Search Climate Insights Directory

SGR calls on the UK government to push for a climate agreement that combines technology with social, political, and economic changes, specifically supporting the 'Contraction and Convergence' model to balance equity for developing nations with the inclusion of major emitters like China and India. The letter argues that the UK must increase its own domestic efforts in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable transport to maintain credibility in these negotiations.

A group of medical professionals and scientists argue that Reed Elsevier's ownership of The Lancet is contradictory to its role as a promoter of arms fairs, specifically the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) event. The authors contend that promoting arms sales, including cluster bombs and small arms, violates the medical principle of 'do no harm' and contradicts Reed Elsevier's commitment to the UN Global Compact.

A letter from Scientists for Global Responsibility to the UK Secretary of State for the Environment proposing that the successor to the Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology Commission should have a comprehensive mandate. The author advocates for a focus on sustainable agriculture, the reduction of oil dependency in farming and transport, and independent research into the long-term health and environmental effects of GM crops, while ensuring the body's membership is free from industry bias.

AESR and SGR argue for more aggressive domestic emission reductions in the UK, specifically targeting the transport sector through higher fuel duties and a renewable transport fuels obligation. They advocate for redirecting military R&D funding toward sustainable energy, implementing mandatory energy-efficiency ratings for home sales, and expanding the Emissions Trading Scheme to non-energy intensive sectors. The response emphasizes the need for a highly trained workforce for micro-CHP installation and warns against ocean-based carbon storage due to environmental risks.

The letter argues that UK climate action is ineffective unless integrated into a global framework that includes major emitters like the USA, China, and India. It proposes the 'Contraction and Convergence' principle to fairly distribute emissions quotas based on population. The authors advocate for lifestyle changes to curb road and air travel, increased funding for renewable energy—potentially redirected from military R&D—and the use of WTO rules or international law to pressure non-compliant nations.

The paper discusses engineering strategies to mitigate climate change, focusing on energy production shifts, technical efficiency, and social changes, while analyzing the ethical risks of nuclear power and carbon capture.

The report examines the intersection of military and scientific endeavours in the UK, specifically analyzing the power the military exerts over science and engineering in the post-Cold War era.

The report examines the disproportionate influence of the military sector, particularly in the UK and USA, on science, engineering, and technology (SET). It highlights how military funding and corporate lobbying shape research agendas, often marginalizing broader security concepts like climate change and poverty alleviation. The document calls for a significant shift of UK military R&D funds—suggesting one-third to one-half of the budget—toward civil R&D for peacebuilding and environmental protection, while urging greater transparency and a cessation of new nuclear weapons development.

The report investigates the pervasive influence of the military on UK science, engineering, and technology (SET), noting that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) accounts for approximately 30% of the total public R&D budget. It argues that this involvement drives a narrow, weapons-based approach to security and compromises scientific openness through secrecy and corporate lobbying. The authors advocate for a paradigm shift toward 'global security,' recommending that one-third to one-half of military R&D funds be diverted to address poverty, climate change, and conflict prevention.

The statement welcomes the decision that GM spring-sown oilseed rape and GM sugar beet chemical regimes are more harmful to wildlife than conventional ones, contributing to the lack of commercial GM crop prospects in the UK. While GM maize (Chardon LL) was approved, the developer, Bayer Cropscience, abandoned commercialisation due to government restrictions and liability requirements. SGR argues that biotechnology company evidence on environmental and health risks is inadequate and calls for research funding to be redirected from GM crops to sustainable alternatives like organic farming.

The statement by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) criticises the US government's proposal for a manned mission to Mars, citing an estimated cost of $1 trillion. SGR argues that these funds would be better spent on global aid—such as providing clean water, eliminating hunger, and achieving universal literacy—and on mitigating climate change. The document further links space exploration goals to military interests and highlights the rising costs of climate-related disasters and biodiversity loss.

The document argues that space technology is deeply intertwined with military agendas, often masking military goals as civilian or scientific. It highlights the militarisation of NASA, the high costs and instability of missile defence systems, and the risks of nuclear power in space, providing a framework for professionals to evaluate the ethics of their employment in the sector.

The letter from Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) argues that genetic modification of crops is driven by corporate profit and lacks sufficient safety evidence. SGR claims that the UK government is overly supportive of the GM industry and ignores scientific warnings about environmental damage and health risks, such as the creation of superweeds and gene transfer in the human gut.

The paper contends that genetic modification is an imprecise technology that creates unpredictable biological outcomes and potential health hazards, such as new allergens or toxins. It claims GM crops harm biodiversity, contaminate non-GM and organic farms, and result in lower yields and higher costs for farmers. Furthermore, it criticizes the consolidation of the seed market by a few biotechnology companies and the lack of corporate liability for environmental or health damages.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) condemns the pressure placed on Dr David Kelly, a biological weapons expert, after he questioned the UK Government's use of scientific information to justify the war against Iraq. SGR asserts that scientists have a duty to report the misuse of their work by powerful interests and calls for the Lord Hutton judicial inquiry to investigate the discrepancies between alleged intelligence and reality regarding weapons of mass destruction.

SGR expresses concern that nanotechnology is being developed under narrow economic and military drivers, risking inadequate examination of its social and environmental implications. The organization argues that the diversity of the field makes a single label misleading and suggests that approximately 30% of investment in emerging technologies should be dedicated to examining wider implications to prevent irreversible damage.

The document presents simulations of pollen transport by wind, highlighting that deposition is highly non-uniform and patchy, characterized by 'fingers' and 'islands'. It argues that setting separation distances to avoid crop contamination is difficult because pollen travel distance increases with wind strength and substantial deposition can occur at very large distances, including in the upwind direction due to high-altitude transport. The authors used a Cellular Automaton model, validated against historical observations of maize, to demonstrate these qualitative findings.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) critiques the 2003 invasion of Iraq, asserting that the US administration's justifications—such as eliminating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and promoting democracy—are insincere. SGR argues the true drivers are 'full spectrum dominance' and the desire to control strategic oil reserves to reduce reliance on Saudi Arabia. The document details severe humanitarian risks, including potential malnutrition for 1.26 million Iraqi children, and environmental damage, including CO2 emissions from the invasion estimated to equal one year of total UK emissions. It concludes by advocating for a shift from military spending toward solving global poverty, water scarcity, and climate change through renewable energy development.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) opposes the planned US-UK attack on Iraq, citing the lack of UN backing, the potential for massive civilian casualties, and the use of indiscriminate weapons. The statement argues that the war would destabilise the Middle East and suggests that the financial resources required for the conflict would be better spent on global health, debt cancellation, and environmentally-friendly technologies.

The document outlines several objections to GM oilseed rape trials in Scotland, citing poor trial design, the risk of creating herbicide-resistant 'superweeds', and the potential for genetic contamination of non-GM crops. It highlights the dangers of the 'Liberty' herbicide (glufosinate), alleging it causes birth defects in animals and poses a threat to wildlife in Munlochy Bay. Additionally, the submission discusses risks to bees, including horizontal gene transfer and antibiotic resistance, and warns that the use of the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter could lead to new diseases. The authors conclude that the trials are flawed and the crops are economically and environmentally unviable.