At the river’s edge. After a May afternoon of tempestuous squalls, the sun sets, leaving a blaze behind the forest. The wind was gone, and a lone river cot swung idly on its mooring line, surrounded by the reflected fire. There’s a peculiar form of silence that envelopes the river after sunset. Most birds have gone quiet, except for mallards laughing raucously in the distance. 

When the wind blows on the river, the surface of the water stretches thin. Now, with the wind gone, it turns viscous and languid. Nervous water striders zig-zag across the water’s tight skin, mindful of the trout that every twenty or thirty seconds, leap from the water into the air, in search of supper. 

Midges gnaw half-heartedly at my scalp. It is no longer day, now we are in the gloaming. A formation of three silhouetted mallards passes overhead, in a slow descent towards the water.  I watch the rising tide pulse along a piece of semi-submerged timber. The water bulges forward, its leading edge curved by surface tension. A tiny tsunami reclaiming the zone the shore for sea, before it becomes land again, over and over.

Something prehistoric passes low, over my head. A pteranodon, or a heron, its neck folded into an S. It makes no sound. I squint at far off disturbance in the water, hoping for otters, but it’s just more ducks.

Four and a half years ago, speaking during my dad’s funeral, I said something like “that’s not him in the coffin, he’s down by the river”. And so, here he is. My dad was a dreamer, but he was grounded in this place by the river, he never really wanted to be anywhere else. He was happiest in a pair of rubber boots and his “egg-boiler” woollen hat, rowing on the river.  

Today we buried my mother. She was the more practical one, but you could never say she was grounded. She was more like one of her beloved birds, always on the move, like the woodpeckers – never much in Ireland during my childhood – that have taken to feeding from her bird table. 

I thought I would feel differently about her sense of place, but I do not. I cannot reconcile the harsh reality of them lying alongside each other in a graveyard with where I really feel them to be. My mother is in the garden with her flowers and her birds. My father is at the river. And the boundary between our garden and nature, and the river and all that dwells up on it is permeable. These two universes are intertwined and inseparable. 

Nearly forty years ago, my grandfather passed on, barely a stone’s throw from where I made this photograph. Now our parents have gone, and a new young generation is preparing to replace us. My son, my niece and my two nephews. The tide rises and falls, ebbs and flows, and the circle of life continues. 

As the darkness deepened, a blaze of white crosses behind the boat. A solitary mute swan, leaving a shimmering wake as it sails into the night. 

See also The River Flows

The River Slaney and the World

The post At the River’s Edge appeared first on Cold Reality.

This March 24, Alaskans will mark the 30th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster, when, due to human error, a single-hulled oil tanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound, eventually releasing 35,000 tonnes of crude oil.The impacts on livelihoods and the marine ecosystem were devastating – and three decades later, the effects are still being felt.

After Exxon Valdez, many things changed in the maritime business – over 7,000 crude oil tankers worldwide, for instance, are now required to have double hulls, thanks to MARPOL Annex I, an important international marine environmental convention, aimed at minimising marine pollution caused by shipping.

Yet, double hulls are not a panacea for all oil spills. There’s another 46,000 ships sailing the world’s oceans – general cargo ships, bulk carriers, container vessels, chemical and LNG tankers, ro-ro and passenger vessels. Some, but not all, have double hulls, double-bottoms, or protected fuel tanks. All of these (with a few exceptions), for now, use some form of fossil fuel for propulsion – heavy fuel oil, diesel, or Liquified Natural Gas. While oil volumes may be a fraction of those carried as cargo by oil tankers, a spill of even a comparatively small volume of fuel oil, particularly the most viscous residual or heavy fuel oils, can be devastating for ocean ecosystems, shorelines, wildlife, communities and livelihoods.

This scenario is currently playing out on the UNESCO-listed Rennell Island, in the Solomon Islands. Until last week, a single-hulled bulk carrier, the MV Solomon Trader, owned by King Trader Ltd of Hong Kong, was leaking heavy fuel oil after it went aground on a reef. The leak has now been staunched, and some of the oil offloaded, but around 100 tonnes of of heavy fuel oil has spread along the shoreline. The Solomon Islands, made up of six big islands and 900 smaller ones, has limited ability to contain such an oil spill – the impacts from which will be felt for years.

Built 16 years before the current requirements for ships’ fuel tanks to be protected took effect, the Solomon Trader was at Rennell Island to collect bauxite from a mine when Cyclone Oma struck, pushing the ship onto a coral reef. That was on 5 February, more than a month ago. Yet in what most people would regard as the relatively temperate and accessible waters of the Pacific, salvage of the ship has not yet been possible. According to a report in the Guardian, a single tug has been on hand – though more vessels have been arriving to pump oil off the ship.

A leak of 100 tonnes of heavy fuel oil may not seem like much – but it is devastating for local communities on Rennell Island. Fishing, the main source of food has reportedly been banned. People are now dependent on food being sent from the capital Honiara, 240km away. Even local freshwater springs close to the sea, have been contaminated. People have been reported to have burns from having heavy fuel oil stuck to their bodies while trying to attempt cleanups, while the smell is pervasive. The marine protected area, at Lavangu Bay, has been “completely destroyed”, according to reports.

“The long term impact on the MPA, the shore line within the 400 meters from the wreck is on advisory from public intervention and national ships operating within the area would keep distance from the site. The people living inner coastal have been advised to relocate to a nearby inland village, to avoid from the oil fumes smell and toxics from the heavy oil. It will take a month for shore cleaning but a long term of the impact will definitely take at least year for rehabilitation, of fish and marine species to return to normal in the area”, Brian Aonima, of SIMSA (Solomon Islands Maritime Authority), told us.

“The operations for oil spill containment is going well, according to the Salvos plan. So far, about 200 m3 of oil has been removed from the wreck. However, the vessel’s hold 4 is reported leaking, which indicates that the wreck is still deteriorating.”

“Offloading may take another week, and expected completion of the vessel and shore clean up could take up to a month, some of which may be concurrent with the vessel removal preparation to afloat the vessel. The Solomon Islands government will engage independent experts to carry out the environment impact assessment and one Maritime legal expert to assist the SIMSA investigation team”.

“SIMSA, as lead agency and other government agencies are on the ground for monitoring the situation according to the salvage operation plan and hope the weather pattern does not change in coming weeks, so that we can fully resolve the situation.”

Built 16 years before the current requirements for ships’ fuel tanks to be protected took effect, the Solomon Trader was at Rennell Island to collect bauxite from a mine when Cyclone Oma struck, pushing the ship onto a coral reef. That was on 5 February, more than a month ago. Yet in what most people would regard as the relatively temperate and accessible waters of the Pacific, salvage of the ship has not yet been possible. According to a report in the Guardian, a single tug has been on hand – though more vessels have been arriving to pump oil off the ship.

“King Trader defended the speed of the salvage process, saying it had secured a local tug to try to remove the vessel in a timely manner. ‘However, the situation worsened with the arrival of Cyclone Oma, which pushed the stricken vessel harder into the reef resulting in hull and engine room damage. The remote and hazardous location has made it difficult to secure local resources and it’s been time-consuming bringing in resources from other locations,’ the statement, quoted in The Guardian said. “Inclement weather has made it difficult and at times impossible to access the vessel, and conditions have been too dangerous for external underwater inspections.”

While King Trader might be expected to engage in an level of face-saving – they and their insurance company have yet to admit liability – there is some truth here. Cleaning up oil spills is difficult enough in easy to reach places. Ships travel all over the world, all the time, passing through remote areas that most us have little or no conception of. And while these ships may not be transporting polluting fossil fuel cargoes, what they are carrying in their own tanks as fuel is more than enough to wreak havoc on people and places.

Liability for oil spills from bunker tanks is covered by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or ‘Bunkers Convention’, which entered into force in 2008. The convention provides the possibility for affected states or organisations to claim compensation, but the level of this compensation is limited and may not be high enough to cover all the costs related to the clean-up of the spill and the loss of local incomes.

The Solomon Islands cleanup operation has been already been estimated as costing USD $50 million. That’s $500,000 per tonne, of the oil that reportedly spilled so far.

Meanwhile in European waters, as we were drafting this article, another disaster is unfolding. A ro-ro container vessel, the MV Grande America, owned by Italian Grimaldi Lines, caught fire and sank in the Bay of Biscay, with 2,200 tonnes of heavy fuel oil on board, and 2,000 cars. By March 12, an oil sheen 10km long and 1km wide appeared 200km off the coast, but it wasn’t expect to wash ashore until the end of March. In the meantime, a 4-5 metre swell is hindering anti-pollution operations at sea.

The Clean Arctic Alliance is working for a ban on the use of heavy fuel oil and carriage as fuel by Arctic shipping. Heavy fuel oil is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel that powers ships throughout our seas and oceans – accounting for 80% of marine fuel used worldwide. Around 80% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO; over half by vessels flagged to non-Arctic states – countries that have little if any connection to the Arctic.

The Arctic is under pressure – climate change is fuelling temperature rises double the rate of further south. As sea ice melts and opens up Arctic waters further, even larger non-Arctic state-flagged vessels running on HFO are likely to divert to Arctic waters in search of shorter journey times. This, combined with an increase in Arctic state-flagged vessels targeting previously non-accessible resources, will greatly increase the risks of HFO spills in areas that are difficult to reach, and that lack any significant oil spill containment equipment.

Already banned in Antarctic waters, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it breaks down slowly, proving almost impossible to clean up. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic Indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon. It isn’t only the impact of a heavy fuel spill that is a concern, HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants, such as sulphur oxide, and particulate matter, including black carbon, than alternative fuels such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG). When emitted and deposited on Arctic snow or ice, the climate warming effect of black carbon is up to five times more than when emitted at lower latitudes, such as in the tropics.

But while we are focussed on the risks to the Arctic, we also believe that the time of HFO is over. The global shipping fleet needs to move forward towards new, zero carbon solutions for propulsion. This will alleviate the threats from spills, as well as beneficial effects for our global climate and the air quality in the areas around shipping ports.

Our thoughts and sympathies are with the Solomon Islanders affected by this terrible heavy fuel oil spill, and the Clean Arctic Alliance hopes that everything possible is done to minimise the impact of the spill, clean up the environment and to protect the resources of the Islanders and the wildlife. This small spill of heavy fuel oil has had a devastating impact on the remote reefs and resources of the Solomon Islands, and demonstrates the limitations of response operations to cope with spills of this nature in remote locations. For this reason, the Clean Arctic Alliance is urging all Arctic States to throw their weight behind the calls for a ban on the use and carriage of HFO as fuel by Arctic shipping.

While putting together this article, we’ve been in touch with Clean Arctic Alliance member organisation, friends and partners – here’s some of their comments:

“Over 50% of the daily Inuit diet comes from the land and sea. The value of a clean environment and sea ice cover is immeasurable. An HFO spill would put these community values at significant risk” – Lisa Koperqualuk, Vice-President, Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada). “We hope the Solomon Islanders will recover well from the damage to their environment and ecosystem.”

“Our people, who live on an island in the Arctic called St. Lawrence Island, similarly depend on a healthy marine environment and wildlife, like the people of the Solomon Islands do. It is heartbreaking to see their islands and sea life being hurt by this tragic oil spill. Our thoughts and prayers to their people, and this is a warning to all of us in the Arctic that we must take steps like banning the use and carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil by ships traveling in the Arctic to protect our way of life” – Delbert Pungowiyi, President of the Native Village of Savoonga IRA Council (a US federally recognized Tribe near the Bering Strait of Alaska).

“It is hard to comprehend the physical and social disruption of an oil spill for remote communities who depend on the ocean for food and their ways of life. Over a generation after the Exxon Valdez disaster, some fisheries have never reopened. Oil is still oil buried in beaches. My goal is to prevent this unnecessary nightmare from repeating itself in the Arctic” – Sue Libenson, Senior Arctic Program Officer for Pacific Environment, was Executive Director of the Alaska Center for the Environment during the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

On behalf of the Clean Arctic Alliance:

Dr Sian Prior, Lead Advisor

Eelco Leemans, Advisor

Dave Walsh, Communications Advisor

The post As the Solomon Trader Disaster Shows, 30 Years after Exxon Valdez, Nowhere is Safe from Oil Spills – including the Arctic appeared first on Cold Reality.

Today, over 1,750 climate strikes will take place in some 110-odd countries – Ireland included – inspired by actions of one 16-year-old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg.

This is the same Greta Thunberg who was recently vetoed by European political parties, EPP and ALDE, from giving a speech at the European Parliament. Fine Gael is a member of the EPP, and Fianna Fail a member of ALDE.

Given Fine Gael’s Euro-party position, it is curious that the Taoiseach is “inspired and enthused” about this week’s climate strike. Is he inspired and enthused enough to show real political commitment to dealing with climate change?

For those of us working on global environmental issues, Ireland’s political incoherency on climate change has been source of embarrassment. While other EU countries at least make political token efforts – and some cases take real action on climate, Ireland appears to be examining its fingernails in the hope it won’t be noticed.

Despite our national procrastination, it is been impressive to follow Ireland’s climate movement catapulting itself into the national agenda.

Following years of groundwork from seasoned climate campaigners and scientists, the findings of the Citizens Assembly, things are finally changing, spurred on by the weekly school climate strike and Extinction Rebellion movements.

Young climate campaigners are meeting with members of the Seanad, appearing on the Late Late Show and Met Éireann is now issuing internal guidelines on how to talk about extreme weather.

We’re moving fast. But while it’s imperative that we get our climate affairs in order at home, we have a duty, and a talent, for making a difference globally. Ireland punches above its weight worldwide on many issues – including in peacekeeping, disarmament and development. Why not climate? Maybe it’s our lack of political coherency at home.

Ireland has played the cute hoor – ‘ara sure we’re only small, what difference can we make’ –  card for far too long. Our argument on how our CO2 emissions from cattle farming have less impact than if the cattle were reared elsewhere has a certain logic to it – but to steal from Upton Sinclair, this only makes sense from the perspective of someone who’s salary depends on the production of beef or milk.

A quick search of YouTube turns up a video of former Taoiseach Garrett Fitzgerald during a trip to Malta in 2007, where he talks about the “clear advantage” that small countries have in “coherence of policy-making and policy implementation” over many large states. “Using that capacity,” he added, “you can sometimes achieve results disproportionate to your size.”

We not only have the duty to sort our domestic climate policies and responses, we have the potential to join forces with other small nations to drive the dramatic changes needed to achieve future peace, prosperity and wellbeing under the shadow of global climate change.

I am sure that Leo Varadkar is aware of the words of his predecessor: “The nature of small states is that they are more coherent in their decision-making. If you’re a small government, you can get the people together and decide what to do and do it.”

Taoiseach, we’re standing by. And if you’re not ready soon, we’re leaving without you.

By Dave Walsh

Dave is an Irish campaigner, policy adviser and multimedia communicator based in Barcelona who has worked on campaigns concerned with the likes of climate, oceans and forest protection, international trade deals and polar scientific research. He also runs the Cold Reality website.

The post Ireland, Climate Change and the Power of Small States appeared first on Cold Reality.

Ban on heavy fuel oil transportation from Arctic waters is on the agenda of the world’s shipping experts.

Shipping specialists from around the world are shuttering themselves in the International Maritime Organization’s central London headquarters this week to thrash out a number of issues surrounding the threat of pollution to the climate and oceans from the global shipping industry.

This is an industry that for most of us remains unseen, but which we depend on for bringing us stuff from all over the planet.

At this meeting, the elegantly titled “PPR6”, delegations will be tasked with designing a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil, as fuel, from Arctic waters, and the identification of measures which will reduce emissions of black carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel

Many member states of the IMO – the UN body that regulates shipping – already voiced clear support for the ban at the IMO in April 2018. 

Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and the United States, along with Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand, proposed the ban on the use and carriage as fuel of HFO by ships operating in the Arctic, as the simplest approach to reducing the risks associated with HFO.

Their proposal was supported by Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Japan, the League of Arab States, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK.

These progressive stances are being met with some leaps of faith and innovation from some leading shipping players. This is notable for an industry that traditionally tends to move at a near glacial pace, and happy to stay quiet during international climate negotiations.

A clearer picture is emerging – of the climate impacts from global shipping, the health risks to cruise ship passengers and crews from fossil fuel pollution, and the dodges used by the cruise industry to get away with dirty practices.

Filthier

It seems impossible to “get away from it all”, when the air on board your ship is filthier than the world’s most polluted cities. And the polluters won’t get away with it for much longer.

The shipping sector is changing – it has gone the tentative floating of zero emission concepts, to full speed ahead, with some commentators referring to a “gold rush” mentality in the quest for cleaner shipping fuels.

Perhaps shipping industry leaders are finally taking inspiration from Lampedusa’s The Leopard: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”. They could even end up demanding more progressive regulations from policymakers.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Sweden’s shipping sector is preparing to end the use of fossil fuels domestically by 2045. This follows recent claims from shipping giant Maersk that it is aiming for a zero co2 emission target by 2050 – followed by Engine manufacturer MAN Energy Solutions saying this is “technically possible”, but citing a 2030 as a target.

Elsewhere, Norway’s Arctic cruise operator Hurtigruten is building hybrid vessels, and the country is experimenting with hydrogen-powered ferries.

Warming

Stena Line, one of the largest ferry operators, has been experimenting with methanol and battery-powered propulsion. Iceland is due to get its first battery-powered car ferry. Back in October 2018, The Economist reported that “Wind-powered ships are making a comeback”.

All of this is a good thing – the sooner that shipping companies veer away from heavy fuel oil, the better. HFO is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel that powers ships throughout our seas and oceans – accounting for 80 percent of marine fuel used worldwide.

Around 75 percent of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO; over half by vessels flagged to non-Arctic states – countries that have little if any connection to the Arctic.

Already banned in Antarctic waters and in the waters around Svalbard, HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants, such as sulphur oxide, and particulate matter, including black carbon, than alternative fuels such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Ice melts

When emitted and deposited on Arctic snow or ice, the climate warming effect of black carbon is up to five times more than when emitted at lower latitudes, such as in the tropics – just this week there’s been a spill of HFO in the Solomon Islands.

In addition, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it emulsifies, proving almost impossible to clean up, and breaks down very slowly. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon.

Banning it removes this problem – and any potential costs in doing must be handled at a policy level, without passing costs onto communities. 

Climate change is already fuelling temperature rises in the Arctic that are double the increases further south. Changes in the Arctic don’t stay in the Arctic – they resonate further south.

As the Arctic warms, the sea ice melts and opens up new shipping channels, larger cargo vessels, such as container ships carrying consumer goods could divert to Arctic waters in search of shorter journey times, as an alternative to the Suez Canal and the Straits of Malacca.

Back-pedalled

In September 2018, the first commercial container ship – owned by Maersk – crossed the Northern Sea Route, from Vladivostok to Bremerhaven.

While this crossing was something of an experiment – and Maersk maintained that it did not use HFO, a full commercial rollout of container ships crossing the Arctic would greatly increase the volumes of black carbon emitted in Arctic waters, as well as the risks of HFO spills.

As this week’s meeting opened in London, IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim said that “with future vessel traffic in Arctic waters projected to rise, the associated risk of an accidental oil spill into Arctic waters may also increase. It is therefore imperative that the [IMO] takes robust action to reduce the risks to the Arctic marine environment associated with the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships”.

Yet a couple of Arctic nations are fence-sitting on the HFO issue: Canada and Russia. Canada was initially enthusiastic – with Justin Trudeau’s government co-signing an agreement with the Obama Administration for a “phase-down” of the fuel from their respective Arctic waters in late 2016.

Since then, Canada has back-pedalled, and made much of its IMO proposal to assess the impact of such a ban on Arctic communities. What Canada has so far failed to mention its submissions to the IMO, is that there is widespread, well documented support from indigenous Arctic communities from Canada, the US and Greenland.

Positive change

Russia has considered a ban on use of HFO in the Arctic as a “last resort”. However, one of the biggest users of HFO in the Arctic, Russian state-owned shipping company Sovcomflot has spoken openly about the need to move away from oil-based fuels, and marine bunker fuel supplier Gazpromneft expects to halt fuel oil use from 2025.

Significantly, in August 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Finnish President Sauli Niinisto made a joint statement on the need to move to cleaner ships’ fuels in the Arctic.

The outcomes from this week’s IMO meeting will spawn no great headlines, no grand speeches from heads of state. IMO member states already agreed, back in April 2018, to move forward on an Arctic HFO ban, and recognized the need to reduce the impact in the Arctic of shipping’s black carbon emissions over five years ago.

But what happens this week is critical to addressing the threats to the Arctic, rather than just talking about them. Banning of the the world’s dirtiest fuel from what remains one of the Earth’s remaining pristine environments should be a no-brainer – hardly challenging when compared with the task of reversing climate change globally.

Banning HFO use in the Arctic is a quick and simple step in the right direction – alternative fuel options are available, and non-fossil fuel forms of propulsion are on the horizon. The global environment, and this planet’s climate is under severe pressure.

Real, positive change is required across the board, from everyone on the planet. Even with the new-found enthusiasm within the shipping industry, there is much work in negating the impact of shipping on our health, and the health of the planet. Ensuring the Arctic is protected from oil spills and black carbon pollution from heavy fuel is one these ways – it’s achievable, and within our grasp.

This Author

Dave Walsh is an advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, which campaigns for a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel from Arctic shipping.

The post The Ecologist: Ridding the Arctic of the world’s dirtiest fuel appeared first on Cold Reality.

I also wanted to explore how people really use social media tools like LinkedIn. Despite time spent – or wasted – making connections on digital social networks, we often have no idea what our friends, and colleagues – and even family are working on. I wanted to see who was engaged, and what ideas could be fired up.

Friends and former colleagues responded; we caught up, shared stories, talked about families, and where we were living. In the maelstrom of daily life, time passes quickly – we can easily miss how our friends change careers, countries, even continents. I found that we can all end up working in silos – assuming that everyone else is too busy to talk.

A few days after I sent the message out, a message popped up from Steve Campbell, a former colleague at both the Antarctic Ocean Alliance and Greenpeace. Steve asked me if I knew someone who could help with EU Comms. I responded – yes, I did, me. Steve, a funding partner at Funding Fish, put me in touch with another ex-Greenpeacer, policy whirlwind Rebecca Hubbard.

In the following months, Bec and I developed and launched Our Fish, a rapidly expanding campaign aimed at pushing EU countries to achieve sustainable fish stocks in European waters. Put simply: stop overfishing, and stop tossing perfectly edible fish back into the sea. It’s not just a good idea, it’s actually EU law, as we keep reminding policymakers.

Our Fish has been getting up to shenanigans in Brussels, Luxembourg and Malta,  being a thorn in the side of those responsible for depleting Europe’s fish stocks in return for a quick buck. As I write, Our Fish has just had its second visit to Luxembourg for the annual AGRIFISH meeting on Baltic fish stocks, where we condemned decisions made by EU fisheries ministers for setting Baltic fishing limits at unsustainable levels.

Our Fish and Maltese street artist Twitch create a spectacular light painting, depicting a swordfish leaping from of the waters surrounding Valletta while being consumed by humans. Twitch, in collaboration with Our Fish and Dancing Fox and has created the artwork to send a message to 20017 Our Ocean conference delegates that they must help protect Mediterranean sea life.
Photo: Dave Walsh Photography

The Our Fish team has expanded to include Dutch, German and Danish campaigners; we’ve got a petition calling on EU fisheries ministers to #EndOverfishing (with help from More Onion). We’re producing a series of cool animations in partnership with filmmaker and animator Daniel Bird, and a new website built by Barcelona-based web cooperative Jamgo.

Our Fish has collaborated with many NGOs across Europe, as well as creative troublemakers Brian, Tommy and co at Dancing Fox, and Camille at Green Exchange (who is based near me here in Barcelona), and Fishlove, along with many other artists and doers and fixers and experts. You can follow Our Fish on Twitter: @our_fish

Another person who noticed my blog post was Maike Nicolai at GEOMAR, the German marine science institute in Kiel. I met Maike in Svalbard back in 2010, when GEOMAR collaborated with Greenpeace on an ambitious ocean acidification research project; Greenpeace had provided its ship, the Esperanza to ferry tonnes equipment from Kiel to the Arctic and back; I was on board to provide communications support.

Seven years, and a massive body of research later, the BIOACID project was near completion, so Maike, and Ulf Riebesel – who had led the initiative from the outset – drafted me in help edit the final project brochure (which was presented at COP23) and to get the story into the media (check out this BBC story and this Guardian story: in short, CO2 in the ocean is not a good thing, as it tends to play havoc with food webs. Action required? Quit burning fossil fuels. Maike has since departed GEOMAR and is clearly busy shaking things up, with the recent, devastating 1.5C report from the IPCC – the call to action the world needs.

When not doing fishy stuff, I’m working on shipping – as communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, which brings together organisations stretching from Alaska to Brussels to Moscow. We’re campaigning for a ban on the world’s dirtiest marine fuel, heavy fuel oil (HFO) from Arctic shipping, because of its black carbon emissions, and the risk of oil spills – basically impossible to clean up in Arctic conditions.

The campaign has chalked up considerable success. Although HFO is already banned from Antarctica and Svalbard, a year ago, the idea of an Arctic HFO ban could barely be spoken about in the shipping world, never mind within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN body that governs shipping. Yet this April, the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) in London, a number of countries pushed forward with a ban, with backing from many other member states. They sealed this agreement in October 2018, by sending the ban for development to a technical meeting early next year.

Along with my colleague, Dr Sian Prior, I wrote this article about the campaign win – what it means, how it was achieved, how the ban will come about. More recently, Sian and I co-authored an article for the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. The article, A Vision for a Heavy Fuel Oil-Free Arctic goes deeper into why heavy fuel oil must be banned in the Arctic.

I also wrote What Does a Communications Advisor Do All Day?, also examines how communications played a role shifting the narrative on the heavy fuel oil issue – and how it can contribute to change on other matters too:

“To do this, I have had to pull the HFO issue out of the rarefied environment of the IMO into public discourse, so that it could be discussed in shipping, environmental and Arctic media not just as a nice to have (that we might phase it out) but as a must have – then continuing the discussion so that the inevitability of a ban becomes rooted in people’s minds. Decision-makers and their advisors – hopefully – come to see the ban, not as some weird fringe topic being wielded by a bunch of polar-bear-loving-hippies, but as a win-win solution; as something achievable, politically desirable and quite simply, a good thing.”

During the recent MEPC73 meeting in London, the Clean Arctic Alliance hosted a photography exhibition: The Arctic on Our Watch, to remind delegates of what’s at stake in the Arctic. The exhibition featured  several of my images:

I’ve been keeping up with other polar work –  I continue to serve on the board of The Arctic Institute, a Washington DC-based think tank, and have been getting involved in, CER-Arctic, a new Arctic Research Centre at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Finally, my partner, Nathalie Parès, launched her website, The Ingredient, as part of her organic food consultancy – and has dragged me out of the oceans, and into the world of food and farming. Check out her interview on Spanish newswire EFEAGRO, about the performance of Spanish organic sector and details of her forthcoming appearance on Catalonia’s TV3.

So what happens next? Our Fish has a busy couple of months coming up, with a major fisheries meeting coming up in December. I’m also busy developing communications plans for clients, and laying out some new projects for 2019. What’s on your plate? Let me know, and perhaps we can find a way to collaborate!

The post Fish and Ships: What’s On Your Plate? appeared first on Cold Reality.

The article,
A Vision for a Heavy Fuel Oil-Free Arctic is behind a paywall, tho I do have limited free access credits for those who would like access. Contact me for more details!

The post New Article: A Vision for a Heavy Fuel Oil-Free Arctic appeared first on Cold Reality.

In April this year, a meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) in London agreed to move forward on developing a ban on heavy fuel oil – for use and carriage as fuel from Arctic shipping. My colleague Dr Sian Prior and I wrote about how the world’s dirtiest shipping fuel would be banned from the Arctic – why it should be banned, and how the ban was going to take place.

Heavy fuel oil is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel accounting for 80% of marine fuel used worldwide. Around 75% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO. With climate change fuelling high winter temperatures and driving sea ice melt, Arctic waters are opening up to increased shipping in search of shorter transit times – and greatly increasing the risks of HFO spills.

Already banned in Antarctic waters, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it breaks down slowly, proving almost impossible to clean up. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon. HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants,  such as black carbon, than alternative fuels, such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG). When emitted and deposited on Arctic snow or ice, the climate warming effect of black carbon is up to five times more than when emitted outside the Arctic, such as in the tropics.

Now, with the northern hemisphere winter and next month’s MEPC73 approaching, the Clean Arctic Alliance has publicly called on shipping companies already carrying cargo across the Arctic to be transparent about their choice of fuel. While the IMO’s Polar Code already recommends ship operators “not to use or carry heavy fuel oil in the Arctic”, it is not binding. With an Arctic HFO ban on the way, the Clean Arctic Alliance wants to know – which shipping companies will become flagships for a HFO Free Arctic?

We are going to keep asking – companies using the Arctic “shortcut” bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring that their transits neither risk devastating the already beleaguered Arctic environment with an oil spill, and that their emissions do not further contribute to the Arctic melt.

As a communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance – and one that has handled crisis communications for a number of organisations, I finding the responses – or lack thereof – intriguing. Some of the Arctic shippers have failed to respond either publicly or privately; some respond with some good information, showing a willingness to move in the right direction, but do not seem to clearly understand or engage with the issue. Perhaps they are just hoping that the Arctic/HFO issue will go away… which it will not.   

We recently challenged the world’s biggest container shipping company, Maersk, to come clean about how it plans to fuel the Venta Maersk on its trial run across the northern sea route. To its credit, Maersk responded, directly, privately and via shipping media and social media. The answer, however was a little ambiguous, with Maersk simply saying it planned to use “low sulphur fuel”. When we pointed out that such a fuel could be low in sulphur, and still a viscous residual fuel, Maersk responded on Twitter, saying that “The Ultra Low Sulphur Fuel that we will use for this trial is on spec with Marine Distillate Fuels, if not better. On this trial journey it is the best choice of fuel to use from both an operational and environmental point of view.”

Acknowledging that this particular fuel will result in lower emissions of sulphur and particulates, but that it still falls between the description of a residual fuel and a distillate fuel, the Clean Arctic Alliance quizzed Maersk about what would happen to such a fuel if spilled in the cold waters of the Arctic – would it evaporate, or would it emulsify? We’re looking forward to hearing more from Maersk on this.

We want to know what the potential environmental impact of a spill of Maersk’s choice of fuel would be on Arctic wildlife and communities. Elsewhere, we noticed that Maersk has fitted a vessel – albeit a product tanker – in Rotterdam with Flettner rotors, in an effort to reduce fuel consumption, so we are heartened to see that the company is taking some progressive steps towards decarbonisation.

Following news that the Australia’s Ironbark Zinc will charter the world’s largest icebreaking bulk carrier, the Nunavik – owned by Canadian shipping company Fednav – for its zinc mining operations in northern Greenland, the Clean Arctic Alliance laid down a similar challenge to Fednav. While there was no public statement from Fednav, in a press statement regarding its operations in Greenland, Ironbark did state that it “ensured that the Nunavik made this journey consuming low sulphur marine diesel oil instead of conventional heavy fuel oil (HFO) while in Greenland waters.”

Ironbark’s statement is, to some degree, laudable, but it opens up several questions. The Nunavik is reportedly using heavy fuel oil while in the open ocean. Obviously when it enters the Arctic waters around Greenland, it will presumably still have HFO on board for the return journey unless it has all been used on the outward journey. By not burning HFO in Greenland’s waters, Fednav is avoiding emissions of black carbon, which speed up Arctic melting. However black carbon emissions from burning HFO while the ship is operating on the open ocean can also contribute to the ice melt. Furthermore, by carrying HFO on board, Fednav is flirting with a disaster of unimaginable proportions, with potential long term impacts for Greenland’s communities and livelihoods. Perhaps neither Fednav or Ironbark have read the small print – the forthcoming discussions on a ban on heavy fuel oil will cover a ban not just on use, but on its carriage for use as marine fuel oil. In other words, you cannot sail into the Arctic with HFO on board, while burning something else and claim that it’s all good.

Last week, the Clean Arctic Alliance made a public request to China’s COSCO, the world’s fourth largest container ship company, about its use of HFO in the Arctic, following the voyage of the Tian’en across the Northern Sea Route to Rouen, in France. At the time of publishing this article, COSCO had not yet responded. We’re hoping that COSCO, and China, can come on board and support an Arctic HFO ban. A note to COSCO – we appreciate you were transporting wind turbines to Europe, but this nod to the global energy transition doesn’t get you off the hook.

Back at MEPC72 in April, Russia was one of the laggards when it came to supporting a ban on HFO. So it’s heartening to see that during a recent summit, both President Vladimir Putin  and  Finland’s President Sauli Niinisto agreed to work on moving towards “more environmentally friendly fuels in the Arctic” with the Kremlin suggesting that the prohibition of residual fuel use and carriage, and simultaneously reducing black carbon emissions could be a first step.

Although President Putin had vowed earlier this year to increase Northern Sea Route (NSR) shipping tenfold, the NSR has already seen 81% increase in transport volume for the year to date – 9.95m tonnes, compared to the 5.5 million tonnes in the whole of 2017. While the vast majority of this tonnage is destinational shipping – bound for Russian ports and not transit shipping – crossing between the Pacific and Atlantic – a Russian move towards cleaner fuel – albeit still a fossil fuel  – is an important step. While the Clean Arctic Alliance recognise LNG as a transitional fuel for the Arctic, we believe that is in the interest of the global shipping industry to decarbonise entirely. DNV-GL’s Energy Transition Outlook 2018, released this week,  has called for “carbon robust ships, and states that “decarbonization will be one of the megatrends that will shape the maritime industry over the next decades, especially in light of the new IMO greenhouse gas strategy” – and has found that fossil fuel demand will peak globally around 2023.

At October’s MEPC73, we’re also asking member states to renew their commitment to making the Arctic HFO free, while pressing the naysayers and fence-sitters to think again . Getting the international politics right is key – but we need brave shipping industry leaders to bring pressure to bear national governments, and to drive the momentum towards a HFO Free Arctic.

Dave Walsh is Communications Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, made up of not-for-profit organisations committed to a ban on use of HFO as marine fuel in the Arctic.

First published on the shipping news website Splash 24/7 on 13/9/2018

The post Which Shipping Companies Are Ready for the Coming Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban? appeared first on Cold Reality.

I do comms and strategy. That is, I write and communicate, mostly on environmental campaigns and science issues, as well devising ways to help organisations achieve their ambitions. As people – friends, family, even clients – are often perplexed as to what this involves, I thought I’d have a go at actually communicating about what I do all day.

Doing comms does include traditional press officer tasks – like pushing “send” on media releases and haranguing overworked journalists. Getting a story published, however is only part of the job. Communications shouldn’t happen as an afterthought or in isolation, or for its own sake. It doesn’t matter how many centillions of people Like, Retweet or even read (heaven forbid) what I’ve just catapulted out into the ether, if this frenzy of attention cannot be converted into some kind of real world action.

When I say action, I’m not necessarily demanding that everyone takes to the streets – but I do want pressure where it can foment change – ideally for the better- ideally one for the better. If it helps contribute to a narrative that needs pushing in the right direction (“we need to end fossil fuel use”, “the EU must end overfishing”, “plastic bags are bad for the environment” etc.) that’s good. If a policymaker or company executive feels the weight of media – and by extension, public – pressure from a story, even better. If they digest, consider and then act to do the right thing – job done.

But wait. Before all that there’s the strategy, a way of setting course for an ambitious but reachable destination, supplied with whatever time and resources are available – ideally to stop a bad thing happening, or to kick start a process that will do some good in the world.

To get the results that an organisation or campaign needs, like get a ban on something at the forthcoming international meeting; X percent reduction in carbon emissions by Y date; or convince company A to end doing something bad by date B, a range of activities need to be wheeled out.

Every situation is different – but it may include lobbying of politicians and bureaucrats, enabling citizens through petitions and protests, and getting press coverage. Making sure a story is spread throughout national, international and social media not only helps highlight a problem, but can encourage ordinary people, business leaders and policy makers that change can and will happen, through determination and harnessing of political will. By taking political discourse into the public sphere, decision makers – such as a reluctant government minister – can realise that the cat is out of the bag – a matter previously discussed only in rarefied political environments is now in the public domain, and has to be faced up to – and ideally dealt with. So they might as well be part of the solution.

The communications that drive this kind of political change or broader scientific understanding must not only be clear, and ethically and scientifically rock-solid, they must illustrate the overall  importance and political, national or other context of the issue, in language that non-experts can understand. The signal can be honed and polished, but the message must never be be lost or dumbed-down. There’s a knack to layering information so that a reader, viewer or listener can learn about a subject, while they’re consuming the story.

#HFOFreeArctic

In April, I visited the International Maritime Organization’s Headquarters in London (IMO), the UN body that governs global shipping, for a meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72). Amongst the issues on the agenda was a proposal to ban heavy fuel oil (HFO) – the world’s dirtiest transportation fuel – from Arctic shipping. I was there as communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of 18 NGOs campaigning for a ban on HFO.

The challenge of illustrating the environmental risks posed by an Arctic shipping disaster is relatively easy. It’s not difficult to conjure up images of the cataclysmic outcome of thousands of tonnes of black oil spreading across an ocean, clinging to sea ice and icebergs.

Telling the story of how burning fossil fuels in the Arctic accelerates the ice melt is more complex, but at least can be visualised. Imagine black carbon particles, puffed out of ship exhausts, before falling on snow and ice. Instead of bouncing the solar radiation back into space, this black stuff absorbs the heat of the sun, melting the ice and exposing the dark waters below, which in turn absorbs yet more heat, which warms up the ocean even more, melts more ice, and potentially opening up more routes for yet shipping.

The fix for this is cinch. Ban ships from carrying and burning HFO in the Arctic.

However, the path to achieve this fix is not so straightforward, and hard to explain (never mind tweet). When someone – say, a journalist, or a friend – asks me about how to get a ban on HFO, do they really want to hear jargon-packed monolog on how “the IMO first needs to agree on setting forth on a work plan regarding the mitigation of the risks of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic, then it goes to the scientific committee and…”

Are you still reading?

When I started helping develop communications around the need to ban heavy fuel oil back in 2016, it was necessary to find a balance between broadly communicating the risks around the very real potential of an Arctic oil spill, focussing on the technical aspects of regulatory and economic outcomes of a ban to shipping media, and convincing environmental journalists that the ban is both necessary and politically achievable.

To do this, I have had to pull the HFO issue out of the rarefied environment of the IMO into public discourse, so that it could be discussed in shipping, environmental and Arctic media not just as a nice to have (that we might phase it out) but as a must have – then continuing the discussion so that the inevitability of a ban becomes rooted in people’s minds. Decision-makers and their advisors – hopefully – come to see the ban, not as some weird fringe topic being wielded by a bunch of polar-bear-loving-hippies, but as a win-win solution; as something achievable, politically desirable and quite simply, a good thing.

This time last year, we could talk about a “phase out” of HFO from the Arctic – any mention of a ban was unpalatable politically, or within the shipping world. But by July 2017, when IMO member states supported “a proposal to identify measures which will mitigate the risks posed by the use of heavy fuel in Arctic waters”, the idea of a ban starting becoming relatively mainstream. When national governments begin to make stronger demands than NGOs, you know you’re on to something.

The discourse – with help from the network of organisations that make up the Clean Arctic Alliance, and progressive elements within national governments and the shipping industry – transformed from “this can’t be done” to “a phase out is possible”, to “a ban is the best way to mitigate the effects of HFO in the Arctic to, finally, “a ban is the only way forward”.

Before the April meeting, the HFO ban was proposed by Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the US. During the meeting, supported for the ban came from Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Estonia, Ireland, Japan, the League of Arab States, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK.

I can’t claim that all of these countries support a ban on heavy fuel oil from the Arctic simply because they read a quote from us, but I do believe that our communications work helped pave the way. Perhaps it was just the right time – a HFO ban was discussed a meeting when IMO member states were debating ways to start cleaning the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions, and our team was busy talking to country representatives during the coffee breaks.  Perhaps they were persuaded by the scientists, campaigners, shipping industry representatives and indigenous leaders who spoke up – and spoke strongly in favour of a HFO ban during the two well-attended side events at the IMO, not least Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an environmental, cultural and human rights advocate from Canada, who delivered a powerful and moving speech:

“Everyone benefits from a frozen Arctic and that everything is connected and we can no longer separate the importance and value of the Arctic from the sustainable growth of economies around the world. Everything is connected through our common atmosphere, not to mention our common spirit and humanity. What affects another, affects us all. We know that as the Arctic melts, other places such as the Small Island Developing States are sinking.”

Read more in our blog about the heavy fuel oil ban – The World’s Dirtiest Fuel will be Banned from Arctic Shipping. Here’s How – By Sian Prior and Dave Walsh

Dave Walsh is an communications and strategy consultant based in Barcelona. He advises a number of campaigns and institutions, including the Clean Arctic Alliance and Our Fish, and is board member of The Arctic Institute.  

The post Doing Comms: What does a Communications Advisor Do All Day? appeared first on Cold Reality.

I said goodbye to my father last week. My sister, brother and I all spoke at his funeral. Here’s something I wrote, based on what I said:

Fourteen years ago, I phoned him to tell him that I’d been offered to sail on the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, on a trip in the Tasman Sea off New Zealand. “That’s a great opportunity, Dave, you should consider it”. “Too late, Dad, I’ve already said yes”. He paused. “How did you get into all this stuff anyway?”

“Dad, I grew up in a house full of books about ships and adventure at sea, and maps and atlases and who knows what. How could I not want to go on adventures”. Another pause. “I was just content to read about it”. My dad never travelled very far, but his love for the River Slaney and the place we come from was complemented by his encyclopaedic knowledge – both local and global, and his imagination and storytelling. He instilled in his three children a sense of wonder and curiosity, and a sense of responsibility about the world around us. I’m going to miss his sense of humour, always a wry smile playing at the corner of his mouth, a yarn on the cusp of the telling. It’s not for nothing that they call the place we come from “The Liars Glen”. We put a box in the ground today, but my father is not really there, he’s down beside the River Slaney, where he is happiest.

See also: The River’s Edge

The River Slaney and the World

The post The River Flows appeared first on Cold Reality.

Note: This article first appeared on The Irish Times website on November 8, 2017. This version has links added, and some updates too. 

Having escaped police violence during Catalonia’s independence referendum on October 1st, trouble arrived this week in the town of Sant Cugat, where I live, just north of Barcelona.

On Monday night, an angry group of 300 people, waving Spanish flags, used knives to rip down a large banner that hung from the town hall. The banner read “Llibertat Presos Politics” – “Freedom for Political Prisoners” – in support of the Catalan government ministers and activists currently jailed in Madrid, following the recent declaration of the Catalan Republic.

The unionists tussled with local police and shouted at journalists, before leaving the banner in tatters on the city’s Rambla. It was strange way of going about building “unity”. The next morning, town council staff could be seen cleaning egg stains from windows.

In contrast, downtown Barcelona on October 27th was an ocean of blue, yellow and red, Esteladas, the flag of the pro-independence movement, as thousands packed into the city centre to celebrate the Catalan parliament’s acceptance of the October 1st “yes vote”.

Pro-independence gatherings tend to be peaceful, friendly and inclusive. If you turned up draped in a Spanish flag, you’d likely be welcomed. But that night, when Spanish flags appeared on the streets, people were assaulted and the windows of Catalunya Radio – a public broadcaster – were broken by protesters wearing la Rojigualda (the Spanish flag).

Passing into Catalonia from France a couple of days a later, I spotted a lone Spanish flag flapping in the wind. A hundred metres later, three Esteladas (the unofficial Catalan flag) flashed in the afternoon sun, their flagpoles straining under the tramontane wind. A hundred kilometres down the motorway, a banner on a bridge read “Willkommen in der Republik Katalonien”.

We are now living in a state of uncertainty, not quite Spain, and not yet the Republic of Catalonia. Ireland’s lengthy transition to independence is often cited here as a way to say “patience, patience”.

Since the declaration of the Catalan Republic, life has gone on. But things have changed. The Spanish government has applied Article 155 of its constitution, claiming it must uphold the unity of the Spanish state by seizing control of public institutions, including police and public broadcasters (Update: it seems to have, for now, backed down on the broadcasters).

Seven Catalan government ministers, after arriving in Madrid to facist chants and nazi salutes, were jailed after a hearing that lasted just a few minutes.

Two civil society activists, known as the “Jordis”, have spent more than three weeks in custody. Eight schoolteachers in the small town of Seu d’Urgell are under investigation for having debated the referendum in the classroom, after the parents of one child complained (both of whom are Guardia Civil). Two people in Lleida were arrested for criticism of police violence, while the editor of a popular satirical magazine El Jeuves is in trouble for making a joke about the Spanish police (using up all of Catalonia’s cocaine) – he had to admit in court that the satirical article was ‘fake news’. Since mid-September, a litany of court orders has been directed at activities, publications and websites that challenge the authority of the Spanish government.

Yet those involved in fascist-like or violent behaviour can seemingly act with impunity. The number 155 has now appeared alongside nazi swastikas daubed the houses of pro-independence supporters, and on a monument to the poet Verdaguer. A few days ago, one young man in Mataro was beaten and hospitalised while leaving his house wearing a pro-independence t-shirt.

The unleashing of Article 155 means the central government will seize back autonomy from Catalonia. On Tuesday, civil servants from Madrid arrived to “take over” government institutions in Barcelona, demanding that work be carried out in Castellano rather than Catalan, echoing the days when Catalan was banned under Franco.

Today, Catalonia has shut down in a general strike, in an attempt to warn prime minister Mariano Rajoy of the power and resolve of the Catalan people. By 9am this morning, protesters had stopped traffic on the AP-7 Motorway, part of the Europe’s E-15 artery that links Spain and Portugal to the rest of Europe. (map demonstrating other blocks)

It’s not clear if the agreed elections on December 21st can happen in any fair way, especially if candidates are in prison or in exile. While a pro-independence coalition will likely win, the continuously intransigent Popular Party under Rajoy (which holds less than 10 per cent of seats in the Catalan parliament) is adamant it will continue to apply Article 155.

On December 4th, Dublin City Council will vote on whether the Catalan flag will fly from City Hall for a month. If councillors vote yes, this will be seen as a strong sign of solidarity for many people in Catalonia who, until their sacked president Carles Puigdemont arrived in Brussels last week, believed the EU had abandoned them. On Tuesday, he was joined by 200 Catalan mayors to protest the silence from the institutions.

Symbolic support is welcome, but it is unfortunately not enough. EU governments and opposition parties must hold the Rajoy government to account, to ensure the political prisoners are released and that a political solution is found to improve the relationship between Spain and Catalonia.

The outcomes of the forthcoming Catalan elections should be subject to rigorous scrutiny, to ensure they take place in a fair and democratic manner. EU members, whether countries or individual citizens, have a duty of care towards other inhabitants of this shared community.

By ignoring the Catalonia crisis, we risk its repercussions throughout Europe. This is about more than flags – the entire “European Project” could be at stake.

-Dave

The post Catalonia: State of Uncertainty appeared first on Cold Reality.