When Zack
Polanski was interviewed by The Guardian about defence policy on January 20th,
he confirmed that the first responsibility of any government was to keep its
people safe. He noted that a government defence review last year concluded that:
“the single biggest national security threat is actually the climate crisis”.
His
timing,as so often, was perfect given that on the same day that same government
published a National Security Assessment titled Global biodiversity loss,
ecosystem collapse and national
security. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf
Although the
report hasn’t been given much publicity and didn’t tell the full story (see here
https://youtu.be/59DZiPdsOc8?si=gD5wrBFjD36rXOZm ) the message is both
important and alarming. Drawing on substantial recent scientific research it
warns that the climate and nature crisis poses a big threat to our national
security.
“Nature is a
foundation of national security. Biodiversity loss is putting at risk the
ecosystem services on which human societies depend, including water, food,
clean air and critical resources. The impacts will range from crop failures,
intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict
within and between states, political instability, and erosion of global
economic prosperity. Increasingly scarce natural resources will become the
focus of greater competition between state and non-state actors, exacerbating
existing conflicts, starting new ones and threatening global security and
prosperity “.
A stark
warning is given that “if current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every
critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse” some as soon as 2030.
Crucially, it will become ever more challenging “to produce sufficient food
sustainably”. Unless the necessary action is taken to reduce the current rates
of biodiversity loss “every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”.
Whilst
recognising the global nature of the challenge the report accepts the
responsibility of national governments to take their own actions, eg forest
protection and restoration. It also holds on to the commitment to limiting
global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade, a forlorn hope but supposedly a sign
of good intentions.
According to
the BBC the report, which it says was put together by the Joint Intelligence Committee,
should have been published in October but was delayed due to fears that it could
be considered too negative. Perhaps it didn’t want publication before the
recent COP in Brazil, at which it failed to provide financial support for the
host country’s ‘Tropical Forests Forever Facility’ set up to prevent the
destruction of the Amazon rain forest, despite a promise by Ed Miliband that
they would?
The Amazon
rain forest is one of six regions across the globe which the report identifies
as being “critical for UK national security given the likelihood and impact of their collapse”.
Achieving Circularity, using a Natural Model. lou stothard
It’s generally agreed, at least on the green left, that capitalist (growth) economic systems prove, by their very existence, to be self-defeating;- that you cannot have infinite growth n a finite planet, and that genuine-only forms of sustainability in the way human activity is carried on, will increasingly be required for our planet to support its systems, its species and its integrity. It’s a case not so much of whether or not there is a Planet B, but rather, of why anyone should expect to find one.
With this in mind, I believe that, as a species, we have no greater claim to our existence than do any other parts of the natural world, such as our climatic and oceanic systems, and the evolved species which make life possible. All of them, both uniquely and collectively, require each other inasmuch as they naturally evolve, not by manipulation, but by their own regulation.
Respecting that, I believe that our own social and economic lives need circularity, economic modus operandi/ vivendi based on natural systems.
Recognising that the manipulations of the world in which we live are so profound that it will be hard (though not quite impossible) to put the genie back in the bottle, such notional world systems will need to be achieved by universal step-changes and the confidence and well-being they generate.
It has always been my belief, therefore, that we need an international, unified and muscular response to the deep devastation that is being wreaked on our planet, largely by the military industrial complex, by its warmongering and imperial adventures, by corporate theft, by the exhaustion and extraction of our natural resources, and by an abandonment of the values (significantly in the Western Hemisphere) that serve our selves instead of the planet, so rapid is its progress. Circularity must be our rebuttal to all of these. Nothing less will do.
To achieve this sufficiency, in a world whose species and natural resources are protected, and fairly distributed amongst human populations without deprivation or destruction to the rest of the planet, we will need internationally binding legislation, an Environmental Protection Treaty, under which nations can disadvantage or debar those who appropriate, buy, sell, manufacture or handle resources, goods and services which degrade the environment. All economic activity, under this treaty, should be regulated, and achieved by circularity, and no advantage should be sought by any nation, or body over another.
Instead, resources could, and should be equitably traded and distributed across the world by mutual exchange. Those countries who refuse to sign up to the treaty would be excluded from its benefits by default, or expected to pay a penalty to an international UNED fund which protects signatories under the same clauses with equal force, protecting and remediating the damage they have caused to the environment.
Such damage must not be tradeable against benefits, in the way that biodiversity net gain is, since this trading system allows what need not be degraded in the first place. Individual countries should exercise, within legal parameters, and within the spirit of the Treaty, the same powers to detain, tax and otherwise place penalties on offenders by virtue of this UNED Treaty, which has been formulated under the Polluter Pays Principle, enshrined by the Aarhus Convention.
So, for example, a Government would tax or ban environmental degradation, or fine offenders (the ban on planned obsolescence being legislated by France is an example). The currency or resource recouped, would, by force of the UNED, be returned to the public purse and reinvested in restoration/ sustainable-only development such as fully-funded and comprehensive public transport and an agrarian economy, apprenticeships in farming and stewarding our countryside, reforestation (especially of our native broadleaf species) and in small social manufacturing incentives for small and medium sized farming businesses, providers of renewable-only energy, and localised, circular economic activity.
The provisions of an Environmental Protection Treaty should ensure the absolute protection of trees and other vegetation, of water bodies, of the atmosphere, for example.
So, it must be used to stop the production and use of plastic, and chemical agents at both ends of the cycle of production and consumption. There is no such thing as disposal where such products are concerned. The same is true of nuclear fuels and arms. Circularity can, and must be employed to recycle, restore and protect resources. So, for example, housing/accommodation needs can, and must all be met by the restoration and repurposing of pre-existing buildings and properties, by the re-use of materials and by the care and maintenance of pre-existent public utilities. Running such economies would provide the means to replace and refurbish what has been exhausted by growth economic activity such as the rebuilding of transport units, reforestation of broadleaf species and increase in the longevity of consumer units.
Reforestation is one of the most productive forms of investment to be made, since it delivers immense economic and health benefits at virtually nil cost. The role of trees in storing and filtering water, improving soils, defending against flooding, land degradation and slippage, manufacturing oxygen and storing carbon, as well as mitigating air, noise and light pollution and improving neighbourhoods has been roughly calculated by the London Tree Officer’s Association, using CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees)
Likewise, publicly owned and maintained public transport would operate without waste. Exhausted products such as human and animal waste, could themselves be converted for use as building materials and in order to supply energy needs, which would be much reduced by the step-change from growth economies to circular and sufficient economic models.
In this scenario, there would be no waste and no surplus, no profit and no loss, only a balancing, an equilibrium, stasis and sufficiency instead of growth, over-consumption depletion and waste.
Do you
have a Liberal Democrat MP? Write to them.
Sir Ed Davey’s
call for the UK
to develop a fully independent nuclear weapons system represents a dangerous
and irresponsible shift in Liberal Democrat policy. It risks committing Britain
to a hugely expensive expansion of its nuclear arsenal, which would cost
hundreds of billions of pounds that would inevitably come at the expense of
public services, climate action, and efforts to tackle poverty and inequality.
At a time of rising global tensions, this is a move away from de-escalation and
disarmament.
As a party with a strong tradition of supporting multilateral disarmament and
international law, the Liberal Democrats must not go down this path without
challenge. That is why it is so important that Liberal Democrat MPs hear
directly from their own constituents.By writing to your Liberal Democrat MP,
you can send a clear message that this proposal is unacceptable and must be
opposed.
With acknowledgements to CND
NUREMBERG
“You want
to know why it [fascism] happened here? People let it happen. Because they
didn’t stand up until it was too late.”
As the US
Army psychiatrist (Rami Malek) later warns:
“They
[the Nazis] are not unique people. There are people like the Nazis in every
country in the world today.… And if you think the next time it happens we’re
going to recognize it because they’re wearing scary uniforms, you’re out of
your damn mind.”
The
Trump-Farage ‘Window’
Those
lessons couldn’t be more timely. Over the past decade, Trump and Farage –
following far-right populist ideas propounded by US fascist Steve Bannon – have
succeeded in widening the ‘Overton Window’
regarding what can apparently be said in ‘mainstream’ political
discourse.
In the UK, Nigel
Farage has been helped in this by those media outlets who constantly give him
prime TV slots. Creeping fascist Farage has used such opportunities to dismiss
his racist and antisemitic bullying – whilst a pupil at the very expensive
Dulwich College – as “playground banter.” While Refuk Deputy Leader Richard
Tice tried to pass off the repeated kicking of a former girlfriend by a Refuk
MP as merely “a teenage indiscretion.”
After having
seen Nuremberg, it’s important to say – and say out loud and clear –
that every genocide starts with trying to persuade people that certain ‘others’
aren't fully human. Not to condemn such comments in the strongest terms is
effectively to accept a little more contempt and cruelty, and to dehumanise a
group of people. Not to speak out, and not to protest, is to allow ourselves to
become a little less human too.
Silence in
such circumstances is NOT neutral – merely shrugging our shoulders and passing
on is to become part of such hateful and dangerous politics. And that’s
precisely one of the most important lessons of Nuremberg. Not to learn
that lesson is not only to betray all those exterminated by the Nazis – it’s
also to betray the ethnic groups and refugees demonised today by the likes of
Trump, Farage and ‘Tommy Robinson’.
Is
non-violent resistance enough?
Another
issue arising from the film – though not directly – is the whole question of
how to push back and defeat such hateful politics. Recent events raise the
question of whether non-violent resistance is enough. Or when it ceases to be
enough.
History has
shown many times that non-violence can be an effective tactic in the arsenal of
self-defence. But, unfortunately, history doesn’t always ‘allow’ non-violence
as a practical and effective option. This is most apparent during extreme state
violence and genocide – and, increasingly today, with ecocide. In such
circumstances, shouldn’t resisters at least consider ‘full-spectrum
resistance’, with all methods on the table?
There are
strong arguments in favour of non-violence – but what about those arguments
relating to self-defence? Roger Hallam (XR and Just Stop Oil) continues
to defend Non Violent Direct Action against any kind of violent self-defence: https://www.planetcritical.com/roger-hallam/?ref=planet-critical-newsletter
But is he
right, in all instances? One problematic issue is that he seems to assume
violent resistance will always result in more deaths than passive resistance.
It could be argued that a violent resistance on the part of Jewish people – and
other Germans – in the late 1930s might have prevented the Holocaust of the
1940s. Similarly, a strong international response in defence of the
democratically-elected Spanish government after 1936 might have prevented the
Second World War – and its 70 million deaths.
Having just
seen Nuremberg, another question which arises is – knowing what we know
now – should we have fought WW2? Or should we have continued with appeasement?
But, if we should have fought WW2, should we have begun fighting earlier?
Resistance
Regardless
of the non-violent vs. self-defence resistance question, resistance is
what matters when it comes to opposing – and hopefully stopping – movements
that are morally-wrong. Whilst individual resistance is an important starting
point, to be effective – i.e., successful – resistance has to be done in the
company of others. Most people tend to stand on the sidelines – but are
influenced by groups of committed individuals. The initial resistance of a
small minority can then spread like a virus, soon spreading to millions. That’s
why revolutions can gain momentum so quickly.
Towards the
end of the film ‘Spartacus’, when Crassus offers not to crucify the
captured rebels if they’ll just identify which one is Spartacus – and they ALL
stand up to say: “I’m Spartacus!” Courage is contagious – again,
as Spartacus (more or less!) says: “When one person says ‘No!’, Rome begins
to tremble. If tens of thousands say ‘No!’, Rome falls!”
An important
example of how standing ‘Together’ can defeat creeping fascism in the UK was
the recent by-election in Gorton and Denton (Manchester): where the Refuk
candidate was convincingly beaten by the Green’s Hannah Spencer, with Your
Party NOT standing a candidate AND, instead, actually endorsing the Green Party
candidate.
It's that
kind of a Red-Green United Front Against Fascism that we need across all the
nations of the UK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Todd is a member
of Anti-Capitalist Resistance’s Council, and of Unite Against Fascism; and is
an ecosocialist/ environmental and anti-fascist activist. He is the author of Revolutions
1789-1917 (CUP); Trotsky: The Passionate Revolutionary
(Pen & Sword); Ecosocialism Not Extinction (Resistance Books); Che
Guevara: The Romantic Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); For the
Earth to Live: The Case for Ecosocialism (Resistance Books); and the
forthcoming Robespierre: The Virtuous Revolutionary (Pen &
Sword)
The
Return of the Mask – Superflu and Covid
Covid-19
persists, but the world fails to confront it. Joseph Healy takes on the pandemic.
Originally
from Antticapitalist Resistance 09 Jan 2026
The
appearance of a new flu strain and the resulting health pronouncements and
media coverage leading up to Christmas led to a resurgence of mask-wearing
among the public. Those of us who have been Covid-19 cautious over the last few
years were joined by a new group, shaken out of complacency by the emergence of
the so-called “superflu,” and the public was suddenly reminded of the dangers
of infection.
This was
visible on public transport and even at a concert I attended before Xmas, where
I am usually the lone masker. Interestingly, public health messaging, together
with widespread press coverage, turned things around, and therein lies the rub:
it’s precisely because of the lack of that coverage that the public continues
to believe that Covid-19 is not serious or has gone away.
As Professor
Christina Pagel (formerly of Independent Sage) pointed out, it was not a
superflu but simply normal flu that arrived earlier than the normal flu season
and hit the NHS and the public unaware. It is true that the virus mutated over
the summer and that vaccine manufacturers were unable to produce a tailored
vaccine in time, but that was not the main cause of the impact.
There were
two main reasons the flu hit so hard. One was the low take-up of the vaccine,
especially among the vulnerable, but also incredibly among NHS staff, where
take-up was lower than in 2019 before the pandemic. All of this demonstrates
the insidious influence of the anti-vaxxers, which we now witness playing out
horrendously in Robert Kennedy’s US, where scientists have been sacked and
access to many vaccines is curtailed – the latest being vaccines against
meningitis in children.
However,
with hospitals clogged with flu patients and the resulting media storm, there
was a significant increase in flu vaccine uptake, to the point that many
pharmacies ran out of stock. Indeed, it was the higher-than-average take-up
which contributed (along with increased masking) to the tapering off of the
wave as Christmas approached, although many experts said Christmas and New Year
socialising may lead to a further wave.
The other
issue neglected by the media, as part of its deliberate ignoring of Covid-19,
is that many scientists have speculated, and there are scientific papers
supporting the hypothesis that many immune systems have been dysregulated by
Covid-19 (a vascular disease), leaving people more open to serious infections
such as flu, particularly after an increased number of Covid-19 infections.
This may be the real explanation for superflu: not that the flu itself was
stronger, but that the ability to resist it had declined, leading to more
serious pneumonia and other consequences.
Scientific
research has repeatedly shown that increased Covid-19 infections impair T8
immune cells, which explains why many complain of constant illness. With many
people experiencing 2 or 3 Covid-19 infections per year, Long Covid-19 is not
the only danger; the immune system is also so damaged that we are open to a
range of new infections, and any resulting illness takes longer to recover.
The
unwillingness to confront the reality of Covid-19 leads to attempts to blame
illness on everything else. The lesson of the superflu period this winter is
that if the same effort and awareness were put into protecting the public from
Covid-19, we would all be in a better place. The flu panic brought many people
to greater awareness of their health and how to protect it through masking and
other measures, but the real cuckoo in the nest remains Covid-19.
Its impact
will continue to plague society, even as public health appears to have
abandoned the field and the media ignores it.
Let us
compare the brick and the stone,
let us
study the consequences of throwing:
The hurt
could be small or it could be fatal,
beget
repercussions out of proportion,
the
choice of the stone may be foolish or random.
Let us
look at the throwing of a tufa stone brick,
from the
bones of a city, calcium rich.
Let us
consider it wrapped in a message.
It need
not be a threat, it may not need a window.
Will we
still throw bricks in a place without windows?
Where
everything is thrown into an endless aperture.
All those
with windows are too far to reach.
Everything
is distant when you are hungry and weak.
Should we
wrap it in reports that reach only stone-deaf?
Should we
wrap it in remedies are there any left?
Could we
wrap it in recipes, call out the chefs?
To serve
Mah’amoul without any dates.
For
serving Makloubeh minus the eggplants.
Serve a
child with no face with an empty plate.
There are
no depths to the will for survival,
take back
this cruel harvest, our rot has grown voices,
even
divided the worms are still turning.
Wrap it
in a dust-jacket – The Flowers of Palestine.
That we
do not forget all the names and their beauty.
For the
martyr-fed roses of Rafah are creeping,
Damask
and Hebron over scorched land are calling,
over the
dried, unidentified, north, to the poppies.
After To See in the Dark Brickbat, 2025, by Claire Fontaine at Mimosa
House
Sue Johns
WINTER
OVER GAZA
This is
winter plus-
Not just
crap weather
But
destruction
Homelessness,
genocide
We paid 800
dollars for a leaky tent
Don’t talk
to me about Christmas
Decorated
trees, baby Jesus
Everything
is shit-
We wait in
vain for wise men to arrive
One day we
will eat cake
On Gaza
beach again
Strangers
won’t need to say
I’m sorry
about your 23 cousins
Your
sister-in-law, your nephew
Your brother
Winter over
Gaza will be welcomed
We will
embrace the cold
Hug
strangers without fear
The moon
will rise smiling
I will buy a
box of biros
Write a poem
every day
Until the
tears run dry
Dedicated
to Palestinian novelist and playwright Ahmed Masoud
Patric
Cunnane
