Books

News is coming in that the scientific community and government institutions in the Philippines are prepared to fight Greenpeace all the way back to the Supreme Court in order to defend Golden Rice. Motions for reconsideration were filed in early May at the court of appeals in Manila asking the court to reconsider its decision, and pointing out that the justification for the verdict was a misapplication of the precautionary principle not a reasoned examination of the scientific evidence.

If the court of appeals refuses to back down, then the scientists can and likely will appeal to the Supreme Court, where all this nonsense started with the petition by the activists for a Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus. (This is a uniquely Filipino legal thing about harm to Mother Earth.) There is no set timeframe but a response is expected from the appeals court within a couple of months, with a possible move back to the Supreme Court thereafter.

What we know is that hundreds of tonnes of Golden Rice remain in limbo at various PhilRice stations, with the agency now seeking legal advice over whether the vitamin A-enhanced rice can still be consumed by the intended beneficiaries (malnourished children) or whether, thanks to Greenpeace et al, the healthier rice will now have to be destroyed. The court only rescinded the cultivation permit, so the food safety permit remains intact – but not surprisingly the agency is keen not to look like it is in contempt of court.

A number of Golden Rice crops remain to be harvested, and seeds from these crops will be kept in humidity-controlled storage so that cultivation can hopefully resume when the Filipino legal system comes to its senses. It should be noted that more months or even years of delay are exactly what Greenpeace and the other anti-science groups want – they do not need a definitive judgement, just endless legal blockages and uncertainties, which raise costs and make it more likely the scientists will eventually throw in the towel.

Meanwhile, international outrage is mounting at Greenpeace, whose successful court action to block Golden Rice in the Philippines (because it’s genetically modified, and no other reasons) will potentially lead to the deaths of thousands of vitamin A-deficient young children in the country, as well as elsewhere in Asia and the wider Global South. Last weekend liberal media bastion The Observer published a blistering editorial which panned the “dangerous mindset” of anti-GM groups like Greenpeace, which by ignoring all “scientific evidence to the contrary” risk “causing widespread harm” in countries like the Philippines. Bravo!

This followed an article in the Guardian by science editor Robin McKie which led with the warning by scientists that “tens of thousands of children could die” in the wake of the decision by the Philippines court of appeal to stop Golden Rice, which Greenpeace for its part described as a “monumental win”. (I wrote about the issue a couple of weeks earlier in the Spectator.)

Sadly the International Rice Research Institute (which runs the Golden Rice project) seems to be maintaining its tight-lipped no comment policy, refusing to give quotes to the media or stand up for its own project in public. Duh. This is sci-comms 101, and I hope that those in charge at IRRI realise that successful communications does not mean simply leaving the ground clear for the anti-science opposition to get its messages out. Let the voices of science be heard too!

There is also more than Golden Rice at stake, and even the anti-GMO crowd seems to have realised that their wide-ranging court judgement is an own goal that risks harming overall food security in the country. In point 8 of their April 17 decision the three appeals court justices enjoined “any application for contained use, field testing, direct use as food or feed, or processing, commercial propagation, and importation of genetically modified organisms”.

This sounds like it blocks all importation of soy and corn, which are important in animal feeds and without which the farming sector will be harmed and food prices rise for everyone in the country. Needless to say, Greenpeace-driven rises in food prices for an entire nation of 115 million people – and remember high food prices hit the poorest hardest – is a bit of a PR nightmare for Greenpeace.

Bt corn is also grown fairly extensively in the Philippines (containing a gene against the stem borer, thereby reducing pesticides) so the anti-science groups may have just inadvertently destroyed that sector of Filipino national farming too. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

Now there is a danger that this farce will spill over into neighbouring countries also. Bangladesh, for inexplicable bureaucratic reasons, has sat on a Golden Rice approval now for six years already, and the authorities are no doubt nervously watching developments in the Philippines. For now it is important that the Bangladeshi government understands that the Filipino court judgement was deeply flawed, and has no bearing on food safety issues for Golden Rice.

If Bangladeshi regulators are spooked by Greenpeace’s Philippines debacle, it will add more years of unnecessary delay. Each year of delay costs uncountable thousands of lives of the poorest and most vulnerable in society: malnourished children.

 

Books

As a writer and campaigner who has spent 25 years working on climate change, there is something I feel I need to say about the fossil fuels divestment campaign targeting Hay and other literary festivals. I’m saying it – after speaking to lots of writers and festival staff who shall remain nameless – because it seems like no-one else can. It would be much easier for me to keep quiet and say nothing too. But that’s precisely the problem.

Some background for those who have missed the controversy. A climate divestment activist group called Fossil Free Books has asked writers and artists at literary festivals, starting with Hay, to de-platform themselves in protest at these festivals’ sponsorship by Baillie Gifford, an investment management company with a very small proportion of investments (around 2% according to them) in fossil fuels-related assets.

It’s a clever campaign because it immediately puts writers and other performers scheduled to appear at Hay in a dilemma. If they sign the statement as demanded and withdraw from the festival they lose the chance to present their work to an engaged audience at a festival with a high profile and a proud history as the world’s premier books event.

If they don’t sign, and go ahead with their event regardless, they risk looking like they don’t care about climate change and don’t support the brave activists who are trying to de-legitimise fossil fuels. Hay’s a pretty liberal-lefty event, so no-one wants to be seen to refuse to take a moral stance when it is demanded that they do so in public.

Moreover, to keep the pressure on, the activists also threatened “escalation” (yes they used that word), meaning disruption of events, with speakers potentially faced with being shouted down by campaigners wielding banners. I’ve had this happen to me and it isn’t fun. So lots of writers withdrew, and last night the festival capitulated and said it would no longer be asking for sponsorship from Baillie Gifford.

Is this a success for the campaign to stop the escalating climate emergency? Not in my book. Hay was targeted not because they are a bad actor, but because they are an good one. When Charlotte Church accused the festival of “rank hypocrisy” because of the Baillie Gifford sponsorship, she was simply echoing the favourite refrain of the right-wing media, who love to shout ‘hypocrisy’ at anyone who is making an effort, from Greta Thunberg to Coldplay.

Hay has done a huge amount to reduce its own carbon footprint, and to encourage its attendees to do likewise. But because they’re not perfect, they can be called hypocrites. It’s a nasty and self-defeating charge, because the only way to avoid it is to do nothing and say nothing on climate. It’s a disempowering tactic which merely encourages fatalism and plays into the culture wars narrative of the political right.

Let’s face it, we’re all hypocrites. Everyone who lives in the modern world is complicit in the continuing use of fossil fuels. I expect the activists from Fossil Free Books probably use the odd petrol station themselves. No doubt most have also been on an aircraft. That’s fine – I’m not calling anyone a hypocrite. We have to decarbonise the entire energy system here – it’s going to take decades, lots of technology and even more money, and in the meantime we’re all going to stay fossil fuels-consuming hypocrites for a little longer.

More broadly, we need to stop attacking our allies. Hay was chosen as a soft target, in a campaign primarily relying on peer pressure and public moral intimidation, because the activists knew the festival management would have to give in, and so this was a campaign that could be won. But who really wins here? Not a dime has been divested from fossil fuels. Not a gram of CO2 has been reduced.

All that’s happened is that literary festivals now have huge holes in their budgets which will mean they have to raise ticket prices (excluding those on lower incomes) or maybe go out of business. Who would risk sponsoring now, given what has happened? You sponsor a cultural event because you want good publicity, not public shaming in the Guardian.

As a writer, I support literary festivals on principle, and it is heartbreaking to see Hay pilloried by people who say they care about climate change. Hay is not the problem, and indeed has made huge efforts to be part of the solution. To target them because they have done so much, and accuse them of hypocrisy, is not attacking injustice – it is in itself an injustice, one that lots of fine writers and artists have now been made complicit in.

We need climate activism to continue to push for political change, and I stand with those who are devoting their time and effort to tackling the climate emergency in so many different ways. But campaigns should target enemies, not friends. They should right wrongs, not commit new ones. They should pick hard targets, not soft targets. They should not bully and intimidate. They should seek to generate empathy and solidarity rather than division and bitterness. This is a sad day for Hay and a sad day for climate activism. I hope we can learn from it.

Books

First, a word of warning. If you donate money to Greenpeace, you might think you’re helping save the whales or the rainforests. But in reality, you may be complicit in a crime against humanity. Last week, Greenpeace Southeast Asia and several other NGOs managed to stop the cultivation and use of vitamin A-enhanced rice in the Philippines, after the country’s court of appeal ruled in their favour.

In doing so, Greenpeace have blocked a multi-year, international, publicly-funded effort to save the lives and the eyesight of millions of children in some of the world’s poorest countries.

For the full article, see the Spectator (no paywall).