automotive products
E.P.A. to propose restrictions on asbestos
The agency aims to ban the manufacturing and import of a type of asbestos that is used in brake pads, gaskets and other automotive products and is linked to cancer.
Blame Henry Ford for deadly superbugs.
The strange journey from soybean-fueled cars to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
America has too much, and it’s killing us.
There are too many pesticides sprayed on too much corn and soy, fed to too many farm animals. With too many antibiotics, the animals grow too fast in too little space.
The modern U.S. food system’s abundance problem has led to a scarcity problem. Fewer breeds of livestock and crops—their genetics controlled by a handful of companies—and the overuse of antibiotics leave consumers with scant choice and doctors with fewer and fewer drugs left to fight the superbugs we’ve created.
How on earth did we get here? Henry Ford and the soybean.
Two books out this month paint a fascinating picture of how government and industry helped consumers and farmers in the short term but left Americans today with a world of ills. This Blessed Earth: A Year in the Life of an American Family Farm (W.W. Norton & Co.), by Ted Genoways, follows a multi-generational farm family in Nebraska from harvest to harvest, flashing back to the pivotal moments in history that paved the way there. Maryn McKenna’s Big Chicken (National Geographic) shows how adding antibiotics to chicken feed after World War II brought cheap protein to the table and a fast-growing public health crisis—antibiotic resistance—to the world.
Soy is now an integral part of the U.S. food system, 1 but its beginnings had nothing to do with food. Soybeans were grown as a possible answer to the looming petroleum shortage of the early 20th century. And their biggest initial booster wasn’t a food company but, as Genoways lays it out, Ford.
In the late 1920s, America was overrun with grain, leaving farmers wondering what they would do with it all. A piece titled “Wanted: Machines to Eat Up Our Crop Surplus” appeared in the magazine Farm & Fireside in 1927, suggesting that perhaps the government could fund research into turning those grains into industrial products.
Ford liked the idea. He relied on petroleum both to build his cars and to power them. And the plan, if enacted, could create more demand for his farm equipment, the same gear that helped create the grain glut in the first place. He just didn’t want government driving this economic overhaul. He wanted to do it himself.
Ford expanded his company’s agricultural laboratory and directly oversaw new efforts to turn plants into plastics and biofuels. After the 1929 stock market crash, the U.S. Department of Agriculture looked to the world to find new crops to save farmers. From China, William J. Morse, a USDA scientist long interested in soybeans, collected thousands of varieties for U.S. researchers. Ford got wind of the project and instructed his team to take a closer look. They found that the soybean could produce lubricants and plastics, as well as oils and a high-protein meal.
That’s when things started moving really fast for the multi-talented bean. In 1931, Ford poured a million dollars into research and stopped looking at those other, disappointing plants. The following spring, 300 varieties were being cultivated on 8,000 acres in rural Michigan; the year after that, some 12,000 acres.
Soon farmers were planting 35,000 acres of soybeans. Ford was buying it all, and selling it, too—he offered soy-based baked goods and ice cream at the company commissary and, while hosting an American Soybean Association convention, said he could see a time when cars “could be made from by-products of agriculture.”
The Ford machine churned up a booming market in soy for the American farmer. In the summer of 1934, during a major drought that killed corn and wheat, soy prevailed against linseed and canola, with a harvest of 23 million bushels. The next year it reached about 70 million bushels; by decade’s end, nearly 100 million bushels were harvested. During the worst of the Great Depression, Genoways writes, soybeans were bringing in more money for farmers than barley and rye.
It was too good to last. In 1938, a giant oil reserve was discovered in Saudi Arabia, and the need for cheap alternatives to petroleum all but vanished.
Luckily, that drought-driven decline in the harvest of grains gave soybeans new life as livestock feed. That brought its own challenges, as McKenna explains in her book about the rise of antibiotics in agriculture. While the demand for protein to feed American soldiers in World War II helped nearly triple chicken production, the industry quickly lost its guaranteed market at the end of the war and found itself with more birds than it could sell. Suddenly, the industry’s feed supply, fishmeal, was too expensive.
Soybeans weren’t. The problem was that, with soy as feed, the birds weren’t growing as fast. “People talked about needing to add a nutritious boost,” McKenna writes, “an ‘animal protein factor.’ ”
At Merck & Co., researchers had discovered that a byproduct of making the streptomycin antibiotic, which began with manured soil as a raw material, could be fed to chickens to fatten them up. In 1948, a rival company, Lederle Laboratories, was doing the same with a byproduct of one of its own antibiotics, Aureomycin.
Meanwhile, the industry was moving chickens indoors, their lives now bereft of such natural foods as insects, not to mention sunlight. The antibiotics helped smooth this transition, actually altering the animals’ metabolism to help them adjust to their new, unnatural life. Lederle announced its results in 1950, and the industry was all in. By 1955, American farmers were giving animals nearly half a million pounds of antibiotics a year.
Some had been raising the alarm about frightening consequences. As early as 1945, Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, the first antibiotic, was quoted in the New York Times warning that using doses that were too low to wipe out infections, as was common practice in agriculture, could lead to the evolution of more resistant microbes.
By 1955, this was already happening. A penicillin-resistant strain of the staphylococcus bacterium that traveled from Australia to the U.S. had infected more than 5,000 mothers and their newborns near Seattle. Lederle’s own veterinarians, McKenna reports, had issued warnings that sales of Aureomycin as a growth promoter could lead to antibiotic resistance.
Today, about 80 percent of the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are fed to farm animals, and the United Nations has called antibiotic resistance “one of the biggest threats to global health.” In 2016, a report commissioned by former British Prime Minister David Cameron estimated that in 2014 there were more than 700,000 deaths per year from bacterial infections caused by superbugs. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can travel not just in food but in water supplies, dust and even on clothing, yet the FDA has lagged behind European regulators in getting antibiotic use on farms under control.
“The issue of antibiotic resistance is very complex,” the National Chicken Council said in a statement responding to Big Chicken. “We know antibiotic resistance can emerge in animals and can transfer to humans, sometimes making them sick. The question is: How does this happen?”
The NCC lists several preventive measures producers take today, including the FDA drug review process and monitoring and surveillance programs. At the same time, it rejects the central tenet of McKenna’s book, saying the transfer of resistance from animals to humans “does not happen in measurable amounts, if at all,” although it is a widely held scientific finding.
Nearly all the chickens eaten in the world now have genetics controlled by two companies, Aviagen Inc. and Tyson Foods Inc.’s Cobb-Vantress. As Genoways points out, the genetics of the livestock feed supply—corn and soy—are similarly homogeneous. Ninety percent of the crops in the soybean market and nearly three-quarters of those in the corn market are “Roundup Ready,” as Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer have dubbed them, genetically modified to be resistant to the widely used pesticide Roundup. That lets farmers apply the pesticide heavily—breeding pesticide-resistant weeds.
In the face of all this, McKenna is remarkably hopeful. Consumers are changing the direction of how food is produced. Perdue Farms Inc.’s chicken flock is now 95 percent antibiotic-free. In 2014, Chick-fil-A Inc. committed itself to relying on an antibiotic-free chicken supply within five years. Bell & Evans Holding LLC, a private poultry producer using such feed additives as oregano oil and fennel instead of antibiotics, processes about 60 million organic and non-organic birds annually. In France, the Label Rouge, a seal reserved for heritage chickens raised under strict space and outdoor-access requirements, has become very popular.
“Despite all the bad stuff that has happened, we got a consumer movement that is much more activist,” McKenna said in an interview. “It made it safe for companies to act the way Perdue and Chick-fil-A did.”
Genoways is less optimistic about the consumer’s ability to push agriculture in a healthier direction.
“It’s always easy for us to say that we want farming to be more sustainable, and in reality, farmers themselves want that,” he said. “But if we really want things to change, we need to elect people who know about this stuff, care about it, and make things better for the farmers and the consumer at the same time. Progress is really fragile, and a lot of times the negative impacts are long-lasting, while the improvements are short-lived.”
Corn has long been a staple of the North American diet, but soybeans are a relatively recent addition. U.S. farmers dedicated nearly 90 million acres(PDF) of land to planting soybeans in 2017, putting the crop just behind corn in dedicated acreage.
Keep reading...Show less
Inside the struggle for clean energy in Waukegan, Illinois.
A city once known for its PCB-laden harbor was ready for a comeback—until local politics got in the way.
It was May of 2016, and Eileen Shanley-Roberts was driving in her gray station wagon along Waukegan Harbor, flanked on her left side by industrial stacks and abandoned warehouses, and on her right by a massive, boat-lines harbor. "It looks like Mad Max," she said. "It is a totally post-apocalyptic industrial wasteland."
Waukegan, Illinois, is located on the shore of Lake Michigan, a short drive from Chicago. In the 1970s, it was discovered that hydraulic fluid containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB for short), toxic chemicals once used as lubricants, had leaked out of a boat motor manufacturing plant and contaminated much of the harbor area. At one point, the harbor had the highest concentration of PCBs anywhere in the world, and it took officials decades of cleanups to dredge the harbor and consolidate the waste. State officials still monitor PCB levels in the harbor fish annually.
Shanley-Roberts is the rector of Christ Episcopal, a mid-size church located in Waukegan, Illinois. She's also a member of Clean Power Lake County, a local environmental group. It's her work with the latter of these two organizations that had Shanley-Roberts worked up at the moment, her enthusiasm spilling out as we approached Lake Michigan.
She had just returned from a trip to Philadelphia where, together with other environmentalists, she barged uninvited into a shareholder meeting of NRG Energy, one of the largest energy companies in the country. The group went there to demand the company's CEO, Mauricio Gutierrez, come to visit Waukegan before July. The group's concerns center around a coal-fired power plant on Waukegan's shoreline, owned by NRG. Clean Power Lake County was demanding a more accurate timeline for when the plant would stop burning coal, which they claim is polluting the air and endangering residents. (Taken by surprise, Gutierrez agreed at the time to a visit, but in the months that followed, organizers were told by his staff that he was too busy. Nearly two years after the meeting, he would finally visit.) "It is impeding the development of the lakefront," Shanley-Roberts told me, pointing to the smoke stacks in the distance.
As the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s marched on, government agencies and businesses spent millions on the cleanups. Several times officials celebrated partial cleanups only to discover more contamination. In August of 1993, Environmental Protection Agency officials celebrated one particular cleanup with a yacht tour and a cake decorated with a map of the cleanup site. But eventually, as seemed to always be the case, they found more pollution. Years later, in February of 2010, then-Waukegan Mayor Robert Sabonjian took a sledgehammer to the site of the contamination, saying, "Next year, when you stand here, you'll see the whole lakefront for the first time in generations."
Finally, in 2014, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn declared the $150 million cleanup finished and the EPA removed the site from a list of heavily polluted sites in the Great Lakes region. At the time, newly elected Waukegan Mayor Wayne Motley declared the era of industrial pollution over and said the city was open to new development. "Years ago, Waukegan was supposed to be the Riviera of the Midwest," he told the Chicago Tribune, adding that, "We hope that that does come to pass. We look to build hotels along the lakefront, condominiums and … destination locations." All the while, the Waukegan energy plant kept on burning coal, buoying the economy and belching emissions into the air.
Motley was elected in 2013, and for much of his time in office, Clean Power Lake County had been pressuring him to request a transition plan from NRG Energy as part of the city's redevelopment.
The community of Waukegan has been debating for years what redevelopment of it's industrial lakefront, a one-time home to powerful factories that now sit abandoned, would look like, but the end of the cleanup made those discussions suddenly become far more pressing. More Industry? Condos? Parks? Casinos?
In July of 2015, the city won a $60,000 grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to hire a consulting firm, Edgewater Resources, to recommend strategies for redeveloping the harbor, which includes the coal plant on the Northside.
Edgewater Resources released its suggestions in 2015, calling for mixed-use redevelopment, new homes, restaurants, outdoor markets and cafes. The company suggested turning "Waukegan's former weakness (industrial contamination) into a strength by using the story of clean-up and reuse to create a uniquely sustainable new community on the waterfront."
The Edgewater consultants advised city officials to transition the plant away from burning coal, according to Alderman David Villalobos; that still has yet to happen. "When we are trying to sell Waukegan's future, we are trying to sell entertainment, attraction, a destination where people can go and be entertained and enjoy the waterfront," said Villalobos, who is also a member of the environmental group. "The coal plant hinders that story. It doesn't have a future with the overall ideas of what the lakefront can be."
Back in May of 2016, Donald Trump hadn't yet declared his candidacy to run for the highest office of the land with a pledge to revive coal. SThe Waukegan environmentalists wanted—as they still want—a long-term retirement plan for the coal plant, and advocated for policies that would develop energy production through wind and solar farms to support the workforce and tax base that would be lost if the coal plant closed. It's a part of the Sierra Club's national campaign to close coal-fired power plants, called Beyond Coal. So far, Motley's been non-committal about the future of the plant, saying it's in compliance and pollution is better than before. "When I was young I'd wake up in the morning and there'd be black soot all over our cars and our laundry but that was many, many years ago," he told Chicago Tonight.
At the time Shanley-Roberts was driving me around Waukegan, Motley was preparing for an upcoming re-election in a few months. First, Motley would face off against Alderman Sam Cunningham in the Democratic Primary, a battle of Waukegan's old guard. Both men are powerful leaders who have spent decades inside city's political machine.
Waukegan is notorious for a rough brand of politics, and as the election neared, Clean Power Lake County organizers decide they wanted an energy ally in the next mayor. The group put its weight behind Lisa May, an independent alderman with widespread grassroots support. She was preparing to face the winner of Motley v. Cunningham in the general election.
"Everyone has their own fiefdom. There is a lack of collaboration because everyone is trying to be the king of the hill. All of the political favoritism, the cronyism, the nepotism, the pay-to-play," May told me at one point. And in the end, it was a battle of politics, in which the environment was a mere chip to be played.
For most of the 20th century, coal-fired power plants provided electricity to around 50 percent of the country. But since 2005, coal's position at the top of the energy production pyramid has been steadily declining; coal power amounts to less than 34 percent of Americans' electricity. The country is flush with natural gas and coal's being outcompeted. And, in spite of any political promises, industry experts say coal won't make a comeback.
In 2012, in nearby Chicago, two coal plants were shuttered amid market and community pressure; likewise plants around the country continue to close. Others—including some in NRG's fleet—are being converted to burn gas. That's one reason environmentalists in Waukegan argued for the NRG plant's closure: They say it's no longer competitive with gas and even some renewables, a claim the company refutes.
Celeste Flores is an organizer with Clean Power Lake County who grew up in Waukegan. She's a central figure in the environmental group, which supported Lisa May, a local politician and a longtime ally of the group's efforts who entered the race in June of 2016 as an independent candidate. Clean Power Lake County's goal was an ambitious one: "We are going to turn this into a campaign issue," Flores declared proudly.
For Flores, it's about more than economics—it's about the health of the community and environment in Waukegan. Once a white, working-class suburb, Waukegan is now home to many immigrants from South and Central America. She is a first generation American; both her parents are from Mexico. She's worried about what she calls the little "Latino bubble" breathing in the plant's pollution. Within three miles of the site, 57 percent of people identify as Latino, and 78 percent as a minority of some kind. In these neighborhoods, 26,000 people live below the poverty line, according to federal census information.
Flores and the Sierra Club often point to the fact in the Chicagolands and beyond—from across the border north in Wisconsin, all the way south down Lake Michigan to Gary—nearly 350 die every year and almost 600 suffer heart attacks from exposure to emissions, according to a report by Boston's Clean Air Task Force. Other studies have shown that living near a coal plant increases risk of cancer and cardiac disease and is known to exacerbate asthma and other respiratory diseases. The Environmental Law and Policy Center conducted a study in 2010 that linked more than $80 million in health-related damages to emissions from the Waukegan plant.
David Gaier, an NRG company spokesperson, said that the company is doing what it can to make a plant that's necessary for energy production run with as little emissions as is possible. "What we've done is make the plant as clean as humanly possible," he said.
Responding to the charge that vulnerable populations are most affected by the emissions, Gaier said that's "simply a factor of socio-economics" that has no connection to the plant. He added that the company has spent a lot of money on upgrades. NRG shelled out $100 million in 2015 to install scrubbers and other environmental controls at the Waukegan plant.
"We made an announcement in August of 2014 that we would invest half a billion to cleanup and modernize the Illinois fleet," Gaier said. "We've done exactly what we've promised."
Gaier said that emissions from the Waukegan coal plant have steadily declined since 2010. That's true: The plant now emits 1.1 metric tons of CO2, a decrease of over 50 percent since 2010. But that drop in emissions is not entirely due to new tech: The plant is simple burning half as much coal as it did in 2013, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.
NRG Energy is one of America's biggest independent energy providers. In 2014, company CEO David Crane wrote a letter to shareholders arguing that the company needed to transition from brown to green—exactly what Waukegan organizers had asked for—and become a leader in clean energy nationally. But the board baulked on the vision and he was eventually fired. The company is now scaling back its clean energy portfolio in some places.
"We are in the business of running power plants," Gaier said. "So, we know what is economic. If the Waukegan plant was not economic, we would close it. It is economic."
The Sierra Club is providing training, on-the-ground organizers, and financial support to Clean Power Lake County's effort, as part of its national campaign to close as many coal-fired power plants as possible. "In Waukegan, the public health risk is significant," said Sierra Club Illinois' Christine Nannicelli. "Even with the latest pollution control upgrades that NRG has finally done, as required to under state and federal law, it is still the largest source of air and water pollution in the county."
The environmentalists forced clean energy into the limelight. But the group hasn't only been focused on shuttering the plant. They were a part of a coalition that lobbied the Illinois General Assembly to pass a massive energy bill in December of 2016 propped-up some aging nuclear plants while funneling resources into clean-energy initiatives. As a result, Illinois' renewable energy target remains at 25 percent of all electricity by 2025, but unlike before, that power must come from solar and wind installations in the state. The energy bill also includes other clean energy programs including for low-income communities like Waukegan.
The bill's passage was seen as a big win for Clean Power Lake County and its ilk. Some claimed it would create over 30,000 new jobs in the clean energy sector. The organizers work seemed to be paying off. They were even profiled on the Emmy Award-winning documentary series Years of Living Dangerously.
With the uncertain future of energy politics in Waukegan swirling, Clean Power Lake County was gearing for a fight.
In a February 2017 Democratic primary, Motley squared off against Sam Cunningham, who'd lost to Motley in a previous mayoral race by a handful of votes. The winner would face the environmentalists' choice, Lisa May, in the April general election. Heavily criticized for allegedly mishandling a city demolition project, Motley lost in February his primary bid to Cunningham (Motley maintains that he's recruited developers and brought in badly needed economic development), setting up a historic showdown in April against Lisa May. He had the chance to become the first African-American mayor of Waukegan; May, the first woman to hold that office.
Clean Power Lake County remained mostly on the sidelines during the primary, but sprang to action for the general election. On March 4th, the group sponsored a kickoff event for May's campaign. Dozens of people gathered at a local bar to hear a fiery speech from May.
After her speech at the bar, May sat at a table drinking a tall pint. She claimed the coal plant would be a key issue. "No one gave it much thought until Clean Power Lake County," she said. "I've lived by the coal plant my whole life. It's been a part of the fabric of Waukegan forever. Most of us never thought about it. Clean Power Lake County awakened this giant, and god bless them."
Cunningham, a longtime figure in Waukegan politics with deep ties, must walk a fine line. Motley was ousted amidst accusations of old-school politics, and Waukegan voters are focused on the future of the city's lakefront. An alderman for many years, Cunningham has publicly supported Clean Power Lake County—at least when it aligns with his own goals. "I will have a five or 10-year plan for the coal plant," he said at one point on the campaign trail. "I can make sure that happens."
By late March, the election had ran off the rails. Waukegan residents would find attack fliers tucked under the windshield wipers of their cars. One read: "Who really is Lisa May?" and featured a laundry list of insults. It accused her of being a pro-Trump conservative, a heavy (and false) charge in this democratic town. Another attack, a mailer issued by the Waukegan Democratic Organization, claimed sole May's economic ambition was shuttering the power plant. May responded in turn on her website, accusing Cunningham of colluding with the gambling industry.
A few days before the election, Villalobos spoke out against the political attacks on the floor of the City Council. "My mailbox has been getting inundated with the negative campaign going on," he said. "Alderman Cunningham and Alderman May are colleagues too, so to build a divisive campaign, it builds a gap between them."
Meanwhile, Clean Power Lake County organizers spread out across the city for get-out-the-vote, knocking on doors on May's behalf. The Sierra Club even shipped in two political heavyweights to support the group—its executive director Michael Brune and Jon Carson, the top person at Organizing for Action, the political group that sprung from Obama's campaign.
Still, Cunningham was plenty confident about his election prospects come election day. Stepping out of a car in front of his campaign headquarters, he said he and his campaign staffers were "feeling good about our plan." But weeks of hard campaigning had seen Cunningham's commitment to the environmentalists' cause waver. On election day, he'd nearly reversed his position: "We have so many other things that—I don't say are a higher priority—but that need to be addressed first," he said.
"What will always surface within any election, particularly in Waukegan, there will be outside influence that will merge into either campaign," Cunningham told me. "For some aspects of it, it was politics. For the most part, I like to think Lisa and myself stayed on focus on our voters."
Just a few miles across the city, May seemed exhausted. She'd spent her day out front of a local middle school, greeting voters as they walked in to cast a ballot..
Still, she acknowledged on that afternoon that local politics—what she calls the Waukegan Way—stole the microphone. "We haven't talked about the retiring of the coal plant as much as we'd hoped for," she said, "but that's OK, it's a part of our agenda." Shortly after, she was whisked away by an aide to another stop.
The early returns were tight, but by 10 p.m., it was clear Sam Cunningham would be the next mayor. In an emotional speech, May conceded.
It was an emotional loss for Clean Power Lake County members, for sure. The group spent a lot of political capital on May. But a few weeks later Flores said the group is learning about the peaks and valleys of community organizing. For Sam Cunningham's first city council meeting as mayor, the environmentalists showed up in mass. They pressed him on the plant, and the new mayor committed to organizing a committee to consider the future of the plant.
But, he also said he'd invite NRG Energy to be on the committee, which maintains that the plant will remain open and burning coal. Company spokesperson Gaier said the idea that the plant can be transitioned into some form of renewable energy is "not based in reality."
"You cannot transition a steam boiler powered by coal to wind or solar. It's different technologies. It's like comparing a car to a shoe," he said, adding that while the company looked at converting the plant to natural gas, it ultimately proved too costly. For now, at least.
This story was produced in partnership with Latino USA, with generous support from the Social Justice News Nexus at the Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications.
Keep reading...Show less
Timothy Neesam/flickr
How to kick the growth addiction.
Endless economic growth, long the rallying cry of the conventional paradigm, endangers our future. Ecological economist Tim Jackson explores the need to envision a post-growth economy.
Endless economic growth, long the rallying cry of the conventional paradigm, endangers our future. Ecological economist Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow, explores the need to envision a post-growth economy with Allen White, Senior Fellow at the Tellus Institute.
You are widely recognized as a leader in the field of post-growth economics, yet you started your career in in mathematics and philosophy. What drew you to your current focus?
Physics in the mid-1980s in the UK was a difficult and unfulfilling place. I found no joy in the academy, which was not interested in the ideas to which I was drawn. At that time, I also had a passion for playwriting, and the BBC picked up some of my work. After completing my PhD, I moved to London to make a living as a playwright.
It seemed like a good idea, at least until I received my first few paychecks. I was doing odd jobs to supplement my meager income when, in April 1986, the fourth reactor in Chernobyl melted down. That event galvanized my interest in the nexus of economics, technology, and the environment, and inspired me to make a visit to Greenpeace, where I expressed my skepticism of nuclear technologies and my desire to help develop and promote alternatives. I started working as a volunteer and then as a freelancer, analyzing the economics of renewable energy technologies. Before I knew it, without intention or design, I was an ecological economist. The world told me what it wanted me to do. And I haven’t looked back. After thirty years, I still write plays. But the visit to Greenpeace remains pivotal to my trajectory.
Has your playwriting affected your ecological ethos, and vice versa?
Yes, it has, and in interesting ways. In 1999, I wrote a 30-episode series that the BBC marketed as an environmental thriller. It explored the tension between economic development and ecological resilience. I used playwriting partly to give voice to the unspoken dimensions of my internal dialogue. In academia, evidence and rationality are paramount in drawing conclusions and advancing new theses about how the world works. It is a logical but heartless process, leaving no voice for emotion or instinct. Playwriting gave me a wonderful outlet for that.
One of my plays featured a hard-nosed, survival-of-the-fittest advocate of development at all costs. She was probably one of my most vivid characters, and served as my alter ego in an environmental drama informed by my academic training. This and other plays allowed me to use different characters to explore both sides of the economy-ecology nexus as well as issues such as the social psychology of consumption and the tension between altruism and selfishness. My plays and my professional endeavors have been mutually enriching and therapeutic, a marriage of heart and mind.
In your acclaimed book Prosperity Without Growth, you debunk the widely held belief that prosperity and economic growth are inseparable. Why is the conventional wisdom so wrong and so widespread?
When the UK Sustainable Development Commission, on which I served, first launched an inquiry into the relationship between prosperity and growth, we pitched it as “redefining prosperity.” I talked about how the potential conflict between a growth-based economy and a finite planet was a timely, indeed essential, issue for the government to address. This, however, was not warmly received. A Treasury official at one of the early meetings responded, “Now I see what sustainability means. It means going back to live in caves. And that’s what you’re all about, isn’t it?”
This exchange, coming early in the inquiry, exposed an almost visceral fear underlying the political response to any questioning of growth. In the course of our deliberations, I learned to accept the legitimacy of such fears. The economy as currently organized relies on growth to produce jobs and ensure financial stability. At the same time, our financial system, coupled with government spending and control of money, collectively serves as a lubricant to help achieve these goals.
The hegemony of the growth-based model often prevents people from questioning its core assumptions. In a very simplistic sense, the conventional wisdom argues that all we have depends on this growth-based system, so why would we want to rock the boat and set ourselves on a path back to cave-dwelling? However, as I argued early in the Commission’s inquiry, we need to openly acknowledge the dilemma in which we are trapped: If endless growth is essential to prosperity and, at the same time, leads to ecological destruction, what should we do? Working with the Commission reminded me of playwriting in some ways, like a drama in which the protagonists were basically saying, “Don’t touch growth; it’s sacrosanct. Keep your dirty mitts off it.”
The structural, possibly psychological, maybe even religious affinity for growth impedes our ability to think clearly about our situation. Throughout the inquiry, I sought to open a space—creative, intellectual, and political—to explore this dilemma whereby growth both drives prosperity and erodes the very preconditions for its sustainability. Revealing the contradiction between relentless expansion of income and throughput, on one hand, and ecological survival, on the other, lay at the center of my work.
Do you attribute the growth imperative to the global capitalist system?
Up to a point, yes. Take the example of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the work of countless individuals and meetings that concluded with the adoption of 17 goals and 169 specific targets. The eighth SDG links “decent work” and “economic growth,” a mirror of the conventional wisdom that dominates political discourse. Of course, the logic is understandable, as is the fear of a post-growth economy. Without growth, the argument goes, job creation will falter, leading to high unemployment and social instability, a recipe for ending the career of any politician.
Still, the durability of the argument is puzzling. The complex relationship between growth and jobs is mediated by labor productivity and technological advances. Nonetheless, politicians are mentally locked into a growth-jobs-prosperity trifecta, a mindset which itself is hostage to the dynamics of modern capitalism.
In order to get beyond this trap, we need to question the fundamental assumptions guiding modern capitalist societies. Addressing the inequalities that capitalism produces, the common argument goes, requires more of the very thing that gives rise to inequality in the first place. Let unbridled growth continue in order to raise all boats. Without it, the poor will not be lifted, and the government will have no money to spend. Capitalism is sacrosanct; it is the best way to achieve growth. This logic resides at the center of learned journals as well as mainstream policy solutions to avoid economic stagnation as measured by conventional metrics. It is a sociological phenomenon as much as an economic one.
You have criticized technological optimists who believe that we can achieve sustainability via deep cuts in emissions and resource use without rethinking economics. Why are such technical solutions insufficient?
I am fascinated by technological optimism, in part because, thirty years ago, I myself was somewhat of a technological optimist. I was looking at the damage of nuclear fission and saying, “Actually, we have better options than that. We have renewable technologies, there are efficiencies that we can create, and we have more resource-productive avenues for technological development. Why not pursue those?”
For my students, it is a very tempting perspective. In a recent cross-faculty undergraduate course, I paraphrased Ronald Reagan’s response to the classic Limits to Growth: “There are no limits to growth, because there are no limits to human ingenuity and creativity.” The students found this idea of the boundlessness of human creativity very attractive. I showed them a graph depicting the relationship between carbon intensity and economic growth and what it will take to achieve major strides in decarbonization. Their response? “Surely we have the technologies to meet our targets within a few short decades.” Indeed, this response was the same as mine many decades ago. But the difficulty then, as it is now, is that such a dramatic transition, even if economically and technologically plausible, cannot occur in a society in which the entrenched forces of free market capitalism and the inertia of dominant institutions are committed to obstructing the change required.
In my work on the Sustainable Development Commission, I came to realize that the relentless appetite of human beings for consumption coupled with the relentless appetite of capitalists for accumulation, is fueling the planetary emergency. Despite technological progress, the unholy alliance between human nature and institutional structure creates a dangerous lock-in that diminishes prospects for a livable future.
In your book, you identify four pillars of a post-growth economy—enterprise as service, work as participation, investment as commitment, and money as a social good. Explain what you mean by these factors and how they can help us envision a new economy.
These pillars flow in part from the so-called impossibility theorem, which posits that structures in the existing system coupled with certain aspects of human nature make a post-growth world implausible. So we are compelled to ask, where is the solution space? Can we imagine an economy in which enterprise provides outputs that enable people to flourish without destroying ecosystems; where work offers respect, motivation, and fulfillment to all; where investment is prudential in terms of securing long-term prosperity for all humanity; and where systems of borrowing, lending, and creating money are firmly rooted in long-term social value creation rather than in trading and speculation?
Two of those pillars have been present in responses to the environmental crisis for more than two decades, namely enterprise as service and the concept of green or clean investment. In the first case, “servicization” is the idea that the value of materials—chemicals, energy, forests—is not intrinsic to the materials themselves, but rather arises from the services they offer, e.g., cleaning, heating/lighting, and packaging/shelter. Reframing value in this way opens a broad array of pathways toward dematerialization. I was exposed to this concept very early on through the concept of energy services when I was working for the Stockholm Environment Institute and Friends of the Earth. I have always found it profoundly transformational, and the deeper I got into it, the more I realized that you could apply that concept to all sorts of things, including nutrition, health, and housing. I have watched the idea appear in product responsibility legislation, including take-back and product leasing. I use servicization to illustrate how a seemingly intractable lock-in (limitless growth in material throughput to satisfy consumption demands) can be overcome by reimagining fundamental assumptions about the economy and human behavior.
In the case of investment, clean technology is an obvious and urgent example. Here the core concept is that finance capital must be a servant to a higher purpose than maximizing returns on investment. During the financial crisis, when I was writing the original Sustainable Development Commission report, the concept of a Green New Deal emerged. The UK Prime Minister at the time, Gordon Brown, took the idea to Davos with the centerpiece being a massive investment in a low-carbon transition.
These two examples demonstrate ways to overcome seemingly intractable environmental problems associated with a growth-driven economics. They open new possibilities for developing alternative forms of enterprise, based on novel ownership structures and work practices, and for dismantling the notion that money is an end itself instead of a means of exchange for building prosperous societies. And from there, new forms of economic activity can be conceptualized in ways that refashion human activities to operate in harmony, rather than in conflict, with nature.
The building blocks of a new economy are within reach. While current trends may well be cause for despair, history is replete with structural changes that redefine economic relations—for better or for worse. My goal for the Commission and my work since has been to bring new thinking to the fore, to illuminate possibilities for decoupling growth and prosperity. This kind of re-envisioning can point to a coherent whole, thereby opening doors to structural change.
You have noted the alignment of the Andean concept of “Buen Vivir” with the tenets of post-growth economics. What is “Buen Vivir,” and what can we learn from it?
Rooted in indigenous beliefs, the concept of “Buen Vivir” promotes a way of living based on a mutually respectful, interdependent coexistence between humans and nature. It speaks to the key question of how we define well-being, a question I explored as part of my Commission work under the aegis of the Whitehall Well-Being Working Group. The premise of that group was that if you had a different goal, such as well-being rather than growth per se, you would see the measurement of prosperity and policies to achieve it in a different light. This concept emerged in the UK about at the same time as Buen Vivir became a national political project in Ecuador, although I was not aware of this concurrence.
Years of well-being research have provided important insights into the web of relationships between income and factors such as well-being, education, and life expectancy. This body of work has identified a kind of “sweet spot” that is almost exclusively occupied by Latin American nations, where countries have achieved high levels of well-being at relatively low income levels. Some mix of cultural, social, and political conditions has enabled these countries—many of them small- and middle-income—to decouple prosperity from growth. Chile, Costa Rica, and Cuba in particular come to mind. At this point, I see these examples as a fascinating experiment, but not necessarily replicable in larger countries and in other regions.
You have written that “the moment it stops being permissible to question the fundamental assumptions of an economic system that is patently dysfunctional is the moment political freedom ends and cultural repression begins.” Do you see signs of such repression in today’s political climate?
Yes, I do. What is going on today is largely attributable to the failure of growth-based capitalism. It is perverse to think that we can rescue ourselves from it by a return to a turbo-charged version of the same system, with a little bit of misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and populism added to the mix. I see this as deriving from a systems failure, the same failure I sought to articulate almost a decade ago.
There was a left-wing manifestation of populism in movements such as Occupy that emerged in response to the blatant reward of the architects of the financial crisis with bailout packages while social investments benefitting the poor were cut. Austerity was gradually ripping away the social infrastructure essential to the basic well-being of the poor and middle class, who had been economically and socially left behind. Health care, education, and job security all suffered, and people were forced to look for answers to their dispossession. Unfortunately, some of these people have turned to a right-wing manifestation of populism. In the US, such disillusioned individuals turned to a disingenuous, elitist billionaire. It is paradoxical in the extreme, but culpability lies in a failure to address the structural deficiencies in the existing system. We still struggle to open up debates and minds to the nature of the system, to question the political influences seeking to turbo-charge a failed capitalism that continues to spawn growing inequality. That, to me, is cultural repression—and we should fight against it. In some ways, it comes back to my primary purpose in fostering a post-growth dialogue: to create the political space for this conversation which I believe is one of the most important of our time.
How do you see the link between post-growth economics and what we call a Great Transition, a societal transformation rooted in well-being, solidarity, and ecological resilience?
I see the two as closely connected and mutually enriching. The Great Transition Initiative was created to provide a safe space for exploring global futures, an increasingly important exercise that needs protection during a period wherein hope and imagination are in short supply. As I have watched the evolution of Great Transition writing and dialogue, I am full of admiration for the safe space it has created. However, we must recognize that while this enclave of clear thinking might be very comforting and essential to us as a community, we must avoid too much comfort. We must explore unsafe spaces as well as convene within safe ones. We must bring our conversation well beyond the boundaries of our comfort zone, a challenge that takes hard work and commitment. But without such expansiveness, we will fail to deliver to the world what it most needs—a narrative of change that is powerful, persuasive, and plausible.
Keep reading...Show less
Feds shut down new drilling along Rover pipeline project.
In a letter sent Wednesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prohibited Texas-based Rover Pipeline from any new drilling activities until the company complies with new measures and receives authorization.
By Marion Renault
The Columbus Dispatch
Federal officials have ordered a halt to new drilling activity along the troubled Rover pipeline project.
In a letter sent Wednesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prohibited Texas-based Rover Pipeline from any new drilling activities until the company complies with new measures and receives authorization.
The federal order came as the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Rover Pipeline officials continue to square off over a series of environmental violations that have piled up since construction on the natural gas distribution project began in February.
“The federal action taken today is a step in the right direction,” Ohio EPA spokesman James Lee said.
In all, 18 incidents have been reported in 11 Ohio counties over the past eight weeks, including mud spills from drilling, stormwater pollution and open burning. The Ohio EPA says at least eight incidents violated state law, and many of the rest are under review.
The $4.2 billion underground pipeline route stretches from Washington County in southeastern Ohio to Defiance County in the northwest.
Rover Pipeline uses horizontal drilling to install pipelines below waterways, wetlands, culturally sensitive areas, congested neighborhoods and roads to minimize surface disturbance, a spokeswoman said Tuesday in an emailed statement.
The federal commission will allow some non-drilling activity to advance. To avoid boreholes from collapsing and prolonging environmental impacts, drilling projects already underway also can continue.
Previous
2/2HIDE CAPTION
A Richland County wetland affected by a Rover pipeline construction spill in April. [Photo courtesy of Ohio EPA]
1/2HIDE CAPTION
Sherry Miller has lived in Sherrodsville, in Carroll County, for 18 years, but all of the pipeline work adjacent to her property has her and her husband ready to move. She stands near her pet cemetery. [Tom Dodge/Dispatch]
2/2HIDE CAPTION
A Richland County wetland affected by a Rover pipeline construction spill in April. [Photo courtesy of Ohio EPA]
1/2HIDE CAPTION
Sherry Miller has lived in Sherrodsville, in Carroll County, for 18 years, but all of the pipeline work adjacent to her property has her and her husband ready to move. She stands near her pet cemetery. [Tom Dodge/Dispatch]
Next
In the letter, the federal commission also ordered Rover Pipeline to double the number of environmental inspectors to ensure compliance along the entire pipeline route.
Additionally, the commission instructed the company to immediately hire an independent third-party contractor to further analyze all drilling activity at the site where millions of gallons of mud spilled into a wetland near Tuscarawas River in Stark County.
Energy Transfer said in an email statement that it is working with the commission and the Ohio EPA to resolve the matter.
The company this week maintained that it has appropriately responded to the incidents, which spokeswoman Alexis Daniel described as “not an unusual occurrence.”
In an emailed statement Tuesday, Daniel said cleanup efforts were nearly finished and that the company still planned to begin operating the pipeline this year. It is not yet clear how Wednesday’s federal order will affect the project’s timeline.
Even before construction, the pipeline project faced a string of hiccups.
Rover pipeline incidents
Violations
March 30
Jefferson County: Open Burning
April 8
Tuscarawas County: 1,000-gallon spill that affected waterway
April 10
Belmont County: 600-gallon spill that affected waterway
April 13
Stark County: 1.5-million to 2-million gallon spill that affected waterway
April 14
Richland County: 50,000-gallon spill that affected waterway
April 22
Wayne County: 100- to 200-gallon spill that affected waterway
May 3
Harrison County: Direct discharge of muddy water to creek
May 7
Harrison County: 200-plus-gallon spill that affected waterway
No violation or pending review
April 9
Harrison County: Black water complaint, no observed violation
April 17 Jefferson County: Water release from old mine shaft, no violation
April 17
Harrison County: 200-gallon spill that did not affect waterway
May 2
Wood County: Reported as spill, but none seen
May 3
Monroe County: 5-gallon spill, land based
May 3
Wayne County: 5-gallon spill, land based
May 4
Ashland County: 60-gallon spill, land based
May 4
Wayne County: 50-gallon spill, land based
May 4
Wayne County: 20-gallon spill, land based, minimal impact
May 5
Carroll County: Mismanagement of scrap tires; referred to Division of Materials and Waste Management
Source: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
The project raced to clear trees before the federally protected Indiana brown bats began roosting and also drew backlash for demolishing a Leesville house that was under consideration for the National Register of Historic Places.
Ohio EPA case ongoing
On Friday, the Ohio EPA ordered parent company Energy Transfer to pay $431,000 for water and air pollution violations, as well as to submit plans to address potential future releases and restore impacted wetlands.
As the state agency pursues its enforcement case with the company, state inspectors will continue to assist with monitoring, response and cleanup. A majority of the agency’s around-the-clock emergency field staff members are dealing with Rover-related incidents, Lee said.
“All told, our frustration is really high. We don’t think they’re taking Ohio seriously,” Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler said on Monday.
The almost-weekly spills of bentonite — a natural clay used as a drilling lubricant — have smothered wildlife habitat and gunked up water infrastructure, said Heather Taylor-Miesle, executive director of the advocacy group Ohio Environmental Council.
Related content
Theodore Decker: Rover Pipeline gives Ohio the shaft
May 11, 2017
“It’s one thing to have an inadvertent spill every once in a while. At what point does it stop being inadvertent and just become reckless?” she said.
Of particular concern is an April spill that blanketed 6.5 acres of a protected wetland adjacent to the Tuscarawas River in northeast Ohio with several million gallons of bentonite.
Energy Transfer spokeswoman Daniel said the wetland would “see full restoration very soon.”
The Ohio EPA disagrees.
“The wetland likely will not recover to its previous condition for decades,” Lee said.
Ohio already has lost more than 90 percent of its wetlands.
“We’ve lost so many wetlands (that) the ones that do remain are so important,” said Mazeika Sullivan, an Ohio State University environment and natural resources professor. “It’s still considered a pollutant when it’s found in excess to what would be found in nature: Just because it’s nontoxic doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.”
‘Feels like we’re trapped’
As pushback to the pipeline’s construction escalated to the federal government this week, Sherry Miller couldn’t escape its presence in her own backyard.
Miller has lived in her Sherrodsville home in Carroll County for 18 years. The past three have been a battle to keep the Rover Pipeline from running through her property, she said.
Since February, bulldozers and cranes operate on three sides of her property starting at 6:30 a.m. Heavy machinery roars just a few feet from the small pasture, coop and yard where Miller’s three pigs, four goats, six dogs and dozens of chickens live.
“This company has proven to everyone that they just disregard everything ... and they do what they want to do,” she said.
Miller said she and her husband plan to abandon the dream home they spent years building.
“It feels like we’re trapped,” she said. “I try to tell myself it’ll be fine when these pipelines are done, when they’re underground and the construction crews leave.
“Then the other side of me says, ‘You’ve got to run.’”
mrenault@dispatch.com
@MarionRenault
Keep reading...Show less
Ohio EPA orders Rover pipeline builder to pay $431,000 for violations.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Energy Transfer, the company building the Rover natural gas distribution pipeline, to pay $431,000 for water and air pollution violations at various locations across the state.
By Marion Renault
The Columbus Dispatch
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Energy Transfer, the company building the Rover natural gas distribution pipeline, to pay $431,000 for water and air pollution violations at various locations across the state.
In its order issued Friday, OEPA also instructed Energy Transfer to submit plans to address potential future releases and restore impacted wetlands along the $4.2 billion underground pipeline route, which stretches from Washington County in southeastern Ohio to Defiance County in the northwest.
Work on the pipeline began in mid-February, and state officials say a total of 18 incidents involving mud spills from drilling, stormwater pollution and open burning at Rover pipeline construction sites have been reported between late March and Monday to the agency.
That includes a 200-gallon release of mud Monday in Harrison County. Other Rover pipeline incidents include a spill that impacted one village’s public water system and another that smothered a protected wetland with several million gallons of bentonite mud, a natural clay which is used as a drilling lubricant.
“All told, our frustration is really high. We don’t think they’re taking Ohio seriously,” said OEPA Director Craig Butler. “Normally when we have ... a series of events like this, companies respond with a whole lot of contrition and whole lot of commitment. We haven’t seen that. It’s pretty shocking.”
Alexis Daniel, an Energy Transfer spokeswoman, said Monday in an email statement that the “small number of inadvertent releases of ‘drilling mud’ during horizontal drilling in Ohio ... is not an unusual occurrence when executing directional drilling operations and is all permitted activity by (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).
“We do not believe that there will be any impact to the environment,” Daniel said, adding that the company — the same one behind the controversial Dakota Access pipeline — is managing the Rover pipeline situation in accordance with its federal- and state-approved contingency plan.
After a pair of wetlands spills in April, Energy Transfer still planned to finish the Rover project and begin operating the pipeline this year.
1/1HIDE CAPTION
Richland County Wetland impacted by spilled drilling fluids by Rover Pipeline on April 14, 2017. Credit Ohio EPA
“I believe and have told them that they’re rushing and building so quickly that they’re not paying attention to best management practice,” said Butler. “With oil and gas expanding in Ohio, we’ve seen a lot of pipeline activity. We’re not unaccustomed to seeing an occasional release.
“This is pretty systemic — that’s when the alarm bells go off in my head.”
Butler said the OEPA has referred the matter to the FERC for analysis and is exploring other legal options.
“It’s very concerning. These violations are a swath across our entire state,” said Cheryl Johncox, a Sierra Club organizer. “We have no faith in their ability to operate a pipeline safely.”
OEPA inspectors across the state will continue to assist with monitoring, response and cleanup, Butler said.
But Sierra Club and other environmental groups are calling for the state to go further and seek an immediate injunction to shut down the project.
“Either this company is completely irresponsible or they just don’t care,” said Johncox. “We want the construction halted.”
Butler said the state “is limited in that we cannot ask them to shut down their operations. It’s a story left unfinished.”
mrenault@dispatch.com
@MarionRenault
Keep reading...Show less
How Brexit is changing the lives of eight researchers.
When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, the decision triggered a period of intense soul-searching and uncertainty, not least for a research community with strong and long-standing financial and social links to the continent. Worries about science funding, residency rights and even about racist attacks took root in laboratories across the country.
How Brexit is changing the lives of eight researchers
The months between the Brexit vote and this week's triggering of Article 50 have been a turbulent time for scientists — and things show no sign of calming.
Alison Abbott, Ewen Callaway, Daniel Cressey, Elizabeth Gibney& Inga Vesper
29 March 2017
Article tools
PDF Rights & Permissions
Magnus Bergström/KAW Foundation
Swiss evolutionary biologist Simone Immler plans to continue her research in Britain.
When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, the decision triggered a period of intense soul-searching and uncertainty, not least for a research community with strong and long-standing financial and social links to the continent. Worries about science funding, residency rights and even about racist attacks took root in laboratories across the country.
But the vote also marked the beginning of a phoney war: little of substance could be done or said by the government until it triggered the previously obscure ‘Article 50’ clause, in the EU’s governing treaty, to start the official process of leaving (see 'A slow divorce'). On 29 March, Theresa May will do just that. Nature has spoken to eight people whose lives have been changed by the ‘leave’ vote, to see what their experiences tell us about how science will progress, post-Brexit.
Simone Immler: I’m moving to Britain, despite Brexit
Ian Chapman: I spend half of my time dealing with Brexit
Gerry Gilmore: I’m probably out of a job, but my concern is for the next generation
Jernej Ule: I may leave the UK — if I have to
Marino Zerial: Come to Germany, where funding is good
Anna Scaife: All we have left is uncertainty
Mike Galsworthy: Scientists need to offer their vision for Brexit
Dominic Shellard: Now is not the time for academics to feel powerless
I’m moving to Britain, despite Brexit
Simone Immler, evolutionary biologist, Uppsala University, Sweden
On 10 June last year, Immler interviewed for her dream job, a permanent position studying the evolution of sex, at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK. Immler, who is Swiss, and her Israeli husband both run labs at Uppsala University — but the UEA was dangling a pair of positions in front of them.
Then, two weeks later, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. “We said, ‘This can’t be true’,” Immler recalls. But after reassurance from friends in the United Kingdom that the nation would still be welcoming to immigrants, she and her husband, evolutionary biologist Alexei Maklakov, decided to make the leap. Their family moved to the United Kingdom this month.
Despite uncertainties over the outcome of Article 50 negotiations, Immler is taking a ‘glass-half-full’ perspective. She hopes that the United Kingdom will follow the example of Israel, a non-EU country that pays into funding bodies such as the European Research Council, from which both she and her husband receive support. She will maintain a lab in Uppsala for another year, so that graduate students and postdocs can continue their projects there. But as a former postdoc at the University of Sheffield, UK, she knows the benefits of free movement across Europe, and worries that she will struggle to draw graduate students and postdocs from a large pool of young scientists.
“I’m generally optimistic,” Immler says. “It would have to come to extreme measures for us to leave again. Life would have to become very difficult for non-Brits in Britain, and we’re still hopefully quite far from that.”
I spend half of my time dealing with Brexit
Ian Chapman, chief executive officer, Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Abingdon, UK
UK Atomic Energy Authority
The morning after the United Kingdom’s referendum on its membership in the EU, as other staff at the UK national laboratory for fusion-energy research walked around in a daze, Chapman was hastily making plans. His interview for a job to head the centre — which hosts the EU-funded Joint European Torus (JET) — was just days away, and the centre’s future was suddenly up in the air. “I’d made a load of preparations for things I wanted to say, and then I summarily had to rip them all up and start again,” he says.
Chapman got the job. He is now tasked with leading JET through the tumult and managing a skittish staff of around 550. The physicist estimates that at least half of his time is spent dealing with the impact of Brexit.
His main goal is to keep JET — a facility that holds the world record for fusion power — running beyond the end of its current contract in December 2018. Another is to maintain the United Kingdom’s involvement in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in southern France, for which JET is a test bed. Both tasks got harder in January, when the UK government announced that, as part of the country’s withdrawal from the EU, it would also pull out of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), the body that distributes EU fusion funding and manages the United Kingdom’s membership of ITER.
A slow divorce
The months after the UK vote to leave the European Union have been a rollercoaster for scientists.
23 June 2016 United Kingdom votes to leave the EU.
18 November House of Commons science select committee says that all EU researchers living in the United Kingdom should be given the right to stay.
21 November UK government promises extra £2 billion (US$2.5 billion) per year in research and development spending by 2020.
17 January 2017 Prime Minister Theresa May lists “science and innovation” as 1 of 12 priorities in Brexit negotiations.
24 January Supreme Court rules that Parliament must vote on Brexit.
26 January Physicists shocked when government says that leaving the EU will also mean leaving the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
16 March Bill allowing government to trigger Article 50 is passed.
29 March UK government is expected to trigger Article 50.
The decision wasn’t a complete surprise, says Chapman. But it came without warning or an obvious plan for how to maintain the United Kingdom’s fusion programme after the nation leaves Euratom. Chapman is now collecting data to help the government to work out the implications of various ways forward, which range from becoming an associate member of Euratom to funding an independent programme of research.
He also fills his hours by settling staff members’ nerves. Scientists at JET are preparing for a 2019 dress rehearsal of a fuel mix that ITER will eventually use, which should see JET break its own fusion record — but it may never happen. Routine negotiations to extend JET’s contract are on ice.
The uncertainty has not yet triggered a mass exodus, says Chapman, but some top-level staff members have accepted positions elsewhere, and candidates have rejected job offers, citing questions over JET’s future.
Despite these uncertainties, Chapman thinks that the government understands what is at stake and says that it has been responsive. But the United Kingdom’s fusion community needs a concrete signal from the government — and soon. “There’s a time window beyond which the disquiet will ratchet up, and we will start to haemorrhage capacity,” says Chapman. “That will be hugely damaging, for us as an organization and for the entire fusion community.”
I’m probably out of a job, but my concern is for the next generation
Gerry Gilmore, experimental philosopher, University of Cambridge, UK
Gerry Gilmore
Brexit is likely to put Gilmore out of one of his jobs. As scientific coordinator of Opticon, EU's Optical Infrared Coordination Network for Astronomy, he plans to hand control of the centre to an institution in an EU member state.
“It’s not even a question of us making that decision,” he says. “The UK government made the decision. Now, every grant coordinated from the UK has to leave.”
Opticon makes telescope time available to scientists across Europe and develops telescope technology, including real-time observation, electronic controls and superfast cameras. Because the consortium is funded by the European Union, Gilmore fears that the United Kingdom will lose access to the brain power that it needs to stay ahead in a competitive field.
Opticon also helps to set the long-term strategic agenda of telescope-based research and infrastructure across the EU, and Gilmore worries that the United Kingdom will soon have little say in such matters.
Gilmore’s European Research Council grant is also on the line as a result of Brexit, but his main concerns lie with young researchers. He fears that the next generation of UK scientists will have to shape their careers in a greatly diminished environment, as will European researchers who could lose access to UK universities.
Universities such as Cambridge also stand to lose funding if no deal granting them access to Horizon 2020, the European Commission’s research-funding programme, is negotiated. Opticon received €8.5 million (US$9.2 million) from the EU between 2013 and 2016 alone. Even if the UK government tops up national research funding to compensate for the loss of European programmes, Gilmore says, it can never replace the inspiration that British scientists gain from working with European colleagues.
“It’s simple — if the UK leaves the EU, its scientists leave,” he says. “It’s just an incredibly stupid decision.”
I may leave the UK — if I have to
Jernej Ule, molecular biologist, Francis Crick Institute, London
Marcus Rockoff/MPI-IE
Later this year, Ule’s laboratory will welcome a rare specimen — a Brit. The rest of his team hail from Switzerland, Spain, France, Italy, elsewhere in Europe and beyond, and Ule is a Slovenian citizen who has lived in the United Kingdom for a decade. “My identity is European, not Slovenian or English,” he says. “I don’t want to choose countries — it’s a bit too narrow for how I work.”
Last August, Ule’s group was among the first to move into the Francis Crick Institute, a gleaming new £700-million ($880-million) super-lab in central London. The researchers still feel a buzz when they arrive for work, but “when it comes to Brexit, the conversation turns a bit gloomy”, Ule says.
Brexit’s threat to freedom of movement is a hot topic in the lab, as is continued access to EU funding. Half of the group receives money from the European Research Council, and Ule fears the financial hit if the United Kingdom loses access to EU research funding after Brexit. But even if national funders make up the lost cash, Ule says, vying with Europe’s top researchers for EU grants also helps the lab to stay at the cutting edge. “National funding agencies don’t care if you’re the second best, as long as you’re the best in the UK,” he says.
Ule doesn’t plan to leave Britain, but says that could change if a ‘hard Brexit’ — which may put an end to EU citizens’ easy passage to and from the country — puts limits on the openness he feels his lab represents. “If it’s something that goes against my principles, then I would consider going elsewhere.”
Come to Germany, where funding is good
Marino Zerial, director, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
MPI-CBG
Brexit could be a boon for European research, at least in the short term, predicts Zerial. “The UK is becoming less attractive to do research, and so more people are going to consider countries in mainland Europe — particularly Germany, where the funding is so good.”
Germany’s research and development spending relative to its gross domestic product is among the highest in Europe.
Zerial expects to see an increase in applications to the large, international graduate school that is jointly run by his institute with the Technical University of Dresden, as well as in applications for postdoc and group-leader positions. “It’ll be to our benefit.”
But Brexit will hurt European science in the long run, he says. “When you lose an important piece of the European science landscape like the UK, it makes the European community weaker.”
He worries that there could be fewer funding opportunities in the United Kingdom for collaborative research with institutes in mainland Europe — and that remaining opportunities might face much more bureaucracy. “European Union funding, whatever its weaknesses, supports loads of projects, and the community treasures very much the collaborations involved,” he says.
All we have left is uncertainty
Anna Scaife, astrophysicist, University of Manchester, UK
SKA Organisation
“People treat you differently now,” says Scaife. Since the referendum, her European colleagues have been wary about starting new collaborations, owing to the uncertainty that now hangs over potential projects with UK citizens.
This cautiousness extends to both sides. Scaife and her colleagues are hesitant to participate in EU calls for proposals. She fears that she might become a liability to her colleagues’ applications to Horizon 2020, because of the extra risk of having a British institution on board. “That would be the worst thing — to see a project lose, and worry that you might be responsible,” she says.
Brexit is a constant topic of discussion in Scaife’s department, which works closely with many European organizations, including CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, and the Atacama Large Millimetre Array in Chile, an international facility run in large part by the European Southern Observatory. Without access to EU funding and the expertise of European colleagues, Scaife worries that the United Kingdom will be sidelined in future projects. “Our networks, our contacts will continue to be able to collaborate. All we have left is uncertainty.”
But what hurts Scaife most is seeing European colleagues being made to feel unwelcome in their UK home. Some areas of greater Manchester voted ‘leave’ by a large margin, and since the referendum, many international researchers have been subjected to anti-European and anti-immigrant abuse, she says. “These people contribute to the intellectual capital of our country, so it is hard to understand that hostility. And colleagues find it very distressing.”
For Scaife, the idea that extra spending from the UK government could make up for shortfalls in EU funding and the loss of the United Kingdom’s welcoming culture is preposterous. She says that collaboration is the lubricant that drives the nation’s ideas machine. Without access to the brightest people, and without creating a positive environment for European scientists, she warns, the United Kingdom is playing a dangerous game of isolationism.
Scientists need to offer their vision for Brexit
Mike Galsworthy, co-founder, Scientists for EU
Gavin Black Photography
On the night of the Brexit referendum, Galsworthy watched the results come in from the ‘Britain Stronger In Europe’ campaign war room. A former research-policy analyst, Galsworthy had co-founded Scientists for EU to ensure that scientists’ voices were prominent in campaign efforts to persuade Britons to vote ‘remain’. When he returned from a television interview around midnight, after the results had begun to swing pro-Brexit, the mood had grown decidedly grimmer, Galsworthy says — “and it stayed grimmer”.
Galsworthy, who works full time for Scientists for EU, was ready for the outcome. “My main concern was to document what this means for the UK science community,” he says. Within a few weeks, Scientists for EU had collected more than 400 complaints from the research community: infrastructure and hiring freezes, foreigners turning down jobs in the United Kingdom — “dozens of stories of impact”, Galsworthy says.
Despite being on the losing side of the referendum, Galsworthy considers that his campaign to give scientists a louder voice has been successful. Before the 2015 general election, science was not on the political agenda, he says. “Science is certainly on the political radar now.” The UK government has tried to address scientists’ concerns by announcing £2 billion ($2.5 billion) per year of new funding for research by 2020, and guaranteeing support of existing EU research grants, also up to 2020, that might be jeopardized by Brexit.
But more broadly, the government has tarnished the United Kingdom’s image in the eyes of many scientists in Britain and beyond, Galsworthy says. Researchers’ concerns were not alleviated when Prime Minister Theresa May said, in a recent speech, “If you believe you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere.”
“This was something that doubled down on the hurt of Brexit and the fracturing that it caused, and went straight to the identity of the science community,” says Galsworthy. “She was oblivious.”
With the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU still deeply uncertain, he now hopes to galvanize researchers to offer their own vision for what science in the United Kingdom and Europe should look like. Brexit, he maintains, is an existential threat to the region’s role as a global hub for science — “unless we can be smart enough to sidestep this”.
Now is not the time for academics to feel powerless
Dominic Shellard, vice-chancellor, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Andy Gotts
The morning after the UK voted to leave the EU, Shellard called a meeting at De Montfort University. A thousand people turned up at just a few hours’ notice.
“There were lots of very distressed people,” he says. “There were staff who were in tears. One Polish student asked me whether I could write him a letter. I said, ‘What do you need a letter for?’. He said ‘I’m going home to Poland this weekend and I need a letter to give to the border guards at Heathrow to let me back into the country.’”
Like many university vice-chancellors in the United Kingdom, Shellard does not want the nation to leave the EU. As in other UK universities, significant percentages of his staff, his students and his research funding come from the EU. In the wake of the vote, the university sector has been wracked with nerves about all three of these elements being damaged.
Whereas some vice-chancellors have taken to writing to newspapers or issuing pleas for protection, Shellard launched a campaign he called #LoveInternational, to reassure existing and potential staff and students from the EU, as well as to protect their residency rights.
His tactics included holding a 24-hour vigil in support of EU staff and students — and more broadly against intolerance globally. Shellard also toured Europe, talking to concerned people in Nicosia, Warsaw, Stockholm, Vilnius and Berlin.
Similar to many in academia, Shellard stresses the need for universities to obtain certainty on three key issues: the rights of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom, the status of EU students at UK universities, and European research funding. However, he doubts that universities will be at the top of the government’s priority list now that negotiations are starting.
His message to the academic community is this: instead of waiting for someone else to do something, “You can make a difference. You can engage. You mustn’t feel impotent.”
Nature 543, 600–601 (30 March 2017) doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21714
Related stories and links
From nature.com
Scientists should not resign themselves to Brexit
04 January 2017
UK government gives Brexit science funding guarantee
15 August 2016
E-mails show how UK physicists were dumped over Brexit
05 August 2016
Lessons from Brexit
25 July 2016
UK scientists in limbo after Brexit shock
28 June 2016
How scientists reacted to the Brexit
24 June 2016
Nature special: Brexit and science
Author information
Author details
Alison Abbott
Alison has been with Nature in Germany since 1992, covering European science policy and a variety of scientific topics, mostly in biology. She also contributes to the Books & Arts section. Alison gained her first degree and PhD, both in pharmacology, at the University of Leeds. After a period of pos…
Read more
Ewen Callaway
Ewen joined Nature in August 2010, after 2 years at New Scientist as Boston-based biomedical reporter. He attended the science-writing programme at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and earned a master’s degree in microbiology at the University of Washington. He spends his free time learning…
Read more
Daniel Cressey
Daniel joined Nature in 2007. He reports on chemistry, nanoscience, materials, business and anything else his editors need covering. Before working for Nature he worked for the general practitioners' newspaper Pulse and the UK science-policy publication Research Fortnight. He has degrees in chemistr…
Read more
Elizabeth Gibney
Inga Vesper
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
