often logged within decades, and some projects overestimate their impact. However, Lush’s cork pots, designed to store shampoo bars, are an example of carbon negativity done right. Each pot removes over 33 times its weight in CO2 from the atmosphere, thanks to the carbon-sequestering trees used in production.
A crucial marker of corporate transparency is publicly reporting emissions data and demonstrating concrete steps to reduce them. This not only holds companies accountable but also empowers consumers to make informed, responsible choices. Without this, offsetting becomes little more than a marketing tool, allowing businesses to appear sustainable while continuing unsustainable practices. Many consumers now choose brands based on perceived sustainability without fully understanding whether those commitments are substantive or superficial. This raises a fundamental question: Can true sustainability be achieved within an economic system that relies on perpetual growth?
This is a textbook case of greenwashing—offering aesthetic sustainability without any meaningful change. Companies like H&M recognise that consumers want to make responsible choices, so they provide the illusion of sustainability without addressing the root problem: overproduction and excessive waste. This forces consumers to navigate a marketplace where even ‘green’ claims can’t be trusted, making sustainable shopping needlessly difficult.
The reality is that sustainability cannot be reduced to individual choices alone, it requires a systemic transformation of the industries and economies that drive environmental degradation in the first place. This, however, does not mean that consumer action is meaningless. Public pressure, informed choices, and regulatory demands can push corporations beyond performative gestures. We have already seen cases where increased transparency, legal scrutiny and consumer activism have led to genuine progress, forcing brands to move beyond greenwashing and implement more meaningful change.
The challenge, therefore, is to go beyond feel-good marketing and hold businesses accountable for measurable reductions in emissions, sustainable supply chains and long-term environmental responsibility. Sustainability must shift from being a branding exercise to an operational imperative: one that aligns business models with planetary boundaries rather than exploiting them. If this shift happens, the goal of a truly sustainable economy may no longer be an illusion, but an achievable reality.
