Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Is it ethical to have children as climate change heats up our world?

News Feed
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here.Jade S. Sasser has been studying reproductive choices in the context of climate change for a quarter century. Her 2018 book, “Infertile Ground,” explored how population growth in the Global South has been misguidedly framed as a crisis—a perspective that Sasser argues had its roots in long-standing racial stereotypes about sexuality and promiscuity.But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sasser, an environmental scientist who teaches at the University of California, Riverside, started asking different questions, this time about reproductive choices in the Global North. In an era in which the planet is getting hotter by the day, she wondered, is it morally, ethically or practically sound to bring children into the world? And do such factors as climate anxiety, race and socio-economic status shape who decides to have kids and who doesn’t?The result is her latest book, “Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question,” which was published last month by the University of California Press and centers on a range of issues that are part of a broader conversation among those who try to practice climate-conscious decision-making.From the outset, Sasser cautions that her work does not attempt to draw any conclusions about what the future might hold or how concerns about global warming might affect population growth going forward.“This book is not predictive,” Sasser said in a recent interview with Inside Climate News. “It’s too soon to be able to say, ‘OK, these are going to be the trends. These people are not going to have children, or are going to have fewer children or this many, that many.’ We’re at the beginning of witnessing what could be a significant trend.”Sasser said that one of the most compelling findings of her research was how survey results showed that women of color were the demographic cohort that reported that they were most likely to have at least one child fewer than what they actually want because of climate change. “No other group in that survey responded that way,” Sasser said.Those survey results, Sasser said, underscore the prevalence of climate anxiety among communities of color. A Yale study published last year found that Hispanic Americans were five times as likely to experience feelings of climate change anxiety when compared to their white counterparts; Black Americans were twice as likely to have those feelings.“There is a really large assumption that we don’t experience climate anxiety,” said Sasser, who is African American. “And we do. How could we not? We experience most of the climate impacts first and worst. And the few surveys that have been done around people of color and climate emotions showed that Black and Latinx people feel more worry and more concerned about climate change than other groups.”Sasser, who also produced a seven-episode podcast as part of the project, said that she hopes her work can help fill what she sees as a void in the public’s awareness of climate anxiety in communities of color.“Every single thing I was reading just didn’t include us in the discussion at all,” Sasser said. “I found myself in conversations with people who were not people of color and they were saying, ‘Well, I think people of color are just more resilient and don’t feel climate anxiety. And this doesn’t factor into their reproductive lives.’ That’s just simply not true. But how would we know that without the research to tell us? But now I’ve started down that road, and I really, really hope that other researchers will take up the mantle and continue studying these questions in the context of race in the future.”Sasser recently sat down with Inside Climate News to talk about the book and how she uses her research to show how climate emotions land hardest on marginalized groups, people of color and low-income groups.This interview has been edited for clarity and length.How did you come to write “Climate and the Kid Question”?This is a book that I was not expecting to write. It was my pandemic pivot project. I was working on something very different, focused on household energy in the Global South. And then COVID happened and I could no longer travel. And so I had to turn to the things that I had been compiling as part of a project that I saw as being on the back burner.And what I had been compiling was articles about young women climate activists who were talking about not having children in response to climate change. And when I had first encountered these articles, I misunderstood them. I thought that these women were motivated by erroneous ideas about overpopulation, or that they weren’t having children because they thought there were too many people on the earth, things like that.But when I delved more deeply into what I was reading, I began to become aware of the whole world of eco-emotions and climate emotions. And that’s when I was introduced to the terms eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. And then I began to understand where these young people were coming from on a much, much deeper level. And so this book is my response to three years of research delving into climate emotions, distressing emotions, in particular, how those emotions are impacting how young people feel morally and ethically about having children, about raising children, about the future. And also what race and inequality have to do with it all.You’ve been studying issues of population growth for a while now, right? That was the focus of your first book, “On Infertile Ground.”I’ve been having those conversations for, I guess, 25 years now. And in those conversations, I’ve always been curious about what motivates young women to want or not want children, to have or not have them at any particular moment in time. And in the first book those questions centered around “how do these really large scale ideas and policies that are informed by ideas about overpopulation, overconsumption of resources, who should or should not have children?” I, at that time, was curious about how that was informing activism, and how everyday experience in places like Madagascar was shaped by that.This book is very different. What is different is that I focus on the United States. I also look at movements in Canada and in England, but I’m not looking at the Global South at all, intentionally. And the reason why is because people in the Global North—specifically the U.S. and Canada and Britain—have really different perspectives on personal reproductive behavior and environmental issues. And what is different is here you have a lot of young people who are very climate aware and climate literate.They’re reading the science. They’re taking environmental studies classes. They’re asking questions about what this means for their personal lives, and they’re making decisions about their personal lives based on what they anticipate is coming in the future. And to see the racial inequality and socio-economic inequality as it shapes those questions—it’s very context specific.And I wanted to get into that context specific stuff here in the United States, because I think it’s really easy for some people to skim over that. I’ve read articles and op-eds in the past saying things like, well, “people in the United States are worried about having children in the context of climate change.” And it makes sense because people in the U.S. over-consume resources. So people in the U.S. are not all the same. We’re not all having the same experiences. We don’t occupy the same social location. We are not impacted by climate change in the same ways.And so I wanted to really shine a light on how social inequality right here makes the experience of climate change and climate injustice very, very difficult for people of color. And how those climate inequalities and climate impacts land on the mental health and emotional health of people of color. And how people of color feel differently about bringing children into the world as a result.Are you a mother? Do you have children? The decision of having a child is such a personal one.I’m not a mother. I think actually that it’s a personal decision that has been made political for so long. And I think that the way that most people talk and write about this issue is that they are actively saying do or don’t. Unfortunately, most environmentalists throughout the history of environmentalism have fallen on the side of saying don’t have children. And I think that has been a very dangerous thing to say in particular, because those that they’ve been telling not to have children have tended to be low-income people and people of color.I think that the other thing is one of the arguments I make in the book that you’ll see is that I personally don’t actually think that this is private. And what I mean by that is the conditions of climate change, which are the conditions that young people today are living in as they make their reproductive decisions. Those aren’t private. Those aren’t personal. Those are public. Those are big public actions that these big actors, corporations and governments and militaries are taking. And we are all living in this big collective shared experience of climate change. And if that’s the social circumstance in which you have to think about whether to have kids or not, it’s really not a private decision.You have to respond to the big social conditions you’re living in. And when people take it on as a private issue or a personal matter, that tends to lead to more feelings of guilt or stigma or like they’re doing something wrong or like there’s something wrong with them for perhaps not wanting to have kids. And so I actually advocate for having this conversation more in public. And really placing responsibility on those who deserve it. And that is the big corporate actors, the fossil fuel companies, the military and governments, government actors, elected officials, who are not creating and supporting climate-forward legislation.In terms of research, the study of climate emotions is still fairly new, right?So, climate emotions have really only been studied in the last 20 years. And as they’re being studied, they are ramping up in real time. So climate emotions are any kind of emotional changes or emotional impact that results from how people experience—either learning about, or living through, or anticipating—the impacts of climate change. So those who don’t necessarily ever experience evacuation from a wildfire or hurricane or flood might still be deeply distressed by climate impacts.If they’re reading the science, they’re looking at the reports or, you know, they’re watching TV, or engrossed in social media and hearing about other people who are experiencing those things. And what climate emotions researchers have been uncovering is that this emotional distress lands hardest on younger people, especially Generation Z.What those researchers have studied less of, and what I do in this book, is understand how other groups, particularly socially marginalized groups, people of color and low-income groups are also people on whom those climate emotions land hardest. And when I say climate emotions, distressing emotions, include things like anxiety, depression, grief, sadness, fear and other emotions like that.How does race play a factor in how we all process those emotions?What I found in a survey that I conducted, doing this research is that for people of color, the most distressing emotions were reported by people of color, who in a statistically significant way, most identified feeling traumatized by the impact of climate change. They also reported feeling fear more so than white respondents.And they also reported feeling overwhelmed. And that came out a lot in interviews, too. What I was not anticipating—but this is also significant—is that when it came to parenting in the midst of climate change, people of color in my study were most likely to report positive or action-oriented emotions, including feeling motivated, feeling determined, feeling a sense of happiness or optimism. Because that was a quantitative survey, I wasn’t able to ask questions about why those positive emotions were there.But I can only imagine that it’s because people of color really have long histories of facing existential threat. Black and Indigenous people, in particular, have had to develop tools to become resilient, to become resilient within community, within family and within social movements. And so I can only imagine that those responses of motivation, joy, determination and happiness come from that sense of “we will survive, we will endure and whatever future is ahead we will be—and we will find a way to thrive.”So, does your work really underscore the importance of African Americans and communities of color—in the face of these threats—drawing strength from family?Not just family. We can trace a long history in the United States of Black people, literally, facing threats to our existence, from literally the earliest days of being in this country through slavery. And so one of the things that has always been a really important institution to protect us from the harms of the outside world is family, and not just family, but multigenerational family. And for us, that often includes chosen family.We all have “play cousins,” “play aunties,” “play uncles”—people who are not biological kin. But the lack of biological relationship does not matter at all. They are members of the family. Building and sustaining those multi-generational ties has always been important to strengthen us, not just against big existential threats, but to strengthen us in a society in which we often don’t have the necessary resources and social supports that we need.We often have the absence of a social safety net to provide for us in the ways that we need to be provided for. Other institutions provide those supports, as well. The church, for example. Say what you want about the Black church—there are challenges, there have always been challenges, but the Black church has been a really important institution in the lives of African Americans, not just for religious reasons, but for social reasons. It was a very important institution throughout the civil rights movement.And it provides a space of safety, solace and community as a buffer against a lot of the challenges of the outside world. How does all of this come back to climate anxiety and the kid question? Well, when you don’t have research that includes African Americans, for example, then you tend to assume that we don’t experience climate anxiety or that, if we do, it doesn’t have any impact on kid questions for us. And that’s not true.We can’t make that assumption, [but] people do make that assumption in the absence of research. And this research is the first and only of its kind that asks these questions and puts race at the center. And why did I want to do that? I wanted to establish an evidence base so that we are not left out of the discussion when it comes to climate, mental health and the kinds of resources that will be provided to communities to respond to the negative mental health impacts of climate change. And I also don’t want us to be left out of the discussion of how climate mental health impacts do, or potentially, will impact reproductive changes. I just want us to be in the discussion, and we can’t be if we’re left out of the research.What was the most surprising finding in your research? And what does all of this mean for the future?The thing that surprised me most, this came out in interviews, is that among some young people—especially those who have taken environmental studies classes in college or were environmental studies majors—there is more and more peer pressure to not have kids, and I was not expecting that. I was expecting to hear things along the lines of, “I really want kids, but I feel like I can’t have them. The world is a scary place, you know, climate change is getting worse.”And I did hear that a lot. But I expected that to be the overwhelming sentiment and what I heard, a number of times and was always surprised, was that, some people I interviewed said, “Well, when I talk to my friends and I say that I want children or that I want a large family, their response is ‘Eww, why would you want that? That’s awful.’” I was not expecting anti-child peer pressure among Gen Z. I did not anticipate that. Those are people who are planning to have one less child. Planning and behavior are not the same thing.So, you know, no one can predict what they will actually do. What does this mean for the future? I think that’s exactly the right question to ask, and none of us can predict. But what we need for the future is for our young people to feel excited and hopeful about the future that’s ahead of them, and to feel empowered to make the decisions that would make them happy in their lives, whether that is having children, adopting children, step-parenting or not being in children’s lives at all.So, for me and for people I interviewed, it’s not fundamentally about babies or about children. That is a way, a high stakes way of getting us to what it fundamentally is about, which is how can we aggressively fight climate change right now and combat lackadaisical attitudes or profit-driven attitudes that really just favor business as usual, because ultimately the problem that needs to be solved is not climate anxiety, it’s climate change. Climate anxiety is a normal, natural response to climate change. Let’s fight and solve climate change, and then you won’t have the thing to be anxious about.

Jade Sasser’s research explores one of the biggest questions facing the climate-conscious. Her new book focuses on the racial dimensions of eco-anxiety and reproduction decisions.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Jade S. Sasser has been studying reproductive choices in the context of climate change for a quarter century. Her 2018 book, “Infertile Ground,” explored how population growth in the Global South has been misguidedly framed as a crisis—a perspective that Sasser argues had its roots in long-standing racial stereotypes about sexuality and promiscuity.

But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sasser, an environmental scientist who teaches at the University of California, Riverside, started asking different questions, this time about reproductive choices in the Global North. In an era in which the planet is getting hotter by the day, she wondered, is it morally, ethically or practically sound to bring children into the world? And do such factors as climate anxiety, race and socio-economic status shape who decides to have kids and who doesn’t?

The result is her latest book, “Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question,” which was published last month by the University of California Press and centers on a range of issues that are part of a broader conversation among those who try to practice climate-conscious decision-making.

From the outset, Sasser cautions that her work does not attempt to draw any conclusions about what the future might hold or how concerns about global warming might affect population growth going forward.

“This book is not predictive,” Sasser said in a recent interview with Inside Climate News. “It’s too soon to be able to say, ‘OK, these are going to be the trends. These people are not going to have children, or are going to have fewer children or this many, that many.’ We’re at the beginning of witnessing what could be a significant trend.”

Sasser said that one of the most compelling findings of her research was how survey results showed that women of color were the demographic cohort that reported that they were most likely to have at least one child fewer than what they actually want because of climate change. “No other group in that survey responded that way,” Sasser said.

Those survey results, Sasser said, underscore the prevalence of climate anxiety among communities of color. A Yale study published last year found that Hispanic Americans were five times as likely to experience feelings of climate change anxiety when compared to their white counterparts; Black Americans were twice as likely to have those feelings.

“There is a really large assumption that we don’t experience climate anxiety,” said Sasser, who is African American. “And we do. How could we not? We experience most of the climate impacts first and worst. And the few surveys that have been done around people of color and climate emotions showed that Black and Latinx people feel more worry and more concerned about climate change than other groups.”

Sasser, who also produced a seven-episode podcast as part of the project, said that she hopes her work can help fill what she sees as a void in the public’s awareness of climate anxiety in communities of color.

“Every single thing I was reading just didn’t include us in the discussion at all,” Sasser said. “I found myself in conversations with people who were not people of color and they were saying, ‘Well, I think people of color are just more resilient and don’t feel climate anxiety. And this doesn’t factor into their reproductive lives.’

That’s just simply not true. But how would we know that without the research to tell us? But now I’ve started down that road, and I really, really hope that other researchers will take up the mantle and continue studying these questions in the context of race in the future.”

Sasser recently sat down with Inside Climate News to talk about the book and how she uses her research to show how climate emotions land hardest on marginalized groups, people of color and low-income groups.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

How did you come to write “Climate and the Kid Question”?

This is a book that I was not expecting to write. It was my pandemic pivot project. I was working on something very different, focused on household energy in the Global South. And then COVID happened and I could no longer travel. And so I had to turn to the things that I had been compiling as part of a project that I saw as being on the back burner.

And what I had been compiling was articles about young women climate activists who were talking about not having children in response to climate change. And when I had first encountered these articles, I misunderstood them. I thought that these women were motivated by erroneous ideas about overpopulation, or that they weren’t having children because they thought there were too many people on the earth, things like that.

But when I delved more deeply into what I was reading, I began to become aware of the whole world of eco-emotions and climate emotions. And that’s when I was introduced to the terms eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. And then I began to understand where these young people were coming from on a much, much deeper level. And so this book is my response to three years of research delving into climate emotions, distressing emotions, in particular, how those emotions are impacting how young people feel morally and ethically about having children, about raising children, about the future. And also what race and inequality have to do with it all.

You’ve been studying issues of population growth for a while now, right? That was the focus of your first book, “On Infertile Ground.”

I’ve been having those conversations for, I guess, 25 years now. And in those conversations, I’ve always been curious about what motivates young women to want or not want children, to have or not have them at any particular moment in time. And in the first book those questions centered around “how do these really large scale ideas and policies that are informed by ideas about overpopulation, overconsumption of resources, who should or should not have children?”

I, at that time, was curious about how that was informing activism, and how everyday experience in places like Madagascar was shaped by that.

This book is very different. What is different is that I focus on the United States. I also look at movements in Canada and in England, but I’m not looking at the Global South at all, intentionally. And the reason why is because people in the Global North—specifically the U.S. and Canada and Britain—have really different perspectives on personal reproductive behavior and environmental issues. And what is different is here you have a lot of young people who are very climate aware and climate literate.

They’re reading the science. They’re taking environmental studies classes. They’re asking questions about what this means for their personal lives, and they’re making decisions about their personal lives based on what they anticipate is coming in the future. And to see the racial inequality and socio-economic inequality as it shapes those questions—it’s very context specific.

And I wanted to get into that context specific stuff here in the United States, because I think it’s really easy for some people to skim over that. I’ve read articles and op-eds in the past saying things like, well, “people in the United States are worried about having children in the context of climate change.”

And it makes sense because people in the U.S. over-consume resources. So people in the U.S. are not all the same. We’re not all having the same experiences. We don’t occupy the same social location. We are not impacted by climate change in the same ways.

And so I wanted to really shine a light on how social inequality right here makes the experience of climate change and climate injustice very, very difficult for people of color. And how those climate inequalities and climate impacts land on the mental health and emotional health of people of color. And how people of color feel differently about bringing children into the world as a result.

Are you a mother? Do you have children? The decision of having a child is such a personal one.

I’m not a mother. I think actually that it’s a personal decision that has been made political for so long. And I think that the way that most people talk and write about this issue is that they are actively saying do or don’t. Unfortunately, most environmentalists throughout the history of environmentalism have fallen on the side of saying don’t have children. And I think that has been a very dangerous thing to say in particular, because those that they’ve been telling not to have children have tended to be low-income people and people of color.

I think that the other thing is one of the arguments I make in the book that you’ll see is that I personally don’t actually think that this is private. And what I mean by that is the conditions of climate change, which are the conditions that young people today are living in as they make their reproductive decisions. Those aren’t private. Those aren’t personal. Those are public. Those are big public actions that these big actors, corporations and governments and militaries are taking. And we are all living in this big collective shared experience of climate change. And if that’s the social circumstance in which you have to think about whether to have kids or not, it’s really not a private decision.

You have to respond to the big social conditions you’re living in. And when people take it on as a private issue or a personal matter, that tends to lead to more feelings of guilt or stigma or like they’re doing something wrong or like there’s something wrong with them for perhaps not wanting to have kids. And so I actually advocate for having this conversation more in public. And really placing responsibility on those who deserve it. And that is the big corporate actors, the fossil fuel companies, the military and governments, government actors, elected officials, who are not creating and supporting climate-forward legislation.

In terms of research, the study of climate emotions is still fairly new, right?

So, climate emotions have really only been studied in the last 20 years. And as they’re being studied, they are ramping up in real time. So climate emotions are any kind of emotional changes or emotional impact that results from how people experience—either learning about, or living through, or anticipating—the impacts of climate change. So those who don’t necessarily ever experience evacuation from a wildfire or hurricane or flood might still be deeply distressed by climate impacts.

If they’re reading the science, they’re looking at the reports or, you know, they’re watching TV, or engrossed in social media and hearing about other people who are experiencing those things. And what climate emotions researchers have been uncovering is that this emotional distress lands hardest on younger people, especially Generation Z.

What those researchers have studied less of, and what I do in this book, is understand how other groups, particularly socially marginalized groups, people of color and low-income groups are also people on whom those climate emotions land hardest. And when I say climate emotions, distressing emotions, include things like anxiety, depression, grief, sadness, fear and other emotions like that.

How does race play a factor in how we all process those emotions?

What I found in a survey that I conducted, doing this research is that for people of color, the most distressing emotions were reported by people of color, who in a statistically significant way, most identified feeling traumatized by the impact of climate change. They also reported feeling fear more so than white respondents.

And they also reported feeling overwhelmed. And that came out a lot in interviews, too. What I was not anticipating—but this is also significant—is that when it came to parenting in the midst of climate change, people of color in my study were most likely to report positive or action-oriented emotions, including feeling motivated, feeling determined, feeling a sense of happiness or optimism. Because that was a quantitative survey, I wasn’t able to ask questions about why those positive emotions were there.

But I can only imagine that it’s because people of color really have long histories of facing existential threat. Black and Indigenous people, in particular, have had to develop tools to become resilient, to become resilient within community, within family and within social movements. And so I can only imagine that those responses of motivation, joy, determination and happiness come from that sense of “we will survive, we will endure and whatever future is ahead we will be—and we will find a way to thrive.”

So, does your work really underscore the importance of African Americans and communities of color—in the face of these threats—drawing strength from family?

Not just family. We can trace a long history in the United States of Black people, literally, facing threats to our existence, from literally the earliest days of being in this country through slavery. And so one of the things that has always been a really important institution to protect us from the harms of the outside world is family, and not just family, but multigenerational family. And for us, that often includes chosen family.

We all have “play cousins,” “play aunties,” “play uncles”—people who are not biological kin. But the lack of biological relationship does not matter at all. They are members of the family. Building and sustaining those multi-generational ties has always been important to strengthen us, not just against big existential threats, but to strengthen us in a society in which we often don’t have the necessary resources and social supports that we need.

We often have the absence of a social safety net to provide for us in the ways that we need to be provided for. Other institutions provide those supports, as well. The church, for example. Say what you want about the Black church—there are challenges, there have always been challenges, but the Black church has been a really important institution in the lives of African Americans, not just for religious reasons, but for social reasons. It was a very important institution throughout the civil rights movement.

And it provides a space of safety, solace and community as a buffer against a lot of the challenges of the outside world. How does all of this come back to climate anxiety and the kid question? Well, when you don’t have research that includes African Americans, for example, then you tend to assume that we don’t experience climate anxiety or that, if we do, it doesn’t have any impact on kid questions for us. And that’s not true.

We can’t make that assumption, [but] people do make that assumption in the absence of research. And this research is the first and only of its kind that asks these questions and puts race at the center. And why did I want to do that? I wanted to establish an evidence base so that we are not left out of the discussion when it comes to climate, mental health and the kinds of resources that will be provided to communities to respond to the negative mental health impacts of climate change. And I also don’t want us to be left out of the discussion of how climate mental health impacts do, or potentially, will impact reproductive changes. I just want us to be in the discussion, and we can’t be if we’re left out of the research.

What was the most surprising finding in your research? And what does all of this mean for the future?

The thing that surprised me most, this came out in interviews, is that among some young people—especially those who have taken environmental studies classes in college or were environmental studies majors—there is more and more peer pressure to not have kids, and I was not expecting that. I was expecting to hear things along the lines of, “I really want kids, but I feel like I can’t have them. The world is a scary place, you know, climate change is getting worse.”

And I did hear that a lot. But I expected that to be the overwhelming sentiment and what I heard, a number of times and was always surprised, was that, some people I interviewed said, “Well, when I talk to my friends and I say that I want children or that I want a large family, their response is ‘Eww, why would you want that? That’s awful.’” I was not expecting anti-child peer pressure among Gen Z. I did not anticipate that. Those are people who are planning to have one less child. Planning and behavior are not the same thing.

So, you know, no one can predict what they will actually do. What does this mean for the future? I think that’s exactly the right question to ask, and none of us can predict. But what we need for the future is for our young people to feel excited and hopeful about the future that’s ahead of them, and to feel empowered to make the decisions that would make them happy in their lives, whether that is having children, adopting children, step-parenting or not being in children’s lives at all.

So, for me and for people I interviewed, it’s not fundamentally about babies or about children. That is a way, a high stakes way of getting us to what it fundamentally is about, which is how can we aggressively fight climate change right now and combat lackadaisical attitudes or profit-driven attitudes that really just favor business as usual, because ultimately the problem that needs to be solved is not climate anxiety, it’s climate change. Climate anxiety is a normal, natural response to climate change. Let’s fight and solve climate change, and then you won’t have the thing to be anxious about.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Hampshire accused of ‘sportswashing’ over T20 event despite green claims

Team plan to take part in Global Super League in GuyanaCampaigners call for tour to ditch sponsor ExxonMobilHampshire have been accused of taking part in a “sportswashing vehicle” before their participation in this month’s Global Super League in Guyana, a T20 tournament sponsored by oil giant ExxonMobil.Hampshire’s participation in the GSL comes despite their venue’s public commitment to playing a leading global role in environmental sustainability. The Utilita Bowl celebrated switching on more than 1,000 solar panels before a T20 between England and Australia in September. David Mann, chief executive of the Utilita Bowl, used the initiative to highlight “our commitment to being the greenest international cricket venue”. Continue reading...

Hampshire have been accused of taking part in a “sportswashing vehicle” before their participation in this month’s Global Super League in Guyana, a T20 tournament sponsored by oil giant ExxonMobil.Hampshire’s participation in the GSL comes despite their venue’s public commitment to playing a leading global role in environmental sustainability. The Utilita Bowl celebrated switching on more than 1,000 solar panels before a T20 between England and Australia in September. David Mann, chief executive of the Utilita Bowl, used the initiative to highlight “our commitment to being the greenest international cricket venue”.The new five-team GSL tournament runs from 26 November to 6 December and, alongside Australian state team Victoria, features franchise sides Guyana Amazon Warriors, Lahore Qalandars and Rangpur Riders.ExxonMobil Guyana is its title sponsor, with the tournament website stating the event “has the full support of the Government of Guyana … the government sees the GSL as a key driver for tourism and economic growth”. ExxonMobil found oil in the country in 2015 and, this month, celebrated the production of 500m barrels from the Stabroek block.Etienne Stott, an Olympic gold medallist in 2012 who now campaigns for Extinction Rebellion, told the Guardian: “I’m really sad and angry that yet another sport is being corrupted by the oily money of the fossil fuel industry.”Stott said it was “perverse” for ExxonMobil to sponsor “a supposedly global cricket tournament in a country which is very much at risk from the effects of global heating.“I cannot understand why Hampshire [County] Cricket Club would risk reputational damage by associating itself with such an obvious sportswashing vehicle, especially given their public commitments to be more sustainable,” said Stott. “I hope cricket fans will demand that this tournament ditches its filthy sponsor.”Hampshire have declined to comment.Joe Cooke, an environmental campaigner and ex-professional cricketer for Glamorgan, said: “It’s disheartening to see cricket being sponsored and influenced by companies with such a direct link to the climate crisis. As a sport we are deeply at mercy to the environment with extreme weather events that have been made more likely by a changing climate, impacting the game at all levels. Cricket could be in a unique position to set a positive example by distancing itself from these kinds of partnerships.”ExxonMobil also sponsors the Amazon Warriors, who play in the Caribbean Premier League, and its involvement in cricket highlights the significant relationship between fossil fuel firms and the sport. In May the International Cricket Council announced a four-year extension to its partnership with Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company.skip past newsletter promotionSubscribe to our cricket newsletter for our writers' thoughts on the biggest stories and a review of the week’s actionPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionChris Britt-Searle of The Next Test, a group aiming to raise awareness of the climate crisis’s impact on cricket, said: “It’s very easy to condemn individual teams, countries and competitions. But the truth is, the whole of cricket is awash with fossil fuel money.”Britt-Searle added that the tournament could be an “opportunity” for cricketers to discuss the involvement of fossil fuels in cricket, noting the recent letter signed by more than 100 female professional footballers urging Fifa to end its partnership with Aramco.“I would say to all cricketers, all cricket fans, clubs, cricket organisations, you have an opportunity to talk about this,” said Britt-Searle. “There’s a great opportunity here to put your hand up and say, look, we’re not OK with this.”

Climate
Crisis
Extinction

Starmer condemns Badenoch for abandoning cross-party consensus on climate crisis policy – UK politics live

Prime minister says Tory leader’s attacks on climate targets diminishes government ability to tackle central issueJohn Prescott: share your tributes and memoriesBritish prime minister Keir Starmer says he is “deeply saddened” to hear that Prescott has died, and called him a “true giant of Labour”.In a statement on X, he said, “I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of John Prescott. John was a true giant of the Labour movement. On behalf of the Labour Party, I send my condolences to Pauline and his family, to the city of Hull, and to all those who knew and loved him. May he rest in peace.”He possessed an inherent ability to connect with people about the issues that mattered to them – a talent that others spend years studying and cultivating, but that was second nature to him.He fought like hell to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol and was an unwavering champion of climate action for decades to come. I’m forever grateful to John for that commitment to solving the climate crisis and will miss him as a dear friend.” Continue reading...

Matt Hancock gives evidence to Covid inquiryWe will carry on reporting tributes to John Prescott as the day goes on, but there is other news happening today too and soon I will switch to the Covid inquiry, where Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is giving evidence from 10am. He has already given evidence to the inquiry before, but the inquiry is now on module 3, focusing in particular on the impact of the pandemic on the NHS, and Hancock will be talking about that.We have also got John Healey, the defence secretary, giving evidence to the Commons defence committee from 10.30am this morning.Matt Hancock arriving at the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/ShutterstockShareUpdated at 04.49 ESTKey eventsShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureWe are inviting readers to share their memories of John Prescott. You can do so via this page.Matt Hancock gives evidence to Covid inquiryWe will carry on reporting tributes to John Prescott as the day goes on, but there is other news happening today too and soon I will switch to the Covid inquiry, where Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is giving evidence from 10am. He has already given evidence to the inquiry before, but the inquiry is now on module 3, focusing in particular on the impact of the pandemic on the NHS, and Hancock will be talking about that.We have also got John Healey, the defence secretary, giving evidence to the Commons defence committee from 10.30am this morning.Matt Hancock arriving at the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/ShutterstockShareUpdated at 04.49 ESTThere's no paywall hereApologies for the brief interruption. We hope you’re appreciating these factual, verified, up-to-the-minute news updates provided by our expert reporters.You won't find a paywall around our live blogs – or any of our news, because the Guardian believes that access to trustworthy information is vital for democracy.In a time of increasing misinformation spread by bad actors, extremist media and autocratic politicians, real, reliable journalism has never been more important – and we’re proud to be able to make ours free thanks to the generous support of readers like you. By helping fund the Guardian today, you can play a vital role in combating the bad faith and self-interest of a powerful few who spread lies to undermine our democracy, enrich themselves, and stoke division between Americans.Before you get back to reading the news, we would be grateful if you could take half a minute to give us your support. Any amount helps. Thank you.Peter Mandelson says Prescott was 'the cement that kept New Labour together'Peter Mandelson was one of many people in the Labour party who feuded with John Prescott at various times when they were in government, and at one memorable photocall in the summer of 1997 Prescott compared him to a crab. Today, speaking on Sky News, Mandelson played down the extend of their disagreements, and pointed out that Prescott had supported his application to become Labour’s communications director in 1985 – the job that turned out to be the launchpad for Mandelson’s career.Mandelson said it was wrong to say Prescott was not New Labour. Some people say sometimes that he wasn’t New Labour. But that’s not true. He was New Labour. He was one very essential part of New Labour. He basically kept us anchored in our working class roots, our trade union history. And he was the bridge, essentially, between that and the modernisers in the Labour party, Tony, Gordon, me and the others. And he always wanted that project to work. It’s not as if he was standing outside it and peering in. He was on the inside and making it work. He was, in many respects, the cement that kept New Labour together. Asked what he was like to work with, Mandelson replied: He was absolutely impossible. When I say he was sort of courageous, he was. When I say he was loyal, he was. When I say he was determined, he was. He was always determined to get his own way on any particular issue at any given moment. Right up until the point he’d say, ‘OK, I’ll do this for you. You do this for me. As long as you cover this off I’ll happily go along with it.’ So he was a negotiator. He was a trade union negotiator. He was a broker. But at the end of the day he wanted it to work and the way in which he made it work was by being incredibly difficult for days on end and then finally sealing it, making work, agreeing it and off we went. Mandelson also recalled a surprise conversation earlier this year he had with Prescott. I was at home on a Sunday morning and the phone went and then suddenly I put it on and it was the face of John Prescott on my phone FaceTiming me from Hull. I mean, no advanced warning. No how do you do. It was, ‘Hello, is that you?’ ‘Yes John it is me. What do you want?’ He said ‘I just want to say that I know it was difficult and we were bloody awful to you at times and I was, but actually you did good and I want to forgive you.’ What am I being forgiven for here? It was just, ‘I want to forgive you because you did good. And I know it wasn’t easy at times and I know it was rough and I know I didn’t help but now I understand.’ And I said, ‘John that’s very kind of you. How do you suddenly understand this?’ He said, ‘Oh well somebody gave me this book of yours. I didn’t read it before. It looked very boring. But I’ve looked at it, I’ve dipped into it and I’ve seen what you went through … I feel rather sorry for you actually. And anyway, thanks very much.’ It was a few minutes more … but that was it. That was the last time I spoke to him. Here are more tributes to John Prescott from Labour figures on social media.From Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s communications director in No 10 JP RIP … there was nobody else like him. Tony could not have had a better deputy. Labour could not have had a better campaigner. The government could not have had a better negotiator and - yes, often, peacemaker. Hull could not have had a better MP. Of course he was combative but he had an enormous heart and a great capacity for friendship. Even with his horrible illness in later years, the old JP was always there. Love to Pauline, Jonathan and David and nothing but fond memories of a total one off who will be missed by so many. From Yvette Cooper, the home secretary Such sad news about John Prescott. A campaigning Labour hero & a remarkable minister who transformed lives - upgrading millions of council homes, coalfield regeneration, tackling climate change. Fierce & warm hearted - there was no one like him. Thinking of Pauline & family today From Ed Balls, the former adviser to Gordon Brown and later secretary of state for childrenFrom Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader I am really sad to hear that John Prescott has passed away. John was a huge figure and personality, from his seafaring union days to the highest offices in Government. I will be forever grateful for his personal and political support in the 2017 and 2019 elections. His endless warmth and iconic wit were loved on the campaign trail. My deepest sympathies to John’s family at their loss. He will be greatly missed. From Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary 1/2 John Prescott was a political giant who made a unique contribution to the Labour and trade union movement he loved so deeply. Authentic, funny, tough, highly skilled and, at times, unpredictable, he often used the phrase “traditional Labour values in a modern setting”. 2/2 In doing so, he would reassure and inspire Party members with whom he had a great bond. He will be much missed. All our thoughts are with Pauline and his family on this very sad day. From David Lammy, foreign secretary John Prescott was one of the giants of our party. Committed, loyal, Labour to his core. A relentless champion of working people who never forgot who he came into politics to fight for. Full of good humour and blunt common sense. Rest in peace Angela Rayner pays tribute to Prescott, saying he was 'inspiration to me'Angela Rayner is often compared to John Prescott. They were both brought up working class, became Labour MPs after working in the trade union movement and have been frequently patronised or demonised by Tories and the media, partly on the grounds of class snobbery. And both ended up deputy PM.Here is her tribute to Prescott. Through his half a century of public service and a decade as deputy prime minister, John Prescott was driven by his Labour values to serve working people. Fiercely proud of his working class and trade union roots, he never lost sight of who he came into politics to serve. He used the chance he was given to change the lives of millions of working people. A giant of the labour movement and loyal friend, he will be remembered with huge fondness by all those who knew him. John was not only a Labour legend but an inspiration to me, and always so generous with his time and support. We will miss him greatly. Our thoughts and prayers are with Pauline, David, Johnathan and the rest of the family. ShareUpdated at 04.06 ESTPrescott's family ask people not to send flowers but to donate to Alzheimer's Research UK insteadHere is the full statement from John Prescott’s family announcing his death. Prescott was living with Alzheimer’s in his final years and his family have asked wellwishers minded to send flowers to donate to Alzheimer’s Research UK instead.They say: We are deeply saddened to inform you that our beloved husband, father and grandfather, John Prescott, passed away peacefully yesterday at the age of 86. He did so surrounded by the love of his family and the jazz music of Marian Montgomery. John spent his life trying to improve the lives of others, fighting for social justice and protecting the environment, doing so from his time as a waiter on the cruise liners to becoming Britain’s longest serving deputy prime minister. John dearly loved his home of Hull and representing its people in parliament for 40 years was his greatest honour. We would like to thank the amazing NHS doctors and nurses who cared for him after his stroke in 2019 and the dedicated staff at the care home where he passed away after latterly living with Alzheimer’s. In lieu of flowers and if you wish to do so, you can donate to Alzheimer’s Research UK. As you can imagine, our family needs to process our grief so we respectfully request time and space to mourn in private. Thank you. Here is a John Prescott picture gallery.Gordon Brown pays tribute to PrescottGood morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Caroline Davies.The former prime minister Gordon Brown has just been on the Today programme paying tribute to John Prescott. He said: John was a friend of mine, he was a colleague, but when you think of him, he was a colossus, he was a titan of the Labour movement. John Lennon talked about working class hero. It’s difficult to fit that term, but I think John would like that. You’ve got to look at his achievements. He was probably the first government minister to see the importance of the environment. Kyoto, that environmental treaty in 1997, you’ve got to attribute that to John’s hard work with Al Gore. Then he saw the importance, and he was a pioneer of regional policy. So the fact we have devolution and mayors owes a great deal to what John was thinking right throughout the 1980s and 90s when I was working with him. And then we mustn’t forget that one of the great achievements of John as environment secretary was the repair and improvement of housing, 1.5m houses which would not have been repaired without John’s determination that the social housing stock had to be remodernised. So you’ve got to look at the practical achievements of someone who possibly surprised himself by the way that he managed to become deputy prime minister, but actually made a huge difference. Yorkshire has “lost one of its great political heavyweights,” said Tracy Brabin, mayor for West Yorkshire. In a post on X she said: Deeply sad news to hear of John Prescott’s passing. Yorkshire has lost one of its great political heavyweights. A true Northerner with unwavering authenticity. John’s record speaks for itself: tackling regional inequalities, fighting for social justice and protecting the environment. We must all now build on his legacy and work tirelessly, as he did, to create a country that works for all. ShareUpdated at 03.44 ESTLord Prescott’s wife and two sons said he had been in a care home recently living with Alzheimer’s. Hilary Evans-Newton, chief executive at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: It’s heartbreaking to hear that former deputy prime minister, Lord John Prescott, one of the most prominent political figures of our generation, has died with Alzheimer’s. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones during this difficult time. It’s tragic how many lives are being lost to dementia, the leading cause of death in the UK. We’re incredibly moved by Lord Prescott’s family, who have asked for donations to Alzheimer’s Research UK, in lieu of flowers. As the UK’s leading dementia research charity, we’re accelerating progress towards a cure, so no one’s life has to end this way.

Climate
Government
Social Justice

The climate crisis is a big problem. Marine biologist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is dreaming of even bigger solutions.

Here’s an exercise for you: Imagine the trajectory of our current climate crisis.  You probably don’t need to imagine very hard what this future looks like because we’re seeing it play out in the present: towns torn apart by massive hurricanes, thousands displaced by wildfires, lives taken by extreme heat. All of it is enough […]

Here’s an exercise for you: Imagine the trajectory of our current climate crisis.  You probably don’t need to imagine very hard what this future looks like because we’re seeing it play out in the present: towns torn apart by massive hurricanes, thousands displaced by wildfires, lives taken by extreme heat. All of it is enough to make a person freeze with fear. But there is a flip side to this terror.  Such an all-consuming problem inherently requires innovative solutions and adaptations of epic proportions. So here’s another exercise: Close your eyes and think, what could a world that hasn’t just taken the climate crisis seriously but also risen to the challenge look like? Envisioning a better future in the face of serious climate threats might seem like lofty daydreaming, especially when we take into consideration our world leaders’ inaction. But Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a marine biologist and climate policy wonk, has spent much of her career dreaming and coming up with climate solutions — and she knows that nihilism and avoidance won’t get us anywhere. In her recently published book, What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures, Johnson tackles how we can transform our ways of being, thinking, and doing to stop the worst of climate change. She expertly intertwines her conversations with scientists, artists, and activists to create a practical and accessible guidebook for a more just future brimming with possibilities — a salve for even the most environmentally anxious.  “Peril and possibility coexist,” she writes in the book. Of course, she’s well aware of just how big of an environmental mess our world is in, but you won’t catch her dwelling on the worst-case scenarios for long. “We’re pretty fucked,” Johnson said in her September interview on Vox’s The Gray Area, “but there’s a lot we could do to have a better possible future.”  Johnson is particularly adept at speaking to those who know the climate crisis is real but have the instinct to bury their head in the sand at the thought of such a massive existential crisis. Though she is frank about the state of our world’s environmental health, she speaks and writes with an energizing clarity — whether it’s conversing with climate advocates for her book tour or breaking down big environmental questions as a co-host of the podcast How to Save a Planet. It’s Johnson’s understanding of our instinct to flee the climate problems that has made it essential for her to explore the possibilities to address it and take action that goes beyond protesting or voting. These are important measures, Johnson believes, but also broad ones that aren’t necessarily fine-tuned to our individual experiences, skills, and interests.  For Johnson, a Brooklyn native who calls the ocean her love before it became her career, that looked like co-founding Urban Ocean Lab (UOL) in 2018. The nonprofit think tank specializes in researching coastal cities in the United States — places that one in five Americans call home and are often vulnerable to some of the worst environmental disasters — and developing equitable, pragmatic policy recommendations for these regions.  One such recommendation is UOL’s climate readiness framework for coastal cities. It’s a comprehensive collection of over 70 actions that coastal communities can apply to better adapt to current and future climate risks, such as working with community-based organizations to strengthen disaster preparedness plans and developing home relocation programs for low-income residents and people of color living in climate-vulnerable places.  The Caribbean region in particular has a special place in Johnson’s heart — her late father hailed from Jamaica, whose waters have suffered from pollution and overfishing. “To me, ocean conservation is in part about cultural preservation,” she writes after reflecting on her father’s life between Jamaica and New York City. “We are losing something more fundamental than a meal: a way of life.” It makes sense that Johnson has also worked to improve the waters surrounding these islands. Prior to founding UOL, she led an ocean management policy project called the Blue Halo Initiative at the Waitt Institute, where she served as executive director. Starting in Barbuda in 2013, Johnson focused on engaging with the community, interviewing hundreds of fishers and residents to develop policy recommendations for better preserving the waters and the species within it. Just a year later, the Barbuda Council signed into law a set of ocean zoning policies to protect underwater ecosystems and ensure sustainable fishing. These efforts were soon replicated in Montserrat and Curaçao. Johnson’s reverence for the ocean and the career she’s made out of it has made its way into the American political sphere, too. Back in 2019, the Green New Deal, a set of proposed progressive climate policies, was supported by left-leaning candidates up and down the ballot. Johnson had just one issue with it: It left out our seas almost entirely. “I was feeling bummed about the ocean getting short shrift in the Green New Deal Resolution — just a single, vague reference to the ocean,” Johnson wrote in What If We Get It Right? That summer, Johnson co-authored an op-ed in Grist about this big blue gap and what solutions to fill it with. Within that year, Johnson was contacted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign to help write what would become the Blue New Deal, an official policy platform for the Warren campaign. It was an extensive list of actions, like expanding marine protected areas, building climate-smart ports, and holding Big Agriculture accountable for water pollution. When Johnson later met Sen. Warren, she wrote in What If We Get It Right? that “[Senator Warren] told me it was the plan that got the most excited mentions in her selfie lines.” And while Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination and the election, his administration became the first to put out a federal Ocean Climate Action plan — which included similar elements to the Blue New Deal — after dozens of businesses and organizations (including UOL) pushed the White House to do so. There are a lot of studies that show engaging with nature helps our physical and mental well-being, so it’s not surprising that conserving our environment is important for many people. One word that Johnson often uses and embodies is “biophilia”: a love for nature and life, and in her words, “a powerful driving force for conservation.” With this in mind, I have one more exercise for you: Think of moments you’ve felt biophilia. Maybe you once walked through a lush forest, swam in a pristine lake, or witnessed snow-capped mountains up close. Perhaps you’ve encountered one of the millions of amazing creatures that inhabit these ecosystems. But how can one hold onto this sense of biophilia if much of our ways of life are destroying the very essence of it?  It’s all the more reason not to let our worries immobilize us and instead try to get it right, just as Johnson has done. Her wide-ranging expertise on climate policy; deeply empathetic and inclusive lens for climate solutions; and her unwavering, contagious biophilia has made her a bold visionary to follow in the climate space.  How apt that a lover of the ocean is making waves. —Sam Delgado

Climate
Crisis
Agriculture

Denmark is tiny. Its ambition to make its food system more climate-friendly is huge.

Climate scientists agree on at least one necessary change to our food system: People, especially those in rich countries, ought to be eating more plants and fewer animals.  Globally, livestock production accounts for some 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and accelerates a host of other environmental problems, from deforestation to freshwater depletion […]

Climate scientists agree on at least one necessary change to our food system: People, especially those in rich countries, ought to be eating more plants and fewer animals.  Globally, livestock production accounts for some 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and accelerates a host of other environmental problems, from deforestation to freshwater depletion to air pollution. And yet virtually all Western governments have designed their food policy to churn out more and more meat, milk, and eggs.  The idea that we need to eat more, not less, meat is also baked into many nations’ cultural psyches, with both subtle and overt messages that meat equals masculinity and prosperity. Meat has been dragged into many countries’ culture wars, stifling civil discussions over how to make food systems sustainable. One country, though, far more than any other, has heeded the climate scientists’ advice: Denmark, the small Scandinavian nation of 6 million people known for its intensive factory farming system and resulting pork and dairy exports. In 2021, the Danish Parliament and government made a deal to shift its food system in a more plant-based and organic direction, and has set aside around $200 million US to do it. About $85 million is going to farmers who grow plant-based foods. The rest is being used to fund new projects, like experimenting with “nudge theory” — redesigning cafeterias to subtly encourage consumers to choose more plant-based options — and launching a startup incubator for plant-based companies at the Technological Institute of Denmark.  Many people have labored to turn these ideas into policy, but Rune-Christoffer Dragsdahl, the secretary-general of the Vegetarian Society of Denmark, has unquestionably been the leader. Dragsdahl became the society’s first employee in 2016, when he went unpaid for the first year or so. Since then, the organization has grown to employ 22 staff members.  How exactly did a tiny organization with little political clout blaze a trail toward a more sustainable, humane food system? I spoke with Dragsdahl last month to find out. His secret, it turns out, is diplomacy.  Dragsdahl and his vegetarian society colleagues spent years building a coalition of farmers, scientists, and organic food advocates, emphasizing shared values — sustainability and food innovation — instead of differences, like the merits of vegetarianism. This big-tent approach appealed to politicians, including not just members of left-wing parties but also politicians on the right, one of whom called the country’s plant-based action plan an “intelligent idea,” according to Dragsdahl.    “That, I think, shows the fact that we and other stakeholders have somehow managed to mainstream this,” he told me. “There are still ideological battles and clearly we’re not done, but we have to a large extent managed to get many people to see that this should also be a part of Danish agriculture and that it should be stronger. That there’s actual potential in this. That there’s no need to fight over more plants.” My conversation with Dragsdahl has been edited for length and clarity. What role does meat play in Danish society? It’s really a centerpiece of food culture, of Danish culture. There are many social events, whether it’s football events — people will have their hot dogs — and when they’re grilling in the summer.  Apart from food culture … Denmark is a very agricultural nation. We are the most cultivated country in the world, together with Bangladesh, in terms of the [percentage of the] surface of the land being cultivated, because the country is very flat, so you can say it’s suitable for this.  Even though the country might be suitable, you can over-cultivate it. And that is the problem — we have severe biodiversity loss here, severe eutrophication. … So it’s definitely damaging the local environment here. But for many decades, it has been difficult to do anything about it because at least some people have felt we are an agricultural nation. It’s in our blood, that’s who we are. And livestock is an integral part of that.  So there are things here, both culturally but also politically. And there’s this universal pride for people — that Danish dairy, Danish butter, is being exported to the whole world… But also, of course, bacon and pork products. But that has been increasingly questioned in the last 10 years.  What happened to lay the groundwork for the plant-based action plan? In 2019, we got the idea to start something we call the Danish Network for Plant Proteins. You make such a network, really, to make people feel welcome no matter where they’re from. … We had hard-hitting scientists, we had inspiring startups, we had interesting content — but always in a friendly and warm and pragmatic tone. And that meant that even the farming association [the Danish Agriculture and Food Council] attended. They later came back to us a month later and told us that they liked our approach. We don’t agree about scaling down livestock production, but they did agree that we could work together on how to look more into plant-based [food production] to diversify Danish agriculture.  When they did that, it almost immediately eliminated any opposition from a large part of the political spectrum. So maybe some of the resistance in the right wing became neutral, and some of the hesitance among the parties in the center of Danish politics became slightly positive. And that was extremely helpful because you move the entire playing field. And then, of course, the parties which are even more progressive on the center and center-left wing, they can push even harder for it and get the middle parties on board without the right wing making a big fuss about it. And the farmers’ association was definitely important for that. I think we have really successfully been insisting that plant-based is both the whole foods plant-based and the processed [foods] and everything in between. And by insisting on that, we’re getting less opposition between the people who just want everything to be home-cooked and believe children should be taught how to cook their own vegetables again. These solutions are both needed, and there [are] also places in between. There might be processed products that imitate meat but that are processed in milder ways. I think many of the Danish startups in this space are actually trying to find these kinds of solutions. So that has been a way to get many different kinds of people on board.  What kind of plant-based projects have been awarded funding?  So far, around 35 projects have been granted [in each of two rounds].  In the first round, the Hospitality School of Copenhagen got funding for a vegetarian chef’s degree. They got the funding for developing a curriculum that the government could then approve as acceptable for a new chef’s degree — which does not have any meat — and that degree becomes part of the government system, so it becomes a formal government education. But they could not have done it without getting funding to develop the curriculum. In the second round, some [agricultural] schools applied for funding for developing a curriculum on legumes, but also to teach the professionals in the kitchens at the farmer schools how to include more legumes in the foods eaten by the young farmers. What else should people know about Denmark’s efforts to build a more plant-based food system? Denmark is not paradise. [People] will have this excuse — they’ll say, “This is just Denmark, Denmark is always ahead on everything.” But that’s not the full story. And I think that’s the important part to be told here. This happened in the country with the largest livestock production per capita and with a very powerful livestock lobbying sector. So when we can succeed on that in Denmark, there will be pathways to that in other countries. And for me, that is a really important message that we should not give up — that there is actually hope.

Climate
Food
Forests

“Absolutely devastating”: Climate change is pushing coral reefs to extinction, experts warn

Coral reefs have experienced four mass bleaching event in 18 months, with no sign of stopping

The Chagos Archipelago is one of the most remote places on Earth. Smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean, the collection of more than five dozen tiny islands are mostly uninhabited, due in no small part to the United States and United Kingdom expelling the Indigenous Chagossians in an ethnic cleansing from 1967 to 1973. For decades only a single atoll, Diego Garcia, has had any inhabitants. Yet as coral reef ecologist Alexandra Dempsey explored the atolls’ beautiful coral reefs in 2015, she nevertheless found signs of human pollution. “While we were there, we witnessed the very first stages of a bleaching event,” Dempsey said, referring to when coral becomes dead and white due to stress. Dempsey recalled "the scale at which these 100-year-old corals were just stressed. They were paling. The cotton candy colors paling is definitely an indicator of an ecosystem that is extremely stressed.”  Even the supposed “crown jewel of the reefs” looked bleached because of temperatures upwards of 80 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit. As CEO of the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Dempsey often thinks about how to protect coral reefs from human activity, yet is now presented with evidence that even the most remote locations cannot be entirely protected. One big reason? Few things, if anything, will be unaffected by global heating. “No matter how much protection and how much due diligence goes behind trying to keep humans and people away from the reefs, the effects of climate change are just absolutely devastating to these ecosystems,” Dempsey said. Bleached Corals, Cenderawasih Bay, West Papua, Indonesia (Reinhard Dirscherl/ullstein bild via Getty Images)Similarly, if coral reefs go extinct, it won’t just be the diversity of the ocean that will suffer — many people will too. Approximately 3.3 billion people rely on aquatic foods for nutrition, which accounts for almost 20% of the average per capita consumption of animal protein. If the reefs collapse, so will some bigger fish stocks, like tuna and groupers. Marine fisheries ecologist Khatija Alliji, from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, has personally seen humans tampering with coral reefs while exploring them, and from that observation points out that it is not merely our greenhouse gas emissions that harm coral reefs and underwater ecosystems. "We are clearly challenging coral’s natural capacity for adaptation." “Currently coral reefs face many threats, including (but not limited to) biodiversity loss, water quality, climate change, disease, predation, coastal development, litter, marine traffic and pollution,” Alliji explained. Because reefs are so complex, scientists still do not fully understand all the interlocking parts that make them work. Even the recent Red List assessment that found over two-fifths of coral reef species threatened with extinction added there are some species where data is so deficient that a risk category cannot be assigned. “Advancements in coral taxonomy using DNA has led to the discovery of new species of coral and better taxonomic definition,” Alliji said. “But there is still lots to investigate and this is both exciting and terrifying given the many threats listed above.” For all of the mysteries that remain about coral reefs, though, experts agree that climate change is an undisputed threat. Indeed, our planet is already in the middle of its fourth global coral bleaching event in 18 months largely due to climate change, which experts predict will worsen as we surpass 1.5º C of global temperature rise. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. “Locally, some reef regions surpassed 1.5º C in the last year, but it takes a global average over 20 years to calculate the threshold; it is highly likely temperature levels will exceed even 2º C globally before a turning point is reached,” David Obura, chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, told Salon. “Scientists recently shifted the estimated critical range for corals from 1.5º to 2º C warming to [between] 1º and 1.5º C warming. And as with many things with climate change and the Anthropocene, severe and compounding impacts are being observed earlier than predicted.” "The ocean has no boundaries and therefore a collaborative approach is required to ensure coral survival and guarantee their future." Aldo Croquer, a marine conservation program manager for the Central Caribbean in Nature Conservancy, said that coral reefs have weathered many cataclysmic events in Earth’s history, but they may not survive humanity. “Corals have evolved facing great challenges and they have managed to survive, even to massive global extinctions,” Croquer said. “Their capacity to adapt to environmental change and to come back from disturbances is indisputable, at least at evolutionary time scales. However, the changes that we are seeing today occurred at the scales of decades. This is unprecedented. Thus, we are clearly challenging coral’s natural capacity for adaptation.” To protect coral reefs from rising temperatures and other human activity, it is critical for local communities to work together with global authorities so they can salvage what they can. “Climate change is a global issue and will need both local and global management and solutions to ensure we protect our natural ecosystems and resources,” Alliji said. “The ocean has no boundaries and therefore a collaborative approach is required to ensure coral survival and guarantee their future.” Obura added, “There is a localized commitment to enabling the sorts of changes that can reduce local pressures, which revolve around promoting circular economies, less destructive economic and development practices. To some extent the problem is these are pitched as ‘local’ problems for local authorities to act on, but often the broader national and international contexts don’t facilitate this by continually incentivising more growth, more resorts, more fishing, more goods and services, etc.” Yet even if all of those changes are made, scientists like Jason Spadaro from the Coral Reef Restoration Research Program in Florida's Mote Marine Laboratory still expect more depressing journeys like one he recently took to the Florida Keys. “When I started my career back in 2006 or so, coral reefs in the Florida Keys in particular had about maybe a little better than 10% of their surface covered in live coral,” Spadaro said. “Today we've got somewhere less than 2%, as well as a fourfold decrease in the living tissue color cover of our coral reefs in the Keys. That's due almost entirely to things like climate change.” Read more about our oceans

Climate
Extinction
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

Sustainable Living with Patrick Lang

A day in the life of Patrick Lang living a sustainable life in Malibu… filmed before his home and community were consumed by fire in the fall of 2018.

Sustainable
Land Use
Solutions

Crossing the Divide

An Iowa farmer reacts swiftly when he hears that radical climate marchers plan to disrupt peace in his tiny town. What he does after that offers a lesson for would-be peacemakers everywhere.

Inspirational
Activism
Climate

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

The fossil fuel industry is building a global threat in the oil fields of West Texas. Miguel Escoto, who has lived close to this region his whole life, witnesses the industry’s villainy for the first time by viewing oil and gas site emissions through optical gas imaging cameras, becoming a stand-in for a world that has yet to grasp the gravity of the Permian Climate Bomb.

Pollution
Activism
Climate

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.