radiofree.asia

Category: biodiversity

  • ‘Global Boiling’: 2023’s Term of the Year?

    global boiling
    10 Mins Read

    Forget “rizz.” These 10 words defined the hottest year ever.

    By Kate Yoder, Grist

    To say that 2023 is one for the record books is a vast understatement — the year was so out of the norm that you’re forced to go back at least 125,000 years for a point of reference. The last time anyone experienced a year as warm as this one, mastodons and giant sloths roamed across North America during the beginning of the late Pleistocene. Suffice it to say, there weren’t many people around to experience it. 

    In 2023, it felt like Earth might run out of records to break. For a stretch in early July, the planet snapped its all-time daily heat record four times, one day after another. It added up to the hottest week ever recorded in what became the hottest summer ever recorded. Then, September broke its previous monthly heat record by half a degree Celsius — a margin so stunning that Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist, declared it “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.”

    Hausfather’s attention-grabbing phrase showed up in the headlines of The Guardian, Wired, and Bloomberg, adding pizzazz to what might have otherwise felt like yet another story about another broken record. As the world overheats, everyone from scientists to TikTok influencers is reaching for a fresh vocabulary to put words to what’s happening, coining new terms and assigning old ones new meanings. It’s a sign that language is catching up to the history-making environmental changes happening around us.

    For North America, it was a year of fire and smoke. Canada burned from coast to coast, with 6,500 fires scorching so much land that the 45.7 million acres burned surpassed the previous record by more than 2.5 times. The fires sent a thick haze into cities in the eastern half of the United States that were unprepared for smoke, from Chicago to New York, making June 7 the all-time worst day of pollution from wildfire smoke for the average American. The country’s deadliest fire in a century ripped through Lahaina on the island of Maui in August, killing 100 people. 

    Elsewhere in the world, heavy rains forced nearly 700,000 people to flee their homes in Somalia after years of drought; Hurricane Otis, a storm that rapidly escalated into a Category 5, slammed into Mexico, destroying the homes of roughly 580,000 people; and an avalanche triggered an outburst from a melting glacial lake in the Himalayas in northeast India, sending a deadly wall of water barreling down the mountain valleys into towns below.

    Every December, dictionary editors sift through the lexicon and pick a word that best reflects the spirit of the waning year. Their selections this time around suggested a modern-day preoccupation with what’s genuine. Merriam-Webster chose “authentic,” the Scotland-based Collins Dictionary went with “AI,” and the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary picked “rizz,” slang for charm or romantic appeal. Some of the top contenders hinted at a changing environment, such as “heat dome” and “dystopian.”

    When putting together our annual list of the most notable words in the climate conversation this year, we had plenty of great options. “Global boiling” stood out in such an overheated year, and “El Niño” seemed like an obvious pick, too. We whittled the candidates down to the following 10 that we thought best captured what it felt like to live through a particularly smoky, sweltering year. Though these words and phrases aren’t all newborns, they’re all very 2023.

    AQI

    The Air Quality Index, a color-coded measure of how dangerous the air is to breathe.

    aqi
    Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva

    The AQI used to be something only air quality nerds cared about, until folks coughing through smoke-filled summers in the West over the past decade began checking the index every morning before heading out for the day. In 2023, wildfires in Canada sent dangerous air to places in the United States that had never seen anything like it in living memory, and the AQI entered the rest of the country’s vocabulary. Google searches for AQI spiked along the East Coast and in the Midwest as people scrambled to understand the new threat. Inhaling the fine particles in wildfire smoke has been linked to long-term effects like heart attacks, lung cancer, and dementia. Public officials in New York City were slow to warn the public and distribute N95 masks, even though the AQI reached 484 in parts of Brooklyn, off the charts of the rating system. Anything over 300, colored maroon on the AQI chart, is considered “hazardous,” even for healthy adults.

    Carbon insetting

    Business-speak for companies reducing emissions in their own supply chains; an alternative to carbon offsetting.

    For years, companies have been making pledges to go “carbon-neutral,” aiming to offset their emissions with tree-planting projects, usually halfway around the world. But offsetting schemes often fail to deliver on what they promise. An investigation by The Guardian in January found that most carbon offsets from rainforest projects are “phantom credits,” with 94 percent of those approved by the world’s biggest certifier, Verra, offering “no benefit to the climate.” Enter carbon insetting, in which companies attempt to remove emissions from within their own supply chains — the string of activities involved in producing and distributing their products. The practice originated in the early 2000s with companies that rely heavily on agriculture, and it’s now being adopted by Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Apple. Still, experts say that without strong standards, insets will have the same problems as offsets. Offsetting, insetting, and whatever-setting are no substitute for just emitting less carbon in the first place.

    Climate quitters

    People who resign from their jobs over concerns about climate change.

    climate quitting
    Courtesy: Freedomz via Canva

    In January, Bloomberg identified a new trend in the workplace: leaving your old job to work on climate change full-time.

    So-called “climate quitters” included a former public affairs employee for ExxonMobil who now works for a cleantech communications firm and a restaurant reviewer who started a company to plant tiny native forests in cities. It could be a sign of growing discontent at the lack of large-scale climate action. A survey of 4,000 employees in the United States and United Kingdom this year found that more than 60 percent of employees wanted to see their company take a stronger stance on the environment, and half said they would consider resigning if their companies’ values didn’t align with their own. But does it have any effect besides feeling better about yourself? Publicly quitting can create a PR nightmare for companies, Alexis Normand, the CEO and cofounder of the carbon accounting platform Greenly, told the BBC: “It’s an extremely powerful form of lobbying.” Of course, staying at your current not-very-environmentally-friendly job and advocating for sustainability can make a big difference, too.

    Deinfluencers

    Social media influencers who (supposedly) want to convince you not to buy things.

    TikTok and Instagram aren’t just for entertainment — they’ve become an advertising ecosystem encouraging reckless consumption. Last year, influencers sold more than $3.6 billion worth of products on the online shopping platform LTK alone, and a study from Meta found that 54 percent of Instagram users surveyed made a purchase after seeing a product on the platform. Manufacturing, shipping, and, eventually, disposing of all that stuff when the next trend takes over has created a huge environmental problem, with discarded clothing piling up in Chile’s Atacama Desert and filling the ocean with microfibers. So-called deinfluencers are pushing back against this out-of-control consumerism, targeting fast fashion and pointless crap that has gone viral. “Do not get the Ugg Minis. Do not get the Dyson Airwrap. Do not get the Charlotte Tilbury wand. Do not get the Stanley cup. Do not get Colleen Hoover books. Do not get the AirPods Max,” TikToker @sadgrlswag said in a video in January. By December, videos with the hashtag #deinfluencing had racked up more than 1 billion views. The trend is already at risk of morphing from discouraging overconsumption to simply recommending one product over another — using the mantle of green credentials to sell more stuff and look environmentally-friendly while doing it.

    El Niño

    A global weather pattern characterized by warmer-than-average temperatures.

    el nino
    Courtesy: Akaratwimages via Canva

    One reason 2023 was so hot (apart from climate change)? The arrival of a strong El Niño, which the planet hadn’t seen since 2016, the previous record-holder for hottest year. It replaced La Niña, a cooler pattern that had tempered the heat of the last three years. El Niño brought 101-degree, hot-tub temperatures to the ocean off Florida, steaming coral reefs and fish, anemones, and jellyfish in the Everglades. The weather pattern also tends to fuel the spread of diseases carried by mosquitoes, like malaria and dengue, and other pests that thrive in warmer weather. Thanks to El Niño and climate change, it’s easy to make one reliable prediction for 2024: Global temperatures are likely to be even hotter. The World Meteorological Organization predicted in May that the next five years are sure to be the hottest ones yet.

    Global boiling

    It’s like global warming, but way more worrying.

    António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, is the Shakespeare of scary climate phrases.

    In past years, his fiery speeches have brought us “code red for humanity” and dire metaphors such as “We are digging our own graves.” In a year as hot as 2023, Guterres managed to up the ante again. Not only did he warn that humanity had “opened the gates of hell,” but he also declared that Earth had entered the “era of global boiling” in July, the hottest month in at least 125,000 years. The phrase “global warming” has been criticized for sounding too nice — after all, everyone loves summer! The same can’t be said for global boiling, which sounds like it’s going to turn us all into soup.

    Greenhushing

    When companies go quiet on their environmental commitments.

    greenwashing
    Courtesy: Mix and Match Studio via Canva

    A few short years ago, even oil companies were assuring everyone that they’d slash their emissions. But things started changing this year. Amazon, which famously named its Seattle sports and concert venue “Climate Pledge Arena,” quietly abandoned one of its key goals around shipping emissions, and oil majors scaled back their climate commitments. The trend of greenhushing has emerged as governments from California to the European Union are crafting regulations to counter false advertising around sustainability (often called “greenwashing”). Given that corporations such as Delta are getting taken to court over deceptive environmental marketing, many executives figure that silence is the safer option. Nearly a quarter of companies around the world are choosing not to publicize their milestones on climate action, according to a report from South Pole, a Switzerland-based climate consultancy that popularized the term greenhushing. While the practice makes it harder to scrutinize what companies are doing, some say greenhushing could be a good thing — after all, it’s stopping misleading advertisements. 

    Noctalgia

    The feeling of missing a dark night sky.

    Ever since humans started looking up, they’d see the starry arc of the Milky Way on a clear night. Nowadays, thanks to light pollution from cities, satellites, and even oil and gas production, our galaxy is becoming a rare sight. Artificial light messes with our sleep and confuses wildlife, and the absence of true darkness is also a loss for culture and science. In August, the astronomers Aparna Venkatesan from the University of San Francisco and John C. Barentine from Dark Sky Consulting came up with a new term to express the loss of dark night skies: noctalgia, or “sky grief.” It’s a play on “nostalgia” that uses the Latin prefix noct-, meaning night. “This represents far more than mere loss of environment: We are witnessing loss of heritage, place-based language, identity, storytelling, millennia-old sky traditions, and our ability to conduct traditional practices,” the duo wrote in a comment to the journal Science.

    RICO

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law made for the Mafia and organized crime — now being applied to oil companies.

    exxon spill
    Courtesy: GreenOak’s Images via Canva

    Eight years ago, investigations found that “Exxon Knew” about the dangers of burning fossil fuels in the 1970s, but worked to undermine the public’s understanding of climate science, sowing “uncertainty” about its effects. Since then, lawsuits against oil, gas, and coal companies have proliferated, most of them arguing that companies violated laws that protect people from deceptive advertising. But a new kind of climate lawsuit has emerged that uses a relic from the past: a federal RICO law passed in 1970 to take down organized crime. In November 2022, 16 towns in Puerto Rico accused Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies of violating the federal RICO law by colluding to conceal how their products contribute to climate change. Six months later, Hoboken, New Jersey, amended its complaint against Exxon and other companies to allege that they violated the state’s RICO law. Racketeering lawsuits have been successful against tobacco companies and pharmaceutical executives tied to the opioid epidemic. Former President Donald Trump and his allies were also hit with a RICO case in Georgia this year, accused of conspiring to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

    White hydrogen

    Naturally occurring hydrogen found underground.

    Hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel that could replace fossil fuels in a range of hard-to-decarbonize industries, from aviation to steelmaking. The problem is that the most abundant element in the universe isn’t normally found on its own, and turning it into a fuel to fly airplanes, for instance, takes lots of energy. There’s a whole rainbow of hydrogens out there, distinguished by how they’re made — expensive “green hydrogen” from renewables, “gray hydrogen” from methane gas, and “brown hydrogen” from coal. Then there’s white hydrogen, which isn’t made from anything at all. Scientists used to think that there weren’t big reserves of hydrogen buried underground, just waiting to be collected, but in recent years, they’ve been discovering more and more. Recently, some scientists looking for oil and gas reserves in France stumbled upon what could be one of the largest reservoirs of white hydrogen to date, containing somewhere within the stunningly wide range of 6 and 250 million metric tons. Untapped reserves in the United States, Australia, Mali, Oman, and parts of Europe could provide clean energy on a large scale — if all goes according to plan. Startups like Gold Hydrogen, based in Australia, and Koloma, based in Denver, are in the early stages of drilling for hydrogen and could be headed to production soon.

    This article by Grist is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.

    The post ‘Global Boiling’: 2023’s Term of the Year? appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • AXA & ClimateSeed Unveil Insurance Policy for Mangrove Forest Protection in Mexico

    climate change insurance
    6 Mins Read

    Mangrove forests in Mexico have undergone mass deforestation over the years, alongside hurricane damage that has adversely affected local populations, but a new insurance policy aims to protect the fishermen restoring swamps in the Yucatán Peninsula.

    In the last 20 years, 35% of the world’s mangrove forests have disappeared – that number rises to 70% in certain areas. This is due to a host of human causes and natural climate events, from deforestation and urbanisation to rising sea levels and cyclones.

    But even though the rate of mangrove forest loss has slowed in recent years, climate change and natural disasters are unpredictable, and can hit swamps and local communities hard. In fact, it’s estimated that a further 10-15% of mangroves could be lost by the end of the century, and this already results in damages worth $6-42B annually.

    To safeguard conservation efforts and protect the livelihoods of local populations in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, French insurance company AXA and environmental consultant ClimateSeed have introduced a climate insurance policy focusing on the San Crisanto mangrove forests.

    Why mangroves are a climate boon

    adaptation finance
    Courtesy: Storyteller/Canva

    Mangrove forests are unique wetland ecosystems and play a huge role in tackling climate change, reducing the impact of coastal flooding and supporting areas rich in biodiversity. They are powerful carbon sinks that have been capturing CO2 for over 5,000 years – in fact, they can store up to four times as much carbon as other tropical forests.

    These swamps are found in over 120 countries and cover 150,000 sq km in area, with over 100 million people living within 10km of large mangrove forests. They provide ecosystem services worth $33,000-57,000 a year, and one mangrove first in Mexico (which houses 6% of the world’s total) is actually the last remnant of a 110,000-year-old lost world.

    But, as mentioned above, mangroves are disappearing, through a combination of human acts like fish farming, coastal urbanisation and pollution, and natural disasters such as tropical cyclones, storms, erosion, and rising sea levels. The loss of these forests as a result of deforestation is taking away their ecosystem-supporting abilities. Mangroves also have a tricky relationship with the fossil fuel industry – they have been subject to oil spills, and in Mexico, the state-owned oil company Pemex defied a government order by felling protected mangroves for the construction of an $8B, president-ordered oil refinery.

    Meanwhile, in the Yucatán Peninsula (home to two-thirds of Mexico’s mangrove reserves), there’s a fisherman community of over 150 Mayan families, called San Crisanto. Their economic activity is built around 800 hectares of mangrove swamps through restoration and conservation activities, which have been financed through the sale of carbon credits, as well as the development of ecotourism.

    San Crisanto’s restoration project has captured about 48,000 tonnes of CO2 (in collaboration with local communities). Moreover, it has continued encouraging the implementation of a community-based sustainable development programme, alongside new sources of income. This demonstrates an ability for such initiatives to evolve into viable offset projects that can support local communities and natural habitats.

    However, this community has been highly exposed to climate stress – and not just recently. Case in point: in 2002, Hurricane Isidore destroyed 99% of the area’s mangroves, which gave way to heavy flooding and halted any local economic activity.

    AXA and ClimateSeed’s insurance policy for San Crisanto

    mexico mangroves
    Courtesy: Jplenio/Pixabay

    To strengthen San Crisanto’s climate resilience AXA Climate, AXA Seguros Mexico (the environmental and Mexcian arms of the insurer, respectively) and ClimateSeed have come up with a parametric insurance product specific to the restoration project’s requirements. Parametric insurances are index-based policies that guarantee a payout based on a specific, pre-determined event (like weather events) occurring, instead of calculating the exact losses suffered.

    AXA and ClimateSeed’s policy protects San Crisanto against hurricanes – as soon as one hits the protected area, a compensation of up to $100,000 is automatically triggered to the policyholder – i.e., the local community – for adaptation efforts to respond to the damages. The exact amount varies according to the wind strength and how close the hurricane is to the core of the protected area.

    The companies argue that this will help regenerate a thriving ecosystem, while ensuring the sustainability of the associated carbon offsets. “With this initial parametric insurance guarantee hinging on the restoration of mangrove forests, we’re taking an innovative step to serve local communities whose survival is intrinsically linked to these forests,” said AXA climate CEO Antoine Denoix.

    Sébastien Nunes, CEO of ClimateSeed, which has been a partner of the San Crisanto Foundation since 2020, added that this private-sector collaboration will “enable the foundation to further overcome the financial obstacles and continue with its commitment to the conservation and restoration of mangrove forests”.

    The need for climate adaptation finance

    axa climate
    Courtesy: Aris Leoven

    While much more investment is needed for climate change adaptation, it’s a positive sign from an insurance sector that has faced “mounting losses” due to extreme weather events. A 2019 survey of global insurance companies revealed that 72% believed climate change would affect their business, but 80% had not taken significant mitigation steps. More starkly, one estimate from last year said only 8% of insurers are preparing adequately to manage the impacts of the climate crisis.

    This is why AXA and ClimateSeed’s product is a critical piece of adaptation finance, which was announced during COP28. Here, such funding was in full focus as part of the Global Goal on Adaptation, which states that countries must have a detailed plan to adapt to climate change by 2025, and must show progress in implementing that strategy by 2030. It has also been criticised by nations for not going far enough.

    At a panel on women and climate resilience, former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton called for a reform of the insurance industry, with companies Increasingly withdrawing financial aid to protect against climate events. “We need to rethink the insurance industry,” she said. “Insurance companies are pulling out of so many places. They’re not insuring homes. They’re not insuring businesses.”

    To that point, Insurance Europe reconfirmed its commitment to tackle climate change and overcome “climate protection gaps”. Meanwhile, Mexico’s ministry of finance and public credit, the Insurance Development Forum, UNDP and the German government joined forces last year to develop an insurance programme for climate-vulnerable farmers, in a strong example of public and private sector partnerships for adaptation finance.

    AXA Seguros Mexico CEO Daniel Bandle noted how parametric coverage has been vital for resource provision and natural disaster adaptation in Mexico. Explaining how such insurance projects can act quickly, he said: “During Hurricanes Otis and Lidia, the small businesses covered under Ayuda Express Huracán received MXN 10,000 ($586) within 72 hours, and more than 1,430 farmers received MXN 2,200 ($129) per hectare damaged during Hurricane Agatha in 2022.”

    José Inés Loría Palma, president of the San Crisanto Foundation, added: “Our commitment as a community to nature commits us to putting our greatest effort and always looking for better alternatives for its conservation. Our mangroves are the essence of the community, without them San Crisanto disappears. Insuring the mangroves strengthens its permanence and gives more certainty to San Crisanto.”

    The post AXA & ClimateSeed Unveil Insurance Policy for Mangrove Forest Protection in Mexico appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • UK to Ban Imports of Essential Products Linked to Illegal Deforestation, But Concerns Over Scale & Producers Remain

    uk deforestation ban
    5 Mins Read

    At COP28, the UK announced its intention to ban imports of everyday essentials linked to illegal deforestation, which will affect large companies with high turnovers. But environmental experts and campaigners have raised questions about the scope of the legislation, and whether it goes far enough.

    A year after the EU announced its deforestation ban, its former member state has followed suit. The UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has set out its intention to prohibit the import of daily supermarket products that are linked to illegal deforestation, which puts restrictions on palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy.

    Announced on COP28’s Nature Day (December 9), the legislation is a secondary regulation, which is an additional law made under the primary law – in this case, the Environmental Act. The UK government says the deforestation ban will “protect the habitats of some of the world’s most precious and endangered species”, including orangutans, leopards, jaguars, tigers and others.

    But climate activists have raised concerns about the incoming ban, particularly regarding its scope and scale, as well as its impact on producers who rely on forests.

    Why the UK deforestation ban is important

    uk deforestation legislation
    Courtesy: Science Photo Library

    The deforestation ban “will give British shoppers assurance that the goods they buy are not contributing to deforestation that violates the laws and regulations of the countries where they come from”, according to the UK government. The focus on agriculture comes as it’s the biggest driver of deforestation – it accounts for 75% of the total. Defra says an area the size of the UK is ploughed up every year to meet the country’s demand for commodities.

    The products namechecked by the government include palm oil, soy and beef – together, they are responsible for 59% of all deforestation globally. While palm oil is the major driver of tropical deforestation, beef and soy are why Brazil tops the list of areas where most forests are felled, accounting for a third of the total share.

    In the first six months of the year, the UK imported 13,700 tonnes of beef from Brazil, while 57% of the soybeans imported for animal feed came from the South American giant in 2019. In fact, that year, the UK brought in over a million tonnes of soy linked to deforestation in South America, making up 40% of the crop’s total imports.

    This is why the forthcoming ban is important. The British government says it “marks a step change from voluntary approaches already in place, protecting the future of the world’s forests that we need to help tackle climate change, and their wildlife-rich canopies”. It ensures “shoppers can be confident that the money they spend is part of the solution, rather than part of the problem”, according to Environment Secretary Steve Barclay.

    “This will give confidence to British retailers and their customers alike, helping retailers meet their ambitious targets on deforestation and enable a greater supply of deforestation-free products in the UK,” added Andrew Opie, food and sustainability director at the British Retail Consortium. “Tackling deforestation requires global cooperation and we look forward to seeing further detail as to how the legislation will align with European proposals.”

    The EU ban he mentions was introduced last year, and included products like beef, soy, palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee, charcoal, and rubber, as well as some leather and furniture. A similar measure, the Forest Act, was proposed in the US in 2021, but it was stalled until earlier this month when it was reintroduced by policymakers in the House and Senate.

    What does the UK miss out on with its legislation?

    beef deforestation
    Courtesy: AI-Generated Image via Canva

    While the EU was praised for its efforts to clamp down on deforestation, its law came with its own problems, particularly with regard to Indigenous communities and populations relying on food exports as a primary source of income. Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil were among the critics, understandably, but so too were organisations like the WWF and Greenpeace, which said the EU’s definition of forest degradation wasn’t broad enough to include the conversion of primary forests to plantations. Moreover, the law allowed for clear-cutting if the land wasn’t converted to another use.

    The UK faces similar issues. The government had promised that high-deforestation-linked imports would be banned back at COP26, but had failed to act until now. One of the main issues is that this doesn’t apply to larger companies: Defra says the legislation will affect businesses that have a global annual turnover of over £50M and use over 500 tonnes of regulated commodities per year.

    While these companies will need to perform a due diligence exercise on their supply chains and face “unlimited variable monetary penalties”, environmental groups have criticised the scope of this ban. “Company turnover and local legality loopholes will still leave goods tainted with deforestation on our supermarket shelves,” said Alexandria Reid, senior global policy advisor at corporate watchdog Global Witness.

    She lamented the fact that coffee wasn’t on the list of products included in the ban – the crop is also linked to high rates of deforestation. “Ministers need to add this product as soon as possible so the UK public can rest assured their morning brews are deforestation-free,” she said.

    This was echoed by Clare Oxborrow, forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth, who said: “Products linked to illegal deforestation won’t be eradicated from UK supermarkets completely unless all high-risk commodities, including coffee, rubber and maize, are captured by the legislation.”

    She added: “What’s more, the proposed law only accounts for illegal deforestation, which is notoriously difficult to determine and could see some countries weakening their own protections to reduce the number of products impacted by the ban.”

    Reid noted that the UK’s legislation lags behind the EU’s, which bans products regardless of whether the deforestation practices they’re linked to are illegal. This can be seen in the EU’s landmark greenwashing ban too, finalised earlier this year, which prevents companies from making unsubstantiated environmental claims on products. The UK has no such law yet, though it has launched a guide to help companies avoid greenwashing. “We urge ministers to strengthen these laws to ensure we end commodity-driven deforestation by the 2025 global deadline.”

    The timeline point is pertinent, as Sophie Bennett, senior forests campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, pointed out: “The government has still not set a definite timeframe for laying the secondary regulations, only stating that they will be laid when parliamentary time allows.”

    “Given the urgency and scale of the climate and nature crisis, the UK really needs to respond with the appropriate level of ambition,” said Oxborrow, whose organisation is “campaigning for a new due diligence law to hold all companies to account for environmental harms and human rights abuses in their supply chains”.

    The post UK to Ban Imports of Essential Products Linked to Illegal Deforestation, But Concerns Over Scale & Producers Remain appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Bezos Earth Fund Commits $57M for Future Food Transformation as Part of $1B Climate Fund

    bezos earth fund
    5 Mins Read

    On the same day leaders around the world signed a COP28 declaration recognising the impact of food on climate change, the Bezos Earth Fund has announced a $57M grant towards tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and food security, which marks the beginning of a $1B climate funding pledge.

    The Bezos Earth Fund has earmarked $57M in food-related grants to tackle the threats of climate change and biodiversity loss and preserve the future of food, as part of a larger $1B commitment to mitigate the impact of the food system on climate change.

    Founded in 2020 through a $10B grant by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the fund is calling for a greater focus on food system transformation after 134 countries signed the COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action today, recognising. the link between food and agriculture and climate change.

    The food system contributes to a third of all global emissions and is a major focus of this year’s UN climate summit. The COP28 food declaration will see countries add the impact of food and land use in their nationally determined contributions and climate adaptation plans by COP30, which will be held in Belém do Pará, Brazil in 2025.

    Breaking down Bezos Earth Fund’s future food grant

    The Bezos Earth Fund says apart from the $57M allocated now, it intends to distribute the rest of the $943M funds to support the ambitious implementation of emerging global agendas on food systems and climate by 2030.

    Of the current grant, $30M will go to make livestock more sustainable – animal agriculture is currently responsible for 11-19.5% of all global emissions. This includes cutting livestock methane emissions by up to 30% in the next 10-15 years through a range of innovations, in partnership with the Global Methane Hub’s Enteric Methane R+D Accelerator. Additional grants will provide the capital to identify and develop low-methane feed and low-methane cattle breeding, as well as use a wearable sensor to measure cow methane emissions.

    bezos earth fund climate
    Courtesy: US Department of Interiors

    Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub, said time is of the utmost importance in terms of emissions reductions. “Initiatives like the Accelerator, which concentrate efforts on the highest emitting sector of methane emissions, will advance important research and help create long-term solutions on methane reduction, as well as ensure food and economic security of local communities that participate, particularly in the Global South.”

    A $16.3M portion of the fund will help limit Amazon deforestation, with plans to reach zero illegal deforestation in the Brazilian state of Pará within the next three years by creating what the Bezos Earth Fund claims will be the world’s largest animal traceability system. Teaming up with organisations like the Nature Conservancy, IMAFLORA, Earth Innovation Institute, and Aliança da Terra (among others), the initiative will be able to trace meat, dairy and leather to eliminate deforestation from value chains, and bring about “forest-positive incentives” for cattle farmers and ranchers.

    Another $8.3M, meanwhile, is earmarked to promote climate-smart agricultural practices. The Earth Fund is increasing its knowledge of soil ecosystems through seismology to assess carbon sequestration potential, facilitated by the Earth Rover Program. And teaming up with the Platform for Agriculture and Climate Transformation, the fund says it’s ensuring that federal financing in the US to decrease farm-level methane emissions reaches producers adopting climate-friendly practices.

    Finally, the remaining amount ($2.6M), will support efforts to tackle food loss and waste – a third of all food produced is wasted across the world – alongside the Food and Land Use Coalition. They will do so by setting up an alliance of nations that will work to transform food systems. Moreover, by partnering with the think tank Clim-Eat the Earth Fund will develop food tech innovations and bring together stakeholders to accelerate their deployment.

    “At COP28, it’s time to turn pledges and commitments into action and funding for innovative food solutions and food systems transformation,” said Andy Jarvis, director of future food at the Bezos Earth Fund. “Food isn’t just having a moment in COP28 – it’s the start of real momentum, and through the grants, we are announcing we will deliver that.”

    Addressing climate inequalities and food emissions

    jeff bezos
    Courtesy: International Conservation Caucus Foundation

    The fund has also collaborated with over 16 other philanthropies to sign a new statement of action, committing to invest, advocate and partner to tackle food security and sustainability, in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set out a goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. But this target is already in doubt, with current policies and consumption rates on course to reach 3°C, which will have a calamitous impact on the planet, especially on vulnerable populations.

    This $57M grant is part of a broader food portfolio by the Earth Fund to support innovations like low-cost virtual livestock fences and initiatives promoting plant-rich diets and alternative proteins. Research has shown that meat accounts for 60% of all food emissions. Moreover, further analysis has found that replacing just half of our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based alternatives can double climate benefits and halt deforestation while reducing the number of undernourished people globally by 3.6% to 31 million.

    A report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization – which will present a roadmap for agrifood systems’ pathway to 1.5°C at COP28 – earlier this month revealed that 70% of the food industry’s hidden costs are health-related, and a quarter linked to the climate, with low-income countries hit the hardest.

    climate change billionaires
    Courtesy: Oxfam/The Guardian

    And a study by Oxfam has suggested that the richest 1% of the world’s population are responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with emissions high enough to cause heat-related deaths of 1.3 million people in the coming decades. Bezos was third on the list of the multi-billionaires analysed, with the report finding that it would take the bottom 99% over 1,500 years to match the emissions of the top 1%.

    “We cannot afford for food to be on the sidelines of climate and nature conversations any longer. Food is a victim, problem, and solution in the climate and nature crises, and we must raise its profile in the discussion,” said Andrew Steer, CEO and president of the Bezos Earth Fund. “We applaud countries raising their ambitions, prioritising food in their climate goals, and urge them to go bigger and bolder. We need to do things differently to feed a growing global population without degrading the planet and now is the moment for action.”

    The post Bezos Earth Fund Commits $57M for Future Food Transformation as Part of $1B Climate Fund appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • COP28 Daily Digest: Everything You Need To Know in Food and Climate News – Day 2

    cop28 news
    5 Mins Read

    Welcome to Day 2 of #COP28. In our Green Queen COP28 Daily Digest, our editorial team curates the must-reads, the must-bookmarks and the must-knows from around the interwebs to help you ‘skim the overwhelm’.

    Headlines You Need To Know

    The COP-related news you cannot miss.

    UN SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS CALLS FOR COMPLETE FOSSIL FUEL PHASEOUT: António Guterres told AFP that COP28 should aim for a full phaseout of fossil fuel use to not just keep the 1.5°C goal alive, but “alive and well”. He warned of a “total disaster” if current trajectories persist.

    COUNTRIES SIGN DECLARATION TO INCLUDE FOOD AND LAND USE IN CLIMATE PLANS: In the first-ever COP resolution tackling the link between food production and climate change, 134 leaders including US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Brazil, China and the UK, have endorsed a declaration to transform the food system and include food and land use in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans by 2025’s COP30 summit.

    COP28 HOST UAE ANNOUNCES $30B CLIMATE FUND: UAE president Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed has announced a $30B investment fund for global climate solutions, which aims to bridge the climate finance gap and stimulate $250B of investment by 2030. It came after the Financial Times reported yesterday that the COP28 host was preparing to announce the fund.

    UK LEADERS TAKE SEPARATE PRIVATE JETS TO COP28: British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing fresh criticism after it emerged that he, Foreign Secretary David Cameron, and King Charles are taking separate private jets to Dubai. Sunak’s entourage has hit back and said it’s “not anti-flying”, citing its investment in Virgin Atlantic’s sustainable aviation fuel flight. The prime minister left after just 11 hours, by the way, before King Charles called this COP a “critical turning point”.

    STRIPE LAUNCHES PLATFORM TO PRE-ORDER CARBON REMOVAL TONS: FIntech platform Stripe has launched Climate Orders, which allows businesses to pre-order a specific number of carbon removal tons through its dashboard. Companies can also use the API to incorporate permanent carbon removal into their own climate offerings.

    CLIMATE REPORTER AMONG VOX LAYOFFS: As part of its latest round of job cuts, Vox let go of climate reporter Rebecca Leber yesterday, on the first day of the UN climate conference – she announced the news on social media. We just included one of her recent stories as a key resource to read in our Daily Digest yesterday.

    Key #COP28 Reports

    The food and climate reports you need to know about today.

    • Carbon Brief explores the impact of colonialism on climate change: Climate journalism outlet Carbon Brief has published an analysis exploring the impact of colonial rule on the climate crisis, as it was the ruling countries that made the decisions leading to historical emissions. The US still remains top – and by a mile – but many countries see their contributions rise as a result.
    • 77% of people want their governments to do what it takes for the climate: A 23-country survey by the Potential Energy Coalition has found that nearly four in five people (77%) agree with the statement: “It is essential that our government does whatever it takes to limit the effects of climate change. Just over 10% disagree. The US ranks the lowest out of the 23 countries in terms of policy support, a factor influenced by political polarisation.
    • Renewable energy commitments likely at COP28, but hopes for 1.5° remain low: BloombergNEF’s COP Tracker has suggested that commitments of tripling renewable energy are quite likely at this year’s summit, but countries are expected to score just under 4/10 for progress on the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.
    • SDG2 Advocacy Hub lays out four critical areas for food solutions: The SDG2 Advocacy Hub (for Zero Hunger) has laid out a four-point Good Food for All Plan, including bringing climate and food systems together, adaptation to build resilience, mitigation to secure the future, and aligning finance for transformational impact.

    Awesome Resources From Media Friends

    A curation of our favourite reads of the day – excellent guides, explainers and op-eds from around the web.

    Three things to watch at COP: Writing in TIME’s Climate is Everything newsletter, journalist Jeffrey Kluger lists three big things the magazine is watching at COP28: the global stock-tacking, a fossil fuel phaseout, and loss and damage funds.

    Loss and damage funds key to climate justice: Speaking of loss and damage funds, we love the Guardian’s explainer outlining just how important these are to deliver climate justice in developing countries at COP28.

    How to talk about COP: Forbes has published a handy guide detailing the history of the UN climate summit, who’s in charge, why it matters, and how to talk about COP (it’s a platform for the unheard, represents the absolute minimum, and it’s just a starting point).

    Watch CCNow’s guide to understanding carbon removal: Ahead of COP28, Covering Climate Now held a press briefing to explain everything about carbon removal – what it is, how it’s different from carbon storage, and how the two can help mitigate the climate crisis. Watch the hour-long discussion here.

    Lighter Green Fun

    Funny stuff, weird stuff, random stuff related to COP you may enjoy.

    Cli-fi to be previewed at COP28: There’s a climate fiction novel being previewed at COP28. Written by Steve Willis and Jan Lee, Fairhaven – A Novel of Climate Optimism is set in Asia and offers a more positive approach to climate adaptation and mitigation solutions.

    FT ad calls for fossil fuel phaseout: An advert in the Financial Times calls for an end to fossil fuels, saying over 200 businesses, 670 scientists, 100 cities, and 46 million health professionals stand united in that goal and calling on national governments to take a stand. The tagline is the killer: ‘Later is too late.’

    Rehab by drug dealers: On a LinkedIn post predicting that nothing useful will happen at the oil-baron-headed COP28 – with the note that climate action is occurring around the world, just outside the summit – one comment summed up the mood, calling the Dubai summit a “rehab session hosted by drug dealers”. You’ve got to laugh while you cry. This sentiment also seems to belong to climate activist Greta Thunberg shares the sentiment. The Swedish straight talker, who hasn’t indicated whether she’ll be attending (her social media is mum), previously described the conference as “blah, blah, blah”.

    Follow all our #COP28 coverage. Like what you’re reading? Share it!

    The post COP28 Daily Digest: Everything You Need To Know in Food and Climate News – Day 2 appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Cutting Out Meat Twice a Week Can Offset Almost All Your GHG Emissions from Flights: Report

    meat consumption report
    10 Mins Read

    Replacing 30% of meat consumption with plant-based alternatives could offset almost all of global aviation emissions, free up a carbon sink the size of India, and save all the cows alive in the US today, according to a new report by Profundo.

    “The benefits of a modest switch to plant proteins are huge,” says Nico Muzi, managing director of Madre Brava, who commissioned the report by Profundo. “The current food system incentivises producing and selling huge amounts of industrial meat, rather than more sustainable, healthier proteins. We need to turn the tide for our health and the health of our planet.”

    His words come following the study’s findings that a small switch (30%) in the consumption of beef, pork and chicken with whole foods and plant-based analogues from Impossible Foods (against a 2021 baseline) could save 728 million tons of CO2e annually, which is equal to nearly all global emissions from the aviation industry last year.

    livestock land use
    Courtesy: Madre Brava/Profundo

    Over three-quarters (77%) of the world’s habitable land is used for animal agriculture. Cutting just under a third of our meat consumption would free up 3.4 million sq km of farmland – which is an area bigger than India – and restore it to nature to boost biodiversity and absorb carbon emissions. In addition, the report highlights the high water footprint of livestock farming, with the 30% switch saving 18.9 cubic km of water, equivalent to 7.5 million Olympic-sized swimming pools per year.

    And it’s not just the environment, of course. Doing so would help save 420 million pigs, over 22 billion chickens and 100 million cows, which would be the same as sparing all cows alive in the US today.

    “A 30% reduction in meat is in line with the widely shared goal of a global 50% reduction by 2040,” says Muzi. “While this goal is global, the exact meat reduction targets will need to be tailored to specific regions or countries based on the relative consumption and emissions.”

    The report chimes with similar research published last month, which found that swapping 50% of meat and dairy for plant-based alternatives could reduce agricultural and land-use emissions by 31%, halt deforestation and double overall climate benefits.

    North America leads red meat consumption, followed by Europe and South America

    eat lancet meat
    Courtesy: Madre Brava/Profundo

    The proposed 30% shift model only applies to countries where meat consumption is higher than the recommended daily intake by scientists and organisations like the Eat-Lancet Commission. Profundo’s analysis of Eat-Lancet data found that Americans eat over six times more red meat than advised by the commission – by far the higher of all other regions.

    There are two main issues here, according to Muzi. The first is the severe underreporting of the “climate-meat nexus” in US media – a Faunalytics report found that only 7% of all climate stories mention animal agriculture. “It’s hard for the public to know about the oversized role of meat in driving climate change if they are not informed about it,” he says. That perhaps explains why 40% of Americans don’t believe eating less red meat would help climate change, a number that rises to 74% for overall meat consumption according to a separate study.

    The other problem is the power of the meat lobby. Livestock farming receives 800 times more funding than plant-based companies in the US, according to a study that suggests the “gigantic power” of the meat and dairy lobby is blocking the rise of sustainable alternatives. “There is a well-funded communications machine coming from the meat and dairy industry to promote the sustainability of livestock, and even to push misinformation,” says Muzi.

    “Borrowing heavily from the playbook of the oil industry, media reporting and exposés have shown that big meat processors and dairy corporations use their abundant financial resources to manipulate the facts and sow doubts about climate science on animal products,” he adds, pointing to research revealing that the 10 largest livestock companies in the US “have contributed to research that minimises the link between animal agriculture and climate change”.

    North America is followed by Europe and Latin American countries Argentina and Brazil, which eat more than four times the recommended amount of red meat. So even with a 30% switch to plant-based alternatives, people will still be able to consume more red meat than is advised.

    Overall, meat consumption has increased globally in the past few decades, with high intakes concentrated in a few regions, according to the study. The US, Australia, Argentina and Brazil accounted for over 100kg of meat eaten per capita each year, as opposed to an average of 75kg in the EU and the UK, and less than 5kg in India, Bangladesh or Burundi.

    Meat consumption is set to increase

    meat consumption stats
    Courtesy: Madre Brava/Profundo

    In the sea of reports outlining the graveness of continued meat-eating rates, counter research by the livestock lobby, and consumer confusion from contradictory research and misinformation, meat consumption already rose by 19% from 2011-21. Now, an ever-growing global population, higher incomes in developing economies, and better life expectancy rates to a further rise in meat intake, according to Profundo.

    According to the OECD-FAO, global poultry consumption is set to increase by 15% by 2032, with pork consumption expected to grow by 11% and beef by 10%. Profundo stresses that the only way to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goals is to reduce industrial meat consumption and production. Strategies to address this have included reducing livestock’s emissions intensity by, for example, changing the digestive fermentation process in methane-producing ruminant animals.

    But these measures don’t do much. “Even the most optimistic estimates of emissions reductions from intensification and efficiency measures are not enough to bring protein production in line with climate goals. As such, structural solutions focused on making sustainable proteins the cheapest, easiest choice for consumers are critical,” explains Muzi.

    “Greater attention needs to be paid to a protein transition, alongside exploring sustainable intensification and methane mitigation technologies,” he adds. How can we do so? “We need to incentivise these products by ensuring they are as cheap, healthy, and convenient as industrial meat products. To do that, we need to level the playing field between animal-based and plant-based products in terms of public and private sector support.”

    Muzi continues: “For example, in most countries around the world, meat and dairy production is heavily subsidised and receives public funding for promotion and advertising. In some cases, value-added tax is higher for plant-based foods than it is for meat and dairy products by an order of magnitude.”

    He points to how public investment in alt-protein R&D is “significantly lower” (97% in the EU and 95% in the US) than it is for livestock. “Such policy choices run counter to all corporate and governmental efforts made to reverse the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity.”

    Going meatless twice a week in the EU & UK has tremendous benefits

    plant based ham
    Courtesy: Heura

    If people stop eating meat for two days a week – “Meatless Mondays… and Tuesdays”, as Profundo puts it – in the UK and EU, replacing it with a mix of whole foods and vegan analogues, it could wave 81 million tons of CO2e. This is the same as removing about a quarter (65 million) of all cars in the UK and EU. Doing so would free up land larger than the UK and save 2.2 cubic km of water – or 880,000 swimming pools worth of water per year.

    The problem, however, is that Europeans eat 1.4kg of meat each week, which is 80% higher than the global average. Factory farming plays a big role in the region’s emissions, over a third (36%) of which are linked to food, with animal products accounting for 70% of this. Alongside dairy, meat production in the EU – which is set to grow until 2030 – is the single largest source of methane emissions.

    Muzi outlines how it’s not just meat-eating that needs to be reduced. Dairy is a massive issue too, and cutting down its intake is necessary to “achieve climate stability” and will be key to ensuring “food security for a growing global population, protection for biodiversity, water availability, reduced air pollution, human health improvements, and better animal welfare”.

    “Part of our theory of change is that reducing total beef production and consumption will also support reducing production and consumption of dairy since the industries are linked,” he notes. “For example, in the US and the EU, a major portion of beef – particularly for low-quality meat – comes from dairy cows. As such, driving down demand for beef will reduce the offtake demand for dairy cattle, and impact the profitability of the dairy industry.”

    And while a 30% reduction will still mean Europeans will eat more meat than recommended, “it’s in line with a progressive reduction in the decades to come to achieve net-zero by 2050 in the EU”.

    Big Food has a big role to play

    mcdonald's mcplant
    Courtesy: McDonald’s

    The report looked at the role of meat producers, foodservice giants and retailers in meat consumption too. In 2021, Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef Packing alone controlled between 55-85% of the beef, pork and chicken markets in the US. The top 20 meat producers account for 15% of the global slaughtering of cattle, chickens and pigs.

    But a 30% reduction in the production of meat from these animals by these companies could result in a reduction of 150 million tons of CO2e – nearly the annual GFG emissions of the Netherlands. Moreover, about a million sq km of land would be freed, and 3.6 cubic km of water would be saved.

    In terms of retailers and foodservice companies like Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco, Ahold Delhaize, CP All and Sodexo, substituting half of all meat sales with plant-based foods like tofu, pulses, mycoprotein or fermentation-based alternatives could save 31.6 million tons of CO2e, 102,000 sq km of land, and 0.67 cubic km of water.

    Meanwhile, a 50% substitution of beef sales at McDonald’s, which is responsible for 1.5% of global annual beef production, with a mix of alt-proteins would save 15 million tons of CO2e (the equivalent of the annual emissions of Slovenia), free up 84,000 sq km of land (equalling the surface area of Austria), and conserve 0.2 cubic km of water (over 80,000 swimming pools’ worth).

    But a big problem with meat companies is aggressive political lobbying to thwart the alt-protein sector, as evidenced by recent investigations into the effect of the animal agriculture lobby on work by the UN FAO and the EU. Muzi cites research uncovering how “taken as a share of each company’s total revenue over those time periods [2000-18], Tyson has spent more than double what Exxon has on political campaigns and 21% more on lobbying.” 

    Switching from meat to plant-based could produce 14 times more protein

    meat production report
    Courtesy: Madre Brava/Profundo

    Profundo modelled two uses of farmland to find out how protein production could be impacted by a moderate shift from animal-derived to plant-based meat: it assessed the production of beef and a mix of brands, oats, peas and soybeans.

    The report found that the same area of land can yield enough beef to satisfy the needs of 2% of the global population as it can produce plant protein crops that could satisfy 28% of the world. It aligns with similar research that revealed how 63% of the world’s total protein supply comes from plant-based food.

    As some cattle-rearing land is unsuitable for crop cultivation (like pastures in hilly areas), the shift from beef to plant proteins could additionally free up 1.3 million sq km of land, an area the size of France, Germany and Italy combined, which can help absorb carbon and boost biodiversity.

    “Meat is a very inefficient way of producing cheap sustainable proteins for a growing world population,” says Muzi. “For food security reasons, world leaders should be looking at boosting the production of protein crops and reducing the production of beef.”

    He posits public procurement in schools as an example: “Governments can ensure plant-based proteins are offered to schools to help students understand healthy diets, and reduce consumption of high processed foods high in fat, sugar, and sodium. In many cases, plant-based offerings can also be cheaper to support the high volume needs of public schooling.”

    Some companies are coming up with blended and hybrid meat products, mixing conventional meat with vegetables or plant-based alternatives. Could these innovations help drive the transition? Definitely, says Muzi: “Blended products are an important way of introducing plant-based and alternative proteins without having to introduce entirely new products. Ultimately, we want meat eaters to reduce their meat consumption,” he adds. “Ideally, blends are a gateway for dedicated meat-eaters to increasingly reduce their meat consumption and move towards more sustainable diets.”

    Muzi touches upon how people’s attitudes and choices have been shaped by the food industry for decades, and implores these corporations to encourage the selection of alt-protein. “Currently, companies and governments incentivise widespread purchasing of cheap, high-emission, unhealthy meat products through pricing, advertising, and product placement among others,” he says.

    “The onus should not be put on consumers to choose these products out of their own good will – and such an approach will continue to make plant-based and alternative proteins a niche product for wealthy consumers,” Muzi adds. “Instead, we can view the issue as a systemic problem in which subsidies, taxes, public procurement and corporate strategies can shift to newly incentivised plant-based and alternative proteins.”

    The post Cutting Out Meat Twice a Week Can Offset Almost All Your GHG Emissions from Flights: Report appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Bad Bovina: Food Sector Responsible for 74% of Brazil’s GHG Emissions – With Beef the Major Contributor

    brazil emissions
    4 Mins Read

    In Brazil, the food industry is responsible for nearly three-quarters (74%) of total greenhouse gas emissions – and beef is associated with a huge chunk of it, according to a new report.

    The study, released by Brazilian environmental group Climate Observatory, revealed that in 2021, the country emitted 1.8 billion tons of greenhouse gases to produce food, and beef was connected with 78% of this figure. The share of emissions linked to the food industry is more than double the global estimate, which is thought to be responsible for a third of all anthropogenic emissions.

    Another report by the organisation – published last year – found that the country’s emissions saw a 12.2% hike in 2021 – the highest rise in 19 years. Brazil is the world’s second-largest beef producer (behind the US) and the biggest exporter of beef and soy. The latest research said that its beef industry alone would be the world’s seventh largest greenhouse gas emitter, surpassing the likes of entire countries like Japan.

    Big beef, big emissions

    The emissions associated with beef manufacturing in Brazil included those linked with livestock farming and pollution from beef packing plants. According to a landmark 2018 study by researchers at Oxford University, beef is the highest-emitting food by a distance – with emissions twice as high as the next food on the list, dark chocolate (and that’s not including beef derived from dairy herds).

    food greenhouse gas emissions
    Courtesy: Our World in Data

    A big reason behind these numbers may be that Brazil is home to the world’s largest meat company in JBS. The producer’s image is littered with greenwashing and ethical controversies involving its climate impact, labour issues and animal abuse.

    Last year, a study found that JBS’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 50% in the five years prior as it acquired new poultry and livestock units. This meant that – despite pledging to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 – it had a larger environmental footprint than Italy (JBS denied these figures and called them inaccurate).

    The company, whose revenues top $72B according to Forbes, has also been in the news recently after calls by climate activists to halt its planned US IPO emerged in August, who labelled it the “biggest climate risk IPO listing in history”.

    The Rainforest Action Network listed the accusations labelled at JBS over the last 15 years: “Illegality; deforestation; invasion and land grabbing of Indigenous and traditional territories; land conflicts and violence against rights defenders, slavery and labour abuses in its supply chain; lack of traceability; corruption; and greenwashing.”

    jbs ipo
    Courtesy: JBS

    Amazon deforestation reaching tipping point

    The new report by Climate Observatory factored in deforestation and changes in land use, methane emissions from cow burps, and energy use and waste from agricultural and industrial processes. It outlined that most of the food industry’s emissions in Brazil don’t come directly from food production, but instead from the felling of land to convert native vegetation into farms and pastures, which is the main source of carbon release in the country.

    Deforestation in the Amazon – the majority of which took place in Brazil in 2021 – has brought it close to a climate tipping point. Climate Observatory revealed last year that former president Jair Bolsonaro’s reign from 2019-22 saw a 60% increase in the rainforest’s deforestation compared to the four years before, the highest increase among presidential terms since records began in 1988.

    “The Bolsonaro regime was a forest-burning machine. The outgoing President was sworn in with deforestation at 7,500 sq km and is stepping out with 11,500 sq km,” Climate Observatory executive secretary Marcio Astrini said at the time. “The only good news here is precisely that he is stepping out.”

    According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the rainforest, contributing to 80% of forest destruction and 340 million tons of carbon emissions annually. And JBS is among the biggest drivers of Amazon deforestation, with its slaughterhouses in the region more than doubling between 2009 and 2020.

    jbs deforestation
    Courtesy: Mighty Earth/AidEnvironment

    Research by Mighty Earth and AidEnvironment estimates that the meat giant’s total deforestation footprint “in six Brazilian states since 2008 may be as high as 200,000 hectares in its direct supply chain and some 1.5 million hectares in its indirect supply chain”. The organisations identified 68 cases of deforestation linked to JBS’s beef supply chain, covering an area of over 125,000 hectares – almost equivalent to that of São Paulo or London.

    “This report should be read by agribusiness representatives and the government as a wake-up call,” said Astrini. “It demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that agribusiness will determine whether Brazil is a climate hero or villain.”

    The post Bad Bovina: Food Sector Responsible for 74% of Brazil’s GHG Emissions – With Beef the Major Contributor appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • WWF: ‘Everyone Has a Role to Play in Tackling the Global Water Crisis’

    wwf water
    7 Mins Read

    The annual economic value of water and freshwater ecosystems is estimated to be $58T, the equivalent of about 60% of the world’s GDP, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Not only does the degradation of water bodies endanger their economic value, it threatens food security, human health and environmental sustainability.

    As the horrific situation in Israel continues, the two million residents of Gaza are at risk of running out of water, with Israel cutting off water and electricity supply after attacks by the militant group Hamas. This means people are now forced to use dirty water from wells, exacerbating the risk of waterborne illnesses in a region that has long struggled with water contamination and freshwater shortage. As Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the UN Relief and Works Agency, puts it: “It has become a matter of life and death.”

    The water crisis is impacting all parts of the world. In the EU, 30% of the population has been impacted by shortages in the last few years. The region has lost up to 90% of its floodplains in recent centuries, while 60% of its rivers, lakes and other surface water bodies are not in good condition. This is set to continue, with 90% of EU waterbeds expected to still be unhealthy by 2027.

    And in the US, the mayor of New Orleans, Louisiane recently declared a state of emergency over high salt concentrations in the drought-hit Mississippi River, a year after Mississippi state capital Jackson saw its largest water treatment platform fail, leaving its 160,000 residents without safe drinking water.

    These are just a handful of examples of how the water crisis is impacting the planet and its people – and if you listen to the WWF, it says that this calamity threatens food security, climate change and the global economy. Since 1970, the world has lost a third of its remaining wetlands, while freshwater wildlife populations have fallen by 83% on average.

    These are “disastrous trends”, the WWF says, which have led to an undermining of global efforts to reverse nature loss and adapt to climate change’s effects, from droughts to floods. Today, half of the world’s population experiences water scarcity every month, while 55 million people face annual droughts.

    The water crisis affects everyone and everything

    wwf water report
    Courtesy: WWF

    The new report by WWF, The High Cost of Cheap Water, finds that the direct economic benefits of freshwater ecosystems – like water consumption for households, irrigated agriculture and industries – amount to a minimum of $7.5T annually. Additionally, unseen benefits, such as purifying water, enhancing soil health, storing carbon and protecting communities from extreme floods and droughts are valued seven times higher at $50T per year.

    The problem, as you may have already guessed, is that these ecosystems are in a “downward spiral”. The degradation of rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers is a threat to this economic value, as well as the crucial role they play in sustaining human and planetary health.

    “Water and healthy freshwater ecosystems underpin our societies and economies, and are fundamental to human and planetary health,” WWF’s global freshwater lead Stuart Orr tells Green Queen. “The worsening water crisis – from increasing water scarcity to floods and pollution – is leading to increasing numbers of people facing water and food shortages, which undermine health and wellbeing and livelihoods.

    “But the water crisis goes beyond that. Water risks to businesses and investors are increasing, with more operations being impacted by floods, droughts and poor water quality, while more assets are being left stranded and drowned.”

    She reiterates WWF’s point that healthy water bodies are crucial for people and the planet. “Peatlands, for example, are a significant carbon sink, while healthy freshwater ecosystems help to defend our communities and cities from extreme floods and build resilience to droughts,” explains Orr. “Freshwater ecosystems are our life-support systems. Protecting and restoring them is essential to our future and to hopes for sustainable development.”

    The water crisis and food insecurity go hand-in-hand

    food shortage
    Courtesy: Monica Todica via Canva

    One of the primary threats to rivers and floodplains (and, incidentally, climate change too!) is agriculture – more specifically, unsustainable farming practices. The World Bank says this sector accounts for 70% of all freshwater used by humanity. Over-extraction for crop irrigation reduces water availability for other uses and contributes to shortages.

    Meanwhile, lands used for intensive agriculture occupy territories of former floodplains – this has led to lower purification levels as well as flood and risk capacities of rivers. Moreover, the excessive use of fertilisers creates diffuse pollution, which affects both surface and groundwater.

    The WWF says the destruction of these ecosystems, combined with poor water management, has left billions worldwide with a lack of access to clean water and sanitation. Meanwhile, economic risks are growing – by 2050 around 46% of the global GDP could come from areas facing high water risks, up from 10% today.

    “Threats to river systems are threats to food security,” says Irene Lucius, regional conservation director at WWF Central and Eastern Europe. “Only by protecting and restoring rivers and their active and former floodplains, keeping water in the landscape with natural water retention measures can we hope to maintain the productivity of agricultural systems into the future.”

    How can we do so? “We must support nature-positive food production; maintain free-flowing rivers; apply sustainable land use practices better adapting to natural conditions and facilitating natural water retention; and adopt diets that reduce demand for products that strain freshwater resources,” explains Lucius.

    Orr adds: “Degraded rivers and wetlands can be restored. There are lots of examples across the world, including the remarkable growth in the dam removal movement in recent years. Removing obsolete dams and other barriers from rivers is a swift and proven way to boost biodiversity and resilience and restore rivers. Peatlands can be re-wetted, floodplains can be reconnected to their rivers.”

    Governments need to update their thinking

    water shortage
    Courtesy: Johannes Plenio/Pexels

    The report, published on World Food Day (October 16), points to how our food system damages our water system. “Our current food production practices are not only harming the freshwater ecosystems, but are also identified as the primary contributors to biodiversity loss and climate change. They are causing land erosion and reducing the capacity of landscapes to deal with water scarcity and droughts,” explains Lucius. “Yet the food industry can drive a positive change by embracing leading sustainability practices.”

    The WWF is calling on governments, businesses and financial institutions to intervene and step up their investment in sustainable water infrastructure. “Governments across the world have invested huge amounts to try and ensure water for all,” notes Orr.

    “But what they – and decision-makers from business and finance – invariably fail to do is value, prioritise and invest in freshwater ecosystems, which store and supply water as well as provide a diversity of other values – many of which have no [economic] value, but are essential for cultures and communities. Decision-makers need to urgently wake up to the fundamental value of water and healthy freshwater ecosystems to societies and economies.”

    In addition, the WWF cautions against “outdated thinking” on water solutions. “Decision-makers have always relied on built, concrete infrastructure to provide with water for drinking, irrigation and energy, and to reduce the impact of floods. But it is clear that we can no longer rely solely on built, concrete infrastructure,” explains Orr.

    “The worsening water crisis, degradation of nature and disruptions to the water cycle caused by climate change mean that decision-makers need a new approach – one that relies on the best overall mix of built infrastructure and nature-based Solutions, including investing in protecting and restoring rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers, to store more water in nature for dry time, mitigate floods and pave the way for a net-zero, nature-positive and resilient future.”

    The need for collaboration

    water scarcity
    Courtesy: Wild Wonders of Europe/Ruben Smit/WWF

    One solution is the Freshwater Challenge, a nations-led initiative aiming to restore 300,000km of degraded rivers and 350 million hectares of degraded wetlands globally by 2030, as well as protect intact freshwater ecosystems. Launched at the UN Water Conference in March, it will help countries develop their national targets and secure the funding to achieve them – the challenge has been selected as an official Water Outcome at COP28.

    “It is a challenge that all countries should join,” states Orr, “as restoring so many degraded rivers and wetlands will boost water and food security, and global efforts to tackle nature and climate crises and achieve the SDGs.”

    He adds: “We need to remember that water doesn’t come from a tap – it comes from nature. Water for all depends on healthy freshwater ecosystems, which are also the foundation of food security, biodiversity hotspots and the best buffer and insurance against intensifying climate impacts. Reversing the loss of freshwater ecosystems will pave the way to a more resilient, nature-positive and sustainable future for all.”

    Orr concludes by saying that everyone has a role to play in tackling the water crisis: “Decision-makers in government, business and finance will have the most impact, but citizens must play their part – by educating others on the scale and urgency of the water crisis, embracing mindful consumption, supporting [the] conservation of freshwater ecosystems, championing water stewardship at work, and, where possible, advocating for change.

    The post WWF: ‘Everyone Has a Role to Play in Tackling the Global Water Crisis’ appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Coffee Crops Are Facing An Existential Crisis – Here’s How Starbucks is Helping

    starbucks climate change
    9 Mins Read

    It may be PSL season, but coffee as we know it is changing (for the worse), and we need solutions – how can Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee chain, help mitigate the impact of climate change on our morning routines?

    If you’re like me, you probably survive on that iced latte in the morning. I genuinely feel like a new person with that first sip of coffee, having spent a few minutes using my Aeropress and shaking out my oat milk to create a silky, foamy texture. I love that part of my morning.

    But my daily routine is under threat. In a few decades, I might not have much coffee to brew, because there wouldn’t be much grown. At least the really good kind – arabica, one of the two main species of coffee produced and consumed around the world (the other being robusta) could go extinct by 2050, according to one study.

    It’s not a great look for the rest either: of the 124 known coffee species, 75 (that’s 60%) are under the threat of extinction. And if that’s not enough for you, the amount of coffee-growing land – essentially a ‘belt’ that lies between the tropics – will be halved by the end of the century.

    This is all thanks to climate change. But the challenges don’t end there: coffee and our (read: my) demand for it are not great for the environment either. So it’s a two-way problem: our insatiable appetite for coffee is being hampered by an increasingly fraught supply chain.

    Coffee is amongst the highest-emitting foods in the world, topped only by dark chocolate and red meats like lamb, mutton and beef (which is the worst food for the planet). Even so, when it comes to emissions per 1,000 kcal, coffee ranks top of the list – yes, even higher than beef.

    According to Our World in Data, in terms of carbon opportunity costs – “the amount of carbon lost from native vegetation and soils in order to produce each food” – coffee only comes behind meats like sheep, goat, beef and buffalo, and cocoa beans.

    coffee climate change
    Courtesy: Starbucks

    So what do we do?

    I learnt a lot of these stats when I was working at Starbucks as a barista. I was lucky enough to work in some of the company’s Reserve stores, which meant that we learnt more about where its coffee comes from, as we often hosted workshops for corporate clients and the public.

    As the largest coffee company in the world, Starbucks says it buys 3% of all coffee grown from 400,000 farmers in 30 countries, to supply its over 36,000 stores (that’s about three times higher than Dunkin, the next biggest). Given its significant footprint – both environmentally and commercially – the company has a responsibility to ensure its operations are as sustainable as possible.

    In 2020, it laid out its 2030 Sustainability Plan, where it pledged a 50% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, water withdrawal, and waste sent to landfill. In 2021, it made a further commitment to conserve its water usage for green coffee processing by 50%, and switch to carbon-neutral green coffee by 2030.

    And while these steps are a good start, they can only really be quantified with real action. So for a company famous for its green logo and aprons, how green are its operations and its supply chain?

    We contacted Starbucks to find out more; here are six ways it says it’s fighting the climate (and coffee) crisis.

    Plans for a dedicated sustainability learning & innovation hub

    A decade ago, Starbucks purchased the Hacienda Alsacia farm in Costa Rica, which is to date the only coffee farm owned by the company. This is the company’s global agronomy headquarters for research and development, and earlier this year, it announced plans to develop a sustainability learning and innovation hub in partnership with Arizona State University.

    The programming for this hub is set to begin this autumn and is expected to open within the next three years. “The lab will serve as a hub for hands-on and virtual learning opportunities for Starbucks partners (employees), students, researchers and industry leaders to innovate and scale sustainable solutions for some of the world’s most challenging environmental and social issues, including climate adaption and agricultural economics,” explains the company on its website.

    starbucks sustainability
    Courtesy: Starbucks

    Crop innovation: developing climate-resistant coffee beans

    Starbucks made headlines this month when it announced it had developed six arabica tree varietals that could withstand climate change. It would be giving away the seeds of these new coffee breads to suppliers and farmers for free, irrespective of whether these farmers sell to Starbucks.

    “These varietals were developed over a decade of research and testing by the Starbucks agronomy team. They are naturally resistant to diseases like coffee leaf rust [and] some of the impacts of climate change, and were also selected for their excellent taste and high yield,” a company spokesperson tells Green Queen.

    The company says its work goes beyond making coffee – it has a responsibility to care for its supply chain and the people making its business operations possible, from farmer to consumer. “We believe our varietals program is key to a healthy supply of coffee and our business for the next 50 years,” the spokesperson adds.

    Farmers receive a catalogue with information on all six varietals, which lists the flavour notes, altitudes and harvesting times, among other information. For all the new breeds, it will take between two to three years until first production – and five of them are tolerant to coffee leaf rust too, which can be devastating to plantations and whose effects are amplified by climate change.

    Along similar lines, Starbucks has an open-source agronomy programme, featuring a core collection of 617 different coffee hybrids and varietals, which are free to use for any coffee farmer. About three million coffee seeds are distributed from the core collection to farmers per year.

    When asked about the impact of the sugar supply chain disruption on its operations, or how a potential Amazon dieback might affect it (given Latin America is Starbucks’ largest source of coffee), the spokesperson did not go into specifics. The company did not comment on the new wave of beanless coffee startups either.

    10 Farmer Support Centers set up across coffee-growing regions

    starbucks cafe practices
    Courtesy: Starbucks

    Walking the talk, Starbucks operates 10 Farmer Support Centers in key coffee-producing regions to help find solutions to the challenges faced by farmers, including those induced by climate change. The programme sees the company’s agronomists work one-on-one with farmers in the field to enhance quality and profitability.

    “The primary goals of the agronomy team are to research and develop new coffee varieties, produce and distribute seeds of these coffee varieties, evaluate microorganisms to control pests and diseases, and train farmers on new coffee varieties, disease and pest management, and coffee nutrition,” says the spokesperson.

    “Since first opening our Farmer Support Center in North Sumatra in 2015, we continue to grow relationships with farming communities to support sustainable, profitable and transparent coffee-growing practices, while supporting the welfare of coffee farmers, workers, their families and communities,” says Laura Elphick, director of partner and coffee engagement at Starbucks Asia-Pacific.

    For example, the Farmer Support Centers in north Sumatra, Indonesia – the fourth-largest coffee-producing nation in the world – work with farming communities across the Aceh province, and other regions like Flores, Sulawesi, west and east Java, and Bali.

    “The number of farmers participating in C.A.F.E. Practices [its Coffee and Farmer Equity programme] continues to grow, with over 55,000 coffee farmers with C.A.F.E. Practices status in Indonesia,” she adds.

    100 million coffee tree donations by 2025

    Starbucks has promised to provide 100 million healthy coffee trees to farmers by 2025, using its green coffee purchasing power. This is to help ensure that healthy, rust-resistant trees are planted each year in the regions most ravaged by climate change.

    “Since 2017, more than 9.5 million climate-tolerant coffee trees have [been] distributed globally through Starbucks’ 100 million tree commitment to date,” says the spokesperson.

    “In addition to the work we are leading globally, Starbucks APAC is working closely with the Indonesia market to donate coffee tree seeds to coffee farming communities across Indonesia, with 560,000 donated since the initiative began in 2017.”

    eco wet mills
    Courtesy: Joshua Trujillo/Starbucks

    Water conservation: eco wet mills

    To produce one cup of coffee, it takes 140 litres of water, according to one estimate. How is Starbucks addressing its water footprint? To meet its 2030 goal to halve water withdrawal and usage for green coffee, it has contracted over 1,300 eco wet mills, which depulp the outer cherry from the coffee beans with minimal water.

    “By using eco wet mills, Starbucks has an opportunity to conserve water by ensuring farmers have access to more environmentally-friendly machines, which also standardises quality and increases processing efficiency for farmers,” the spokesperson says. “The preliminary results have demonstrated up to 90% water savings are possible in coffee processing using the new equipment.”

    Continuous improvements on the plant-based menu front

    “While we have done so much to innovate and invest in coffee at Starbucks, we know there is still much work left to do,” notes the spokesperson.

    One area where it can do so, in fact, is plant-based milk. Starbucks still puts an added premium on non-dairy milk options for coffee (unless it’s soy milk), despite widespread calls for the company to get rid of the surcharge. While the company has listened – or been forced to listen – in a few countries, its home market of the US still carries this added cost.

    When we asked Starbucks about this, its spokesperson pointed to a page on its website showcasing the strides it has made in terms of vegan food and drink offerings, adding: “Customers can choose to customise any beverage with a non-dairy milk on the menu for an additional charge. This is similar to other beverage customisations, such as an additional espresso shot or syrup (pricing varies by market).”

    But plant-based milk shouldn’t be charged as a ‘customisation’ – for many people, who are either reducing their dairy consumption by choice or are intolerant to it, it’s a swap, not an added feature to their coffee. Starbucks says it “continues to introduce new and seasonal drinks with non-dairy milk as the standard recipe” – but it could do better by charging alt-milk just as they do ‘standard’ milk.

    vegan starbucks
    Courtesy: Starbucks

    So yes, while Starbucks is making progress on its sustainability goals, it can – like all large companies – do more. The company has made some strides in packaging too – it opened a zero-waste store fitted with repurposed materials in Shanghai in 2021, and introduced a reusable cup-sharing initiative in Japan, before launching a global campaign to serve its handcrafted drinks in reusable cups in September of that year but

    In addition, it allocated £1.4M ($1.6M) to six projects in the UK in partnership with environmental charity Hubbub to reduce packaging and single-use waste in the food and beverage industry. And in 2020, it followed through on a 2018 pledge to eliminate plastic straws and replace them with paper variants.

    “Whether it’s in the areas of coffee development, reducing coffee’s impact on the environment, helping farmers be more profitable, supporting coffee communities or using our platforms to tell great stories about coffee,” says the Starbucks spokesperson, “we will continue to use our scale for good as we work together to ensure a sustainable future for coffee for all.”

    The post Coffee Crops Are Facing An Existential Crisis – Here’s How Starbucks is Helping appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Future Medicines May Be Threatened by Plant Extinction, Report Warns

    Forty-five percent of the world’s known flowering plants and 68 percent of cycads, or cone-bearing plants, are at risk of extinction, a new report warns. “We’re looking at over 100,000 species that are threatened — that’s more than the total number of species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, all of our vertebrates put together,” said Matilda Brown, a conservation analyst and one of the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Could the Next Pandemic Hit Crops Instead of People?

    11 Mins Read

    Genetic uniformity is central to modern farming. It leaves us vulnerable to plant disease breakouts.

    By Saima Sidik Grist

    This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

    The Mystery of Bipolaris Maydis

    Nobody really knows how the fungus Bipolaris maydis got into the cornfields of the United States. But by summer of 1970, it was there with a vengeance, inflicting a disease called southern corn leaf blight, which causes stalks to wither and die. The South got hit first, then the disease spread through Tennessee and Kentucky before heading up into Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa — the heart of the Corn Belt.

    The destruction was unprecedented. All told, the corn harvest of 1970 was reduced by about 15 percent. Collectively, farmers lost almost 700 million bushels of corn that could have fed livestock and humans, at an economic cost of a billion dollars. More calories were lost than during Ireland’s Great Famine in the 1840s, when disease decimated potato fields.

    Really, the problem with southern corn leaf blight started years before the 1970 outbreak, when scientists in the 1930s developed a strain of corn with a genetic quirk that made it a breeze for seed companies to crank out. Farmers liked the strain’s high yields. By the 1970s, that particular variety formed the genetic basis for up to 90 percent of the corn grown around the country, compared to the thousands of varieties farmers had grown previously.  

    That particular strain of corn — known as cms-T — proved highly susceptible to southern corn leaf blight. So, when an unusually warm, wet spring favored the fungus, it had an overabundance of corn plants to burn through.

    At the time, scientists hoped a lesson had been learned. 

    “Never again should a major cultivated species be molded into such uniformity that it is so universally vulnerable to attack by a pathogen,” wrote plant pathologist Arnold John Ullstrup in a review of the matter published in 1972.

    And yet, today, genetic uniformity is one of the main features of most large-scale agricultural systems, leading some scientists to warn that conditions are ripe for more major outbreaks of plant disease. 

    The Looming Threat of Agricultural Pandemics

    “I think we have all the conditions for a pandemic in agricultural systems to occur,” said agricologist Miguel Altieri, a professor emeritus from the University of California, Berkeley. Hunger and economic hardship would likely ensue.

    Climate change adds to the danger — shifting weather patterns are on track to shake up the distributions of pathogens and bring them into contact with new plant species, potentially making crop disease much worse, said Brajesh Singh, an expert in soil science at Western Sydney University in Australia. 

    Incorporating biodiversity into large-scale farming could move agriculture away from this crisis. Here and there, some farmers are taking steps in this direction. But will their efforts become widespread — and what will happen if they don’t?

    Farms cover close to 40 percent of the planet’s land, according to a 2019 report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Almost 50 percent of those systems are made up of just four crops: wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans. Disease is commonplace — globally, $30 billion worth of food is lost to pathogens every year.

    Things were not always this way. As the 1900s dawned in the United States, for instance, food was produced by humans, not machines — more than 40 percent of the American workforce was employed on a multitude of small farms growing a wide range of crop varieties. The British Empire sparked the shift toward today’s industrialized food system, said historian Lizzie Collingham, who wrote the book Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food.

    By the early 1900s, the British Empire had learned that it could “basically treat the whole planet as a resource for its population,” Collingham said. It acquired cocoa from West Africa, meat from Argentina, and sugar from the Caribbean, for example. Suddenly, food was not something to be bought from the farmer down the street, but a global commodity, subject to economies of scale.

    America grabbed hold of this idea and ran with it, according to Collingham. First came the New Deal — President Roosevelt’s plan for pulling the country out of the Great Depression included raising the standard of living for farmers, partly by bringing electricity to rural life. In 1933, farm country was characterized by outhouses, iceboxes, and a complete lack of street lights. By 1945, all that had changed.

    Once they were on the power grid, farmers could buy equipment such as electric milk coolers and feed grinders that let them scale up their operations, but such things are expensive — only by expanding could farmers afford them. “It all makes sense if you rationalize it for economies of scale and make your farm into a factory,” Collingham said.

    Then World War II hit, and much of agriculture’s workforce had to go off to fight. At the same time, the government had an army to feed and the general public to keep happy, so it really needed to keep the food supply coming. Machines were the answer — the war era solidified the shift from humans to tractors. And machines do best when they only perform one job, like harvesting a single crop, acre after acre.

    Monocultures can be very efficient when they’re not contracting diseases, and that efficiency is part of what got the United States through the war. In fact, the system worked so well that “soldiers doing their training in America got fatter,” Collingham said. “A lot of them had never eaten so well in their lives.”

    Soon, small-scale farms growing diverse crops had largely retreated into the past in the Midwestern U.S. It’s not that anyone intended for the practice to be lost. It was simply “in many people’s minds, rendered obsolete,” said agronomist Matt Liebman, who recently retired from Iowa State University.

    Challenges of Implementing Biodiversity in Agriculture

    One might think the realization that biodiversity protects plant health is a new one, given that it wasn’t that long ago that biodiverse farming became a rare practice. But in fact, scientists and farmers have recognized this connection for at least centuries, and probably longer, said evolutionary biologist Amanda Gibson from the University of Virginia.

    The basic concept is simple enough: A typical pathogen can only infect certain plant species. When that pathogen ends up on a species it can’t infect, that plant acts like a sinkhole. The pathogen can’t reproduce, so it’s neutralized, and nearby plants are spared.

    Disease-resistant plants can also alter airflow in ways that keep plants dry and healthy and create physical barriers that block pathogen movement. Especially if they’re tall, resistant plants can act like fences that diseases have to hop over. “Somebody did a nice experiment taking dead corn stalks and just plopping them in the bean field,” said plant pathologist Gregory Gilbert from the University of California, Santa Cruz. “And that works, too, because it’s just keeping things from moving around.”

    In nature, this dynamic between plants and pathogens can be part of healthy ecosystems. Pathogens spread easily between stands of the same species, killing off plants that are too close to their relatives and making sure landscapes have a healthy degree of biodiversity. As “social distancing” is restored between susceptible hosts, the disease dies down.

    In monocultures, there are no sinkholes or natural fences to stem the spread of pathogens. Instead, when a disease takes hold in a crop field, it’s poised to burn through the entire thing. “We create amplification rather than dilution,” said Altieri.

    New technology has driven home these old lessons: Over the last decade, it’s become possible for scientists to isolate a broad swath of the microbes found within a particular niche — like an ear of corn or a stalk of wheat — and use DNA sequencing to create a censuslike list of everything that lives there.

    The results have been unsettling, but not always unexpected. Plants in cultivated lands carry a significantly larger variety of viruses than those in adjacent biodiversity hotspots, plant and microbial ecologist Carolyn Malmstrom from Michigan State University and her colleagues found in one study. 

    Conversely, they later found that some fields of barley and wheat were largely devoid of viruses, but that could also be a sign of problems to come. Pesticides may be keeping virus levels low: “So we might think, OK, yay, we’re protecting our crops,” Malmstrom said. But not all microbes are bad. 

    “By pulling our crop systems out into a virus-free situation, we may also be removing them from some of the richness of the biodiversity of microbes that’s beneficial,” she added.

    The bigger the farm, the more serious the disease problems, at least in the case of a pathogen called Potato virus Y, which leads to low potato yields. When researchers looked at the amount of simplified cropland surrounding a potato plant, they found that the prevalence of the pathogen went up steadily as the percentage of surrounding area covered in cropland increased. Unmanaged fields and forests, on the other hand — carrying wild mixes of plants — seemed to have a protective effect.

    In natural landscapes, increasing biodiversity lowers the number of virus species present. But increasing biodiversity along the edges of crop fields doesn’t seem to have the same effect, plant ecologist Hanna Susi from the University of Helsinki found. 

    Fertilizers and other chemicals leached from the crops might affect the susceptibility of nearby plants to infection, she and her coauthor postulated. Beneficial microbes found on wild plants may be keeping many of these viruses from causing disease, but if the same viruses get into crops that lack that protection, “We don’t know what may happen,” she said. Farmers could find themselves dealing with new kinds of crop diseases.

    On Altieri’s farm in the Colombian state of Antioquia, he mixes many plants — corn with squash, pineapples with legumes — and said, “We don’t have the diseases that neighbors have, that have monocultures.” 

    The results of recent DNA-sequencing experiments are familiar to him because traditional Latin American farmers have long used biodiversity to protect their crops. “These papers are good ecological research,” he said. “But actually, they’re basically reinventing the wheel.”

    This old wheel does have to get over a new hill, however. Climate change is redistributing pathogens, bringing them into contact with new crops, and changing weather patterns in ways that foster disease.

    Already, Liebman has seen the effects of climate change firsthand in Iowa, where tar spot disease — an infection that kills the leaves on corn plants — is on the rise. “We have warmer nights and more humid days,” he said. The tar spot pathogen loves the new weather.

    Predicting exactly how much climate change will increase crop disease is difficult, said Singh. But there are some general conclusions he can draw.

    Rising temperatures will likely favor certain pathogens that cause disease in major crops. A wheat-infecting fungus called Fusarium culmorum, for example, is likely to be replaced by its more aggressive and heat-tolerant relative, Fusarium graminearum. That could spell bad news for Nordic countries, where wheat crops could suffer.

    Hotter temperatures will likely knock back other pathogens. A fungus that infects the herb meadowsweet, for example, has already begun dying out on islands off the coast of Sweden. In general, however, Singh thinks regions that are currently cold or temperate will likely see increases in crop disease as they warm.

    For regions that are already warm, rising humidity could cause trouble. For example, parts of Africa and South America are among the regions that will probably see increases in funguslike pathogens called Phytophthora. Food insecurity is already prevalent in some of these areas, and if nothing’s done to stop disease spread, that’s likely to get worse. “We need a lot more information,” Singh said. “But I agree that that is one of the scenarios that is a possibility.”

    Jason Mauck farms “every which way,” in his words. The head of Constant Canopy Farm likes experimenting, seeing what works and what doesn’t. And on about 100 out of the 3,000 acres he tends to in Gaston, Indiana, one of his experiments involves a strategy called intercropping.

    Intercropping means growing two or more crops in the same field, by alternating rows or mixing the crops within the same rows — it’s a modern reimagining of age-old techniques like those Altieri uses, and one way of introducing biodiversity into large-scale agriculture. In Mauck’s case, he’s planting wheat with soybeans. The wheat seeds go into the ground in October, and by February, the plants are poking up through the soil. Then in April, he adds soybeans between the rows. The two crops grow together until the harvest, right around July 1.

    Unlike the wheat Mauck grows in a monoculture, he doesn’t spray the intercropped wheat with fungicides at all — they simply don’t need the help to stay healthy. The combination of crops likely encourages airflow that dries moisture and prevents fungus from growing, Mauck said. With climate change bringing more extreme storms to the region, he welcomes the help. 

    Mauck’s experiences are far from unique. When biologist Mark Boudreau from Penn State Brandywine reviewed 206 studies on intercropping across a wide variety of plants and pathogens, he found that disease was reduced in 73 percent of the studies.

    In China, farmers have been experimenting with intercropping for decades, and it’s catching on in Europe and the Middle East, Boudreau said. But in the American Midwest, Mauck said intercropping makes him “kind of a weirdo.” He speaks at about 20 conventions every year to spread the word about this and other sustainable farming practices, plus he has a lively social media following. He’s convinced some of his fellow farmers to try intercropping, but progress is slow.

    Lack of equipment is a big part of the problem, said extension agronomist Clair Keene from North Dakota State University. Farm equipment companies haven’t invented the machine that will let farmers harvest mixed crops separately, and farmers usually don’t have the time to do multiple harvests. That would be an easy enough problem for farm equipment companies to solve, Boudreau thinks, if farmers put a bit of pressure on them.

    In North Dakota, the humble chickpea might just provide the motivation farmers and farm equipment companies need. In recent years, the profit margin on chickpeas has been two to three times that of spring wheat — a common crop for the region. But there’s a problem: Chickpeas are very susceptible to a disease called Ascochyta leaf blight. “It can just wipe out the field. Like, there will be no chickpeas left to harvest,” Keene said. To avoid this fate, farmers spray their chickpeas with fungicides between two and five times a year, and the cost of the fungicides really cuts into the profit margin.

    Intercropping could be an affordable alternative. Keene and others have found that Ascochyta leaf blight drops by at least 50 percent when chickpeas are grown along with flax. Like in Mauck’s fields, Keene thinks flax promotes airflow around the chickpeas, reducing moisture and preventing the blight-causing fungus from growing.

    When Keene looks across the expansive crop fields that characterize her home state of North Dakota, she sees two sides to modern agriculture. On the one hand, monocultures have given many people a vital source of calories. “We as Americans — we’re using our landscape to provide a quality of life that, at least writ large, wasn’t ever dreamed of by generations before us,” she said. “And who’s making that happen? Farmers. We owe them a lot.”

    But the same agricultural system has impacted the landscape dramatically, from the native plants that used to thrive in Midwestern prairies to the microbes that populate the soil. Changes are brewing in Earth’s climate, and a system we’ve come to rely on may start to falter. Modern agriculture has offered humans comfort: “But,” Keene asked, “at what ecological cost?”

    This article originally appeared in Grist here.

    The post Could the Next Pandemic Hit Crops Instead of People? appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 12 Climate Change Books You Need To Read This Fall

    climate change books
    9 Mins Read

    After the daunting heatwaves and storms of this summer, our cheery visions of the season seem at odds with our climate-changed reality.

    By Michael Svoboda, Yale Climate Connections

    This story was originally published by Yale Climate Connections.

    Officially, the end of summer is marked by the autumnal equinox on September 23. Unofficially, summer ends some weeks earlier, with the start of classes in the nation’s schools and colleges. This year, however, there is a third way to define “the end of summer;” a growing chorus of voices wonders whether “summer” itself has ended, whether climate change has irrevocably contradicted our traditional, cheery visions of the season.

    Writing for the New York Times, environmental journalist David Gelles asks “Is It Too Hot for Fun in the Summertime?” In the pages of Catalyst, the quarterly publication of the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS fellow Derrick Jackson observes that “summer rituals—and healthy childhoods—are increasingly threatened by climate change.” And in other pieces, parents and proprietors have lamented the climate-forced closing, or severe curtailing, of summer camps.

    Can our traditional notions of “summer reading” survive this radical revision of the season?

    With this month’s bookshelf, Yale Climate Connections offers a “yes and no” answer to this question. Yes, we’ll still have books that thrill, books that offer quirky takes on history, books that take us to new places, and books that connect us with nature and the soil. In short, we’ll still have enticing and eminently readable selections of fiction and nonfiction. But, no, the carefree vibe of summers past is gone.

    In the list below, readers will find a harrowing but bestselling story of heatwaves, an offbeat history of climate science and politics, a personal account of a scientific expedition to Antarctica, two studies of the impacts of climate change on American locales, a history of dams, two travelogues, and reflections on gardening and birding.

    Rounding out the list is a selection of fiction: a collection of short stories and two immersive novels.

    All but one of these titles were published in 2023. Several are August releases; they are “end of summer” books for the year that summer as we knew it may have ended.

    As always, the descriptions of the titles are adapted from copy provided by their publishers.

    The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet by Jeff Goodell (Little, Brown & Co., 2023, 400 pages, $29.00)

    The Heat Will Kill You First is about the extreme ways in which our planet is already changing. It is about why spring is coming a few weeks earlier and fall is coming a few weeks later. It is about what will happen to our lives and our communities when typical summer days in Chicago or Boston go from 90° F to 110 °F. A heat wave, environmental reporter Jeff Goodell explains, is a predatory event — one that culls the most vulnerable people.  But as heat waves become more intense and more common, they will become more democratic. Masterfully reported, mixing the latest scientific insight with on-the-ground storytelling, Goodell’s new book tackles the big questions and shows how extreme heat is a force beyond anything we have reckoned with before.

    The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial by David Lipsky (W.W.W. Norton 2023, 496 pages, $32.50)

    In 1956, the New York Times prophesied that once global warming really kicked in, we could see parrots in the Antarctic. In 2010, when science deniers had control of the climate story, Senator James Inhofe built an igloo on the Washington Mall and plunked a sign on top: “Al Gore’s New Home: Honk If You Love Climate Change.” In The Parrot and the Igloo, best-selling author David Lipsky tells the astonishing story of how we moved from one extreme to the other. Featuring an indelible cast of heroes and villains, mavericks and swindlers, The Parrot and the Igloo traces the long, strange march of climate science and delivers a real-life tragicomedy — one that captures the extraordinary dance of science, money, and American character.

    The Quickening: Creation and Community at the Ends of the Earth by Elizabeth Rush (Milkweed Editions 2023, 424 pages, $30.00)

    In 2019, fifty-seven scientists and crew set out onboard the Nathaniel B. Palmer. Their destination: Thwaites Glacier, believed to be both rapidly deteriorating and capable of making a catastrophic impact on global sea-level rise. In The Quickening, Elizabeth Rush documents their voyage, offering the sublime—seeing an iceberg for the first time—alongside the workaday moments of this groundbreaking expedition. Along the way, she takes readers on a personal journey around a more intimate question: What does it mean to bring a child into the world at this time of radical change? From the author of Rising, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in General Nonfiction, The Quickening is an astonishing, vital book about Antarctica, climate change, and motherhood.

    Octopus in the Parking Garage: A Call for Climate Resilience by Rob Verchick (Columbia University Press 2023, 288 pages, $32.00)

    One morning in Miami Beach, an unexpected guest showed up in a luxury condominium complex’s parking garage: an octopus. The image quickly went viral. But the octopus — and the combination of infrastructure quirks and climate impacts that left it stranded—is more than a funny meme. It’s a potent symbol of the disruptions that a changing climate has already brought to our doorsteps. Rob Verchick examines how we can manage the risks we can no longer avoid. Although reducing CO2 emissions is essential, we need to address the damage we have already caused, especially for disadvantaged communities. Engaging and accessible, The Octopus in the Parking Garage empowers readers to face the climate crisis and shows what we can do to adapt and thrive.

    Charleston: Race, Water, and the Coming Storm by Susan Crawford (Pegasus Books 2023, 336 pages, $28.95)

    At least 13 million Americans will have to move away from American coasts in coming decades, as rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms put lives at risk and cause billions in damages. In Charleston, South Carolina, denial, widespread development, and public complacency about racial issues compound these problems. In her new book, legal scholar Susan Crawford tells the story of a city that has played a central role in America’s painful racial history and now stands at the intersection of climate and race. With its explosive gentrification, Charleston illustrates our tendency to value development above all else. But Charleston also stands for the need to change our ways—to build higher, drier, densely-connected places where all citizens can live safely.

    Cracked: The Future of Dams in a Hot, Chaotic World by Steven Hawley (Patagonia Books 2023, 320 pages, $28.00)

    During the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the messy truth about the legacy of last century’s dam-building binge has come to light. Governments plugged the nation’s rivers in a misguided attempt to turn them into revenue streams. Water control projects’ main legacy will be one of needless ecological destruction, fostering a host of unnecessary injustices. Cracked: The Future of Dams in a Hot, Crazy World is a speed date with the history of water control. Examples from the American West reveal that the costs of building and maintaining a sprawling water storage and delivery complex in an arid world is well beyond the benefits furnished. But success stories elsewhere point to a possible future where rivers run free and the Earth restores itself.

    Climate Travels: How Ecotourism Changes Mindsets and Motivates Action by Michael M. Gunter, Jr. (Columbia University Press 2023, 360 pages, $30.00 paperback)

    Many accounts of climate change depict disasters striking faraway places. How can seeing the consequences of human impacts up close help us grasp how global warming affects us and our neighbors? Michael M. Gunter, Jr. takes readers around the United States to bear witness to the many faces of the climate crisis: sea level rise in Virginia, floods in Tennessee, Maine lobsters migrating away from American waters, and imperiled ecosystems in national parks, from Alaskan permafrost to the Florida Keys. But Gunter also finds inspiring initiatives to mitigate and adapt to these threats. By showing how travel can help bring the reality of climate change home, Gunter offers readers a hopeful message about how to take action on the local level themselves.

    Avid travelers should also check out A Traveler’s Guide to the End of the World by David Gessner (Torrey House Press 2023, 320 pages, $21.95 paperback).

    Soil and Spirit: Cultivation and Kinship in the Web of Life by Scott Chaskey (Milkweed Editions 2023, 264 pages, 18.00 paperback)

    As a farmer with decades spent working in fields, Scott Chaskey has been shaped by daily attention to the earth. He has combined a longstanding commitment to food sovereignty and organic farming with a belief that humble attention to microbial life and diversity of species provides invaluable lessons for building healthy communities. In this lively collection of essays, Chaskey explores the evolution of his perspective — as a farmer and as a poet. He recalls learning to cultivate plants and nourish reciprocal relationships among species, even as he was reading Yeats and beginning to write poems. “Enlivened by decades of work in open fields washed by the salt spray of the Atlantic” — Scott Chaskey has given us a seed of hope and regeneration

    Better Living Through Birding: Notes from a Black Man in the Natural World by Christian Cooper (Random House 2023, 304 pages, $28.00)

    Christian Cooper is a self-described “Blerd” (Black nerd) who devotes every spring to gazing upon the migratory birds that stop to rest in Central Park, just a subway ride away from where he lives. While in the park one morning in May 2020, an encounter with a dog walker exploded age-old racial tensions. Cooper’s video of the incident went viral. In his new book, Cooper tells the story of his extraordinary life leading up to the now-infamous incident in Central Park and shows how a life spent looking up at the birds prepared him, in the most uncanny of ways, to be a gay, Black man in America today. Equal parts memoir, travelogue, and primer on the art of birding, Better Living Through Birding shares what birds can teach us about life, if we would look and listen.

    No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save Our Planet, edited by D.A. Baden (Habitat Press 2022, 352 pages, $8.95 paperback)

    A collection of inspiring, funny, dark, mysterious, tragic, romantic, dramatic, upbeat and fantastical short stories. These 24 stories are written by a variety of authors, with the aim to inspire readers with positive visions of what a sustainable society might look like and how we might get there. The stories are diverse in style, ranging from whodunnits to sci-fi, romance to family drama, comedy to tragedy, and cover a range of solution types from high-tech to nature-based solutions, to more systemic aspects relating to our culture and political economy. ‘There’s an abundance of imagination in these stories,” says climate activist Bill McKibben. “They’ll make you think again, and in new ways, about the predicament of the planet and its people.”

    The Deluge: A Novel by Stephen Markley (Simon & Schuster 2023, 896 pages, $32.50)

    In the first decades of the 21st century, the world is convulsing, its governments mired in gridlock even as an ecological crisis advances. America is in upheaval, battered by violent weather and extreme politics. In California in 2013, Tony Pietrus, a scientist studying deposits of undersea methane, receives a death threat. His fate will become bound to a stunning cast of characters — a drug addict, an advertising strategist, a neurodivergent mathematician, a cunning eco-terrorist, a religious zealot, and a brazen young activist named Kate Morris, who, in the mountains of Wyoming, begins a project that will alter the course of history. A singular achievement, The Deluge is a once-in-a-generation novel that meets the moment as few works of art ever have.

    The Great Transition: A Novel by Nick Fuller Googins (Atria Books / Simon & Schuster 2023, 352 pages, $27.99)

    Emi Vargas, whose parents helped save the world, is tired of being told how lucky she is to have been born after the climate crisis. But following the public assassination of a dozen climate criminals, Emi’s mother Kristina disappears. A determined Emi and her father, Larch, journey from their home in Nuuk, Greenland to New York City. Thirty years earlier, Larch first came to New York with a team of volunteers to save the city from rising waters and torrential storms. Kristina was on the frontlines of a different battle, fighting massive wildfires that ravaged the western U.S. They became part of a movement that changed the world. A triumphant debut, The Great Transition is a breathtaking rendering of our near future, told through the story of one family.

    This article originally appeared in Yale Climate Connections here.

    The post 12 Climate Change Books You Need To Read This Fall appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • ‘I call it botanarchy’: The Hackney guerrilla gardener bringing power to the people

    For author Ellen Miles, planting in public spaces is a radical act that’s about community ownership and belonging

    Anarchism gets a bad rep. In the popular imagination, anarchists dress in black, they smash windows and hurl firebombs at police. Or else, they are young social misfits with green hair and too many piercings. Often they are both.

    But what if anarchy could be beautiful, what if it could bring local communities together planting flowers in the streets? For Ellen Miles, the new doyenne of guerrilla gardening, it is. “I call it botanarchy,” she says.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Global Collaboration Village: Can this Metaverse Hub Help Fight The Climate Crisis?

    global collaboration village
    4 Mins Read

    The World Economic Forum (WEF) has launched the Global Collaboration Village, a metaverse hub to help craft solutions to the climate crisis. It brings together leaders from across the world virtually to address polar tipping points, which it says have the potential to disrupt the planet’s interconnected systems.

    Think of climate tipping points like the butterfly effect. If one of these events happens, it sets in motion a change of other ecological disasters. Essentially, tipping points take place when climate change pushes temperatures beyond a specified threshold that can have an irreversible damaging impact on the planet.

    The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has identified 16 tipping points and elements across the world. These include the loss of ice sheets in Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica, as well as subglacial basins in the latter and all extrapolar glaciers.

    The collapse of the Arctic winter sea ice, boreal permafrost (plus its abrupt thawing), and Labrador-Irminger Seas convection, as well as the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, the southern part of the Northern Forest – and the expansion of its northern part – and low-latitude coral reefs are part of the list too. The cessation of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, abrupt loss of Barents Sea ice, and greening of the Sahel vegetation and West African monsoon make up the rest.

    climate tipping points
    Courtesy: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

    In fact, earlier this year, a new report titled The Breakthrough Effect was unveiled at the WEF, outlining three “super-tipping points” in key areas including electric vehicles, green fertilisers and plant-based proteins.

    The 16 tipping points are at risk with different degrees of temperature rises above pre-industrial levels. Human-induced global warming is breaching the 1.5°C limit agreed in the 2015 Paris Agreement and has meant that six of the tipping points are in precarious states (even if temperature rises stay below 2°C). Five of these, as noted above, are in the polar regions.

    The risk of human-caused emissions and the albedo effect

    The WEF’s new Global Collaboration Village aims to address these intensifying climate change effects by bringing global leaders together via next-gen metaverse tech. The immersive reality hub will help address these climate tipping points, particularly those in the polar areas. The Polar Tipping Points Hub will allow experts to visualise the consequences of polar warming on the planet via a monitoring station, providing insight into three of the five tipping points if temperature rises exceed 1.5°C.

    The tipping points can lead to instability across the planet. One impact is called the albedo effect, which refers to the reflectability of surfaces. High albedo reflects more sunlight, while low absorbs it. This means that the whiteness of the snow and ice layers reflects heat away from the Earth’s surface, preventing it from warming the oceans and land any further. Due to the loss of snow and polar ice, the albedo effect is declining.

    climate change metaverse
    Courtesy: World Economic Forum

    In addition, the WEF highlights the relationship between human-caused emissions and climate change – 97% of actively publishing scientists say climate change is happening and caused by humans. An increase in GHG emissions will lead to a decline in sea ice in the Arctic, which is “accelerating global vulnerabilities like extreme weather, heat stress, compromised food and water security, climate migration and disruptions in supply chains”.

    The launch of the new hub coincides with the Arctic sea ice reaching its annual minimum extent – which refers to the total area covered by ice. Last year, it reached 4.67 sq km, which was the joint 10th-lowest minimum recorded in 43 years. This adds a “timely emphasis on the pressing need to address polar warming and climate challenges”, the WEF states.

    It could also help speed up progress towards the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The organisation hopes that being able to simulate the tipping points at different temperatures in real-time could help drive faster decision-making.

    Blending collaboration with awareness and solutions

    world economic forum
    Courtesy: Accenture/World Economic Forum

    The WEF says the hub is a work in progress and will continue to incorporate new data to ensure it “remains at the forefront of polar and climate research”. It adds that the Global Collaboration Village both increases awareness and enables cross-sector collaboration among its partners and communities. Further, collaboration on datasets from NASA, Arctic Basecamp, and the National Snow and Ice Data Center – among other institutions – has been key to the development of the hub.

    “The ability to connect and collaborate in shared immersive spaces, spanning distances and devices, can inspire team creativity and outcomes that may otherwise not have been possible,” said Navjot Virk, VP of Microsoft Mesh, part of the tech used to build the new platform.

    “At the World Economic Forum, our central mission is to convene stakeholders for collaborative problem-solving, to improve the state of the world,” said Rebecca Ivey, head of the Global Collaboration Village. “The Village democratises this process by using immersive technologies that enable us to achieve more, together, even across distances. Our aim is to make these tools accessible to diverse audiences, amplifying their potential to contribute to the betterment of the world.”

    The post Global Collaboration Village: Can this Metaverse Hub Help Fight The Climate Crisis? appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 64% of Agrifood Companies Have No Regenerative Agriculture Targets, and Are in Danger of Greenwashing: New Report

    regenerative agriculture

    4 Mins Read

    While a majority of the food and retail sector’s giants believe regenerative agriculture can be a solution to the climate crisis, 64% of them have not put targets in place to achieve these ambitions, according to a new study. Meanwhile, only 8% have committed to supporting farmers to incentivise the uptake of these regenerative practices.

    The report, titled The Four Labours of Regenerative Agriculture and conducted by investor network FAIRR, found that 50 of the 79 agrifood firms (63%) – which are worth a combined $3 trillion and represent one-third of the sector – recognise regenerative agriculture as a solution to climate change and biodiversity loss. But of these 50 firms, 32 (64%) have not outlined any quantitative company-wide targets related to such farming methods, including Chipotle, Domino’s and Bunge.

    Meanwhile, only four of these 50 companies (8%) have made financial commitments to support and incentivise farmers to uptake regenerative agriculture – though small donations to specific projects are excluded from the report. These include Nestlé (which has committed $1.2B to these practices), PepsiCo, JBS and Sodexo – the latter’s Good Eating Company will earmark 15% of its food budget for regenerative agriculture.

    The analysis does highlight a few positive examples of regenerative agriculture commitments by agrifood companies. These include Danone, which has pledged to source 30% of key ingredients from farms transitioning to regenerative farming by 2025, as well as General Mills, which says it will introduce regenerative agriculture on one million acres of farmland by 2030. Meanwhile, Walmart collaborated with PepsiCo with an aim to eliminate four million tons of greenhouse gas emissions through the former’s regenerative agriculture programme.

    “Only four of the 50 companies assessed by FAIRR have committed to de-risking the transition through some sort of financial support for farmers,” said FAIRR’s thematic research and corporate innovation director Jo Raven. “Without adequate support for farmers, there can be no successful regenerative agriculture. Investors will want to see concrete action being taken to enable a just transition and ensure farmers do not bear the burden of change.”

    nestle regenerative agriculture
    Courtesy: Nestlé

    Regenerative agriculture needs a standardized definition

    A major hurdle holding regenerative farming back is the lack of an internationally agreed definition. This kind of agriculture is said to nurture soil health, improve the water cycle, reduce dependence on chemicals, boost the ecosystem, and strengthen farms’ resilience to climate change. The lack of a clear definition makes it hard to substantiate regenerative farming claims, leads to a considerable variation in how companies report the practice’s benefits and creates risks for any incoming regulation.

    This is further exacerbated by the lack of a stated definition of the outcomes firms are looking to achieve. The report found that ‘soil health’ and ‘carbon-related’ outcomes were the two most cited sustainability outcomes, followed by ‘improving water use and quality’, ‘biodiversity’ and ‘reduced use of agrochemicals’. Meanwhile, social outcomes related to farmer incomes, just transition and other economic themes (often called ‘livelihood’ in corporate disclosure) were the least cited.

    This analysis aligns with research from non-profit the Food and Land Use Coalition earlier this year, which called for an outcomes-based framework to measure and assess regenerative farming, given the inconsistent understanding of what the practice means and can achieve. “Regenerative agriculture can build resilience to climate change, improve soil health, and make land management sustainable in the long run,” noted Alessia Lenders, head of impact at SLM Partners, part of the FAIRR investor network.

    “It can also unlock financial opportunities for farmers through premium pricing on regenerative products and reduced input costs. Supporting farmers through this transition is crucial as farmers are ultimately the ones who can deliver positive outcomes to soil health, climate, biodiversity, and water.”

    regenerative agriculture greenwashing
    Courtesy: Getty Images Signature via Canva

    Tackling greenwashing

    Incoming regulation can help to keep companies accountable and put a stop to greenwashing. The EU’s Green Claims Directive is due to come into force in 2026 and mandates that companies must substantiate any marketing claims about regenerative agriculture. If they don’t, they could be charged a non-compliance penalty of up to 4% of their annual turnover.

    The UK is also seeing similar guidance implemented, with the UK Advertising Standards Authority noting that any company making environmental claims must fully verify and substantiate them. The Competition and Marketing Authority’s Green Claims Code – launched last year – provides a framework for businesses to supply more transparent messaging about their sustainability claims.

    Earlier this week, the Taskforce on Nature-Related Finance Disclosures – which enables companies to manage and disclose climate-related risks – named a few key risks food companies should be reporting against. These include nutrient pollution, loss of pollinators and poor soil health – biodiversity risks that regenerative agriculture practices are designed to mitigate.

    “Increasing uptake of regenerative agriculture practices is key to addressing the climate and biodiversity crises,” said Raven. “Transitioning away from conventional practices towards regenerative practices creates risk for farmers as it will likely require significant upfront investment, such as new machinery, agronomic support and experimentation, and could impact short-term productivity for farms.”

    Jeremy Coller, founder and chair of the FAIRR network, added: “FAIRR’s research shows there are more promises than progress in the agri-food sector. Investors will want to see measurable targets that match companies’ stated ambitions on regenerative agriculture if they are to ensure they don’t fall foul of anti-greenwash regulations.”

    The post 64% of Agrifood Companies Have No Regenerative Agriculture Targets, and Are in Danger of Greenwashing: New Report appeared first on Green Queen.

  • Hong Kong High School Student Creates Board Game to Highlight City’s Beach Pollution

    hong kong pollution

    5 Mins Read

    A high-school student has developed Beach Board Hong Kong, a Monopoly-style game that sheds light on the environmental issues faced by the island’s beaches. Featuring damning pollution facts, action prompts to tackle these challenges, it’s an innovative tool to help educate local schoolchildren about beach pollution, with all proceeds donated to charity.

    Last year, Carmel School’s Elsa High School campus organised a beach cleanup involving its students, who were told to pick up trash, albeit with little knowledge about how human actions on beaches impact the environment in these spaces. One of the students, Hinako Nishi, felt it wasn’t enough for children to know that collecting rubbish is a good thing – they need a deeper understanding of the root issue.

    This was the springboard for Beach Board Hong Kong, which began as a school project last year and is now a full-fledged board game on sale. Nishi wanted to provide children with an interactive way to learn about how pollution affects beaches, and how their actions can create positive change.

    The game features a Monopoly-style board spotlighting 18 Hong Kong beaches, with players who land on each becoming the owners. They receive a property card highlighting specific environmental issues and prompting them to take action. As in Monopoly, where you receive rent when others land on your property, Beach Board Hong Kong has players exchange tokens or move their pawns further or back – whoever gets to 15 tokens wins.

    Spotlighting pollution on Hong Kong’s beaches

    beach board game
    Courtesy: Hong Kong Beach Board

    The beaches include Repulse Bay, Turtle Cove, Lo So Shing, Lower Cheung Sha and Clear Water Bay – to name a few – with highlighted issues reading: “A palm oil spill occurred, having serious health effects on the heat of the fish in the ocean! Players that stop here will volunteer to clean up the leftovers of the dead fish and the palm oil” for Lo So Shing, and “Studies have shown the number of pink dolphins have been decreasing due to water pollution. But, the lucky player shave spotted pink dolphins from this beach” for Lower Cheung Sha.

    These cards mirror real problems and events that Hong Kong’s beaches have faced in the past, or are currently undergoing. Positive-impact action prompts include “Find something in your pencil case that may be harmful to the environment” or “Brainstorm a way to reduce plastic pollution during the Dragon Boat Festival”.

    Instead of Chance and the Community Chest, Beach Board Hong Kong has Q Cards, where players answer marine-environment-related questions (like “How long does it take for a beach to completely recover after a typhoon“), and Tools spaces where one can obtain elements that have a positive environmental impact, like solar panels.

    Nishi, a grade 11 student who funded the game with her personal savings and a loan from her parents, worked with a freelance graphic designer from Brazil. “I gave him a rough idea of how I wanted the design outcome of my board game to be, and he helped me incorporate it into the visual design,” she says.

    She play-tested the game with primary schoolchildren, friends and family to receive feedback during development. “As I implemented the feedback I gained from these sessions, I am confident that this game is able to efficiently educate children,” says Nishi. “I plan on creating more opportunities to get my game played by different students inside and outside of my school, throughout this academic year.”

    Partnering with marine pollution charity

    hong kong beach board
    Courtesy: Hinako Nishi

    She hopes to sell the board game, which is currently on sale online, in Hong Kong bookstores in the near future. All proceeds from be donated to marine environmental charities, with the first batch of sales going to local environmental non-profit A Plastic Ocean Foundation, which Nishi has collaborated with on the project.

    “A Plastic Ocean Foundation provided me with valuable advice during the development process, including marine information and localisation of content, so as to ensure the game is suitable for my target audience,” she explains. “[It] also will help me this academic year to promote the game to different schools and reach a wider audience with its networks around Hong Kong.”

    A portion of the proceeds will go to support A Plastic Ocean Foundation’s #OneTonneLess shoreline cleanup to restore Hong Kong’s coastlines. The organisation will help promote the game to different schools via webinars and in-person workshops. “We hope to reach a wider audience and increase awareness of marine environmental issues in Hong Kong through the game,” says Nishi.

    Like other sustainability- and climate-related board games, including Life of Ordinary People and Net Zero Game 2050, Beach Board Hong Kong is an encouraging initiative fighting serious environmental challenges. Hong Kong has long had an air pollution problem, while its packaging habits have also swamped its seas. The city’s beaches play a massive role in ocean pollution too, with microplastic levels 40% higher than the global average, at 5,600 pieces per sq m.

    It’s these issues that Nishi wants to raise awareness about, and inspire action from. “By creating conversations and discussions on marine-environment-related topics, the game encourages players to share knowledge, ideas and solutions, and for them to make positive changes in their own daily lives and communities,” she says. “I hope this board game will motivate individuals to become active participants in protecting and preserving our oceans and promoting a sustainable future.”

    Beach Board Hong Kong is currently available for sale via its website for HK$ 220.

    The post Hong Kong High School Student Creates Board Game to Highlight City’s Beach Pollution appeared first on Green Queen.

  • The EPA Rejected Calls for Tougher Water Pollution Regulations at US Factory Farms – Now, It’s Being Sued

    factory farming water pollution
    5 Mins Read

    Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a 2017 petition calling for stricter water pollution regulations for factory farms. The agency formed a research committee to recommend solutions in a process that could last over a year and is now being sued for its decision.

    The petition urged the government to introduce tougher regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) under the Clean Water Act, arguing that factory farms release manure and other pollutants into the US’s waterways, posing a threat to clean water. The long-drawn saga could mean that the petition that was submitted during Donald Trump’s reign could end up being resolved after two presidential tenures have passed.

    Submitted by 33 advocacy groups – including Food & Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy – the petition called for specific recommendations to address the water pollution problem.

    This includes revising the ‘agricultural stormwater‘ exemption that allows many CAFOs to evade permits, establishing a presumption that certain CAFOs pollute and require permits, improving discharge monitoring, prohibiting practices known to harm water quality, and strengthening national pollution standards (called effluent limitation guidelines).

    Despite evidence, EPA calls for more research

    epa water pollution
    Courtesy: Canva

    One study has found that 74% of large US slaughterhouses have violated water pollution permits, and fewer than a third of the country’s 21,500+ largest CAFOs have federal pollution permits in place. Meanwhile, Food & Water Watch has revealed that factory farm pollution threatens or impairs over 14,000 miles of rivers and streams and more than 90,000 acres of lakes and ponds across the US.

    Nitrogen and phosphorous waste from CAFOs has been directly linked with aquatic deaths. Just 5% of factory farms generate an estimated 575 billion pounds of animal waste each year, which contains pathogen bacteria, heavy metals, antibiotics and other elements that “seriously degrade” rivers and contribute to the growing public health problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens. This has led to the American Public Health Association calling for a ban on new CAFOs.

    After being sued for unreasonable delay in answering the petition, the EPA rejected the calls to usher in tighter regulations against CAFOs, reasoning that more research is needed. “A comprehensive evaluation is essential before determining whether any regulatory revisions are necessary or appropriate,” the government body said.

    EPA’s assistant administrator Radhika Fox said the agency will examine the programme overseeing farms and current pollution limits, and the new panel discussing the issue will include environmentalists, agriculturalists, researchers and others.

    “We want to hear from all voices and benefit from the findings of the most current research, and EPA is confident that these efforts will result in real progress and durable solutions to protecting the nation’s waters,” she said, despite the EPA not having revised its policies since 2008.

    “Factory farms pose a significant and mounting threat to clean water, largely because EPA’s weak rules have left most of the industry entirely unregulated,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director of Food & Water Watch. “EPA’s deeply flawed response amounts to yet more delay, and completely misses the moment. For more than 50 years, EPA has knowingly shirked its crystal clear obligation to regulate factory farms under the Clean Water Act.”

    Government attitudes towards animal agriculture

    epa petition
    Courtesy: Canva

    This process is expected to begin in January 2024 and last 12-18 months, after which the EPA will decide if new regulations are needed, or whether better implementation and enforcement of existing ones is sufficient. It comes in an election year for the US and could mean that, unless re-elected, the Biden administration will miss a chance to introduce a landmark change to the country’s animal agriculture industry.

    “President Biden’s voiced commitment to environmental justice must extend to the agricultural industry — EPA has a responsibility to protect clean water in all communities,” said Rania Masri, co-director of Organizing and Policy at the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network.

    And if the ballot falls the other way, there’s not much hope there either. Republicans, who have dodged questions about climate change (with one actually denying it), don’t have a great track record in this area. In fact, US politicians, in general, have been found to ignore animal agriculture out of fear of potential voter backlash – but these concerns are unfounded, given that a majority of American voters have expressed support for animal welfare laws and protection from both the government and businesses.

    Despite all that, a Stanford University study found that livestock farmers get 800 times more public funding in the US than meat alternative companies, and 190 times more lobbying funds than plant-based protein. Additionally, 97% of all research and innovation spending went to animal farmers, aimed at improving production. Separate research has revealed that the US Department of Agriculture has provided nearly $50B in livestock subsidies.

    New lawsuit over original decision

    factory farms water pollution
    Courtesy: Canva

    In a statement to Green Queen, a Food & Water Watch spokesperson said the EPA’s denial of the petition “does not indicate a commitment to changing the rules”. They added that the subcommittee that will convene over the next year or so “is likely just a tool for more delay, rather than a process that will result in meaningful improvements”.

    “The lack of urgency displayed in EPA’s decision doubles down on the agency’s failure to protect our water, and those who rely on it,” Heinzen said. “But the fight to safeguard clean water is far from over. We are considering all of our options moving forward.”

    Those discussions seem to have resulted in action. Last week, 13 environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, sued the EPA to challenge its rejection of the original petition and force it to bolster CAFO water pollution regulations.

    The post The EPA Rejected Calls for Tougher Water Pollution Regulations at US Factory Farms – Now, It’s Being Sued appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • These Four Nature-Based Solutions Can Help Solve Biodiversity & Climate

    5 Mins Read

    By Pete Smith, Professor of Soils and Global Change, University of Aberdeen; Camille Parmesan, Professor of Climate Change Impacts, CNRS, University of Texas, University of Plymouth; Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

    A landmark report by the world’s most senior climate and biodiversity scientists argues that the world will have to tackle the climate crisis and the species extinction crisis simultaneously, or not at all.

    That’s because Earth’s land and ocean already absorb about half of the greenhouse gases that people emit. Wild animals, plants, fungi and microbes help maintain this carbon sink by keeping soils, forests and other ecosystems healthy.

    Failing to tackle climate change, meanwhile, will accelerate biodiversity loss, as higher temperatures and changing rainfall patterns make survival for many species more difficult. Both problems are intertwined, and so solutions to one which exacerbate the other are doomed to fail.

    Luckily, there are options for addressing climate change and biodiversity loss together, called nature-based solutions. If implemented properly, these measures can enhance the richness and diversity of life on Earth, help habitats store more carbon and even reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, making ecosystems more resilient while slowing the rate at which the planet warms.

    1. Protect and restore ecosystems

    Everyone is familiar with the need to preserve tropical rainforests, but there are other pristine habitats, on land and in the ocean, which are in dire need of protection.

    Mangrove swamps occupy less than 1% of Earth’s surface, but store the equivalent of 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That’s around two-thirds of total emissions from burning fossil fuels each year. These coastal habitats act as a home, nursery, and feeding ground for numerous species. More than 40 bird, ten reptile and six mammal species are only found in mangroves.

    Under the canopy in a tropical mangrove forest.
    Mangroves are particularly good at storing carbon. Velavan K/Shutterstock

    Peatlands – those soggy ecosystems which include bogs, marshes and fens – store twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests. The top 15cm stores more carbon below ground than tropical rainforests do above ground. In the UK, peatlands store the equivalent of ten billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and host precious plant and animals such as red grouse, mountain hares and marsh earwort.

    Unfortunately, more than 80% of the UK’s peatlands are degraded in some way. A single hectare of damaged peatland can emit more than 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – equivalent to the yearly emissions of seven family cars.

    Protecting these ecosystems can prevent carbon from being released into the atmosphere. Restoring them where they’ve been damaged can suck carbon dioxide from the air and guarantee shelter for rare wildlife. Diverse natural systems also bounce back better from climate extremes than do species-poor, highly degraded systems, and will keep helping biodiversity and people even as Earth continues to warm.

    2. Manage farmland and fisheries sustainably

    Not all of the world’s land and ocean can be left to nature, but the land and ocean people use to produce food and other resources can be managed better.

    People currently use about 25% of the planet’s land surface for growing food, extracting resources and living. The global food system contributes one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions.

    Methods of farming – such as agroecology, which involves incorporating trees and habitats within farm fields – and sustainable fishing practices can protect and regenerate topsoil and seabed habitats, boosting biodiversity and improving how resilient these ecosystems are to climate change.

    Rows of vegetable beds with lines of young trees.
    Reforestation in tandem with food growing: lettuce, cauliflowers and tomatoes grow among saplings in Brazil. Luisaazara/Shutterstock

    3. Create new forests – with care

    People have already cut down three trillion trees – half of all the trees that once grew on Earth.

    Creating new woodlands and forests can draw down atmospheric carbon and provide diverse habitats for a range of species, but great care must be taken to plant the right mix of trees in the right place. Vast plantations of non-native trees, particularly when they’re a single species, offer less useful habitat for wildlife, but a mix of native trees can benefit biodiversity and store more carbon in the long run.

    A study in southeast China showed that forests containing several tree species stored twice as much carbon as the average single-species plantation.

    We can do the same thing in the ocean by restoring seagrass meadows.

    4. Shift to more plant-based diets

    Globally, animal agriculture is a major contributor to biodiversity loss. Millions of hectares of Amazon rainforest, African Savanna and Central Asian grassland have been ploughed up to create pasture and plant feed crops for the cows, pigs and chickens that we eat. Nearly 60% of all planet-warming emissions from food production originate in livestock rearing.

    Reducing demand for meat and dairy, through diet changes and cutting waste, would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions – which itself benefits biodiversity by limiting climate change – it would also lower pressure for farmland and so reduce deforestation and habitat destruction, freeing more land for the wider use of nature-based solutions.

    A vegan burger with a side of sweet potato fries.
    A vegan diet is better for wildlife and the climate than a high-meat one. Rolande PG/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

    Meat, especially highly processed meat, has been linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and bowel and stomach cancer. Plant-based diets are healthier, reduce healthcare costs and reduce carbon emissions.

    A note of caution

    It’s important to remember that nature-based solutions aren’t a substitute for the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. They should involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests. Wherever they’re implemented, nature-based solutions must proceed with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultural and ecological rights. And nature-based solutions should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity – not just carbon sequestration.

    With all this in mind, the world can design robust and resilient solutions for the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post These Four Nature-Based Solutions Can Help Solve Biodiversity & Climate appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Saltyco’s BioPuff: the Plant-Based Material Revolutionising the Puffer Jacket

    saltyco
    4 Mins Read

    UK startup Saltyco has developed a BioPuff, a new bulrush-based fill material for puffer jackets that has a feather-like structure. A sustainable alternative to animal- and petroleum-based materials like duck or goose fibres and polyester or nylon, it’s designed to provide warm, lightweight and water-resistant insulation.

    A winner of the H&M Foundation‘s Global Change Award 2022, Saltyco’s BioPuff is created by cultivating plants using regenerative wetland agriculture. Based in Salford, northwest England, Saltyco is aiming to transform bulrush into an eco-friendly alternative to goose down and synthetic fibres that line puffer jackets, while cutting emissions and boosting the productivity of rewetted peatland, reports the Guardian.

    If BioPuff’s raw material production could be scaled, the environmental impact of manufacturing clothes from the material would be a fraction of that of conventional fibres. “The bulrush has an amazing high-volume structure,” Saltyco founder Finlay Duncan told the Guardian. “Its seed heads can expand about 300 times in size. It has these umbrella-like structures that mimic the natural structure of goosedown in terms of providing that nice lofty, fluffy feeling.”

    A government grant for sustainable farming

    biopuff
    SaltyCo uses bulrush to make its BioPuff fill material | Courtesy: Finn Terman Frederiksen/CC

    To help scale up the availability of bulrush, the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside has teamed up with a local farmer and a landowner on a five-hectare site as part of a paludiculture (wet farming) trial, with a £400,000 grant from the UK government.

    To make enough material for one jacket, about 20 bulrush heads are required, the first of which are set to be harvested from this site in 2026.

    Situated in Greater Manchester, the site was drained for agriculture over 50 years ago, an act that will be reversed in 2024 to plant the bulrushes. The Wildlife Trust predicts that this could save 2,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050, as well as boost biodiversity. It’s also posed as an additional income source for farmers on lowland peat in the northwest of England.

    “If we can make this trial successful and upscale it, there is so much lowland peat in the UK that is crying out to be rewetted, both environmentally and economically,” the Wildlife Trust’s Mike Longden told the Guardian, describing campaigns like the bulrush project as a lucrative “win-win”. He added: “Farming on lowland peat can be really difficult. It’s not the most profitable farming.”

    An eco-friendly puffer jacket

    The BioPuff puffer jacket is an alternative to down feathers and synthetic, petroleum-based materials, which come with animal abuse and climate challenges. A PETA investigation found that down feathers are sometimes plucked forcefully while birds being raised for food are still alive. This often causes the animals to be frightened and leaves them with bloody wounds.

    Synthetic materials, like polyester, can have a poor climate footprint. Since it isn’t biodegradable, polyester stays in landfills for decades and can shed toxic microfibers. A lot of polyester is derived from petroleum, a non-renewable fossil fuel.

    Saltyco says replacing a single conventional puffer jacket with a BioPuff version could help regenerate 10 sq m of land and use 40kg less of carbon dioxide. The startup uses low-energy, waterless mechanical manufacturing processes, and confirms its products are biodegradable and compostable.

    Its website states that the material naturally comes with a cluster structure that traps heat within small air pockets to retain warmth. And its low-density nature makes it suitable to insulate a variety of garments. Its fibres develop a natural layer of waxes during their growth period, which improves its water resistance when subjected to wet weather conditions.

    It has also been tested and benchmarked against well-known petroleum-based, plant-based and animal-based fibre fill materials, and came out with one of the warmest fill-to-weight ratios on the market.

    BioPuff is already being used in a jacket by Italian label YOOX in its 8 by YOOX collection. Now, SaltyCo – part of Fashion for Good’s Global Innovation Programme – is in talks with more fashion houses to transform the puffer jacket.

    As fashion companies race to green their operations, materials and supply chains are increasingly under the ethical and environmental microscope. Alternatives to conventional animal-based sources are highly sought after with a bevvy of innovative startups emerging to fill the gap including 100% biobased leather alternative MIRIUM by Natural Fiber Welding and BioFluff, a plant-based fur replacement.

    The post Saltyco’s BioPuff: the Plant-Based Material Revolutionising the Puffer Jacket first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post Saltyco’s BioPuff: the Plant-Based Material Revolutionising the Puffer Jacket appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • These 8 UK Agri-Tech Startups Want To Future Proof South East Asia’s Food System

    4 Mins Read

    From improvements to yield, cost savings, and increasing climate resilience, there is much to change about the way we make food, especially given how much impact climate change will have on global supply chains, particularly in Southeast Asia.

    I found it fascinating to watch eight innovative agri-tech start-ups from the United Kingdom give their grand pitch in Singapore, a country that has little agricultural activity, at the Gateway to Asia Technology Showcase as part of Innovate UK Global Incubator Programme, and each of them left me feeling inspired and hopeful about the future of food. Here’s everything you need to know about each company and its mission.

    OlaTek

    Did you know that approximately 30% of all fish does not end up on our plates, but rather in our ocean, as waste? Further, this waste results in the contamination of marine ecosystems. Given how much we fish (and how much fish we consume), that’s a significant waste stream that can be upcycled. This is why start-ups like OlaTek are turning fish waste into something valuable- the team is currently working on a proof-of-concept whereby no fish waste gets sent back into the ocean. Even though they’re only just starting with lubricants for the F&B industry, they are expanding to other use cases. 

    Koolmill

    If you’ve heard about Software-as-a-Service, meet Machinery-as-a-Service. Koolmill aims to develop rice harvesting technologies that reduce grain loss and improve efficiency during production by creating a gentler way to process rice. The company’s mission is to help us use what we have more effectively and their motto, which left me giggling, is “be nice to rice”.

    Straw Innovations

    Southeast Asians love their rice, and like Koolmil, this company also wants to transform the industry. When rice gets harvested, its stems and leaves (also known as the straw) get left behind because it’s tricky to collect them, and they end up rotting or burning. This process releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas (and a key reason for rice’s hefty environmental footprint). Straw Innovations is developing a rice AND straw harvester, allowing you to leave less of a stubble (!), a cleaner way to shave the world (excuse the pun).

    Fotenix

    This company says it wants to create the metaverse of agriculture. With a slew of cool videos showing how they use small cameras to take pictures of plants growing in high-tech farming environments, this company uses these pictures to develop digital twins that can give you an amazing array of insights. Imagine being able to see when a plant gets diseased, the presence of pests and so much more without actually going to see the plant. Turning these images into assets, this company brings the real world into the digital one to help you better grow food.

    Intelligent Growth Solutions

    A vertical farm technology company founded by an actual farmer (fairly rare, believe it or not!), this startup has its own patented solutions of vertically-stacked growing systems to create ideal conditions to grow your plants. In a country with highly competitive uses for land, innovations in this space would allow us to maximise food production using far less space than conventional land-based agriculture.

    uFraction8

    As the cultivated meat market gains traction, key challenges around scaling remain, mostly tied to production capacity. The industry needs more efficient, resilient solutions in order to both lower costs of production and achieve economies of scale. This start-up is innovating new ways to build what it describes as the most efficient and scalable filtration solutions that have ever existed to solve the problems with harvesting and processing microbial cell cultures. The company’s enabling technology could remove major barriers as their product could be an important enabling technology that could make meat from cellular agriculture more accessible.

    Bright Biotech

    Bright Biotech is part of the relatively new sector of molecular farming, a type of food production technology that makes use of plants as production houses. The company uses chloroplasts to obtain large amounts of high-value proteins from plants using light, which results in scalable and low-cost proteins that can help cultivated meat players overcome their protein supply challenges.

    Higher Steaks

    Last but not least, is Higher Steaks, the startup with the punniest name by far. The company specialises in cultivated fatty meat and unveiled the world’s first cultivated pork belly and bacon without the use of genetic engineering last year. In fact, the company shared that they are working on “dong po rou” (braised pork belly) specifically for the Asian market. It’ll be interesting to see how they replicate the texture and melty characteristics of such a dish. High stakes indeed.

    Mounting challenges means a host of opportunities for innovative startups to truly revolutionise the way we produce and consume food. It was empowering to witness the passion of the founders of these companies as they take on the opportunity of a lifetime: securing a stable, nutritious, and climate-friendly future of food.

    The post These 8 UK Agri-Tech Startups Want To Future Proof South East Asia’s Food System first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post These 8 UK Agri-Tech Startups Want To Future Proof South East Asia’s Food System appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Background to SCORI – is this a sell-out of Pacific’s ‘Sea of Islands’?

    By concerned citizens of the Pacific

    The signing of the memorandum of understanding between the University of the South Pacific’s vice-chancellor and president, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, and the Indian government’s National Centre for Coastal Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, in March for the setting up of a Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI) has raised serious questions about leadership at USP.

    Critics have been asking how this project poses significant risk to the credibility of the institution as well as the security of ocean resources and knowledge sovereignty of the region.

    The partnership was formally launched last week by India’s High Commissioner to Fiji, Palaniswamy Subramanyan Karthigeyan, but the questions remain.

    Regional resource security threat
    Article 8 of the MOU regarding the issue of intellectual property and commercialisation
    states:

    “In case research is carried out solely and separately by the Party or the research results are obtained through sole and separate efforts of either Party,  The Party concerned alone will apply for grant of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and once granted, the IPR will be solely owned by the concerned Party.”

    This is a red flag provision which gives the Indian government unlimited access to scientific data, coastal indigenous knowledge and other forms of marine biodiversity within the 200 exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial waters of sovereign countries in the Pacific.

    More than that, through the granting of IPR, it will claim ownership of all the data and indigenous knowledge generated. This has potential for biopiracy, especially the theft of
    local knowledge for commercial purposes by a foreign power.

    No doubt this will be a serious breach of the sovereignty of Pacific Island States whose
    ocean resources have been subjected to predatory practices by external powers over the
    years.

    The coastal indigenous knowledge of Pacific communities have been passed down
    over generations and the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organisations (WIPO) has developed protocols to protect indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability and survival
    of vulnerable groups.

    The MOU not only undermines the spirit of WIPO, it also threatens the knowledge sovereignty of Pacific people and this directly contravenes the UN Convention of Biodiversity which attempts to protect the knowledge of biodiversity of indigenous
    communities.

    In this regard, it also goes against the protective intent of the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which protects resources of marginalised groups.

    This threat is heightened by the fact that the Access Benefit and Sharing protocol under the Nagoya Convention has not been developed in most of the Pacific Island Countries. Fiji has developed a draft but it still needs to be refined and finalised and key government departments are made aware of it.

    Traditional knowledge of coastal eco-systems of Pacific people are critical in mitigation and adaptation to the increasing threat of climate change as well as a means of collective survival.

    For Indian government scientists (who will run the institute), masquerading as USP
    academics, claiming ownership of data generated from these knowledge systems will pose
    serious issues of being unethical, culturally insensitive, predatory and outright illegal in
    relation to the laws of the sovereign states of the Pacific as well as in terms of international
    conventions noted above.

    Furthermore, India, which is a growing economic power, would be interested in Pacific
    Ocean resources such as seabed mining of rare metals for its electrification projects as well
    as reef marine life for medicinal or cosmetic use and deep sea fishing.

    The setting up of SCORI will enable the Indian government to facilitate these interests using USP’s regional status as a Trojan horse to carry out its agenda in accessing our sea resources across the vast Pacific Ocean.

    India is also part of the QUAD Indo-Pacific strategic alliance which also includes the US, Australia and Japan.

    There is a danger that SCORI will, in implicit ways, act as India’s strategic maritime connection in the Pacific thus contributing to the already escalating regional geo-political contestation between China and the “Western” powers.

    This is an affront to the Pacific people who have been crying out for a peaceful and harmonious region.

    The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, signed by the leaders of the Pacific, tries to guard against all these. Just a few months after the strategy was signed, USP, a regional
    institution, has allowed a foreign power to access the resources of the Blue Pacific Continent without the consent and even knowledge of the Pacific people.

    So in short, USP’s VCP, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, has endorsed the potential capture of the sovereign ownership of our oceanic heritage and opening the window for unrestricted exploitation of oceanic data and coastal indigenous knowledge of the Pacific.

    This latest saga puts Professor Ahluwalia squarely in the category of security risk to the region and regional governments should quickly do something about it before it is too late, especially when the MOU had already been signed and the plan is now a reality.

    Together with Professor Sushil Kumar (Director of Research) and Professor Surendra Prasad (Head of the School of Agriculture, Geography, Ocean and Natural Sciences), both of whom are Indian nationals, he has to be answerable to the leaders and people of the region.

    Usurpation of state protocol
    The second major issue relates to why the Fiji government was not part of the agreement,
    especially because a foreign government is setting up an institute on Fiji’s territory.

    This is different from the regular aid from Australia, New Zealand and even China where state donors maintain a “hands-off” approach out of respect for the sovereignty of Fiji as well as the independence of USP as a regional institution.

    In this case a foreign power is actually setting up an entity in Fiji’s national realm in a regional institution.

    As a matter of protocol, was the Fiji government aware of the MOU? Why was there no
    relevant provision relating to the participation of the Fiji government in the process?

    This is a serious breach of political protocol which Professor Ahluwalia has to be accountable for.

    Transparency and consultation
    For such a major undertaking which deals with Pacific Ocean resources, coastal people’s
    livelihood and coastal environment and their potential exploitation, there should have been
    a more transparent, honest and extensive consultation involving governments, regional
    organisations, civil society and communities who are going to be directly affected.

    This was never done and as a result the project lacks credibility and legitimacy. The MOU itself provided nothing on participation of and benefits to the regional governments, regional organisations and communities.

    In addition, the MOU was signed on the basis of a concept note rather than a detailed plan
    of SCORI. At that point no one really knew what the detailed aims, rationale, structure,
    functions, outputs and operational details of the institute was going to be.

    There is a lot of secrecy and manoeuvrings by Professor Ahluwalia and academics from mainland India who are part of a patronage system which excludes regional Pacific and Indo-Fijian scholars.

    Undermining of regional expertise
    Regional experts on ocean, sustainability and climate at USP were never consulted, although some may have heard of rumours swirling around the coconut wireless. Worse still, USP’s leading ocean expert, an award-winning regional scholar of note, was sidelined and had to resign from USP out of frustration.

    The MOU is very clear about SCORI being run by “experts” from India, which sounds more like a takeover of an important regional area of research by foreign researchers.

    These India-based researchers have no understanding of the Pacific islands, cultures, maritime and coastal environment and work being done in the area of marine studies in the Pacific. The sidelining of regional staff has worsened under the current VCP’s term.

    Another critical question is why the Indian government did not provide funding for the
    existing Institute of Marine Resources (IMR) which has been serving the region well for
    many years. Not only will SCORI duplicate the work of IMR, it will also overshadow its operation and undermine regional expertise and the interests of regional countries.

    Wake up to resources capture
    The people of the Pacific must wake up to this attempt at resources capture by a big foreign power under the guise of academic research.

    Our ocean and intellectual resources have been unscrupulously extracted, exploited and stolen by corporations and big powers in the past. SCORI is just another attempt to continue this predatory and neo-colonial practice.

    The lack of consultation and near secrecy in which this was carried out speaks volume about a conspiratorial intent which is being cunningly concealed from us.

    SCORI poses a serious threat to our resource sovereignty, undermines Fiji’s political protocol, lacks transparency and good governance and undermines regional expertise. This
    is a very serious abuse of power with unimaginable consequences to USP and indeed the
    resources, people and governments of our beloved Pacific region.

    This has never been done by a USP VC and has never been done in the history of the Pacific.

    The lack of consultation in this case is reflective of a much deeper problem. It also manifests ethical corruption in the form of lack of transparency, denial of support for regional staff, egoistic paranoia and authoritarian management as USP staff will testify.

    This has led to unprecedented toxicity in the work environment, irretrievable breakdown of basic university services and record low morale of staff. All these have rendered the university dysfunctional while progressively imploding at the core.

    If we are not careful, our guardianship of “Our Sea of Islands,” a term coined by the
    intellectually immortal Professor Epeli Hau’ofa, will continue to be threatened. No doubt Professor Hau’ofa will be wriggling around restlessly in his Wainadoi grave if he hears about this latest saga.

    This article has been contributed to Asia Pacific Report by researchers seeking to widen debate about the issues at stake with the new SCORI initiative.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A Commercial Land Deal Threatens Alaska’s National Conservation Lands

    Twenty-five years after he signed the bipartisan Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) into law, President Jimmy Carter’s iconic smile was in full display, as he and Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, leaning against the railings of a small marine vessel, looked through their binoculars at the natural wonders of Kenai Fjords National Park. As if on cue, iconic animals appeared…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • More Like Cousteau’s Son, Not Bradley Cooper’s Twin!

    I’m back at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport Oregon, part of the Oregon State University campus harboring marine mammal-fisheries-benthic-ocean researchers and students.

    The topic: How humans decimated whale populations through hundreds of years of industrial whaling, leaving some species and populations on the brink of extinction. But despite these impacts, many whale populations have made remarkable recoveries, demonstrating the ability of threatened and endangered species to bounce back from intense human pressure.

    The presenter: Joshua Stewart, a new faculty member at OSU’s Marine Mammal Institute, PhD from Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

    The running joke with Stewart last night was he WAS not Bradley Cooper, and so he let people know not to be too disappointed that instead of that overpaid undertalented Holly-Dirt guy (my phrasing) we were in for a presentation by a nerd, a passionate whale guy, and young at that!

    He’s been focusing on the Southern Right whale and the Antarctic minke, but his interest is also around the many species of whales/cetaceans not recovering despite whaling and hunting of those species having been stopped decades ago.

    The history of whaling as a commercial endevour goes back to the Basques, a thousand years ago, going after the Right Whale, so called southern Right whale. Then after a few centuries with simple boats, things got going, and in fact the Basques went for Northern Right whales with larger ships. They had a 500 year monopoly on commercial whaling.

    The big push in whaling occurred in the 1700s, Nantucket, and that included the big ships of Moby Dick fame. Then, into the 1800s and 1900s the ships had steam engines, and alas the range for these whalers extended far and wide. Processing ships were introduced, with diesel engines and factories on board, and with the advent of massive industrialization for the two “great” wars, the whalers got explosive harpoons and fast engines.

    So, whereas for more than 700 years the blue and fin whales were too fast for the simple whalers, hence they were not being decimated by the whalers of that age. In the 1950s, however, as Stewart stated, more than three million whales were killed, which he calls the largest cull of wild mammals in the world. Many species became “commercially extinct,” i.e., the few numbers left in these species were not profitable enough for the big commercial operations.That included blues, sperms and fin whales.

     

    I cut my teeth in the early 1970s on fighting whaling, that is, the commercial whaling tyranny. That effort globally — stopping whaling — super-charged the first Earth Day:

    We are now 53 years later, and guys like Stewart, 35, is looking at declining whale populations, including the Southern Resident Orcas:

    There are 73 (total) of these distinct salmon eaters left, and the issues around climate change, habitat degradation and their prey availability play into any researcher’s tool chest. Many of these iconic animals generations ago were part of the live capture “industry” to supply killer whales to theme parks.

    The issue around sea traffic, the noise from that traffic, the pollutants in that Salish Sea (Vancouver and Seattle area), the food stock (Chinook salmon) and climate change play into the degradation of the Southern Residents, as their offspring are coming out smaller, stressed, and a skinny whale triples the probability of dying in the first year of life.

    There were around fifty of us there, March 23, and the auditorium allowed for the first time the beer and wine drinkers to bring in their libations. There were fellow researchers in attendance, as well as students, both graduate and undergraduate. As far as the public, it seems that most people going to these talks are associated with academia or marine research. As I point out time and time again — where are the K12 kids? This was a 6 pm event. Stewart’s slide show/Power Point was good, and he is young (he kept alluding to the fact he is doing research on the backs of old-timers still working as researchers). This is an existential crisis in my mind. Having like minded, fellow marine wonks at an event is NOT enough in 2023. It’s barely anything, really. There are no outreach programs for K12 and families and fisher folk, and since this is after school hours, there seems to be no way in hell of getting high schools students who are interested in science and math and engineering in general to come out to these events. America is a cultural waste land, and one with dream hoarders ruling over the rest of us.

    This is the echo chamber that is science, in my estimation. I can’t fault the students there from OSU, or the retired faculty or the active faculty, but this sort of event I have attended in the hundreds over the course of 50 years as a diver, then student of marine sciences, journalist, writer, educator and sustainability “wonk.”

    There are no avenues now in 2023 built-in to go above and beyond, and surely, the happy hours/social hour from 5 to 6 pm could have been an hour where students got a little tour of the Hatfield which does have a public access educational center:

    Yes, we have the Oregon Aquarium, a commercial marine park of sorts. And the Hatfield Visitor Center does get public attendance, but the K12 schools here in Lincoln county need to do outreach. We also need crab and fisher folk here to to have an open discussion with these wonky folk like Joshua Stewart who may or man not agree with the mitigation ideas, including limiting catches, closing seasons, biodegradable lines, and more.

    Here’s my piece on the Oregon Aquarium: Depth of Experience? 20 years with Oregon Coast Aquarium gives CEO deep blue view of world

    And, I’ve covered many of the researchers at Hatfield and in our Coastal area:

    A story with bite

    In otter news

    I am finding many of my stories I did for Oregon Coast Today have vanished from the sister company, Discover Our Coast. This is disturbing, the culling of my work, as always. However, I have a book with all those stories captured in their original form, here: Coastal People inside a Deep Dive: stories about people living on the Central Coast and other places in Oregon.

    Back to Stewart, AKA “not” Bradley Cooper: His work looks at the last two decades of declines with spring chinook salmon, through the San Juan Islands up to Vancouver Island. That’s an 85 percent decline in those salmon. As the orcas’ food stock, that means their lives are now in peril because of all those other factors, including food availability.

    Here on the Coast we have the iconic gray whales, coming from breeding grounds in Mexico and Central America, making their way to the Arctic. We have whale watching as one tourist attraction, as the gray whales hang out here and push volumes of water into the sand to eat the anthropods that make small tubes as their feeding ritual. The only whale — a baleen whale, filter feeder, that is — which does this sort of feeding is “our” gray whale. ((Here’s another piece: Gray Whales Are Dying: Starving to Death Because of Climate Change; and another: Understanding the ocean’s web of life; and another: Experts paint sobering potential for sea change.))

    So, those gray whales, while in a state of recovery and delisted from the Environmental Species Act list, are still experiencing massive die offs, and the food they get in the Arctic is losing its own biomass, that is, the body weight has declined by one-third in the last fifty years.

    So, like orca, gray whales are being studied now with drone photography, and the body shapes can be tracked over entire lifetimes. The lower the weight, the tougher it is on the individual and species in general.

    Line entanglements are a big issue, as fishers use lobster and crab “pots” in the tens of thousands on our coast and east coast, with a buoy at the surface. Whales get entangled, and some live days, months and even a year with the gear in tow.

    And, ship strikes are becoming a bigger and bigger issue not just on the USA’s coast, but worldwide.

    Obviously, if there are more Fraser River spring Chinook salmon, then there will be a healthier Southern Resident Killer Whale population. But fish stocks are declining, and so many other factors play into the marine mammals’ overall health worldwide.

    Is it not curious, that so vast a being as the whale should see the world through so small an eye, and hear the thunder through an ear which is smaller than a hare’s? But if his eyes were broad as the lens of Herschel’s great telescope; and his ears capacious as the porches of cathedrals; would that make him any longer of sight, or sharper of hearing? Not at all. Why then do you try to ‘enlarge’ your mind? Subtilize it.

    –Hermann Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 74 – “The Sperm Whale’s Head”

    While gray whales were almost hunted to extinction, with 1,000 left, they have been delisted from the ESA — now estimated to be around 20,000 total population. However, researchers like Joshua are looking at these UME’s, Unusual Mortality Events.

    2019-2023 Gray Whale Unusual Mortality Event along the West Coast and Alaska: Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. This event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME).

    There are so many issues that marine mammals face in this industrialized, highly toxic and waste heavy modern society. Lobster/crab gear entanglements are possibly a small problem when compared to the microplastic now found in the zooplanton’s, anthropods’ and the whale’s bodies. Add to that mercury and PCBs, and we have a triple toxic soup for the mammals.

    We can imagine what the carrying capacity is for one whale species, and these researchers have “cool” jobs when they get to go out to sea and chase whales and tag them and photograph them and collect their feces, for sure. Here, yet another piece from my work attending these Science on Tap Hatfield events: Whales and People: A Tragedy! (note: you will see two live links referenced here in this story, which are now no longer available; I have a sneaking suspicion that the university’s thugs, PR spinners, got to the publisher of Discover Our Coast, to knock out all articles tied to OSU that I wrote!)

    At the end of the talk, I asked Joshua to look at the glass half EMPTY. A few in the crowd were not happy about “ending on a negative note” (Yikes, this is academic in a nutshell). His biggest fear is climate change, which is warming seas, that is, where certain areas of the ocean are heating up faster than others. Sea ice is melting earlier and capping over later (according to the past 80 years or more data), and food stocks for marine mammals are become less and less.

    This is the continuing story of extinction, and the supreme right of homo sapiens consumopithecus to rule the world, rule all species, and rule even a majority of our own species in this criminal and corrupting and colluding Capitalism. And, well, green washing and green pornography have taken center stage, man, in the so called sustainability arena. I was head of many sustainability initiatives. Here, a long time ago: Sustained Discussion And, from a standing column I headed up, Metro Talk: Facing uncertainty, the Inland Empire needs more than a global warming bucket list

    I showed many a class as a college teacher, Empty Oceans Empty Nets

    The film is 2002!

    So much work put into research and documentary making. But is it all echo chamber, now that the world is run totally by banks, hedge funds, Blackrock, Vanguard, Pharma-Media-Military-Congressional-Mining-Oil-Gas-Prison-Insurance-Surveillance-IT-AR-Digital Complex? Empty Nets, Emptying Oceans, Farming the Sea, and Soylent Green is People?

    On a happy note, the crowd at Hatfield drank locally produced IPA’s, Oregon wine and locally backed pasteries. There was not mention of Greta’s honory doctorate from Helsinki, and Putin was not blamed for the the UME’s.

    All was well at OSU, as if the world outside was outside of the bubble that is academia. Your choice, Stewart or Cooper!

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 10 Things You Need To Know About The 2023 IPCC Climate Report

    7 Mins Read

    The latest IPCC report is out and the findings are distressing and we highlight the ten most important ones you need to know.

    It’s been a big week for the climate emergency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-founded body charged with “advancing scientific knowledge about anthropogenic climate change” released its latest report this past Monday, March 20th, also known as the Sixth Assessment Report or AR6 Synthesis Report, and in case you’ve been living under a rock, its findings are dire. The full report PDF is not yet out, but the 36-page Summary for Policymakers and the 85-page Longer Report make for sobering reading. Below, we break down the key conclusions for you. 

    1) It’s the end of the line for action: we are out of time.

    One of the more alarming statements in the IPCC report is the following: “Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%) (high confidence).” In plain English: the likelihood that of passing 1.5°C in global warming is 50%. 

    It may feel like we’ve said this before (and we have) but once again, the science could not be more clear: we are out of time. The report was clear that human action has already caused 1.1°C of global warming to the Earth’s climate, which it described as “unprecedented in recent human history”.

    CNN’s chief climate correspondent Bill Weir put it best: “We are committing suicide by fossil fuels and the amount of effort and speed it will take to head off the worst disasters is stunning.”

    2) 2040 is the new 2050

    In his press conference (watch it here) to announce the report, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that he has proposed “a G20 a Climate Solidarity Pact”, one in which “all big emitters make extra efforts to cut emissions, and wealthier countries mobilize financial and technical resources to support emerging economies in a common effort to keep 1.5 degrees alive” and said the IPCC report was a call to “super-charge efforts” to achieve our global climate goals, and stated 2040 as the new deadline. “Leaders of developed countries must commit to reaching net zero as close as possible to 2040, the limit they should all aim to respect…This can be done.  Some have already set a target as early as 2035,” he said. Gutteres ended his speech by imploring us to act at “ warp-speed” on climate action.

    3) More extreme, more often: weather events to be felt by all

    Changes in our atmosphere, intensifying water cycles, droughts, tornadoes- weather-related climate crisis consequences are going to continue to get more serious and happen more frequently. This is no longer a maybe, it’s already happening. While all nations are affected and will pay the physical, societal and financial price for our rising emissions, IPCC warned governments that countries must prioritise adaptation measures to mitigate the most serious effects. 

    3) Fossil fuels are finally called out as the cause of the climate crisis

    HEATED, one of the best newsletters on the climate crisis out there, had some great insights on the report in their latest issue around the evolution of the occurrence of the term ‘fossil fuels’ in IPCC reports. According to their reporting, as recently as 2021 fossil fuels were not mentioned at all in the IPCC summary for policymakers about the causes of climate change. Last April 2022, fossil fuels were cited 44 times in the 50-page IPCC summary report*. In this latest report, fossil fuels were mentioned 16 times as the cause of the crisis. IPCC is clear-eyed that no new oil, gas or coal project financing or licenses (which makes President Joe Biden’s recent Willow approval hugely problematic). Going forward, oil and gas companies will have an increasingly harder time obfuscating their role and responsibilities. 

    *Note: as they point out, the summary report, which is what most people read, is not the actual report, which usually numbers over a thousand pages. 

    4) We need to talk about climate justice

    Minorities, women, people from developing countries and low-income folks are the ones who will pay the highest price for climate emergency consequences: “Increasing weather and climate extreme events have exposed millions of people to acute food insecurity and reduced water security, with the largest adverse impacts observed in many locations and/or communities in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, LDCs, Small Islands and the Arctic, and globally for Indigenous Peoples, small-scale food producers and low-income households.”

    5) We gotta REMOVE, not just REDUCE

    Unfortunately, lowering emissions, even by a huge amount, will no longer be enough to stave off the worst consequences of the climate emergency. We are now in a position whereby we need to urgently focus on CO2 removal from the atmosphere too.

    As per the report: “Reaching net zero GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions primarily requires deep reductions in CO2, methane, and other GHG emissions, and implies net-negative CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be necessary to achieve net-negative CO2 emissions.”

    This means we need to continue to prioritize climate tech investments (this is a good intro guide to the space) while also keeping up the necessary scrutiny on the sector. 

    6) “Everything, Everywhere, All At Once”

    Secretary-General Gutteres is nothing if not pop culture relevant. He borrowed the Oscar-winning movie title to underline that there is no silver bullet here, we have to do everything we can, across all sectors, both in the public and private spheres and with all the tools at our disposal, from behavorial change to regulation to tech innovation to activism if we want to mitigate the worst consequences.

    7) Limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius is still technically feasible.

    We’ve actually still got time and hope. But what’s missing is political will and awareness at all levels of society, business and government. 

    The report called out ten key solutions that require our attention and our investment from retiring coal plants to investing in renewable energy, retrofitting buildings, decarbonizing construction inputs, shifting to EVs, increasing public transport, biking and walking, halting deforestation, decarbonizing aviation and shipping, reduce food loss, food waste and improve agricultural practices, and shift to plant-centric, low-meat diets – all detailed in the above graphic.

    8) Show Me the Adaptation Money!

    To quote another famous Hollywood movie, ‘show me the money!’ is another very loud message from Guterres and the report authors. While IPCC was clear that the vast majority of countries on the planet will need to start considering adaptation measures to handle immediate and near-term risks and build implementation, measures and efforts are not enough. What we need urgently is more climate finance. The IPCC said that by 2030, developing countries need at least $127 billion per year to fund adaptation measures, and today, they are getting less than 10% of this.

    The extent to which current and future generations will experience a hotter world depends on choices made now and in the coming years. Courtesy: IPCC sixth assessment report

    9) Our kids are paying the price for our ignorant and/or mal intentioned decisions

    One of the most heartbreaking and piercing graphics in the latest IPCC report is the above one that illustrates future emissions scenarios based on age today. It’s a visual that cuts straight through the ultimate injustice of the climate emergency: those who have the least control over the decisions made to control are those whose lives and futures will be most affected. 

    10) Food system change is called out as the key to reducing emissions but the diet shift imperative is not strong enough 

    Raphaël Podselver, Director of UN Affairs at ProVeg International, an organisation whose mission is to transform global food systems by promoting plant-based and cultivated alternatives, said that the IPCC report makes clear the need to shift towards plant-based diets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but believes the report does not go far enough to underline that food systems account for one-third of global emissions and said the report is “a ‘missed opportunity’ to raise awareness about the effects of diet on the climate” noting that “direct recommendations from past reports exploring the potential of alternative proteins to mitigate the impact of emissions from food systems immediately were not mentioned in the synthesis.” 

    The post 10 Things You Need To Know About The 2023 IPCC Climate Report appeared first on Green Queen.

  • How Far Do We Go to Save a Species?

    Robin Waples: University of Washington (NOAA Fisheries, retired)

    Topic: On the shoulders of giants: Under-appreciated studies in salmon biology with lasting influence.

  • Jellatech Debuts Cell-Based Human Collagen As Investigation Links Industry to Deforestation

    Jellatech collagen
    3 Mins Read

    The jury’s still out on whether or not collagen supplements have any real benefits, but as an investigation links the industry to deforestation, an achievement from Jellatech may bring new opportunities to the booming category.

    In a post shared on LinkedIn, the North Carolina-based biotech startup Jellatech announced it has created a fully functional human collagen made from a proprietary cell line.

    ‘An important step’

    The announcement comes just eight months after the company debuted its cell-based bovine collagen. Human collagen is used in biomedical and clinical applications including tissue engineering, arthritis treatment, regenerative medicine, 3D bioprinting, and dermal fillers, among other applications.

    Courtesy, Jellatech

    “This milestone further demonstrates that our platform technology for efficiently producing high quality collagen is translatable across multiple cell types, which allows us to address a broad market need for collagen,” Rob Schutte, Jellatech’s head of science, said in the post.

    Stephanie Michelsen, Jellatech’s founder and CEO, praised the achievement, calling it “an important step” in the company’s commitment to making a positive impact.

    Collagen and deforestation

    The announcement comes as a new investigation links the demand for collagen, a popular supplement purported to have wellness and beauty benefits, to deforestation in Brazil. Collagen is typically sourced from cows, but can also come from pigs and fish.

    According to findings from the Guardian, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Center for Climate Crime Analysis (CCCA), ITV and O Joio e O Trigo, collagen traced to the popular Jenifer Anniston-backed Vital Proteins brand owned by food giant Nestlé, is connected to Amazonian deforestation.

    CJulian Peter via Pexels

    The investigation found tens of thousands of cattle raised for collagen production are on farms linked to tropical deforestation — an ongoing crisis contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Eighty percent of the Amazon’s deforestation is connected to the livestock industry.

    The Guardian reports that, unlike beef, soy, and palm, among other food commodities bound to due diligence legislation over deforestation links, the collagen industry sits outside of these regulations and has no obligation to disclose connections.

    Nestlé told the Guardian the allegations don’t align with its responsible sourcing commitments and it has taken steps to ensure its products are “deforestation-free” by 2025.

    Despite the demand for animal collagen, research into its benefits is lacking. The Guardian reported that Harvard School of Public Health cautioned consumers over study findings as most “if not all” of the research has been funded by industry members or scientists affiliated with stakeholder brands.

    Unbiased research, however, has pointed to the benefits of consuming collagen-building foods, rather than consuming collagen itself. Foods such as those rich in vitamin C, zinc, copper, silicon, and the amino acids lysine and proline, have all been linked to healthy collagen production.

    The post Jellatech Debuts Cell-Based Human Collagen As Investigation Links Industry to Deforestation appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • ‘The Biggest Conservation Victory Ever!’ Global Treaty to Protect Oceans Reached



    Ocean conservationists expressed elation late Saturday after it was announced—following nearly two decades of consideration and effort—that delegates from around the world had agreed to language for a far-reaching global treaty aimed at protecting the biodiversity on the high seas and in the deep oceans of the world.

    “This is a historic day for conservation and a sign that in a divided world, protecting nature and people can triumph over geopolitics,” declared Dr. Laura Meller, the oceans campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic.

    “We praise countries for seeking compromises, putting aside differences, and delivering a Treaty that will let us protect the oceans, build our resilience to climate change and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people,” Meller added.

    The final text of the Global Ocean Treaty, formally referred to as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ), was reached after a two-week round of talks that concluded with a 48-hour marathon push between delegations at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

    “The High Seas Treaty opens the path for humankind to finally provide protection to marine life across our one ocean.”

    “This is huge,” said Greenpeace in a social media post, calling the agreement “the biggest conservation victory ever!”

    Rena Lee of Singapore, the U.N Ambassador for Oceans and president of the conference hosting the talks, received a standing ovation after announcing a final deal had been reached. “The shipped has reached the shore,” Lee told the conference.

    “Following a two-week-long rollercoaster ride of negotiations and super-hero efforts in the last 48 hours, governments reached agreement on key issues that will advance protection and better management of marine biodiversity in the High Seas,” said Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, a coalition of over 40 ocean-focused NGOs that also includes the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

    Minna Epps, director of the Global Marine and Polar Programme at the IUCN, said the agreement represents a new opportunity.

    “The High Seas Treaty opens the path for humankind to finally provide protection to marine life across our one ocean,” Epps said in a statement. “Its adoption closes essential gaps in international law and offers a framework for governments to work together to protect global ocean health, climate resilience, and the socioeconomic wellbeing and food security of billions of people.”

    Protecting the world’s high seas, which refers to areas of the oceans outside the jurisdiction of any country, is part of the larger push to protect planetary biodiversity and seen as key if nations want to keep their commitment to the UN-brokered Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—also known as the known as the 30×30 pledge—that aims protect 30 percent of the world’s natural habitat by 2030.

    “With currently just over 1% of the High Seas protected,” said the High Seas Alliance in a statement, “the new Treaty will provide a pathway to establish marine protected areas in these waters.” The group said the treaty will make acheiving the goals of the Kunming-Montreal agreement possible, but that “time is of the essence” for the world’s biodiversity.

    “The new Treaty will bring ocean governance into the 21st century,” said the group, “including establishing modern requirements to assess and manage planned human activities that would affect marine life in the High Seas as well as ensuring greater transparency. This will greatly strengthen the effective area-based management of fishing, shipping, and other activities that have contributed to the overall decline in ocean health.”

    According to Greenpeace’s assessment of the talks:

    The High Ambition Coalition, which includes the EU, US and UK, and China were key players in brokering the deal. Both showed willingness to compromise in the final days of talks, and built coalitions instead of sowing division. Small Island States have shown leadership throughout the process, and the G77 group led the way in ensuring the Treaty can be put into practice in a fair and equitable way.

    The fair sharing of monetary benefits from Marine Genetic Resources was a key sticking point. This was only resolved on the final day of talks. The section of the Treaty on Marine Protected Areas does away with broken consensus-based decision making which has failed to protect the oceans through existing regional bodies like the Antarctic Ocean Commission. While there are still major issues in the text, it is a workable Treaty that is a starting point for protecting 30% of the world’s oceans.

    The group said it is now urgent for governments around the world to take the final step of ratifying the treaty.

    “We can now finally move from talk to real change at sea. Countries must formally adopt the Treaty and ratify it as quickly as possible to bring it into force, and then deliver the fully protected ocean sanctuaries our planet needs,” Meller said. “The clock is still ticking to deliver 30×30. We have half a decade left, and we can’t be complacent.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Green Death: Love in a Time of Green Pornography

    Source: Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries

    I was calling it many variations on the theme, greenwashing, many many propagandistic things, like green-scamming, green-sheening, and eco-porn. Here, a 1992 article, man, so long long ago, almost forgotten :

    Eco-pornography is the advertising of a product as “environmentally friendly,” when in fact, some unmentioned aspect of the product (or its production and distribution) has notably deleterious effects on the environment. Ecological impact is such a difficult thing to define in terms of the processes of production (as further discussed below), one is hesitant to single out specific corporations as ecopomographers, lest they be unfairly vilified, but it might be informative to mention some egregious examples of false environmental advertising.

    According to Bob Garfield, ad critic for Advertising Age Weekly, the most offensive environmental advertisement “is a General Motors corporate ad in which [the company is] congratulating America for 20 years of environmental progress. After spending three decades doing everything in [its] power to weaken, inhibit, and delay environmental legislation…,” this ad is arguably misleading. General Motors is not the only auto manufacturer guilty of greenwash. Adweek chose a Toyota commercial in which a young woman lauds recycling and her Toyota in the same breath, as one of the worst advertisements of 1990. Said Adweek, “The only Earth-minded tie-in…is the woman’s declaration that, until she can save the world, she’ll buy a Tercel and save money.” (source)

    This all seems pretty mild, some 32 years later. It is the driving concept of an Al Gore in his 10,000 square foot mansion flying around the world in private jets, going to Davos and the World Economic Forum and COP#Infinity, lecturing us, we the people, on why Styrofoam and regular lightbulbs are bad bad bad. Well, darn, he has several mansions, one in Tennessee and then one in California: Al Gore’s California home consumes more electricity in 1 year than the average US family uses in 21 years.

     

     

    Now that’s some eco-porn, man. It’s THAT finger, man, you all know it: from cops to teachers, to city council persons to DMV workers, that FINGER.

    Man, Liz Warren, another pornographer —

    Elizabeth Warren believes that strengthening the “effectiveness” of the U.S. military is consistent with the Green New Deal. Her bill doesn’t demand that the U.S. military be reduced in size or scale. Nor does it mention that the U.S. military is the world’s largest polluter and user of oil and fossil fuels. Instead of turning the Green New Deal into concrete policy, Warren has placed her attention on renovating the one thousand U.S. military bases that exist domestically and abroad. The so-called “policy wonk” of the 2020 elections appears to be more concerned with creating “green” bombs than a “green economy.”

    The U.S. drops a bomb on another nation every twelve minutes . It is no wonder that U.S. military, which serves as the armed body of the state responsible for protecting the interests of Wall Street, fossil fuel corporations, military contractors, and monopolies of all kinds, is treated as a trophy by all sections of the U.S. political class. The U.S. military embodies American exceptionalism claiming to spread democracy and freedom to lands near and far. Holidays such as Memorial Day and Veterans Day are designed to remind Americans of all races and classes that the U.S. is exceptional because of its large military footprint. Instead of seeing this footprint as bombs, sanctions, or deadly raids, Democrat and Republican politicians alike believe that the U.S. military permanently signifies American greatness. (source)

    Green bombs, man, and cleaner jet fuel for bombers. That’s the green deal, the eco-porn at its pinnacle? Though we have more, as in the figure of the actual “Greens” of Germany:

    A motion seeking a ceasefire in Ukraine and another opposing the supply of heavy weapons to Kiev were overwhelmingly rejected by delegates. Green Member of the European Parliament, Sergey Lagodinsky, lambasted the argument of one delegate who warned that Europe would be wiped out after the first nuclear bomb dropped, saying that Ukrainians “cannot defend themselves with sunflowers.”

    German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock vehemently advocated the delivery of more weapons and heavy battle tanks to Ukraine. “We support Ukraine, not despite the fact that we are a party of peace and human rights, but because we are a party of peace and human rights,” she stated to justify her advocacy of war.

    Party leader Ricarda Lang supported her, saying, “I am convinced we have to deliver more weapons, we have to react faster. The time for hesitation is over.”

    Well well, recall how Germany “got rid of” coal and smelting and all of that fun carbon positive polluting stuff. It’s called offshoring your carbon footprint. All those Southern Hemisphere nations (and Russia) do all the cooking, blasting, mining, milling, and welding of Germany’s fancy bridges and highrises. This is Anna:

    Now that is real eco-pornography. Not to the max, but really, this is what the greening of the world means — flights to Ukraine, trillions dumped into weapons, trillions put into satellites, trillions here and trillions there, now that is green pimping to the max. You know, keeping the bankers safe with those diesel and gasoline powered metal and titanium battle tanks, missile launchers, helicopters, jets.

    Now here is some real violent eco-porn. Just the headline is triggering. A warning: “Green New Army? NATO Wants Eco-Friendly Tanks — NATO’s tanks may be getting solar panels.” (sources sources)

     

    We get the triple pornography, right, as the USA, the US military, occupies one-third of Syria and steals the oil (uses Syrian soil as an Israeli proving grounds bombing area). Now that is icing on the pornography cake. “The United States forces present in Syrian territory without the consent of the government or the approval of the United Nations, today looted a new batch of oil and transferred it to Iraq.” (source)

    Man, I am feeling the “green” in that raping of a country’s resources. And those hootches above, with solar panels? Nah, not for Haiti, or Syria or Turkey:

    Sure, this rant was precipitated by an article from a real “legit” source, Yale 360 Environment. Title: “As Millions of Solar Panels Age Out, Recyclers Hope to Cash In.” The entire green pornography has captured the EU, Canada, USA, other outfits of empire until we have the lunacy of solar panels galore, but with the unintended (nah, very intended, very predictable) consequences of unfettered capitalism pushing the dirty panels (check out the lifecycle and embedded energy and external costs of that solar panel — again, stuff has to be mined, moved, milled, smelted, cooked, chemicalize, and shipped AND then, darn, into the landfills they go after 25 years of use) into the entire eco-pornography game.

    Next, the panels are ground, shredded, and subjected to a patented process that extracts the valuable materials — mostly silver, copper, and crystalline silicon. Those components will be sold, as will the lower-value aluminum and glass, which may even end up in the next generation of solar panels.

    This process offers a glimpse of what could happen to an expected surge of retired solar panels that will stream from an industry that represents the fastest-growing source of energy in the U.S. Today, roughly 90 percent of panels in the U.S. that have lost their efficiency due to age, or that are defective, end up in landfills because that option costs a fraction of recycling them.

    You see the trifecta here of green porn? Selling panels as a panacea, of course, that means SELLING (profitting from the so-callled “helping reduce/mitigate/stave off the planet’s climate heating”) the goods, mining the minerals and then, yep, they have an end life cycle, and instead of mandating recycling them and making better and longer (durable) solar panels, it’s “let the market pimp, prostitute, steal, hoard, tax, fine, certify.” ALL for profit. What could go wrong, no, profitting from green washing?

    Again, the word “value” comes into play with eco-pornography: By 2050, the value of raw materials recoverable from solar panels could exceed $15 billion.

     

    It gets wonky, this LCA just for ONE type of photo-voltaic panel: “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of perovskite PV cells projected from lab to fab” Ah, note that this is only to the fabrication level. Not all the embedded energy and expelled energy to mine, smelt, move, chemicalize, produce, move, install, AND then uninstall and then either throw away or “recycle.” No cradle to cradle shit here.

    Like I said, wonky: cradle to gate is yet more of this eco-pornography terminology.

    Perovskite photovoltaic cells (PVs) have attracted significant worldwide attention in the past few years. Although the stability of the power conversion is a concern, there is great potential for perovskites to enter the global PV market. To determine the future potential of perovskites, we performed a cradle-to-gate environmental life cycle (LCA) for two different perovskite device structures suitable for low cost manufacturing. Rather than examining current laboratory deposition processes like dipping and spinning, we considered spray and co-evaporation methods that are more amenable to manufacturing. A structure with an inorganic hole transport layer (HTL) was developed for both solution and vacuum based processes, and an HTL-free structure with printed with back contact was modeled for solution based deposition. The environmental impact of conventional Si PV technology was used as a reference point. The environmental impacts from manufacturing of perovskite solar cells were lower than that of mono-Si.

    However, environmental impacts from unit electricity generated were higher than all commercial PV technology mainly because of the shorter lifetime of perovskite solar cell. The HTL-free perovskite generally had the lowest environmental impacts among the three structures studied. Solution based methods used in perovskite deposition were observed to decrease the overall electricity consumption. Organic materials used for preparing the precursors for perovskite deposition were found to cause a high marine eutrophication impact. Surprisingly, the toxicity impacts of the lead used in the formation of the absorber layer were found to be negligible. Energy payback times were estimated as 1.0–1.5 years.

    So for the average greenie, well, this stuff is WAY beyond their “green washing wet behind the ears” knowledge base: “Deposition Process – The PLD process involves the use of high-power laser energy focused on a target to evaporate its surface in vacuum or different low-pressure ambient gas. From: Laser Surface Modification of Biomaterials, (2016)

    The pornography is also in the rhetoric, the motivations of technologists, technocrats, scientists, the lot of them working on these highly technical projects. It is driven by the bizarrely human quest to see if we can do it mentality. That quest is of course driven by profit motives. Not so much about saving the world.

    Dystopia is the end product of having billionaires and collective lobbies of Eichmann’s and Mengele’s and Edward Bernay’s and Tom Friedman’s rule the world, as Top Dog Green Pimps but also Top Green Bordella Owners.

    Look how superficial this marketing crap is — “raw materials.” What’s the energy, cultural, economic, and societal outlay for that?

    The most commonly used photovoltaics consist of monocrystalline or multicrystalline silicon.  The main negative environmental impact of these panels comes from the production phase and include:

    • The energy consumed during production of the panels and the emissions released during production
    • Water consumption
    • The release of some hazardous byproducts [18].

    The environmentally relevant substances released during the production phase of silicon solar panels are fluorine, chlorine, nitrate, isopropanol, SO2, CO2 and respirable silica particles and solvents.

    However, over the course of their lifetime, crystalline solar panels generate 9-17 times the energy used to produce them, depending on their placement and efficiency.  Also, depending on the type of PV technology, the clean energy pay back takes place in one to four years.  Once in place, solar systems using photovoltaics are 100% emissions free.  The production of 1,000 kWh of solar electricity reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. (follow the money, the financing, the banking, the investing, the scamming of government-taxpayer funds)

     

    Talk about some slick green porn? So all that renewable energy just comes from heaven. Those dams, those solar panels, those wind turbines, all the wires, plastics, rubbers, strategic metals, transportation, MINING. Whew!

    You want to get wonky? I’ve written about this before — the single-use shopping bag legislation/laws. The reality is that paper bags are bad bad bad. And, in reality, the single use bags, if used properly, go into a small gabage pail in the house, and many are used as bags for produce int the fridge and for poop/cat liter. Triple reunse, as opposed to us buying heavier small bags for pails and poop. Again, unintended consequences. Countless millions of lifetime hours spent just one aspect of greening the economy:

    Summary and recommendations The authors are satisfied that they have achieved their goal to provide a comparative assertion among the six types of grocery carrier bags included in the report based on their respective potential environmental impacts. The carrier bags selected were those in most common use in the United States and the underlying data were, as far as is possible, based on United States data.

    Our results are based on a study of twelve environmental impact categories. Our results show that reusable LDPE and NWPP bags will have lower average impacts on the environment compared to PRBs if the reusable bags are reused for a sufficient number of grocery shopping trips. However, according to a recent national survey, a majority of consumers do not reuse their reusable bags for this sufficient number of trips, especially for LDPE bags. Moreover, 40% of people forget to bring their reusable bags with them to the store and half the people who prefer NWPP bags used PRBs at their most recent shopping trip. In addition, only 15% of people follow the recommended cleaning procedures to ensure safe use of reusable bags.

    Our results also show that Paper bags, even with 100% recycle content, have significantly higher average impacts on the environment than either of the reusable bags or PRBs. Many of the regulations now in place or being considered in the United States encourage consumers to use reusable bags through banning PRBs and imposing a fee on the use of Paper bags. (Californians Against Waste, 2013) (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2013) A number of grocery chains in non-legislated areas provide Paper bags and sell various reusable bags. Our results in this study show that these regulations and policies may result in negative impact on the environment rather than positive.

    Even though Paper bags come from a renewable resource and are easily recycled, it is likely that they are not the best environmental choice. Reusable bags should only be preferred if consumers are educated to use them safely and consistently, and reuse them enough times to lower their relative environmental impacts compared to PRB alternatives.

    Our recommendation, based on our work in this study, is that consumers should be given a choice between reusable bags and PRBs and that any of these should be preferred over Paper bags. Most important is that much more attention should be focused on educating consumers to make an informed choice of which bags to use by providing them facts—facts about reusable bag use, facts about proper recycling or disposal of PRBs, facts about the potential environmental impacts of their choices—based on sound scientific evidence. (check it out — 194 pages just for the PRB — plastic retail bag)

    I was a sustainability director for a community college in Spokane, the first in the town with several colleges as anchors there. I did a lot of fairs, talks, teach-ins; I had famous authors come into town to speak, to be on my radio show, and I featured many in my articles for the weekly newspaper and the monthly magazine and a blog with the daily newspaper.

    Yeah, I was skeptical of all the rah-rah, and I was lambasted for putting down COPs and Gore and Obama and the so-called new deal for climate-nature-ecosystems. I even was trained in sustainability education and monitoring. American Planning Association:

    When I was in Vancouver, for the Summer Institute for Sustainable education, I was the ONLY person questioning the motives of big outfits like Unilever and Proctor and Gamble and others tied to this “sustainability” initiative. I like being in that position, questioning, pushing, but really, there can be sort of an emptiness in being around these people at any university, especially at the University of British Columbia. I talked to mayors, planners, business leaders, and others who were hyper glassy eyed about sustainability — Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing. They listened, and some of the stuff I brought up to them was like speaking Greek. You know, caring for communities and their cultures FIRST, as opposed to making green on green!

    Green washing, green pornography, green sheening, and now, green hushing: A trend known as “green hushing” is growing as companies are increasingly choosing not to publicize details of their climate targets in an attempt to avoid scrutiny and allegations of greenwashing, a new study showed. This of course is a double whammy:

    “If green hushing becomes a trend, it will make inspiring some of the climate laggards even harder,” she said. “As long as companies are transparent about their progress, and communicate that in a transparent way, then they can’t go wrong.”

    The reality is that this is triple green washing, almost coming back as the dirtiest game in town — killing people: “Why the New Deal for Nature is a disaster for people and planet.”

    The conservation industry says 2020 is its “super year.” It wants to set aside thirty percent of the globe for wildlife, and divert billions of dollars away from reducing climate change and into “natural climate solutions.” This would be a disaster for people and planet. Conservation was founded in the racist ideology of 1860s USA but it committed thirty years ago to becoming people-friendly. It hasn’t happened. There will be more promises now, if only to placate critics and funders like the U.S. and German governments, and the European Commission, which are paying for conservation’s land theft, murder and torture. More promises will be meaningless. No more public money should go for “Protected Areas” until the conservation bodies recognize their crimes, get rid of those responsible, and hand stolen lands back, with compensation. Conservation NGOs must also stop cozying up to mining, logging, oil, and plantation companies.

    And it only gets worse, much worse. Reading articles and watching videos from Alison’s Wrench in the Gears site can take us all to a more nano-level of the green washing/pornography/gestapo to the max, as in profits on data, on wearables, on digital dungeons. Here’s a recent one, but go backwards and catch up on that entire investing and AI-VR-AR scheme: “God’s Eye View Part 6 – Every Man Thus Lives By Exchanging“

    You will get very few people going into these weeds:

    Based on what I am seeing in the Web3 space, I’m picturing a new NGO culture emerging in which Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), with a pretense of tokenized cooperative governance, manage legions of platform laborers all tied to ledgers and wearable tech. Algorithms weigh individual needs against those of the collective and mete out payments for digital public goods production. Officials, whether they understand it or not, are setting citizens up to become precarious impact commodities for high frequency options trading. One hand washes the other as the masses are made to power the matrix and build out digital empire. Everyone plays their assigned role in the spectacle advancing the plot without wrapping their minds around the game they’re in or comprehending what the stakes are. (McDowell)

    More weeds? Silicon Icarus:

    Here, a typical piece from Silicon Icarus: “Programmable Freedom – Smart Contracts, Blockchain and the Holy Grail of Central Banking” Let’s call this digital green washing:

    The unification of traditional finance and so-called ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations’ propels the evolution of legal abstractions to digital standards. These standards, along with their legal counterparts, form the infrastructure for the large-scale control of society through impact finance, revamped educational credentials, digital health records, fake environmentalism, geo-fencing, smart cities, internet-enabled nanotechnology and all of the other crazy ‘use cases’ such technology makes possible. The move towards robust CBDC networks by central banks all over the world, provides even more momentum to this future. (source)

    greek mythology tattoos icarus - Google Search | Project Icarus | Pinterest | Mythology, Roman ...

    Yikes, I am going deeper and deeper off-topic, except it really isn’t off topic. It’s all about “who makes the money, who controls the food, who controls the data, who controls the ants/prols/Us?”

    Elites, man, rubbing elbows with technocrats and coders and geniuses: From Wrench in the Gears:

    Adam Smith opens his “Wealth of Nations” with a story of the efficiencies created in a pin factory where workers were assigned discrete tasks along the production line, the division of labor expanded production netting significant profits for the factory owner. Later, in chapter four, Smith writes, “Every man thus lives by exchanging,” a quote inscribed on one side of a luxurious bronze gas lamp located in the atrium just outside the Debate Room at Old Parkland in Dallas, the city’s most elite corporate address. 

    Building off energy futures trading, the Dallas old guard is making its move to set up markets in human capital management, led by the Commit! Partnership with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan standing in the shadows. That lamp stands opposite an elaborately carved portico topped by a large gilded owl. On either side are four paintings. The upper tier shows Watson and Crick and their DNA model on the one side and on the other side Steve Jobs with an orange Apple desktop showing the Pixar movie “Up.” Below is FDR and Eisenhower on one side and Churchill and Truman on the other. What this says to me is that we’re being pulled into a new “war,” a war on consciousness and human agency even as we are being told mythic stories about scientific progress.

    Yikes! Thanks Alison!

    The last couple of generations has amply demonstrated that meetings of corporate heads, NGOs, politicians, and celebrities are not going to solve the crises of climate and biodiversity. Those attending are amongst the major contributors to the problems, and least willing to accept any change which might threaten their position. They argue over statements that no one actually applies, or even intends to, and which are replete with clauses ensuring “business as usual.” The meetings and declarations attract an enormous media circus, but are akin to the emperor’s workshop, with hundreds of tailors busily cutting suits of such rarefied material that they don’t cover his nakedness. (source)

    Cory Morningstar, investigative journalist and environmental activist explains how the Green New Deal for Nature was created by the UN in 2009 to monetise nature and create economic growth, Cory points us to build local resistance, to build strong alliances and to protect our lands, waters and communities with No Deal for Nature. The post Green Death: Love in a Time of Green Pornography first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Ballengarra tree-sit stops logging

    Forest protector and soil scientist Tim Evans stopped logging crews in Ballengarra State Forest, saying destruction of public native forests must end. Kerry Smith reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • We Face a Climate Abyss, But There Are Sparks of Hope, Robert Pollin Says

    The energy transition from fossil-based systems of energy production and consumption to renewable energy sources is moving slowly, and scores of global conferences on climate change over the past few decades have failed to produce the desired results. From the look of things, fossil fuels are going to be around for a long time to come, even though there is undeniable evidence that humanity is…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.