Category Archives: Environment

Environment, Government, Politics, Science

Labour is urged to crack down on farmers spreading sludge

ENVIRONMENT

MINISTERS are coming under increasing pressure to stop farmers spreading byproducts of human sewage on fields over fears of “forever chemicals” getting into the food system.

Campaigners have urged Labour to clamp down on the use of sludge to fertilise agricultural land.

Also known as biosolids, sludge is produced by dewatering treated sewage. It is nutrient-rich and is spread across agricultural land, amounting to 3.6 million tonnes annually, says the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management.

While the practice is regulated, academics and campaigners argue that rules governing the use of sludge have not kept pace with the science. Regulations have been unchanged since 1989.

Sludge can contain toxic waste from homes, including pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, and microplastics. Each gram of biosolid can hold up to 24 microplastic particles, representing 1pc of its weight, according to research from Cardiff University.

It is widely accepted in academic circles that sludge spreading is a major problem. Water companies profit from processing industrial waste containing “forever chemicals” that end up on farmland.

Forever chemicals, officially known as PFAS, do not break down in the human body or on the land. They are found in everything from carpet cleaners to corrosion-protecting products and have been widely used since the 1950s. They can cause cancer, harm the immune system, and damage the liver.

It is indicative, then, that water companies must take responsibility. And, if they will not act, the Government must legislate and ensure the upcoming White Paper tackles agricultural pollution. This is urgent because our soil and waterways are being contaminated with toxic, persistent chemicals, threatening food and water security.

The Government’s long-awaited White Paper on water industry reform is expected to be published in January. Despite repeated calls for a crackdown on sludge, the report cannot be allowed to ignore the issue.

It comes despite the Cunliffe Review calling for action. The report, to which the White Paper is a response, says: “There should be tighter regulation of sludge spreading on farmland, recognising that sludge may contain PFAS, pharmaceuticals and toxic metals, which have public health impacts.”

Alistair Boxall, professor of environmental science at the University of York, said he is increasingly concerned about long-term, low-level exposure to contaminants in sludge. He said: “We’re potentially exposed to these things our whole lifetime. The UK is not protecting its soils and its crops from this stuff.”

Research from the University of Plymouth has demonstrated that “nanoplastics” – particles so small they can penetrate cell membranes – are absorbed into the edible sections of crops. The study found that a single radish can eventually accumulate millions of these nanoplastics in its roots before they spread through the plant.

Sludge is an attractive option for farmers. While synthetic fertiliser costs £60 per tonne, sludge can be purchased for £1.50 per tonne. Water companies rely on farmers to take the substance, which is an unavoidable byproduct of wastewater management.

There is always the matter of liability in any looming scandal, and this needs addressed. Public health is a serious issue. Neither the water companies who supply the product, or farmers who use it, be exonerated from blame.

Standard
Arts, Books, Environment, Literature

Climate fiction is extolling the real threats the planet faces

LITERATURE

Intro: A newly created award recognises the power of storytelling to address the biggest issues of our time

PAUL MURRAY, author of the bestselling novel The Bee Sting, told a media audience recently that no novelist should ignore the climate emergency: “It is the unavoidable background for being alive in the 21st century.” In recognition of the essential and vital role of literature in responding to the Anthropocene moment, the inaugural shortlist has just been announced for the Climate Fiction prize.

The five novels include “Orbital” by Samantha Harvey, set during one day on the International Space Station (and the winner of last year’s Booker prize); time-travelling romcom “The Ministry of Time” from debut novelist Kaliane Bradley; eco-thriller “Briefly Very Beautiful” by Roz Dineen; “And So I Roar”, about a young girl in Nigeria, by Abi Daré; and a story of migrants in an abandoned city in Téa Obreht’s “The Morningside”. All the shortlisted authors are women.

Climate fiction is not new. Some of the landmark literary novels to have taken on the crisis include Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam dystopian trilogy, Cormac McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic The Road, Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behaviour, and Richard Power’s Pulitzer-prize-winning The Overstory. Science fiction, inevitably, has become the genre of ecological catastrophe, with hits like Kim Stanley Robinson’s “The Ministry for the Future”, with all the inhabitants of a small Indian town perishing in a heatwave.

The late Ursula K le Guin wrote that the task of sci-fi was “to extrapolate imaginatively from current trends and events to a near-future that’s half prediction, half satire”. The purpose of the realist novel is to reflect the world in which we live. For a long time, the possibilities of environmental breakdown were largely considered too wild and extreme for the realism. As a consequence, climate fiction hasn’t been taken seriously enough. In “The Great Derangement” in 2016, Amitav Gosh argued that the failure of so many novelists, including himself, to address the most urgent issue of the age was part of a broader cultural failure at the heart of the climate crisis itself.

Freakish and abnormal weather events are no longer the essence of speculative fiction – “global weirding” is upon us. What was once dubbed “cli-fi” is simply contemporary fiction. Ecological anxiety is as much a part of the fictional worlds of a young generation of novelists like Sally Rooney as the internet and mobile phones.

The novels on the Climate Fiction prize shortlist do not conform to dystopian stereotypes. Some aren’t even explicitly about the crisis. Some are hopeful. Far from being a portrait of a world ravaged by disasters, Orbital, for example, is a hymn to the awe-inspiring beauty of our planet.

It could be argued that having a Booker prize winner on the shortlist suggests there is no need for a specific award, which might marginalise climate fiction as a niche genre. There is no shortage of literary gongs. “The Wainwright prize”, set up in 2014 to celebrate the best nature books, now includes an award for writing on global conservation.

Yet awards amplify the message and reach of books that might otherwise be overlooked. Scientists have been cautioning about global warming’s dire consequences for decades. Governments and industry haven’t listened. Now novelists are taking up the challenge. Stories can create an impact far greater than data alone. They can inspire change. In a world where reality has become stranger than fiction, this new accolade is necessary and important. There can be no bigger story.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Society

Great British Energy risks decimating energy security

UK ENERGY POLICY

KEIR Starmer’s aspirations for a carbon-free and energy-secure nation fulfilled at a stroke through the creation of his new quango, Great British Energy (GBE), is at odds with the reality of the situation.

The UK would, of course, welcome a green and pleasant land with cleaner air, lower carbon emissions, cheaper fuel bills, and a reduced dependence on Vladimir Putin and his gas pipelines that run from Russia to the West.

But the truth is the creation of GBE will deliver few, if any, of the bold pledges that Sir Keir Starmer and his Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, are making.

In the King’s Speech, Sir Keir’s new government confirmed that GBE, the state-owned energy company, will develop, own and operate energy projects such as wind farms, using public money to help spur further private sector investment.

But the £8.3billion of money promised by the Exchequer for Britain’s energy transformation over the term of the current parliament will be a mere drop in the ocean.

In spite of the overblown language, this is a fraction of the sums of money already devoted to “climate reduction” goals by our UK-listed oil firms Shell and BP, as well as domestically owned power suppliers Centrica and Scottish & Southern Electricity (SSE).

Some argue it is reassuring that GBE will be headed up by Juergen Maier, the former boss of German multinational Siemens’s British arm, who might bring some much-needed private-sector experience to the job.

What is less reassuring, however, is the disastrous financial performance of Siemens Energy. It ran up losses of £3.7billion in 2023 alone. Combined with the desperate track record of past Labour governments to command and control the economy through grandiose quangos such as the National Enterprise Board of the 1970s, it looks almost inevitable that GBE will become yet another vast black hole, drawing vast public cash at the expense of other strained public services.

Most critically, by blocking future North Sea oil licences, as Starmer has done, and holding fire on the prospects for new nuclear production, the nation’s energy security is being sacrificed in order to pursue unproven green energy “solutions”.

In doing so, the UK is exposed to the danger of factories being closed, the elderly and poor freezing in their homes, and the lights going out when the wind fails to blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

It is also critical that the UK can maintain a minimum level of electricity production at all times – especially if the Government pursues a mad rush towards electric vehicles which, in many cases, are proving notoriously unreliable.

That is why Centrica-owned British Gas is investing heavily in renewing the nation’s gas storage capacity at Rough off the East Yorkshire coast and exploring other potential sites in Wales.

Not to mention that Starmer and Miliband appear willing to trash 100,000 North Sea oil-related jobs, sabotage Aberdeen, and lose £30billion of new investment in fossil fuels, and the engineering services which go with them, to drive the “green revolution”. Labour believes that by signing an agreement with the Crown Estate – which has command over most of the nation’s coastal waters – it can generate £60billion of new investment. The link to the monarchy alone could potentially attract some foreign investors on the grounds of offering a kind of royal imprimatur. But we shouldn’t get carried away by Labour’s hoopla.

The Crown Estate has much more skill and expertise on redeveloping real estate, such as Dumfries House in Scotland, than it does in energy projects. Despite its prestigious reputation, the Crown Estate’s new agreement with Labour, is at the hands of hard economic facts. The only thing that will attract investors is a competitive entry price. If the price at which energy generated at the offshore windfarms can be sold is set too low to make the projects viable, it will deter bidders.

We learnt this the hard way in a crucial auction last year, when not a single company bid to run a new offshore wind farm. That was because the Tory government had set the energy price too low. Even more seriously, a major proposed investment off the Norfolk coast was temporarily put on hold.

The same thing happened in the US last year when Ørsted cancelled £3.3billion of wind projects because it could not make the financial returns.

Earlier this year, BP also pulled out of its involvement in New York state wind farms – at a heavy cost to investors – because of the difficulty of getting decent returns.

The ultimate goal in all of these wind farm projects may have been lower prices for consumers. The reality is that only by offering a higher energy price to investors will they come forward – and the projects be built. It’s an uncomfortable truth for Labour, who want to be seen to be providing the cheapest energy possible to its citizens.

They have been repeatedly questioned about when, or even if, their “Green New Deal” would deliver lower prices for consumers, but Labour have been unable to answer. So much for cheaper bills and the election manifesto pledge that consumers would be £300 a year better off.

A secondary aim of GBE is to boost our manufacturing sector, creating new skills and employment opportunities to replace those in fossil fuels.

Certainly, this is a perfectly noble aim. But in Britain, we have already sold ourselves out. Most of the solar panels being installed on the roofs of homes and factories across the UK are being built in China at a fraction of the cost they can be made in the UK.

One only has to look at how Beijing is dominating the market for electric cars – and the 50 per cent tariffs imposed by the US and Europe to slow imports – to understand how difficult it is going to be to compete with Asian production.

There is also evidence that Chinese suppliers of wind farm equipment are using cheap Uyghur labour to manufacture wind turbines. It will be all but impossible for UK manufacturers to compete (currently responsible for less than 10 per cent of wind farm components).

There is one area of green technology where Britian does have a competitive quality and engineering advantage. Rolls-Royce, with the assistance of government funding, leads the world in the development of “small modular reactors”. These are mini, simple-to-construct nuclear reactors based on the turbines that power nuclear-powered submarines.

Rolls-Royce believes it is capable of capturing a £250billion global market if it receives the go-ahead from Whitehall for UK production. The Czech Republic has already expressed an interest in buying them.

Tens of thousands of real jobs – not the Potemkin quango roles envisioned by the UK’s new Government – are there to be created.

We can only hope for the success of Great British Energy and the zero-carbon nirvana envisaged by our mission-driven Government.

But there are huge fears in creating a taxpayer-funded white elephant which will decimate our energy security.

Standard