In the early 2000s, the UK government was warned that the country risked becoming the continent’s “dumping ground” for dangerous cladding and insulation products. At the time, civil servants were working on plans to harmonise fire standards with the rest of the European Union – but this harmonisation never happened. Corporate lobbyists had argued against it, claiming there would be “economic consequences” if their members were unable to sell their combustible building products freely. As standards were tightened in much of Europe, the UK would not update its outdated guidance for the next 17 years.

The result was gaps in the regulation, which the free market was more than efficient enough to find and exploit. “The evolution of fire regulation will put [highly combustible cladding] out of the market in the coming months,” wrote a senior figure at cladding firm Arconic in 2009. “For the moment, even if we know that [the material] has a bad behaviour exposed to fire, we can still work with national regulations who are not as restrictive.”

One such market was the UK, which Arconic targeted with its violently combustible panels, knowing that their marginally lower cost would make them attractive. The panels were fitted on hundreds of tall buildings around the country. One was Grenfell Tower.  Make no mistake: the lines between economic deregulation and the Grenfell Tower fire are clear.

The government is now preparing to sweep away thousands of EU rules of the statue book in a single stroke. Former business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg gleefully tweeted his approval this month of “igniting the deregulatory bonfire”.

Margaret Thatcher’s government stripped away hundreds of prescriptive rules for the construction sector in the 1980s, in the name of freeing industry to innovate and experts have warned of disaster. This included the end of London-specific rules which had prevented the use of combustible materials on the walls of tall buildings. Such red tape was for a prior era: now the market would be able to make its own decisions about what was and wasn’t safe.

The priority given to deregulation continued throughout the New Labour era and was turbocharged in 2012, with Conservative prime minister David Cameron pledging to “kill health and safety culture”. He introduced a “one in, one out” rule to reduce the regulatory “burden” on the private sector. This was described as an “effective moratorium” on new fire safety rules by a former civil servant at the Grenfell inquiry.

 In 2013, when an inquest into six deaths in a 2009 fire at Lakanal House in south London revealed that combustible external panels had helped the blaze spread, the necessary steps to prevent a repeat did not happen. The coroner had told the government to review the relevant rules “with particular regard” to the risk of external fire spread. But this was not done. Asked why, civil servants repeatedly cited deregulatory pressures and a lack of interest in new regulations from the ministers they reported to.

The government had also contracted a fire research body to monitor real-world fires of “special interest” – those which suggested there may be a need to reform the building regulations. Except, they weren’t allowed to conclude this. In October 2012, the government inserted a clause into the BRE’s contract which said the reports should “not contain any policy recommendations” or recommend changes to official guidance.

“This came after the general move towards deregulation, so regulation was not welcome,” said the scientist who led this work when asked why. 

Deregulation continues to be one of the government’s driving ambitions. The consequences will be seen and felt in the years to come.

Grenfell showed exactly why we need red tape, yet the Tories are desperate to bin thousands of laws | Peter Apps | The Guardian

 In the early 2000s, the UK government was warned that the country risked becoming the continent’s “dumping ground” for dangerous cladding and insulation products. At the time, civil servants were working on plans to harmonise fire standards with the rest of the European Union – but this harmonisation never happened. Corporate lobbyists had argued against it, claiming there would be “economic consequences” if their members were unable to sell their combustible building products freely. As standards were tightened in much of Europe, the UK would not update its outdated guidance for the next 17 years.

The result was gaps in the regulation, which the free market was more than efficient enough to find and exploit. “The evolution of fire regulation will put [highly combustible cladding] out of the market in the coming months,” wrote a senior figure at cladding firm Arconic in 2009. “For the moment, even if we know that [the material] has a bad behaviour exposed to fire, we can still work with national regulations who are not as restrictive.”

One such market was the UK, which Arconic targeted with its violently combustible panels, knowing that their marginally lower cost would make them attractive. The panels were fitted on hundreds of tall buildings around the country. One was Grenfell Tower.  Make no mistake: the lines between economic deregulation and the Grenfell Tower fire are clear.

The government is now preparing to sweep away thousands of EU rules of the statue book in a single stroke. Former business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg gleefully tweeted his approval this month of “igniting the deregulatory bonfire”.

Margaret Thatcher’s government stripped away hundreds of prescriptive rules for the construction sector in the 1980s, in the name of freeing industry to innovate and experts have warned of disaster. This included the end of London-specific rules which had prevented the use of combustible materials on the walls of tall buildings. Such red tape was for a prior era: now the market would be able to make its own decisions about what was and wasn’t safe.

The priority given to deregulation continued throughout the New Labour era and was turbocharged in 2012, with Conservative prime minister David Cameron pledging to “kill health and safety culture”. He introduced a “one in, one out” rule to reduce the regulatory “burden” on the private sector. This was described as an “effective moratorium” on new fire safety rules by a former civil servant at the Grenfell inquiry.

 In 2013, when an inquest into six deaths in a 2009 fire at Lakanal House in south London revealed that combustible external panels had helped the blaze spread, the necessary steps to prevent a repeat did not happen. The coroner had told the government to review the relevant rules “with particular regard” to the risk of external fire spread. But this was not done. Asked why, civil servants repeatedly cited deregulatory pressures and a lack of interest in new regulations from the ministers they reported to.

The government had also contracted a fire research body to monitor real-world fires of “special interest” – those which suggested there may be a need to reform the building regulations. Except, they weren’t allowed to conclude this. In October 2012, the government inserted a clause into the BRE’s contract which said the reports should “not contain any policy recommendations” or recommend changes to official guidance.

“This came after the general move towards deregulation, so regulation was not welcome,” said the scientist who led this work when asked why. 

Deregulation continues to be one of the government’s driving ambitions. The consequences will be seen and felt in the years to come.

Grenfell showed exactly why we need red tape, yet the Tories are desperate to bin thousands of laws | Peter Apps | The Guardian

  12,000 people die from Chagas every year. It kills more people in Latin America than any other parasitic disease, including malaria.

 6 to 7 million people around the world who are infected with the parasite, Trypanosoma cruzi, that causes the life-threatening disease. 

Chagas, named after Carlos Ribeiro Justiniano Chagas, a Brazilian physician and researcher who discovered the disease in 1909, is endemic in 21 countries in Latin America, and also present in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia. It is included on the World Health Organization’s list of neglected tropical diseases; the aim is to achieve elimination of Chagas by 2030.

Chagas is most commonly transmitted by contact with the faeces of blood-sucking insects, known as kissing bugs, that are infected with the parasite. These bugs live in the walls of poorly built homes in rural or suburban areas. The insect bites the skin, then defecates close by. The parasites enter the body when the person instinctively smears the faeces or urine into the bite, the eyes or the mouth.

It can be between 10 and 30 years before people develop symptoms so most are unaware they have Chagas, often called a “silent and silenced disease”. Some will never develop symptoms but up to a third suffer heart damage, which can lead to progressive heart failure or sudden death. 

The global case detection rate is low (estimated to be about 10%), posing a substantial barrier to accessing treatment and care and in preventing transmission. Only 30% of people with the disease are diagnosed, with 75 million people at risk around the world.

Elvira Idalia Hernández Cuevas is president of the International Federation of Chagas patients, explained, “In Mexico, the authorities say that there aren’t many people affected by Chagas and that it’s under control, but that’s not the situation. Medical professionals don’t receive any training and mistake Chagas for other heart diseases. The majority don’t realise there is Chagas in Mexico.” The same is true in other countries, she adds.

Colin Forsyth, a research manager at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), says Chagas is neglected partly because it is a disease that affects poor populations in rural areas. “The people affected just don’t have the power to influence healthcare policy.”

Chagas can be treated with two medicines, benznidazole and nifurtimox, both developed more than 50 years ago. They are more effective if given soon after infection. They can cure a baby. For adults, there is no guarantee but the medications can at least prevent or curb disease progression. In adults, the treatment, taken over two months, can produce severe side-effects. 

Professor David Moore, a consultant at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London, says of the drugs: “They’re practically alchemy – they’re toxic, unpleasant, not particularly effective.”

There’s a desperate need for new drugs, he adds, but pharmaceutical companies won’t develop any because there’s no financially appealing market. 

He says “Our main problem is that this isn’t a population that people are interested in. It’s a neglected tropical disease, even in places where it’s common.” He thinks the WHO target for elimination by 2030 is “a huge challenge”. “I can’t imagine that we’ll be remotely close by 2030. That seems highly unlikely.”

‘The silent disease’: Chagas is a killer. Now carriers want their voices heard | Global health | The Guardian

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by big corporations who have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse are largely worthless and could be making global warming worse. The findings pose serious questions for those companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies.

Research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

A nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra’s rainforest schemes. It draws on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and indigenous communities.

Verra operates a number of leading environmental standards for climate action and sustainable development, including its voluntary carbon standard (VCS) that has issued more than 1bn carbon credits. It approves three-quarters of all voluntary offsets. Its rainforest protection programme makes up 40% of the credits it approves and was launched before the Paris agreement with the aim of generating revenue for protecting ecosystems.

The investigation found that:

1.

Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.

 Seven months since the rains began, thousands continue to live in open areas, tents, and makeshift homes in Sindh and Balochistan, the two worst-hit provinces stalked by a cold spell, disease and food shortages making life even more perilous. According to the UN, an estimated 5 million people remain exposed to or living close to flooded areas. A post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) has estimated the damage exceeded 30 bn USD—a tenth of Pakistan’s entire GDP.

A  recent international donors’ conference held in Geneva was deemed a “success” after Pakistan was able to secure $10 billion. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has promised “every penny” of the pledges will be used towards rehabilitation of flood-hit people.

Janib Gul Mohammad, a farmer from Fateh Ali Buledi village in Kamber Shahdadkot, one of the worst affected districts in Sindh province, doubted he would even “get a rupee out of the billions of dollars” received on his behalf.

“Our rulers are clueless about how hungry our kids are,” said Mohammad, whose family has had to ration and reduce their consumption of roti (flat bread) from “two to three to just one at every meal”.  He and his family of 13 are among the more than 33 million Pakistanis affected by last year’s unprecedented floods.

Reminding that pledges were not commitments, Kashmala Kakakhel, a climate finance expert, said she would like to get a clear distinction between the new money and one that is rebottled to address the impact of floods but doubted the government will “ever tell”.

 Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Centre’s South Asia Institute, found the self-congratulatory messaging purely “political” of a government, which he said, was “weak, unpopular and struggling to rein in a cascading economic crisis”. Kugelman said by “only offering pledges, not actual aid, they have given themselves a safety net and a possible way out in case they decide they are not ready to commit to such large figures.” Of the $10bn pledges, $8.7 billion are loans that the government has “conveniently underplayed”, said Wilson Centre’s expert. And these may take several years to arrive.

Ashafque Soomro, heading the Research and Development Foundation, a Sindh-based nongovernmental organization which had been at the forefront of assisting flood-affected communities, is not sure if getting more loans is a good idea at all. In this critical time of economic crunch, he said, the government should have “built a strong case for climate justice” to get grants instead. “I am very concerned that the government is not only forcing us further into a debt trap but risks defaulting on repayment.” 

According to the former finance minister Miftah Ismail, Pakistan owes the world nearly 100 billion USD and has to repay $21bn to lenders during the current fiscal year. “We have no resources to repay our lenders. We will just have to try to borrow from one creditor to pay off another.” 

Kakakhel asked, “Why have an emergency donor conference at all if you are treading the same old traditional path of seeking loans?” 

 Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, a climate expert, was not sure if Pakistan would be able to put all of it to use, given its “track record on delayed implementation of development projects”. Pakistan, he pointed out, was littered with “more than 1,200 unfinished projects worth Rs1.6 trillion ($6.67 billion”.

Pakistan’s 10 Billion Dollar Flood Funding Question | Inter Press Service (ipsnews.net)

Rail strikes have cost the UK more than settling the disputes months ago would have, rail minister Huw Merriman has said. The strikes have cost the UK more than £1bn, he conceded. 

Britains richest 1% are now wealthier than 70% of the UK’s population combined. 

The Hinduja family (net worth £28billion), Sir James Dyson (£23bn) and Sir Jim Ratcliffe (£10bn) are among the 685,000 richest people whose total worth exceeds the combined wealth of 48 million Britons. 

The richest 1% of Irish people have more than a quarter of the country’s wealth. The richest 1% in Ireland have gained 70 times more wealth than the bottom 50% in the last 10 years.

Chief executive of Oxfam Ireland Jim Clarken said: “This rising wealth at the top and rising poverty for the rest are two sides of the same coin, proof that our economic system is functioning exactly how the rich and powerful designed it to…”

Since the first Cop in Berlin in 1995, there have been 27 climate conferences and despite discussion and debate, promises and pledges, warnings and entreaties, emissions have just kept on going up. 

While early Cops welcomed a few thousand attendees, the latest had 35,000 delegates, and it is difficult now to view the events as anything other than travelling circuses that are increasingly ineffectual.

At Cop26 in Glasgow in 2021 the fossil-fuel lobbyist invasion had more than 500 delegates representing oil, gas and coal interests. 

At Cop27  hosted by Egypt, the fossil-fuel sector consolidated its position by increasing its contingent to a whopping 636 delegates.

Cop28 will be held in the United Arab Emirates,  an authoritarian petro-state, with the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc), Sultan Al Jaber, as the summit president. 

Let’s face reality. Fossil fuel interests have destroyed the Cops – we need something new | Bill McGuire | The Guardian

 A parliamentary report from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) select committee report said, Premiership Rugby club finances are “clearly unsustainable”.