Content Sections
It’s becoming ever more apparent that an ever greater number of people believe they know what to do to fix some of the world’s seemingly biggest problems. These include climate change, biodiversity loss, agricultural soil degradation, and spiralling chronic disease and rising infectious disease incidences. These are essentially all problems linked to ecology but, as you know, ecology is not high on the political agenda, consistently being trumped (deliberate pun) by the economic and political interests of the corporatocracy. So do we fail to make progress more because of a lack of will rather than a lack of answers?
One of the overarching problems is that those who control the narrative of how we should manage our problems have a different way of doing things that consistently appears to fail to rectify these problems that threaten both planet and people. The solutions being offered very seldom take into account the connection between the different, impacted systems and the ways in which human activity (or inactivity) affects them.
Talk to climate change scientists about what’s needed to prevent a 4+ degrees C average temperature rise. Talk to low carb researchers on what’s needed to avert the health crisis among the majority of the world’s population who are refined carb intolerant. Talk to agronomists who’ve spent a lifetime researching how synthetic fertilizers are killing living soils and making our food production systems among the most destructive to our planet. Talk to gut microbiome scientists who’ve proven that manipulating gut ecology by natural means is one of the most powerful medical approaches known yet remains outside the scope of mainstream medicine. Talk to scientists who relate the rampant degeneration of human health among diverse human societies to our inability to apply what we know about ‘health care’ to ‘healthcare’.
This last week, we talked to all of these people – between Oxford (UK) and Brussels (Belgium). Each of the experts understood the interconnections. All were deeply frustrated by the piecemeal tokenism being offered by ‘the establishment’ in an effort to resolve these issues that now threaten all life on the planet, including humans.
Read more about the interconnections, what they mean and some of our options.
Video intro by ANH founder
What the climate change scientist said
We attended a meeting of Extinction Rebellion (ER) in Oxford last Thursday evening. The meeting was hosted by journalist, author and environmentalist George Monbiot who celebrated the rapid, international growth of the ‘rebellion movement’ since its birth last year. He’d apparently been waiting more than 30 years for its arrival.
Its youthful rally-cry intends to wake as many as possible from their planetary-destruct stupor while also letting them know the importance of acting NOW to mitigate our current ecological emergency. ‘Acting now’ and Rebellion’s ‘rebel for life’ slogan refer in particular to the need for organised non-violent protest and civil disobedience. In that light, 15 April is the next big date for the diary.
The climate change scientist speaking to the packed audience of colourful, diversely aged, green-leaning folk (it was hard to spot anyone there who appeared to be from ‘the establishment’ camp) was Arctic browning researcher from the University of Sheffield, Dr Rachael Treharne.
Among the take home messages was the fact that many signatories to the Paris Agreement were set to break the 1.5 degrees C target set back in 2015. Given current trajectories, it’s looking like there’s a high likelihood the planet will experience an average 4+ degrees C temperature increase by 2100, which will be catastrophic ecologically.
Assisted by activist Zuhura Plummer, the audience was told repeatedly that it must act NOW. It just wasn’t made that clear what actions were required other than joining ER and engaging in protests. But the eager audience was left in no doubt that you should be prepared to be arrested if you decide to jump aboard. Governments must be forced to “tell the truth and act as if the truth is real.” Blocking bridges in peak hours – we were told – would make people take notice and join the rebellion. That’s what happens when people lose faith in those at the top and decide that having faith in the grassroots might be better for both people and planet. Added to that, history also tells us that rebellions have worked before. The main disappointment for us was that we just didn’t hear — that night in Oxford — was enough about what a coherent strategy for change might look like. Rebellion is one thing. But needing to be crystal clear with a common vision about what people should be aiming for is another.
What the agronomist said about climate change
Climate, the planet and its ecology are not the only things in crisis. So is agriculture – which, as it happens, is a major contributor to these problems. Roll forward 5 days to yesterday (19 March) and three presentations given to members of the ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) committee of the European Parliament, hosted by its vice-chair, Pavel Poc. First to speak was Dutch agronomist and ‘soil doctor’ Pius Floris, CEO of Plant Health Cure BV. Floris – who amongst other things has been busy bringing a Spanish desert back to life – had his audience transfixed as he explained how over-use of synthetic fertilisers over decades has become one of the main reasons that crop plants are losing their tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases (insects, mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes, etc.) and so ‘need’ pesticides. Added to this, crops subjected to regular use of synthetic fertilizers can’t break down organic matter properly, or fix carbon, this in turn meaning agriculture contributes more than it should to greenhouse gas emissions. There are solutions, and they don’t involve genetic engineering or new chemicals. Find out more in a short film made by Puis’s team.
What the gut doctor said about agronomy
Second to speak in the European Parliament was German ‘gut doctor’, Netherlands-based Dr Ralf Abels, CEO at RP Sanitas Humanus. This is more familiar territory for the health creators among our readership. Our guts – a multi-functional organ composed of more non-human than human cells – is intimately involved with multiple key processes in our body, going well beyond digestion and assimilation of food. A healthy gut – including diverse communities of microorganisms – is vital to healthy immune function, and it plays a central role in our psychology, emotions and reactions to the outside world.
The change in our diets over the last few decades, in particular the consumption of more highly processed foods, eating food-on-the-go, substituting fats for refined carbs, eating at the wrong times of the day or night, eating too often, and not consuming enough fermentable fibre or microbiota-accessible carbohydrate (MAC) and polyphenols that are food for our gut microorganisms, is causing havoc. You could say, that’s the only big MAC that’s good for us! It’s the root of so much of our downstream disease, yet most people are not helped by the medical profession to rectify their gut health to restore other systems in their bodies.
What the sustainability scientist said about gut health and agronomy
The final speaker was ANH founder, Rob Verkerk PhD. Rob used the opportunity to explain to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and their assistants, to show how crucial it is for citizens to become empowered. That means understanding the things that people are able to do to take control of their own lives, and not feel they are at the mercy of others, be they big governments or corporates. Rob showed how the globalisation of food supply, coupled with intensification of agriculture and the increased processing of foods has led to substantial decreases in the diversity of diets. He showed how multiple government surveys in the UK, Germany and the USA have shown how micronutrient-deficient substantial sectors of the population are, yet the government mantra of “you can get everything you need from your diet” continues to be repeated ad nauseam. It might be theoretically possible – but many of us we know fail to achieve this. And who decides what an adequate supply of vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids or phytonutrients should be? Vitamins and minerals are the most well studied of the micronutrients and we know optimal levels are often much higher than the 'adequate' levels cited by health authorities that aim only to prevent overt deficiency diseases.
Just as agronomists have become focused on plant diseases – and dangle pesticides and fertilisers before our eyes as a long-term ‘solution’ – modern medicine focuses almost exclusively on human disease, not on human health or its creation. There needs to be a sea change in how we view how the world (human, non-human and abiotic) functions around us – and it’s becoming ever more likely that a top-down solution won’t be in the offing. There are just too many people out there who benefit from the status quo. And those who are benefitting don’t care about the state of the planet or the unnecessary suffering that many are enduring. They can’t give credence to approaches that work with nature and don’t cost much. To support such approaches would be economic suicide for them. So big corporates carry on buying their political support and the spiral goes on. It was good to get this out to the assembled MEPs.
Rob went on to show how EU law has censored commercial speech, now making it increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish healthy foods from less healthy ones. He also showed how EU medicines law safeguarded patented, new-to-nature drugs that were among the most dangerous substances to which humans are exposed, yet locked out beneficial foods and supplements, that are amongst the safest.
Rob finished his presentation outlining the central elements of our blueprint project that focuses on how sustainable health systems, using ecology as the underlying language, can be created from the bottom-up. By design, the approach is about working with nature, not against it.
Breaking the cycle
We need to see if the youth-driven climate action rebellion will make significant headway. It presupposes that ‘the establishment’ will act in the planet and our best interest – or that people power and our choices as citizens can reshape the way economies run. It’s a very big ask, but desperate times call for desperate measures. If things move forward because of a people's rebellion, how will those in the driving seat of society feel about 'allowing' another win for non-violent protest and civil disobedience?
Fixing agriculture and our health is equally an ambitious challenge. In some respects it's complicated there being even less societal agreement on what’s best, given the power of messaging by the pharmaceutical-dominated medical establishment.
What more and more of us agree on, including the three experts who spoke yesterday in the European Parliament, is that nature – not the R&D arms of Big Business – is the custodian of the answers we so desperately need to resolve our current, interrelated crises. We really need — society-wide — to prioritise developing a much deeper understanding and respect for nature if we’re to get ourselves as well as our planet out of this mess.
And that’s right at the heart of everything we do at the ANH.
Please share this article, search our website and share some more. Help others who have yet to fully appreciate that it is through our deeper understanding of nature, including an understanding of human greed and needs, that we will find the keys to our future.
Comments
your voice counts
Brian Steere http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/
20 March 2019 at 9:59 pm
"Can the grassroots fix climate change, species extinctions and the human health crisis?"
Is the grass astroturf?
Is science a corporate investment of political narrative enforcement by manipulative deceit?
Are false flag diversions operative as pseudo problems designed to hide or protect the real problems from being addressed?
Is the language of the seeming question actually a statement of framing for thought to then operate within?
Is doublethink the use of the term 'health' to mean sickness"
Is the corporate sphere a sickness and conflict management system based upon and supporting a negative Economy?
Is the primary vector of manipulation the targeting and exploiting of our guilt, fear, shame and hate - as proxies serving private agenda?
Is the globalist dream (corporate or political technocracy) not intimately associated with destructive intent to life on Earth and a true human consciousness and communication?
So called corporate greed is established and upheld by law. The regulatory systems of all institutional protections are subverted to protect cartel monopolies from change or challenge.
Maintaining populations in fear and ignorance is part of what has become a predator class.
Is it time to stop using doublespeak as if to find corporate traction - and start our own educational deconstruction of deceits as the freeing of our will from ANY politically directed fear-manipulating guilt-driven narrative ?
Grow the new by releasing allegiance and investment to the old thinking. Awakened responsibility for our own consciousness instead of surrender and sacrifice to conflict management of a blame distribution system - be that 'carbon' guilt or any other 'legitimised' and 'sanctified' hate - running as saviour, protector or security.
There is no unnatural health - but symptom suppression and redistribution. It isn't health - but lies asserted as true and defending against a feared truth - by attacking first.
T.Perry
21 March 2019 at 11:36 am
What NONE of the academics or environmentalists are even talking about (because they are paid not to) is the most catastrophic thing we face - that of Climate engineering (climate modification and weather warfare(Geoengineering), which despite being covered up by all governments has been going on for 70 years! The lies that are told that "it may have to be implemented to cool the earths climate" is a glaring, blatant lie. It has been going on for years as patented processes. We have to breathe in this toxic mix of metallic nano-particles i.e. aluminium, barium, strontium and others. Aluminium is linked to Alzheimers, it is also giving bees the same symptoms. Geoengineering is destroying the ozone layer and covering the planet like a layer of glass so that the heat cannot escape anymore. It is killing the trees and by the way, destroying the beneficial soil microbes. The trees shut down because of the aluminium soaking into the root systems and cannot uptake nutrients. It is also an incendiary dust coating the leaves which causes wild fires. This is total OMNICIDE and very few people can be bothered to look up from their iPhones. And we are still being told lies - we are past the 1.5C increase in temperature - its in the region of 3C at this moment. If we could stop the climate engineering we might have a chance at saving whats left of the planet.
per
20 March 2019 at 11:55 pm
Hello ANH.
Are you certain that global warming is really as bad as those climate change scientist told you? Have you studied this topic meticulously or do you choose to trust what others say? You know more that most people about health and nutrition, but how much do you really know about meteorology?
I really like you, only so you know.
Kind regards
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
21 March 2019 at 10:45 am
Hi Per - I have a 25 year background in ecology, environmental sciences and sustainable agriculture before including human health in the mix, starting 17 years ago. I have been close to the environmental sciences and followed the science around climate change closely for many years. Yes, some models have underestimated biological compensation - but the still worsening balance of carbon emissions/sinks is looking ever more like the long-term temperature goal of 1.5 degrees C from the Paris Agreement won't be met and that the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by many of the signatories to the Paris Agreement (that include countries responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions) aren't decreasing or are not doing so sufficiently quickly. With some models showing the possibility of 4 degrees C or more average temperature increase well before 2100 (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-018-7160-4), along with very clear evidence of a rapid rise of species extinctions against background levels (e.g. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.short) which of course, is linked not just to climate change but also to other factors such as habitat destruction - it's very clear in our view that the planet is in dire trouble. Our point is that that there are common links between the issues we face environmentally and those that face human health. Instead of looking to solve all these crises independently - we need to find their commonalities and sources. Much of that tracks in our view to the way in which corporations and governments act - more often and not in their self-interest - and contrary to the interest of the public and the natural environment.
John T
21 March 2019 at 10:47 am
Climate change has been going on since this world began its journey, without certain elements within it, the planet would die, however from my own research the real cause of what has been mentioned in this essay 'Can the grass roots fix climate change,' is POLLUTION, which is very much the root cause-this of course goes together with World's increased population-certainly the United Kingdom relatively a small group of Islands with, a population of over 70 million people, quite dangerously becomming unsustainable, is over populated and its contribution to pullution is obviously growing continiously.
Lucy Nutritional-Matters.co.uk
21 March 2019 at 9:43 am
Now I get it! I knew about no digging crop growing but didn't understand the science behind it - very clearly explained in the video. Amazing how similar the symbiotic relationship of plants, bacteria and fungi in our soil is to the symbiotic relationship of our gut flora and health.
Thank you!
ANH Team https://www.anhinternational.org
21 March 2019 at 11:02 am
Yes - we love Puis Floris' video too - incredibly clear - and a great reminder of how the soil and our guts are models of each other! Please share it among your contacts....thanks. ANH Team.
Harriet Pleming
22 March 2019 at 7:53 pm
People should vote with their wallets. Stop unnecessary flying and buy organic food. I think lots of people could do with a purpose to their lives. Most middle class people I know think nothing of buying wine, but won’t spend more on organic food.
Deirdre
24 March 2019 at 2:50 am
John T makes comment about over populating in the UK..
This also links into the "controlled by the few (pollies & vested interests) to stimulate and keep afloat their national economies" instead of being clever and creating new jobs, and following the old adage of "Charity begins at home". But no, migration on a mass scale is encouraged by politicians who copy other countries pollies and embrace migration as a solution, now its also under the guise of Refugees.
What about all the people left behind in Syria and other-like societies?
Many of these migrants have children in abundance, as that is part of their Culture/Religious beliefs etc., so increasing the World population. and demands on resources.
I remember years ago, a Chinese man said to me the Chinese Gov't insists on one child, the Australian Government pays me to have more children. Successive Australian Governments' have NEVER got it right! re a wonderful ancient Culture, one of the Worlds oldest Cultures, the Aboriginal race.
Greed is governing the World and that has now filtered down to the average man who thinks its a solution, but OH what a solution with its increased violence because of...… and not only in the home, but in the streets, the World. and the few profit from all this disruption and do little to turn the tide.
I remember when wrote that Methylsulphurmethane is only available in the rainwater, so garden vegetables etc., with the droughts and so much else that is polluting the Planet, they are not receiving this vital "ingredient" as they grow, therefore man does not receive this crucial element in his food as he must have each day for optimal health. A senior retired Agronomist said that MSM is NOT contained in rain in polluted areas. He asked me per email "what can we do about it" I am not an Agronomist, but this showed the deep frustrations of a person involved in this area. I was too ill to make a response - due to this Planets mess ups helping to cause my ill health. It still pains me to think of this plea.
How can individuals do something about these types of problems? Rob/Melanie?
when one is a member of a major political party for over 40 years, but years ago they stopped responding to members letters/branches comments. I was in the "top Branches" . No longer vote nor live in Australia.
The Growery (c/o Eimhin Shortt)
23 November 2019 at 12:14 am
So, working with already established EU networks a model traversing the EU could work on a case by case basis as follows, along with further policy and economic support as detailed after what follows here, followed still by rationale for the new commons plus lease model:
Example 1. : Town of 5000 people.
100 families invest 1500 each, cooperatively buying 10 acres @ 80,000, placing the land in trust as 'new commons', for re-lease to an agroecological farm-manager paid 30k/annum with 20k in parttime labor support and 20k in startup costs (tunnels, basic tools, compost for no dig start)
Farm members then pay 500 annually for a CSA-share thereafter, which pays for the continued running of the community farm.
Example 2. : Further supports
a) investment/gov health-related:
Social Impact Bonds as a private investment lead PFR (payment for results) scheme with government as paymaster partner for positive outcomes. This model is exactly the shape of social perscription itself in terms of its logic and function, namely, the intervention's 'return' is priced as against costs to the state of non-intervention. e.g. diabetes costs the US 367 billion dollars per annum in related health expenditure, the US has x population, therefore the positive outcome for the test group of (number/y) saves (amount/z) thus releasing payments to initial investors as agreed in PFR terms (a,b,c)
b) Investment / Gov climate related
As per national emission reduction targets in Kyoto/IPCC/etc
Land Use policy post 2020 (LULUCF)states that sectoral emissions must be met by equivalent sequenstrations or 'removals' (where removals are a payment made by one member state to another for carbon credits where the latter has performed beyond their required levels.)
Use Example 1 above s a land aquisition strategy for citizen lead ecological restoration, conservation, agroecology , or regenerative farming, and partner with research bodies to assess and return metrics for carbon in the living system, tradeable within the wider carbon market.
I have a feeling we are thinking along the same lines on a few things Rob. I also see a variety of fungible collaborative partnerships that can actually pull this stuff off, and agree that it can be the 'skin in the game' response that gives people a break from useless climate anxiety, and instead empowers a shift toward the kind of bottom up change we need right now.
Keep up the good work, lets chat before too long, and keep an eye on the second quarter of 2020 April/May for a return visit here to Ireland.
The Growery (c/o Eimhin Shortt)
23 November 2019 at 12:19 am
Oops, I forgot the logic of using legal encorporate artifice and innovative leasing, and that is namely this -
by doing so, carefully, it is possible to apply the equivalent of the 'rights to nature' principle to the land so held, while the leasing system allows the legal protection of the land from extractive practice by its steward land management team, and enables incentives for its improvement by way of carbon and hydrological cycle metric analysis.
The protection of the land itself, by an overarching Trust, with a 'Golden Share' , and a legal binding that buffers against hostile takeover attempts, is also key in the process.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences