Tag: justice

White men dominate the environment sector – here’s how to encourage more diverse voices

Posted on by amanda.woodman-hardy
Bringing a diversity of people to the table and giving plenty of opportunities for everyone to have their say is key to ensuring real inclusivity. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

In early 2021, I observed a meeting of 25 people working on climate change policy in Bristol as part of my research into creating a just and fair climate transition. I was struck by how the conversation was dominated by one group: white men. From that moment, inequality in decision-making became a major part of my climate justice research.

I drew a table in my notebook with four headings: white men, white women, minoritised men and minoritised women. Every time someone spoke, I put a tick in the relevant column. By the end of that meeting, white men had three times as many ticks as the rest combined. I took a picture of the table and sent it to my research partner, Alice Venn.

“Should I keep recording this data?” I asked. Venn approved of this approach, so data on gender and race became central to our study.

We observed various meetings including steering groups, member consultations and board meetings for nine hours over the course of six months. During that time, white men spoke for 64% of the time and represented 40% of participants. A slightly higher percentage (41%) of white women were present in the meetings we observed, but they spoke for just 33% of the time.

By comparison, minoritised women made up 14% of participants in meetings and spoke 2% of the time. Minoritised men made up 5% of participants in meetings and spoke only 1% of the time.

This is no great surprise. The environment sector is notoriously one of the least diverse, with only 3.5% of people working in environmental jobs identifying as being from an ethnic minority. In the environmental charity sector, that figure is 6%. This compares quite starkly with an average across the UK workforce of 15% of employees from racial or ethnic minorities.

Diverse voices and critical discussions are key to making robust, inclusive and future-proof decisions. If a group of people who come from similar backgrounds (whether because of race, class or gender) assess a decision they are making for flaws, they are unlikely to find them because they are likely to agree with one another.

There may then be unexpected pushback against policies such as 15-minute neighbourhoods (where residents can reach all the facilities they need within a 15-minute walk, bike ride or journey on public transport), because groups who do not benefit from those schemes have not been consulted and their dissent has not been anticipated.

In Bristol, our observations of meetings found that participants showed very little critical engagement with existing policies, such as cycling route safety planning that centred around men commuting, or expansion plans for Bristol airport. Often, there was no space or time in meetings to be critical of existing ideas and narratives, or to challenge existing policy processes and systemic problems.

Climate justice was only mentioned in one of the nine meetings we observed. Climate vulnerability was not mentioned at all. Meetings felt very busy, filled with packed agendas, with little opportunity to make radical suggestions for change.

Changing the dynamic

Even with a mix of women and men or representative examples of minoritised people in the room, these people won’t necessarily speak up. Women are less likely to have influence in board meetings and struggle to be heard in online meetings.

A good chair will be aware of these dynamics and take steps to ensure inclusivity, perhaps by setting up small group tasks to build confidence or monitoring who is speaking and calling on quieter people directly.

Another technique, known as the “2-2 method”, involves asking “what are two reasons someone would agree, and two someone would disagree?” before opening the floor for critique. An open workplace culture where people feel they can trust leadership even if they are critical is also important, and will make more open and inclusive meetings easier to conduct.

From observations in our study, women tend to take longer to answer a question, which gives space for men to jump in or interrupt. One of the female participants told us: “I notice men tend to talk over me and interrupt me, a lot.”

Minoritised individuals may be more reticent to speak if they feel they won’t be listened to. Previous research shows that some board members worry they will be tokenised by being asked to represent huge groups – this puts undue pressure on them to be the spokesperson for their race or ethnicity, and does not treat them as an individual with worthy opinions. Being aware of these dynamics and getting it right as an employer or community leader is key to making change and ensuring everyone feels able to speak up.

A diversity redesign

As a follow-up from our study, we are training members of the environment sector in Bristol. We have been working with the UK-wide, equalities-led social enterprise The Diversity Trust and video production company Beeston Media to provide a series of workshops and videos about making more inclusive decisions, creating an open workplace culture, and recruiting and retaining diverse staff.

So far we’ve held three workshops, each attended by more than 25 people from a wide range of sectors and organisations. Three more workshops are planned for spring and summer 2024.

As a result, the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change has already changed its recruitment policies. The committee has widened its definition of an expert, moving away from a research-based definition and explicitly noting that lived experience and community knowledge can be accepted as expertise.

Meeting space policies have also been redesigned at several organisations – for example, by implementing the 2-2 method and ensuring that chairs avoid tokenism and use micro-affirmations to build confidence.

We are monitoring the impact of these changes with one-to-one support calls, surveys and peer-to-peer support groups. One testimony stated that “the training you have been running has been so valuable in helping environmental organisations to develop better equality, diversity and inclusion practice”.

Improvements to embrace a more diverse and inclusive environmental sector are critical to ensuring a greener, fairer and more sustainable future for all. But this transition needs to be designed with people, rather than imposed on them. The shift can begin in a boardroom, steering group, or committee meeting. Any institution that pays attention to how it makes decisions, and who is consulted, will help to ensure the green transition is as inclusive as possible.

————————–

This blog is written by Dr Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, and Associate Director of Impact at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr Alix Dietzel
Dr Alix Dietzel

COP27: What really happened on finance, justice and Loss and Damage?

Posted on by janet.crompton

The Cabot Institute for the Environment sent three delegates to the recent Conference of the Parties 27 (COP27). Drs Alix Dietzel (Sociology, Politics and International Studies); Colin Nolden (Bristol Law School); and Rachel James (Geographical Sciences) were present for most of the first week and Colin was there for the full two weeks. As the Institute has observer status with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Alix, Rachel and Colin had the chance to engage with policy makers and climate policy experts from around the world to help promote climate action which is informed by the best evidence and research.

We asked them to give an update on their experience at COP27 and as a result, whether the pledges made at COP27 would mean that 1.5C is still achievable.

Drs Colin Nolden and Alix Dietzel at COP27.

Climate finance – Dr Colin Nolden

Colin’s research interests span sustainable energy policy, regulation and business models and interactions with secondary markets such as carbon markets and other sectors such as mobility. COP27 was an opportunity for him to talk directly to policymakers about implementing the Paris Agreement and to people directly affected by climate policy decisions.

Here are Colin’s post-COP thoughts:

“Alongside Loss and Damage, the main issue discussed at COP is climate finance for decarbonisation. The $100bn/yr pledged in Paris has never materialised and to add injury to insult, rich countries can borrow at 4%, whereas poor countries borrow at 14%, as Mia Motley, Prime Minister of Barbados, pointed out in her speech on Day 1. Under these conditions, investments in fossil fuel infrastructures pay off, but investments in renewables do not. An endless number of panel discussions and side events on ‘climate finance’ and ‘accelerating the clean energy/net zero transition’ are testament to this gap.

“Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is a mechanism to overcome this funding gap by providing the legal foundation to finance decarbonisation projects in a country in exchange for carbon credits provided by another. Whether these should lead to according adjustments in emissions inventories, as is the case under bilateral agreements using Article 6.2, is controversial. How Article 6.4 will deal with this issue is still unclear and is unlikely to be agreed on at successive COPs. Negotiations on Article 6 will determine the climate credit and finance architecture for years to come.”

Climate justice – Dr Alix Dietzel

Alix is Associate Director for Impact and Innovation at the Cabot Institute for the Environment and an environmental justice scholar. Her role at COP27 was to observe the negotiations and critically reflect on whose voices were heard and whose were left out of the discussion, as well as concentrating on whether topics such as Loss and Damage and just transition were being given adequate space and time during the negotiations.

Dr Alix Dietzel at COP27.

Here are Alix’s reflections from COP27:

“Despite much excitement over a new Loss and Damage fund, there is backsliding on commitments to lower emissions and phasing out fossil fuels. As an academic expert in just transition who went along this year hoping to make a difference, I share the anger felt around the world about this outcome.

“Attendance at COPs is strictly regulated. Parties (negotiating teams), the media, and observers (NGOs, IGOs, and UN Agencies) must all be pre-approved. Observers have access to the main plenaries and ceremonies, the pavilion exhibition spaces, and side-events. The negotiation rooms, however, are largely off limits. Most of the day is spent listening to speeches, networking, and asking questions at side-events. The main role of observers, then, is to apply indirect pressure on negotiators, report on what is happening, and network. Meaningful impact on and participation in negotiations seemed out of reach for many of the passionate people I met.

“It has long been known that who gets a say in climate change governance is skewed. As someone working on fair decision making as part of just transition, it is clear that only the most powerful voices are reflected in treaties such as the Paris Agreement. Despite being advertised as ‘Africa’s COP’, COP27 has further hampered inclusion. The run up was dogged by accusations of inflated hotel prices and concerns over surveillance, no chance to organize protests, and warnings about Egypt’s brutal police state.

“Arriving in Sharm El Sheik, there was an air of intimidation starting at the airport, where military personnel scrutinized passports. Police roadblocks featured heavily on our way to the hotel, and military officials surrounded the COP venue the next morning. Inside the venue, there were rumours we were being watched and observers were urged not to download the official app. More minor issues included voices literally not being heard due to unreliable microphones and the constant drone of airplanes overhead. Food queues were huge, and it was difficult to access water to refill our bottles. Sponsored by Coca Cola, we could buy soft drinks. Outside of COP, unless I was accompanied by a man, I faced near constant sexual harassment, hampering my ability to come and go freely.

“Who was there and who was most represented at COP27 also concerned me. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) registered the largest party delegation with more than 1,000 people, almost twice the size of the next biggest delegation, Brazil. Oil and gas lobby representatives were registered in the national delegations of 29 different countries and were larger than any single national delegation (outside of the UAE). At least 636 of those attending were lobbyists for the fossil-fuel industry. Despite the promise that COP27 would foreground African interests, the fossil lobby outnumbers any delegation from Africa. These numbers give a sense of who has power and say at these negotiations, and who does not.

“All this to say, I am not surprised at the outcomes. There is some good news in the form of a new fund for Loss and Damage – but there is no agreement yet on how much money should be paid in, by whom, and on what basis. More worryingly, the outcome document makes no mention of phasing out fossil fuels, and scant reference to the 1.5C target. Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, blamed the host country, Egypt, for the final decision.

“COP27 produced a text that clearly protects oil and gas petro-states and the fossil fuel industry. The final outcomes demonstrate that despite the thousands who were there to advocate for climate justice, it was the fossil fuel lobby who had most influence. As a climate justice scholar, I am deeply worried about the processes at COPs, especially given next year’s destination: The United Arab Emirates. Time is running out and watered-down commitments on emissions are at this stage deeply unjust and frankly dangerous.”

Loss and Damage – Dr Rachel James

Rachel is a climate scientist, focusing on African climate systems and developing climate science to inform and advance climate change policy. Her previous research has been designed to progress international climate policy discussions, including the COP process, and she has analysed the impacts of global mitigation goals, comparing different warming scenarios (1.5°C, 2°C and beyond).  At COP27, she engaged in adaptation discussions, to learn more about how science can support national adaptation planning, to guide her new research programme “Salient”, a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship to improve climate information for adaptation, primarily in southern Africa.

Dr Rachel James (fourth from right) at COP27.

In her previous work, Dr James has also looked at how science can support policy discussions about  ‘Loss and Damage’, from climate change, and at COP27 she followed discussions on Loss and Damage, as well as taking part in a workshop to establish a network of African researchers focusing on Loss and Damage. Rachel reflects on her experience of COP and the Loss and Damage discussions:

“The COP is now a huge event, with hundreds of discussions happening simultaneously, and many thousands of people, (almost) all pushing for climate action, and acting on it in their own ways. There are lots of things going on, deals being struck, collaborations forming, alongside the official UNFCCC business.

“This was supposed to be the “COP of implementation”, as the Paris Agreement and the rulebook are already in place. Some said we were largely beyond negotiation.

“However, the Global South came ready to negotiate, particularly on Loss and Damage. They wanted a finance facility on Loss and Damage to be established. Negotiations began in the weekend before the COP, and – after negotiating all night with no food – the developing countries succeeded in getting this onto the formal agenda.

“Over the two weeks of the COP, my perception was that there was a huge shift on Loss and Damage. Once it was on the official agenda, it was much easier to talk about. It has been a very contentious issue. Broadly, the most vulnerable countries have called for mechanisms to address the fact that they are, and will continue to, experience loss and damage from climate change impacts like sea level rise and extreme weather. Those countries who have emitted the most fear this could lead to unlimited liability. When I first started working on it I’d often get a worried look when I mentioned the topic.

“In a side event during the first week at Sharm El Sheikh, I heard someone say “some magic has happened” and we can now talk about this in the mainstream. We also saw a series of announcements from countries committing finance for Loss and Damage.  Then, finally, after two weeks of negotiations ran into extra time, countries agreed to establish a fund for Loss and Damage.

“This was a huge victory for the developing countries. Lots of questions remain about how it will work, who will pay into it, and who will benefit, but nevertheless it marks a big step. Developing countries (especially AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States) have been working on this for decades. The negotiators work so hard, often into the night, it’s incredible.

“My overall view is that COP continues to be a difficult process, but it is shifting, maybe substantially. Many view COP as a talk shop and suggest it’s a waste of time, but I disagree. Although the process is tortuous, slow, and frustrating, it is the best one we have, and still vital. Progress is way too slow but there is progress. Every country is represented, and we don’t have any other process on climate change where that is the case. The developing countries have power in numbers at the COP that I am not sure they have in any other forum on climate change.”

Dr Alix Dietzel (fourth from right on the back row) at COP27

 

Is 1.5C still alive?

Colin: “The International Energy Agency expects fossil fuel demand to peak as early as 2025. However, with all countries harbouring exploitable fossil fuel resources racing to extract them (with our former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Rees-Mogg vowing in September 2022 to “squeeze every last drop of oil” out of the North Sea) and key initiatives such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero failing to deliver on their promises, fossil fuels will not be phased out anytime soon.

“At the same time, pinning our hopes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is misguided as current capacities amount to four hours of global emissions and International Energy Agency projections suggest that capacities in 2030 will amount to 16 hours of emissions. This implies that in the absence of a sustained global financial commitment towards demand reduction or sustainable supply, limiting average global temperature rise to 1.5 above will be very difficult indeed.”

Rachel: “A key goal in Glasgow and in Sharm El Sheikh has been to keep 1.5°C alive. Some countries were attempting to backslide on mitigation goals during the final days, but in the end 1.5°C remained in the text. It’s disappointing that we didn’t see an increase in ambition from Glasgow, but 1.5°C is still there – even if “on life support”, as noted by Alok Sharma.

“It’s easy for us to do an academic analysis and speculate as to whether or not we think 1.5°C is politically feasible. But the IPCC has spelled it out clearly: every fraction of a degree of warming matters. What’s important is that we increase ambition to reduce emissions, and we phase out fossil fuels, so that we can limit global warming as much as possible.”

———————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment members Dr Alix Dietzel, Dr Colin Nolden, Dr Rachel James and Amanda Woodman-Hardy.

Further reading

Read more about our experts at COP27.

Read Dr Alix Dietzel’s blog on COP27: how the fossil fuel lobby crowded out calls for climate justice

Read Dr Colin Nolden’s blog on After COP27: Is 1.5C still alive? 

COP27: how the fossil fuel lobby crowded out calls for climate justice

Posted on by janet.crompton

COP27 has just wrapped up. Despite much excitement over a new fund to address “loss and damage” caused by climate change, there is also anger about perceived backsliding on commitments to lower emissions and phase out fossil fuels.

As an academic expert in climate justice who went along this year, hoping to make a difference, I share this anger.

“Together for Implementation” was the message as COP27 got underway on November 6 and some 30,000 people descended on the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El Sheik. The UNFCCC strictly regulates who can attend negotiations. Parties (country negotiation teams), the media and observers (NGOs, IGOs and UN special agencies) must all be pre-approved.

I went along as an NGO observer, to represent the University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment. Observers have access to the main plenaries and ceremonies, the pavilion exhibition spaces and side events. The negotiation rooms, however, are largely off limits. Most of the day is spent listening to speeches, networking and asking questions at side-events.

Woman sits in large conference room
The author at the COP27 opening plenary.
Colin Nolden, Author provided

The main role of observers, then, is to apply indirect pressure on negotiators, report on what is happening and network. Meaningful impact on and participation in negotiations seems out of reach for many of the passionate people I met.

Who does – and doesn’t – get a say

It has long been known that who gets a say in climate change governance is skewed. As someone working on fair decision making as part of a just transition to less carbon-intensive lifestyles and a climate change-adapted society, it is clear that only the most powerful voices are reflected in treaties such as the Paris Agreement. At last year’s COP26, men spoke 74% of the time, indigenous communities faced language barriers and racism and those who could not obtain visas were excluded entirely.

Despite being advertised as “Africa’s COP”, COP27 further hampered inclusion. The run up was dogged by accusations of inflated hotel prices and concerns over surveillance, and warnings about Egypt’s brutal police state. The right to protest was limited, with campaigners complaining of intimidation and censorship.

Conference area with 'AfricaCOP27' sign
Africa’s COP?
Alix Dietzel, Author provided

Arriving in Sharm El Sheik, there was an air of intimidation starting at the airport, where military personnel scrutinised passports. Police roadblocks featured heavily on our way to the hotel and military officials surrounded the COP venue the next morning.

Inside the venue, there were rumours we were being watched and observers were urged not to download the official app. More minor issues included voices literally not being heard due to unreliable microphones and the constant drone of aeroplanes overhead, and a scarcity of food with queues sometimes taking an hour or more. Sponsored by Coca Cola, it was also difficult to access water to refill our bottles. We were sold soft drinks instead.

Outside of the venue, unless I was with a male colleague, I faced near constant sexual harassment, hampering my ability to come and go from the summit. All these issues, major and minor, affect who is able to contribute at COP.

Fossil fuel interests dominated

In terms of numbers, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) registered the largest party delegation with more than 1,000 people. The oil and gas-rich nation of just 9 million people had a delegation almost twice the size of the next biggest, Brazil. More troublingly, the oil and gas lobby representatives were registered in the national delegations of 29 different countries and were larger than any single national delegation (outside of the UAE). According to one NGO, at least 636 of those attending COP27 were lobbyists for the fossil-fuel industry.

Large oil tanker goes past city skyline
The UAE has some of the world’s largest reserves of both oil and gas.
Nick Fox / shutterstock

Despite the promise that COP27 would foreground African interests, the fossil lobby outnumbers any delegation from Africa. These numbers give a sense of who has power and say at these negotiations, and who does not.

Protecting the petrostates

The main outcomes of COP27 are a good illustration of the power dynamics at play. There is some good news on loss and damage, which was added to the agenda at the last moment. Nearly 200 countries agreed that a fund for loss and damage, which would pay out to rescue and rebuild the physical and social infrastructure of countries ravaged by extreme weather events, should be set up within the next year. However, there is no agreement yet on how much money should be paid in, by whom, and on what basis.

Much more worryingly, there had been a push to phase out all fossil fuels by countries including some of the biggest producers: the EU, Australia, India, Canada, the US and Norway. However, with China, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran pushing back, several commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow were dropped, including a target for global emissions to peak by 2025. The outcome was widely judged a failure on efforts to cut emissions: the final agreed text from the summit makes no mention of phasing out fossil fuels and scant reference to the 1.5℃ target.

Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, blamed the host country, Egypt, for allowing its regional alliances to sway the final decision, producing a text that clearly protects oil and gas petrostates and the fossil fuel industries.

The final outcomes demonstrate that, despite the thousands who were there to advocate for climate justice, it was the fossil fuel lobby that had most influence. As a climate justice scholar, I am deeply worried about the processes at COPs, especially given next year’s destination: Dubai. It remains to be seen what happens with the loss and damage fund, but time is running out and watered down commitments on emissions are at this stage deeply unjust and frankly dangerous.The Conversation

———————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Dr Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Who’s at the table? Priorities after a year of food justice dialogue

Posted on by janet.crompton

Defining ‘Food Justice’ is not easy. When it comes to ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ in relation to our food system, should we be concerned with questions of individual citizens’ access to sustainable sources of subsistence, or issues of production, labour and the practices of agri-business? Do people have clear rights to food? And should such rights focus on quantity alone, or take account of the quality and nature of food? Furthermore, when defining ‘food justice’ should we be primarily concerned with human rights, or are we dealing with complex systems that oblige us to think about non-human persons and actors, including animals and the environment? Whatever our responses to these questions might be, it seems clear that thinking about climate change cannot ignore either food or justice.

An artistic collaboration is stimulating discussion about who is at the table in (un)just food systems.

Over the last year, we have established the Bristol Researchers Food Justice Network. Primarily, this has been through setting up a regular fortnightly seminar series, a workshop exploring the core purpose, values and potential for the Network, and an artistic collaboration to experiment with interactive ways of thinking about the food system and food justice. As it moves into its second year, we reflect on some of the key themes discussed so far. Recent models suggest that policy decisions that focus on climate alone will likely result in rapid growth in social inequalities, including and especially in the global food system. As we focus on questions of environmental sustainability and climate change in the light of the Cop-26 conference, some key food justice issues come to mind:

1. The way that we see food justice is systemic, equally as environmental as it is social

Every part of the food system is connected. Problems with diet are not disconnected to labour force, or price of food, or access to land, or environmentally sustainable farming. It is possible to have a food justice perspective towards understanding food systems. This involves seeing and considering people and other beings everywhere in the system and their being recognised as having an inherent value, with such value not being cheapened in the name of economic cost.

What clearly emerged from the network workshop, which involved researchers from vets to social scientists, historians and lawyers, was that we valued word and concept of ‘justice’ because it captures the common understanding that we are committed to change where we see injustice. While many network members understand food interactions as part of a ‘food system’, the concept of justice helps us maintain a critical and action-led approach where we see problems in those food systems.

2. Justice in food systems is bound up with structures of trade and foreign policy agendas

Since the mid-nineteenth century, Britain has largely relied on food imports, a model which has today become normalised. For many, changing this model is fundamental to building a more sustainable food system. But this cannot be a choice between either climate or society Recent government initiatives promise radical new directions in agriculture policy but keep this trade-centred model intact. Thus, the UK is determined to get farmers away from food subsidies, having committed to end direct payments by 2027. This would turn farmers into environmental stewards whilst offshoring the production of food elsewhere. Moreover, trade deals can increasingly be seen to trade away local and national food production in favour of other priorities, something that the network held a ‘policy hack’ discussion about following the approval of the UK-Australian Free Trade deal in June 2021.

Lauren explores how the table at the heart of the artistic collaboration is supported and wired together.

3. The Dutch model alone cannot save the world

Many models for the future of farming, food supply and food consumption, focus on technical solutions. Accounts of the ‘miracle’ of Dutch agriculture, for example, cite the emphasis on the investment in research and innovation that have underpinned the country’s apparent success in agricultural research and development. But what are the social implications of technological solutions – and what if we end up sacrificing quality for efficiency?

Will research led by agri-food corporations underpin a genuine revolution in global food production, or create intellectual property that marginalises small-scale and community-centred farming enterprises in ecologically-vulnerable territories in the Global South? Some agri-tech policies pioneered by countries such as the Netherlands – such as responsible antibiotic use – are to be lauded, but if these are pursued in the service of intensive agriculture, real problems remain.

4. Consumers are key to change – but we need to do more than blame and shame

As individual consumers, we all have a role to play in transforming the food system; but individualising systemic problems simply places the onus on the consumer in ways that often inhibit radical action. Moreover, as recent polling suggests, individuals are reluctant to embrace environmental actions – such as reducing meat consumption – that have the greatest impact on their own lives.

The choices we make certainly matter, but the notion of ‘choice’ is in many cases an illusory, erroneous and pernicious concept. In effect, consumers  are presented as ‘both the cause and the solution to potential health problems and thus are made to be accountable for their own health.’ This is especially true when we consider questions of poverty and its relation with obesity and other diet-based non-communicable disease. The idea that consumers, by choosing to consume ‘ethically’, ‘sustainably’ or ‘healthily’ can on their own resolve social and environmental deep-seated problems. Policies that place the responsibility for making healthy, ethical and sustainable food choices on individuals fail to address the contexts in which individuals and families live and work.

5. Agriculture and the people within it are being consistently undervalued, around the world

The current food system involves at least 1.1 billion people working in agriculture, who are often among the world’s poorest people. Peasant and self-sufficient farming practices, which often involve very low carbon emitting practices are routinely undermined by large infrastructure and deforestation practices, perpetuating a cycle of the mobility of people away from the agricultural sector that does not compensate them well (including through low international prices for primary agricultural products) towards more intensive practices in the same sector, or into other types of work.

Intensive agriculture relies on a waged labour force of 300-500 million, including many who depend on jobs in plantation work, which is degrading and, in some cases, involves forced labour and modern slavery, having emerged from systems of production developed under conditions of colonial slavery, such as in sugar plantations. Meanwhile, migrant workers make up a large proportion of seasonal and harvest workers in many rich countries because they are in a weak position in the labour force and are therefore, overall, are paid lower wages and offered poorer conditions than their national counterparts. Small producers across the world attempting to live in low-impact lifestyles are usually excluded from subsidies, but often even wealthy farmers, find their land crops and livestock are undervalued. To stay in the sector people working within it are frequently pushed into other activities to diversify and supplement their livelihoods through ecotourism or other specialised initiatives drawing income from the service sector. Why isn’t there inherent value to producing food?

6. The combined challenges of climate and biodiversity crisis for agriculture must be addressed as issues of food justice

A (contested) narrative is emerging that suggests it is possible to divide the world into areas which protect nature and areas which intensively produce food but have negative environmental consequences. We are thus presented with ‘difficult choices’ premised on the belief that farming is inherently incompatible with conservation and climate change mitigation.

This is an off-setting approach which uses a logic of ecological destruction in one place to be compensated for by nature promotion/restoration in another place. However, such ‘land sparing’ approaches simply maintain the status quo and distract our attention from the root causes of a problematic food system. We should be wary of policies that further outsource food production (and environmental damage) to prioritise environmental conservation/restoration in the UK and elsewhere.

Lead artist and ceramicist, Amy Rose, considers the dynamics present at the table. The collaboration is supported by the Brigstow Institute of the University of Bristol.

These represent some of the central issues we have begun to tackle in the Food Justice Network. As researchers, we also recognise that to fully address concerns around our contemporary food system, we need processes that expand our conversation, allow everyone to tell their stories and to fully engage all our senses. Working with artists and creative practitioners has started to help us broaden and clarify our definitions of food justice and will give us opportunities to engage and interact between and beyond the boundaries of research, public knowledge, and practice.

Creative practice and public engagement can become critical tools as we address the twin challenges of climate emergency and social inequality and their radical impact on our food systems – at local, national, and global scales. Above all, an  emphasis on food justice will be imperative if we wish to develop food policies that sustain both our environmental and human futures. Our current food system embodies historical systemic inequalities that reflect the diverse legacies of colonialism, industrialization, and globalization; these must be addressed rather than amplified in our responses to the climate emergency.

————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute members Dr Lauren Blake, Dr Lydia Medland, and Dr Rob Skinner from “Who’s in our food?”. This blog has been reposted from the Bristow Institute blog with kind permission from the Brigstow Institute. View the original blog.

Are you a journalist looking for climate experts? We’ve got you covered

Posted on by janet.crompton

We’ve got lots of media trained climate change experts. If you need an expert for an interview, here is a list of Caboteers you can approach. All media enquiries should be made via Victoria Tagg, our dedicated Media and PR Manager at the University of Bristol. Email victoria.tagg@bristol.ac.uk or call +44 (0)117 428 2489.

Climate change / climate emergency / climate science / climate-induced disasters

Dr Eunice Lo – expert in changes in extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cold spells, and how these changes translate to negative health outcomes including illnesses and deaths. Follow on Twitter @EuniceLoClimate.

Professor Daniela Schmidt – expert in the causes and effects of climate change on marine systems. Dani is also a Lead Author on the IPCC reports. Dani will be at COP26.

Dr Katerina Michalides – expert in drylands, drought and desertification and helping East African rural communities to adapt to droughts and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_kmichaelides.

Professor Dann Mitchell – expert in how climate change alters the atmospheric circulation, extreme events, and impacts on human health. Dann is also a Met Office Chair. Dann will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateDann.

Professor Dan Lunt – expert on past climate change, with a focus on understanding how and why climate has changed in the past and what we can learn about the future from the past. Dan is also a Lead Author on IPCC AR6. Dan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateSamwell.

Professor Jonathan Bamber – expert on the impact of melting land ice on sea level rise (SLR) and the response of the ocean to changes in freshwater forcing. Jonathan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @jlbamber

Professor Paul Bates CBE – expert in the science of flooding, risk and reducing threats to life and economic losses worldwide. Follow on Twitter @paul_d_bates

Professor Tony Payne – expert in the effects of climate change on earth systems and glaciers.

Dr Matt Palmer – expert in sea level and ocean heat content research at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Bristol. Follow on Twitter @mpclimate.

Net Zero / Energy / Renewables

Professor Valeska Ting – Engineer and expert in net zero, low carbon technologies, low carbon energy and flying. Also an accomplished STEM communicator, is an BAME Expert Voice for the BBC Academy. Follow on Twitter @ProfValeskaTing.

Professor Philip Taylor – Expert in net zero, energy systems, energy storage, utilities, electric power distribution. Also Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Bristol. Philip will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @rolyatlihp.

Dr Colin Nolden – expert in sustainable energy policy, regulation and business models and interactions with secondary markets such as carbon markets and other sectors such as mobility. Colin will be at COP26.

Climate finance

Dr Rachel James – Expert in climate finance, damage, loss and decision making. Also has expertise in African climate systems and contemporary and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_RachelJames

Climate justice

Dr Alix Dietzel – climate justice and climate policy expert. Focusing on the global and local scale and interested in how just the response to climate change is and how we can ensure a just transition. Alix will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @alixdietzel

Dr Ed Atkins – expert on environmental and energy policy, politics and governance and how they must be equitable and inclusive. Also interested in local politics of climate change policies and energy generation and consumption. Follow on Twitter @edatkins_.

Climate activism / Extinction Rebellion

Dr Oscar Berglund – expert on climate change activism and particularly Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the use of civil disobedience. Follow on Twitter @berglund_oscar.

Air pollution / Greenhouse gases

Dr Aoife Grant – expert in greenhouse gases and methane. Has set up a monitoring station at Glasgow for COP26 to record emissions.

Professor Matt Rigby – expert on sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances. Follow on Twitter @TheOtherMRigby.

Land, nature and food

Dr Jo House – expert on land and climate interactions, including emissions of carbon dioxide from land use change (e.g. deforestation), climate mitigation potential from the land (e.g. afforestation, bioenergy), and implications of science for policy. Previously Government Office for Science’s Head of Climate Advice. Follow on Twitter @Drjohouse.
Dr Taro Takahashi – expert on farming, livestock production systems as well as progamme evaluation and general equilibrium modelling of pasture and livestock-based economies.

Climate change and infrastructure

Dr Maria Pregnolato – expert on effects of climate change and flooding on infrastructure. Follow on Twitter @MariaPregnolat1.

Plastic and the environment

Dr Charlotte Lloyd – expert on the fate of chemicals in the terrestrial environment, including plastics, bioplastics and agricultural wastes. Follow on Twitter @DrCharlLloyd.

What else the Cabot Institute for the Environment is up to for COP26

Find out what we’re doing for COP26 on our website at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/cop26.
Watch our Cabot Conversations – 10 conversations between 2 experts on a climate change issue, all whilst an artist listens in the background and interprets the conversation into a beautiful piece of art in real time. Find out more at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/conversations.
——————————
This blog was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Communications and Engagement Officer at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. Follow on Twitter @Enviro_Mand and @cabotinstitute.
 

Indian farmers’ strike continues in the shadow of COVID-19

Posted on by janet.crompton

In what is believed to be the biggest protest in history, in late November 2020 farmers from across India drove 200,000 trolleys and tractors towards Delhi’s borders in a mass protest against agricultural reforms. This was followed a few days later by a general strike involving 250 million people in both urban and rural areas of India as workers joined together to support the farmers.

The strike continues, despite the global public health crisis, which is hitting India harder than any other country in the world. Fear of COVID-19 has not deterred farmers, who have emphatically stated that regardless of whether they contract the virus, the “black laws” will kill them anyway.

The movement first began in the state of Punjab in June 2020, as farmers blocked freight railway lines in protest against these “black laws”, which increase corporate control over all aspects of the food chain from seed to sale. Farmers unions argue that the laws undermine state-controlled prices of key crops, by allowing sales outside of state mandis (markets).

The laws also enable corporations to control what contract farmers grow and how, thus reducing the bargaining power of small farmers. Corporations will be allowed to stockpile key produce and hence speculate with food, which was previously illegal. Finally, the laws provide legal immunity to corporations operating in “good faith”, thereby voiding the ability of citizens to hold agribusiness to account.

Braving tear gas and water cannons, thousands of farmers and their families descended on Delhi and transformed its busy roads into bustling camp cities, with communal “langhar” kitchens.

Undeterred by police violence, farmers fed these aggressors who beat them by day with free food by night. This act of community service not only underscored the peaceful intentions of the protests but also encapsulated one of the key ideas of the movement: “no farmers, no food”.

In the same spirit of solidarity, farmers at Delhi’s borders are responding to the rapidly escalating spread of COVID-19 in the city. They are distributing food packages and essential goods to hospitals, as well as in bus and railway stations for those leaving the capital.

Striking farmers have been supplying food to hospitals and other people in need during the COVID-19 emergency in India. Credit: EPA-EFE/STR. Source.

Farmers from numerous states, of all castes and religions, are coexisting and growing the protest movement from the soil upwards – literally, turning trenches into vegetable gardens. Many farmers refer to this movement as “andolan” – a revolution – where alliances are being forged between landless farm labourers and smallholder farmers. In a country deeply divided by caste and – increasingly – religion, this coming together around land, soil and food has powerful potential.

Women have also taken leading roles, as they push for recognition as farmers in their own right. They are exploring the intersections of caste oppression, gendered labour and sexual violence in person and in publications such as Karti Dharti – a women-led magazine sharing stories and voices from the movement.

Violent response

Despite the largely peaceful protests, farmers have been met with state repression and violence. At various points water supplies have been cut to the protest sites and internet services blocked. Undeterred, farmers have prepared the camp sites for the scorching summer heat that now envelops them.

Amnesty international has called on the Indian government to “stop escalating crackdown on protesters, farm leaders and journalists”. Eight media workers have been charged with sedition, while 100 people protesters have disappeared. In response, parliaments around the world have issued statements and debates on the right to peaceful protest in India, as well as a free and open press.

Women have been key players in the Indian farmers’ strike. EPA-EFE/Harish Tyagi. Source.

The heavy-handed government response and intransigence to the key demands of the movement adds grave doubt for farmers who are now being asked to disband protest sites in the interest of public health. It highlights the hypocrisy of being told to go home, while the ruling BJP was holding mass rallies in West Bengal.

The fear is that COVID-19 could derail the momentum of this movement, as with the protests around the Citizen Amendment Act, which were cleared in March 2020 due to enforced lockdown to curb the spread of COVID-19. Farmers repeat that they will leave as soon as the government repeals the laws and protects the minimum support price of key crops.

There has been a groundswell of support from around the globe, from peasant movements, the Indian diaspora community and celebrities – including Rihanna and climate activist Greta Thunberg. This movement is fighting for the principles of democracy on which the Indian state was founded and is part of a civil society movement filling in for the state, which has been found sorely wanting in its response to the calamitous consequences of COVID-19.

The “black laws” are but the latest in a long history of struggle faced by Indian farmers. India’s sprawling fields have been sites of “green revolution” experimentation since the 1960s. This has worsened water scarcity, reduced crop genetic diversity, damaged biodiversity, eroded and depleted soils, all of which has reduced soil fertility.

The financial burden of costly inputs and failing crops has fallen on farmers, leading to spiralling debts and farmer suicides. The impacts of climate change and ecologically destructive farming are primary reasons for this financial duress. However, the movement has yet to deeply address the challenges of transitioning towards socioeconomically just, climate-friendly agriculture.

Peasant movements around the world highlight the importance of collective spaces and knowledge-sharing between small farmers. The campsites in Delhi provide a unique opportunity to link socioeconomic farming struggles to their deep ecological roots. These are indeed difficult discussions, but the kisaan (farmer) movement has provided spaces to challenge caste, religious and gender-based oppression.

The movement’s strength is its broad alliances and solidarity, but it remains unclear whether it will link palpable socioeconomic injustices to environmental injustices and rights. The ecological origins of COVID-19 make these connections ever more pressing the world over.The Conversation

—————————–

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Dr Jaskiran Kaur Chohan, at the University of Bristol Vet School. Jaskiran is a political ecologist with an interdisciplinary background in the Social Sciences.

Dr Jaskiran Kaur Chohan

 

Black Lives Matter

Posted on by janet.crompton

Diversity is an issue that the Cabot Institute team discuss a lot. Out of a concern for the lack of inclusion in Bristol’s ‘green scene’, we awarded Innovation Funds to the brilliant Green and Black Ambassadors’ project to support two black women to develop their (already inspiring) leadership and begin to build a more inclusive environmental community. We’ve refused to participate in, or cancelled, events that didn’t have diversity in the speaker list. And we feel proud to have the first female president of the Royal Meteorological Society as the Chair of our Board.

Whilst small, these actions require individual and collective consciousness embedded in everyday decisions.

But for all our caring and progress to date, we know we have not done enough. Not nearly.

The past few weeks have, in honesty, left us reeling. The tragic death of George Floyd, and the widespread #BlackLivesMatter activism that followed have served as a critical and hard-hitting reminder of just how far we have to go – as a society but also as a research Institute. We also know that however much recent events have floored us, it is just a fraction of how our friends of colour, but particularly our black friends, must feel. As an all-white team, we can never fully understand the toll these everyday aggressions and acts of discrimination have. But we can turn our passion and attention to the issue, we can listen and learn, and we can work in earnest to be part of the solution.

First steps

On #BlackoutTuesday we posted the following message on social media.

It felt essential to publicly stand with our black colleagues, friends and role models and note our solidarity. However, we were well aware that this might be perceived as tokenistic, or worse, hijacking a sincere campaign with insincere ‘marketing’ if our statement was made in the absence of action. In posting this, we also committed to discussing what practical steps we might take to make real progress.

Actions, not words

The result of our conversations have now been released in a public statement outlining some of the steps we commit to taking in pursuit of a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable environmental research community.

Read our public statement on Black Lives Matter.

We will soon issue a formal invitation for individuals to join our working group, to which we will particularly encourage participation of BAME, LGBTQ+ and other underrepresented groups. However, we recognise that in doing so we are calling on the time and emotional resources of underrepresented communities to fix a problem that should be ‘owned’ by others. We will strive to get the balance right.

We invite anyone who wants to support our review, or the actions resulting from it, or even to offer feedback, to contact us at cabot-enquiries@bristol.ac.uk.

Let’s not wait

Whilst a measured review will provide the most sensible starting point for meaningful action, we were keen to set a number of balls rolling as quickly as we could. To date, members of the team have:

  • Contacted the leads of the Cabot Project, who have very helpfully sent us some resources on the history of John Cabot.
  • Identified other papers which shed light on John’s history and the implications for environmental justice.
  • Identified scholarships which could specifically support BAME candidates to join our Master’s by Research programme and begun promoting these.
  • Initiated a review of our online communications materials to explore how many projects or news items profile people of colour.
  • Contacted UoB Business Analysts to assess the diversity of our environmental community and provide crucial analysis to inform the working group once established.
  • Our theme leaders for Natural Hazards – Dann Mitchell and Ryerson Christie – have confirmed their support of the ‘Statement on Systemic Racism and Disasters’ from the North American Alliance of Hazards and Disaster Research Institutes (NAAHDRI) condemning violence and systemic racism
  • All University Research Institute Directors have signed an email to the University leadership in addition to the broader ‘decolonise the University’ campaign, calling for a change to the University logo.

We have only just begun, and there will be many holes in the plans we have laid out. Many nuances missed. Many opportunities for us to improve. We welcome feedback and critique from you all to help guide and shape our efforts. With many minds, and many perspectives, we can and will make a difference.

In closing, I want to say two things. First, an enormous thank you to the Cabot Team. Whilst we are realistic that we have a mountain to climb and much to learn, the intense debate and discussion catalysed with you all in these past weeks gives me hope. I’m so incredibly fortunate to work with a team who care deeply about inclusion. Your willingness to be vocal about the need to change, to openly and kindly challenge one another to be better, and proactively consider how you can help build a better and more inclusive research Institute inspires me no end. It has also taught me the importance of that crucial ‘first conversation’. It was Mand (Amanda Woodman-Hardy) who sent an (possibly out of hours) email to the team noting her discomfort with our silence on #BlackLivesMatter that kick-started a sincere and engaged conversation.

So to the second point – be the person who starts the conversation in your team, in your family, in your friendship group. These conversations can be emotive, challenging, and uncomfortable, but they can also be energising and hopeful. Either way, they are crucial, and I for one, will be challenging myself to #BeMoreMand* in the months and years ahead.

*Edit: After reviewing this blog post, Mand noted her discomfort at making this about her – a white person. We do need to value the personal leadership of white colleagues in being vocal & challenging the status quo – after all, we simply cannot expect those most affected to be the ones forced to speak up. However, I recognise this discomfort. It is essential that the voices of people of colour are elevated at this time. It is these perspectives that matter, these perspectives we should hear. As such, I include below (with thanks to colleagues at the Centre for Black Humanities for sharing on twitter, and to colleagues at the School of Geographical Sciences for emailing) a small list of inspiring and important resources developed/ written by people of colour. We will aim to share a much wider list of resources in a separate thread.

You may also wish to begin following the those on the ‘powerlist’ of Bristol’s most influential Black and Minority Ethnic individuals (as voted for by the people of Bristol), or connect with the following organisations: Stand Up To Racism, Black Lives Matter UK @BLMUK , Black Lives Matter @Blklivesmatter, Southall Black Sisters, The British Blacklist, Show Racism The Red Card, Runnymede Trust, Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, SARI: Stand Against Racism and Inequality, 4FrontProject @4FrontProject , Inquest @INQUEST_ORG, The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants @JCWI_UK, United Friends and Family Campaign @UFFCampaign, Black South West Network @BlackSWNet.

I add this edit to reflect the way we are all challenging and learning in real time. We won’t get it right all the time, but through discussion, we will get it right more of the time.

——————————-
This blog is written by Hayley Shaw, Manager of the Cabot Institute for the Environment at the University of Bristol.

Social and environmental justice

Posted on by janet.crompton

This is Bristol: Numerous green businesses and voluntary organisations, a multitude of cyclists, recyclers and circular economists; ethical banking and a local currency; a Council-owned windfarm, Energy Company and low-carbon investment strategy; local food production, community energy, sustainable housing developments.  The 2015 EU Green Capital and the owner of the most rapid and extensive decarbonisation ambition of any city or nation in the world.

This is also Bristol: Congestion, polluted air and a polluted harbour, heat-inefficient Victorian homes, fuel poverty and food deserts. Economic inequality magnified by environmental inequality.

Bristol has been a leader in the environmental movement for decades, and it has been a leader in tackling climate change. I’ve been studying climate change for 30 years but am still in awe of the Bristol spirit.  And since arriving in Bristol, I’ve tried to help my small bit: I was with George Ferguson in Paris when he pledged carbon neutrality by 2050; I also collaborated on the Council’s Resilience Strategy and, more recently, Marvin Rees’ One City Approach, and especially its environmental theme.

Consequently, I was enthused to see Bristol pass a motion of intent, declaring a Climate Emergency and a desire to become carbon neutral. Carbon neutral across all sectors. By 2030. This is the ambitious Bristol that I love.

And yet I am wary.  I am wary that in our fear of catastrophic climate change and in our urgency to declare a Climate Emergency, we fail to build a genuinely inclusive movement.  And such a movement is needed to achieve the tremendous change that is required.

We must drive our society towards sustainability, circularity and carbon neutrality. It is necessary to protect our civilisation, to protect all of us and our planet.  But most of all, we must minimise climate change because climate change is unjust.  It will affect all of us, but it will affect some of us more.  It will affect children more than their parents. The young more than the old.

And it will affect the poor, the vulnerable, the isolated – and it will do so not just because of the unfortunate coincidences of geography but because of the structural inequalities in that same society that we are fighting to save. Heat waves kill the poor, they kill outdoor labourers, the working class. Sea level rise will trap, drown and infect the poor, those without the means and wealth to freely move among nations. The volatility of food production will be particularly devastating to those who already struggle to feed their families, who already lean on food banks and charity. Hurricanes and storms will continue to devastate the communities with the least recourse to escape, who likely already live in flood-prone areas, who can be sacrificed, like those in Puerto Rico, with minimal political repercussions.

Climate change is an affront to our putative ideals of fairness and equality. It is classist.  It is racist.

But if climate action is a question of social justice, then those marginalised groups must be part of the movement.  They must set the agenda of that movement.  They must lead the movement.  And if they are not, those of us who claim the title ‘environmentalist’ cannot ask why they are not engaged, and instead must ask how we have failed.  We must challenge ourselves, our privilege, our dialogue and our institutions and understand how we have excluded them. Have we invited marginalised groups to participate in our events and our agenda?  Or have we honestly co-created an open space for multiple agendas?  Have we recognised that destroying inequality is a legitimate starting point for fighting climate change?  Have we recognised that many of our proposed solutions – entirely rational solutions – can be implicitly racist or sexist?

If we are going to prevent catastrophic climate change, then we must act fast and with unrelenting persistence. But at the same time, we must be patient, check our privilege and listen to those who have been marginalised by past environmental movements. This is especially true because it is those same marginalised groups who will most likely bear the greatest burden of climate change. We assault these groups doubly if we do not centre their voices in our common cause.  And because the environmental movement is unstoppable – technologically and socially inevitable and therefore economically inevitable – exclusion from these opportunities is yet a third assault.

I am by no means an expert on co-creating powerful social movements, fuelled by equality amongst the participants and effective in achieving change.  But I have been lucky enough to work and learn from those who do. They have shown undeserved patience and understanding and trust.

They taught me that it is vital to recognise not just your own privilege but the economic, historical or social privileges of the institutions one represents. In my case, a world-leading university.  In other cases, a business or a trust – even a small green business or cash-starved charity. And even a movement, especially a movement perceived as being by and for the white middle class.

Having recognised that privilege and in many cases the structural racism, sexism and wider inequalities that come with it, it is our obligation to decolonise those institutions rather than to plead for yet more labour from those our institution oppresses.  It is our obligation to do our own research and to commit our own emotional energy and labour. And when we do work with marginalised groups, we are compelled to respect their expertise by paying them for their services.  Major institutions will pay consultants 100s of thousands of pounds for a re-brand or governance review but ask marginalised groups to help address our diversity challenges by serving for free – by serving on our Boards, attending our workshops, advising on our projects.  It is insulting to imply that the privilege of entering our institutions and projects is adequate compensation for their time, their re-lived trauma or their expertise.

Of course, a recognition of the limitations of our institutions, our organisations and our movements is only the start. The next steps involve a fundamental reckoning with the word ‘our’ in those projects – who has owned these, who owns them now, who will own them in the future?  And given those answers, are they fit for the challenge at hand? Are they projects capable of becoming genuinely co-owned, co-creative spaces, where not just new members are welcomed but also their new ideas, challenges and perspectives?  Or are these projects that must be completely deconstructed, making way for the more energetic ones to come?  Do we ourselves have the humility to deconstruct our own projects and cede our labour to those of someone else?

These are challenging questions and the answers are not as simple as I imply.  Those of us who have been fighting climate change, plastics in the ocean, toxins in our soil, pollution in the air, and the non-sustainable exploitation of our planet are deeply invested in the struggle and in the solutions we have forged. It is not trivial to patiently draw in new perspectives nor to have our ideas questioned – we have been fighting an establishment for five decades that has been guilty of predatory delay and manipulation of public understanding.  We are right to be wary of anything that delays action, right to be uncivil, impatient and intemperate.

But it is also time to concede that a thousand ripples have yet to become a wave.  Certainly not the wave needed to dismantle the environmental degradation that has become a near-inextricable feature of our society.

In Bristol, we have the potential to create this wave together.  We have a Partnership, a One City Approach and a cross-party ambition without precedent. This is the time to re-invigorate our environmental movement, to align it with our other challenges, to become genuinely inclusive and diverse.  It will not succeed with a simple majority, with a mere 52% of the vote.  It will have to be a new political project but with an apolitical community that rejects the discourse of division and embraces new and unexpected collaborations.

It will be a community that makes use of all of our talent and is united not with a single strategy or action plan but a common cause and shared values. It will be a community that thrives through a multitude of equally respected agendas.
—————————
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Professor Rich Pancost, Head of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol.  This blog has been republished with kind permission from the Mayor of Bristol. View the original blog.

Professor Rich Pancost
Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.