Brexit: Move on and wish the continent good luck

Posted on 4th July 2016 by tinesc

Environmental organisations in the UK were unanimous in their support for a vote to stay before the Brexit referendum. They believed that the best protection of the environment on the British Isles were to be had by EU legislation. The question is whether we, now that the UK has decided to leave, should dry our eyes and congratulate our continental colleagues on having gotten rid of a serious obstacle?

Well, if we look at the bigger picture then the UK has actually done the rest of EU a huge favour. The UK government have several times lobbied for revisions of protective legislation and tried to influence key votes on environmental issues. Here are a couple of examples.

The Habitats Directive
Almost 25 years ago the EU adopted the Habitats Directive. This created the Natura 2000 network of protected sites. Sites which are designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe; safeguarding them against potentially damaging development. The Natura 2000 network protects over 1000 animal and plant species and 200 habitat types of European importance.

Some of the protected habitat types are river corridors and wetlands like here in Snowdonia National Park in Wales; an area that hosts several important and rare species such as salmon, trout, lampreys, fresh water pearl mussels, otter and water voles.

In 2014 the new European Commissioner for environment, maritime affairs and fisheries was tasked with ”overhauling the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose”. This included a request to carry out an in depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Since then environment ministers from several countries, including France and Germany, have written to commissioner Vella and urged him not to weaken nature protection legislation.

The environment ministers are not the only ones protesting the proposed revision of the directives. Several MEPs have also written to the Commission urging them to keep the legislation. The UK government though, have been supportive of Juncker’s efforts. This support has come in face of their own evidence. Chancellor George Osborne stated in 2011 that his government would “make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses”. This led to a review of the directives by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs. They published a report in 2012 which found that the directives were largely working well.

Disappearing bees
The UK government also seems to have little regard for bees and their importance for both biodiversity and the pollination of crops. Bee populations have dramatically declined in later years. Scientists strongly suspect that a type of pesticides called neonicotinoids is at least partly responsible for this. Neonicotinoids acts as a nerve agent on bees and other invertebrates. In 2012 the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the scientific evidence on the matter. This led EU to adopt the first ban on the use of these pesticides in 2013.

Photo credit:Edwyn Anderton, flickr

The UK government didn’t vote in favour of the ban and actively lobbied against it. In 2015 they proceeded to temporarily suspend the ban on the application of the National Farmers’ Union. This happened despite the fact that the government’s own Experts Committee on Pesticides refused to back the request. Over 500.000 people in the UK signed a petition to stop the suspension. This petition was ignored.

Looking at the bigger picture
These two examples are unfortunately not the only ones. So, is it time for the British environmental campaigners to look at the bigger picture and not be so sad about the UK leaving EU? In spite of the love we have for our wildlife here in the UK it is fairly bog standard. We have few endemic species or habitats found nowhere else. So if the UK is a bad influence in EU environmental matters, then maybe we should give the continent a cheery wave and wish them good luck. It’s going to be hard though..

This is a revised version of a piece originally published on the Politheor Policy Network before the Brexit referendum.

The ethics of modern media

Posted on 21st June 2016 by tinesc

A classic dilemma in ethics is whether it is acceptable to sacrifice the few to save the many. In today’s media landscape, it is often more about serving the interests of the few while ignoring those of the many.

In 2016 we have more or less unlimited access to information and news. Ironically though, this makes it harder than ever before to discern what is true and what isn’t. We are overloaded with information and give up.

For more than a hundred years we have had journalists and editors to do quality control of stories that enter the public sphere. They have checked facts and figures for us and presented us with their findings. Whenever they failed to do so, someone else usually found out and loudly lambasted them for their mistakes. This has created an unconscious belief that anything published in papers, radio or TV must be authentic. Even for stories that are not fact but opinion based, the belief has come to be that there’s no smoke without a fire.

No quality(control)
These beliefs are now being tested. In a world that’s being taken over by social media, this element of quality control has suddenly been removed. Anybody can publish a story. Once it’s out there being posted and re-posted around the world; and suddenly nobody knows where it originated. If you repeat something enough times, people are bound to believe it. In other words – If it has gone viral, it must be true right?

Traditional media are struggling. Not many want to pay for something the can get for free online. So they end up with two choices. One, they can follow the tabloids and online media into sensationalism and misleading headlines. Two, they can stay true to the code and “seek the truth and report it”. The latter option is a lot more troublesome, it requires research, hard work and time; and the benefits might not be immediate or financial. That is why so many, even those branding themselves as serious media, is treading a slippery slope and focusing on content that can bring in immediate advertising revenue.

In other words, it is getting increasingly harder, even for well-educated and well-read people to figure out what is up and down. When we are constantly bombarded with new information, there’s no time to critically assess and contemplate what we see and hear. Anything can become true if it is repeated enough times.

More than ever we need media that we can trust to tell us the truth; not to spin it in a way which only serves to make money.

“The ultimate goal of the media would be it carrying out its function well. Media carrying out its function well is found in what it can achieve precisely through it having those traits which make it good”

The definition of irony?

Posted on 2nd May 2016 by tinesc

The Vote Leave campaign is claiming that the UK is a science super power; and they are using that as an argument for why we don’t need the EU. The question is where exactly does the money that makes the UK a science super power come from?

Since 2009 the amount spent on publicly funded research in the UK has been reduced every single year. It has now hit an all-time low at less than 0.5% of the GDP. This means that the UK is now last among the G8 countries in terms of public spending on research.

On the other hand there is EU’s framework programme for research and innovation called Horizon 2020. This is literally the biggest pot of research money in the world, distributing approximately €80 billion from 2014-2020. Scientists based in the UK have been very successful in the competition for this money. In the first round they came out on top as the country with most funded projects in the entire EU worth almost €1 billion.

If the UK leaves EU it is uncertain how much of Horizon 2020 the UK would be allowed to participate in, if any at all. Just ask the Swiss who ran afoul of EU with the adoption of an anti immigration initiative in 2014. EU withdrew their full association status and they have now only access to certain parts of the programme; in most cases only as collaborative partners without any direct access to EU funding.

So the Vote Leave campaign claims that the fact that the UK is a science super power means that we don’t need the EU. A shame that nobody has told them that the majority of the money that makes it so arrives directly from the EU they are trying so hard to get rid of.

Join the herd

Posted on 2nd May 2016 by tinesc

Kenya has just burned over 100 tons of ivory as a message to poachers worldwide that poaching is not tolerated. Some believe that Kenya is wrong and that this act might encourage poaching instead. I disagree. I believe that advocates of controlled hunting and trade are leading us onto a slippery slope that will only increase the demand for ivory (and rhino horn). I think we should concentrate on educating people and reducing the demand instead. No demand – no poaching.

Orphaned elephant who has been a bit to close to a snare (scar on his trunk). South Luangwa NP.

What a mighty victory that would be, if we could make sure that our grandchildren also will be able to see elephants in the wild. If we could ensure that they might be able to sit under a thatched palm roof in Northern Zambia working on a laptop; lamenting the fact that it is SO hot that not even the breeze flowing into the open palapa brings any relief whatsoever. I wish they might be able to suddenly look up and realise that a 5 ton bull elephant has managed to sneak up on them and is now standing around 15 feet away using its trunk to hoover the floor under the kitchen table for cereal crumbs from breakfast.

At the end of the dry season in Zambia humans and elephants have to share the limited water resources. North Luangwa NP.

.. Or that they might be able to wake up suddenly in the middle of the night, when it has finally cooled down some, wondering what that crunching noise from just outside the window is. Only to find out on closer inspection that it is another bull elephant munching on the fruits of the marula tree next to the hut. A bull elephant who doesn’t mind a scrawny little human tiptoeing outside to sit in a bamboo chair and watch him go about his business for the next hour.

That is my wish. That, and maybe world peace, wouldn’t be so much to ask would it? Please Santa?

Does nature care about Brexit?

Posted on 6th March 2016 by tinesc

A very important question to many; and seeing as we are not likely to get an answer if we ask, we need someone to speak on behalf of nature. However very few in the public debate seems to be doing just that. The few who have tried, have also incurred the wrath of Brexit campaigners. They have been accused of breaking the law and have had formal complaints lodged against them with the charity watchdog. I receive no public funding, so this is my contribution to that debate.

The Habitats Directive
In 1992 EU adopted the Habitats Directive which created the Natura 2000 network of sites designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe; in other words an ecological network of protected areas, safeguarded against potentially damaging developments. The aim was to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements; and the Natura 2000 network protects over 1000 species and 200 habitat types of European importance.

The average area protected in all 28 EU countries is just over 18%. The UK is already lagging far behind in designating these areas and currently only has 8.5% of its area protected. On top of this the UK government is a leading voice in a group of member states claiming that the directives are outdated. They are urging an examination of whether regulations on development in these areas should be loosened to promote business interests and farmers. If the UK leaves the EU there is, in other words, nothing to stop them from pursuing this agenda and to repeal or weaken any and all protection of wetlands, bogs, forests, permanent grasslands, marshes and all the other habitat types that are vulnerable to human activity and basically need all the protection they can get.

According to justice secretary Michael Gove, and others in favour of Brexit, the UK will be safer alone outside EU, hm.. Which antelope was it who said? ”I believe that by standing over here all on my own I’ll be safer than together with the other antelopes” Oh yes, now I remember – the antelope that got eaten by the lions, that’s who!!

So in spite of the failings of EU, and they are many for sure, I believe that those of us who care about nature and the environment should vote to stay and work to improve EU from the inside. We should use the considerable influence we have to create progress instead of crossing our arms and stamping our feet like a toddler denied our favourite toy.

What flavour is it?

Posted on 5th August 2015 by tinesc

WordPress thought I should great you all (?!) with a Hello World, but I think that would be a bit presumptuous, as I am pretty sure, that “world” is not going to be reading this. This blog is mostly meant to satisfy my own innate curiosity, and if anybody else should find my musings and opinions interesting, I will be surprised, pleasantly surprised, but none the less..

Welcome to my world then 🙂

A blog of albatrosses

Science, climate, environment & policy