​Two years ago, I stepped out of the arrival hall of Manchester Airport. I was tired, sunburnt, and sick of queuing. The whole flight I had felt anxious about how many emissions were being produced, I had sat in my seat attempting and failing to distract myself with a book, knowing that in attending this family holiday I was contributing to the destruction of our planet, including the livelihoods and health of other families. In that hall in Manchester I made a commitment that I would never return to an airport again. And unlike many past New Years resolutions, I have actually stuck to it and I’m celebrating being two years “flying free” in 2019. I wasn’t alone in this as it’s a decision more and more people are taking, but an even higher number need to adopt it if we are going to seriously mitigate climate change’s impacts. 

This year’s COP has been surrounded by controversy, corruption and, at the centre of it all, coal. Literally. Conference attendees arrived in Katowice, Poland, a coal heartland, made their way to the conference centre next door to the Coal History Museum and, greeted by a coal miner band, ventured inside to find - you guessed it - yet more coal. Coal under the floor, in the walls and piled up in cages with displays of coal memorabilia, coal soap and even coal jewellery. It is clear that the conference hosts were trying to send a message: they will do whatever it takes to protect their coal industry. 80% of Poland’s electricity comes from coal and their economy is currently reliant on the stuff, but all that comes across from their greenwashing is a weak attempt to portray a city in transition, barely hiding the dirty fossil fuelled reality.

​Hot on the heels of the State of the Union debate and just in time for COP24, the Oxford Climate Society’s last event of term was a great discussion on some of the current issues and solutions in tackling climate change. A well-rounded panel consisting of Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science; Thomas Hale, Associate Professor at Blavatnik School of Government; and Radhika Kholsa, Research Director of the Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development. 

​It’s the most wonderful time of the year — but it’s also the time when we consume the most and produce the most waste. From turkey and all the trimmings, to trees, unwanted gifts, clothes and plastic toys, Christmas and excess seem to go hand in hand.
 
Taking a few simple steps such as buying local, recycling, making your own presents and avoiding excess packaging can make a huge difference. Here’s ten ethical, waste-free gifts you can give to spread the festive cheer this year while keeping it eco-friendly. 

​In one of the most remote and brutal locations on Earth, northeast Siberia, a pioneering rewilding project, with a name inspired by Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster movie, could well make a big impact in our battle against climate change. Founded by Russian geophysicist Sergey Zimov, Pleistocene Park is now being realised under the current management of his son Nikita Zimov, who last Friday visited the Oxford University Museum of Natural History to share his fantastic tales of adventure in exciting new conservation practices, and spark some hope that through working with nature, we can go some way to avert climate crisis.

​COP24 (just one of many confusing acronyms in the world of climate change negotiations) is the 24th Conference of the Parties, this year taking place in Katowice, Poland. COPs are annual two week-long conventions held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty formed in 1992 with, at the time of writing, 196 signatories.

​This Monday saw Oxford Climate Society and For Changemakers come together to put on a fascinating event exploring the possibilities within Green Entrepreneurship. Our three speakers provided an insight into ethical business, proving that sustainability and business can go hand in hand and will be key to the future of our planet and tackling climate change.

​On 8th November, 2016, Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election. He promised to destroy Obama-era environmental sanctions, claiming that they stifle economic growth. After campaigning on climate change skepticism and support for the U.S. fossil fuel industry, he nominated Scott Pruitt, an opponent of active environmental regulation, to head the EPA. Almost immediately, the term ‘climate change’ disappeared from the EPA website. Pruitt began work dismantling clean air and water rules, sometimes resulting in high-profile battles with environmental groups. He weakened prosecution of environmental criminals, deeply slashed EPA budgets in favour of military spending, and effectively ignored the years-long water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Under Trump’s executive order, Pruitt attempted to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan in March 2017, but was eventually blocked by the Supreme Court. With much thanks to Pruitt’s influence as a presidential advisor, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement in June 2017. In a televised interview, Pruitt called the agreement ‘a bad deal for America’.

​Our two distinguished guests for the night were Karen Brandon, the Community Officer of Oxford’s Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), and Tara Clarke, Training and Consultancy Coordinator at Climate Outreach. With both a panel and interactive audience exercises, this event was very insightful.

Nearly a year ago now, Euan wrote a great post discussing Michael Gove’s first six months as Environment Secretary (read it here). At the time Gove had backed a few small but encouraging changes to legislation, addressing plastics, urban air pollution and a few other hot topics. Euan concluded – correctly, I think – that there was reason for cautious optimism, small signs that this might be a government that is serious about making positive change. Now, sixteen months after the general election that put him back into the cabinet, Gove has just overseen his department’s most significant act yet. Last month parliament passed a new agricultural bill into law, the first of its kind in 70 years, setting out the Conservative vision for the post-Brexit future of farming subsidies.
 
Gove’s appointment in 2017 was met with a mixture of scepticism and fear from most environmentalists. However, this bill, like his earlier projects, has been met with widespread support. The key change it makes is to phase out the current system of agricultural subsidies in which the government pays landowners by the square foot, in favour of new ‘green subsidies.’ These will reward responsible farmers who make efforts to support high biodiversity, improve air and water quality, combat climate change or maximise the health of the natural world in general. Such incentives should help to scale back the use of damaging agrochemicals and reduce the carbon footprint of agricultural practices. This is a long-term plan, and will take a decade to implement, but it represents a clear attempt to modernise an industry that has a defining impact on the environment.
 
Of course, the new legislation is not without its critics. Catherine Broomfield, writing in the Guardian, highlights its failure to recognise and disrupt the stranglehold of retailers and big corporations on producers, which prevents the spread of sustainable and more diverse farming practices. The move away from area-based rewards will, however, help to challenge the dominance of a small number of individuals and companies that own a majority of British farmland, drawing the largest taxpayer funded subsidies for years. But the consequence of this may not be to encourage better land management practices, as the bill intends, but rather to force these parties into pushing for greater productivity in order to maintain their profit margins. Elise Walch, Coventry University, worries that the law will accelerate the rise of ‘megafarms’, hyper-productive farms using minimal land area with heavy environmental costs. Without proper access to training and direct incentives to learn high-diversity high-yield methods like polycropping and agroforestry, farmers may move naturally towards more damaging practices, despite the new green subsidies.
 
All of the discussion on the consequences of Gove’s landmark bill is only speculation at the moment. The relationships between land-use, the environment and business are complex. This leaves me in much the same position as Euan last year. While my head remains unsure about the future of the shifting landscape of UK environmental politics, my heart leaps to learn that the more tangible landscapes of the British countryside could be greener and more diverse in years to come.
 
Read more at the links below:

• Catherine Broomfield, Gove’s farming bill is more chaff than wheat. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/12/gove-farming-shakeup-health-agriculture-sustainable.
• Fiona Harvey, Big farmers to see funding cut post-Brexit after Gove shake-up. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/gove-hails-plans-to-reward-uk-farmers-for-adopting-green-policies
• Elise Walch, Rise of the megafarms: how UK agriculture is being sold off and consolidated. https://theconversation.com/rise-of-the-megafarms-how-uk-agriculture-is-being-sold-off-and-consolidated-104019