Cryptocurrencies are a social phenomenon that presents a new frontier in global finance. With a vast range of offerings and a widening range of functions, many consumers are trying to learn more about the new asset class, willing to invest more of their time and money than ever before. This increased interest from the public has led to broader investment in the sector.
How Crypto Has Evolved
The chart shows the value of cryptocurrency assets over a year.
With over 300 million cryptocurrency users worldwide, India, Nigeria, the United States, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom lead the pack. The average crypto ownership rate by country is 3.9%, while more than 18,000 businesses now accept forms of cryptocurrency as payment.
The most highly valued cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, went from a $60 billion market capitalization in 2018 to an $825 billion capitalization today. Global hash rates, the computing power used to verify transactions and mine new coins, reached all-time highs in 2021.
This comprehensive public adoption and expansion led to more significant investment. In turn, this investment has protected innovation, enabling the sector to evolve and expand rapidly.
The technology and size of the network have set a foundation for a truly global financial system.
And while significant obstacles, including government regulation and internet access, remain, those bullish on the asset class argue these risks will help define the space moving forward.
Is The Hype Over Cryptocurrency Too Early?
Cryptocurrencies offer new solutions to complex problems. Some insist it can be the later global form of payment and wealth building. However, with just 300 million users, it is still far from a truly global financial system.
The asset also presents a tremendous financial risk, with constant volatility and little institutional recourse in the case of theft or loss.
Whether a cryptocurrency will replace fiat currencies like the U.S. Dollar or the British Pound in the next five years remains to be seen. It is more likely to complement our traditional financial systems than overtake them completely.
Matt Jackson is the Director of the United Nations Population Fund’s (UNFPA) London Representation Office, a UN agency working to improve sexual, reproductive and maternal health worldwide, supporting or working in more than 150 countries and territories to achieve universal sexual and reproductive health and rights and fulfil the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Common Sense spoke with Matt about the intersection of climate and gender injustice following COP26 in Glasgow.
What does climate justice look like for those at the bottom of the ladder?
Climate change is a major threat to the vision of people-centred sustainable development as set out in the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) – this forms the basis of UNFPA’s work. Climate change is a multiplier of existing vulnerabilities, particularly health inequalities. Climate change negatively impacts access to healthcare, education, water and sanitation as well as contributing to food insecurity, rising gender-based violence and harmful practices. In particular, women and girls are hit the hardest through climate-induced displacement, including impact on livelihoods and weakening human rights including sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).
Within this, you can see where climate injustice starts to take hold. For example, having to travel further to collect food, water, fuel or to reach healthcare services and, as we’re seeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, resources are diverted away from reproductive health and maternity services to fight the pandemic. Marginalised groups are the most vulnerable. Sadly, women and girls constitute the majority of the global poor and climate change has a disproportionate impact on women. True climate justice requires gender justice. And gender justice can only be realised by fulfilling sexual and reproductive health and rights.
From left to right: Sheelagh McGuinness, Susan Jim, Tigist Grieve, and Matt Jackson Source: University of Bristol
How can climate injustice undermine the socio-economic development of the global south? We’re already seeing this with climate change-induced drought in Somalia leading to mass displacements earlier this year.
You can see the effects of this in a number of places – other examples include where severe flooding, earthquakes or disasters have affected access to healthcare including contraceptives and family planning supplies. At UNFPA, we know that climate change can impact our ability to deliver our three goals by 2030: zero preventable maternal deaths, zero unmet need for family planning and zero gender-based violence and harmful practices including female genital mutilation (FGM) and child marriage. For this reason, it is critical that serious attention is given to the impact of climate change on our work. Tackling gender inequality is really key to building a better and healthier planet. It is essential that we tackle the climate and gender crises together to empower women and marginalised groups and build resilience to the impacts of climate change. This is how we can tackle climate injustice. People who already face existing barriers to realising their sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are often on the front line of climate impacts.
Have the UK aid budget cuts significantly impacted the effectiveness of UNFPA’s work? Do developed nations have an increasing mandate to realise the ideals of climate justice, given the effects of COVID and the global vaccine imbalance. Can you give some examples?
The UK aid cuts this year have been devastating for the people we serve around the world. UNFPA is the largest supplier of modern, voluntary contraceptives, we’re over 40% of the global market, and the UK was our biggest donor to UNFPA’s Supplies Partnership Programme but disappointingly the aid cuts included a reduction of 85% to this programme as well as reducing core funding by 60%. We’ve also seen cuts in other countries where we have bilateral work. The UK has been UNFPA’s largest donor for a number of years and we’ve been very grateful for this support from the British taxpayer. Yet I’m hopeful that the UK will return to its 0.7% commitment (of GDP), and to supporting women and girls, as soon as possible.
Governments of course make their own decisions on how they spend hard-earned taxpayer money. The past two years have been difficult for many countries due to the economic pressures caused by COVID-19. We’re always immensely grateful for our donors’ financial support. During the pandemic, we’ve had to rise to new challenges particularly with disruptions to global supply chains, new PPE requirements and strains on health systems. We’ve seen gender-based violence (GBV) skyrocket. We know that GBV increases during a crisis including girls being pushed into child marriage and increases in FGM (female genital mutilation). As part of the UN system, we’re doing all we can to support the services that people need on the ground. We have mobile units, people walking over mountains for days, and even the use of drones to deliver commodities and maternal medicines to the hardest to reach communities.
What role do financial measures (relief of debt burdens for example) play in combating climate injustice? 30 of the world’s poorest nations are classified as high risk of debt distress, hindering climate efforts.
I’m not an expert in debt relief measures but I’m aware that there are many economic pressures not just caused by climate but also covid-19 and other pandemics that contribute to increasing pressure on health and education systems. As part of the response to climate change, we’re looking at how adaptation and resilience plans currently reflect the needs of women and girls and where they can do better, such as taking account of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), existing gender inequalities, protection systems, education and livelihoods. For example, we recently reviewed 50 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) but only 6 of them referenced gender or SRHR. Improving adaptation and resilience plans along these lines will help to combat climate injustice.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and UN Secretary Antonio Guterres meet ahead of the first day of COP26 ahead of India announcing a net-zero target. Credit: Simon Dawson/Number 10 Downing Street.
Coming back to COP, do you think COP26 could have better addressed the problems of climate injustice? (Given the target set in 2009 to provide $100b per year to developing nations has been pushed to 2023). It’s certainly a pivotal issue we’re seeing the impacts of; Madagascar, for example, is on the cusp of the world’s first climate change induced famine.
While the aspiration to keep global warming below 1.5C across the board wasn’t met, for the first time, there was global consensus to transition away from fossil fuels and to speed up countries’ ambition to cut emissions faster. Climate adaptation and resilience-building efforts were increasingly highlighted too, including with respect to financing. As you say, the $100 billion targets haven’t yet been reached – this requires additional effort. An important point to note is that the UN Secretary-General has called for climate finance to be split 50/50 between mitigation and adaptation.
There were some key COP26 decisions related to climate justice: six years after COP21, the rulebook on the implementation of the Paris Agreement was finally reached, also agreed was the operationalisation of ‘article 6’ on carbon markets, a time-frame and transparency for NCDs (nationally determined contributions), and increases in climate adaptation finance.
Despite this, however, there wasn’t any agreement on financing climate-related ‘loss and damage’ for developing countries, which was a source of huge disappointment for a lot of people at COP.
Going back to the role of women (systems of patriarchy and power imbalances), can you provide any examples of programmes you’re working on that challenge that power imbalance in the context of climate?
UNFPA works hard to tackle harmful social norms, including challenging patriarchy and gender power imbalances, to ensure that women and girls are empowered, included in decision-making and have voice and agency. This is also relevant to other marginalised groups such as indigenous people, LGTBQ, persons with disabilities and older people. For example, UNFPA and UNICEF jointly run global programmes to end female genital mutilation (FGM) and end child marriage. As we discussed earlier, these harmful practices are known to surge during times of crisis as a coping mechanism or to secure income when livelihoods are threatened. UNFPA also champions bodily autonomy and our 2021 State of World Population report “My Body is My Own” highlighted the power to make autonomous decisions about your body, as well as our new “bodyright” campaign as a ‘copyright’ for the human body online.
Do you think future conferences can take measures to ensure more comprehensive consideration of climate injustice?
Specific to UNFPA’s interests, for the first time, there were far more interlinkages and discussions between climate change and health impacts at COP26 in Glasgow. For example, the WHO (World Health Organisation) organised a climate and health conference as part of the summit, and UNFPA partnered on side events including removing barriers to health and education as part of adaptation and resilience strategies. COP26 also welcomed the approval of an updated adaptation fund linking to gender policy.
Looking forward to the next conference COP27 in Egypt, I’m hopeful that there will be a greater emphasis on climate adaptation and resilience, signalling new opportunities to make those needed links with health, gender and SRHR. This will be a crucial opportunity to highlight that there is no climate justice without gender justice.
Youtube sensation JJ, a.k.a KSI, made news this week after extraordinary claims over crypto-sphere speculation. After providing a running commentary on video games for many years, he turned his hand to stand-up and then later boxing and most recently got into Bitcoin.
He admitted on Jamie Laing’s Private Parts podcast that he turned £2 million to £7 million in 2020, before losing it all. He got assistance and training in NFTs last Summer and was able to turn £1million into £10 million, or a 10x return in the digital art space. Undoubtedly, with great risk can come great reward. For individuals who have recently earned 10s of millions via boxing contracts, losing a couple million isn’t a death blow.
But for average people, crypto can ruin life savings or their plans to achieve greater financial freedom where the risks simply are never worth the possible rewards. NFTs, overlooking the value to society, are just another investment vehicle for unsavvy traders to lose money and the smarter, luckier, or earlier adopters to take it.
Phone apps have made investing more accessible than ever. Ten years ago the average investment client was in their mid-50s. Today, that stands in late-40s. Lockdowns with not much to do, and social media hype has driven a new wave of younger-investors. Having people more interested in their financial security is a positive, but the gamification “comparing returns to others” and new speculation vehicles like online-artwork to try and appeal to the short-attention spans and novel experience appeals to young people.
Adidas/Bored Ape
Yet, surveys of new investors by the FCA, the UK financial services regulator showed half of people asked didn’t see “losing some money” as a risk when it came to investing. But, two-thirds said a hefty loss would have a negative impact on their current lifestyle.
Risk is an essential part of investing. It is unavoidable. Investors are quick to talk about their successes but slow to cough up about their losers. In a rising market since March 2020, you’d have to try hard to lose money. And a rising tide lifts all boats (unless you’re betting the other way).
The danger is now when things turn against the crowd with everybody not adapting and still bundling in on the ‘next craze’. The past 2 years sheltered many novice investors from the noises of headlines and social media and gave unrealistic expectations to many that the good times are here to roll.
President JFK’s father was said to have sold his investments when the shoeshine boy would offer him stock tips. Our parents had taxi-drivers, and we have social-media influencers. This week, Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather Jr are being sued for millions of dollars for their promotion of dodgy cryptocurrency schemes.
While fear of missing out is real, avoiding being drawn into investments at their tops is part of the learning curve. Investing should be as personal as our future aspirations. Following what others are doing may lead us to get caught up in a whirl and deviating from what matters most, our own plan.
The lessons for young, would-be investors is this: your capital is at risk. You can lose everything and sometimes more than you put in. Older, more seasoned investors have been burned in many schemes and investment propositions over the years and see cryptocurrencies and the metaverse as just another string to the fraudsters’ bow. But, if you are getting into the space, then make sure you don’t go jumping in with “both feet” as Warren Buffet’s message about the importance of diversification rings on deaf ears much of the time. People jumping into Tesla here, or NFTs now are not the “early adopters or pioneers” they are going to be buying short-term tops and won’t have the stomach or perseverance to last out 24-36 months waiting for the bear market cycle to recover. Nor, in fact, will many of these projects ever rematerialize – out of the thousands of crypto projects started in 2017, only a handful are still extant, let alone 2014 or before. As Mark Minervini warns in his book Think and Trade Like a Champion:
“Beware the 50/80 rule. When a secular leader makes a major top, there’s a 50% chance it will drop 80% and an 80% chance it will drop 50%. The average decline of a former leader is more than 70% peak to trough
Bitcoin appears to have made a top at 69,000$ and FAANG stock will eventually make this list too. That said, if you know what you are doing and have spare capital to invest or trade that won’t affect your lifestyle to lose, and you believe in the future of these projects that isn’t just wishful thinking – go right ahead.
A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump‘s actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.
During a court hearing Monday, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out repeatedly that Trump on January 6 asked the crowd to march to the Capitol, but that he didn’t speak up for two hours asking people to stop the violence.
US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer’s claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to “stick with the facts.”
During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a “two-hour period” on the day of the siege, Trump did not “take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, ‘Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'”
“What would you have me do with the allegation that the president did not act?” Mehta, an Obama appointee who joined the federal bench in 2014, asked.
His question came during oral arguments over a trio of civil lawsuits filed by House Democrats and Capitol Police officers that allege Trump’s incendiary rhetoric incited the Capitol breach. At a rally that preceded the siege, Trump told his supporters, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” In court Monday, Mehta asked whether Trump’s inaction could be considered “ratification” of that statement.
In the same hearing, Trump’s lawyer Jesse Binnall pushed back against the assertion that the former president could face legal consequences for action he didn’t take. “The president cannot be subject to judicial action for any sort of damages for failing to do something,” Binnall said.
He added that the president told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard on January 6, 2021.
But that statement was outweighed, Mehta said, by Trump’s earlier calls to “fight like hell” against the 2020 election results. Mehta said there was no doubt “threats” and “intimidation” were used on the day of the insurrection. He also said the main question was whether Trump’s actions and statements incited the violence. “Let’s stick with the facts,” Mehta said, adding that he wasn’t “interested” in “whataboutism.”
He continued pressing Binnall on whether Trump’s call for his supporters to march to the Capitol and his use of words like “fight” and “show strength,” which were followed by Trump’s supporters storming the Capitol, satisfied the standards required to establish conspiracy.
“No,” Binnall said.
“So the president, in your view, is both immune to inciting the riot and failing to stop it?” Mehta asked.
Binnall replied that “the president cannot be subject” to any judicial action because he “failed to do something.” Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for House Democrats, countered that claim and said the “fervor” and “energy” of Trump’s supporters directly before the Capitol riot indicated that the president knew what they were planning to do.
But Mehta pushed back, telling Sellers the allegation of a conspiracy in this case was “unusual” and could be “problematic” because the lawsuit did not allege there was a direct meeting between the defendants, which include Trump, his then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Members of the House select committee on Jan. 6 have said they could consider criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Mr. Trump and others. Credit: Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Alleging a conspiracy in the absence of such a link is “dangerous” because the defendants couldn’t necessarily have controlled the reaction of Trump’s supporters, the judge said.
Sellers conceded the point but added that Trump “ratified” his supporters’ actions after the Capitol riot. Trump’s initial silence during the Capitol breach has also come under scrutiny from the special House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack. The panel’s top Republican, Rep. Liz Cheney, said last month that the committee was exploring the question of whether Trump, “through action or inaction,” sought to impede Congress’ certification of now-President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
The committee has released texts showing that Trump’s allies — including his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and Fox News hosts — pleaded with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to have Trump order the violent mob to stand down. In the lawsuits against Trump, House Democrats pointed to his initial silence during the attack as evidence of an agreement with the mob to block the certification of Biden’s victory.
Many of us have a set of friends to talk about our problems, create memories and share common interests and hobbies. But this isn’t the case for everyone as some “mates” have a more sinister motive why they would like to become involved in our lives.
Friendships involve a mutual affection for one another where shared interests, hobbies, and clear boundaries are set. These relationships can last for years, decades or even until we die. From Birthdays to funerals, friends are often by our sides until the end.
But this isn’t the case for everyone.
The Valuing People Support Team found that only 30% of people with learning disabilities have friends, and even when those with learning challenges have friends, a third have no contract with them, meaning that “four out of five people with learning disabilities are, to all intents and purposes, friendless.” And because of such statistics, those with learning difficulties will become involved in friendships, even if the boundaries are blurred between mate and criminal. When these boundaries become blurred, these “mates” can take advantage of people in small ways but become severe and criminal.
Andy Burns speaking on his Youtube channel IndieAndy about mate crime.
Thirtyone:eight, an independent Christian charity that protects vulnerable people from abuse, refers to mate crime as “the befriending of people, who perpetrators perceive to be vulnerable, for the purposes of taking advantage of, exploiting and/ or abusing them.” This type of disability hate crime is committed in various ways, from financial abuse to criminal exploitation. In an online survey conducted by Autism Together in 2015, they found 80% of respondents who were over 16 with autism felt bullied or taken advantage of by someone they had thought was a friend. In the same report, 100% of those 16-25 had difficulties distinguishing between friends and those that bully or abuse. Despite this type of crime being a form of disability hate crime, it can often be committed privately and is challenging to spot.
Andy Burns, who is autistic and has a YouTube channel called IndieAndy with 15 thousand subscribers, had a “friend” who asked for money but never paid him back.
“A friend or rather an alleged friend at school asked me for a quid nearly every day. I didn’t think anything of it as I thought it was going towards something cool, but after a while, I started to ask why I hadn’t seen any of these things that were being bought for me. The friend kept promising it was legit, but when I said I couldn’t afford to give money anymore, they got verbally aggressive about this, saying that I had to as we were friends, and that is what friends do. I know now that this is absolutely not the case.”
Andy Burns talking about how he was a victim of mate crime through financial means.
Ryan Hendry, who has ADHD and is also autistic, wrote for the Demographica Network, an independent news organisation, about his experience of mate crime. Ryan met a friend named “R” at a football forum and would meet this person after football matches. But this friendship soon became financial exploitation where Ryan would constantly buy “R” drinks and their meals. “R” would say to Ryan that they had “forgotten” their wallet, and when Ryan mentioned they hadn’t paid him back, they would get angry with him and say that proper friends didn’t chase their friends for money. When Ryan went to Queen University Belfast and hadn’t seen “R” in a few years, that was when he realised that “R” was not his mate and was exploiting him through financial means.
'I want to talk today about “mate crime”, a specific form of disability hate crime.'
Read @RyanHendry94's experience of being a victim of mate crime and how common it is for disabled people to be manipulated by those who call themselves friends.https://t.co/CAY5EoXqDq
I actually think my time at Queen’s genuinely saved me from this man ruining my life, because I very quickly met a great group of friends […] and they showed me what real, proper friendship is.”
Ryan Hendry writting on The Demographica Network
Others like Agustina, a graphic designer, and an illustrator from Uruguay, can also be exploited and be affected by mate crime, not just those in the United Kingdom. She has an Instagram page called The Autistic Life, which has 126 thousand followers and has said that her experience of mate crime resulted in her having depression and anxiety.
“My ex-partner used to pressure me into helping him with his creative projects to the point I completely neglected my own. At first, it started with the promise that working for him would help me put myself out there with my art and might inspire others to hire me. That never happened because I was too busy and focused on his projects to worry about anything else. There was so much emotional abuse that I wasn’t able to see until the relationship was over and realised how much time I’d wasted on him.”
Agustina talking about the emotional abuse she had suffered in her relationship.
There are multiple reasons behind why those who are autistic are most susceptible to being taken advantage of, as explained by Dr Anson Service, a licensed mental health counsellor. Autistic people find it difficult to make friends because they have challenges communicating their feelings and recognising social cues, compared to non-autistic people. Agustina said: “Our unique ways of processing and managing information put us in a more susceptible spot to experience mate crime as it doesn’t come naturally for many of us to think about long-term consequences or the underlying intentions of the other person when approaching us.”
Service has pointed out that autistic people have a difference in the retinoic acid-induced 1 (RAI1) gene, which is why you see autistic people having a “greater trust in people and a diminished understanding of long-term consequences.” And so, when a person asks an autistic person to do them a favour, like buy a drink, an autistic person is more likely to feel a greater feeling of being wanted than a non-autistic person, even if in the long term, these demands become exploitive over time.
The stories of Andy, Ryan, and Agustina highlight how we must be wary of who comes into our lives and why they have done so.
Charities like Mencap are starting to offer advice on mate crime, including how to report this crime, what to look out for if you think a person is suffering from this crime and a helpline for those who need to talk to someone.
Essex Police issued mate crime warnings in August to raise awareness on the issue.
A spokesman for Essex police said: “If you’re worried that you or a friend are a victim of mate crime, please report it to us.”
Steven Bartlett hosts a prominent business and self-help podcast called The Diary of A CEO. He invites guests from various industries, backgrounds and fields to speak about their journeys and how they have become successful in their lives.
One of these guests was Molly-Mae Hague, a 22-year-old social media influencer and the creative director of Pretty Little Thing. In this interview, Molly spoke about how she rose to prominence after coming second in Love Island, a reality dating show, her upbringing, what had made her successful and speaking on the difficulties she faced when her home was broken into a few months back. However, the interview has gained a mixed reaction from many people due to her comments during the interview.
The 22-year-old shared on The Diary of A CEO that “if you want something enough, you can achieve it” and said that we all have “the same 24 hours in a day as Beyonce.” Some say that Molly was being toned deaf with her comments during the podcast and was coming across as privileged. Other people say that she was communicating how she has made her success and inspiring listeners to do the same. Since the interview has come out, Molly’s team issued a statement to the Metro.
In the statement, she said: “Her opinion on if you want something enough you can work hard to achieve it is how she keeps determined with her own work to achieve more in her own life. Molly is not commenting on anyone else’s life or personal situation she can only speak of her own experience.”
Steven Bartlett on Twitter in response to the backlash
“She acknowledges that everyone is raised in different ways and from different backgrounds but her comments here are in reference to timing, hard work and determination in her own life. If you listen to this interview, you can see the whole conversation was about her own personal circumstances, how she has grown up and this small clip in the conversation was talking about a quote that inspires her.”
Molly-Mae Hague has been one of the most successful people in this country and was invited onto Steven Bartlett’s podcast Diary of CEO to explain how she has done it.
She didn’t expect her success and comments on the podcast to trigger a rampage across the country and headlines being written about her.
Many see her comments as tone-deaf, yet others may see it as a case of a message missed in translation.
People have good intentions with what they do and what they say most of the time, and we should give people the benefit of the doubt. With Molly, we should do the same and that she was speaking on what has made her successful, whilst trying to be motivational, inspiring, and uplifting during a podcast that encourages such themes. There is nothing wrong with talking about your success or saying that despite the cards that we are dealt with in life, it doesn’t mean we should accept them.
In the most basic sense, we do have the same 24 hours numerically, and it is up to us to decide how to use these hours. Are we going to complain about how hard our life has been, or are we going to try and make something of ourselves? As someone who has had to work hard because of my learning difficulties, I side more with choosing to make something of yourself and found Molly’s words encouraging and motivational.
The problem is that it depends on who says these words of encouragement.
If someone else had said what Molly had said and wasn’t the head of a company that underpays workers and contributes to environmental deprivation, there wouldn’t be such outroar.
However, this saga involving Molly shouldn’t stop people from speaking about their success, offering words of encouragement and aspiring to be their higher selves.
Molly Mae is an incredibly successful woman who unfortunately made a misstep in this Steven Bartlett interview. The comment Molly Mae made about us all having “the same 24 hours as Beyonce” negated the many structural inequalities that inhibit people from reaching the level of financial success that she has.
Molly Mae is an attractive white woman from a middle-class background from one of the richest countries in the world, and as an influencer, she has successfully capitalised on her beauty standards adhering aesthetic. However, despite her success being predicated on her essentially winning a genetic lottery, throughout the interview with Steven Bartlett there was no acknowledgement of her privilege. This was particularly egregious because she noted in the interview that she has received critique about this viewpoint before. However, instead of conceding to valid critique, Molly Mae has chosen to reaffirm that we live in a meritocracy.
While Molly is entitled to her opinion, as one of the biggest influencers in the UK, just like every other aspect of her public life it will be dissected as that is the social contract that she has capitalised on. Thus, I negate Steven Bartlett’s attempt to attribute the backlash she received to her gender, as it is rather a result of her proximity, as Molly Mae arguably more than anyone has consistently seen the great rewards and been confronted with the harsh realities of her parasocial relationship with her audience.
Therefore, while I disagree with her, I also acknowledge that while there is a valid critique, the nature of social media dogpiling isn’t conducive to having a teachable moment as many that already dislike her use this opportunity to be hateful. Thus, as a fan of Molly Mae and her content, I empathise with her at this time and simultaneously hope she learns to better communicate the integral role of privilege in her success.
Dan Collison is the CEO of Farm Africa, an NGO dedicated to reducing the rates of extreme poverty in East Africa by helping farmers grow and sell more produce. Farm Africa plays an active role in communities across Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, DR Congo and Uganda, driving a sustainability-focused approach to reducing poverty through forestry management and goat rearing, amongst other sustainable efforts. The organisation has been working on the continent for more than 30 years. More than half of the worlds extreme poor live in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the vast majority of those working in the agricultural sector; a single poor harvest can plunge the most vulnerable into the depths of poverty.
What does economic justice look like to you?
The entire African continent has contributed just 2.8% of all emissions, in history, ever. Justice means ensuring that emissions remain low, but don’t compromise the social and economic development of African nations. That is not fair. For example, in Ethiopia, we lead goat rearing programmes designed to increase local resilience and decrease dependency on forestry, leading to higher and more diversified incomes and sources of nutrition. The effectiveness of this programme has been significantly hampered by the UK’s Aid Budget Cut earlier this year; that’s the opposite of climate justice. We’re asking those with the least to sacrifice the most.
Farm Africa’s Chief Executive @DanFarmAfrica looks back on his recent trip to #Kenya and #Tanzania, where he was able to meet with colleagues and partners and connect with our projects directly.
Climate injustice certainly makes it more difficult to lift people out of extreme poverty. For example, those in Sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Sahara) are disproportionately affected by climate change. The sizable cut to the UK aid budget, a decision I do not agree with, deeply hinders providing value and benefits to the hundreds of thousands of farmers we work with. Taking those resources away makes the needed sustainable adaptation much more difficult and certainly constitutes climate injustice.
Do you find that grassroots community action led by local leaders is increasingly important to realising the ideals of climate justice?
Yes – Bale eco-region in Ethiopia is a brilliant example of community action and strengthening of our work in the participatory forestry community, which does 2 very important things. Firstly, preserving the forest environment by dramatically reducing rates of deforestation and secondly, diversifying and increasing the income of co-operative members towards more sustainable sources. For example, co-operatives are encouraged to use land-use agreements to develop alternative sources of income from sustainable forestry products (coffee beans) as opposed to chopping and selling wood. Reduced deforestation also produces carbon offsets/credit, which is fully verified. Forest co-operatives in Bale eco-region have generated 10m metric tonnes of carbon credits over the past 10 years which are sold internationally, and funnel the revenue back into local authorities and communities. Such examples are certainly successful due to the energy and commitment of local community-based groups. So yes, developing capacity/expectation/role of local civil society structures, forest co-operatives to diversity income and ensure forest protection, and therefore see benefits via carbon offsets, is a really good example of a sustainable approach to realising global climate justice.
Source: FarmAfrica.com
Do you believe the urgency of the climate justice movement should be expressed by groups such as XR (Extinction Rebellion)? What role can grass-roots groups play in the developed world?
I would not answer this in my capacity as CEO of Farm Africa. Direct action is perfectly legitimate, whether it’s suffragettes or apartheid, there is a long history of direct action which is very disruptive. There is certainly a part of me that admires those people, another part of me understands why those getting across Vauxhall bridge in an ambulance find that more than inconvenient. Crisis, whether XR, striking, recycling, there’s a range of stuff people are doing, and it all has to be done. Our role (Farm Africa’s) partly changes the support on the ground in the face of climate threats, our advocacy work (indirect) – about sharing our experience and evidence for what works. Ultimately, we’re about sharing evidence to influence policy, coming from a technical evidence-based background.
Should wealthy individuals be pressured more than the average consumer?
Billionaires shouldn’t do out talking for us. There is an important role for those with resources and influence to be a spokesperson and to lead opinion. Gates is perhaps a good example, he’s spent a lot of money on climate action, education and development frontiers. It has triggered a wave of philanthropy, but you can also ask yourself the underlying motivations – big philanthropy does have an important role in tackling the climate problem (despite it being their obligation).The most powerful voices come from the communities directly affected and there are lots we can do to empower those, and no one wants to be lectured by a billionaire.
Should young people be leading the charge for climate justice, for example, XR (Extinction Rebellion)?
Young people have the most legitimate voice on the issue of climate injustice. My kids, both teenagers, are scared. Not just worried, but scared about what the world may look like in 50 years time. Young people must demand accountability from the system, whether by-elections or direct actions; those in positions of power must also actively listen to and make the changes that we need.
Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges on November 19th, 2021.
On November 19th Kyle Rittenhouse was awaiting the jury’s decision. The events were never up for debate. He shot three people at a BLM protest on August 25th in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Two dead, one injured. Now he was being tried for first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment of safety.The defence claimed self -defence.
The Response to the Rittenhouse Verdict
Pictures of Rittenhouse armed in Wisconsin.
There were many widely reported moments throughout the divisive case. These moments ranged from accusations of the judges’ bias to the prosecution’s witness backing the defense’s case under cross-examination. Media on all sides gave their versions of events and how their perspectives factored into the matter. However, in the end, the jury decided to acquit Rittenhouse.
The conservatives cheered and congratulated Rittenh; Trump even invited him to a (well publicised) meeting. The left was mortified, believing the case justified vigilante violence at protests. It brings in serious questions about the second amendment and its interaction with the right to protest peacefully. However, the backdrop of the whole affair was the BLM protests. It added another political dimension that meant the verdict would always be unacceptable to some. But the question is: was it the correct verdict?
The Prosecution Used the Wrong Argument
Assistant district attorney Thomas Binger points at Rittenhouse as he delivers his opening statement on Tuesday. (Mark Hertzberg/Reuters)
The jury was probably right. But this was both a miscarriage of justice and a failure of America’s legal system. That failure was primarily the prosecution’s fault. There were other charges the prosecution could have argued, such as Manslaughter. Instead, they went for first-degree murder, and the evidence presented by the prosecution didn’t back up their case. Their charges seem based on political forces, not the evidence they had.
Murder should have a high legal threshold. Although statistical evidence has proven the threshold is lowered for black citizens, it is not the standards of the legal system that should be lowered. They should be maintained equally, without prejudice. According to the witnesses and video evidence provided, Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges presented to the jurors. It is unknown whether Rittenhouse’s verdict would have been different if he was black, but it would be a high chance.
Rittenhouse is guilty of being a dumb 17-year-old. His presence with a firearm caused others to act aggressively towards him, which made him act out in fear. If he were black, he would likely not be afforded the privilege to be a dumb 17-year-old or act in fear. The problem is with the disparity, not the verdict.
This case again shows the American judicial system needs fixing. The courts should not be a place for social or political agendas. They are plagued with doubt of their impartiality. The expectations that were set by politics did not back the evidence. That is why the disappointment is there. Republicans are carrying Rittenhouse held high. He has become a twisted political symbol. Emblematic of the deeper divides in an already polarised nation.
Privilege Decided the Verdict, not the Law
Arguments happen outside the courthouse during the Rittenhouse trial.
Critics can argue that race was not the main focal point in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and one would be correct. However, to say one could not insinuate racial undertones in the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict is highly naïve. White privilege still holds firmly in the court of law. Although the jury in the Rittenhouse trial heavily considered Wisconsin’s self-defense law, they did not consider the prior actions that led to him having to utilize “self-defense.” Rittenhouse had specific intentions to have his mother drive state lines with the motive to use his gun if needed. It would prove straightforward he came to the protest with an intent.
America’s criminal justice system is notorious for proving injustice towards Black Americans. Black Americans feel that if the shoe was on the other foot and Kyle was a 17-year-old Black boy, the jury would have found Kyle guilty, or worse, he would have been shot before discussions of a trial even took place. For example, Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American male, had a toy gun and was shot almost immediately by the police.
Or take Cyntonia Brown, who was 16 years old at the time, went to jail for 15 years for murder. If the exact “self-defense” definition applies, the jury should have acquitted Cyntonia Brown of the crime. Some would argue the situation was different because Cyntonia had intentions to rob her accuser, and Kyle tried to defend a community that had nothing to do with him. However, the result in both cases was murder, and the same standard applies to both.
The main problem here is when people pick and choose when the law applies to a particular situation. It is hard to believe that white privilege does not exist or Black people do not receive the same right in the court of law when cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and countless other Black individuals have different results. If we say that Rittenhouse was lawful, then apply the law equally and justly across the board and not when it is convenient for particular facts or situations.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex shocked the public when they announced on January 8 that they were leaving their position as senior members of the royal family. One of the most notable changes they’re making is to deny a group of British press outlets first access to their personal press releases after years of press coverage and editing decisions that they feel have been unfair, filled with favouritism, and aimed to turn public opinion against Meghan in particular.
Since the announcement, journalists unearthed some of the British media’s most snide and judgmental headlines about Meghan and put them next to what the same outlets—sometimes even the same authors—thought of similar situations when fellow Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton was involved.
Despite her absence, Meghan Markel is still the most talked-about royal in the UK. She seems to be the main character in everyone’s conversation, with over 74,000 articles published about her worldwide.
According to a Guardian analysis, 43% of the ‘ 843 articles in 14 print news papers’ published about Meghan between May 2018- Jan 2020 were negative and with her recent interview on ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show’, there is still more to be said about the Duchess of Sussex.
Rumours, gossip, hate, bullying, racism; she has faced it all. The onslaught on her character, her family and her blackness has made headline news on major British publications and, let’s not forget, social media.
Since her rise to Royal status, Meghan has been exposed to extreme bullying by the Press, who have taken liberties with their freedom to report on public figures.
And as one person once asked: “Freedom for what?” Freedom of the Press is meant to hold those in authority accountable. It is a platform for a diversity of voices to be heard. However, how does this freedom relate to the onslaught against Megan Markle?
(Photo: WireImage)
What is this freedom for?
Is it the freedom to bully? Freedom to leak private letters to the public – irrespective of recent claims? Is it the freedom to compare a woman’s child to an animal – to a monkey? Is it the freedom to run her out of the country? Is freedom to blame her for the decision to step back from Royal duties?
The British Press is well known for its aggressive nature and its lengths to get a story – we only have to think about Princess Diana.
So it is no surprise that Meghan would find herself in the middle of all this unwanted attention when she married Prince Harry. It is the bullying by the Press that caused the Sussexes to step back from their duties.
However, this revelation has only added more fuel to the hate and aggression aimed towards Meghan.
The relationship between Meghan and the Press is toxic at worst… It is a toxic period.
And with the way things are currently, It won’t get any better.
This article was amended on 03 December 2021. An earlier version had the incorrect figures for the articles about Meghan.
The Saudi Green Initiative and the London Evening Standard announced a week or two ago that they would be partnering together through articles and videos.
The initiative produced content that presented what the Saudi Arabian government was doing to tackle the climate and was published in The Optimist section of the London Evening Standard.
According to the Saudi Green Initiative: “Under the patronage of HRH Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Green Initiative will chart a path for the Kingdom in protecting the planet.”
Despite the intentions of this partnership between this initiative and the London Evening Standard, it restarts a conversation around Saudi Arabian involvement within the United Kingdom’s media system.
This partnership with The Saudi Green Initiative and the London Evening Standard isn’t the first time we have heard of Saudi Arabian involvement within the United Kingdom’s media system. In 2018, a Guardian investigation found that British firms were earning millions of pounds from efforts to improve the image of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. The investigation revealed how the London office of Vice was working on a series of films to promote Saudi Arabia. It also stated that a Saudi Arabian publishing company was donating to the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in return for his advice to the country.
Fast forward to 2019, and it was revealed that Evgeny Lebedev, who owns both the Independent and The London Evening Standard, sold 30% stakes in these news outlets to an offshore company belonging to a Saudi businessman Sultan Mohamed Aduljadayel in 2017 and 2018. The British government accused both news outlets of being part-owned by the Saudi Arabian state and how the gulf state could influence editorial authority over the news outlets. Yet, it was found by Ofcom, the media regulator of the United Kingdom, that the buying of shares of these companies didn’t impact the coverage of the publications.
Evgeny Lebedev sold shares of The Independent and the London Evening Standard to a Saudi Arabian businessman in 2017 & 2018. Photo credit: Financial Times
The Saudi Arabian government has a notorious reputation for its human rights abuses, lack of press freedom, and lack of effort towards addressing climate change. Despite The Saudi Green Initiative claiming that the government will be heading towards cleaner energy, the nation still relies on fossil fuels. So much so, it could be argued that the articles and the videos produced by the initiative on the London Evening Standard could be an example of greenwashing and media washing by the regime. In that sense, the partnership and Saudi Arabia’s involvement within the media of the United Kingdom could be a way of shifting negative attitudes of the gulf regime. However, Saudi’s Public Investment Fund, chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also plays a role in why we see so much involvement from this country within the United Kingdom’s press.
Figures compiled by UK Declassified, an investigative journalism organisation, found that £60 billion was invested into the United Kingdom by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. Most of this investment was down to how Saudi Arabia was pressuring the United Kingdom to have a free trade deal post-Brexit. Because of these pressures post-Brexit, the United Kingdom agreed to have a deal with Saudi Arabia, even if it meant they were less likely to be critical of the regime. Despite most of the investment from the Saudi Arabian government being financial, it also transferred into the media seen by the takeovers of The Independent and the London Evening Standard. Critics say that having such financial leverage in the United Kingdom means Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes are less likely to be criticised.
By giving Gulf countries the opportunity to invest in Britain despite their record on human rights, Britain becomes more dependent on these countries and less able to voice a critical opinion on their autocratic rule. Britain does not only sell arms to these countries but also shields them from criticism in international organisations. We all remember how Britain used its position in the UN and supported Saudi Arabia’s application to have a seat at the UN Human Rights Council”
Madawi al Rasheed, a Saudi analyst at LSE
Should we care about Saudi Arabian involvement in the press?
The sight of the partnership involving the Saudi Green Initiative and the London Evening Standard ring alarm bells for the media in the United Kingdom and its readers. Having a foreign government initiative trying to portray themselves as tackling the climate, whilst evidence contradicts such a claim, is a reason to be fearful. Propaganda is a strong word to use at times, but looking at this partnership, one could argue that this word best describes this partnership.
At the same time, we could also be overblowing this partnership and the United Kingdom’s media links with the Saudi Arabian regime. Ofcom came out a few years ago and said that the Independent and the London Evening Standard were not affected in their coverage after the involvement of a Saudi Arabian business owner. Potentially, this signals the end of such a matter. Three companies in the United Kingdom own 83% of the national newspaper market, and 80% of the online readership is owned by five companies based in the same country, showing that maybe there is concern elsewhere and not Saudi Arabia.
However, the bottom line is that this partnership involving the Saudi Green Initiative and the Evening Standard has restarted a conversation around foreign involvement within the United Kingdom’s press.
Should we care about this involvement is another question entirely.
On the 17th of November, an uproar between MPs breaks out in the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsey Hoyle, reprimanding the Prime Minister, asks “…we play by the rules don’t we?” The Prime Minister, amid falling poll figures, shakes his head as Keir Starmer stands. Accusations of sleaze, betrayal and ineptitude are catching up with Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson Answering Questions At PMQs. Photo Credit: Sky News
A month of controversies and sleeze. Is the gloss wearing of Boris Johnson
The Patterson March
A month of controversies and sleaze. Is the gloss wearing of Boris Johnson?
Johnson’s party sit behind him, still seething since being sent “marching up the hill” for “absolutely nothing”. Owen Patterson was supported by a three-line whip in the vote on the 3rd, votes like this are usually votes of conscience. A day later the government U-turned. Now Patterson has been left to resign; allegedly hearing about the U-turn at a supermarket.
The Conservative MPs were left scrambling and the ministers hung out to dry on the news. All the government gained was virulent accusations of corruption. What started with a simple 30-day suspension has suddenly become so much more. Pollsters suggested drop in support for Johnson after this mess. But this was only the start of this month’s controversies.
HS2: Plans Taken Off the Line
The PM couldn’t help but make a bad situation worse. He has attached his name to the HS2 project since the beginning of his premiership. He stated in 2019: “I want to be the prime minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we did for Crossrail in London”. This continued throughout his time in Downing Street. But mere days after the Patterson crisis, Johnson revealed his true plans for HS2.
Andy Burnham called Downing Street’s Plans for HS2 “second class” in an interview with Sky News. Photo Credit: Mirror
Johnson’s government has walked back on a whole line between Leeds and East Midlands Parkway. Accusations began to fly that ‘if he was truly focussed the north, surely that wouldn’t have been scrapped’. In the ex-“red wall” constituencies this has not been received well. On November 22nd, YouGov reported that 66% of those in the north of England believe Boris Johnson is doing badly. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, also hit out on Sky News against the plan. He cited a desire for the lauded “east-west” connectivity that was promised to the north. This has not been delivered in the new plan. He described HS2 as a “second class plan” from the government.
The Peppa Speech
The final major optic failure this month was Boris Johnson’s speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). This speech was supposed to be a speech about how the government would support businesses to level up throughout the country. However, it left many confused. In another moment of leadership, Boris was seen, head down, searching his notes in 20 seconds of silence.
Labour’s shadow chancellor called the speech “shambolic”. She also stated that “no one was laughing, because the joke’s not funny anymore”, echoing her leader at prime minister’s questions the previous Wednesday. However, it wasn’t only the BBC that ran this story. The Telegraph wrote about his impression of a revving car. An ITV reporter asked if everything was “OK”, even the Daily Mail called the speech “bizarre”. Downing Street has also clarified that Boris Johnson is not “unwell”. The implication in the clarification is clear.
An ITV Reporter Asks Boris if “Everything is OK” following a “bizarre” speech about Peppa Pig World. Photo Credit: BBC News
Boris’s time is almost over
Boris’ time in number 10 is over. In the last month, he has alienated his party, the constituents that got him his majority and anyone who could defend his governance. The momentum has shifted firmly against him and there doesn’t appear to be a way to turn the tide.
It’s not as if this revelation is new to many, and not only from the opposition. Many Conservatives haven’t liked Johnson for some time. Accusations of Carrie controlling his political choices, cowardice (e.g. hiding in a fridge) and a central selfishness to his character all being criticisms levelled. The conservatives chose him as leader to ‘Get Brexit Done’. He has served that purpose and that time is over. It is very likely he doesn’t have the chance to cancel Christmas again.
The public has seen behind the curtain. Broken promises are broken promises wherever a constituent is. Many voters are starting to get a sense that there is no master plan behind the buffoonery. There is no earnest man behind the joke. No machinations behind the renovated curtains. Many have already known this. But never has his lack of focus and authenticity been so transparent.
This month has knocked any further faith in Boris, knocking faith in the party. This undermines faith in his MPs, undermining their faith in him. Conservative MPs have already handed in letters of no confidence. It appears that the joke really “isn’t funny anymore”, in Starmer’s words. However, one thing is for sure, he will have to be ousted. He won’t simply accept that the joke is over.
Unpacking the recent accusations of MP sleaze can be a long and messy process. It’s entangled with confusing economic arrangements with big corps, concealed payments, lobbying, and loopholes in the system.
For most of us, it’s hard to get our heads around what is actually going on in the Houses of Parliament. This makes it unclear where to draw the line on the moral obligations we expect from our MPs and what constitutes corruption. For some, questionable behaviour by MP’s can be excused by the fact that they have not technically broken any laws by taking advantage of the loopholes. Others argue that it is a low bar to set for morality by saying they’re not breaking the law and that anytime where an MP’s personal interest conflicts with that of the public, constitutes corruption.
What’s been going on?
Tory MP, Owen Paterson has been found to have been lobbying on the behalf of two companies paying him over £100,000 a year
Cross-party groups of MPs have received hidden payments from drug companies in the pharmaceutical industry’s pursuit to gain advantages by policy making
It has been revealed that Tory MP, Geoffrey Cox has earned at least £6m from his second job since entering parliament, calling into question Cox’s commitment to his job as an MP
Jacob Rees-Mogg may have broken finanical rules for MPs by failing to declare that he got £6m in cheap loans from one of his companies
These cases have caused a row within Parliament over how MP’s integrity is maintained.
After a push from the opposition, PM, Boris Johnson has proposed to update the code of conduct for MPs for it to continue “to command the confidence of the public”. He proposes a ban on MPs acting as paid consultants or lobbyists, and also a censure on MPs who do not prioritise their constituents.
I have written to the Commons Speaker to propose:
1) The Code of Conduct for MPs is updated 2) MPs who are prioritising outside interests over their constituents are investigated and appropriately punished 3) MPs are banned from acting as paid political consultants or lobbyists pic.twitter.com/3SSQqrKRCG
The whole point of being an MP is to represent the public’s interest over your own. An MP’s personal economic interests should be set aside when on the job in Parliament. MP’s using their position to enrich themselves is exploiting the system. Especially with the backdrop of rising inflation, energy costs and cuts in universal credit, a proportion of society is being squeezed, while it seems some in Parliament are milking the system.
Half of UK adults believe MPs should solely focus on their job. MPs having second jobs can undermine their role as representing their constituents and raising issues in the House on their behalf. An MP’s job is a full-time job, serving the public is complex and time-consuming enough, there should be little room for any other work.
The MPs code of conduct declares it is “strictly forbidden” to take payments for initiating parliamentary proceedings, voting, or approaching ministers and other members on the behalf of a third party. In Paterson’s case, his actions were described as an “egregious case of paid advocacy” in a report approved by a group of cross-party MPs on the standards committee.
On top of this, another report has found pharmaceutical companies to have a hidden web of policy influence by making secretive payments to health-related all-party parliamentary groups (APPG). As MPs are in public office, their actions should be transparent. Taking “hidden” payments of course undermines their duty to be transparent with the public. The authors of the report highlight, APPG’s taking substantial income from pharmaceutical companies shows policymaking in the interests of public health to be at risk of being influenced by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry’s goal of maximising profits.
The public deserves to have the confidence that MPs are standing for their best interest and not that of private companies. MPs have a duty to keep their integrity by serving the public first in their job.
Rifts between The North and The South are not new. London has swallowed most of the energy, resources and money to help it reach its global city status that dominates narratives about the UK. For some time now, research has been conducted on how wealth has been distributed between London and the rest of England. One study even showed that there was a £700 difference per head that was being spent in London compared to Birmingham on transport alone (£300 per head being spent on transport in Birmingham compared with £1000).
In fact, a third of ALL arts funding (research by Rebalancing our Cultural Capital) gets spent in London! In 2018 London received about £24 per person, compared to £8 elsewhere, (or just £3 per head for Cheshire and Warrington).
As companies move further and further up North, dramatic transformations are being made to the infrastructure that means that the North is becoming more and more attractive to businesses, influencers and moguls across the board. Businesses moving up North for greener pastures are causing a snowball effect – it attracts more investment.
In fact, some research suggests the investment in the northern tech industry is growing faster than anywhere else in Europe, at a rate of 619 per cent (between 2012 and 2017).
There are many young people (under 30) that have been part of this shift, that have created new infrastructure and made significant developments across industries within the North of England.
Now is the time for change
From footballers to social entrepreneurs, to financial moguls and creatives, The North of England is home to some of the most successful ‘up and coming’ millennials making an impact and trailblazing in a number of industries; yet attention is often focused on London.
With, #NORTH30, we are changing that. The Common Sense Network’s list of 30 trailblazers under 30 challenges the perception that success for young people only comes from moving to the capital.
#NORTH30 celebrates the achievements of outliers under the age of 30 who are changing the game in the North of England.
COP26 finished on the 12th of November 2021. World leaders, diplomats and cultural influencers gathered in Glasgow for an event many hoped would usher in a renewed international response to the climate crisis. The end of COP26 means many things. The end of hope for stronger words. The beginning of hope for action. There was little innovation in talking points. And commitments were given no costs for failure. Only future actions will tell if the whole thing was (as Greta Thunberg suggested) just a PR stunt, or if it will create lasting change.
COP26 carried with it a backdrop of fear, dragging behind it like a toddler’s toy truck. ‘Avoid climate disaster’ was the central message. But people don’t tend to respond well to bad news. People panic in the face of dread. Ridiculous costumes to ‘flatten the curve’ and empty shelves in supermarkets are clear symptoms. However, there may be a counterbalance.
While COP26 was in full flow, Caroline Lucas was on BBC’s Question Time in Eastleigh, speaking about one of her favourite cartoons:
“[It] has a professor in front of a whiteboard, and on the whiteboard, they’ve listed all of the advantages of moving to a zero-carbon economy… and there’s a student with a speech bubble … saying: ‘but what if climate change is a hoax and we’ve created a better world for no reason?’…”
Caroline Lucas is a Green Party MP (Getty Images)
Can that better world be built by big business? It begins with investment. While being a boring topic for many, it might be the only way the world is saved. Edelman’s Trust Barometer suggested that 67% of the public believe that businesses are responsible for tackling climate change. However, only 27% of the general population believe that businesses are doing enough. When 66% of those surveyed believe that “tackling climate change is more urgent now than ever before”, there must be a gap in the market.
This is the primary way big business can benefit. Building reputations as environmental stewards now means those firms could redefine themselves as pioneers. The writing is on the wall, consumers are turning their eyes to the environment. And consumers vote with their wallets. If companies invest now, they could gain a competitive advantage, to even a monopolistic degree. As consumers witness more climatic events these votes will become more one-sided. These businesses could be heroes by investing early, for all stakeholders, including shareholders.
On the other hand, if these companies do not invest, they will die. If left to the last second, they will no longer be competitive. Big business must invest to be future proof. Why not do it early? Investing late may literally cost the earth.
The Future is Now
Major fossil fuel companies have the capital to invest in the future. The usually high barriers to entry are nothing more than a garden fence. Indeed, fossil fuel companies are already investing in renewable energy. But they can do more. Many have accused fossil fuel companies of being similar to big tobacco of the mid-20th century. Their funding of climate denial a particular point of contention. But if they lead the charge to save the planet, their companies need not die with the end of this destructive era.
BP, previously British Petroleum, has now been renamed ‘Beyond Petroleum’. This is supposed to represent a shift in direction. Although, many also accuse BP of greenwashing. This seems like a fair criticism considering their history in the Gulf of Mexico. However, they have begun to liquidate their oil and gas assets to begin buying into renewables. One of the reasons cited is ‘stability’ of the market. The dramatic rise and fall of oil and gas prices in the last two years is worrying. The time for fossil fuels is over and they know it. BP are said to be taking a gamble on a quick switch to renewables. But if anything, there is a sense among many that it’s more of a gamble to keep the fossil fuel stations open. Eventually, the demand for fossil fuels will fall to the point where the price begins to fall, one last time. Then the old fossil fuel giants will begin to close their refinery doors rather than sell them on.
The fossil fuel companies are only those on the front line of this crisis. Plenty of other businesses can benefit from a similar approach. Looking to the future is no longer a distant point. It is tangibly here; the money has begun to flow. These generations will witness a paradigm shift.
Beyond, Beyond Petroleum
Big businesses can no longer coast around this topic. Nor can media groups bait their publics. Media companies will need to educate people as to how their lives will change. They will have to provide that public service again. There is a need to reinspire hope. Hope that humanity can stick to below 1.5 degrees. Hope that those who will suffer from the climate damage can be helped. Hope that it hasn’t been left too late. If the media achieves the uphill battle that is ‘inspiring hope’, they might regain trust from the public. The same Edelman Trust Barometer suggested that the media are the least trusted entity in public life. Only 31% of those surveyed said they trusted the media. Telling the truth, educating, and inspiring hope is how the media can hope to fill in this widening faultline.
So how does big business benefit from the climate crisis? The solution is to look at the climate crisis as an opportunity. Governments need to look at the incentives states can give big business. The most cynical members of the population would state that big business isn’t naturally an altruistic entity. Why not play into that? The climate is out of time, there is no time to change the economic system and save the world. It is time to prioritise. Trying both is arguably irresponsible and self-involved. Indeed, all economic and government systems need to look past ideology to achieve the same goals.
The trust in a western system should not be tied to humanity’s existence on the planet. Pragmatism suggests use of the resources available. Big business will only benefit if they make the right calls. Not for their shareholders, but for the community. They only benefit if the system itself survives. Without a system, there’s no one to buy their products.
