Review: ‘The Intrusion’

Our writers Eve Leach and Felicity Haslin attended the press night of The Intrusion, Bric à Brac Theatre’s latest stage production inciting new conversations about climate change and our role as humans in the environmental crisis.

The Environmental Cost of War in Gaza

Our environment is often an overlooked casualty of war. However, the severe waste contamination in Gaza—resulting from infrastructure collapse and military violence over the past 15 months—has shone a harsh light on the undeniable impact of conflict on our fragile ecosystem.

UN reports have stated approximately 97% of Gaza’s water is undrinkable due to the destruction of infrastructure, primarily the breakdown of sewage and waste management facilities. This has resulted in the accumulation of 39 million tonnes of debris and contamination of irrigation systems, leading to the death of livestock such as goats and cattle, as well as financially depleting the fishing and agriculture sector. Consequently, food security for the human population has decreased and the environment has faced extreme loss of natural habitats and contamination of air, soil and water. Gaza’s Mediterranean coast, a vibrant rich ecosystem teeming with coral reefs and hundreds of species of fish, has been made a hostile environment through underwater explosions and oil spills. 

Satellite images further reveal that around 80% of Gaza’s trees have been lost, while two-thirds of its farmlands have been damaged or destroyed by military bombardment—an ecological catastrophe that accelerates desertification and reduces carbon absorption. Such evidence underscores that, as with all environmental crises, the repercussions of this war extend far beyond Gaza. Every ecosystem plays a crucial role in maintaining our atmosphere and mitigating global warming, and it is important to consider the immense wealth this Mediterranean territory provides. 

This large-scale environmental degradation not only affects land and water resources but also threatens the region’s rich biodiversity. Palestine is characterised by its highly diverse topography, home to around 50,000 living species, constituting 3% of global biodiversity. In Gaza, direct bombings and pollution have inflicted severe damage on coastal areas, which provides vital feeding grounds to native migratory birds such as the turtle dove; a once abundant symbol of peace that is now tragically facing endangerment. 

Other animals, such as the Palestine sunbird and Arabian gazelle, have been pushed closer to extinction, while experts estimate a 40% decline in biodiversity since the 2000s, affecting countless more species. However, there is still the possibility of recovering these numbers, especially in light of the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas enacted on January 19th 2025, which provides a window for environmental justice in this war torn area. The relief from bombardement will reduce further loss of habitat areas and fatality of wildlife through injury, although even with this respite, we can expect the consequences of contamination and pollution to have much longer lasting effects. 

As with most climate crises, it can be tempting to label the situation as hopeless. However, doing so would underestimate the humanitarian support that continues to exist in Gaza, even after more than 50 years of occupation. In 2022, for the first time in over a decade, Palestenians were able to swim in the ocean during the summer thanks to a community-led beach clean up and years of lobbying for improved sewage systems. More recently, even amid ongoing conflict, Gaza witnessed the installation of a desalination plant by the UAE in December 2023, providing 4.5 million liters of clean water. In March 2024, additional water pumping facilities were introduced, supplying clean water to over 200,000 residents in northern Gaza.

These efforts align with broader environmental commitments, such as Palestine’s participation in the Paris Agreement, which signals a long-term ambition to mitigate ecological harm. We can hope to see aims in reducing the environmental impact with projects such as replanting or soil decontamination. However, such processes are long and costly, often relying on charity aid and local involvement, which is further impeded by the fact many are facing tragic loss, medical issues or are suffering due to the lack of food and shelter. 

Human and environmental crises are deeply connected—one cannot be addressed without the other. Only through awareness and collective action can one expect to see the restoration of both Gaza’s environment and the lives that depend on it.

Words by Lucile Dudrey-Harvey

Let’s talk Biodiversity loss: what is it and how is it affecting our campus?

While walking around campus, I am sure you will have come across one of the many cute creatures that inhabit the outdoor spaces of our university. It may be the ducks in the Roger Stevens pond that catch your attention on the way to lectures, the hedgehogs or most likely the adored bunnies that roam around the green. These different animals make up the essential biodiversity that keeps not only our campus ecosystems balanced but the world’s. Notwithstanding the effects of climate change however, this biodiversity is at risk. 

The World Wildlife Organisation defines biodiversity as all the different kinds of life you’ll find in one area, not just animals but also plants and fungi. These organisms then work together within our ecosystems to maintain and support all forms of life, essentially everything that we need ranging across food, water, medicine and clean air. Our animals are such a crucial part to keeping us as a species happy and healthy as well as the planet we live on. But still, the ever-growing climate crisis is violently reducing wildlife populations in the United Kingdom. The United Nations has established the United Kingdom in recent years as having one of the worst biodiversity loss problems in the whole of the western world; only having roughly half of its biodiversity left. This figure is far below a global average of 75%, which still is not deemed a ‘safe limit’, no country should be exceeding the 90% break line. Not only is this a cause for concern for the animals whose habitats and populations are being destroyed but also for our society who are dependent on them for regulatory ecological functioning. 

In order to spread awareness and begin to combat biodiversity loss, we must first establish its causes. The UK Parliament’s scientific advisors have concluded that the factors of biodiversity loss in order of importance are as such: changes in land and sea use, climate change, pollution, direct exploitation of natural resources and the impact of invasive species. These issues might seem daunting if you are just one person trying to make a difference, but by supporting biodiversity through institutions such as your university, one can help create a striking difference to the animals living on your campus. 

At Leeds university the three main species impacted by biodiversity loss are the bees, hedgehogs and rabbits. But the growing climate change and atypical weather dynamics are severely impacting our creatures and the way they support our university ecosystem. Taking the afamed campus bunnies for example, who have proved popular in the social sphere as many readers here are also likely followers of @Leedscampusrabbits but are also providing critical acts of grazing and burrowing on campus, nurturing the plant life and creating clean air. Their existence in our green spaces will be forever important to nature’s balance and their habitats must be preserved.

Whilst news of this may render many readers into a state of panic, Leeds students can take comfort in knowing that the University of Leeds ranks very highly in the country for supporting its biodiversity, being placed in the ‘Platinum Tier’ category for their policies, funding for wildlife foundations and ongoing biodiversity activities by the Ark Wildlife organisation. The university strives to nurture the varying species living on the grounds. Most notably, working with the hedgehog preservation society, to protect and track them as they roam. 

While the university works to improve the decline of biodiversity in Leeds, individual efforts are also needed. This can be achieved through multiple avenues such as supporting the universities local wildlife policies, taking part in local litter picks or even just educating yourself online, every effort matters to save the different animals on campus. Don’t hesitate to give our green spaces that extra bit of care, especially when the creatures that live there provide us with so much.

Words by Lucy Bysouth

COP29 Wrapped Up: I hope its gone for minimal layers- we’ve got a hot year ahead of us

At time of writing, we are just reaching the end of COP29, the annual Conference of the Parties in which state representatives gather to discuss our impending climate doom, and ponder as to whether it’s maybe time to do something about it. 

Sorry – that was slightly biased. 

Officially, COP, or the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is a chance for representatives to come together to discuss what progress so far has been made towards climate goals, how far intended policies have been successful, and what still needs to be done. 

Different years take different focuses. In 2009 the focus was financial, and developed countries worldwide came together and pledged to collectively raise $100 billion a year to support developing countries’ climate action. An ambitious goal [that incidentally was hit for the first time only in 2020], but one that simultaneously was recognised to be insufficient – whilst a valuable first step, there remained an underlying acceptance that this number would one day have to be reconsidered. 

This is where we find ourselves today. Once again, the focus is financial, and representatives from around 200 countries have flocked to Baku in Azerbaijan with the aim of agreeing a new spending target to reach climate goals. This increased spending is of essential importance; it would facilitate the needed transition to a low-carbon global economy through investment in green technologies and the implementation of climate resilient policies in developing countries. 

Reaching an agreement, however, is proving to be challenging. Differing figures are being proposed – the Arab Group of countries has set high stakes with calls for a target of $1.1tn per year, the African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change have raised this to $1.3tn a year, but a report from the Energy Transitions Commission think-tank suggests that these numbers, high as they seem, are not enough – to remain within the target of 1.5C, we also need capital investments of around $3tn a year. 

It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the apparent concluding offer from COP29 of an annual $250 billion has not quite been received with open arms. 

Money always divides, but this is not a situation in which we can afford to be stingy, with the backdrop to these negotiations featuring news of events such as unprecedented floods in Spain and record wildfires in Ecuador, although then again – silly me – I guess money doesn’t grow on trees. We may have had a smattering of snow last week, but with warnings of 2024 set to be the hottest year yet, and a financial stalemate at the top, I think its parachutes, not ski boots, that we need to be dusting off – the end of the run’s looking worryingly barren.

Words by Coco Heppner

Turning the tide:  A new era of Trump’s climate policies 

With Donald J. Trump set to return to the Oval Office on January 20th 2025, a new era of climate politics is on the horizon. Historically, Trump has made a habit of having a contradictory ‘flip-flop’ approach when making his stance on a political issue clear and his environmentalism is no exception to this. 

Predominantly, Trump is a climate change denialist, having referred to it upon numerous occasions as nothing more than a ‘hoax’, ‘nonexistent’ or a ‘very, very expensive form of tax’. Despite this, in 2009 Trump did sign a political advert appearing in the New York Times which expresses support for legislation combating climate change quoting ‘‘If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet’. But one quick Look at his twitter / X history realigns one with the reality that any past sympathy Trump may have held for our planet is long gone. 

‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese’ Trump’s twitter account 2012 6 Nov

Not to mention his consistent rhetoric of making light of a concerning situation in which he will either jest that any cold weather is evidence enough that climate change is not real or mock those who are taking steps towards change. Take his online outbursts directed at climate activist Greta Thunberg for example, in which he has suggested she has an ‘anger management problem’ and should ‘chill.’ 

During his presidential term of 2017-2021, Trump’s policy only weakened climate action, whilst the majority of the world’s leading countries were setting and meeting their climate targets. One of the most shocking decisions made during this time was Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement after deeming its terms incompatible with his commitment to delivering economic freedom to the American people. A theme which continually halts any hope for climate delivery as ultimately, first and foremost, Trump is defined by his businessman persona and deregulatory agenda; for him climate change policy infringes upon the private lives of Americans. 

Throughout this time, Trump continued to undo much of the progress of his democrat predecessor, Barack Obama, such as cutting his Clean Power Plan which was set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030 through prohibiting new coal plants. Instead Trump went forward with his Affordable Clean Energy Rule which was used to pacify as in reality it was only reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1% and allowed him to continue with his ulterior motive, revitalising the coal industry. 

At present, if the evidence is anything to draw from, it would appear that Trump’s 2025-2029 presidential term will be no different than what we have already seen. From what one can gather from his presidential campaign, climate change still remains a non-issue, in fact when asked about it directly in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump remarked

‘Nobody talks about nuclear…the biggest problem we have in the whole world. It’s not global warming, it’s nuclear warming.’ 

Demonstrating clearly that Trump does not care to discuss climate change at all as he quickly diverted the question in a way which allowed himself to express matters he aligns himself more closely with such as the American military. Additionally, in an almost familiar state of events, it is expected that Trump will yet again withdraw from the Paris Agreement after his democratic predecessor, Joe Biden rejoined it. 

If the allusive project 2025 is anything to go by, we can also expect to see the approval of more oil and gas infrastructure, expected to release billions of tonnes more carbon pollution. Plans are also currently circulating that would suggest Trump will not leave protected areas alone in this pursuit as is made clear in his decision to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to polar bears and caribou, to drilling. 

In the midst of what appears to be a disastrous outcome for America’s climate, it is important to remind oneself that Trump, whilst president, is still just one man. There are climate protections in place which even he cannot penetrate. Undoing significant legislature such as the Inflation Reduction Act which made historic investments in climate action will be impossible to alter without congressional approval. Whatsmore, hope can be found in the federal government and its ability to pass its own climate initiatives beyond Trump’s jurisdiction such as California’s ‘The Great Implementation’ plan, which is set to achieve net zero carbon pollution by 2045.

Words by Libby McGuinness

Electric Dreams, Carbon Nightmares: The Hidden Environmental Cost of Generative AI

AI chatbots are freaky. To someone like me with little knowledge about technology, programming or any other computer science jargon, I find them incomprehensible. 

A strange thing inside my computer, which knows how to simplify my readings, how to solve maths equations, how to quell the torrent of spiteful emails I send to my landlord about the leaky fridge. As it obeys my commands to ‘make this email sound more polite’, I often find myself soothed by its mechanical rearranging of my fiery words into ones which are clinical and assertive. It is probably due to this thing that I have not yet been evicted. Or that I am able to think of my article titles. 

Despite all of its pros, chatbots are very scary. Their not-quite-human responses, as well as the unsettling videos and images they produce, provoke a deep fear of the uncanny for many. It is thought that their reinforcement of instant gratification is making people lazier. 

As well as this,  they are also trained on stolen information from real people, who receive no compensation for their work. Indeed, in 2023 the New York Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming that their chatbots were trained using articles from journalists at the company without consent, thus violating their copyrights. 

As unethical as this all is, the biggest threat we as a species are facing from generative AI is their huge environmental impact. To explain it in the simplest of terms (for people like me with little knowledge of computers) the most complex Ais require the most power. The more power needed, the more carbon emissions are created in the process. 

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence which can answer questions, create images and videos, solve problems and provide ideas. In other words, the chatbots we are so familiar with today. These are the said Ais which require the most power, due to their complex and advanced nature. 

These chatbots have not only increased in accessibility, but they are also thrust onto consumers in an attempt for constant innovation. In this case, to ensure search engines keep up to date with the newest technologies and quickest ways to retrieve information. 

This becomes an annoyance for two reasons. The first is that often searchers come across inaccurate and often laughable information, as is seen in the case of the viral ‘first person to backflip’ search. When google users went to search the much-asked question, AI overview confidently stated that it was curated by the medieval trickster ‘John Backflip’. 

As entertaining as it is to play around with AI and its inaccuracies, every futile search takes up 4 to 5 times the amount of energy as typing your query into a regular search engine. With every search engine now being equipped with an AI chatbot, this poses a huge environmental challenge. 

The size of generative AI is measured by parameters, with the larger models being the most advanced, thus taking up the most energy. According to the Scientific American, GPT-3 has a whopping 175 billion parameters. They state that the model went through ‘1287 megawatt hours of electricity and generated 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent’. To put this in perspective, this is comparable to the emissions of 123 standard petrol vehicles for a whole year of driving. And with the site reporting approximately 3.1 billion websites in September of 2024, its mind-boggling popularity suggests it will only continue its path of destruction. 

Likewise in 2019 it was found that the generative AI model BERT (which was 110 million parameters) depleted the energy of a ‘round trip transcontinental flight for one person’. The lack of tactility in chatbots often means people are unaware that they have a real physical impact. By comparing them to practices that we have known for years cause huge environmental damage demonstrates just how sinister they are. 

So how exactly do we avoid this? Chatbots are now seemingly ubiquitous and feel impossible to avoid. But, a recent study by google suggested that size matters less than some think when it comes to sustainable AI. 

The research suggested that for the same or similar size, using a ‘more efficient model architecture, processor and greener data centre can reduce the carbon.’ It is clear, then, that change needs to come from those at the top. Companies must invest in more sustainable processes to create generative AI. Public pressure- such as petitions, emails and spreading awareness- can help to achieve this, as well as boycotting sites such as Chat-GPT.

There are also eco-conscious alternatives out there for use, such as the non-profit company ‘Ecosia’, which is equipped with a ‘green filtered’ AI. Promoted by green energy such as solar power, the chatbot also offers sustainable advice and suggestions which are mindful of the planet. Thus, by promoting practices which are environmentally conscious, users are encouraged to incorporate these into their daily lives. As a bonus, Ecosia’s profits are distributed worldwide to support tree-planting initiatives. It is certainly worth switching your browser knowing that each search is not actively aiding the destruction of the planet. 

It is easy to feel despondent about the ways in which small parts of our life have a big environmental impact. It can feel particularly overwhelming when software which is so damaging has seen an exponential rise in popularity, which is only getting larger. 

However, education is crucial. Knowing what happens as a consequence of your small search allows you to make the first small changes and move forwards making environmentally conscious decisions. So, next time you need a twelve-fingered picture of Jesus in a theme park to send to your uncle on Facebook, do your research before turning to Chat-GPT. 

Words by Daisy Morrow