Sunday, August 27, 2023

‘It’s like doing an Arctic expedition with German scientists in 1943’: life on the International Space Station at a time of war

Stephen Walker
Sat, 26 August 2023 

Photograph: Dima Zel/Shutterstock

LONG READ

One evening in January 2015, Terry Virts, a Nasa astronaut onboard the International Space Station (ISS), decided to pop over to the Russian quarters, catch up with his Russian colleagues and check out the view. For views, nothing beats the space station. From this orbiting perch approximately 250 miles (400km) above the Earth, scores of astronauts have waxed lyrical about the beauty of our planet: its mesmerising, fast-motion sunrises and sunsets, its brilliant colours and startling fragility.

As a 47-year-old former space shuttle pilot, then on his second visit to the space station, Virts had experienced all of this himself and would do so many times again. But this night would be different.

Joining Virts at the window was Alexsandr Samokutyayev. Three years younger than Virts, the Russian cosmonaut was also on his second visit to the space station. Both men had been military pilots in their countries. They spoke each other’s languages. They exchanged Christmas presents. They were friends. Now the Russian and the American floated companionably side by side in the microgravity of orbit and gazed down at the world below.

The space station passed over eastern Ukraine. Down there was darkness, punctuated by sudden red flashes. They were watching a war

Usually at night the inhabited areas of the Earth present a sensational spectacle of dazzling city lights. But at this point the space station happened to be passing over eastern Ukraine. Down there was darkness, punctuated by sudden red flashes. They were watching a war.

It was only a year since Russia had annexed Crimea. Now pro-Russian forces were engaging Ukrainians on their eastern border. The two men stared, transfixed. “We were watching people being killed by the Russian war from space,” Virts tells me. “We both looked at each other. It was a sombre moment. But we didn’t say a word.”

Today, many more guns are firing, and astronauts and cosmonauts on the space station are also seeing what Virts and Samokutyayev saw – and much more besides. The fact that they’re up there together at all makes Virts very angry. “It’s like partnering with German scientists in 1943 to go on an Arctic expedition,” he says. “That’s basically what we’re doing right now.” His own relationships with his former Russian comrades have almost entirely collapsed. Last year, Samokutyayev himself, now a member of the Russian State Duma, was sanctioned by the UK and other western nations. He has proved an active supporter of Vladimir Putin’s invasion. “It’s a betrayal,” says Virts, “at the most profound level.”

Commander Terry Virts. Photograph: Larry French/Getty Images

Betrayal or not, ever since the war began, the official word from Nasa and the European Space Agency (Esa), as well as from their fellow Canadian and Japanese agencies, has been that it is business as usual onboard the ISS. In April this year, their Russian partner Roscosmos, a state corporation, formally committed itself to continuing operations on the station until 2028, just two years before it is scheduled to be decommissioned. While every other joint space venture between the west and Russia has been cancelled, and while the US and its allies are imposing the biggest sanctions package in history on Russia, the space station remains immune, a sanctions-free zone. “It’s exempt,” Robyn Gatens, Nasa’s director of the ISS, tells me from her Houston office. “We do business together.”

We’ll come to why a little later. Meanwhile, this engineering marvel of laboratories and living quarters keeps orbiting the Earth at 10 times the speed of a rifle bullet, 16 times a day, every day, just as it has for the past quarter of a century – floating in a physical, and some might say moral, vacuum, high above the mess down here. Four fresh crewmates, including a Russian and an American, launched this morning and are expected to dock with the station tomorrow. Before that, there were seven people living inside: three Americans (Stephen Bowen, Warren Hoburg, Frank Rubio); three Russians (Sergey Prokopyev, Dmitri Petelin, Andrey Fedyaev); and, perhaps a little awkwardly in the metaphorical middle, one Emirati, Sultan al-Neyadi. As the war in Ukraine claims more lives on both sides, and the shouting between Russia and the west gets louder, these seven humans have had to coexist in space for months on end. And three of them have had to do it for almost a year.

Their home is approximately the size of a six-bedroom house, with separate living and working areas for the Russians and the Americans (the Emirati bunks down with the latter, as all non-Russians do) linked by a corridor – “a 10- to 15-second float away”, explains Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, who was there in 2009. And, apart from the odd spacewalk in the most hostile of environments, they have absolutely nowhere to go.

How do they cope up there? How do they function when their countries are at loggerheads, or when Putin makes threats about waging nuclear war? Do they mention the war? And as the ISS approaches its 25th anniversary in November, how far has it shifted from the international ideals underscored in its name? In 2014, it was even nominated for a Nobel peace prize. But is the partnership today between Russia and the west more like one of those awful marriages where both parties would love to get out but are well and truly stuck?

To find answers to those questions, you need to begin at the beginning, with the space station itself. Exactly what is it, and what is it for?

In a nutshell, says Charles Bolden, a spry, 77-year-old former astronaut and Nasa’s chief from 2009 until 2017, the space station exists to make all our lives better on Earth. Even he smiles at the grandiosity of that claim. “I know that sounds kinda mom-and-apple-pie,” he adds, “but that’s a fact.” The 16 pressurised modules that today make up the station are designed around one central purpose: to be a permanently inhabited orbiting laboratory. Over the decades, thousands of experiments have been conducted in the unique conditions of microgravity. Enthusiastically, Bolden begins listing some of the life-saving results, such as the engineering of protein crystals that, he claims, has helped shape modern cancer vaccines.

It was, Bolden explains, “a matter of necessity” for the ISS to become international. The station was originally conceived during the Reagan administration as a project called Freedom, but proved far too expensive, and despite several major design changes was never built. By the early 90s, the USSR had collapsed and Russia was in chaos. But the Russians knew about space stations: in the Soviet days they had built seven of them, beginning with Salyut 1 back in 1971. Here, then, was a golden opportunity to harness Russian expertise and personnel, and at the same time save billions of dollars.

President Bill Clinton threw his weight behind the project, now rebranded as the International Space Station, claiming that by bringing in the Russians he was helping their fledgling democracy. “We brought them in to stop them from behaving worse than they were behaving before,” Bolden says, noting the irony. Less openly discussed was the motive of giving Russian rocket engineers a paying job in Russia, rather than seeing them end up building missiles in Iran or North Korea. “It was a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.”

By marrying exclusive areas of US and Russian knowhow, the two biggest partners were effectively creating one interdependent system. “It’s all one integrated spacecraft,” says Jay Chladek, the ISS’s biographer. “Think of it like two people building houses and hooking them together into one duplex.” The Russians bring the propulsion and altitude control to maintain it in orbit, as well as the fuel to feed those systems. The Americans look after the internal power and other systems. That division of labour held fast as the space station grew, module by module like pieces of Lego, to the awesome engineering achievement it is today, a monster that on Earth would weigh almost the same as two Statues of Liberty.

There weren’t just Russians and Americans in that marriage. This was, and remains, the largest and most ambitious collaboration in space ever. Altogether, there are five space agencies involved, including Esa, which represents 22 countries. Built into their contracts is a provision allowing any agency to exit the station with a year’s notice, but there is no provision to kick anyone else off. Once you add all that interdependence into the mix you begin to appreciate why it’s very difficult to abandon the programme. “If you want a divorce,” says Anatoly Zak, an independent Russian space reporter who now lives in the US, “you can’t [do it] without losing the space station.” And if you lose the station, argues Bolden, you lose “a crown jewel” whose benefits to humanity are “much greater than the relationship with any country”.

Which is why it ultimately remains exempt from sanctions. “We need each other to be able to operate,” says Gatens. The crews even drink each other’s urine – after it has been recycled. “It gets recycled with over 90% efficiency,” Hoburg told reporters recently. “It actually tastes delicious.”



Within hours of Russia’s invasion, Dmitry Rogozin, the rabble-rousing chief of Russia’s space agency, was threatening to crash the space station

But if the marriage is still intact, it was brutally put to the test on 24 February 2022. Within hours of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, the rabble-rousing chief of Russia’s space agency, a man who once notoriously claimed that Alaska still belonged to Russia, was threatening to crash the space station.

Responding on Twitter to Joe Biden’s announcement that day of sanctions against Russia’s aerospace industry, Rogozin accused the US president of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, tweeting that any blocking of cooperation could mean the “500-ton” space station might enter an “uncontrolled deorbit and fall into the US or Europe. The ISS does not fly over Russia, so all the risks are yours. Are you ready for them?” Fantastic as it seemed, Rogozin was threatening to pull the plug on the propulsion system that kept the space station aloft – and leave it to its fate.

Nasa and its western partners pointedly ignored him, reaffirming their commitment to continue operations. “We disregarded the tweets of Mr Rogozin,” says Frank De Winne, head of Esa’s Astronaut Centre in Cologne, responsible for the selection and training of European astronauts. “It was a very volatile time,” remembers Gatens. “We did our best to keep relations normal, specialist to specialist, programme manager to programme manager … We wanted to take the temperature down.”

They might have wanted to, but Rogozin didn’t. Already sanctioned by the US in 2014 for his vocal support of the annexation of Crimea, he had been appointed to run Roscosmos by Putin in 2018. “He’s big, he’s loud, he drinks a lot,” says Virts, who met him while training in Russia. “He’s Putin squared,” says Zak. “An extreme nationalist, famous for making Hitler salutes.”

US astronaut Mark Vande Hei on the ISS, 2022. Photograph: Kayla Barron/AP

And so the provocations kept coming. Nine days after the invasion, a spoof video apparently created by Roscosmos appeared on Telegram, tagged with the logo of the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. In the heavily edited clip, a mix of real footage and CGI, two Russian cosmonauts were seen waving goodbye to their US colleague Mark Vande Hei before climbing into the Russian segment, closing the hatches, and – to the applause of Moscow’s mission controllers – detaching the entire Russian portion from the rest of the space station, abandoning Vande Hei on board.

It was a ludicrous and totally impractical scenario. But the video sparked an uproar in the western media as Vande Hei was due to return to Earth with his Russian colleagues just three weeks later, after nearly a year in space. Vande Hei’s mother, Mary, described the whole thing as “a terrible threat”, telling a reporter: “We are just doing a lot of praying.” Roscosmos claimed the video was only a joke and brought Vande Hei back with the two cosmonauts as scheduled. At a press conference after he landed, the astronaut declared that his “Russian crewmates were, are and will continue to be very dear friends of mine”. But Roscosmos’s joke was lost on its international partners. And presumably on Vande Hei’s mother.

More was to come. First, a spacewalk the following month when two cosmonauts unfurled a Russian victory banner supposedly to mark the defeat of nazism in 1945, a nakedly inflammatory gesture given the running Russian narrative about denazifying Ukraine. Then, in July, all three Russian cosmonauts on the station took selfies with the flags of the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk. Roscosmos described the Russians’ capture of the Luhansk region as “a liberation day to celebrate both on Earth and in space”.

At which point, Nasa’s patience finally snapped. The agency deplored the use of the ISS to support the war, reminding Rogozin that it was “fundamentally inconsistent with the station’s primary function”, namely to advance science for peaceful purposes. By Nasa’s usually diplomatic standards this was like lobbing back a nuclear bomb. “In general,” says Gatens, “we’ve been trying not to fan any sort of political flames.” But the statement hit home. Eight days later, Rogozin was fired. “He was leading the Russian space programme into the gutter,” says the American space reporter Eric Berger. And in the process seriously annoying his boss. “Only Putin is allowed to make brushfire statements,” says Cathleen Lewis, curator of international space programmes at the Smithsonian Institution. “And Rogozin out-Putined Putin.”

Rogozin’s replacement was Yury Borisov, a former deputy prime minister and as colourless a figure as Rogozin was not – certainly not one given to making brushfire statements. Things are “much more stable now”, Gatens tells me, with palpable relief. But the really interesting thing is that, for all of Rogozin’s bluster, the relationship held firm. Mission controls in Houston and Moscow still communicated. Nasa maintained staff in Russia and its astronauts would continue to have a seat on the venerable Russian Soyuz, flying to and from the ISS. And, under a new seat-swapping arrangement, Russian cosmonauts would get a ride on one of Elon Musk’s Crew Dragons, a cutting-edge spacecraft that had only begun operations in 2020. It would carry its first Russian, Anna Kikina, to the space station in October 2022, launching from Cape Canaveral.

As for Rogozin, he went on to spend the next few jobless months posing in military uniforms for his Telegram account before a Ukrainian shell exploded on his 59th birthday party in December 2022 at a restaurant in Donetsk, seriously injuring him. He has recently returned to form by casting doubts on the truth of the Apollo moon landings. But the space station has survived.

***

So much for the partnership: what about relationships between the crews? Take the Russians first. “I do know,” says Berger, “that a lot of cosmonauts are very sympathetic to the war.” Samokutyayev, Virts’ former colleague, is not the only one to have been sanctioned. Many are products of the military, and they only hear one side of the story. “Some of them are completely brainwashed out of their minds. It’s just insane,” claims Scott Kelly, a former Nasa space station commander who returned his Russian space medal in disgust after the invasion.

Here’s one example from last May, when Oleg Novitsky, a former fighter pilot and veteran of three ISS tours between 2012 and 2021, received the Order for Merit of the Fatherland from Putin himself. “At all times,” Novitsky declared, “our enemies, mostly western ones, have tried to seize our land and enslave our people.” He then offered to fight on the frontline, at the age of 51. Also decorated was fellow cosmonaut Pyotr Dubrov, who proclaimed that “today the masks are thrown off and western nazism has shown its true face to the world”.

It might come as a surprise to learn that Novitsky and Dubrov are those same “dear friends” with whom Vande Hei lived on the space station. But what matters is who’s listening. “These incidents are certainly provocative,” says Lewis, “but directed toward their audience on the ground, not their colleagues on the space station.” And there are some cosmonauts who feel very differently about the war; they just won’t tell you because it’s too dangerous. Every one of the eight western astronauts I speak to has essentially stopped communicating with their Russian colleagues or, on the very rare occasions that they do, never about politics. Apart from anything, it could put the Russians at risk. “People are turning each other in,” says Kelly. “I don’t want to compromise anybody’s security.” For the same reason, not a single cosmonaut has openly opposed the war. Only one, Gennady Padalka, who clocked up a record 879 days in space, made a mildly questioning comment in the since-banned newspaper Novaya Gazeta. That was 16 days after the invasion. He has not spoken out since.

But try to discuss the war’s impact on current crew members with space agency insiders and the response is an almost visceral recoil. “This is not an easy call to take, I can tell you,” says De Winne. Choosing his words carefully, he says he hasn’t seen “any deterioration in crew dynamics”. But he acknowledges that “it is extremely stressful for our crews to be there in those circumstances”. Spending long periods in a confined environment is hard, he explains – as a space station commander himself in 2009, he would know – but the war “adds a layer of discomfort”.

German astronaut Matthias Maurer at an air show earlier this year. Photograph: Reuters

Very few serving astronauts will admit publicly what that layer feels like. Vande Hei is one, revealing at his post-flight press conference in April 2022 that the war was “heartbreaking” and had left all his crewmates, Russians included, feeling “powerless”. They discussed it, he said, and then got on with the mission. His German colleague, Matthias Maurer, who returned to Earth a month later, described seeing “huge clouds of smoke over cities like Mariupol” and rocket hits on Kyiv. “We raised the issue very quickly and proactively. All six, seven of us immediately agreed that it’s a horrible situation. We were all shocked, the Russian colleagues, the American colleagues – nobody could understand what was happening down there.”

But Vande Hei and Maurer are exceptions. The rule in press conferences is to focus on the mission, not the war; any questions about “crew dynamics” are briefly dealt with, then swatted away like flies. When I ask De Winne if I can speak to Maurer or another of his astronauts who have been on the ISS recently, I can almost hear the shutters slamming down. Repeated requests over the following weeks draw a blank. At Nasa it is the same story: no astronauts are available. But I keep trying.

Meanwhile, I gather clues from astronauts who have left the job and are less constrained. Patterns of behaviour emerge: inevitably those working on the ISS are bonded by the common purpose, the shared passions. “The war is an elephant on the station,” says Thirsk, “but cosmonauts are very similar to western astronauts in many ways. We’ve all dreamed about flying in space since we were young, we’re all geeks. And after a few days or weeks you sort of lose your sense of national identity – it goes to the back of your brain.”

Those bonds are strengthened by the shared dangers. In July 2015, Kelly and his two Russian crewmates had just 90 minutes’ notice to hunker down in their Soyuz escape capsule as a hail of space debris hurtled past the station. ”You literally rely on each other for your life,” he says. Nor was this an isolated incident. With an ever-increasing amount of space junk and satellites in low orbit, the ISS has to manoeuvre to avoid collisions almost every year. In November 2021, just three months before the invasion, all seven crew members – including two Russians – were forced to take temporary refuge in their escape capsules after 1,500 pieces of trackable debris from a Russian anti-satellite missile test threatened the station. Fortunately, they missed – but the same debris field keeps coming back.

Even Virts, who argues that continuing to allow Russians to fly on American spacecraft and vice versa is an “outrage”, nevertheless accepts that things are different once you’re up there. “Politics is politics. We’re not going to change politics so let’s just try not to die in the vacuum of space. Let’s work together as a crew.”

That capacity is hardwired in the selection process. Out of almost 23,000 astronaut applications the Esa received last year, De Winne reveals, individuals were chosen partly for what he calls their “stress resistance”. To stiffen that resistance further, Nasa has various training tricks up its sleeve. One of them is the Nasa Extreme Environment Mission Operations (Neemo), an underwater habitat on the ocean floor off the coast of Florida, where astronaut trainees spend time learning to cope without tearing each other’s eyes out. Another is the gruelling team expeditions run by the US National Outdoor Leadership School in the wilder parts of America.

Steve Swanson, a former Nasa flight engineer, did one of those and never forgot the lessons it taught him. His 10-day stint on an island in the Pacific north-west was to prove crucial after he docked at the ISS in March 2014 in a Soyuz with two Russian crewmates. They arrived within days of Putin’s annexation of Crimea. Things got awkward when one cosmonaut, Aleksandr Skvortsov, told Swanson his Russian brother had been thrown out of Ukraine. Over and again he insisted that Ukrainians were Nazis and hooligans. “He was really, really upset,” says Swanson. “But I wasn’t going to tell him what I thought about it, because that wasn’t going to help the situation. I let him talk. Because he needed to vent.”

Such voices help illuminate life on the station today. But I keep hoping for an eyewitness who has been there since the invasion. And then I find Mike López-Alegría, who has been an astronaut for longer than the ISS has existed. He first flew there on the space shuttle in 2000 and went back again, in 2002 and 2006-7. By then he had performed 10 spacewalks, more than any other US astronaut at the time. “It is an amazing experience to be a human satellite,” he tells me with awe. “You’re out there, you’ve got this suit that’s protecting you that is a marvel of engineering, that allows you to exist in these unsurvivable conditions … It’s minus 200, it’s plus 200, it’s a vacuum, it’s full of radiation. It’s very exhilarating. I would do it again a hundred times.”

In 2012, López-Alegría left Nasa, but last year, at the age of 63, he was back on the station. By then, he’d joined Axiom, a rising company in today’s brave new world of space commerce whose plan is to build the world’s first commercial space station from 2025, complete with interior designs by Philippe Starck. López-Alegría’s mission was to chaperone three space tourists, Larry Connor, Mark Pathy and Eytan Stibbe, to the ISS. López-Alegría won’t be drawn on the price per seat, but $50m-plus is “in the ballpark”. They arrived on 9 April 2022, just six weeks after the invasion. And since he is retired from Nasa, López-Alegría can talk about it.

He stayed for 15 days. Apart from noticing how much had changed since 2007 – “There seems to be stuff everywhere, it’s just loaded with laptops and cables,” he says – he noted that none of the inhabitants (three Americans, three Russians and Maurer, a German) mentioned the war. “Whatever was going on wasn’t going on,” he says. “It was as if nothing like that was going on on the planet.” As a guest, López-Alegría never brought the subject up. “Why would you disrupt the harmony? I think you just let it go.”

Astronaut Mike López-Alegría (second right) chaperones three space tourists to the ISS last year. Photograph: AP

Even with your fellow Americans, I ask. López-Alegría pauses. “I think sometimes we talked about not discussing it.” Meanwhile, the Russians “were extraordinarily gracious”. On their two Saturday nights everybody met to watch movies. They saw The Princess Bride and Salyut 7, a Russian film loosely based on reality about a damaged Soviet space station the Americans attempt (and fail) to kidnap during the cold war. Whatever the ironies of that choice, nobody spelled them out. On the Orthodox Easter, the cosmonauts invited them to join the celebrations. They had dessert and Russian tea and one of them, Oleg Artemyev, gave them gifts – special cookies prepared by his wife. “It was lovely,” López-Alegría says. The Russians even let them use their toilet when the American one broke down. In fact, it broke down twice.

Nothing in López-Alegría’s story contradicts the impressions I’ve heard already. But here’s the thing. Just four days after he departed on 24 April, two of those cosmonauts, Denis Matveev and Artemyev of the homemade cookies, went on to unfurl that inflammatory Russian victory banner on their spacewalk. And all three cosmonauts posed that July with the flags of Donetsk and Luhansk. Perhaps again, it is the home audience that counts. “But it made me sad,” López-Alegría says, “because those guys have to do what they’re told.” And then he adds: “I don’t want to speculate as to where they are personally on that topic, but even if they were all for it, I think it’s not lost on them that using that platform for that kind of message is inappropriate.”

I don’t know if the ISS is a symbol or not. But it’s the best example of how we should all behave on the ground

That sadness touches everyone I speak to in this small community. Swanson also flew with Artemyev, remembering him as “just a wonderful person, the nicest guy. But you never know what’s going on there.”

Meanwhile, every attempt I make to reach a Russian cosmonaut for this piece hits brick walls. When I ask one Russian space insider who prefers not to be identified if he can help, he tells me bluntly: “I don’t know any such person in Russia who will talk openly these days. It’s the wrong time. Trust me. The country is busy with other problems.”

Russian cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Then, finally, through a friend of a friend, I do find someone. Alexander Misurkin has flown three times on the ISS, most recently in 2021, returning just two months before the invasion. I do not know his politics and we keep our Zoom conversation, very likely to be monitored, non-political – indeed, in a slightly surreal twist, some of it revolves around his love of badminton. He talks enthusiastically about his career in space, and his affection for his fellow crew members feels very genuine. And the more we talk, the more it strikes me that our interaction curiously mirrors those of the crews’: chat about sports, family, the job, everything else, but no politics. Then he tells a story that he says still haunts him to this day.

In 2013, the Italian astronaut Luca Parmitano was on a spacewalk when his helmet began to fill with water from a leak. Misurkin was inside as the emergency rapidly unfolded. Out in the void, the water rose up Parmitano’s face. “He almost sank inside his spacesuit.” Somehow he was able to get back through the airlock – “It is still unbelievable for me how he managed it” – and everyone, Russians and Americans, came together to pull off his helmet, get him breathing and save his life. “It was the most dangerous situation in all my space experience,” says Misurkin. “Thank God he lived.” He stops for a moment, reliving the drama. And then, with real feeling, he says: “I don’t know if the International Space Station is a symbol or not. But I do know for sure it’s the best example of how we should all behave on the ground.”

If it is, it’s all Russia has now got. While America and its allies, and China on its own, forge ahead with new space stations, a return to the moon and ultimately Mars, Russia’s only real human space programme today is the 25-year-old ISS. That is one legacy of Putin’s terrible war. Sanctions and isolation have done the rest. The tech is ageing, the money is running out, the equipment sometimes defective. defective. And the blows keep falling. Only last week Luna-25, the first Russian probe to return to the moon in almost half a century, crashed onto the surface just four days before an Indian probe landed there successfully. Within the last year, two Russian spaceships docked at the ISS experienced alarming coolant leaks in identical systems, suggesting serious production deficiencies on the ground. And, as I saw for myself in late 2019, the spaceport at Baikonur in Kazakhstan from where Yuri Gagarin launched into history in 1961 is visibly decaying, with its faded Soviet murals, crumbling buildings and stray dogs running wild.

Once, the world marvelled at the nation that sent the first human being into space. But the world has moved on. The Russians talk about building their own space station or going to the moon or collaborating with China but, as Zak says: “The key word is talking. Russia has nothing. Russia has nowhere to go without the ISS.”

Meanwhile, the station soldiers on, the first and perhaps the last great collaboration of its kind. And barring Putin doing something really stupid – in which case, as Gatens tells me drily, “our leadership would definitely have some conversations” – it will get to live out its final few years, carving elliptical orbits of the planet while the men and women on board continue to perform their experiments, to eat, sleep, watch movies together, celebrate each other’s holidays, take in the views, avoid talking politics and, in the last resort, look out for each other. You may even spot it in the sky one clear night, a brilliant star moving steadily west to east as its acre of solar panels catch the sunlight below the horizon, a moral embarrassment for some, a beacon of hope for others. But undeniably astonishing.

@SWalkerBeyond
• Beyond – The Astonishing Story of the First Human to Leave Our Planet and Journey into Space by Stephen Walker is published by HarperCollins. 
UK
No wealth tax under Labour, Rachel Reeves pledges

SIR KEIR STARMER'S RED TORIES


Edward Malnick
Sat, 26 August 2023 

'Whatever it takes': shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves - Lorne Campbell

Rachel Reeves has ruled out any version of a wealth tax if Labour forms the next government, declaring that additional taxation will not lead to prosperity.

In an interview with The Telegraph, the shadow chancellor launches a bold bid for support from businesses and wealthier households, saying she will not introduce a levy to target wealth or expensive properties, and will not increase capital gains tax or the top rate of income tax.

Instead, she says, she will do “whatever it takes” to attract private investment to Britain.


The interview signals a major shift for the Labour Party as it prepares for a conference in October in which Ms Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer will fire the starting gun on their general election campaign.

The pair believe the party must demonstrate economic competence above all else if it is to capitalise on its 20-point lead in the polls and win an election.

Ruling out a tax raid on wealthier voters is also designed to blunt a key Conservative attack – that Labour would launch a class war that would punish the wealthy.

In the clearest break yet from the hard-Left policies that lost the 2019 election for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Reeves puts an end to speculation over the prospect of either a discrete wealth or mansion tax, or higher levies for those earning money from stocks and shares or buy-to-let properties.

She also confirms that Sir Keir’s 2020 leadership pledge to increase the top rate of income tax is now off the table – making explicit a suggestion by the party leader in June that he was no longer keen on the idea.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are planning their moves ahead of next year's election - Christopher Furlong/Getty

In other revelations, Ms Reeves said Labour was preparing to overhaul planning laws to make it easier to build green infrastructure and the shadow chancellor also pledged to do “whatever it takes” to win green jobs and investment from firms already being wooed with lucrative offers by countries such as France and the US.

Labour frontbenchers are also being told they should draw up reforms or identify schemes that can be scrapped if they want to fund new projects, as “the money is simply not going to be there”.

And it emerged the annual business forum hosted at Labour’s conference is over-subscribed by some 75 per cent, with 200 delegates due to attend and 150 on a waiting list, compared with 130 attendees last year.

Ms Reeves also effectively recants remarks made in September 2021 when she said that “people who get their income through wealth should have to pay more”.

At the time she highlighted those “who get their incomes through stocks and shares and buy-to-let properties”.

The shadow chancellor told The Telegraph those remarks were in the context of Rishi Sunak’s ill-fated attempt to increase National Insurance to raise an additional £12 billion for the NHS and social care.

She said: “The point I was making then, the Government said that they needed to raise £12 billion, and I said, well, why do you always have to come to working people and ask them to contribute more?”

She added: “I don’t have any spending plans that require us to raise £12 billion worth of money. So I don’t need a wealth tax or any of those things ... We have no plans for a wealth tax.”

“We don’t have any plans to increase taxes outside of what we’ve said. I don’t see the way to prosperity as being through taxation. I want to grow the economy.” She added of the prospect of any form of wealth tax: “We won’t be doing that. It’s a denial.”

A Labour source said the denial also applied to “any form of ‘mansion tax’”, which has also been discussed by Labour in recent years.

Asked if the party had ditched Sir Keir’s 2020 pledge to increase the top rate of income tax, Ms Reeves replied: “Yeah. The tax burden is at its highest in 60, maybe even 70 years ... I don’t see a route towards having more money for public services that is through taxing our way there. It is going to be through growing our way there. And that’s why the policies that we’ve set out are all about how we can encourage businesses to invest in Britain.”

Ms Reeves said she would overturn a “minister knows best” approach, to incorporate firms more closely into decisions made in Whitehall.

Sources said that the number of businesses flocking to the Labour conference showed that Ms Reeves was winning firms over.

She pledged to do “whatever it takes” to draw investments and jobs to Britain from firms such as electric car manufacturers amid a global race to host the “gigafactories” needed to produce batteries for zero-emission cars.

A new National Wealth Fund would invest £2 billion to help “crowd-in” further private sector investment in eight new gigafactories.

On reforming planning laws, she added: “There are also other things that we can do and need to do, for example, reforming our planning so it’s easier to build the gigafactories, or the warehouses or the housing, or the grid connections.”

She continued: “We need to set the planning rules a bit free. You take, for example, offshore wind, it takes something like 10 to 13 years between the conception of a project and actually getting that energy onto the grid.”





Opinion

Labour’s backtracking on casual workers will weaken the rights of all employees

Kenan Malik
Sun, 27 August 2023 


If you have a job, are you a worker or an employee? In everyday conversation, it is a distinction without meaning, and the two are usually taken to be synonymous and used interchangeably. In British law, though, workers and employees form discrete categories.

Legally, only an employee, who has a contract of employment, regular hours or shifts, and a guaranteed wage, enjoys full employment rights such as sick pay and maternity and paternity leave. A “worker”, often in casual, irregular or temporary work, possesses some of these rights, being entitled, for instance, to the national minimum wage and protection from discrimination, but is denied others, such as sick leave, protection against unfair dismissal, and statutory redundancy pay. The self-employed have no workers’ rights.

The distinction between “employees” and “workers” was codified by John Major’s government in the 1996 Employment Rights Act. It was a deliberate attempt to blur the line between an “employee” and someone “self-employed”, and to create a workforce more suited to a “flexible” labour market, establishing in essence a formal category of “insecure” workers.

Over the past quarter of a century, employers have taken full advantage of the flexibility afforded them, increasingly hiring workers on temporary, part-time or zero-hours contracts, and often as ostensibly “self-employed”, even if they are expected to work as normal employees. The most visible expression of this is the “gig economy”. However, the casualisation of labour extends, far beyond Amazon workers or Uber drivers. A recent report by the Living Wage Foundation estimated that 6.1 million workers were in insecure work – one in five of British workers. These included 1 million in temporary jobs and another million on zero-hours contracts.

study last year by the thinktanks Autonomy and the Centre for Labour and Social Studies on the “Uberisation” of the British economy observed how “insecurity” had “become an endemic part of British working life”. The kind of precarity once associated solely with the gig economy now spreads through many employment sectors: health and care, hospitality, cleaning, hair and beauty, and even “previously protected middle-class jobs in academia”.

It was against this background that the Labour party pledged two years ago to erase the distinction between employee, worker and the bogus self-employed “by creating a single status of ‘worker’ for all but the genuinely self-employed”. All workers, “regardless of sector, wage, or contract type”, would be “afforded the same basic rights and protections”. This, as Labour’s green paper, A New Deal for Working People, observed, would ensure that employers would “no longer be able to treat their staff like regular employees while falsely claiming they are not, denying staff rights they are owed as employees”.

Now, Labour appears to have backtracked, reducing the pledge to a “consultation”. It is part of the attempt by the party to make itself “business-friendly” in the run-up to the election. Criticism of Labour’s original plans has focused on the supposed difficulties in formalising a distinction between “bogus” and “genuine” self-employed and on the harm that single status might do to businesses. Many countries – including France, Spain, Ireland and Australia – recognise only one category of worker and have no problem in distinguishing between an employee and someone self-employed.



Many countries – including France, Spain, Ireland and Australia – recognise only one category of worker

When conservatives and business leaders talk of the “harm” of single status, what they mean is harm to the ability of employers to enforce low pay, poor conditions and a lack of rights, and to evade their responsibilities by categorising employees as being “self-employed”.

Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, says of the new deal paper that “far from watering it down, we will now set out in detail how we will implement it”, and that “we’ll tackle insecure work by banning zero-hours contracts, ending fire and rehire and ending qualifying periods for basic rights”. Given Labour’s track record of U-turns on a host of important policy pledges, one might be sceptical of Rayner’s breezy optimism.

To backtrack on single status is to diminish much of the power of policies such as the abolition of zero-hours contracts or the banning of fire and rehire. As Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College London, and John Hendy, chair of the Institute of Employment Rights, have asked, if workers, as opposed to employees, have no protection against unfair dismissal, how will it be possible to ban the practice of firing and rehiring except for employees? Maintaining two sets of workers’ rights will, they point out, only “create an even greater incentive for employers to hire workers on precarious contracts”.

Introducing single status would neither end the exploitation of workers nor halt the gig economy. Nevertheless, it is important to enforce the rights of workers who are now denied them and to insist that all workers should possess the same rights. Abandoning the commitment to single status is to abandon workers who are in the most precarious and vulnerable jobs.

The pushback against single status has echoes of the objections in the 1990s to proposals for a minimum wage. In 1997, the Economist wrote of Labour’s plans that “there is much that is half-baked, or plain wrong. The minimum wage will cost jobs.” The CBI insisted that “even a low minimum wage would reduce job opportunities”. Michael Portillo called it “immoral” while Philip Hammond, later to be chancellor under Theresa May, told parliament that “the result of minimum wage legislation … will be to drive some small businesses into the black economy”. All eventually changed their mind.

The torrent of criticism aimed at the minimum wage proposal did have an impact. The level at which the minimum wage was set in 1999 by the Low Pay Commission was much lower than many campaigners had hoped for. So “modest” was it, in fact, in the words of Portillo, by now the shadow chancellor, that he felt able to reverse Tory opposition to the measure.

The meagreness of the minimum wage led to campaigns for a “living wage” (now statutory for those over 23) and a “real living wage”, based on the cost of living. Nevertheless, for all its defects, the principle of the minimum wage was important to maintain.

The principle behind single status – that workers’ rights should be universal, and not discriminate between types of employees – is even more important. It is a principle on which we cannot afford to backtrack.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist
Opinion

China wants to erase Tibet. Will Britain stay quiet about this crime?



Simon Tisdall
Sun, 27 August 2023 

Photograph: Héctor Retamal/AFP/Getty Images

Last week’s US sanctioning of Chinese officials involved in Beijing’s ongoing criminal efforts to erase Tibet as a separate political, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious entity showed America at its best.

Few other governments give a hoot. Most cravenly look the other way.

Citing a recent UN report on the “forced assimilation” of one million Tibetan children ordered into Mandarin-language state boarding schools far from their homes and families, Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, demanded China stop trying to eradicate Tibet’s distinct identity.


“We urge PRC [People’s Republic of China] authorities to end the coercion of Tibetan children into government-run boarding schools and to cease repressive assimilation policies in Tibet and other parts of the PRC,” Blinken said – apparently referring to Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Hong Kong, where the right to self-determination is also denied.

The fact America’s senior diplomat was ready to take a public, principled stand will infuriate and puzzle Beijing, which has occupied Tibet since 1950. President Xi Jinping and his callous Communist cadres don’t do principles. For them, altruism in foreign policy is an alien concept.

The Biden administration is trying to patch up rocky relations with China. So it’s all the more impressive that it feels strongly enough about Beijing’s systemic abuses of democratic and human rights to speak out, regardless of possible negative repercussions.

It’s doubly refreshing after a week when a herd of middle-ranking, ethically challenged, mostly undemocratic governments kowtowed to Xi at the Brics summit in South Africa. They seem to think China will build a fairer, juster world. Are these leaders naive, corrupt, or merely stupid?

James Cleverly, foreign minister of another middling power, says he, too, will raise human rights concerns when he visits Beijing this week. British ministers always say that. Then nothing changes. Why is he going to China at all? Apparently it’s to maintain dialogue (as if one genuinely existed). He claims the UK has “agency”, can exert influence.

This is delusional. The Chinese party behemoth, spying, bullying and hacking, beating up protesters in Manchester, torching the Hong Kong joint declaration, backing neofascist Vladimir Putin, besieging democratic Taiwan and plotting an authoritarian “new world order” is simply not listening, especially now Europe and Britain no longer speak as one.

Xi gives not a fig for the UK’s China policy – not least because the Conservatives cannot agree one. But the US is a different matter. Perhaps Blinken’s demarche will give him pause. Tibet is another dangerous flashpoint among too many. And what’s happening there is one huge crime against humanity.

The mass abuses of Tibetan children – it’s hard to imagine the trauma they must suffer – is part of a deliberate scheme to alter Tibet’s demographics, entrench the dominance of majority Han Chinese people and culture, and suppress Tibetan Buddhist religious practice, language and media.

Gyal Lo, a Tibetan educational sociologist, told the Free Tibet pressure group: “The Chinese government is tearing families apart and forcing these vulnerable children to become strangers to their own Tibetan culture.”

A second UN inquiry this year reported that hundreds of thousands of Tibetans have been removed from their homes and workplaces in rural areas and assigned to low-skill “vocational training” and low-paid employment, thereby undermining identity and traditional communities.

Campaigners provide evidence of numerous excesses, including arbitrary detention, torture, sexual crimes, disappearances and severe punishment of dissent. In a sense, Tibet is in permanent lockdown. Passports to leave are virtually unobtainable. Foreign media are denied entry. China wants it forgotten.

Vigils, marches and sit-ins still take place, despite heavy-handed paramilitary policing and ubiquitous surveillance, and are usually peaceful, Free Tibet says. “However, the Chinese authorities are growing increasingly intolerant … Many [protests] are met with a violent response”. In 2022, at least three Tibetans self-immolated.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom also warns that “the Chinese government’s control and suppression of Tibetan Buddhism has intensified, with authorities restricting Tibetans’ access to religious sites, banning religious gatherings, and destroying sites and symbols.

“Monks and nuns have been subjected to torture in prison, and Tibetans have been detained for religious activities honouring the Dalai Lama [Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader] or possessing his portraits,” the commission said. Human Rights Watch says the government is also conducting mass DNA collections, to better surveil people.

This calamity could soon take an even darker turn – over the disputed succession to the 88-year-old Dalai Lama, free Tibet’s Nobel peace prize-winning face to the world. An unnamed male child, the third most senior lama and head of the faith in Mongolia, is reportedly in the frame. But Beijing is vowing to impose its own candidate.

That China is attempting to wipe collective memories and consign the old Tibet to oblivion is not seriously disputed (except by Beijing’s lie machines). China argues its actions are benign, that it has invested heavily there. But that’s driven by its hunger for natural resources. As elsewhere, Xi’s obsession with control, uniformity and conformity trumps all.

By ignoring China’s daily flouting of basic human decency and international law, governments around the world are complicit in Tibet’s silent erasure. None recognises the Tibetan people’s sovereign rights or the Tibetan government-in-exile.

So here’s a challenge for Cleverly in Beijing. The Chinese, as usual, will take little or no notice of Britain’s views about Russia, fair trade, security and the rest. So why not use your otherwise meaningless visit to publicly condemn China’s crimes against humanity in Tibet?

Your hosts would be angry. They would certainly be embarrassed. But who knows? They might start treating Tibet, and Britain, with a little more respect.
Health alarm as tide of rotting seaweed chokes UK holiday beaches

Henry Young
Sat, 26 August 2023 


When Owen Francomb from Margate set out on a walk with his dog Gertie along Kent’s picturesque Thanet coast early this month, he didn’t imagine he’d need to be rescued from a tide of toxic sludge. But on the beach at Newgate Gap, French bulldog Gertie started sinking into a thick carpet of rotting seaweed and began to panic.

“She couldn’t move,” Francomb. says. “So I scrambled down the slipway and jumped down on to the beach, expecting the seaweed to be a foot deep, but it came up to my belt. I really struggled to wade through it.” Another dog walker had to help him and Gertie out of the stinking slime.

Over 1,000 tonnes of seaweed have been removed from beaches between Minnis Bay and Broadstairs by Thanet district council – at a cost of £65,000 – in just five weeks from the beginning of July this year, compared with a reported average of between 400-800 tonnes in an entire season.

“We do typically get seaweed blooms as the weather warms up, so residents are used to it,” says Amy Cook, founder of the community initiative Rise Up Clean Up Margate which organises regular beach cleans and local environmental campaigns. “This year, however, the smell of seaweed has hung over the whole town, which does not usually happen.”

Margate is not the only place to suffer. Weymouth in Dorset is another tourist town which has suffered from an unusually large amount of rotting seaweed on its beach this summer.

The seaweed has benefited from ideal growing conditions this year including extreme marine heatwavesin the North Sea. There have also been unusually high tides and strong winds, beaching excess seaweed in the south-east of England. Warming oceans mean that warm-water species are spreading, particularly more fleshy species such as kelp and seagrass.

Seaweed is a macroalgae that grows only in seawater. As it decomposes it can release the gas hydrogen sulphide which affects fish – and can be lethal. It also cause eye irritation and respiratory problems in humans.

Florida-based researcher Dr Brian Lapointe has, since 1973, been studying seaweed blooms like those found on the Kent coast and their relationship to wastewater He says the smell caused by hydrogen sulphide is a “real issue” and “people need to take precautions if they’re living in an area with those odours”.

“[The gas] can affect the electronics in your house because it forms sulphuric acid,” he says. “In the Caribbean, where Sargassum seaweed has been such a problem, people have lost electronic appliances: air conditioners, all kinds of things.”

UK government guidelines state that an average person experiencing prolonged exposure can experience “notable discomfort”. Higher quantities could induce headaches, bronchial constriction, fatigue and dizziness.

Thanet district council cannot remove the rotting seaweed from some locations due to the presence of a chalk reef which is a marine conservation zone. Current advice for residents is to keep windows closed and “avoid exercising outdoors when the smell is present, particularly if your breathing rate increases”.

Environmental science expert Professor Daniel Franklin monitors the effects of unnaturally elevated nitrogen levels in Poole Harbour. “The main concern with big accumulations of seaweed is that there are potentially large, and negative, ecological changes, as well as negative consequences for some human activities like tourism,” he says.

Visitors play among the seaweed at Weymouth, Dorset. 
Photograph: Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

The Kent area also suffers from nutrient enrichment of coastal waters due to sewage discharge as well as agricultural run-off.

In 2023, between Herne Bay and Whistable alone, Southern Water has already released sewage into the ocean at least 374 times via storm overflows – 181 of those occurring since the beginning of May in the busy summer season – according to figures published by Surfers Against Sewage.

In Broadstairs, where the numbers of E coli and intestinal enterococci colonies this summer have been as high as 960 per 100ml, lifeguards are sometimes forced to keep people out of the water rather than make sure they’re safe within it.

Seaweed blooms have been linked to health issues internationally. Across the Channel in Brittany, the proliferation of green algae along the coastline, thought to be caused by extensive factory farming, was the subject of a bestselling graphic novel, Green Algae, by journalist Inès Léraud in 2019. A film adaptation of the book was released this summer.

SOS Whitstable founder member Bryony Carter says the protest group has noticed “a substantial increase in seaweed over the last three years”, adding: “It may cause issues for swimmers in the future if it continues to grow at the rate we’ve seen.”

In a statement, Southern Water said it was “committed to reducing use of storm overflows and working to increase our wastewater treatment storage capacity along with nature-based and engineering solutions to divert rainwater away from the sewer system and back into the environment”.

Neither they nor Thanet council could provide readings of hydrogen sulphide gas in Kent.
Weed-choked pavements anger residents as ‘rewilding’ divides UK towns and cities

The majority of objectors appear to come from the political right.

Phoebe Weston
Updated Sat, 26 August 2023


Brighton is home to the UK’s only Green member of parliament and is outwardly a bastion of progressive politics. Wild spaces here are not only the rolling hills of East Sussex or the beachfront but the smaller, often overlooked, green areas within residential neighbourhoods.

These untamed enclaves are full of nature’s drama, but another kind of drama is playing out among residents who feel that rewilding in the city’s backyard has gone too far.

“I’m fully supportive of eco-friendly policies generally but they shouldn’t be used for just manifesting neglect,” says resident Lesley Fallowfield, who recently had to go to A&E after falling over vegetation growing out of the pavement by her house.

Fallowfield, who has lived in her house for 30 years, spent six weeks wearing an orthopaedic boot and crutches and has had enough of weeds among the paving slabs. “I think it looks terrible. It would put me off buying a property here,” she says.

She is not alone in her concerns. The push from local authorities to rewild spaces is causing consternation in villages, towns and cities across the country.

Green patches outside people’s houses are in many places no longer neat and well cut, as the majority of residents expect them to be.

Ivan Lyons, Conservative councillor for Westdene and Hove Park, says that while most people he speaks to are content with unkempt verges, rewilding pavements is going too far. Conservative councillor Anne Meadows, from Patcham and Hollingbury ward, agrees: “It used to be the number two concern for residents, now it’s number one. Number one used to be the rubbish collection.”

The issue of weeds growing between paving slabs started with bans on the weedkiller glyphosate and other herbicides over suspected links to cancer in humans. Their environmental damage, particularly to soil quality, is also well documented.

Foamstream, an eco-friendly foam weedkiller that works by using heat, is currently being looked at as an alternative. Brighton council says it is also trialling mechanical sweepers, weed rippers and strimmers with weed-ripping brushes.

How to get rid of weeds without highly-effective herbicides is a real conundrum – at one point, Bristol council trialled vinegar as an alternative, leading to complaints from residents about the smell.

Leaving grass to grow has the benefit of saving money for councils and reducing carbon emissions from less mowing, but the main ideological reason being put forward is that longer grass creates more space for wildlife within our towns and cities.

Nationally, we have lost 97% of wildflower meadows and the country’s wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 60% since 1970.

Scientists warn that the biodiversity crisis is as serious as the climate crisis, that these two issues are linked, and that local councils need to respond accordingly. This is why councils all over the UK are starting to draw up rewilding plans.

Long grass provides a home for invertebrates, such as butterflies and moths, which lay eggs on it, and bumblebees, which nest within it.

But many residents in Brighton are unconvinced by these well-documented wildlife benefits. One said the main thing she was finding was dog poo. “I think there is enough wildlife as it is,” said another, adding that the policy had only benefited ticks and rats.

Another row this summer centred around hanging baskets in Salisbury. Some residents were outraged after the city council opted to replace traditional flower displays with those that were better for native wildlife and required less watering.

This clash of values is spreading across UK towns and cities. A councillor from Torridge in Devon said that letting grasses grow to two feet in some areas gave off a “Torridge-doesn’t-care” image, adding that it was “very disrespectful” to have grass that long in the town’s cemetery.

Another councillor, in Lydney, Glucestershire, said that rewilding was making a mess of the town and was “catastrophic for wildlife”, citing Alan Titchmarsh telling a House of Lords investigation that it was an “ill-considered” trend.

The majority of objectors appear to come from the political right.


Salisbury has seen an argument break out over hanging baskets. 
Photograph: Slawek Staszczuk/Alamy

Pollsters say that support for a net zero UK by 2050 is expressed among all political voters, yet anti-environmentalism appears to have been identified as a vote-winner. Ideas which were not part of mainstream conversation are being brought in as “wedge issues”.

For example, Tory ministers are looking to water down key climate policies such as the ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2030, phasing out gas boilers by 2035, and low traffic neighbourhoods.

This trend is not confined to the UK. “Rewilding is becoming an important front for political antagonism in Europe,” says Dr Ed Atkins from the University of Bristol, who researches how sustainability policies can be made more inclusive.

It is seen as part of a growing set of challenges from populist anti-green parties across the continent.

Objections to the EU’s nature restoration law were launched by a right-leaning group of MEPs, who raised concerns about farmers losing livelihoods and food security. In France, gilet jaunes protested against fuel taxes, and farmers in the Netherlands fought against attempts to tackle nitrogen pollution through major reductions in livestock.

In each of these cases, the debate centred around how apparently environmental policies were affecting people’s livelihoods.

Policies on rewilding are fundamentally about political, social, cultural and economic concerns.

Atkins says: “I don’t buy that those are just rightwing populist backlashes on climate action. A lot of these episodes are about people saying, ‘we’ve been left behind’, and this is just exacerbating that.”

It is often the negative narrative that is heard the loudest, says Atkins: “In many ways, it’s easier to give that negative narrative that rewilding weeds is messy. It’s disrespectful, and it’s not improving the urban space …What we expect on these spaces is now being challenged. And it’s happening quite quickly.

“People’s responses to that change can take all manner of forms. But in my mind it is important that the voices which explain, inform and illuminate the benefits are loud. This is good. This is good for our environment.”

Atkins believes that these concerns can become culture wars when top-down policy is imposed on people who feel that they don’t have a say. “I would say that there should be greater communication about what rewilding in a city or a town might bring, but also a greater discussion of the forms it could take, and what particular spaces might go through that process.”

Making sure that people have their say has been a key part of the success of the UK’s largest urban rewilding project in Derby, where conservationists have been holding “community conversations” so that locals can talk about what they do and don’ want to see. The 130 hectares of Allestree Park (part of which was previously a golf course) was given the green light to go wild in 2021.

“We knew there would be confusion and conflict,” says Dr Jo Smith, chief executive of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, who has been leading on the Rewilding Allestree Park project.

Her team set up online consultations before agreeing to move forward with the project.

“We’ve now got monthly events where people can just drop in, and we’ve got staff there who can answer questions, deal with concerns, and just talk to people,” she says.

There was controversy about more cattle and fencing being brought in, with people worried about treading in cow dung and having their dogs chased. Some people were even concerned about the possibility of the reintroduction of apex predators such as wolves because they associate that with the word “rewilding”. Others just wanted the land to go back to being a golf course.

As a result of these conversations the authorities are holding off on plans to bring in more cattle but going ahead with all the things people basically agree on, such as increasing wildflowers in meadows, creating more wetland areas and tree planting.

“There are lots of things that we can start to do proactively that everyone’s pretty much happy with, and that’s where we’ve decided to start,” says Smith.

Generally speaking, there is widespread agreement and consensus, which can be drowned out by a vocal minority who object, she adds.

A consultation of 2,000 people found 89% were supportive of the project, but not everyone can be won over, and so the debate will continue.

Smith says: “We know that it’s almost impossible to get everyone to agree to anything.

“What we need is a big majority that allows us to move forward confidently – we’re in a biodiversity emergency. We have to act quickly”.
Just two migrants deported to EU under post-Brexit deal

Rachel Flynn
Sat, 26 August 2023 

The Prime Minister warned the asylum system was under “unsustainable pressure” after the bill for the taxpayer almost doubled in a year to nearly £4 billion (PA Wire)

Only two migrants who arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel have been deported to Europe under the post-Brexit agreement, figures from the Home Office reveal.

The post-Brexit returns policy, introduced in 2021, allows officials to deem migrants “inadmissible” if they travelled through a safe third country to reach Britain.

But zero migrants were considered “inadmissible” in the past year and just two were deported, according to Home Office figures reported in The Times.

Since the start of the scheme, 83 inadmissibility decisions have been made and 23 migrants been deported in total.

Earlier this month there were talks of a new returns deal between the UK and the EU following the removal of the Dublin regulation, which allowed irregular migrants to be returned to the nation of first arrival after Brexit.

The regulation was seen as ineffective, with only 105 UK requests to return migrants to the EU accepted in the year before Brexit.

Overall, a total of 175,457 people were waiting for an initial decision on an asylum application in the UK at the end of June, up 44 per cent on the same period a year earlier – the highest figure since current records began in 2010.

Of these, 139,961 had been waiting longer than six months for an initial decision, up 57 per cent year on year from 89,231 and another record high.

Labour said the asylum backlog amounts to a “disastrous record” for Rishi Sunak and home secretary Suella Braverman, while campaigners called for claims to be processed more efficiently.

The prime minister warned the asylum system was under “unsustainable pressure” after the bill for the taxpayer almost doubled in a year to nearly £4bn.


Prime minister Rishi Sunak has pledged to ‘stop the boats’ ahead of the next general election (PA Wire)

Facing questions from broadcasters on Friday, Mr Sunak insisted that while fixing the issue “would take time”, his plan to end small boat crossings “is working”.

He said: “When I became prime minister, before I outlined my plan, the number of illegal migrants coming to the UK had quadrupled in just the last couple of years.

“But for the first time this year, crossings are down. They are down about 15 per cent versus last year. That’s the first time that has happened since the small boats crisis emerged. That shows that the plan is working.”



THEY COULD JOIN AZOV BATTALION
Russian neo-Nazi group refuses to fight in Ukraine, accusing Kremlin of abandoning its leader

James Kilner
Sat, 26 August 2023 

Russian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Rusich refuses to fight in Ukraine in protest at Kremlin's lack of help in freeing its leader who has been arrested in Finland on war crimes charges

A Russian neo-Nazi paramilitary group that supported the Wagner mercenary rebellion has announced it will no longer fight in Ukraine, accusing the Kremlin of abandoning its leader.

The group, called Rusich, said that its leader Yan Petrovsky was arrested last month when he tried to pass through Helsinki airport and that Russian diplomats have ignored his pleas for help.

“Since July 20, Yan Petrovsky has not been visited by either the Russian consul or a lawyer. The Slav is threatened with extradition to Ukraine either directly or through a third country in a fictitious criminal case,” it said, using Petrokvsky’s military call sign.

“Rusich stops performing any combat missions,” it said on its Telegram channel. “If a country cannot protect its citizens, then why should citizens defend the country?”

Petrovsky has been accused of war crimes and Ukrainian officials want to put him on trial.

Rusich was set up in 2014 and is open about its pro-Nazi views. Even alongside Wagner, it was known for its brutality.

In April Rusich posted a video on its Telegram channel of a Ukrainian prisoner being beheaded with a knife. Its leaders have also filmed themselves killing puppies.

Rusich has criticised the Russian ministry of defence’s handling of its invasion of Ukraine and, although it wasn’t directly involved, it supported Wagner’s rebellion in June that was called off 120 miles from Moscow.

After the death of Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin this week in a plane crash widely blamed on Vladimir Putin, Rusich said: “Let this be a lesson to you all. You always have to go all the way.”

Since the Wagner rebellion, the Kremlin appears to have begun a crackdown on Russian mercenary and paramilitary groups.

Wagner’s camp in Belarus is being dismantled and its former fighters are being made to pledge their allegiance to Putin.

Rusich also said that two Ukrainian intelligence officers had already interrogated Petrovsky in Finland.

“It remains incomprehensible (actually understandable) why our diplomatic wing in Finland is engaged in sabotage, turning a blind eye to the detention and interrogation of citizens by intelligence officers of the country that we are actually fighting a war against,” it said.


Cause of Kenya's longest power outage in memory remains unclear as grid suppliers exchange blame

CARA ANNA
Sun, August 27, 2023


A Kenyan sips a cup of tea as she sits in her sitting room with emergency light as there was no electricity Saturday, Aug. 26 2023. Much of Kenya remains without electricity Saturday morning after an unexplained power outage Friday night shut down the country's main international airport and led to a rare public apology by a government minister.
(AP Photo/Abdul Azim Sayyid)


NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The longest nationwide power outage in Kenyans’ memory remained a mystery Sunday as the government-owned power company blamed a failure at Africa’s largest wind farm, which laid the responsibility on the power grid instead.

Some of Kenya’s more than 50 million people, including in the capital, Nairobi, saw power return almost 24 hours after the massive outage occurred late Friday. It was an embarrassment to the East African economic hub that has sought to promote itself as a tech center on the continent but remains challenged by alleged mismanagement and poor infrastructure.

Hundreds of people were stranded in darkness for hours at Kenya’s main international airport in Nairobi, leading to a rare public apology from a government minister in a country where tourism is a key part of the economy. “This situation WILL NOT happen again,” transport minister, Kipchumba Murkomen, said.

The head of the Kenya Airports Authority was fired after a generator serving the main international terminal had failed to start.

Shortly before midnight Saturday, Kenya Power offered the first detailed explanation of the outage, blaming it on a loss of power generation from the Lake Turkana Wind Power plant, Africa’s largest wind farm, causing an imbalance that “tripped all other main generation units and stations, leading to a total outage on the grid.”

But Lake Turkana Wind Power in a statement denied it was to blame. Instead, it said it had been forced to go offline by an “overvoltage situation in the national grid system which, to avoid extreme damage, causes the wind power plant to automatically switch off.” The plant had been producing nearly 15% of the national output at the time.

Such an interruption should be immediately compensated by other power generators in the system, the company said, but the continuing outages in the national grid were preventing the wind plant from being brought back online.

Kenya Power said it couldn’t even turn to importing power from neighboring Uganda, a relatively fast option that for some reason had been unavailable.

“We are jointly working on having the Uganda interconnector restored so as to enhance our grid recovery efforts,” it said.

President William Ruto, whose own office told The Associated Press on Saturday it was still running on generator power hours after Kenya Power announced it had restored electricity to “critical areas” of the capital, did not comment publicly on the crisis. Instead, he again criticized opposition calls for anti-government protests over the rising cost of living, calling them a threat to investors.

“Shame of a nation,” was the main headline of one of Kenya’s leading newspapers, the Sunday Nation. It said the outage was costing businesses millions of dollars and leaving some major hospitals to run on generators.

Kenya gets almost all its electricity from renewable sources, a fact that the government will promote as it hosts the first Africa Climate Summit early next month.

Explainer-What is India's next space mission after moon landing?

Reuters
Fri, August 25, 2023 

People watch a live stream of Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft's landing on the moon, in Ahmedabad OK WHO WAS ON THE MOON READY TO FILM THE LANDING?


BENGALURU (Reuters) - On the heels of the success of the Chandrayaan-3 moon landing, India's space agency has set a date for its next mission - this time to study the sun.

The Aditya-L1, India's first space observatory for solar research, is getting ready for launch at the country's main spaceport in Sriharikota, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) told reporters at its satellite command centre this week, as scientists and crew celebrated the moon mission's success.

"We are planning to launch in the first week of September," said ISRO chairman S. Somanath.

WHAT WILL ADITYA-L1 DO?


Named after the Hindi word for the sun, the spacecraft is India's first space-based solar probe. It aims to study solar winds, which can cause disturbance on earth and are commonly seen as "auroras".

Longer term, data from the mission could help better understand the sun's impact on earth's climate patterns.

Recently, researchers said the European Space Agency/NASA Solar Orbiter spacecraft had detected numerous relatively small jets of charged particles expelled intermittently from the corona - the sun's outer atmosphere - which could help shed light on the origins of solar wind.

HOW FAR WILL IT TRAVEL?

Hitching a ride on India's heavy-duty launch vehicle, the PSLV, the Aditya-L1 spacecraft will travel 1.5 million km in about four months to study the sun's atmosphere.

It will head to a kind of parking lot in space where objects tend to stay put because of balancing gravitational forces, reducing fuel consumption for the spacecraft.

Those positions are called Lagrange Points, named after Italian-French mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange.

HOW MUCH DOES THE MISSION COST?


In 2019, the government sanctioned the equivalent of about $46 million for the Aditya-L1 mission. ISRO has not given an official update on costs.

The Indian space agency has earned a reputation for world-beating cost competitiveness in space engineering that executives and planners expect will boost its now-privatised space industry.

The Chandrayaan-3 mission, which landed a spacecraft on the lunar south pole, had a budget of about $75 million.

(Reporting by Nivedita Bhattacharjee in Bengaluru; Editing by Giles Elgood)