LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Friday, May 17, 2024

#BDS

UAW 4811

UC officials charge that academic workers strike over pro-Palestinian protests is illegal

Jaweed Kaleem, Paloma Esquivel
Fri, May 17, 2024

Academic workers at UC Irvine walk the picket line during a strike on Nov. 15, 2022.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

As the 48,000-member UC academic workers union announced a Monday strike at UC Santa Cruz over alleged free speech violations during pro-Palestinian protests, the University of California on Friday filed a labor complaint to stop what they allege is an illegal action, heightening tensions roiling the university system.

The union's decision to strike on the 19,764-student campus — where nearly 2,000 students are in graduate school — could deal a blow to operations at a critical time during the final weeks of the spring quarter.

The targeting of UC Santa Cruz came after 79% of voting members across the state this week authorized the union leadership to call for "rolling" strikes — not over wages and benefits, but for alleged unfair labor practices against union members who supported pro-Palestinian student protests demanding that universities divest from Israel and weapons companies.

The union represents graduate student teaching assistants, researchers and other academic workers at University of California’s 10 campuses.

The Santa Cruz strike would be the first of potentially several work stoppages that the union intends to launch one by one across campuses based on how receptive administrations are to pro-Palestinian activists' demands.

The strike threats prompted UC leaders to file their own state unfair labor practice charge against the union on Friday that called on student workers to "cease and desist" the pending walkout.

"This strike directly violates the [collective bargaining agreement's] no strike clauses, and has no relation to UAW members’ employment with the university. Instead, as the UAW and its members’ communications make clear, UAW strikes to support protest activity surrounding the conflict in the Middle East," UC said in their filing with the state's labor board.

UC officials allege the strike is illegal because of a no-strike clause in the union's contract, ratified in late 2022, that won significant pay increases and benefit improvements for union members. The union argues that the strike is within its legal rights because it's connected to an unfair labor practice charge workers filed in early May with the state's labor board.

"Particularly in today’s climate, if UAW [and other unions] can disregard no-strike clauses, the University — and every other public agency in California — would face constant strikes advancing political and/or social viewpoints," the university's filing said.

The union chose to strike at a smaller UC campus where tensions have been lower and police have not been called in to make arrests or sweeps. But the campus is not a stranger to worker protests. In 2020, the university fired dozens of grad students from their teaching assistant positions after strikes there. At least 17 arrests were made during a related student-led demonstration.

This spring, UCLA, UC Irvine and UC Berkeley have been particularly volatile flashpoints of pro-Palestinian protests. A violent mob attack on a UCLA pro-Palestinian encampment last month has led to multiple investigations into how the university handled the melee and the delayed police response to it.

For two weeks, students at UC Santa Cruz, including unionized graduate students, have maintained a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus in support of divestment from Israel. The strike comes as protesters and the university administration have indicated that they've reached a standstill. Protest leaders said on Thursday that they were "under imminent threat of police sweep" after they said the university gave them formal notice to "cease all camping activities on university property."

No length of time was given for the strike, which the union announced with a promotional video on the social media site X, but a UC Santa Cruz union member said it could last through June 30.

Speaking before the strike decision, Rafael Jaime, United Auto Workers Local 4811 co-president and a doctoral candidate in UCLA’s English department, said a strike would mean "all academic work would cease, including research, teaching and grading."

Student workers will receive $500 weekly in strike pay, or about 33% less than the average teaching assistant makes for a 20-hour work week, he said.

Jess Fournier, a union representative at UC Santa Cruz, said that while the alleged unfair labor practices did not take place on their campus, workers there view the university’s response as a threat to workers across the UC system.

"If members of our academic community are being maced and beaten for peacefully protesting, our ability to collectively organize as workers, and our fundamental right to have free speech and protest on any issue is threatened."

Fournier said academic workers at the university would continue their walkouts over the coming months until the university resolves the alleged unfair labor practices.

"If they refuse to do so, more campuses may be called as necessary. Workers on every campus are extremely fired up about this,” they said. "This is a statewide issue. Even though we are the ones leading the charge. It seems very likely other campuses will follow unless and until these unfair labor practices are resolved.”

Experts say the union is taking a novel approach in its strike because it is not focused on contract matters but instead on free speech.

The union complaint focuses on the arrests of pro-Palestinian graduate student protesters at UCLA and suspensions and other discipline at UC San Diego and UC Irvine. It accuses the universities of retaliating against student workers and unlawfully changing workplace policies to suppress pro-Palestinian speech.

In a letter sent to graduate student workers on Wednesday, UC officials warned students against striking.

"Participating in the strike does not change, excuse, or modify, an employee’s normal work duties or expectations. And, unlike a protected strike, you could be subject to corrective action for failing to perform your duties,” the unsigned letter from the UC office of the president said.

The letter also defended universities using riot police to break up protests.

“We have a duty to ensure that all speech can be heard, that our entire community is safe, and that our property and common areas are accessible for all. These duties require the UC to take action when protests endanger the community and violate our shared norms regarding safe behavior and the use of public spaces,” it said.

The strike vote comes as campuses throughout the UC system have experienced tensions and protests over the Israel-Hamas war, including a violent mob attack on a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA and the arrest of 47 protesters at UC Irvine on Wednesday.

UC Riverside and UC Berkeley have reached agreements with protesters to end encampments and explore divestment from weapons companies. Leaders at those universities have rejected calls to target Israel specifically or for academic boycotts against exchange programs and partnerships with Israeli universities, as some protesters have demanded.

While some Jewish students have supported pro-Palestinian encampments, national Jewish groups have criticized the divestment movement. They say it is antisemitic because it aims to delegitimize the only predominantly Jewish nation.

In Santa Cruz, emails and calls from The Times to several Jewish student organizations seeking comment on the strike and pro-Palestinian protests were not immediately returned.

"We are aware of the challenges happening on campus and right now are focusing all of our attention on supporting students and working with campus administration," said an auto-reply from Becka Ross, the executive director of the Santa Cruz Hillel.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Graduate workers in California to strike over treatment of Gaza protesters

Michael Sainato
Fri, 17 May 2024

UCLA faculty and staff members in Los Angeles on 9 May.Photograph: Jae C Hong/AP

California’s huge university system is facing widespread disruption after workers voted to hold a series of strikes in protest of its treatment of Gaza protesters.

The University of California (UC) has more than 280,000 students and 227,000 faculty and staff on campuses across the state.

Members of the United Auto Workers (UAW), which represents 48,000 graduate workers throughout the system, voted to authorize a strike on Wednesday. On Friday, the union called on graduate workers at UC Santa Cruz to walk off the job on Monday. About 2,000 graduate workers are represented by the union at UC Santa Cruz.

The vote was called in response to charges of unfair labor practices filed against universities over their response to Gaza protests where union members were attacked by counter-protesters and police.

The UAW called for a ceasefire in Gaza in December. Best known for its representation of auto workers, the UAW is planning to engage in a series of “stand up” strikes where the union’s executive board will call on campuses to strike on a rolling basis. The tactic was used in the UAW’s successful strike against the big three US automakers late last year.

“At the heart of this is our right to free speech and peaceful protest,” said Rafael Jaime, a graduate worker in the English department at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and president of UAW 4811.

“If members of the academic community are maced and beaten down for peacefully demonstrating on this issue, our ability to speak up on all issues is threatened. As days pass with no remedies for UC’s unfair labor practices, academic workers on more and more campuses are preparing to stand up to demand that our rights to free speech, protest and collective action be respected.”

Graduate workers at UCLA, the University of Southern California, the University of California at San Diego, Brown University and Harvard University have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board over how their university administrations unilaterally changed policies and responded to Gaza protests.

According to the union, UC Riverside and UC Berkeley have been negotiating with protesters over their demands for transparency on university investments and divestment from Israel and weapons contractors and manufacturers contributing to the war in Gaza. The union is also demanding amnesty for all academic workers who face disciplinary action and arrest for participating in the protests.

The University of California administration has claimed the strikes are illegal despite the union classifying them as unfair labor practice strikes that are protected activity.

“The University strongly disagrees with the UAW that any exception to this general rule applies and strongly believes that the action is an unlawful strike,” stated the administration in response to the strike vote. “In response to an unlawful strike, the University will take action with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to assert that the strike is unlawful.”

University of California Workers Authorize Union to Call for Strike Over Protest Crackdowns

Jonathan Wolfe
Thu, 16 May 2024

Counterprotesters fight with pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the pro-Palestinian protest encampment on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles, on April 30, 2024. (Mark Abramson/The New York Times)

LOS ANGELES — Unions are known for fighting for higher pay and workplace conditions. But academic workers in the University of California system authorized their union Wednesday to call for a strike over something else entirely: free speech.

The union, UAW 4811, represents about 48,000 graduate students and other academic workers at 10 University of California system campuses and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Its members, incensed over the university system’s handling of campus protests, pushed their union to address grievances extending beyond the bread-and-butter issues of collective bargaining to concerns over protesting and speaking out in their workplace.

The strike authorization vote, which passed with 79% support, comes two weeks after dozens of counterprotesters attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA for several hours without police intervention and without arrests. Officers in riot gear tore down the encampment the next day and arrested more than 200 people.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

The vote does not guarantee a strike but rather gives the executive board of the local union, which is part of the United Auto Workers, the ability to call a strike at any time. Eight of the 10 University of California campuses still have a month of instruction left before breaking for summer.

The union said it had called the vote because the University of California unilaterally and unlawfully changed policies regarding free speech, discriminated against pro-Palestinian speech and created an unsafe work environment by allowing attacks on protesters, among other grievances.

“At the heart of this is our right to free speech and peaceful protest,” Rafael Jaime, the president of UAW 4811, said in a statement after the vote. “If members of the academic community are maced and beaten down for peacefully demonstrating on this issue, our ability to speak up on all issues is threatened.”

A spokesperson for the University of California president’s office said in a statement that a strike would set “a dangerous precedent that would introduce nonlabor issues into labor agreements.”

“To be clear, the UC understands and embraces its role as a forum for free speech, lawful protests and public debate,” said the spokesperson, Heather Hansen. “However, given that role, these nonlabor-related disputes cannot prevent it from fulfilling its academic mission.”

There are still several active encampments at University of California campuses, including UC Merced, UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis. Protesters at UC Berkeley began dismantling their encampment Tuesday after reaching an agreement with university officials.

In a letter to the protesters Tuesday, Berkeley’s chancellor, Carol Christ, said that the university would begin discussions around divestment from certain companies and that she planned to publicly support “efforts to secure an immediate and permanent cease-fire” by the end of the month. But she said that divestment from companies that do business with, or in, Israel was not within her authority.

After packing up their tents, some of the Berkeley protesters traveled on Wednesday to UC Merced to attend a meeting held by the University of California governing board. More than 100 people signed up to give public comment, and nearly all of those who spoke about the protests criticized the handling of them by university administrations.

The strike authorization vote enables what is known as a “stand-up” strike, a tactic that was first employed by the United Auto Workers last year during its contract negotiations with General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis. Rather than calling on all members to strike at once, the move allows the local union’s executive board to focus strikes on certain campuses or among certain groups of workers, to gain leverage.

Jaime said before the vote that the union would use the tactic to “reward campuses that make progress” and possibly call strikes at those that don’t. He added that the union would announce the strikes “only at the last minute, in order to maximize chaos and confusion for the employer.”

The union said Wednesday that its executive board would announce later this week if it was calling for strikes.

Tobias Higbie, a professor of history and labor studies at UCLA, said that while striking for free speech was unusual, it wasn’t unheard of. The academic workers’ union is also largely made up of young people, who have been far more receptive to organized labor than young people in even the recent past, he said.

“It points to how generational change is not only impacting workplaces, but it’s going to impact unions,” Higbie said. “Young members are going to make more and more demands like this on their unions as we go forward over the next couple of years, and so I think it’s probably a harbinger of things to come.”

c.2024 The New York Times Company

#BDS

Police Scotland conduct 'astonishing and shocking' at Glasgow protest

Gabriel McKay
Thu, 16 May 2024

Pro-Palestine protestors and police clash outside Thales in Govan, Glasgow (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

The conduct of Police Scotland at a protest in Glasgow has been described as "astonishing and shocking" after a journalist was threatened with arrest.

Pro-Palestinian protestors blocked the entrance to the Thales factory in Govan in protest over arms sales to Israel, before the picket was broken up by police.

Xander Elliards of our sister title The National was threatened with arrest after being told he was being "obstructive to the police" while covering the events.

The journalist was standing on a public street around 100m from the protest and said "I was threatened with arrest and manhandled for doing my job, as far as I can tell".

In response NUJ Scotland called the altercation an: "Astonishing and shocking confrontation. Journalists need to be free to go about their work without interference from Police Scotland.

"We will be following up on this to ask why police officers apparently are unaware of the law."

A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “During the protest an officer engaged with a journalist and asked him to move away from an area where officers were taking part in an operational briefing. Officers provided advice and guidance and no further action was taken."

It follows criticism of the way the force handled the protest, with demonstrators accusing them of heavy-handed tactics in breaking up the picket.

As previously reported by The Herald, Police Scotland were accused of creating "fear and panic" as they made several arrests.

One of the protestors told The Herald: "The picket started at 5am and finished around lunchtime when police violently intervened and arrested some of the protestors.

"With no provocation, police violently broke up one of the pickets and made arrests. The police should be there to maintain public order but what they did was incite fear and panic, and physically hurt people without provocation.

"What we went through today, while upsetting and unnecessary, was nothing compared to what people in Gaza have been facing every day for over 7 months, and the unquantifiable suffering of Palestinians under occupation for 75 years. Stop the chain of killing: Free Palestine."

Police said that three men aged 18, 28 and 29, and a 21-year-old woman were arrested and charged during the demonstration.

The force said six officers were injured, including one who sustained a bite to the arm.

Two officers were said to have attended the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, one of whom was discharged after treatment while the other remains there for further assessment, police said.

Chief Inspector Derrick Johnston said: "When policing any protest our priorities are to ensure the safety of protestors, the public and police officers involved as well as preventing criminal behaviour or disorder and deescalating tensions.

"We are committed to protecting the rights of people who wish to protest, however when this is not done peacefully, officers are required to maintain public order and will exercise their powers of arrest if necessary".

Nuclear waste to be buried 650ft under the English countryside

Jonathan Leake
Thu, 16 May 2024

New pit will ease pressure on the 17 nuclear waste disposal plants, the largest of which is the Sellafield site in Cumbria - Stuart Nicol

Swathes of nuclear waste are set to be buried in the English countryside after ministers agreed to dig a 650ft pit starting this decade.

The facility, which has yet to be allocated a site, will hold some of the 5m tonnes of waste that was generated by nuclear power stations over the past seven decades.

This will ease pressure on the 17 nuclear waste disposal plants currently in operation around the country, which consist of giant sheds and cooling ponds.

The largest facility is the Sellafield site in Cumbria.

Plans for the 650ft pit will see it house so-called intermediate-level waste, possibly in a mine on a pre-existing nuclear site to minimise planning objections.

The facility will be separate from the much deeper geological disposal site that will hold the UK’s most dangerous waste, such as plutonium, which is unlikely to be built until after 2050.

The proposals come amid fears Britain’s stockpile of nuclear waste will grow in the coming decades with nowhere to put it.

Concerns are particularly acute as the Government is currently planning to build at least three new nuclear power stations.

This will put the country at odds with the 1976 review of nuclear waste policy by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which warned the UK was accumulating nuclear waste so fast that it should stop building reactors until it had a solution.

Ministers want to brand nuclear energy as a “green” and “sustainable” fuel.

However, experts on the Government’s own advisory body, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, have said such terms are misleading if there is no safe place to store radioactive waste.

Plans for a nuclear waste pit were recently published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz), headed by Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho.

A government spokesman said: “In addition to long-term plans to dispose of the most hazardous radioactive waste in a geological disposal facility hundreds of metres underground, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will explore a facility closer to the surface for less hazardous radioactive waste.

“While a geological disposal facility is not expected to be ready until the 2050s, a shallower disposal facility – which is up to 200m below ground – could be available within 10 years.”

Nuclear waste can remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years, with fears of disposing of it underground stemming from the fact water can flow through waste, carrying radioactivity back to the surface.

However, once buried and sealed with cement, such waste will be practically impossible to reach should there be such a problem.

Nuclear accidents are rare but when they do happen the consequences can be deadly and extremely expensive.

This was evidenced by the disastrous fire at the Sellafield site in 1957, which released radioactivity across the UK and Europe.

Other accidents at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 were even more devastating.

The Government’s proposals come after policymakers recently announced the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years.

Hinkley Point C is already under construction in Somerset at an estimated cost of £46bn, while Sizewell C in Suffolk is also about to start with a similar price tag.

A third giant nuclear station is also being planned alongside a fleet of so-called small modular reactors.

Andrew Bowie, the minister for nuclear energy, said: “We’re taking sensible steps to manage our radioactive waste, while reducing the burden on the environment and taxpayer.”

David Peattie, chief executive officer at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, added: “We will maintain the highest standards of safety and environmental protection to deliver our nationally important decommissioning mission.”

As for the much larger geological disposal facility, which will hold the UK’s deadliest waste, this will soon become Britain’s biggest and most expensive infrastructure project ever.

Two sites are under consideration for the facility, which is expected to be 3,500ft deep.

One lies off the coast of Lincolnshire and the other is off the coast of Cumbria around Copeland.

Israel urges caution on Gaza death toll after UN cuts figures
Jotam Confino

TELEGRAPH
Fri, 17 May 2024

Palestinians attend a funeral in Gaza City - Khalil Hamra/AP

Israel has urged the West to treat death figures from Hamas more cautiously, after the UN began citing dramatically lower totals for the numbers of women and children killed.

Until May 8, the UN cited data from the Hamas-run Gaza Government Media Office with the last death toll before then at 35,000, including 9,500 women and 14,500 children.

But on that day, the UN shifted to providing information from the Gaza Health Ministry – also run by Hamas – which has fully identified 25,000 dead, including 4,959 women and 7,797 children.

The new figure is around half of the previous total of women and children who were reported dead.

The Health Ministry said it has the corpses of a further 10,000 people, but has not been able to secure information to meet its standard for identification, which includes full names and official ID numbers.

A UN official said that the international body believes the overall number of dead still stands at roughly 35,000, but is awaiting further information on 10,000 people.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has said that 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza in the war since Oct 7, with 14,000 of that number terrorists and 16,000 civilians.

Tal Heinrich, the spokeswoman for the office of Mr Netanyahu, told The Telegraph: “Hamas has a clear incentive to increase casualties and inflate the numbers in an attempt to encourage international pressure on Israel.

“It is proven beyond any doubt that the data of the Hamas Ministry of Health in Gaza is part of the Hamas fake propaganda apparatus.

“Only recently, the UN has significantly revised the number of women and children killed in Gaza and cut them by half.

Media outlets and organisations should take any numbers provided by Hamas with a grain of salt.”

On Friday, Martin Griffiths, the UN’s humanitarian aid chief, defended the organisation’s death toll figures, saying it was hard to find accurate information in a war zone.

He told the BBC: “I’d like to remind anybody listening to this that Gaza is a war zone and the collection of data and statistics, while admirable and necessary, is first of all secondary to actually delivering some aid, and secondly very difficult in cases of insecurity and violence.

“So, that’s my first point – be realistic, please, about what’s possible in the middle of what we’re seeing in Gaza.”

A Palestinian woman with bodies of people killed by Israeli shelling in Gaza - Said Khatib/AFP

Mr Griffiths added that he believes the UN is “very cautious with these figures and I think it’s not right to blame the messenger who is trying to get the truth out of what is a very complicated situation”.

The reduced totals of dead women and children cited by the UN provoked a storm of criticism within Israel.

The foreign ministry said: “Interestingly, the [UN] did not release any press releases or statements, almost as if this reduction was a secret.

“They recently had trouble explaining why there was such a disparity in the numbers in the first place.”

Israel Katz, the country’s foreign minister, called on António Guterres, the UN secretary general, to step down.

On Tuesday, Christian Lindmeier, a spokesman for the WHO, insisted that casualty figures from Hamas could still be relied on, despite the discrepancy revealed by the UN.

He said: “Nothing wrong with the data, the overall data [more than 35,000] are still the same. The fact we now have 25,000 identified people is a step forward.”
Death toll expected to rise

The UN has said it expects the death toll of women and children to rise as more identifying information is found.

Death figures provided by the Gaza Ministry of Health have proved accurate in previous rounds of fighting. However, they do not distinguish between civilians and Hamas members.

Meirav Eilon Shahar, ambassador and permanent representative of Israel to the UN and international organisations in Geneva, said on Twitter: “Seriously WHO? There is ‘nothing wrong with the data’ provided by the Hamas-run Health Ministry?

“What about the issue: Hamas does not differentiate between civilians and terrorists! Let alone relying on the figures of a terrorist organisation.

“For months, the WHO and the UN have continuously shared unverified information – one might say misinformation.”

Despite the UN changing its estimate in the latest report, the Palestinian Red Crescent issued a statement on Thursday claiming over 15,000 children had been killed in Gaza.

What We Know About the Death Toll in Gaza

Brian Bennett
Fri, 17 May 2024

Boys watch smoke billowing during Israeli strikes east of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip on May 13, 2024

The question of how many people have died in Gaza since Israel began a bombing and ground campaign in response to Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack has taken on renewed urgency as President Biden tries to forestall a full assault by Israel against Hamas’ leadership and remaining battalions into the densely-populated city of Rafah. A recent decision by the United Nations to change how it reported Gaza's death toll has further created confusion, prompting some to incorrectly claim that the U.N. had dramatically lowered its estimate of those killed in the conflict.

While Biden has kept his commitment to sell $1 billion in arms and ammunition to Israel, he announced on May 8 that he would pause a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs over concerns about their potential use inside Rafah. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said this week it “would be a mistake to launch a major military operation into the heart of Rafah that would put huge numbers of civilians at risk without a clear strategic gain." The Biden Administration has shared intelligence and tactics with Israel in an effort to prevent a large-scale bombardment in the city. All of those actions reflect growing concern within the U.S. government over the number of civilians who have been killed in the conflict.

Here’s what we know about Gaza’s death toll and where those estimates come from.

How many people have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7?

There is no independent source for the death toll in Gaza. The U.S. says it doesn’t keep its own count of fatalities in Gaza. Neither does the World Health Organization or the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, both United Nations agencies that track fatalities in war zones.

The United Nations has published and credited third-party estimates of the number of those killed and injured in the war. Those include estimates that more than 34,900 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and more than 1,200 people in Israel.

The number of dead in Gaza is based on information released by three Hamas-controlled entities: the Gaza Ministry of Health, Gaza’s government media office and the Gaza chapter of the Palestinian Civil Defense, which provides emergency response there. Critics question the U.N.’s use of estimates based on data coming from Hamas, an organization that has controlled Gaza since 2007 and is committed to the elimination of Israel. The figures don’t distinguish between civilians and fighters killed.

The U.N. agencies have provided several reasons for crediting the figures coming out of Gaza.

The agencies cite more than a decade of “generally accurate” numbers from the Gaza Ministry of Health through multiple mass-casualty conflicts there. U.N. officials say that the list of the dead compiled by the authorities in Gaza are used to issue death certificates that are in turn used for settling estates and land ownership. This creates an incentive for the ministry to accurately confirm the identities of those who have died, the U.N. says.

“Unfortunately, we have the sad experience of coordinating with the Ministry of Health on casualty figures every few years for large mass-casualty incidents in Gaza; and in past times, their figures have proven to be generally accurate,” Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, said on May 13 during a press briefing with reporters.

The U.N.’s World Health Organization also credits the data provided by Gaza’s health ministry, WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva on May 14. Lindmeier said that the WHO has been told by the Gaza Ministry of Health that about 24,000 dead people had been formally identified and about 10,000 remained missing and had yet to be identified. The WHO believes thousands of those missing could still be buried under the rubble in active combat zones, Lindmeier said.

Both Israeli and U.S. officials have said that Hamas' tactics, including its use of civilian facilities like hospitals and schools for military purposes, have contributed to the war’s civilian death toll.

Why did the U.N. lower its death toll of women and children in Gaza?

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) caused confusion in early May when it changed how it reported the number of women and children killed in Gaza.

For months, the agency had been regularly updating an estimated total death toll in Gaza and breaking that total down by gender and age. Those figures were based on information provided to the U.N. by three Hamas-controlled entities: the Gaza Ministry of Health, Hamas’s government media office, and the Gaza chapter of the Palestinian Civil Defense, which provides emergency response in Gaza.

On May 6, the U.N. agency published the Gaza government media office’s latest estimate that 14,500 children and 9,500 women had been killed. Two days later, OCHA reported a much lower number of Palestinian women and children killed in the conflict based on those who the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health claimed had been specifically identified by name. The new figures were 7,797 children and 4,959 women killed and subsequently identified.

OCHA did not change its overall estimate that more than 34,900 Palestinians have died. That larger total includes both those whose identities have been confirmed, and an estimate that 10,000 additional dead are missing and have not been accounted for. OCHA opted to change how it broke down the deaths after it began receiving more detailed information on verified, identified victims from the Gaza Ministry of Health, an OCHA official said.

The changed numbers drew attention to the continuing reliance by the U.N. and the U.S. government on Hamas-controlled entities for information about the conflict in Gaza.

“These numbers are having a profound influence on U.S. policy,” says David Adesnik, senior fellow and director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Adesnik is skeptical of the Gaza health ministry’s methods that rely on media reports to estimate how many are dead beyond those whose remains have been identified and says that Hamas-controlled entities “have shown they are willing to distort the truth.” The death toll has already shaped American foreign policy, says Adesnik. “There is strong evidence that the Biden Administration’s faith in numbers from the Gaza health ministry is one of the main reasons it has begun to put so much pressure on Israel,” Adesnik says.

How does the U.S. government describe the death toll?

The U.S. government has cited the same figures that Hamas-controlled entities have provided to the U.N. During his March 7 State of the Union speech, President Biden said that “more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed — most of whom are not Hamas.” Biden did not provide a source for that number, but the White House later confirmed that it was based on the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers.

The U.S. government again relied on the same tally in early May in a public State Department memo about whether U.S. weapons are being used to violate international laws of war. “The Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health is the primary source for these numbers, which international organizations generally deem credible, but do not differentiate between Hamas fighters and civilians,” read the report.

How many of those killed in Gaza were Hamas fighters?

The U.S. hasn’t been able to independently verify how many Hamas fighters have been killed in Gaza. The Israeli government has said that about half of those killed there have been fighters. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu repeated this claim on May 12. During the “Call Me Back” podcast hosted by the former U.S. government advisor Dan Senor, Netanyahu said that about 30,000 people had been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, of those he said 14,000 were “combatants” and “around 16,000 civilians have been killed.” There has not yet been any independent confirmation of Israel's estimates. News outlets have previously cited Hamas officials estimating between 6,000 and 8,000 of their fighters have been killed.

In war zones, the percentage of civilians killed can vary widely. Studies have shown that more civilians die during fighting in urban areas. In a U.N. Security Council report titled, "Protection of civilians in armed conflict”, the U.N. examined the rate of civilian casualties in populated areas during conflicts in the year 2021. It found that 89 percent of deaths in urban areas were civilians. In non-urban areas that year, the civilian death rate fell to 10 percent.

#BDS

Cambridge graduation ceremonies forced elsewhere by pro-Palestine camp

Ewan Somerville
Fri, 17 May 2024

Negotiations are set to begin with the Cambridge pro-Palestine protesters next week - Getty/Martin Pope

Students at the University of Cambridge have been forced to graduate in a less traditional venue because of pro-Palestine disruption.

Activists pitched tents outside Senate House, the grand venue where Cambridge graduations have been held since the 18th century, earlier this week in an attempt to force bosses to meet their demands on the Israel-Gaza war.

It led to Friday and Saturday’s ceremonies being moved by university chiefs to Downing College – which was announced to all students due to graduate but not publicly – with security patrols stepped up.

By Friday morning the protesters had ended their occupation of the lawn at Senate House, claiming that bosses had now agreed to start negotiations with them next week, but the graduations were not moved back in time.

In a statement, the camp organisers Cambridge for Palestine said: “The university has agreed to negotiate and met a number of our preconditions.

“Our goal from the Senate House yard occupation has been accomplished, in a step towards distancing our university from genocide.

“This small victory paves the way for our demands to be met in future negotiations.”
Camp remains standing

The Telegraph understands the university has agreed that students taking part in talks will not be disciplined and that faculty members will be used as observers and mediators rather than third parties.

Cambridge’s main pro-Palestine camp, outside King’s College, remains standing along with others at dozens of universities across Britain, as activists try to copy the occupations that swept US universities last month.

The demands of the main Cambridge camp, which still numbers at least 30 tents on King’s Parade, are similar to those on campuses nationwide.

They are for bosses to disclose financial investments, divest from companies with links to the war in Gaza, reinvest in Palestinian academia and become a “university of sanctuary” for “all forced migrants”.

The university did not answer questions about whether it would cave into the demands, but denied it was a negotiation.

Prof Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education, said: “We were glad to meet our students as we have been willing to do from the first day of the protest. While we understand some will see it as a negotiation, we see it as a constructive dialogue with our students.”

On Friday, pictures showed lines of students in gowns processing from their individual colleges to the new venue. They were allowed to take photographs of each other in their robes outside Senate House afterwards with security officers patrolling the gates.
‘Alternative arrangements’

In an earlier statement on Tuesday, the university said: “We regret that due to the ongoing presence of protesters on Senate House lawn, we have taken the very difficult decision to make alternative arrangements for the degree congregations this weekend.

“All students who want to graduate this weekend will still be able to attend their degree congregation at an alternative location that is fitting of the occasion.

“We are confident that ceremonies will be a memorable and enjoyable experience for students and their guests.”

Former home secretary Suella Braverman paid a visit to the Cambridge King’s College camp on Thursday, where she was met with a wall of silence when she asked the protesters questions about Israel and the hostages seized by Hamas.

“I’m very concerned about this anti-Semitism on campus. We have a lot of Jewish students feeling very intimidated and harassed on campus,” the MP told the student newspaper Varsity.

Meanwhile, at the University of Oxford, where another pro-Palestinian camp has been erected, a letter from staff and students this week claimed that when when some had raised concerns about anti-Semitism to their heads of programmes, they were “simply advised to leave Oxford”.

Oxford said it was “unequivocal in its position that there is no place for anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or unlawful discrimination of any kind”.

Demonstrators at the London School of Economics became the latest to occupy part of a campus this week, joining peers in Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds, Warwick and Bristol.

Protestors camp outside University of York in show of support for Palestine

Alice Kavanagh
Fri, 17 May 2024

Pro Palestine protestors camp out at the University of York (Image: Newsquest)

A PRO-PALESTINIAN encampment at the University of York has been set up with no end date in sight.

As The Press reported earlier this week, York Palestine Solidarity Encampment has been set up outside Heslington Hall at the University of York where students and staff plan to remain until they feel the university has done enough to stand in solidarity with Palestine.

With the first day of their camp scheduled for the 76th anniversary of Nakba, the group told reporters that they were there as they felt their list of demands had not yet been met.

READ MORE:

‘We have got to keep hope in our hearts’: York protesters call for ceasefire in Gaza

'Free Palestine' protesters march through York

Whilst the university announced last month that they will no longer invest in companies that primarily make or sell weapons and defence-related products or services, those in the encampment believed they were still offering indirect support through research partnerships, sponsors, and some administrative facilities.

According to protestors, one such example of this is £11 million given to The UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) AI Centres for Doctoral Training, who reportedly partner with BAE Systems.

One member of the camp said: “This sets a precedent of the University not investing personally but still accepting it.”

Another demand on their list was cut ties to Israeli universities and offer scholarships to Palestinian students. Linked to this is support for Fadi Hania – a Gazan student who had to flee the country with his family, something that pro-Palestinian groups helped him raise funds for – reportedly without the support of the University itself.

When The Press arrived on the site, around 4pm on the first afternoon of their encampment (May 15), the mood was relatively positive with ten to fifteen people dotted across the camp – studying, eating, and chatting.

Few were keen to speak openly, fearing negative repercussions (as have reportedly occurred at other universities), and others wore face coverings.

York Press:
Signs at the encampment protest (Image: Newsquest)

According to the protestors, the reaction from university staff so far had been positive with campus security staff coming onto the site to chat with protestors about access arrangements and the Vice Chancellor paying a visit on the first morning on the encampment.

That being said, not all of those at the site were impressed with this – one person saying of the Vice Chancellor’s visit: “We’re waiting to see action on our demands, not just words.”

As of the first day, there is no end date planned for the encampment – whilst students will come and go as exam season progresses, there will be a presence on the campsite ‘indefinitely’ with designated study spaces set up and food donations given.

A GoFundMe, set up on the first morning, had raised around £600 in 5 hours at the time of our visit – this will go towards sustaining those on the campsite with any excess donated directly to groups that support those in Palestine.

A spokesperson for the University said in response to the encampment: “Our campus is a place where difficult issues can be discussed openly and through lawful protest and free speech. We need to make sure we listen and learn from each other, whilst together rejecting all forms of violence, intimidation and harassment.”

Australia's richest woman Gina Rinehart 'demands' portrait removed from exhibition

Jacob Phillips
Fri, 17 May 2024

Gina Rinehart and her painting on display at the National Gallery of Australia (ES Composite)

Australia’s richest woman has reportedly demanded that her portrait be removed from an exhibition after being painted in what some may describe as an unflattering light.

The painting of Gina Rinehart is currently on display at the National Gallery of Australia as part of a collection of works by artist Vincent Namatjira, and features a prominent double chin.

Mr Namatjira, whose satirical paintings are known for their dry wit, told reporters in Australia that he “paints the world as he sees it”.

He said in a statement: "People don't have to like my paintings, but I hope they take the time to look and think, 'why has this Aboriginal bloke painted these powerful people? What is he trying to say?'

"I paint people who are wealthy, powerful, or significant - people who have had an influence on this country, and on me personally, whether directly or indirectly, whether for good or for bad.

"Some people might not like it, other people might find it funny, but I hope people look beneath the surface and see the serious side too.”

Vincent Namatjira in front of the exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia (Vincent Namatjira (Western Aranda people) with Vincent Namatjira: Australia in colour at the National Gallery of Australia)

Ms Rinehart has not commented publicly on the painting, Australian media reports.

The exhibition includes portraits of King Charles and Queen Elizabeth II as well as a self-portrait of the artist.

Mr Namatjira won the Ramsay Art Prize in 2019 and was the first indigenous artist to win the Archibald Prize in 2020.

He also received the Medal of the Order of Australia for his contribution to indigenous visual arts the same year, Sky News reports.

Lisa Slade, assistant director of artistic programmes at the Art Gallery of South Australia - where the work was on display until early this year - told ABC Radio Adelaide that Ms Rinehart did not complain when the item was first revealed.

Gina Rinehart is the richest woman in Australia (REUTERS)

She told the broadcaster that she suspects that Ms Rinehart has not personally seen the show.

Ms Slade said: "I think if you have seen the show you’ll have a different reading of the show but you will have a context for the way in which Gina is depicted and for the kind of storytelling inherent in the show.

“Ms Rinehart has not been subject to an aesthetic treatment, let’s say, that is any different to the way he has treated the other 20 Australians that are depicted in the series.”

She added: "Portraiture is not a photographic art, it is an art of expression, an art of creating a sense of identity, a sense of an individual."

A spokesperson for the National Gallery told Australia’s ABC News it “welcomes the public having a dialogue on our collection and displays".

Gina Rinehart’s Unflattering Portrait—and Reputation With Indigenous Australians

Koh Ewe

TIME
Thu, 16 May 2024

Left: A close-up of a portrait of mining magnate Gina Rinehart from an exhibition by indigenous artist Vincent Namatjira. Right: Rinehart at a mining conference in Melbourne in 2015. Credit - Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia | Carla Gottgens—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Gina Rinehart, Australia’s wealthiest person, is less than thrilled about a recent painting of her being exhibited at one of Australia’s largest art museums. But her reported attempts to get the unflattering portrait taken down is backfiring: the piece, part of a collection of portraits by an acclaimed indigenous artist, has been defended by the museum, the arts industry, and—perhaps worst for her—social media users, who have given it more attention than ever.

The portrait features Rinehart, who is 70 years old, with a misshapen head, downturned lips, and a double chin. It is part of an exhibition titled “Vincent Namatjira: Australia in colour,” which opened at the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) in Canberra in March and is set to run until July 21.

The exhibition of portraits by Namatjira, a 40-year-old Aboriginal Australian who has won the prestigious Archibald Prize for portraiture, also contains depictions of other famous people—including Queen Elizabeth II, former Australian soccer player Adam Goodes, and former Prime Ministers Julia Gillard and Scott Morrison—all in Namatjira’s signature style that often employs humor and exaggerated features to interrogate the rich and powerful.

Portraits from “Vincent Namatjira: Australia in colour.”Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia

“I paint the world as I see it,” Namatjira said, in response to Reinhart’s reported attempts to have her portrait taken down, in a statement shared with TIME by the NGA on Thursday. “People don’t have to like my paintings, but I hope they take the time to look and think, ‘why has this Aboriginal bloke painted these powerful people? What is he trying to say?’”

“I paint people who are wealthy, powerful, or significant—people who have had an influence on this country, and on me personally, whether directly or indirectly, whether for good or for bad,” he said.

According to Namatjira, who explained his intention behind the exhibition at a panel discussion organized by the NGA in March, the portraits are meant to convey that “we are all equal in Australia, no matter where you’re from, no matter what you do or what background you’re from, or what heritage you’re from, we’re all Australian.” He added that the choice of wall colors—red, black, and yellow—represents the Aboriginal flag.

Namatjira, left, looks at the installation of his exhibition at the NGA.Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia

This is not the first time Rinehart has featured in Namatjira’s paintings. In his 2017 paintings Gina Rinehart and Me and Gina Rinehart and Me II, she’s portrayed standing beside the artist himself; she was also painted as a standalone portrait in his 2017 series “The Richest.”

Rinehart, who took over mineral extraction company Hancock Prospecting from her father and whose net worth is estimated at over $30 billion, is known for her financial support of the country’s sporting scene. She’s also listed on the NGA’s website as a “friend” of the gallery for donating between A$4,999 (over $3,000) and A$9,999 (under $7,000) in the most recent fiscal quarter.

Rinehart directly contacted NGA council director Nick Mitzevich and chair Ryan Stokes to ask for the removal of her portrait, and associates of her company have lodged more than a dozen complaints to the gallery, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on Wednesday. A group of 20 Australian swimmers—a sport for which she’s known to provide vital funding—have also campaigned against her portrait on display, calling it “offensive to a great Australian.”

Rinehart, contacted through Hancock Prospecting, did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.

The gallery is not backing down, saying in a statement on Wednesday that it “welcomes the public having a dialogue on our collection and displays.”

“Since 1973, when the National Gallery acquired Jackson Pollack’s Blue Poles, there has been a dynamic discussion on the artistic merits of works in the national collection, and/or on display at the gallery,” the NGA said. “We present works of art to the Australian public to inspire people to explore, experience and learn about art.”

The National Association for the Visual Arts also published a statement backing the right for artists to “create art about any subject and by any means.”

“While Rinehart has the right to express her opinions about the work,” the association’s executive director Penelope Benton said on Thursday, “she does not have the authority to pressure the gallery into withdrawing the painting simply because she dislikes it.”

Read More: An Australian Art Museum Is Installing a Toilet to Keep Its ‘Ladies Lounge’ Off Limits to Men

Rinehart has courted controversy before with Indigenous Australians. In 2022, Hancock Prospecting withdrew A$15 million (about $10 million) in sponsorship funding from Netball Australia after the national team voiced its support for Donnell Wallam, an Indigenous netballer who had refused to wear a uniform with the mining company’s logo. Wallam cited concerns about racist comments Rinehart’s late father had made against Aboriginal Australians, including that those who hadn’t “assimilated” should be sterilized—which Rinehart has long remained silent over, even as she faced growing public calls to apologize.

Now, instead of shielding the unflattering depiction of herself from public view, Rinehart finds herself the victim of the so-called Streisand effect—the phenomenon whereby attempts to quash attention to something ironically only cause it to get amplified—as news of her dissatisfaction with the art exhibition has inspired international coverage, which has resurfaced her family’s unsavory history, as well as widespread memes and mockery on social media.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Thames Water’s biggest investor cuts value of its stake to zero

Jillian Ambrose
Fri, 17 May 2024

Thames Water supplies about a quarter of the UK’s population.

Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Thames Water’s biggest investor has slashed the value of its stake in the company to zero in the latest sign of an escalating financial crisis for Britain’s biggest water supplier.

The Canadian pension fund Omers issued a “full writedown” of its 31.7% stake in Thames’s troubled parent company in its annual report published on Friday, signalling that it believes its share is worth nothing.

The latest blow to the water supplier, which serves about a quarter of the UK’s population, marks a precipitous decline for a company that Omers valued at £700m at the end of 2022 and £990m at the end of 2021.

Related: The Guardian view on Britain’s dirty waterways: a failure of industry and regulation | Editorial

Omers signalled that Thames is now worthless a day after Michael McNicholas, a managing director at Omers Infrastructure, quit his role as non-executive director of Thames Water.

The decision to raze the value of Thames has emerged weeks after Omers, and the company’s other shareholders, refused to give the company £500m of emergency funding after branding its business plan “uninvestable”.

Alongside Omers, Thames shareholders include the British university staff pension scheme USS and the BT Pension Scheme manager Hermes. None have taken a dividend from Thames since they bought into the business in 2017.

The water company is now racing to avoid a multibillion-pound taxpayer-backed bailout after its parent company, Kemble, defaulted on its debt, raising fears that the company could face a significant restructure or even collapse.

Thames could be placed into special administration, which would result in the government stepping in and temporarily renationalising the company. This outcome would probably fuel critics of the Conservative government who argue the water company’s plight represents the failure of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation agenda.

The Guardian revealed last month that under radical plans being drawn up in Whitehall, codenamed Project Timber, ministers would turn Britain’s biggest water company into a publicly owned arm’s-length body.

The plans, overseen by Defra and the Treasury, a new public corporation would be formed to hold the water monopoly, modelled on the company that built the £18.8bn Crossrail project, while Thames’s vast liabilities would be assumed into the government’s debt pile.

The water regulator, Ofwat, is reportedly working on rescue plans for Thames that could lead to the water company’s regional monopoly being dismantled and sold off to neighbouring rival suppliers under a scheme codenamed Project Telford.

Ofwat has tasked the former private equity banker Adrian Williams with overseeing the rescue bid, according to the Telegraph, in a last-ditch attempt to save the company from collapsing under the weight of a more than £15bn debt pile.

Under the plan, Thames could be split into two smaller suppliers: one covering London and the other supplying water services to Thames Valley and Home Countries regions. The company may end up being split up into as many as “a dozen” smaller companies, according to the report.

An Ofwat spokesperson said: “Safeguards are in place to ensure that services to customers are protected, regardless of issues faced by the shareholders.”

The strain on Thames’s finances was laid bare last month in a revised plan submitted by the water company to Ofwat, which revealed that the annual interest bill on its borrowings is expected to rise to about £3bn by 2030.

Thames was privatised in 1989 with no debt. In the decades since the water supplier has taken on more debt to help fund its infrastructure projects while paying large dividends to investors, most notably the Australian investment bank Macquarie.

The government was approached for comment.

Post-Brexit rules on antibiotic use on farms water down EU laws, experts say

Fiona Harvey

Environment editor

THE GUARDIAN
Thu, May 16, 2024

One concern is that it will still be possible to give antibiotics prophylactically to large groups of animals.Photograph: David Tadevosian/Alamy

New rules intended to reduce the use of antibiotics in farming in the UK have been criticised as too lax and weaker than their equivalent under EU laws.

The updated regulations come into force on Friday. They ban the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals, and specifically their use to “compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate animal husbandry, or poor farm management practices”.

Experts, however, say there are loopholes in the legislation that are closed off under EU laws in place since 2022, and by which the UK would be bound if it were still a member state.

Ministers repeatedly promised, before and after Brexit, that farming and food standards in the UK would not be watered down after leaving the EU. The Guardian, however, has revealed numerous examples of environmental rules that have been weakened, from regulations on air pollution and water quality to pesticide use and agricultural emissions.

This latest divergence is of particular concern because the overuse of antibiotics in farming has dire consequences for human health. The UK’s former chief medical officer Sally Davies said in an interview with the Guardian earlier this week that antibiotic overuse was leading to the rise of near-invincible superbugs that pose a severe threat to human health, making previously minor ailments deadly and threatening to make routine operations unsafe.

About two-thirds of antibiotics globally are used on farm animals, and they are often used indiscriminately either to promote growth or to try to prevent infections that arise from overcrowding, poor management and insanitary conditions on factory farms.

The EU has taken strong steps to clamp down on overuse on its farms. Prof Roberto La Ragione, the head of the school of biosciences at the University of Surrey and a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, said preventing overuse was of vital importance.

“Antibiotics are critical to human and animal medicine, but the emergence of resistance is a global concern,” he said. “Therefore we must reduce their use to help stop the emergence and spread of resistance.

“We know that animal health and welfare are inextricably linked with our own, so it is vital that antibiotic resistance is tackled in humans and animals, and we can all play a part, from the scientific community to pet owners, vets, doctors, pharmacists, companies, farmers and the government.”

Under the new rules, it will still be possible to feed antibiotics prophylactically to large groups of animals, a practice campaigners say is effectively the same as, and just as dangerous as, routine use. The guidelines say this prophylaxis should only be “in exceptional circumstances”, but questions in parliament by the shadow minister Daniel Zeichner elicited a response from the farming minister Mark Spencer that this would include “where there would be a risk of infection or severe consequences if antibiotics were not applied”.

Coílín Nunan, a scientist adviser at the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, said this meant widespread prophylactic use on large groups of animals would still occur frequently, because when animals are kept in highly intensive conditions there is often significant risk of infection.

EU rules ban antibiotics for group prophylaxis, which is limited to an individual animal only.

Nunan said: “Unfortunately the government has deliberately weakened the legislation in comparison to the EU, and this will allow some poorly run farms to keep on feeding large groups of animals antibiotics, even when no disease is present.

“We are also concerned the ban on using antibiotics to compensate for inadequate animal husbandry and poor farm management practices may not be properly implemented.”

The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics wants the government to ban group prophylaxis, introduce mandatory data collection from farms on their use of antibiotics, set tougher targets for the reduction of farm antibiotic use and improve animal welfare and husbandry standards.

UK farming and veterinary oversight continue to be in turmoil after Brexit. There is a shortage of vets, and higher workloads as a result of the changes to animal certification and increased bureaucracy related to animal exports and imports.

A spokesperson for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate said: “We do not support the routine use of antibiotics, including where antibiotics are used to compensate for inadequate farming practices. However, a blanket ban of prophylaxis could be harmful to animal health and welfare, while also increasing the risk of diseases spreading.”

Governments must back plant farming — there's no two ways about it

Dr Carys Bennett
Fri, May 17, 2024

As sea levels and temperatures rise, weather events worsen, and an increasing number of species face extinction, it’s more important than ever that we do more than pay lip service to reducing our environmental footprint — and that we do it without meat in our mouths.

We could have once been forgiven for not realising that animal agriculture — which encompasses not only meat but also egg and dairy production and co-products like leather and wool — is a leading driver of climate destruction, second only to fossil fuels.

But now it seems that every second scientific study warns us of the huge environmental toll that comes with commodifying animals.

Just recently, a first-of-its-kind report by researchers at Harvard, New York, Leiden, and Oregon State universities that surveyed 210 climate specialists from 48 countries revealed that experts agree: to meet climate goals, we must rapidly reduce livestock emissions and globally shift to a plant-based diet.

Yet despite the writing on the wall, world leaders continue to prop up the meat industry.
You're not just harming animals, you're harming farmers

Prior to Brexit, UK farmers were dependent on massive EU subsidies, and the government has been quick to reassure them that this level of support will continue.

But such crutches don’t just harm animals and the planet; they also hobble farmers by perpetuating reliance on a food system that contributes to the destruction of a dying planet — which cannot sustain such a system — preventing them from future-proofing their livelihoods.

This isn’t about being anti-farm but anti-harm. The world needs farmers. But we don’t need to farm animals.

Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak during the annual National Farmers' Union (NFU) conference, at the ICC in Birmingham, February 2024 - Adrian Dennis/ Pool Photo via AP

A 2022 survey revealed that 80% of Scottish farmers were receptive to moving beyond farming animals, but they needed financial support to do so.

More than 1 billion animals are slaughtered for food annually in the UK. Even if we choose to turn a blind eye to the suffering those individuals endure on filthy factory farms and at blood-soaked slaughterhouses, there’s no denying that farming animals are wasteful.

To protect caged animals, we are suing the European Commission

How we treat animals is — and will be — key to our own survival

The National Food Strategy shows that 85% of agricultural land in the UK is used to grow crops to feed farmed animals — not humans.

Considering that it takes around 25 calories of grain to produce one calorie of beef, it’s clear that animal agriculture is inherently inefficient.
Change starts on our plates

Research shows that a global shift to a plant-based diet would reduce land use for agriculture by 75%, allowing for a more efficient farm-to-human pipeline as well as a decrease in deforestation.

It would also encourage rewilding and stem biodiversity loss. One analysis found that even just lowering meat consumption in the UK would offer a climate benefit equivalent to taking 8 million cars off the roads, while another study revealed that ending animal farming entirely could sequester the equivalent of up to 10 years of greenhouse gas emissions from all human activities.

This isn’t about being anti-farm but anti-harm. The world needs farmers. But we don’t need to farm animals.

As conscientious consumers, we must not ignore the importance of what — or rather who — is on our dining table.

The UK has one of the world’s most inventive vegan markets, where an abundance of everything from locally grown apples to meatless steaks is widely available. There is still time to turn the climate catastrophe around — and change starts on our plates.

Dr Carys Bennett is Senior Corporate Projects Manager at PETA UK.

euronews.com