We should be in national uproar at the Infrastructure Bill ... where's the protest?

Something inside me just snapped.

I have finally been driven to anger by George Monbiot's latest article. He writes:

"As you read this, a monster of a bill is passing smoothly and quietly through Britain's parliament. It's so big and complex, and covers so many topics, that it makes a mockery of democracy. ... Bills like this are good places for burying bad news, and this one is a graveyard.' (my emphasis)

I have known about the Infrastructure Bill for months but nobody else seems to. Nothing appears to be happening. It sailed through the House of Lords with only minor changes from criticism that still do not reflect what needs to be done. It ignores the general public's views. And as Monbiot asks, why is Labour not doing anything? I have been involved with actions against the Bill as part of my role in my recent internship.  So yes, there is some work against it, working behind the scenes. A few trends on Twitter, unpublicised petitions and comments on Guardian articles.

But the Infrastructure Bill is possibly the biggest threat to the environment of our time in the UK!

But I'm hearing more about the ban on plastic bags in a distant land than I am about the threat on my doorstep. There should be public unrest and protest, MPs should be quaking in their boots in the wave of public opinion. Here's why:

• The Bill poses a huge threat to Britain's wildlife. Firstly, it lists wild boar as 'not ordinarily resident' in the UK. At the last census there were 819 wild boar living in the Forest of Dean. Their population was first established in 2004. I fail to see how that's not 'ordinarily resident'. As a result, it would be even easier for wild boar to be culled or completely removed by government. The Bill also poses an issue for any reintroduced species that previously became extinct. So, for example, red kites and sea eagles that have been reintroduced (with thousands of pounds of charities' money and public support) could be removed. The beavers peacefully living in Devon would be gone too. It could also work to prevent any future reintroductions of previously resident species. What's worse, if other species (previously resident or not) begin to colonise in the UK naturally they would be controlled too. This is likely to happen with the effects of climate change as our weather gets warmer and other places become too warm.
• And this is the climate change that the government, using the Infrastructure Bill, will only make worse. This is with the move to allow fracking. Whilst there is an uproar that I welcome on fracking, I fear that this is not being linked with the deceivingly named Infrastructure Bill which is being discussed now. By allowing the digging up of people's homes and fuelling the search for oil (instead of spending these resources on clean energy dare I say) they are acting against the Climate Change Act 2008. Our government is happy to go against democratic principles and against the law apparently. Fracking has been banned in some places in the USA, a country not exactly known for its consideration for the environment. The science behind fracking is very negative, fracking is polluting and dangerous. It is suggested that Defra has a report on fracking made almost unreadable by the amount of censorship. MPs have not seen this report. Censorship in a democracy? What is going on? Homes and habitats will be destroyed and emissions increased only for short term gain. This should not be acceptable.
• The Infrastructure Bill could wreck what little remains of our forests. I know less about this then I should but here the Woodland Trust examines it in detail.

As someone who was working within an environmental NGO when the Infrastructure Bill emerged, I can tell you that it made NGOs fearful. They have the expertise to fight it but they do not have the public support and outcry to build upon. Not yet anyway, but there is time to bring a fight.

If you care about the environment, if you care about what happens to the people and wildlife in this country, if you care about democracy, I beg of you to join the fight to create the uproar about this that should be happening. Write to your local MPs, write to ministers, write to Defra, Facebook it, tweet it #BintheBill, petition them, protest, anything you can think of. Let us create an uproar worthy of our nature and our people.

Action

Here's some links to give you a head start:

• Parliament information on getting your views heard
• Join the Twitter trend
• Petition to exempt forests and public land from Infrastructure Bill
• Petition to protect native species that have been reintroduced to the UK
• Petition to remove fracking from the Infrastructure Bill
• Petition to end the fracking report censorship
• Join the lobby against the Infrastructure Bill on 14th January (a few days time!) (Thanks to @frackfree_eu for letting me know about this, you should also give them a follow)
• I am in the process of writing a letter to send out, watch this blog as I will post a copy of it to provide a guideline/some ideas if you're uncertain what to write.

UPDATE: The vote on the Infrastructure Bill went in favour of fracking. There were some promises on preventing fracking in national parks, and protected areas and preventing water contamination but David Cameron is trying to go back on those. It may have passed but the Bill is in the process of being amended by both houses. So pressure is still desperately needed to direct these amendments the right way and the above actions you can take still apply. Also, preventing the Conservatives from winning the election would prevent David Cameron going back on those promises ... Just sayin' 

Hunting: a complex issue for environmentalism

I'm on the fence with hunting (hah some of you readers may see a pun there). I've gone from hating it (I loved the program Farthing Wood as a young child and had a toy fox called Foxy Loxy that I took everywhere), to supporting it (I grew up riding ponies and being a member of the Pony Club, therefore, yes I have been fox hunting on several occasions), to being disgusted with my own hypocrisy as I have developed into a firm environmentalist/conservationist. But now I'm following a middle ground, and it is a No Man's Land where I feel increasingly uneasy.

A Fox Hunt Meet

I would just like to clarify that I am a true animal lover. They are my life. I would never seek or enjoy the death or cruelty towards any creature. I hate spiders and even then I refuse to harm them. When I heard about the first wolf seen in the Grand Canyon for decades that got shot recently, I was honestly heartbroken. When it fits no purpose, is only for sport or endangered animals are involved I am very opposed to it. And when I have been fox hunting in the past, it was not about killing a fox for me and, I think, for most people who enjoy fox hunting it is never about that. You take the prey away and 'fox hunting' still exists. It is about the challenge of racing and leaping across the countryside, putting all your trust in the wonderful creature beneath you. It's about that bond between man and animal. It is exhilarating fun with quite a bit of terror thrown in, which is what makes it so enjoyable and so different to anything else I have ever done. Horses absolutely love going hunting. The tradition, camaraderie and culture of it is also a great thing to be a part of. When I have been hunting not many foxes or other animals were killed. They can often be 8 hour long treks with maybe only one or two kills to show for it and each hunt is in a different location. When I went hunting I would hope against hope that we would not catch anything. I cannot speak for everyone who goes fox hunting but I never knew anyone who was outright bloodthirsty. Once at a hunt meet (I expect most people won't believe this but I swear its true) two foxes ran past the group of horses and hounds. You might expect instant angry cries for the kill with hounds setting upon them instantly, but that did not happen. They were quietly allowed on their way. I'm not trying to argue you into supporting fox hunting here, I'm just highlighting my personal experiences.

Bubble-Wrap Conservation

There is a serious issue with modern conservation. It is often about keeping the environment in a fixed state, making sure everything is protected and stifled. It is essentially bubble-wrapped. Oh, isn't everything so cute and cuddly? We must not harm it or change anything. That is not the conservation ideal I support. I support the kind of conservation that fuels the current debate on rewilding. I support the restoration of habitats and species where it's about allowing the whole ecosystem to adapt, evolve and ultimately flourish just as nature intended. This is allowing nature to be cruel. This is also a nature where humans are not locked out. There's no reason in my mind why hunting cannot be a part of that, as long as it is limited to sustainable levels that enhance, rather than destroy, ecosystems. However, it is important that endangered species are protected. Also, in a world where we have destroyed big predators (for example, lions used to roam freely in Europe, yes even in the UK) hunting is needed. Unchecked, herbivores are single-handedly destroying our once thriving landscapes. I, of course, would much prefer to reintroduce the big predators as an alternative but that's another debate for another day. After all, humans are omnivores, we evolved to be a predator and be a part of existing ecosystems. Yet, would the world be a better place if we were herbivores? Most probably.

A barren National Park, devoid of wildlife. Is this really what we want conservation to be?

Double Standards

There is much about debates on hunting that I struggle with. I know people who rage bitterly against fox hunting but are happy to tuck into a steak or see no problem with the fishing industry. The meat industry is highly unsustainable and abhorrent, livestock often lead lives of constant suffering and then these lives are cut short with cruelty. And do not get me started on the current fishing practices, there is little that makes me more angry. Commercial fishing destroys whole ecosystems within minutes and underwater life is subject to a wide range of cruelties. Fish being crushed to death under the weight of hundreds of others, hooks that are capable of ripping mouths, jaws and gills whilst the fish still live, seabirds drowning in nets, the list is endless (I share these nasty details only because many remain ignorant of the true realities of fishing). If we're talking about animal cruelty shouldn't how we eat be top of the list rather than focusing on the hunting of common species? At least the fox or deer or pheasant has a chance to get away and has in all likelihood lived a natural life of freedom until that point. And why is far much less fuss made about shooting or angling? Are they really any different? Perhaps, this is the cute and cuddly view coming in. Foxes are cute, fish are not. The argument is often made that we eat what we shoot or fish from these activities which makes it okay. But why does eating make it okay? Is that why unnecessary cruelty in the meat industry is seen as acceptable, simply because we are eating what we kill? I am possibly wrong, but it seems very easy and acceptable for people to pick and choose what they take a moral stand on and I have issue with that.  

Fish feel pain and stress just as we do. Source: AnimalAid Photo: Occupy for Animals

Hunting is Conservation

For right or wrong, hunting is actually a huge part of conservation. There are reserves in Africa solely established so that elites have a playground in which they can kill as many exotic beasts as they like. Conservation is their justification. I, of course, am horrified by this reality. In Europe, some reintroductions of the European Beaver have used the argument that they could be another species of game for hunters. This is sad, yet beaver populations can get excessive and need to be controlled. It's either reintroduce the beaver and allow hunting of it in the future, or not have them at all. In some places hunting of beavers has to be actively encouraged as nobody wants to kill them (essentially they are too easy a prey). Much conservation involves controlling/removing invasive species. There have been recent moves by government to cull grey squirrels in the UK. They are a species that does not belong here and have pushed the native red squirrel to near extinction. I am not necessarily suggesting this is how conservation should be done, but it is part of the reality. 

Some African lions are protected and bred just so they can be hunted.

Ban the Ban

Coming back to fox hunting, there is another huge issue I have. I once saw a protester at a hunt. She held a placard depicting the words "Keep the Ban". That is the least inspiring slogan if I ever saw one. The hunt carried on behind her sparing her little thought. Does no one see a huge irony here? The supposed 'ban' has not banned fox hunting! It simply laid down some easily bent rules with huge loopholes. This has resulted in the sport becoming more cruel, in my view. The rule is that hounds are not allowed to kill anything. But people? They can kill whatever they like! This means that the hounds find the foxes, flush them out for them to meet guns waiting for them. There is at least one hunt I know of that uses an eagle instead of hounds. Perhaps, some people find this less cruel. But when hounds are involved, the strongest, youngest and fitter foxes may be able to escape. The old, sick and injured are more likely to be caught. This is survival of the fittest. Hunting also spreads fox populations around instead of them gathering in select areas. Guns, however, kill everything; weak, strong, sick, healthy. They all die. A fox with a bullet that was not a fatal shot may suffer for a long time before it dies. At least that does not happen with hounds. In my view, either completely ban it or do not. There should not be this half-hearted middle ground that has achieved absolutely nothing. So you say ban it then, hurrah! But farmers will shoot foxes that kill their chickens. My family used to keep chickens as pets. I think we had around 10 at one point. Pretty much all of them, over several years, were killed by foxes. Foxes tend to kill several animals at once and then only take one to eat. If hunting is truly banned, hundreds of hounds and horses would probably have to be put down. Perhaps, not all the horses but certainly all the dogs. They are not suitable as pets. As a horse and dog lover that is heartbreaking for me. So I can understand why this is upsetting for people. 

So, What's the Answer?

Regarding fox hunting, I feel the debate is extremely polarised, almost to a nonsensical level. Rural vs. urban, rich vs. poor, horse-rider vs. non horse-rider, hunter vs. environmentalist, right vs. left, tradition vs. change, man vs. nature, pest control vs. conservation. Some of these battles appear to have little to do with the issue of animal cruelty. I also think there is quite a lack of understanding by one side of the other side's perspective and vice versa. Similarly, this is the key problem with debates on environmentalism. Two sides standing on completely different playing grounds and when that happens it is very difficult to find a compromise or a right answer. Oil magnates exist on a completely different level to Greenpeace, for example. They are aliens to each other.  With fox hunting, I can perhaps bridge that gap slightly in that I have some understanding of both sides. And look where it has left me? On the fence. I'm not sure it's an issue that can ever be resolved with a Yes/No vote. 

If pushed to make a decision on hunting more generally, I would say I am against hunting. If there was a magical book that told me how to be the perfect environmentalist/conservationist and Step 1 stated that 'you must oppose hunting', I would happily jump off that fence, the decision made for me. But it is not that simple. It is not an argument to support but sometimes it may be something that is necessary.

So is it possible for environmentalism to reconcile itself with hunting? For some, no, hunting is wrong. For others, yes, hunting and angling is part of conservation. For me? As an environmentalist, there are bigger fish to fry.




I would love to hear your thoughts!  

Reintroducing the Eurasian Lynx: Following EU Law and benefiting ecosystems

Ideas on reintroducing the Eurasian Lynx to the Scottish Highlands, in the UK, have become fairly prevalent in recent years. There have been various news articles exploring the idea and  George Monbiot has discussed it. (If you are interested in the environment, or just enjoy nature, and are not aware of George Monbiot, that needs to be rectified now!)

As interesting and varied as British wildlife is today, it is nothing to what it once was. Wild areas of the UK used to be home to several key big predators, the bear, the wolf and our subject for today, the Eurasian Lynx. The lynx, along with these other predators, died out a thousand years ago. It would be wonderful to support a struggling species and to see a big predator, a beautiful and shy creature, prowl on our lands once again.

I have very recently heard (on the grapevine, so on no account can I confirm the truth of this) that a reintroduction of Eurasian Lynx into Scotland may now actually be on the cards. I have previously explored this subject with fellow coursemates for a group project for one of my MSc modules and, therefore, will be very excited if this reintroduction project becomes a reality! Below I wish to highlight two of the most important reasons behind why the lynx should be reintroduced. It would follow conservation actions suggested by EU law, which governs all of the UK's treatment of wildlife and plants, and it could hugely benefit the struggling woodland of the Scottish Highlands.

Legislation

          Under the EU Habitats Directive (1992), countries that are members of the EU must take actions to ensure the protection and promotion of biodiversity in their country, through conservation methods. 'Biodiversity' refers to the variety of animal and plant species on Earth and the range of places (habitats) they live in. Scotland, as a member of the EU, must implement this legislation. One of the methods for encouraging conservation, suggested in the Directive, is the reintroduction of previously native species. Therefore, member states are obliged to consider bringing in species that previously lived in their country. The Eurasian Lynx is one of several large carnivorous mammals to have become extinct in the UK and this means it would be an ideal species to reintroduce. It would also be easier to reintroduce than other predators as it can easily live along side people, unlike bears or wolves. Also, the Eurasian lynx (latin name: lynx lynx) is listed in the Habitats Directive as one of the many species that need to be protected.  

      In Scotland, in accordance with the Habitats Directive, actions to encourage conservation are covered in the Nature Conservation Act 2004. This act was designed to carry out the aims suggested in the Habitats Directive. This states that the Scottish government has a ‘duty to further the conservation of biodiversity’. As a result, the reintroduction of the lynx could be key to fulfilling this duty.

     Ecology

The reintroduction of a large carnivore would help to rebalance damaged ecosystems in the Highlands. Scotland has suffered from large scale deforestation. There have also been major increases and a spread in woodland deer populations. In some areas, there are especially large numbers of roe deer, which is the lynx’s main source of prey. 

      These Scottish deer populations are a serious problem. Their grazing habits are very damaging, inflicting harm on forest, agriculture and areas of natural heritage. Due to excessive numbers, the deer no longer suit and work with their environment as they previously did in the past. High densities of roe deer are attracted to areas with young conifer plantations and naturally regenerating woodland. These are the areas most vulnerable to grazing damage. Thicket stage plantations are attractive for sika deer which can lead to negative impacts on the economy of the forestry industry. Young trees are irreversibly damaged by these habits.

      The return of a large predator would be effective in lowering these numbers to encourage a return to a balanced ecosystem. It has been shown, that even where the lynx is unable to significantly lower the deer population, the presence of lynx is still beneficial as it ensures changes in the behaviour of the deer. It is likely that the lynx would target the vulnerable areas of forest where the deer focus their grazing. With a large predator nearby, the deer become redistributed more evenly throughout the landscape and the lynx territories then grow to match this behaviour. Overall, continued predation would lead to eventual successful reduction in deer populations. 

      The remains of the lynx’s prey would also provide food for other species which would ensure other increases in biodiversity. 

Reintroducing lynx into Scotland would help the UK act in accordance with law, which it could be argued it is struggling to achieve currently, and it could bring back natural balance to the Highlands. I would love to see British biodiversity restored to its previous glory with all forms of megafauna existing here again, especially gray wolves and lynx. Other European countries are beginning to reintroduce these beautiful animals and I feel it is time the UK should be following that trend, and hopefully it finally will be. 

What do you think? It would be great to hear your views!

Brilliant Environmental Issue Ads ...very thought-provoking

A friend posted a link on Facebook to a page of 40 powerful social issue adverts. I have picked out the environmental ones and posted them here, I find them shocking and thought provoking, even for someone who already has vested interests in helping our environment and its biodiversity. I think they are really brilliant as they truly capture the inherent wrong of some of our actions and help to open our eyes to issues we tend not to think about in our everyday lives.

'Exploiting the ecosystem also threatens human lives.'

Deforestation

Save Paper. Save the Planet

Air Pollution is the silent killer, causing many deaths in the UK, especially London, from cancer, asthma and heart attacks.

I have posted a video about this in one of my previous posts (Feb 2013, 'We are killing nature... It is time we stopped'), please check it out. This happens on a small island where tons of plastic from the sea ends up settling here. The seagulls eat the plastic until it kills them, this photo shows just how much they consume. 

'Every 60 seconds a species dies out. Each minute counts. Each donation helps: BUND.net'

'Plastic bags KILL. Keep our oceans clean.'

'What goes around comes around. Keep the sea clean.'

When You See a Tuna, Think Panda. ...This is similar to a poster WWF did, with a tuna fish wearing a panda mask. Tuna are seriously under threat from unsustainable overfishing. As a terrestrial species we struggle to identify with them, and therefore tend to have little interest in their plight. Tuna are just as important as any other species on our planet. 

Trees are the lungs of the world 

A Victim of Climate Change

A heart-breaking image to see. A beautiful noble creature broken due to the affects of climate change.

We are responsible for this harrowing image. It's our responsibility to try to prevent it from happening again ...and again.

From The Guardian:

Dr Ian Stirling, now at Polar Bears International, said the bear had been in apparently good health when it was examined by scientists in April in southern Svalbard. It was found dead three months later in northern Svalbard, far from its normal range. Stirling said most of the fjords in Svalbard did not freeze normally last winter, driving the bear further afield in the hunt for food. From his lying position in death, Stirling said, the bear appears to simply have starved and died where he dropped, having been reduced to little more than skin and bone. Arctic sea ice fell to its lowest recorded level in 2012, which scientists say is due to global warming.

You can help the rainforests and orang-utans this Easter

Palm oil has become the most used vegetable oil globally. It is used in a wide range of products, from use in cooking to chocolate and shampoo. It is easy and cheap to grow and therefore has become a major source of income for companies in countries such as Indonesia. As a result even more rainforest is being cut down, not only is this contributing to global warming, it's destroying the homes of many endangered species. Once rainforest is cut down, it cannot be replaced so these animals are losing their homes forever, ultimately resulting in extinction. No amount of palm oil should be able to justify this.

Sir Terry Pratchett presents the plight of the noble orang-utan, due to palm oil and rainforest destruction, in the very moving and enlightening programme Facing Extinction. I highly recommend you watch it. It has motivated me to do something, so I hope it can motivate you too.

When buying chocolate this Easter, and in the future, consider buying chocolate that hasn't been made with palm oil. If the demand for palm oil isn't there further rainforest will not be cut down to make room for palm trees. The list below outlines chocolate that does contain palm oil. Go here for a list of palm oil free chocolate.

Let's work together to protect the rainforests to combat climate change and protect the beautiful orang-utan.

We are killing nature...It is time we stopped

If you only do one meaningful thing today, make sure it is to watch this video. Everyone should watch this. It is heartbreaking but it truly shows the horrors we have brought to this world, the damage and pain we are causing but cannot see. We cannot continue to be this blind....

(Watch on full screen because I can't get it to fit the page)



If this cannot make us open our eyes, then nothing will. It is time to change.

Vote for Nature ... Help Farmers to Protect Wildlife

The European Union has to decide every seven years what to spend its money on.  A large part of this budget goes towards agriculture. This is a key area for promoting sustainability and protecting biodiversity. However, only a very small amount ends up contributing to nature friendly farming methods that will help the countryside to remain full of wildlife. One of my greatest joys in life is horse riding through the country, surrounded by animals of all kinds. To think that these animals may be harmed or killed due to a lack of funding and understanding from farmers, many of which are keen to protect wildlife, is upsetting. These animals have a right to life in the countryside and a right to food and habitats as much as we do so we should be helping to protect them. This funding is also one of the few sources that protects nature conservation sites in the UK.

Due to the current economic climate securing funding is a challenge. The RSPB are fighting to save the funds that support farmers who work to make space for nature as well as food production. We have to work together with nature as, after all, we are part of it ourselves. Help the RSPB by signing the petition to tell David Cameron to fight for nature.





If we don't work to protect nature then who will?

Sign Petition

What's so wrong with fighting for a better, greener world?

Another picture post to get you thinking :)

Consumerism isn't making us any happier so why do we do it, especially when it's so harmful?

Just because we can't see the damage we're doing, doesn't mean it isn't there

The issue with trying to 'fix' environmental problems with technology

Why it is important to have a mult-disciplinary approach, particularly with regards to the environment.

This is what I don't understand about climate change deniers

Is the environment a national security issue? Surely fighting for clean energy and sustainability  makes more sense than fighting each other over fossil fuels?

I just find this one amusing!

So what do YOU think about these?

It's time we opened our eyes...

Here are some interesting images that really got me thinking, I hope they get you thinking too.

Consumerism - are we not just needlessly damaging our world, its people and it animals with this way of thinking?

We can make a difference if we work together

The U.S.A. leads the way in many aspects of Western culture, let's not follow its extreme consumerism

I know which one I'd rather be, how about you?

Perhaps it's time to work with nature and not against it before time runs out?

Can we not see the foolishness ad selfishness of our arguments against clean power? I personally think wind turbines are very attractive and quite serene in their own way

It's time we stopped being so naive, wouldn't you agree? 

How can one species cause so much destruction? 

The Climate Paradox. I already knew some of the issues this video depicts. However, I was mainly shocked and horrified. How are these actions justified in any way?

The Climate Paradox from Watson Institute on Vimeo.

And, finally, a wonderful quote that I discovered on the internet which I think people need to remember (no idea who came up with, please let me know if you do!)

"We often forget that WE ARE NATURE. Nature is not something separate from us. So when we say we have lost our connection with nature, we've lost our connection with ourselves."

KillTheTrade

WWF are doing a campaign to stop poaching and wildlife trade of some of the most unique, beautiful, charismatic and intelligent animals in the world.

So far this year around 430 rhinos have been killed in South Africa. Thousands of elephants are killed just for their ivory. This could never be a justifiable reason for them to die. There are only as little as 3,200 wild tigers left. These are unacceptable facts that are only going to get worse if government action isn't taken. Please show your support and help WWF.

Show your support on Twitter or Facebook here

Find out more here

Save The Arctic

Please help Greenpeace in their current campaign Save The Arctic. The Arctic is vital to our planet and us. It will be even more difficult to combat climate change without it. On August 28th 2012, a new record for the amount of Arctic ice melt was announced and it has beaten the record three weeks before sea ice will reach its minimum extent this year. This shows that climate change is occurring for more rapidly than climate scientists predicted. This is possibly one of the most significant events of our lifetime and yet it was barely mentioned in the news and people continue to deny global warming is a serious problem. Just as George Monbiot writes (I have used information from his article in this post, link below at the bottom of this post) the date 28/08/2012 "marks the day when the world went raving mad."

There are 3 crucial reasons why we need to save the Arctic:



1.It is the home to many amazing species that exist in few other places in the world. It is also home for many people. We have no right to take this home from them just because we refuse to stop our reliance on fossil fuels.

2. Melting Arctic sea ice is going to increase the already rising sea level. Islands have already been lost, such as the Locahara Island that used to be near India. Low lying land will continue to be lost, for example Bangladesh, displacing thousands of people and species with it. These are major problems that the world's future governments will have to deal with. And those most affected are likely to be those with the least resources to manage the disaster.

3. The Arctic's survival is vital in helping us slow down global warming. The ice reflects the sun's light and sends it back into space. Where there is land without ice, far less light is reflected and it is instead caught by greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and contributes to heating the world's atmosphere. The more ice that melts the less sunlight is reflected back and the more heat is retained and therefore the more ice melts. Basically it's a downward spiral that we need to stop if we have any hope of combating further climate change.

Find out more about the campaign on the website Save The Arctic and please sign the petition, help us try to make a difference.

Also, check out George Monbiot's interesting article 'The Day the World went Mad'.