Lethal Heating: 06/13/20

13/06/2020

(AU) Climate Change Policy: The Missing Middle

Pursuit: University of Melbourne - Scott Hamilton | Stuart Kells

In Australia, the COVID crisis has brought about bipartisanship and consensus, which are also urgently needed for effective climate change policy

Getty Images

Authors

Scott Hamilton is a Strategic Advisory Panel Member, Australian-German Energy Transition Hub, University of Melbourne
Stuart Kells is Adjunct Professor, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University

The COVID crisis has brought about remarkable bipartisanship and consensus.

Australia’s new National Cabinet – which brings together the prime minister with all state and territory premiers and chief ministers – has been applauded from all sides of the political divide for acting on scientific evidence and taking decisive action.

But we urgently need to see the same shift towards the missing middle ground on climate policy in Australia.

A good first step would be to put climate and energy policy on the National Cabinet agenda.

Climate and energy policy should be on the new National Cabinet’s agenda. Picture: Getty Images

A Liberal history of climate policy

Australia’s Liberal Party has a history of taking positive steps in environmental policy.

In 1970, the Liberal Government in Victoria established the first Environment Protection Authority in Australia – only the second worldwide after the USA – which brought disparate pieces of environment law under one umbrella.

A Liberal government in Victoria also introduced the landfill levy, which now provides around $A500 million pledged into the Sustainability Fund which aims to help industry reduce and recycle waste.

And, in the lead-up to the 2006 Victorian state election, the then Liberal Opposition leader Ted Baillieu put forward a container deposit scheme policy, which aimed to make recycling easier outside the home, and which is now being implemented Australia-wide.

Australia’s state Liberal governments have been more progressive when compared to the federal government. Picture: Getty Images

Steps towards progress

When it comes to protecting the environment and responding to climate change, Australia’s state Liberal governments have been conspicuously progressive compared to their federal counterparts.

At a meeting of Energy Ministers as part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in December 2018, the then New South Wales (NSW) Climate Change and Energy Minister, Don Harwin, expressed a wish to “end the climate wars” and reinstate an emissions obligation in national energy policy.

In June 2019, at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Matt Kean, NSW’s Minister for Energy and Environment took a calculated swipe at the Commonwealth Government over climate policy.

“We need a national framework that properly integrates climate and energy policy. That’s why the NSW Government still supports the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) and will continue to support a national mechanism that integrates climate and energy policy.”

Minister Kean is leading the push for the NSW Government to meet its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, saying: “No responsible leader can accept the contribution made by science but then ignore the risk posed by climate change. Climate wars have not delivered for the people of NSW. We cannot afford to let these ideological indulgences continue.”

Hold tight, we’re in for nasty weather

In the 1980s, Australian newspapers began to report the concerns of international scientists that the “enhanced greenhouse effect” was a real phenomenon caused by human activities.

There’s been a progressive slowdown in Australia’s main political parties’ reform agendas in major environmental policy. Picture: Getty Images

In 1988, an Australian Financial Review (AFR) story with the headline ‘Government officials start to feel the climate of change’ reported:

“…yesterday, Queensland’s [Country Party] Water Resources Minister, Mr Don Neal, was at the forefront of the discussion.

“He pointed out the possible economic impact on Governments from increased flooding, more severe droughts, the effect on agricultural and pastoral industries and the need to redefine engineering design codes for roads, bridges, railways, dams and even housing.

“There is no longer any serious doubt that climate will change more rapidly over the next 50 years than ever before in natural history.”

Also in 1988, the Chair of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and former NSW Labor Premier Neville Wran, told the AFR that “the Federal government may have to bring in laws to control the greenhouse effect… legislation would be required to either recognise international agreements on controlling the greenhouse effect or to regulate the phenomenon in Australia.”

In 1989, NSW Liberal Premier Nick Greiner considered investing in clean energy technologies and mandating energy efficiency in new homes. He also expressed his support for the Toronto target of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005.

Australia urgently needs more bipartisan action to address climate change. Picture: Getty Images

Burning down the house

Twenty years on, Australia is now reaping some benefit from those decisions.

But as bushfires rage and droughts bite, we urgently need more bipartisan action to address climate change.

Rob Stokes MP, NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, was part of the team steering the current NSW Liberal Government led by premier Gladys Berejiklian to power earlier this year.

According to him, “the potted history of environmental policy development in NSW shows both sides of politics have made significant strides.

“In fact, from the 1960s to the 1990s, we almost took it in turns, depending on who was in power, to progress the country’s understanding of environmental issues and transition the economy into more sustainable forms of growth and jobs.

“It is then extraordinarily and tragically ironic that we have seen a progressive slowdown in both parties’ reform agenda in major environmental policy, which correlates almost directly to the Greens’ rise to political prominence.

“To suggest that the Liberal party isn’t concerned with the environment is to ignore a crucial principle of conservatism, of Edmund Burke’s ‘eternal society’ philosophy, which says we have a contract among the dead, living and unborn.

Australia continues to pump out emissions that can last in the atmosphere for 200 years. Picture: Getty Images

“In NSW, we have a target of net zero emissions by 2050, with an interim target of lowering greenhouse gases by 35 per cent by 2030.

“That throws down the gauntlet to all parties and politicians.”

Setting a deadline

Every year, Australia continues to pump out emissions that can last in the atmosphere for 200 years. We are imposing an impossible burden on future generations.

All parties and political leaders need to put down their weapons and pick-up the climate policy gauntlet.

The National Cabinet should set a deadline for the energy reform taskforce to write a new climate policy that Australia can take to the postponed 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) – one that will win support of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister has put a September 2020 deadline for his reforms of industrial relations in Australia.

The same deadline should also apply for the new climate and energy policy.

If that deadline isn’t met, States and Territories should write their own bipartisan climate policy and go forward on climate change action without the Commonwealth. We already have consensus among the States and Territories on meeting the implicit Paris goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, aims to to agree coordinated action to tackle climate change. Picture: Getty Images

Once the States and Territories decide to continue without the Commonwealth and take their new policy to COP26, they can start implementing an ‘eternal society’ climate policy that delivers climate justice for the dead, the living and the unborn.

That is a viable path, but a better solution would be for our politicians to find the same consensus that has created such productive bipartisanship in the face of COVID-19.

Links

(AU) The Convergence Of Human Rights Law And Environmental And Climate Change Litigation In Australia

Johnson Winter & Slattery - Samantha Daly | Lara Douvartzidis

Australia

In the past 18 months the Australian legal landscape has seen novel challenges to planning decisions in the area of greenhouse gas impacts of projects and the resulting impact on climate change under State and Federal planning and environmental laws.

Now, as of May 2020, we are for the first time in Australia seeing a legal challenge in respect of the approval of a coal mine due in part to provisions in human rights law.

Background

On 7 March 2019 the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA) was assented to, and it commenced as of 1 January 2020. It was the third State or territory in Australia to do so: Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

The HRA amended many existing statutes as well as introduce specific provisions largely taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Under s 3 of the HRA, the main objects of the HRA are to:

protect and promote human rights;
help build a culture in the Queensland public sector that respects and promotes human rights; and
help promote a dialogue about the nature, meaning and scope of human rights.

The method in which the objects of the HRA are achieved are diverse, and include requiring public entities to act and make decisions in a way compatible with human rights and, citing section 4(g) “conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court [of Queensland] to declare that a statutory provision can not be interpreted in a way compatible with human rights”.

Interestingly, an action cannot be brought using the HRA alone – rather, applicants must piggyback or attach a human rights challenge under the HRA to an additional court action brought under a separate statute.

Compatibility itself means that a decision or provision either does not limit a human right, or to the extent that it does limit a human right, it is only to the extent that is reasonable and demonstratively justifiable in accordance with s 13 of the HRA.

-------

Youth Verdict v Waratah Coal – a test case

The Galilee Coal Project is owned by Waratah Coal and is located in central Queensland. Waratah Coal holds a number of mining tenements in the region. The proposal involves the construction of two open coal pits, underground coal mines, as well as the necessary infrastructure and railways for the transport of the coal.

Youth Action as well as The Bimblebox Alliance have filed objections to the Mining Lease and Environment Authority for the Galilee Coal Project with the Land Court of Queensland. Both groups are being represented by the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO).

Youth Verdict is a coalition of young people (under the age of 30) in Queensland with a mission to use the law to fight for youth justice.

For the first time since the HRA commenced, Youth Action and The Bimblebox Alliance have alleged a breach of human rights under the HRA, challenging the proposed Galilee Coal Project due to climate change concerns. It is the first time in Australian history that a coal mine faces a legal challenge on human rights grounds.

While the documents have not yet been made publically available, six human rights grounds have been reported to be relied on, including:

Right to life (Section 16)
Right to be free from discrimination (informed by s 75)
Right to property (Section 24)
Right to privacy (Section 25)
Rights of the child (Section 26)
Cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Section 28)

Under international human rights law, the right to life is non-derogable, meaning that states cannot suspend or legislate out of the protection this right affords individuals, even in times of emergency. The right to life is therefore considered ‘absolute’.

Globally, strategic litigation has increasingly utilised this particular right in order to challenge activities that would increase the risks associated with climate change, including using the ‘carbon budget’ approach that emissions from coal contributes to climate change and therefore threaten the life of the individual due to the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, bushfires, hurricanes etc.

It is expected that the EDO will dovetail off the recent decision of Preston CJ in Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 (Rocky Hill) in further expanding the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development, including intergenerational equity and the carbon budget approach. Click here for an explanation of Rocky Hill as published in February 2019.

While there is no right or entitlement to damages under the HRA, if successful, the EDO will likely seek to have the Queensland Land Court recommend that the Mining Lease and Environmental Approval for the Galilee Coal Project be refused. Even if the Court does that, it will ultimately be up to the Minister to act on the recommendation.

Interestingly around the same time that the Youth Verdict proceedings were commenced in Queensland, the EDO on behalf of Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action brought a civil enforcement proceeding in NSW to compel the NSW EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of the authority’s statutory role, which includes a requirement for the authority to prepare policies to protect the environment.

Whilst this is not a case brought under human rights legislation, it demonstrates the growing number of litigation options being utilised by environmental groups in respect of greenhouse gas impacts and climate change in Australia.

-------

Human rights strategic litigation internationally

While the use of judicial intervention in the area of human rights seems novel in Australia, it is a tried and tested mechanism for those in other countries such as the Council of Europe, the Netherlands, the United States, Colombia, Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom.

Council of Europe: In September 2008 the European Court of Human Rights held in Budeayeva and Others v Russia[1] that Russia had violated the right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights) by failing to implement land planning and emergency relief policies in response to a mud-slide which killed eight people, because the state had failed to comply with their positive obligations to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to their lives against the natural hazards.

The Netherlands: On 20 December 2019 the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a 2015 District Court ruling in Urgenda Foundation v Kingdom of the Netherlands,[2] setting a new standard for government accountability in the Netherlands, In this case, the Dutch courts considered the duty of care exercisable to protect citizens from climate-related harm.

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the Dutch Government had a positive obligation to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels).

We note that Urgenda was used by Preston CJ in Rocky Hill in finding the causal link between greenhouse gases and climate change, which led to the endorsement of the ‘carbon budget’ approach: see [521] – [524] of Rocky Hill.

Since the Urgenda decision was upheld, national energy laws have been passed in the Netherlands in December 2019 and climate and energy policies introduced, forcing energy companies to close different coal plants as part of the Dutch strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions 49% from 1990 levels by 2030.

United States: In November 2016 the District Court of Oregon handed down Juliana et al. v. United States of America[3], a case largely cited as introducing climate change class actions in North America.

In this case, Our Children’s Trust, consisting of 21 child plaintiffs, represented by climatologist James Hansen, argued that US Government’s actions have caused climate change and violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and public trust resources.

The plaintiffs argued that the United States Government’s previous actions have caused climate change and violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and public trust resources, because “a stable climate system is a prerequisite for enjoying many rights, including the right to life.”[4]

In January 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a 2:1 decision, with the majority holding that “it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan”.[5]

While the appellate court accepted the expert evidence adduced in this case, the majority denied standing to the plaintiffs.

In a dissenting opinion, her Honour Judge Staton found instead that a suit of this kind “cannot alone halt climate change [but that] does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.”[6] The plaintiffs may yet appeal this decision.

Colombia: In early 2018, a group of 25 plaintiffs (all under the age of 30) launched a raft of challenges against the Colombian government, municipalities and corporations, citing a denial of their right to life, health, food, water and a healthy environment under the Colombian Constitution (the likes of which had been rewritten in 1993).

In a decision dated 5 April 2018, Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente[7], the Supreme Court of Colombia acknowledged the adverse effects of climate change on human rights, which are dependent on the existence of a healthy environment and ecosystem (in particular, the Amazon), and ruled that states must prevent significant environmental harm.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Colombia ordered that the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development introduce short, medium and long term government responses within four months of the date of judgment, including the introduction of laws to offset the rate of deforestation in the Amazon.

These responses must be in consultation with all relevant parties (including affected communities and persons seeking to participate in this process). The plan specifically has to consider the effects of climate change and early warnings of the Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM). Further orders included that an ‘Intergenerational Pact’ be drafted for the life of the Colombian rainforest.

Canada: In November 2018, ENvironnement JEUnesse (ENJEU) commenced a class action lawsuit against the government on behalf of all Québec residents ages 35 or younger. ENJEU is a Montreal-based non-profit organization committed to environmental advocacy.

The challenge drew inspiration from Urgenda Foundation in being a creature of action against the government and using public law to launch human rights, constitutional and administrative law arguments.

In addition to arguing that the Canadian Government had failed to set appropriate emission targets, challenges were also brought under section 7 (life, liberty and security of person) and section 15 (the right to equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

In this case, the Québec Superior Court found that while the issues under sections 7 and 15 were justiciable, a class action was ‘not the appropriate vehicle’ for an action of this kind because the declaration of a class (e.g. limiting it to individuals under 35) may be arbitrary. ENJEU may yet appeal this decision.

EU: On 8 May 2019 the European Court of Justice handed down the decision of Carvalho and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.[8]

The group, consisting of Carvalho and others, sought the declaration that the legislative package regarding greenhouse gas emissions (including Directive (EU) 2018/410 and Decision (EU) 2015/1814) was unlawful, insofar as it permits the emission (between 2021 and 2030) of a quantity of greenhouse gases corresponding to 80% of 1990 levels in 2021, decreasing to 60% of 1990 levels in 2030.[9]

The General Court found that the applicants had not established that the contested provisions of the legislative package infringe their fundamental rights, nor did the action distinguished them individually from all other natural or legal persons concerned by those provisions.

The General Court ultimately dismissed the challenge on the grounds of admissibility. An interlocutory application appealing the decision of the General Court is currently in progress.[10]

United Kingdom: On 27 February 2020 the Court of Appeal hand down its decision in R v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 214.

Lord Justice Lindblom, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Haddon-Cave (per Curiam) found that the Secretary of State for Transport, when it published the Airports National Policy Standard (ANPS), had not taken into account its own firm policy commitments on climate change under the Paris Agreement, an error that fatally rendered the ANPS unlawful.

The British Government’s planned expansion of Heathrow Airport was therefore unlawful in its proposed form.

In addition to the strategic litigation above, in 2015 an additional mandate for a new Special Rapporteur was issued by the Office of the High Commission of Human Rights, based in Geneva. The purpose of this new ‘Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment’ (SR), was issued a mandate to:

examine the human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment;
promote best practices of the use of human rights in environmental policymaking;
identify challenges and obstacles to the full realisation of human rights relating to the enjoyment of a healthy environment; and
conduct country visits and respond to human rights violations.

The SR is responsible for issuing thematic reports, which are subsequently utilised by the judiciary and lawmakers the world over, including:

The Right to a healthy and sustainable environment (A/73/188) which outlines obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Safe climate (A/74/161) which illustrates the effects of the current global climate, and the role for human rights in catalysing action to address climate change.

-------

Way forward

Following the commencement of the HRA, it is likely that there will be an increase in strategic litigation in Queensland, both against the government and against corporations, focussed on actions to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change including on human rights grounds.

More broadly, it may spur further litigation in Victoria and the ACT in the implementation and utilisation of human rights provisions to seek to set aside projects or actions that are said to be incompatible with human rights obligations.

After a big year for climate change litigation in Australia in 2019 (especially following the Rocky Hill decision), energy and resources companies should keep a close eye on the challenge launched by Youth Action against Waratah Coal as the case has the potential to further test the legal landscape in the area of climate change and expand legal obligations in keeping with international human rights law jurisprudence.

Links

The African Country That Inspired More And More Countries To Plant Billions Of Trees

World Economic Forum - Peter Beech

India once one of Asia's chief deforestation culprits, is leading the way in re-greening efforts, by planting 66m trees in 12 hours. Image: REUTERS/Danish Ismail

Key Points

In the past 50 years, Ethiopia has lost 98% of its forested areas.
To mediate this, it planted an estimated 350 million trees in just a single day in 2019.
Their success has inspired other countries, like Pakistan, India and China to do the same.
Annually, 18 million hectares of forest are lost around the world, but projects like these go a long way to change that.

When it comes to deforestation, human society is in clear need of root-and-branch reform.

Around 18 million hectares of forest are lost worldwide each year – an area roughly the size of Panama. Destruction of tropical rainforest, which stores 210 gigatons of carbon, is the second biggest global contributor to climate change.

Meanwhile at the current rate, up to 28,000 species will go extinct in the next 25 years thanks to deforestation.But developing countries from Ethiopia to Senegal to Pakistan are busy demonstrating how humanity can turn over a new leaf.

Ethiopia – which has lost 98% of its forested areas in the last 50 years – smashed records in July 2019 when it planted an estimated 350 million trees in a single day.

Pakistan’s Billion-Tree Tsunami project added 350,000 hectares of trees to the country’s landscape in just three years, while India and China – at one time Asia’s chief deforestation culprits – are leading the way in re-greening efforts, with the former planting 66m trees in 12 hours in 2017 and the latter deploying its army to plant an Ireland-sized area of forest in 2018.

Ethiopia planted approximately 350 million trees in one day in 2019. Image: Trees ForTheFuture/ Flickr

The benefits of tree planting

The eye-catching headlines and eye-popping figures are all well and good, but what roles do these acres upon acres of extra forest play in the fight against climate change? The answer is: many. Beside sequestering carbon, boosting biodiversity and pollinators, promoting rainfall and providing firewood, fodder, jobs and shelter, forests are increasingly being recognised for the crucial infrastructure tasks they perform.

Forests protect priceless arable land from extreme weather events, prevent soil erosion, bind soil together to prevent flash floods, provide natural water filtration systems and even, in snowy areas far from east Africa, shield human settlements from avalanches. Increasingly, this ‘green infrastructure’ is expected to play a vital role in climate change adaptation and as humanity works to meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Senegal’s mangrove swamps are a case in point. The west African nation is home to some 185,000 hectares of mangrove swamps, but around 45,000 have been lost since the 1970s due to drought and deforestation. To combat this, a public- and private-funded effort run by the environment agency Océanium has seen 100,000 people from 350 villages perform a mass-planting scheme which has replaced a total of 79 million trees.

Fully functioning mangrove ecosystems are vital to Senegal’s health – both economic and otherwise. Not only will the extra tidal forest provide a habitat for a cornucopia of species, and sequester 500,000 tonnes of carbon over 20 years, it will maintain water quality, prevent soil erosion and protect crucial arable land from floods and high winds.

Ethiopia has ambitious plans to tackle the effects of deforestation and climate change. Image: GCA

Ecosystem-based adaptation

Natural infrastructure responses to climate change – known as ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) – are increasingly finding favour as an alternative to human-engineered ‘grey’ infrastructure, which relies on concrete and steel, two of the most environmentally destructive materials on the planet.

For example, reforestation programmes in Colombia’s 15 major water basins are helping improve filtration and water quality to guarantee clean water for 22 million people. Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam has also improved its natural flood defences through mangrove replantation, while constructed wetlands in Texas naturally filter 95 million gallons of wastewater per day.

In the Mexican city of Xalapa, rampant urban expansion has eaten away at the mountainous cloud forest that provides 30% of the city’s water supply, as well as vital support for the local economy, while the loss of trees has made the slopes more prone to landslides and flooding. In its bid to reverse the damage, Xalapa has become the first Latin-American city to make systematic use of EbA. The CityAdapt project is working to restore and protect large areas of the city’s cloud forest – opting for green protection in place of costly concrete flood defences.

Alpine forests in Switzerland and Austria perform similar roles in screening settlements. Known as ‘protection forests’, these areas of woodland shield human habitations from natural hazards such as rockfalls, avalanches, floods and debris – and are increasingly considered the equal of engineered architecture in efficacy.

Roughly half of Swiss forests currently protect towns, roads or railway lines from avalanches or rockslides. Fallen snow is more stable in forested areas because snow catches in treetops rather than accumulating on the ground, while tree cover stabilises wind conditions and temperatures, and trunks provide a bulwark against slippage.

At the opposite end of the temperature scale, meanwhile, a suburb of Sydney in Australia has demonstrated the value of trees in sheltering citizens from sweltering summer temperatures. Scientists discovered that two streets only a kilometre apart have measurably different microclimates, with ground-level temperatures that vary by as much as 10 degrees.

The key difference? Percentage of tree cover. Uncovered concrete surfaces absorb heat energy, even retaining it after the sun goes down in a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect. These night temperatures can lead to everything from elevated energy demands to spikes in heat-related casualties. In the US alone, heat-related deaths number 1,000 a year. The vast majority of them occur in urban areas.

Authorities in Sydney are using trees to cool the city. Image: GCA

Favouring green over grey infrastructure clearly makes ecological sense but it also make economic sense. In 2012, New York City compared two projects to manage stormwater flows – one a green infrastructure plan that involved green roofs and bioswales – the other an off-the-shelf grey infrastructure project deploying tunnels and storm drains. The green option offered cost savings of more than $1.5bn, without any reduction in efficacy.

These findings have been replicated numerous times, demonstrating that EbA has a vital role to play as we work to refine our responses to climate change and meet the SDGs. Insurance companies protecting coastal fishing communities or other vulnerable industries, it has been speculated, might even be tempted to foot the bill for green improvements themselves, to offset the future costs of extreme weather disruption.

Data can't measure everything

Not all of the benefits of restored ecosystems, however, can be measured in data terms. To stress the economic value of healthy forests is to compound the error that has enslaved the natural world to human productivity. Time in wild nature, according to the Wildlife Trust, is ‘fundamentally important for our health, wellbeing and happiness’.

Research shows that regular contact with the natural world improves rates of happiness and self-esteem. Children felt that nature taught them how to take risks and made them more creative, while spending time in greenery is shown to have a positive impact on conditions from ADHD to depression.

Yet even this doesn’t tell the full story. Our appreciation of the value of green spaces won’t be complete until we recognise nature’s right to exist in and of itself, and cease to see the environment as a means to human ends.

Whatever our approach to ecosystem restoration in future, it is obvious we need to proceed at scale. Only through mass restoration and reforestation schemes – of the kind pioneered by Ethiopia, Pakistan, Senegal and the world’s less developed nations – can we hope to reverse the dismal depletion that for too long has characterised humanity’s relationship with the green world, to its detriment and our own.

Links