Next Steps post Windsor

1 / 3

The last few years have proved difficult for unionism, some would have you believe the most difficult. Some would have you believe the threat to the union is existential and must be resisted in all its working to the nth degree.  

Nearly 40 years ago I heard the same rhetoric as I hear today, indeed from some of the same voices. Then I listened, I followed, I marched, rallied, plotted, planned and acted as my leaders required. In the end not one comma in the Anglo-Irish Agreement was changed. Yet, I am as British today as I was 40 years ago.

No doubt we shall hear a lot of rhetorical jingoism from some in reference to the “Stormont brake” and I am reminded of another speech made about Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. This time by the late Harold McCusker MP in the House of Commons in November 1985 after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The full speech is worthy of note but specifically I recalled this section.

“I shall not argue with the Secretary of State about sovereignty because the House can change what it means by that. That came out in the debate yesterday. Sovereignty is what the Government decide it is.” Harold McCusker MP Hansard 28th Nov 1985

Thirty-eight years ago, Harold McCusker knew the truth about the United Kingdom, Parliament is sovereign, today some unionists still don’t understand or accept that reality.

For some in unionism action means inaction, boycott. A process that ultimately leads to more death, pain, discomfort, poverty, deprivation and lost life opportunities. It would be a brutal political strategy if the intention was to influence a Government committed to caring about the citizens affected by such a strategy. This Government doesn’t. Without a political outcome to such a brutal strategy the decision to continue it is an immoral one.

That doesn’t mean that unionism should accept the Windsor Framework or believe the spin promoted by the Government. This is modern Britain under the Conservatives, we live in Orwell’s world  

“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” Orwell 1984

Brexit was a disaster for the UK, warnings about the impact on the union were ignored and those who raised concerns about the economic consequences were pointed to slogans on the side of a bus. The Protocol was a failed negotiation by a UK team who did not understand the complexities they were meant to address and a unionist leadership in the DUP happy to devolve the issue to the Conservatives. Their initial support for Boris and the Protocol allowed the ink to dry before they were alerted to the dangers.  

The EU had one objective in dealing with Brexit, the protection of the single market, it was a concept the UK didn’t fully understand nor make any effort to understand, especially the consequences for NI, speed was the motivation for every UK decision. The offer of dual access to markets, while offering some opportunities also brings some risks, but the starting point is that the UK has signed a binding international trade agreement, walking away is not an option. Indeed it is likely that surreptitiously the Government will move closer to the regulations prevailing within the Single Market, business is already doing so. A future Government will move even closer, not out of any politically pro-EU motivation but due to the practical necessity of providing access to the large market on the UK’s doorstep.  The Windsor Framework is simply a step along that road, little to do with addressing the concerns of unionists.

---

2 / 3

In that context I believe that Unionism should not indicate support for the Windsor Framework, as such support is a meaningless action for something we have had no input into nor decision making authority for.  It provides a fig leaf of respectability for a Government that deserves no such cover. The results of the Frameworks outworking will be complex and challenging, the interrogation of rules and regulations, deep negotiations and a level of understanding on impacts hitherto not a feature of local politics for any party. Rejection may be the choice of some, especially the DUP, but again it’s a meaningless fig leaf, unionists either acknowledge the sovereignty of Parliament or they don’t.  

So, what do I think unionism’s position should be, first, further infliction of morally questionable boycott tactics should end. This Conservative party is not swayed by increasing death rates, years of pain and suffering by our citizens, defunding of our schools, collapse of infrastructure or lost life opportunities for our citizens.  

Secondly, applying a simple principle, both in Brussels and Westminster, “nothing about us without us” the earliest engagement with Northern Ireland over proposed changes to anything which affects us under the Windsor Framework. Rather than trying to dissect the intentions of changes after the fact include representatives from NI in the initial engagement. This will be challenging for unionism as engagement won’t be on a veto basis, (Sunak hasn’t delivered a veto no matter the spin), being better politicians is the key to using the system to NI’s advantage.

Thirdly, the action of unionist leaders to challenge the Protocol through the courts highlights the challenges the UK has without a formal written constitution. Basing the challenge on Article 6 of the Act of Union highlights the significant changes already existing due to devolution, notwithstanding that in respect of trade the Act of Union predates railways and East – West trade was limited to what was carried on sailing vessels and by horse and cart.

“That all Parts of the United Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export.” Article 6 Act of Union 1800

The Government apparently is offering to amend the Northern Ireland Act to reassure unionism, I could not accept any reassurance from this Government, what can be amended once can be amended again, my identity is not in the gift of Conservatives. I believe that unionism can however make a significant request for the betterment of the UK as a whole. A request for the establishment of a constitutional convention, to provide within 5 years a written constitution to be accepted or rejected by referendum. A constitution which details the rights of citizens, the responsibilities of Parliament and the limitations of Government.

Finally, what of our relationship with the Conservatives. In the run up to the 2010 election I spent a year working with the Conservatives on the UCUNF project (named before I was involved). At that time there was a belief in the development of a centre-right socially aware conservatism, that iteration of conservatism no longer exists. Instead the Conservatives, controlled by the ideology and authors of Britannia Unchained, represented by the faux working class of Gullis and Anderson, the faux aristocracy of Rees-Mogg and the buffoonery of Boris have stepped far outside the tram lines of a caring society.  

There will be those who believe that unionism should stand with them still, the DUP have many who share this view, happy to stand in the shadows behind the Tories believing they too are in the limelight. In the coming weeks there will be those who articulate the need for unionism to stand united with conservatism with banners and flags flying. This is a venture the Ulster Unionist Party has no need to

---

3 / 3

be involved with. There may still be honourable Tories, I can name a few, but too few and Conservatism today has nothing to offer society. Individuals may be enticed by baubles, a bended knee at the Palace, a rare chance of the ermine. True belief in creating a better society cannot be set aside or bought off by mere trinkets or titles. As for working closely with the DUP, the difference between us is the difference between those who passionately believe in creating a better society and those who will sacrifice lives, inflict poor health, justify poverty and limit the life chances of our citizens in the pursuit of power. Those beliefs go in different directions, at no point do they cross.

---

Fifteen Percent

1 / 5

Fifteen Percent

Unionism will likely face a border poll at a point in the next 10 years. The decision to call for such a poll will not be the start of a process but effectively the culmination of a process which has been developing for some years. Under the guise of “Irelands Future” or “New Ireland” republicans and nationalists have been preparing the groundwork for the referendum campaign for some time and with significant unrestricted financial support.

It is currently the case that neither republicans or unionists have a clear majority to guarantee success in a near future poll, but several factors must be considered, demographic changes favour republicanism and they are not in a rush, they do not want to expedite a poll they may lose instead preferring to wait until victory is assured. Neither will the UK Government or Irish Government wish to create a Brexit II scenario where a result creates uncertainty about what follows. Hence a significant investment in preparation for transition will be undertaken by both Governments.

Within the calculation of when to hold a border poll is the future voting intention of the fifteen percent. Roughly that figure represents those less inclined to be influenced by constitutional considerations and more by the idea of something better than what society currently delivers for them and their families. Their aspirations are not wrong, nor flawed, indeed that aspiration should be at the heart of every political movement. This cohort do have concerns that some political parties, primarily unionist, will support a lower standard of living, a lower quality of life in return for constitutional certainty.

The importance of this is illustrated by the nature of the campaign already being conducted. Republicans have the technical, financial and human resources to focus on the fifteen percent. The “Vote Leave” campaign of 2016 showed what could be achieved with data management and focussed message targeting, 6 years later the technology available and the understanding of how to target specific groups has moved on immeasurably.  

---

2 / 5

For that fifteen percent those seeking their support will understand their hopes, dreams and aspirations, not just for themselves but for their children. In general, where they live, where they work and socialise, where their children go to school, what programmes they watch, what social media they use, what news they watch, who in public life they follow and listen to are all part of the profiling that has been developed to underpin the “New Ireland” mantra.  

On the 1st  October 2022 Irelands Future will hold, what is billed as, Irelands biggest ever United Ireland conference. It’s not for Republicans, though they will be there and active, the target audience is the fifteen percent. Guest speakers will include Rev Karen Sethuraman, James Nesbitt, Matt Cooper, Colm Meaney, while Amanda Ferguson will chair a discussion. Names and personalities designed to assure the fifteen percent that change will be positive, they will sell a vision of a land of milk and honey, peace and prosperity, a land where all are welcome. They will be supported by former unionists such as Ben Collins promoting the transition that will lead to a border poll and based on the current trajectory its inevitable outcome.

Unionist response will inevitably be negative, denouncing any vision, any aspiration and driving the fifteen percent further into the orbit of those selling ambition.  

An attempt to counter the New Ireland narrative has been launched by Dame Arlene Foster called Together UK. It falters at the first step by adopting the name of a Mental Health charity which has been in existence for 140 years. It continues to stumble by failing to understand the challenges it faces, selling the benefits of the UK today will convince no-one who is interested in seeking something better. Having Dame Arlene front the campaign may well appeal to some committed unionists but will do nothing to appeal to the fifteen percent. While republicanism seeks to attract support for their vision by promoting those who are followed by and will influence the centre, unionism promotes a hard-right former politician, now commentator for a right-wing media outlet who doesn’t do detail.

The reality is that whereas unionists will in the future prepare and fight a campaign based on numbers others are currently fighting a campaign based on ideas. Currently unionists will wait until a border

---

3 / 5

poll is inevitable, they will form a committee, there will be flags, posters (Ulster says No), parades and rallies and not a single idea of how to convince the fifteen percent that there is a better future in the Union. Unionism has not begun to understand the nature of the challenge it faces, never mind turn to face it.  

That doesn’t mean that unionism has lost but it does mean that a radical rethinking of how we sustain the union is vital. Those who are yet undecided will be influenced by a series of push/pull factors some within the control of unionism, some not. Each factor needs to be considered not on its impact in the short-term nor to the individual benefit of political parties but on the long-term impact on the ultimate future of the union. Some examples are listed, not an exhaustive list and there will be events over the next few years that are as yet unforeseen but will have impact.

The current Conservative Government gives every indication of being an administration which can push people away from the union, their ideology across a broad range of societal issues will cause many in the centre to question their attachment to a union with such a political direction. Replacing them with a more centrist government will eventually address this and should act as a pull factor, however whether that is enough to change the minds of those in their late teens/early twenties who will be already be considering an alternative way to meet their aspirations is an unknown.  

The expected elevation of Sinn Fein to Government in the Republic may be either a push factor, they show an inability to govern and lower living standards and expectations, or alternatively a pull factor as they make things work to the extent that people are attracted to the society they begin to create.  

Northern Ireland’s current political reality is a push factor, those who aspire to a better quality of life see the current impasse as a sign that things will not improve. Whatever the short-term political advantage for some unionist parties the medium to long term result will be the erosion of support for the status quo and an aspiration for something better. Herein lies an uncomfortable reality for unionism. It has been easy to cast all of the blame for the Protocol and its outworking at the feet of the EU and the Irish Government, the alternative is difficult to contemplate. The Protocol was an

---

4 / 5

agreed position between the EU and the UK, a UK Government whose civil servants consider medium to long term implications of such agreements, specifically what steps would facilitate the transition post a border poll result leading to the end of the Union. It would be naïve to expect that only foreign civil servants plan ahead for a range of outcomes.

Those who seek a libertarian, fundamentalist Protestant Ulster facilitate the push against the Union while they are seen to lead Unionism. If theirs is the only vision of the Union on offer then it will be rejected by an increasing number of voters. While a unionism focussed on more centre ground politics would attract a wider support from the fifteen percent and hopefully soft nationalists if the loudest voice is wrapped in a flag and seen to be reducing the quality of life of our citizens then any hope of moving forward within the United Kingdom is limited.

Only a unionism capable of recognising the battle we are already in and reacting appropriately by creating a vision of a new union encompassing change which secures not just Northern Irelands place in the Union but Scotland and Wales as well can succeed. That means building new partnerships with unionist centrists across the UK setting a new vision which excites and motivates the electorate. It also means an acceptance that some in unionism are a threat to the Union as they present a view of society that a majority do not share. While some of these individuals will see themselves leading the campaign for the union, in reality the higher their profile the lower the chance of success. The desire to seek an alternative leaves many in the fifteen percent open to the “New Ireland” mantra.

Too few unionists recognise the threat or the actions needed to counter it, too many listen to the loudest voices and want to follow the band. Changing that mindset will require a level of political activism unionism has not been capable of for many generations. To win we must convince ourselves of a better union before we can hope to convince others.

---

5 / 5

---

Opportunity Lost

Many local authorities recognise that, with climate change and the loss of biodiversity, all sections of society will have a role to play in addressing the challenges ahead. Some are at the forefront of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decarbonising their vehicle fleet or switching to renewable energy sources. But unfortunately too many tentatively engage or, with a clear lack of organisational understanding, steer clear of the issues. 

For some environmental achievements are measured in the award of Green Flags or honourable mentions for short-term seasonal initiatives.

To address the challenges future generations will face a transformation in organisational understanding is required both in energy use and improving biodiversity.

Take the example of a roundabout in Antrim. A large flat grassy area with a sculpture of a tree adorned with leaves etched with children's artwork, a Peace project funded by the EU, is in the centre. Some hedging radiates out from the centre but mostly it's a flat grassy surface.

Last year a local environmentalist persuaded the council to leave the area unmowed to allow the grasses and other plants to grow. They agreed and during the summer a botanist was asked to carry out a survey of the plants growing there. What he found was quite amazing, 55 different species, some rare were growing on the site. So varied was the fauna that he was surprised that the site had not been especially seeded. The results were provided to the council as an example of what could be achieved by actually doing nothing.

This year

the council mowed the area and left it like a bowling green.

No doubt council has all sorts of policies and statements about the environment, none of them have meaning unless the organisation understands the challenges we face and the changes needed to meet them. If council and other agencies don't have the knowledge there are many environmentalists locally who do, time to listen.

A crying shame

 A few years ago I nominated Antrim Castle Gardens for an award from the Fields in Trust charity and this wonderful legacy for the people of Antrim was named the best park in Northern Ireland in 2016. It is a special place to me and that is why what I witness now is so heartbreaking.

If you park in front of Clotworthy House to the right was a green open space, it was safe and while occasionally used for temporary events it always returned to its multi-purpose people space. Families picnicked, toddlers toddled, children kicked their first football or caught their first frisbee, it was a priceless space to those who used it. 

For some in authority however it was valueless and value could only be added by concrete and structure.

The site has been bounded by Portugal Laurel, a non-native species whose leaves are apparently considered poisonous releasing cyanide when burnt or crushed. What was open and safe is now closed and unsafe.

Throughout the Castle Gardens run drainage channels, vibrant areas so recently filled with frog spawn, now tadpoles and froglets should grow, along whose banks ducks will nest.

Those who care for none of this see only somewhere to dispose of the waste from the construction site. Where flora and fauna flourished there is only the dead space of cement washings.

For Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council the measure of success has been obtaining the services of a "big name" garden designer. While the Garden Show has been a good temporary attraction its value was always that things would go back to normal, but no longer, the drive to develop more, more often, more permanently destroys the heart of this precious resource.

Elected representatives may have been sold a picture of heaven, what has been delivered is environmental hell.

Strategic failure

 So Nicola Mallon, Minister of Infrastructure, has finally taken a decision to refuse planning permission for the Energy from Waste plant for ARC 21 at Hightown. It’s not an unexpected decision as her view on the proposal has been known for many years long before she became Minister. There was certainly no prospect of her approving permission a few weeks from an election. Parish pump politics trumps process every time.  So here are my thoughts on her decision, the implications for ratepayers, the implications for the environment but more importantly the undermining of good governance and the loss of confidence in strategic investment in Northern Ireland. 

Many years ago I was a Councillor on Antrim Borough Council and to be honest waste management wasn’t a subject I had a particular interest in other than when local bins weren’t being lifted for some reason. Colleagues had a greater interest and it was those individuals who sat on agencies such as ARC 21, a collaborative effort amongst a number of councils to find ways of reducing the cost of waste management. When ARC 21 proposed the development of an Energy from Waste (EFW) plant to address the decreasing level of landfill available and the increasing awareness of environmental impacts from creating new landfill it was something I took under my notice but again without looking at the issue too deeply other than being satisfied that this would take the option of a new landfill facility at Lady Hill in Antrim off the table. 

That changed when the preferred site for such a facility was identified as being at the then current landfill site at Dargan in Belfast. This North Belfast site had for years catered for the landfill needs of a significant proportion of Belfast, indeed much of the existing infrastructure in that area is built on historic land fill. At the time I was managing a community health partnership in Inner North Belfast and local residents asked if I could consider what impact such a facility would have on them. Having recently completed some training in carrying out health impact assessments from the Institute of Public Health in Ireland it was an opportunity to apply some of that knowledge.  

The first thing to say is that Inner North Belfast already suffered from some of the worst air pollution in Northern Ireland. With a multilane motorway system running the length of the area in question, a large feed mill, a sewage waste incinerator already in existence in the docks, other industry and leakage of gases from the existing landfill site there are many factors which contribute to poor respiratory health. Coming from a position of knowing very little about EFW I quickly found that this was a preferred technology in many Scandinavian countries which prided themselves in high environmental standards. I found many examples where EFW plants were integrated into large city infrastructure places like Manhattan or close to the centre of Paris. I was able to logon to the operators website and see in real time the make up of the gases leaving the Manhattan facility chimneys. Courtesy of the very effective filters in place the air leaving the facility was cleaner than the air at ground level in Manhattan. After reviewing the operation of a number of sites it was clear that locating this plant at Dargan would not pose a health risk during operation. Over the years formal HIA processes, independently reviewed, have confirmed that assessment of the technology. 

Health impact assessments however are not just about identifying negative impacts and mitigating them, they also provide an opportunity to identify positive impacts and ensuring that they were included in the project design. Working with the consultants employed at that time by ARC 21 a number of suggestions were made. Just as the transportation of waste to the landfill site had a negative impact on air quality, road safety and council budgets the location of the railway line presented an opportunity to take municipal waste off the road and deliver it to the site by rail from transfer stations in many parts of Northern Ireland. We discussed how energy from the plant could drive new, clean manufacturing in the area. The idea of using heat from the plant to heat poly tunnels and create an inner-city urban horticultural outlet providing fresh produce for those living in inner North Belfast was also discussed. The area is known for having historic high levels of fuel poverty driven both by poverty and poor housing conditions amongst our suggestions was that in the event of the project providing electricity to the grid those living in inner North Belfast could have a reduction in electricity unit cost. Then surprisingly in June 2009 Belfast city council denied permission for the Dargan site, which was in their ownership, to be used as a location for the EFW plant. 

A site selection process continued with those bidding to deliver the project and a disused quarry at Hightown Road in Mallusk was chosen as an alternative with a planning application being submitted in March 2014. That wasn’t an unexpected outcome as planning policy indicated that the reuse of worked out quarries for waste management purposes was preferred over the use of a greenfield site. 

On January 6th 2014 Infrastructure Minister Mark H Durkan had approved an energy from waste plant in the Belfast Harbour estate. After much concern about the long-term viability of Bombardier due to rising energy costs, the approval of an EFW gasification plant was rapidly progressed. The plant was approved based on an application which stated it would be fuelled by commercial and industrial waste but using relatively experimental technology.  

While in any major planning application it is likely there will be a level of local opposition, (not in my backyard), what started to appear in relation to the ARC 21 application was a funded, professional campaign directed at the application. But parallel to that was a concerted effort to undermine the entire ARC 21 procurement exercise. Representatives of the EFW plant at Belfast Harbour estate started to promote the idea that they could take the municipal waste despite the fact, that bringing their plant online successfully has proven to be problematic just as similar gasification plants have also experienced across the UK,  and due to the nature of the process it is unable to cope with the municipal waste mix. Most concerning about this was that local representatives began to parrot the same message. These were individuals who had a decision-making role in a multi-million pound procurement exercise and were proactively undermining that exercise in calling for the process to be ended and multi-million pound contracts awarded to their preferred alternative. They continue to do so to this day and at the very minimum the local government ombudsman should investigate the actions of those locally who sought to undermine this process. 

In September 2015 then Minister Mark H Durkan issued a notice of opinion to refuse the ARC 21 application on the grounds of health risks and lack of justifiable need, despite the evidence presented to him showing unequivocally that there were no health risks and the absolute critical need for the facility. ARC 21 asked for a hearing before the PAC and more information was provided by both parties. By this time there had been an election and there was new Minister and rather than opposing the appeal, he instructed the Department to adopt a neutral position preferring to rely on the professional decision-making of the PAC.  Subsequently, before the determination was issued Stormont collapsed and when the PAC decision to recommend approval was received by the Department there was no minister in place to make a decision. On 29 August 2017 the Permanent Secretary, based on legal advice and information he received from the PAC, decided the planning permission should be granted and this happened on 13 September 2017. In October 2017, an application for a judicial review was initiated by Mr Colin Buick, the chairperson of the leading campaign organisation against the ARC21 proposal. As a consequence, the court decided that in the absence of a Minister the Permanent Secretary of the Department was not empowered to make the decision. 

Coming then to the re-establishment of the Stormont executive and north Belfast MLA Nicola Mallon, who has consistently campaigned against the proposal, is appointed Minister of Infrastructure and the person responsible for making the decision on the planning application. 

Over the past few years, the level of external pressure from competing private interests has continued to grow with the single objective of bringing this process to an end and freeing up waste management contracts for diversion into their businesses. For some politicians, lack of assessment and analysis of the information they have been given by those private companies leaves them at personal jeopardy. For others a lack of understanding about the processes involved have led them down informational cul-de-sacs. Some have questioned the business case; the formal business case could not be finalised until a decision on planning application was taken yet some politicians were unable to separate the two issues. Consequently, their lack of understanding of the need to find a waste management solution, now hampers future proposals. For some, the reason to block the development was about the end use of the power output of this facility, in a world where generation of energy locally is a critical need, exporting energy production seems counter intuitive. Why would we export waste at cost to other countries, for those countries to benefit from the renewable energy produced from the controlled utilisation of that waste; whilst still agreeing to the continued import of fossil fuels to Northern Ireland? Where is the climate and environmental sense in that? 

There are moral and environmental imperatives that society should deal with its waste management issues close to where they arise. Too often we see images of waste washing up on foreign shores far from the place it originated. Yet those who argue against this proposal are more than happy for the alternative to be the shipping of our waste to similar facilities in Scandinavia, the United States of America and potentially landfill further afield.  

For Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council the negative influence of external commercial actors was focused through a small number of elected representatives onto the council as a whole. The reputational damage is significant and it’s clear that for a number of individuals more direct intervention by the ombudsman, when it was first recognised that they were acting on behalf of external commercial actors, would have assisted the council in open and transparent decision-making. 

Nicola Mallon’s decision does not solve our waste management crisis, new landfill development is not an option bringing with it significant environmental and health consequences. An ever-decreasing range of options brings increased cost especially for local ratepayers. Her statement on the refusal states that she does not see “a need for this specific facility”,  effectively creating a policy vacuum in the management of waste in Northern Ireland with the absence of a detailed assessment of what she personally would accept. But there are other far reaching consequences. 

We have witnessed multi-billion pound companies trying to invest in Northern Ireland to provide us with the infrastructure we need to grow as a society and we have watched as many have turned and walked away in sheer frustration at the investment hurdles that we present to them. Any company seeking to invest wants to know that there is an open and transparent process that is fair, whether in procurement or in planning. What Mark H Durkan and Nicola Mallon have shown is that no matter how robust and open the planning system is they are not bound by it. They are instead bound by other factors, in this case electoral, while Nicola’s personal interests are satisfied, there won’t be a company interested in capital investment in Northern Ireland if, after many years of preparation and meeting all of the requirements of planning regulations, the ultimate decision comes down to someone who is bound by none of them. If it is the case, that ministers are not required to follow the same rules and regulations citizens and companies are required to follow when coming to a decision then what, beyond electoral interests, might future inducements be to take a decision one way or the other. 

A response to Sammy Wilson

Being an MP gives Sammy Wilson certain opportunities such as having letters and statements carried by the press. However when his communication is so clearly outside the accepted scientific knowledge it is also encumbent on the press to allow a timely rebuttal. This week I responded to Sammy's misinformation/misunderstanding but this has not yet been covered by the press so I'm setting it out here for the record.

There are few individuals left in the world who deny the reality of anthropogenic (caused by human action) climate change, most who have a vested interest in maintaining activity which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions have moved to delayism or doomism. In Sammy Wilson MP however we have one of the world's last holdouts for straight denialism. He states, "many will be scratching their heads in bewilderment at the suggestion that world leaders can somehow control the earth's thermostat simply by changing the level of CO2 emissions" .  In 1856 a paper by Eunice Newton Foote detailed her observations of the warming effect of CO2, three years later an Irish physicist John Tyndall published a paper outlining how a rise in CO2 levels would increase global temperatures. Scientists have known this for 170 years, some of the most detailed studies and projections were produced by major fossil fuel companies, who promptly buried their results and began a campaign to undermine those who pointed out the impact of unrelenting use of fossil fuels. The world's governments and scientists recognise the problems and know the challenges in addressing them. The are many authors such as Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe whose work would educate anyone with an open mind on the subject, for the closed minds I don't have an answer other than ensuring they do not delay the important work to be done.

When the grass doesn't grow

 What happens when the grass doesn't grow? Not such an outlandish thought, indeed recently DAERA issued a warning to the agricultural sector about the impact of prolonged very hot weather on fodder supplies later in the year. Simply put, as climate change means more extreme events, hotter weather in summer, wetter weather in winter and sudden storms will all have an impact on Northern Ireland’s agriculture. 

For those who are reluctant to consider any changes to agricultural output to reduce climate change the failure to do so carries a far greater risk to the sector in what is a rapidly shortening time frame. The scale of the challenge is immense, Northern Ireland’s admittedly high quality grass fed beef, dairy and lamb sectors support 2 million sheep and 1.6 million cows. All options to reduce our contribution to greenhouse gases include a reduction in these numbers to reduce methane output. 

What is important is that any management of the impact of climate change ensures a socially, financially and environmentally sustainable agricultural sector. That means a proper grown up discussion about how to make changes which protect farmers and ensure long term stability for the sector.

The alternative is not the industrialisation of agriculture, something that has happened already in a number of food sectors. Farmers should not be reduced to being production managers in a factory system, indentured servants carrying all of the financial and environmental risks while shareholders in large multinationals take all of the profit.

While we will face the challenges of extended periods of intense heat and will face sudden and devastating rainfall events which will result in a serious disruption of farming activity we should be supporting farmers now to try and reduce the potential for these events, putting in place an alternative sustainable framework which both reduces the production of greenhouse gases and ensures viability for the sector even when the grass doesn’t grow.