Connect with us

Opinion

Why you don’t have to block roads or glue yourself to buildings to be a climate activist

Published

1 day ago

on

Read more on post.

A protestor outside Preston New Road Fracking Site in Lancashire. Bob Walley, CC BY-NC-ND

“Get a job!” shouted yet another driver going past me in the sweeping rain outside Preston New Road fracking site, on another bitingly cold winters day. Recipients of these outbursts were mostly retirees like the Nanas of Lancashire (a group of women from the northern shire of England who had become prominent anti-fracking activists).

My mum often joined me and other protesters to oppose the exploratory drilling that throughout 2018 and 2019 caused earthquakes. Local people were worried about the damage this could do to their homes, the water they rely on and the area’s nature and wildlife.

When it got too cold and I could see mum was starting to get the shivers, we would go back to my family home for a nice cup of tea, leaving the die hards to keep guard 24/7, continuing the fight until we could rejoin them next time.

“It’ll never make any difference,” Dad would comment as we put the kettle on. As a reader of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring – the 1962 book which exposed the destruction of wildlife through the widespread use of pesticides – and a school teacher all his life, he knew all too well the threats of the climate and ecological emergency. Especially once I joined the environmental protest movement.

But activism was not for him. “What was the point?” he’d wonder.

I can see why many people might feel like that. Especially when the decision by Lancashire County Council to reject fracking at Preston New Road was overruled by the Conservative government of the time, and the magnitude of permitted earthquakes was raised.



Read more:
Fracking causes earthquakes by design: can regulation keep up?

Frontline activism is certainly not for everyone. Especially when some journalists and politicians would have people believe these “eco-zealots” are the “enemies of society”, due to the disruption that can be caused by increasingly desperate and urgent protests and actions.

Stereotypes remain strong in public opinion and news sources often get basic climate change facts wrong. A quick google image search for “environmental activists” shows people with banners blocking roads, shouting into megaphones and looking angry. Perhaps even throwing soup at a painting or gluing themselves to the front of an office building if you scroll down a bit.

people standing around white protest banner about ecocide
Local activists blockade the front gate of Preston New Road Fracking Site in Lancashire, stopping any vehicles coming in and out of the site.
Bob Walley, CC BY-NC-ND

The radical flank frontline

More radical groups know that more disruptive actions lead to greater likelihood of coverage. This can lead to a “radical flank effect”, referring to the comparative outcome that occurs when more radical factions of a social movement like climate activism operate in the same arena as more moderate or less confrontational sections of that movement. The radical flank creates space behind it for others to move into and opportunities for social change can appear.

A vital role it would seem. But this doesn’t tell the whole story of what an activist is.

In a recent research study, I interviewed activists across a range of different ages, circumstances and ideological positions, from Just Stop Oil and Greenpeace to local wildlife trusts and community garden projects. All share concern for the future of life on this planet, trying to do what they can, where they can, to help shape a society we all deserve to live in.

Many express frustration and anger, alongside recognition, that the status quo and current economics are given more importance in political discourse and action than the large‐scale changes required to live sustainably within the natural world. One middle-aged woman who volunteers at the local climate hub (a public space for people involved in climate action) expressed “very little faith in governments. Just massive disappointment.”

The recent changes to protest laws which further vilify environmental activists and mean harsher sentences for attending zoom calls or holding a placard are seen as terrifyingly authoritarian. Yet a young employee of the group Surfers Against Sewage noted they are effective in that they “turn away the people who were kind of on the fence a little bit about it. But … it will also inspire others who are just like, dead against the injustice of it.”

My team’s research indicates a sense of despair due to this political inaction and pushback against those who speak out. Some on the radical flanks are seen by more conservative activists as too radical, and some on the flanks see those more conservative as too “soft” to generate the required changes.

Yet there is recognition of the vital roles everyone can play. A long-term Extinction Rebellion activist who now resides in Calderdale in West Yorkshire, recognised there needed to be “people fighting in different ways on so many different fronts, and I think there’s strength in supporting each other, if we can”.

Fracking was stopped in Lancashire. It was stopped by the Nanas, my mum and the many others on the radical flank frontline. But also by all of those working behind the scenes who put in time to lobby or protest in their own way. It was all these pieces of the puzzle working together that led to victory in Lancashire.

Our research shows you don’t have to be waving a placard shouting into a megaphone, although there is an important place for that too. Crucially, there are many roles for us all and ways we can work towards that future we all deserve to live in.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

The Conversation

Bob Walley receives funding from various internal research institutes and external funding bodies for the research and community projects he coordinates. He is affiliated with the University of Exeter, the University of Lancashire and Envirolution Network.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Paracetamol use during pregnancy not linked to autism, our study of 2.5 million children shows

Published

3 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

United States President Donald Trump recently claimed that using the common painkiller acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol and by the brand name Tylenol in the US) during pregnancy is fuelling the rise in autism diagnoses. He then went on to suggest pregnant women should “tough it out” rather than use the common painkiller if they experience fever or pain.

This announcement has caused alarm and confusion worldwide. But despite Trump’s claim, there is no strong scientific evidence to back it up. Our study of nearly 2.5 million births in Sweden published in 2024 shows no evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy increases a child’s risk of autism. This is the largest study conducted on the subject to date.

To understand whether acetaminophen really poses a risk in pregnancy, we turned to Sweden’s national health registers, which are among the most comprehensive in the world. Our study followed nearly 2.5 million children born between 1995 and 2019, tracking them for up to 26 years.

Using prescription records and interviews that midwives conducted during prenatal visits, we could see which mothers reported using acetaminophen (about 7.5% of pregnancies) and which did not.

We also made sure to account for any variables that may have affected the results of our statistical analysis – including controlling for health factors, such as fever or pain, which would have influenced whether or not a mother used acetaminophen during her pregnancy. This was to ensure a more fair comparison between the two groups.

We then looked at the children’s neurodevelopmental outcomes – specifically whether they were diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

The real strength of our study came from being able to compare siblings. This allowed us to compare children born to the same mother, where acetaminophen had been used during one child’s pregnancy but not the other. We compared over 45,000 sibling pairs, where at least one sibling had an autism diagnosis.

This sibling design is powerful because siblings share much of their genetics and family environment. This allows us to tease apart whether the drug itself – rather than underlying family traits or health conditions – is responsible for any apparent risks for neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Acetaminophen use

When we first looked at the entire population, we saw a pattern that echoed earlier studies: children whose mothers reported using acetaminophen during pregnancy were slightly more likely to be diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

But once we ran the sibling comparisons, that association completely disappeared. In other words, when we compared sets of siblings where one was exposed in the womb to acetaminophen and one was not, there was no difference in their likelihood of later being diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

A pregnant woman holds a glass of water in one hands and a pill in the other hand.
Our study found no association with acetaminophen use during pregnancy and a child’s risk of being diagnosed with autism.
Dragana Gordic/ Shutterstock

Our study is not the only one to put this question to the test. Researchers in Japan recently published a study using a similar sibling-comparison design, and their results closely matched ours.

Importantly, they replicated our findings in a population with a different genetic background and where patterns of acetaminophen use during pregnancy are quite different. Nearly 40% of mothers in Japan reported using the drug during pregnancy. In comparison, less than 10% of Swedish mothers had used it.

Despite these differences, the conclusion was the same. When siblings are compared, there is no evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism or ADHD.

These findings mark an important shift from earlier studies, which relied on more limited data, used smaller cohorts and didn’t account for genetic differences. They also did not fully account for why some mothers used pain relief during pregnancy while others didn’t.

For example, mothers who take acetaminophen are more likely to also have migraines, chronic pain, fever or serious infections. These are conditions that are themselves genetically linked to autism or ADHD, as well as a child’s likelihood of later being diagnosed with one of these conditions.

These types of “confounding factors” can create associations that look convincing on the surface, but may not reflect a true cause-and-effect relationship.

That brings us to the real question on many people’s minds: what does this mean if you’re pregnant and dealing with pain or fever?

It’s important to recognise that untreated illness during pregnancy can be dangerous. A high fever in pregnancy, for example, is known to increase the risk of complications for both mother and baby. “Toughing it out,” as the president suggested, is not a risk-free option.

That’s why professional medical organisations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency continue to recommend acetaminophen (paracetamol) as the safest fever reducer and pain reliever during pregnancy when used at the lowest effective dose and only when necessary. This has been the guidance for decades.



Read more:
Paracetamol, pregnancy and autism: what the science really shows

Of course, if someone finds themselves needing to take acetaminophen regularly over a longer period of time, that’s a decision best made in consultation with their doctor or midwife. But the idea that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes autism simply isn’t supported by the best available science.

The greater danger is that alarmist messaging will discourage pregnant women from treating pain or fever – putting both themselves and their babies at risk.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Irish Times view on presidential nominations: Too narrow a field

Published

4 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

Only a few days ago, it still seemed possible that voters would have a choice of up to six candidates in next month’s presidential election. But when nominations closed at noon on Wednesday, only three names had made it on to the ballot paper. That reflected the narrowing that had taken place over the previous four days.

First, Sinn Féin announced that it would be supporting Catherine Connolly rather than putting forward a candidate of its own. That was followed by businessman Gareth Sheridan’s failure to secure the requisite support from local authorities.

There was a flurry of excitement in the final hours before nominations closed, as Maria Steen edged ever closer to the 20 signatures from members of the Oireachtas which the Constitution requires. But the conservative campaigner ultimately fell two names short.

As a result, the electorate now finds itself presented with the smallest field of candidates since the presidential election of 1990.

That is regrettable. A broader, more varied choice would surely have led to a more vigorous and wide-ranging debate, which in turn would have stimulated public interest and potentially increased voter turnout.

Steen’s supporters have been quick to blame her failure to secure a nomination on the main political parties, whom they accuse of shutting down democratic choice.

The charge is unfounded; between them, Connolly, Jim Gavin and Heather Humphreys command the support of nearly every party in the Oireachtas – almost 85 per cent of its members. The suggestion that parties with candidates in the field should ease the path of potential opponents reached absurd levels on Tuesday when it was suggested that Connolly herself might sign Steen’s nomination papers.

It should not shock anyone that political parties pursue their own electoral advantage in order to achieve the objectives they were set out up to accomplish. That, after all, is the proposition they presented to their voters.

Where Ireland differs from most of its international counterparts is in the number of Independents it elects. As a result, there were more than enough Independent TDs and Senators available to ensure Steen’s nomination. They chose not to do so, presumably for a variety of different reasons. That is why she did not succeed.

The fact that she came so close is largely due to the efforts of Peadar Tóibín, leader of Aontú, one of the smallest parties in the Oireachtas. In the end, he fell short, in part because the campaign itself began too late and ran out of time.

But there are lessons here for those who believe Irish political discourse is too narrow and that some voices are excluded. The remedy to that lies not in the kindness of opponents but in effective, organised and sustained political work.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Irish Times view on textile waste: what a load of rubbish

Published

4 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

Ireland is the second largest producer of textile waste per head in Europe, second only to Belgium. We each consume 53kg of textiles each year – more than double the European average. To put the figure in context, a T-shirt weighs between 100 and 250 grams, and a winter duvet can weigh 3 kg.

It’s a lot of clothes, bedding and curtains to throw out and most of it goes in the bin, with only a third being recycled via clothes banks and charity shops. Given the dubious distinction of being one of the worst offenders when it comes to textile waste you might assume that we would quickly and wholeheartedly embrace new rules to reduce textile waste adopted by the European Parliament earlier this month.

Under the new directive, producers who make textiles available in the EU will have to cover the cost of their collection, sorting and recycling. The rules will apply to all producers, including online sellers, irrespective of whether they are established in an EU country or outside it.

The measures will be implemented through a producer responsibility scheme similar to the Re-turn system for drink bottles and cans set up by packaging and drinks companies.

Member states have 30 months from the directive’s entry into force to establish a scheme. There is, of course, no reason why it cannot be done sooner and every reason why it should be.

But if the Re-turn scheme is any guide, the Government will be in no rush when it finds itself caught between industry lobbying and fears the measure may push up prices.

The Single Use Plastic directive came into effect in 2019 but the Irish deposit-based scheme for recycling drink bottles and cans launched in February 2024. Many other European countries brought them in 20 years ago.

Despite initial teething problems, the Re-turn scheme has been supported by the public and has helped the industry meet its EU-mandated recycling targets. There is no reason to believe consumers will not support a textile recycling scheme sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading

Trending