United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres made clear Monday that securing a livable planet depends on stopping the “bottomless greed of the fossil fuel industry and its enablers.”
In a speech to the General Assembly, Guterres called for an end to “the merciless, relentless, senseless war on nature” that “is putting our world at immediate risk of hurtling past the 1.5°C temperature increase limit and now still moving towards a deadly 2.8°C.”
2023 must be “a year of reckoning,” the U.N. chief said as he outlined his priorities for the months ahead. “It must be a year of game-changing climate action. We need disruption to end the destruction. No more baby steps. No more excuses. No more greenwashing.”
Scientists have warned repeatedly that scaling up the extraction and burning of coal, oil, and gas is incompatible with averting the most catastrophic consequences of the climate emergency. Nevertheless, hundreds of corporations—bolstered by trillions of dollars in annual public subsidies—are still planning to ramp up planet-heating pollution in the years ahead, prioritizing profits over the lives of those who will be harmed by the ensuing chaos.
“I have a special message for fossil fuel producers and their enablers scrambling to expand production and raking in monster profits: If you cannot set a credible course for net-zero, with 2025 and 2030 targets covering all your operations, you should not be in business,” said Guterres. “Your core product is our core problem.”
“We need a renewables revolution, not a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence,” he added.
In order to halve global greenhouse gas emissions this decade, the U.N. chief said, the world needs “far more ambitious action to cut carbon pollution by speeding up the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy—especially in G20 countries—and de-carbonizing highest emitting industrial sectors—steel, cement, shipping, and aviation.
In addition, he continued, the world needs “a Climate Solidarity Pact in which all big emitters make an extra effort to cut emissions, and wealthier countries mobilize financial and technical resources to support emerging economies in a common effort to keep 1.5°C alive.”
“We need a renewables revolution, not a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence.”
“Climate action is impossible without adequate finance,” Guterres noted. “Developed countries know what they must do: At minimum, deliver on commitments made at the latest COP. Make good on the $100 billion promise to developing countries. Finish the job and deliver on the Loss and Damage Fund agreed in Sharm El-Sheikh. Double adaptation funding. Replenish the Green Climate Fund by COP28. Advance plans for early warning systems to protect every person on earth within five years. And stop subsidizing fossil fuels and pivot investments to renewables.”
Like the 26 annual U.N. climate meetings that preceded it, COP27 ended last November with no commitment to a swift and just global phase-out of coal, oil, and gas.
In an effort to avoid a repeat performance at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates this December, Guterres intends to convene a “Climate Ambition Summit” in September.
“The invitation is open to any leader—in government, business, or civil society,” Guterres said Monday. “But it comes with a condition: Show us accelerated action in this decade and renewed ambitious net-zero plans—or please don’t show up.”
“COP28 in December will set the stage for the first-ever Global Stocktake—a collective moment of truth—to assess where we are, and where we need to go in the next five years to reach the Paris goals,” he continued.
Guterres added that “humanity is taking a sledgehammer to our world’s rich biodiversity—with brutal and even irreversible consequences for people and planet. Our ocean is choked by pollution, plastics, and chemicals. And vampiric overconsumption is draining the lifeblood of our planet—water.”
In 2023, the world “must also bring the Global Biodiversity Framework to life and establish a clear pathway to mobilize sufficient resources,” said the U.N. chief. “And governments must develop concrete plans to repurpose subsidies that are harming nature into incentives for conservation and sustainability.”
“Climate action is the 21st century’s greatest opportunity to drive forward all the Sustainable Development Goals,” Guterres stressed. “A clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a right we must make real for all.”
Guterres’ speech was not limited to the climate and biodiversity crises. He also emphasized the need for a “course correction” on devastating wars and raging inequality, calling for a new global economic architecture that foregrounds the needs of the poor instead of allowing the richest 1% to capture nearly half of all newly created wealth.
“This is not a time for tinkering,” said the U.N. chief. “It is a time for transformation.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
A new report says that an inconsistent understanding of what regenerative agriculture entails and what it can achieve means an outcome-based framework for measuring and assessing regenerative agricultural practices is needed.
The Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), a non-profit organization that describes itself as a coalition of ambassadors, donors, country platforms, and partners working to embrace a diversity of opinions and approaches, support disruptive thinking, and forge consensus through an evidence-based approach”, has published a new report titled ‘Aligning regenerative agricultural practices with outcomes to deliver for people, nature and climate‘ calling for an outcome-based framework for measuring and assessing regenerative agricultural practices.
Regenerative agriculture as a food system solution
Industrial food production is one of the leading causes of ecosystem degradation, water depletion, biodiversity loss, deforestation and rising greenhouse gas emissions, many are pointing to regenerative agriculture as a solution.
Regenerative agriculture is attracting growing attention from the agri-food industry, civil society organizations, and farming communities as a potential solution to the environmental challenges facing the agriculture sector.
No agreed-upon definition or standard
Regenerative agriculture practices are generally accepted to encompass boosting soil wellness, increasing water permeation and retention, improving farm resilience, and reducing dependence on chemical inputs, but there is currently no universally accepted definition for the term.
The report says this is partly due to a lack of evidence, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, adding that the experience of farmers is often missing from reporting metrics and assessing regenerative practices across farms and landscapes is complex.
Corporations are increasingly citing regenerative agriculture in their marketing and on product labels.
In 2021, PepsiCo set a target for 2030 to implement regenerative farming practices on a total of 7 million acres, which represents its entire agricultural footprint. Nestlé followed up with its own pledge- saying it was allocating $1.2 billion over the next five years to promote regenerative agriculture in its food supply chain. That same year, popular outdoor apparel brand Patagonia introduced a range of beer made from Kernza, a perennial wheat grain produced through regenerative farming methods that support the restoration of soil biodiversity and carbon capture.
Current outcomes are highly variable and require geographical context
The report includes a review of evidence on how specific regenerative agricultural practices link to three important farm-level outcomes: biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and yield, finding that while many regenerative agricultural practices can have a positive impact on on-farm biodiversity and on-farm carbon sequestration, effects on yield are highly variable and effects on net greenhouse gas emissions were mixed. Contextual variations, such as topography and soil type, are identified as key determinants of results across biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and yield.
Further, highly variable effects on yield can risk unintended consequences for food security, off-farm biodiversity, or climate change mitigation, particularly in light of the growing global demand for food.
Outcomes-based framework urgently needed
While the report highlights the progress that is already taking place, through initiatives such as REGEN10, it emphasizes the need for an outcomes-based framework that considers a holistic set of outcomes and examines effects at multiple scales to ensure that agriculture can contribute to global goals for food security, nature, and climate, as well as aligning regenerative agricultural practices with measurement of outcomes will enable farmers and practitioners to adopt and scale up practices that have positive effects on people and the planet.
Crucially, it says the framework must be based on research, evidence, experience, and insights from farmers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, civil society, and academia from around the world.
Farmers are encouraged to challenge peers to improve environmental performance, lobby for greater accountability and rewards, and experiment with practices that have positive environmental outcomes. Businesses and policymakers are urged to set outcome-based targets and eliminate support for unsustainable agricultural practices, while repurposing agricultural subsidies to support more sustainable farming practices. Research and academia, civil society, and donors also have critical roles to play in addressing the gaps in evidence and bringing different stakeholders together.
Platforms to bring about food and land use change
FOLU currently works in five countries, namely China, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, and Indonesia, with Kenya planned soon and has affiliates in Australia, the Nordics and the U.K. It sets up platforms in various countries to help bring about food and land use systems that meet both local and global goals by engaging with local, regional, and national stakeholders to establish partnerships, conduct research and generate solutions.
As a deadly strain of avian influenza continues to decimate bird populations around the world and spread among other animals, some scientists are warning that mammal-to-mammal transmission has emerged as a real possibility with potentially catastrophic consequences for humans.
Over the past year, officials in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have detected cases of the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu in a variety of species, including bears, foxes, otters, raccoons, and skunks. Last month, a cat suffered serious neurological symptoms from a late 2022 infection, according to French officials who said that the virus showed genetic characteristics consistent with adaptation to mammals.
Most of these infections are likely the result of mammals eating infected birds, according to Jürgen Richt, director of the Center on Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at Kansas State University.
More alarming, multiple researchers argue, was the large outbreak of H5N1 on a Spanish mink farm last October, which could mark the first known instance of mammal-to-mammal transmission.
“Farmworkers began noticing a spike in deaths among the animals, with sick minks experiencing an array of dire symptoms like loss of appetite, excessive saliva, bloody snouts, tremors, and a lack of muscle control,” CBC Newsreported Thursday. “Eventually, the entire population of minks was either killed or culled—more than 50,000 animals in total.”
“A virus which has evolved on a mink farm and subsequently infects farmworkers exposed to infected animals is a highly plausible route for the emergence of a virus capable of human-to-human transmission to emerge.”
A study published two weeks ago in Eurosurveillance, a peer-reviewed journal of epidemiological research, described the outbreak and its public health implications. Notably, the authors wrote that their findings “indicate that an onward transmission of the virus to other minks may have taken place in the affected farm.”
As CBC Newsnoted, “That’s a major shift, after only sporadic cases among humans and other mammals over the last decade.”
Michelle Wille, a University of Sydney researcher who focuses on the dynamics of wild bird viruses, told the Canadian outlet that “this outbreak signals the very real potential for the emergence of mammal-to-mammal transmission.”
It’s just one farm and none of the workers—all of whom wore personal protective equipment—were infected. However, Dr. Isaac Bogoch, a Toronto-based infectious disease specialist, warned Thursday that if the virus mutates in a way that enables it to become increasingly transmissible between mammals, including humans, “it could have deadly consequences.”
“This is an infection that has epidemic and pandemic potential,” Bogoch told CBC News. “I don’t know if people recognize how big a deal this is.”
A “mass mortality event” involving roughly 2,500 endangered seals found off the coast of Russia’s Caspian Sea last month has also raised alarm.
A researcher at Russia’s Dagestan State University, Alimurad Gadzhiyev, said last week that early samples from the seals “tested positive for bird flu,” adding that they were still studying whether the virus caused the die-off.
Peacock warned there have been mixed reports from Russia about the seals, which could have contracted the virus by eating infected seabirds.
But if the seals did give bird flu to each other it “would be yet another very concerning development,” he added.
“The mink outbreaks, the increased number of infections of scavenger mammals, and the potential seal outbreak would all point to this virus having the potential to cause a pandemic” in humans, he said.
Among birds, the mortality rate of H5N1 can approach 100%, ravaging wild bird populations and poultry farms alike. The World Organization for Animal Health toldBBC News on Thursday that it has recorded almost 42 million cases of H5N1 in wild and domestic birds since the current outbreak started in October 2021. Another 193 million domestic birds have been culled in an attempt to curb transmission.
The highly pathogenic strain of avian flu also frequently causes death in other mammals, including humans. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly 870 cases of H5N1 were reported in humans from 2003 to 2022 and they resulted in at least 457 deaths—a fatality rate that exceeds 50%.
The virus has “not acquired the ability for sustained transmission among humans,” the WHO stated last month. “Thus the likelihood of human-to-human spread is low.”
However, a December report from the U.K. Health Security Agency warned that the “rapid and consistent acquisition of the mutation in mammals may imply this virus has a propensity to cause zoonotic infections,” meaning that it could jump to humans.
Dr. Wenqing Zhang, head of the WHO’s global influenza program, told BBC News on Thursday that the threat posed by the virus spilling over “is very concerning and the risk has been increasing over the years as reflected in the number of outbreaks in animals as well as a number of infections in humans.”
“We’re closely related to minks and ferrets, in terms of influenza risks… If it’s propagating to minks, and killing minks, it’s worrisome to us.”
As CBC News reported this week: “Most human infections also appeared to involve people having direct contact with infected birds. Real-world mink-to-mink transmission now firmly suggests H5N1 is now ‘poised to emerge in mammals,’ Wille said—and while the outbreak in Spain may be the first reported instance of mammalian spread, it may not be the last.”
Wille warned that “a virus which has evolved on a mink farm and subsequently infects farmworkers exposed to infected animals is a highly plausible route for the emergence of a virus capable of human-to-human transmission to emerge.”
Louise Moncla, an assistant professor of pathobiology at the University of Pennsylvania, told the outlet that viruses often adapt to new host species through an “intermediary host.”
“And so what’s concerning about this is that this is exactly the kind of scenario you would expect to see that could lead to this type of adaptation, that could allow these viruses to replicate better in other mammals—like us,” Moncla explained.
The alarm bells sounded this week echo long-standing warnings about the growing prospects of a devastating bird flu pandemic.
In his 2005 book, The Monster at Our Door, the late historian Mike Davis wrote that “the essence of the avian flu threat… is that a mutant influenza of nightmarish virulence—evolved and now entrenched in ecological niches recently created by global agro-capitalism—is searching for the new gene or two that will enable it to travel at pandemic velocity through a densely urbanized and mostly poor humanity.”
Alluding to the “constantly evolving nature of influenza viruses,” the WHO recently stressed “the importance of global surveillance to detect and monitor virological, epidemiological, and clinical changes associated with emerging or circulating influenza viruses that may affect human (or animal) health, and timely virus-sharing for risk assessment.”
To avert a cataclysmic bird flu pandemic, scientists have also emphasized the need to ramp up H5N1 vaccine production, with Wille pointing out that “a very aggressive and successful poultry vaccination campaign ultimately stopped all human cases” of the H7N9 strain of the virus in the early 2010s.
Others have also criticized the global fur farming industry, citing the spread of bird flu as well the coronavirus among cruelly confined minks.
“We’re closely related to minks and ferrets, in terms of influenza risks,” Dr. Jan Hajek, an infectious diseases physician at Vancouver General Hospital, told CBC News. “If it’s propagating to minks, and killing minks, it’s worrisome to us.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Cypriot authorities have for the first time issued fines for the killing of rare wild birds using poison baits, according to conservationists on the Mediterranean island.
Fines of 21,000 euros were last week ordered for an individual after three birds of prey were found dead at a rural property in the island’s southern Limassol district, animal protection group BirdLife Cyprus said in a statement.
‘A big step forward’
The punishment “represents a big step forward that will hopefully have a strong deterrent effect on similar illegal actions”, according to BirdLife’s project coordinator Melpo Apostolidou. She added:
It is the first time in Cyprus the crime of using poison baits and killing wild birds with the use of poison has been prosecuted.
The offences occurred in December 2021, when two rare Bonelli’s eagles and one long-legged buzzard were found dead near Dierona village. A GPS (Global Positioning System) transmitter fitted to one of the eagles led authorities to the discovery.
Evidence collected linked the birds’ death to the suspect, who was found to have intentionally killed the animals. Under Cypriot law, courts can impose prison sentences of up to three years and/or fines of up to 20,000 euros.
Wildlife crime
BirdLife described the use of poison baits in the countryside as a wildlife crime. They stated that it has driven iconic species, like the griffon vulture, to the brink of extinction in Cyprus.
Once a common sight over Cyprus, in the 1950s there were several hundred of the large scavengers across the island. However, there are now thought to be only nine griffon vultures left.
Since 2005, 31 vultures have been poisoned, and attempts are being made to restock the population with birds from Spain.
Apostolidou called on the authorities to do more to prevent the poisonings. These conservation efforts come against a backdrop of what scientists are calling a ‘sixth mass extinction event’:
The prognosis for the survival of a large proportion of extant species is not good… there is a biodiversity crisis, quite probably the start of the Sixth Mass Extinction. Dedicated conservation biologists and conservation agencies are doing what they can, focused mainly on threatened birds and mammals, among which some species may be saved from the extinction that would otherwise ensue. But we are pessimistic about the fate of most of the Earth’s biodiversity, much of which is going to vanish without us ever knowing of its existence. Denying the crisis, accepting it and doing nothing about it, or embracing it and manipulating it for the fickle benefit of people, defined no doubt by politicians and business interests, is an abrogation of moral responsibility.
Additional reporting via AFP (Agence France-Presse)
The Biden administration on Friday denied an emergency petition aimed at protecting critically endangered North Atlantic right whales from being struck and killed by ships in their calving grounds off the southeastern coast of the United States.
Conservation groups in November asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to establish a rule that mirrors the agency’s yet-to-be-finalized proposal to set speed limits for vessels longer than 34 feet and expand the areas where speed limits apply.
As the petitioners—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation—explained, such a regulation “would have helped prevent incidents like the 2021 boat collision that killed a right whale calf off Florida and likely fatally injured its mother.”
The species’ precipitous population decline has continued year after year. Scientists recently estimated that only 340 North Atlantic right whales remain, including just 70 reproductive females that give birth every three to 10 years.
“I’m outraged that the Biden administration won’t shield these incredibly endangered whales from lethal ship strikes,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This is an extinction-level emergency. Every mother right whale and calf is critical to the survival of the species.”
According to the petitioners, the federal agency responsible for stewarding the nation’s marine resources said that it lacks the funds and staff necessary “to effectively implement the emergency regulations.”
Officials from the fisheries service, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim that “they are working with vessel operators to get voluntary slow-downs,” the petitioners added, “but voluntary efforts have not proved effective in the past.”
“NOAA has dragged its feet on updating the vessel speed rule for over a decade… The agency’s decision not to take emergency action to protect mothers and calves puts the species’ entire future at risk.”
Defenders of Wildlife senior attorney Jane Davenport noted that “right whales have journeyed to the Southeast since time immemorial to birth and nurse their calves in the safety of warm, shallow waters.”
“But the calving grounds have become killing grounds,” said Davenport. “NOAA has dragged its feet on updating the vessel speed rule for over a decade; right whale mothers and calves have paid for this delay with their lives. The agency’s decision not to take emergency action to protect mothers and calves puts the species’ entire future at risk.”
Existing regulations require ships longer than 64 feet to slow to 10 knots or less to safeguard right whales in certain areas at specific times. The fisheries service has acknowledged that bolstering its vessel speed rule is essential to prevent the species’ extinction.
Vessel strikes are one of two leading threats to right whales’ existence. The other key danger is entanglement in commercial fishing equipment.
Friday’s rejection of stronger vessel speed limits comes just weeks after Congress enacted a policy rider that gives the fisheries service until 2028 to issue a new regulation requiring the lobster industry to reduce right whale entanglements. Conservationists condemned federal lawmakers’ move to postpone action in spite of a court decision deeming the service’s current rule unlawful, saying that the yearslong delay is almost certain to doom the species to extinction.
Entanglement in lobster fishing gear kills an estimated four right whales per year—six times higher than the rate considered biologically sustainable. Non-fatal entanglements can also result in illness and interfere with reproduction.
Monsell said Friday that Congress’ betrayal last month makes “protecting right whales from vessel strikes… even more crucial.”
Erica Fuller, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, expressed disappointment that “the government declined to take immediate action to protect these mothers and newborn calves, and instead chose to continue longstanding bureaucratic practices with a species that can’t afford a single death of another breeding female.”
“The whole world is watching how NOAA plans to save this species,” said Fuller.
As the petitioners explained:
Right whales begin giving birth to calves around mid-November, and the season lasts until mid-April. Their calving grounds are off the southeastern coast from Cape Fear, North Carolina, to below Cape Canaveral, Florida. Pregnant females and mothers with nursing calves are especially at risk of vessel strikes because they spend so much time near the water’s surface. Scientists know of no other calving grounds for the right whale.
“The road to a declining right whale population has been paved by the agency delaying or reducing needed actions,” said Regina Asmutis-Silvia, executive director of Whale and Dolphin Conservation. “Denying our petition to take emergency action only increases the likelihood that even more drastic actions will be needed moving forward.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Wildlife defenders in Sweden and beyond decried the start on Monday of what’s being called the largest wolf cull in modern times, arguing that killing nearly a fifth of the country’s critically endangered lupine population could have grave consequences for biodiversity.
Swedish public broadcaster SVTreports hunters in the five Swedish counties with the most wolves—Gävleborg, Dalarna, Västmanland, Örebro, and Värmland—will be allowed to kill a total of 75 wolves out of a national population of 460 animals.
“The existence of wolves contributes to a richer animal and plant life. Human survival depends on healthy ecosystems.”
Last winter, Sweden authorized the killing of 27 wolves, while hunters in neighboring Norway had permission to kill 51 wolves—about 60% of the lupine population—and Finland approved the culling of 27 wolves.
While Gunnar Glöersen, the predator manager at the Swedish Hunters’ Association, says “hunting is absolutely necessary to slow the proliferation of wolves,” Daniel Ekblom of Sweden’s Nature Conservation Society called the cull “tragic.”
“It could have consequences for a long time to come,” Ekblom told SVT.
Other opponents of the cull noted Sweden’s relatively low wolf population. Italy, for example, is only about half as large as Sweden but has around 3,000 wolves, which are strictly protected by law.
“Wolves as top predators in the food chain are a prerequisite for biodiversity,” Marie Stegard, president of the anti-hunting group Jaktkritikerna, told The Guardian, warning that killing so much of “the population through hunting has negative consequences for animals and nature.”
“It’s disastrous for the entire ecosystem,” she said. “The existence of wolves contributes to a richer animal and plant life. Human survival depends on healthy ecosystems.”
\u201cWithout proper consultation of scientific experts, the Swedish government allows hunting & killing of a wolves species that is down to only 475 wolves. Shameful and heartbreaking, and “disastrous for species”, as experts warn. #Sweden #wolves #extinction\n https://t.co/FEgF7GhKuW\u201d
— Andreas Steinwachs (@Andreas Steinwachs)
1672662566
Stegard added:
It is obvious that there is strong political pressure for licensed hunting for wolves, and also lynx and bear. There is a large majority of Swedes who like wolves, even where they live. In our opinion, the reason for these hunts is simply that there is a demand for shooting wolves among hunters. The hunters’ organizations have enormous power in Sweden. It is a fact that the Swedish parliament has a hunters’ club open to members of all parties, with a shooting gallery underneath the parliament. This sounds like a joke but it’s absolutely true.
The Swedish Parliament is also lobbying the European Union to remove wolves and bears from its list of species in need of protection.
Hanna Dittrich-Söderman, who leads the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s wolf program, says the lupine predators hold a special place in national folklore, evoking primal fears and irrational hatred.
“There is no other animal that is so easy to both demonize and glorify as the wolf—an imagined fear or hatred has been attached to it,” Dittrich-Söderman toldThe Local. “We have almost made it a symbol of our fearful nature as a whole, it has almost mythical qualities.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Imagine hunting for a fish dinner in the middle of the ocean, in the middle of the night without flashlight, compass, or iPhone . . . and then to find a way back to land. This is what seals must accomplish on a regular basis to survive. These pinnipeds, so often seen posing with a ball balanced perfectly on a whiskered nose or bowing gracefully for a circus display, have skills that cannot be seen on the stage. In fact, they give our close relatives the chimpanzees something to envy.
One sign of intelligence is an ability to recognize and respond to human gestures. Chimpanzees have difficulty doing this. Dogs are one of a few species capable of doing so. It turns out seals, too, can recognize human gestures and, surprisingly, perform even better than dogs at these tasks, as has been demonstrated through research. The grey seal outshone almost all the other animal contestants.
A dog resting comfortably by the fireplace after a nice meal is a familiar sight for many of us, and it does not take a stretch of the imagination to picture a seal doing the same on a bit of rock or sand after a dinner of fish. The intelligence of the two creatures is comparable, and to some degree, the look of their furry heads, pointy noses, and soulful eyes. Perhaps it’s time to extend a little of the love we feel for our pets to their oceanic counterparts far out in the sea. There is a good reason.
Seals face many threats in the wild — loss of habitat, loss of food, pollution, numerous climate change impacts. But there may be a new one. Seals hunt for food at night and must find their way back to shore. Studies have demonstrated that harbor seals can navigate using a lodestar and learned star courses. What would happen if this vital star map was disrupted?
Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are brightly visible in the night sky, and could interfere with star navigation. SpaceX, the largest producer of LEO satellites to date, has launched over 3,000 Starlink satellites with plans to launch as many as 42,000. And while SpaceX is the the largest producer of LEO satellites, it is not the only one.
Astronomers have raised concerns that low Earth orbit satellites are visible and inhibit scientific research. The International Association of Astronomers has set up a Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference as a response. The astronomer Meredith Rawls has described the plans of launching thousands more satellites in the coming years as “an unsustainable trajectory”.
In addition to creating streaks in photos and hampering astronomical observations, satellites will also handicap creatures like seals, migratory birds, and even the humble dung beetle, all who use stars for navigation.
Among birds, Indigo buntings prefer to travel at night during migration. Scientists studying the buntings found that the birds rely on star patterns to determine north. European robins and yellow underwing moths also use the stars in travel.
If the Milky Way map is disrupted by a projected 65,000 satellites as is expected in a few years, they will light up the sky. They will not only affect astronomy research, but may also affect the survival of many creatures large and small. There are likely many more species that rely on stars beyond the ones discussed in this article – scientists have only scratched the surface of star navigation research.
Global Internet is a necessary purpose, but if it costs species their lives, then perhaps we could have global internet that is just a tad slower — with satellites not quite so low in orbit.
There is another aspect of LEO satellites that is a cause for concern. It is one that threatens not only the survival of other species but also our own. Starlink satellites burn up in the atmosphere leaving a residue (aluminum oxide) that reflects sunlight and could deplete the ozone layer. Furthermore, the full effects of aluminum in the atmosphere are unknown and could be severe. SpaceX might argue that meteoroid material comes in every day – but it is made up mostly of oxygen, magnesium, and silicon. Satellites, by contrast, are made primarily of aluminum. Aluminum can burn to reflective aluminum oxide, which may alter the climate to worsen warming of the planet. Scientists are also concerned that aluminum oxide could create a hole in the ozone layer.
As recently as February 2022, about 40 Starlink Satellites burned up in the atmosphere. And burning up is the ultimate fate for all of them — all 42,000 plus.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is at present examining whether satellite licensing should require environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but it may take considerable time, from months to years, for a decision to be reached, and the decision may not end up affecting satellites already approved and in space. Since 1986, the FCC has enjoyed a categorical exclusion from NEPA. One can only hope for a prompt determination that can have a preventive effect.
An uncontrolled aluminum experiment capable of creating holes in the ozone layer and exacerbating global warming is highly risky because we may not have a second chance.
We used to think lead paint was a great idea. Years later, we discovered health risks and began removing it. The trouble is, if we find out a few years from now that aluminum is destroying the atmosphere, we cannot dispense with it as easily as the lead paint.
The seals are enduring the consequences of human activity in more than one way. Is it too much to ask that we give them a chance?
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
The words of United Nations Secretary General António Guterres couldn’t have been starker:
“We are waging a war on nature. Ecosystems have become playthings of profit. Human activities are laying waste to once-thriving forests, jungles, farmland, oceans, rivers, seas and lakes. Our land, water and air are poisoned by chemicals and pesticides, and choked with plastics. The addiction to fossil fuels has thrown our climate into chaos. Unsustainable production and monstrous consumption habits are degrading our world. Humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction…with a million species at risk of disappearing forever.”
Respecting and following the leadership of Indigenous communities is the first step towards making peace with Mother Nature, while we still can.
Guterres was opening the global summit of the Convention on Biological Diversity, or COP15 in UN parlance, which just wrapped up in Montreal. The convention was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, alongside the UN’s better-known climate change negotiations.
The biodiversity convention is the best hope we have to stop what has been called the sixth extinction, as human activities extinguish tens of thousands of species every year, never to return. The previous five extinctions occurred from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. The most recent one happened 66 million years ago, when, scientists believe, a 6-mile-wide asteroid smashed into water off Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. The impact caused massive tsunamis, acid rain and wildfires, then blanketed the atmosphere with sun-blocking dust, lowering temperatures worldwide and wiping out the dinosaurs.
We humans are now essentially doing to the planet what that asteroid did. As New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert eloquently describes in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Sixth Extinction, humans have evolved into a predator without equal. We overtake and destroy habitats with abandon, driving other species into permanent oblivion.
Key agreements forged last week in Montreal were signed by 196 nations. The U.S., along with the Vatican, didn’t sign as neither is party to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
A central achievement of the Montreal negotiations was the “30×30” pledge to protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas and inland waters by 2030. Also agreed to was the creation of a fund to help developing nations protect biodiversity, slated to reach $200 billion annually by 2030, while phasing down harmful subsidies by $500 billion per year. A requirement for the “full and active involvement” of indigenous peoples was also written into the text.
“It’s absolutely impossible to create a biodiversity agreement without the inclusion of Indigenous rights, because 80% of remaining biodiversity is Indigenous lands and territories,” Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, executive director of Indigenous Climate Action and member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said on the Democracy Now! news hour. “Some of the biggest challenges and risks that have come out of this COP is the fact that there aren’t any real mechanisms with real teeth, similar to COP27 [the recent UN climate summit in Egypt], that actually protect our rights, our culture, and our ability to advance our rights to say yes and no to these types of agreements.”
Eriel Deranger first appeared on Democracy Now! while in Copenagen in 2009, attending a different COP15–the 15th meeting of the UN climate change convention. She was delivering a basket to the Canadian embassy in advance of then-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s arrival for those pivotal climate negotiations:
“Inside the basket were copies of the treaties that are being violated by the Canada tar sands, and copies of the Kyoto Protocol, which he signed onto, as well as a copy of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, to remind him that there is something else that he needs to sign onto in order to really fully respect indigenous people’s rights.”
It was at that 2009 climate summit that wealthy nations pledged to create a $100 billion per year fund by 2020, to help poorer nations adapt to and mitigate climate change. To date, the fund has fallen far short of the pledge, and much of the money available is offered as loans, not grants. So activists like Eriel Deranger have reason to be skeptical of the $200 billion per year biodiversity pledge just made in Montreal.
“They’re centering colonial economic ideals,” Deranger said this week. “They’re still giving national and colonial states the power to determine what Indigenous rights look like when they’re implemented in these agreements, and how lands will be developed, undeveloped, protected…In Canada, we are committing to ’30×30,’ millions and millions of dollars for biodiversity protection, Indigenous protection and conservation areas, yet we are not talking about ending the expansion of the Alberta tar sands.”
Mass extinction will have far-reaching, potentially cataclysmic consequences for humankind. António Guterres was right: we are waging a war on nature. Respecting and following the leadership of Indigenous communities is the first step towards making peace with Mother Nature, while we still can.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Over the objections of the Democratic Republic of Congo and frustrations by other African nations, a final draft of The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in the early hours of Monday that conservationists say is not strong enough to prevent industries and corporate behemoths from continuing their destructive, profit-driven attacks on the natural world and vulnerable…
UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has slammed multinational corporations for turning the world’s ecosystems into “playthings of profit”. He warned that failure to correct course would lead to catastrophic results. Guterres’s comments came at the opening of COP15 in Montreal, Canada, which indigenous youth disrupted to draw links between colonialism and biodiversity.
“Weapon of mass extinction”
In a speech on 6 December, at the ceremonial opening of COP15, the UN’s conference on biodiversity, Guterres said:
With our bottomless appetite for unchecked and unequal economic growth, humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction.
Since taking office in 2017, Guterres – a former Portuguese prime minister – has made climate change his signature issue. His fiery denunciations revealed that the plight of the planet’s endangered plants and animals – an interconnected crisis – is equally close to his heart.
Before he took the dais, a group of around half a dozen Indigenous protesters interrupted a speech by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau. They waved banners that read “Indigenous genocide = Ecocide” and “To save biodiversity stop invading our land”. They also chanted for several minutes before they were escorted out to applause:
The meeting is not to be confused with another set of UN talks on the climate crisis in November, called COP27.
Scale of the problem
Nearly 200 countries have gathered for the 7-19 December meeting in an effort to hammer out a ‘Paris moment‘ for nature. The challenges are daunting, though. One million species are at risk of extinction. One-third of all land is severely degraded, and fertile soil is being lost.
At the same time, pollution and climate change are accelerating the degradation of the oceans. Chemicals, plastics, and air pollution are choking the land, water, and air. Meanwhile, planetary heating brought about by burning fossil fuels is causing climate chaos, from heatwaves and forest fires to droughts and floods.
In his speech, Guterres said:
We are treating nature like a toilet… And ultimately, we are committing suicide by proxy.
However, as one Twitter comment said, ‘humanity’ isn’t the problem, our dominant systems of social organisation – such as capitalism – are.
Ecosystem degradation, meanwhile, is estimated to impact the global economy to the tune of $3tn annually from 2030.
Biodiversity is as important as the climate
Ahead of the talks, Elizabeth Mrema, the head of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), spoke to Agence France-Presse (AFP). She said that failure was not an option:
For the Paris agreement to succeed, biodiversity also has to succeed. For climate to succeed, nature has to succeed, and that’s why we have to deal with them together.
The Natural History Museum illustrated this point with a tweet thread that made it clear, amongst other factors, that biodiversity is crucial for the future of food production.
#1. We rely on biodiversity for much of our food production, including the pollination of crops.#DidYouKnow that 35% of global food production is in some way dependent on animal pollination?https://t.co/6ANIOGOyUm
Draft targets for the 10-year framework include a cornerstone pledge to protect 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030. Eliminating harmful fishing and agriculture subsidies, tackling invasive species, and reducing pesticides are also on the cards. The new goal will rely heavily on Indigenous peoples, who steward land that is home to around 80% of Earth’s remaining biodiversity.
As the Canary previously pointed out, though, it’s hard to hold high hopes for COP15 after the failure of COP27 to reach any meaningful agreements. Meanwhile, divisions have already emerged on the key issue of financing. Wealthy countries are under pressure to funnel more money to developing nations for conservation. And the absence of world leaders – Canada’s Trudeau will be the only one in attendance – has already tempered expectations.
This blog is co-authored by Aliénor Rougeot, Program Manager, Climate and Energy and Michelle Woodhouse, Program Manager, Water
The federal government must commit to action on tar sands tailings and Line 5 at the biodiversity COP15
Bees are disappearing. Caribou are endangered. Wetlands are being filled in. Forests are being cleared. This is happening in our own backyards and well beyond. The UN has identified 1 million animal and plant species threatened with extinction, which is why world leaders are meeting in Montreal this month to come up with a plan to reverse the loss of natural habitats that sustain a diversity of living things on earth.
Birds, insects, mammals, reptiles, fish, plants and trees are all threatened by mining, energy generation, manufacturing, intensive agriculture and urban sprawl – and the resulting climate change and toxic pollution. These harmful activities also disrupt relationships that Indigenous Peoples have nurtured with the lands, waters and living things in their traditional territories since time immemorial.
As co-host of this UN biodiversity conference with China, Canada has a responsibility to take a leadership role, especially since it is home to the longest stretch of coastline, one-fifth of the world’s wild forests, one-fifth of the world’s fresh water and nearly a quarter of the world’s wetlands.
Will Canada come to the table prepared to commit to the crucial measures needed to stop the decline while respecting the sovereignty and treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples? We will be watching closely for the answer.
Canada has a mixed record lately on the international stage. The federal government has reluctantly joined calls to phase out fossil fuels following criticisms of the polluter presence and influence at the climate COP27 in Cairo, Egypt, last month. On the other hand, Canada has joined a High Ambition Coalition of countries to end plastic pollution and has been playing a leadership role towards the negotiation of a global treaty.
Canada also has a mixed record on the domestic front. There has been progress on the commitment to protect 30 per cent of coastal and terrestrial ecosystems by 2030 and some expansion of Indigenous protected areas. However, there’s been little to no response to calls from Indigenous leaders to prevent widespread harm from oil and gas projects, spills and contamination. As co-host to the UN biodiversity conference, the federal government must commit to acting on at least two issues that both threaten biodiversity and undermine Indigenous sovereignty:
Address the threat posed by tar sands tailings. Canada must refuse the oil industry’s call to weaken the Fisheries Act, which would allow them to release partially treated fluid from the 1.4 trillion-litre tailings “ponds” into the Athabasca River. These tailings are full of toxic chemicals and salts that would harm First Nations and Métis communities living downstream. The tailings also threaten Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest park and a UNESCO heritage site due to the biodiversity it supports, and the neighbouring Kitaskino Nuwenëné Wildland Provincial Park that supports Indigenous land- and water-based activities. Canada must work with local Indigenous communities and the Province of Alberta to negotiate a plan to compel the tar sands operators to rehabilitate the contaminated lands in a way that is acceptable to the impacted Indigenous Nations.
Close the Line 5 pipeline that threatens the Great Lakes. Line 5 is a seventy-year-old pipeline that carries oil and gas from the Alberta tar sands in the west to refineries in Eastern Canada and crosses straight through the heart of the Great Lakes. Line 5, which starts in Wisconsin and ends in Sarnia, Ontario, has leaked 33 times since 1953, spilling at least 4.5 million litres of oil into surrounding land and waters. Line 5 threatens the waters, lands and way of life for Indigenous Nations of the Great Lakes and all peoples living in nearby shoreline communities. Indigenous Nations, who are title holders with treaty rights on both sides of the border, support the closure of the pipeline.
The Government of Canada has been actively fighting the closure of the pipeline and supporting Enbridge by invoking the 1977 pipeline treaty. This treaty makes no mention of Indigenous rights and does not take the current biodiversity, freshwater and climate crises that society faces into consideration. The government must stop putting the fossil fuel economy ahead of protecting the Great Lakes – the world’s largest freshwater body – and inherent Indigenous rights and treaty rights. Canada must withdraw its use of the 1977 treaty and look towards the existing alternatives to accommodate a permanent Line 5 shutdown.
In addition to stopping biodiversity destruction from toxic tailings pond releases and the leaky Line 5 pipeline, the government must take a leadership role in negotiations toward a strong global Framework on Biodiversity. That’s the least we should expect from the Canadian government in Montreal this month.
A new climate change plan in the European Union, which has been lauded for its ambitious targets and aggressive action on emissions, will sacrifice carbon-storing trees, threaten biodiversity and outsource deforestation, according to a new paper. The paper, published this week in Nature, calls into question the plan’s treatment of biomass — organic material from trees, plants and animals — as…
It was a good live crowd — over a hundred folk, November 30, at Hatfield’s new classroom building, Gladys Valley Marine Studies Building Auditorium. And another 100 in “attendance” on the Zoom Doom.
I’m a member of the Cetacean Society International, and the American Cetacean Society, and unfortunately for the Oregon group, their meetings and live speakers have retreated to the digital dungeons, never having face-to-face meetings anymore in Newport. That is the sham and the shame of this new abnormal. Even this OSU event had the live component, with a bistro in this overpriced new building, and beer and wine, also available. Fancy auditorium, no?
I did a story on this building in its construction stage, here:
I covered a conference, too, again, three years ago, when the local rag let me write a long form column on a regular, paid basis: “Should We Trust Science? (Conference celebrates how the ocean connects to all of us — coastlines, people, cultures”)
I have written about my love of ecosystems, marine systems, and my dive bum days, and, of course, I have also written stories on ecosystems and marine biology, etc. There are many stories still to be told, but last night’s talk by Leigh Torres, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Oregon Sea Grant, was a recap of all the work she and her graduate (PhD and MS) students have been doing on gray whales, including the distinct Pacific Coast Feeding Group, numbering around 250.
There were other scientists there, and there were many young students from the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center. Older retired folk were there, and I had a sense that most people there were somehow associated with the university, with marine sciences, directly or through a relative engaged in that avocation.
As I’ve said before, there are many women going into the sciences, and you can see Leigh below with her skiff and her female graduate students working on drone surveillance and other forms of research to get more data on the gray whales on our coast.
A talk like this is all about loving those cetaceans, and our PCFG draws people from around the country to our coast for whale watching. May through October, they are here feeding. Depoe Bay is a great spot to watch.
Below images and videos, and at the end, is the actual Power Point Presentation from the November 30 presentation.
These scientists want to know why the Pacific Group is sticking around our coast and not heading to the Arctic with the majority of gray whales. The whales all calf in the waters of Baja. Then, the trip north. They number for all groups around 20,000.
Basic ecology and animal-mammal biology mean looking at how they “are” in their environment, what their hormones show, and what is happening to their prey. The fact this Pacific Feeding Group is in highly human-influenced/disturbed waters is also a point of research. Then, of course, we have their prey as well as in noise and as in boats coming up to them, and as in the crab pots that cause entanglements.
And, those strikes, those hulls and propellers hitting whales:
Diet for these whales?
As part of the research they look at the energy of whichever species the gray whale eats, as seen above. And, since 70 percent of the prey is mysid shrimp, the scientists want to know what those animals have in their bodies.
We are THE plastic species, as is the entire ocean. The gray whales have small fiber plastic — microplastics — and then beads in their feces. They are eating prey that has plastic in their bodies, and they also scoop up water and dirt that also have plastic in it.
In pregnant and lactating females, the amount of this zooplankton they have to consume is 1.5 to 2 tons of prey a day. The bio-accumulative effect of the plastics is huge under those tonnage numbers.
The underwater Go Pro Cameras give some cool images of gray whales in action. The poop or fecal samples give the scientists the cortisol levels — stress hormone — in the animals. There are unusual mortality events, one big one happening in 2014 in Mexico. Many of those animals were emaciated. Many animals die, and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
The estimated 14.3 million to 23 million microparticles of plastic per ton of shrimp they eat HAS to have an effect on total physiology of the animals.
Then we have the entire web of life — sea stars, kelp, urchins, the zooplankton, all of that.
We have urchins going up in population, as the health of kelp, zooplankton, and gray whales feeding zones is declining. Sea stars eat urchins, as do sea otters. We have no marine otters here on the coast of Oregon, and the sea star wasting disease has decimated that species, allowing for more urchins, which eat young kelp. Kelp beds are rookeries, and the zooplankton/meroplankton need that web of life.
The grays need that zooplankton to survive.
The end goal is to get this PCFG categorized as a distinct subspecies, to have them protected.
Again, science in a time of climate disruption, pollution, over-harvesting, and disturbances in food webs is both interesting and reliant upon year after year of more and more data, more and more bearing witness to declines in species. As the scientists get smarter with smarter tools, the general population and politicians at large get dumb and dumber.
Here’s a fact: One of the most dynamic and depressing jobs in the world is being a sea turtle expert. I remember him at the Bioneers events I was a part of, Wallace J. Nichols. Here, quotes:
Ocean plankton provides more than half of our planet’s oxygen.
Education should be based on simple awareness: Awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over: This is water.
Cool, and depressing, because species are going, going and gone.
We see here on the pages of Dissident Voice pieces on climate change, climate change fatigue, climate change cover-ups, climate change as a hoax, and climate is or is not related to CO2 released into the atmosphere.
Because education and discourse and the media all entwine to create silos and camps and sort of groups of people unwilling to talk, or learn, we are in big trouble.
Species like whales have always been the mega species that get to your hearts — you know, mammals, out there in the big blue, animals that were once land animals.
The science is cool, and expensive, and, yes, all those folk at the auditorium, I am not sure if they’d show up for homeless veterans and families stuck in the woods with leaky tents and zero chance at housing because of felonies, evictions, etc. talk.
We are an interesting species, are we not?
And, the reality is we do not need to have year after year of studies from hundreds of scientists around the world to wonder what the microplastics are doing to us, mammals, as they spread and embed in our bodies, inside cells, you know, it is sort of NOT the thing we should be accepting in mother earth — forever chemicals, PFAS’s, neurotoxins in babies, well, you get the picture.
More science to study cigarettes to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking hurts lungs? That smoking most definitely causes cancer?
Since the sun is hot, it gives off energy in the form of shortwave radiation at mainly ultraviolet and visible wavelengths. Earth is much cooler, so it emits heat as infrared radiation, which has longer wavelengths.
[The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of all types of EM radiation – energy that travels and spreads out as it goes. The sun is much hotter than the Earth, so it emits radiation at a higher energy level, which has a shorter wavelength.NASA]
Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases have molecular structures that enable them to absorb infrared radiation. The bonds between atoms in a molecule can vibrate in particular ways, like the pitch of a piano string. When the energy of a photon corresponds to the frequency of the molecule, it is absorbed and its energy transfers to the molecule.
But back to whales! We have a planet that is under huge stress. The lifestyles of the rich and famous and disgustingly insane billionaires and millionaires, and, of course, the upper part of the collective west, they are the killers. WE throw away giga tons of food, products, things each year. WE do not build for durable and long-lasting effect anymore. Throw it all away, and out with the semi-used, in with the new style. Planned and perceived obsolescence. What is the embedded and life cycle of everything? We are wasteful and dirty.
It’s cheaper to toss the helicopter overboard than to bring it home. Agriculture is at war with nature, with ecosystems, with all the real natural services mother earth gives.
But the yammering and yammering about how greenhouse gasses do nothing to warm the planet, to acidify the oceans, or that pollution doesn’t cause acid rain, all of that, plus how many species of meat for humans are destroyed because of Avian flu or salmonella or lysteria or, well, you get the picture, none of it is put together to look at what capitalism is, really. Barbarism, savagery.
Oh, the isle of rabid men: The Whole Foods decision comes after the Marine Stewardship Council and Seafood Watch recently pulled their lobster endorsements over concerns about risks to rare North Atlantic right whales from fishing gear. Entanglement in gear is one of the biggest threats to the whales, they said.
Yep, those democratic governors, and jobs, and, a way of life:
“Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, Representatives Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden, and Governor Janet Mills today released the following statement after the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) announced plans to temporarily suspend their certification of Maine’s lobster fishery. In their decision, MSC acknowledges that while the Maine fishery meets standards for sustainability and environmental impact and is unlikely to cause harm to right whales, it is unable to certify any fishery that is not in compliance with federal regulations – a standard MSC believes the fishery does not meet due to the ongoing litigation in CBD v. Ross.”
Today’s decision by the Marine Stewardship Council to temporarily suspend certification of Maine’s lobster fishery is the result of a years-long campaign from misguided environmentalist groups who seem to be hellbent on putting a proud, sustainable industry out of business without regard to the consequences of their actions. While the Maine industry met the highest standards for environmental sustainability and impact, the current pending CBD v. Ross court case led by the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society of the United States made certification impossible. This litigation is based more on activism than evidence and is putting livelihoods in jeopardy.
So, designating the PCFG as a distinct and need-to-be-watched/protected species will then, hit not just the crabbers, but our Makah:
Makah Whaling – A Gift from the Sea
Whaling and whales are central to Makah culture. The event of a whale hunt requires rituals and ceremonies which are deeply spiritual. Makah whaling the subject and inspiration of Tribal songs, dances, designs, and basketry. For the Makah Tribe, whale hunting provides a purpose and a discipline which benefits their entire community. It is so important to the Makah, that in 1855 when the Makah ceded thousands of acres of land to the government of the United States, they explicitly reserved their right to whale within the Treaty of Neah Bay.
Makah whaling tradition provides oil, meat, bone, sinew and gut for storage containers: useful products, though gained at a high cost in time and goods.
The Makah Whale Hunt
To get ready for the hunt, whalers went off by themselves to pray, fast and bathe ceremonially. Each man had his own place, followed his own ritual, and sought his own power. Weeks or months went into this special preparation beginning in winter and whalers devoted their whole lives to spiritual readiness.
Men waited for favorable weather and ocean conditions and then paddled out, eight in a canoe. They timed their departure so that they would arrive on the whaling grounds at daybreak.
Paddling silently, whalers studied the breathing pattern of their quarry. They knew from experience what to expect. As the whale finished spouting and returned underwater, the leader of the hunt directed the crew to where it would next surface. There the men waited.
We are in weird and broken times. War, war makers, war manufacturers, billionaires in Monaco with Lamborghini’s with Ukraine licensce plates. Sunny place the size of Central Park but with shady deals. Billions disappeared for ZioAzovNaziLensky. Billions, man, and the money is being made vis-a-vis crypto currency; the scams, all of the money laundering, and we sit and watch the world burn.
Jobs of whalers, jobs of tobacco farmers, jobs of gun-bullet-missile makers, jobs of all those alphabet agencies, jobs of the hedge funders, jobs jobs jobs on the chopping block . . . and what about that way of life jeopardized — the survival of the dirties, meanest, most monster-like species. One giant Faustian Bargain on a planet that, well, you climate change deniers, you techno fascists, you gurus of WEF and great reset, disbelieve then that the planet is in bad shape.
And, the auditorium was filled with middle and upper middle class folk, probably more PhD’s in one room ever along the Oregon coast, and they had the fancy salads, triple Americanos, hoppy drafts and local wines.
For a talk, man, and Leigh is good, but to be truthful, the talk was high school level, really. And, she’s given the same talk three years ago, live, in the Newport library, for the local American Cetacean Society, before those people went underground, in the Zoom Doom Rooms, never to be seen again at a live event.
These are strange times. Whale watching for a feel-good touristy cause, but whale watching boats are part of the problem. There are calls to curb the watcher boats in Puget Sound. Here, a great interactive series:
Man-Woman, versus beasts. All that hi-tech equipment, all the plastics in the scientists’ tool kit, all the gasoline and diesel and electricity expended to research. Yes, these people have their hearts in the right place, but scientists are still data freaks, and they do not have hard spines when the world needs steeled spines in the mix. All that state-funded, taxpayer-paid-for bricks and mortar and all the money spent to create these institutions of higher learning, yet, these smart people are not on the front lines, and god forbid we talk about CAPITALISM, because, colleges, all the grants, all the bells and whistles, it’s still about CAPITALISM.
But the Makah?
The 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay could not be clearer: The U.S. government agreed the Makah Tribe, natives of the northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula, had “the right of taking fish and of whaling.”
Yet across nearly a century, the tribe has organized just one whale hunt, a much-protested outing in May 1999. Starting in the 1920s, the Makah stood down from whaling because of global over-harvest of whale populations. With the once-endangered Eastern North Pacific gray whale population now flourishing, the tribe should be allowed to resume the traditional, treaty-guaranteed hunts around which generations of Makah built a culture.
Species survival is no longer a reason to stop the Makah from hunting whales. Researchers estimate there are almost 27,000 Eastern North Pacific gray whales today, though the Western North Pacific population remains endangered. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has tracked the status of these pods of whales for years and considers the current Eastern numbers approximately the maximum the habitat can sustain. (source)
What is it about a bunch of high-ranking people getting together at a Conference of the Parties (COP) at some major metropolitan center with plenty of 4-star and 5-star hotels in order to figure out how to save the planet, but it never works!
For example, the tenth (10th) meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan from October 18-29, 2010. More than 13,000 delegates from around the world. The Aichi targets were designed to help, or in the best of cases, save or revive biodiversity.
Zoom forward twelve years to November 11th, 2022: A news release by Climate Change News announces the upcoming COP15 biodiversity conference scheduled for Montreal December 7-19, 2022: “In the past decade, countries agreed to a ten-year plan called the Aichi targets, aimed at halting biodiversity loss. A UN summary report shows countries failed to meet a single one of those targets.” 1
Thirteen thousand (13,000) delegates specially selected by countries of the world to save biodiversity agreed to save nature. Utter failure ensued.
There’s something happening in the world that’s very strange, maybe a curse or something “in the air” that hexes these get-togethers. The truth is: Get-togethers by thousands of well-intentioned people to save the planet time and again fail, not just a little bit, but total utter failure. For example, for more than 30 years climate conferences, COPs, e.g., Paris ’15, have miserably failed. Greenhouse gas emissions set new records by the year, which is going backwards, downhill into a deep climate change abyss. Eventually, the abyss will be so deep, if not already, that it’s impossible to climb back out.
More to the point, at some point in time, likely once biodiversity loss turns horrendous, much worse, maybe when humans start killing 200,000,000 million sharks for fin soup per year rather than the current 100,000,000 or as for climate change/global warming, when the Doomsday Glacier, Thwaites, the world’s widest glacier in West Antarctica crashes, leads to Miami Beach flooding, maybe that’s when the various Conference of the Parties, COPs, will turn dead serious and take drastic measures, which, by then, will be too late but maybe, hopefully, only hopefully, take some the edge off these ongoing disasters, even though the marine ecosystem crashes because of loss of its top predator, and desperately the Army Corp of Engineers scrambles to try to save Miami.
Montreal COP15 December 2022
Climate Change News’ intro to COP15 clearly states: “After a two-year delay and a change of location, the UN biodiversity summit aims to halt nature loss by 2030 and restore ecosystems. It could either be a success like the signing of the Paris Agreement or a dramatic failure like the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen.”2
Hmm, well, the “signing of Paris” was a success; it’s the follow through, emission reduction targets, that miserably failed.
At COP15 more than 100 nations are expected to meet to agree to “protect 30% of all land and ocean ecosystems by 2030.” So far, the “big-forested countries” China, Brazil, and Indonesia have not accepted invitations to attend.
According to Brian O’Donnell of the advocacy group Campaign for Nature, following two years of online negotiations: “What started as a very good framework has ended up almost all in square brackets… indicating a lack of consensus.” 2
Of concern, even though the original meeting was to be held in China, which is still designated as “presidency of the talks,” China has not officially invited world leaders to the talks, which commence shortly. That very important task has fallen to Elizabeth Maruma Mreman, urging world leaders to attend rather than going to the World Cup. Tough choice to make!
Unfortunately, cynicism, anger, and fatigue are the byproducts of reporting on the various international Conference of the Parties (COPs) to save Planet A. Across the board, the failures of COPs add tons of credibility to the film Don’t Look Up (Netflix, December 2021) winner of the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay.
Don’t Look Up is an apocalyptic political satire about two astronomers played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence that spot an incoming asteroid and try to warn a largely numbed body politic, as party leaders urge their dumbed-down adherents not to look up, a campaign motto. Meanwhile, one of the president’s top funders, who was appointed to head NASA, has no background in astronomy, and stupidly assures, not to worry. The film not only points to the dangers of ignoring science but also targets how badly America has been dumbed down into submissive easy prey for bellicose politicians that care less about social welfare.
The Montreal COP15 most assuredly will be held, speakers will drone on about the necessity of saving Planet A’s basic life-supporting ecosystems, agreements will be touted, hands joined, thumbs up, but when 2030 arrives, well, who knows how bad it’ll be?
“UN Nature Pact Nears Its ‘Copenhagen or Paris’ Moment”, Climate Change News, November 11, 2022.
Meaningless buzzword or key survival concept? “Sustainability” is more important than ever before – but what does it even mean?
Today, googling “sustainability” turns up over 1.65 billion results. We have become so obsessed with this concept that “sustainability” has quickly become a trendy, meaningless buzzword: businesses love to advertise their sustainable practices, while climate activists insist that people practice sustainable lifestyles. But, what does “sustainability” really mean? And, how can we understand this word in a way that promotes the well-being of ourselves, our communities, and our planet?
Although usage of the word has increased in recent years, the concept of sustainability is actually not new. Its origins stem from the 1983 Brundtland commission, which first defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Today, the definition of sustainability still highlights the need to create a liveable world for future generations. According to McGill University, sustainability entails “meeting our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Similarly, the Center for Biological Diversity claims that sustainability is about “creating a livable future for everyone on the earth.”
In shaping this future, sustainability is most often understood in an environmental context. Environmental sustainability includes making sure that human consumption does not deplete natural resources, ecological systems stay in balance, and life on earth remains diverse.
However, sustainability is also tied to economic and social issues. Economic sustainability includes ensuring that communities can maintain independence, access resources they need, and secure sources of livelihood, while social sustainability includes protecting universal human rights and necessities.
What is sustainability in business?
In today’s world, sustainability has increasingly become incorporated into business campaigns and strategies. But, once again, what does sustainability in business really mean?
For a business, sustainability means operating without negatively impacting the external environment, community, or society. A sustainable business strategy is one that tries to create a positive impact on one or multiple of these groups.
In practice, a sustainable business strategy can take many different forms and is unique to each organization. Companies can transition to using sustainable materials for their packing, optimize their supply chains to reduce environmental emissions, and even sponsor programming to benefit the local community. Overall, issues that sustainable business strategies can address include:
Climate change
Income inequality
Depletion of natural resource
Human rights issue
Why is sustainability important?
Sustainability would not be such a hot buzzword if it wasn’t important.
Sustainability is critical to maintaining our quality of life, the diversity of life on earth, and the health of earth’s resource-rich ecosystems. Sustainable environmental practices improve water and air quality, reduce landfills, and increase renewable energy sources in the long term. These changes guarantee cleaner and healthier living conditions for all people, particularly those in lower-income communities.
Further, sustainability is important because it ensures a liveable planet for future generations. Because natural resources are finite, they must be used conservatively in the short term. If not, we are bound to run out of fossil fuels, deplete natural resources, and damage the earth’s atmosphere beyond repair. By practicing sustainability now, we create a safer, more livable world for our children and grandchildren.
In business, sustainability not only helps address global challenges, it contributes to an organization’s overall success as well. According to McKinsey, companies with the highest ESG metrics (used to determine the ethical standards and sustainability of an organization) consistently outperform the rest of the market; as a result, sustainable companies tend to be the most profitable. Sustainable practices also increase success by protecting a company’s brand, mitigating risk, and providing a compelling competitive advantage.
What are the top sustainability trends right now?
So, what does sustainability look like today? Here are the top sustainability trends to look out for right now:
ESG investing: a form of investment that prioritizes environmental, social, and governance criteria in addition to financial returns.
Being “climate positive”: not just achieving net-zero carbon emissions, but removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Affordable, renewable energy: falling costs of renewable energy coupled with a push for more renewable power.
Clean transportation: 18 of the world’s 20 largest automotive manufacturers have pledged to switch to manufacturing electric vehicles.
Climate-friendly consumer products: more environmentally conscious consumers will create a demand for products aligned with their sustainability goals.
Disclosure from businesses: companies will be held accountable by governments to report their climate risks to the public
Decarbonization of the food system: a shift towards alternative proteins, alternative dairy, and other alternatives to today’s industrial food system
Altogether, these trends will be an important step towards creating a world that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
New research finds between 90 to 99 percent of all tropical deforestation is related to agriculture, either directly or indirectly.
The new research, published in the journal Science found only half to two-thirds of deforested land for agricultural purposes actually winds up seeing active agriculture. Much of the land lies razed and unused.
“A big piece of the puzzle is just how much deforestation is ‘for nothing,’” said Prof. Patrick Meyfroidt from UCLouvain and F.R.S.-FNRS in Belgium.
“While agriculture is the ultimate driver, forests and other ecosystems are often cleared for land speculation that never materialised, projects that were abandoned or ill-conceived, land that proved unsuitable for cultivation, as well as due to fires that spread into forests neighboring cleared areas”.
Photo by Johny Goerend on Unsplash
Deforestation has long been a result of agriculture, but the new study is the first to pinpoint the loss of hectares to more specific numbers, narrowing loss down to 6.4 to 8.8 million hectares per year from previous estimates of 4.3 to 9.6 million hectares between 2011 to 2015.
For more than a decade, estimates suggested 80 percent of deforestation is related to agriculture, but the new findings push that number up significantly.
“Our review makes clear that between 90 and 99 percent of all deforestation in the tropics is driven directly or indirectly by agriculture,” Florence Pendrill, lead author of the study at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, said in a statement.
“But what surprised us was that a comparatively smaller share of the deforestation—between 45 and 65 percent—results in the expansion of actual agricultural production on the deforested land. This finding is of profound importance for designing effective measures to reduce deforestation and promote sustainable rural development,” Pendrill said.
Palm Plantation | Courtesy Greenpeace
The research saw a collaboration between the world’s leading deforestation experts and looked not only at the connection between agriculture and deforestation, but how it impacts conservation efforts.
Three commodities are driving tropical deforestation: land for pasture, soy—grown primarily for livestock feed—, and palm oil. The researchers also point to sector-specific initiatives that aren’t effectively dealing with indirect impacts.
Tangible solutions
“Sector-specific initiatives to combat deforestation can be invaluable, and new measures to prohibit imports of commodities linked to deforestation in consumer markets, such as those under negotiation in the EU, UK and USA represent a major step forward from largely voluntary efforts to combat deforestation to date,” said Dr. Toby Gardner of the Stockholm Environment Institute and Director of the supply chain transparency initiative, Trase.
“But as our study shows, strengthening forest and land-use governance in producer countries has to be the ultimate goal of any policy response. Supply chain and demand-side measures must be designed in a way that also tackles the underlying and indirect ways in which agriculture is linked to deforestation. They need to drive improvements in sustainable rural development, otherwise we can expect to see deforestation rates remaining stubbornly high in many places,” Dr. Gardner added.
Courtesy Flash Dantz via Pexels
The researchers say the new data is key for policymakers across consumer markets, the private sector, and rural development policies in the producing countries. They say supply chain interventions are critical and must go beyond specific commodities to drive “genuine partnerships” between the producers, consumer markets, and governments.
Three gaps need addressing to reduce deforestation, the researchers say.
“The first is that without a globally and temporally consistent data product on deforestation we cannot be confident about overall trends in conversion. The second is that except for oil palm and soy, we lack data on the coverage and expansion of specific commodities to know which are more important, with our understanding of global pasture and grazing lands being especially dire. The third is that we know comparatively very little indeed about tropical dry forests, and forests in Africa”, said Professor Martin Persson of Chalmers University of Technology.
“What is most worrying, given the urgency of the crisis”, Prof. Persson said, “is that each of these evidence gaps pose significant barriers to our ability to drive down deforestation in the most effective way – by knowing where the problems are concentrated, and understanding the success of efforts to date.”
A new report from the UN Climate Change High-Level Champions warns of economic disaster as big as the 2008 financial crash—or worse—as a result of ongoing deforestation and biodiversity loss. As a result, the world’s leading food and ag companies face value declines of more than 25 percent by 2030, the experts warn.
The new report findings, presented during Climate Week in New York by COP26 President Alok Sharma and UN Climate Change High-Level Champions, Nigel Topping and Dr. Mahmoud Mohieldin, come with an urgent warning to financial institutions: eliminate commodity-driven deforestation as soon as possible. It’s the latest in a string of reports from the UN calling on industries and policymakers to address the looming climate crisis.
Deforestation impact
“Due to the unique role of deforestation in driving emissions, and the role of the standing forest and terrestrial ecosystems in mitigating carbon, the financial sector must front load its transition to net zero, with a swift move away from deforestation-related emissions,” Sharma said. “Signing the Financial Sector Commitment Letter on Eliminating Commodity-Driven Deforestation sends an important signal to your supply chains, and harnesses the power of collective action. The physical risks to finance given the decline of both natural assets and ecosystem services is acute. The benefits of action are transformative. The right choice to protect our precious planet is clear.”
Photo by Zdeněk Macháček on Unsplash
The new report is a first of its kind from Race to Zero. It jumps off from the Inevitable Policy Response’s (IPR) high-confidence, realistic, policy-based scenario. Among its key findings is just how significant the global impact of nature is. The findings suggest that 40 of the world’s largest food and agricultural firms could see an impact worth over USD$2 trillion. The report assesses the financial impact of a set of transition risks, including carbon pricing, subsidies for Nature-Based Solutions, due diligence obligations, and bans on deforestation.
Markets are failing to account for the transitions in land use, the report finds. Shifts to policies and consumer demands could drive “permanent value loss” across food and agricultural sectors on par with the 2008 financial crisis. For leaders in these industries this could mean devastating losses—as much as 26 percent by 2030 with an average of more than seven percent. That amounts to more than USD$150 billion in losses to investors.
Critically, the report says, this will not be a cyclical shock but permanent non-cyclical losses if no action is taken to prevent the disaster. And that’s where there’s good news. The analysts behind the report say swift efforts to increase sustainable offerings and operational shifts that prevent deforestation can mitigate “all potential losses.”
Leadership opportunities
“We’re seeing some leadership from investors on nature and deforestation, but frankly, not enough,” says Topping. “Over 30 financial institutions with more than USD$8.7 trillion in assets under management have already signed the Financial Sector Commitment Letter on Eliminating Commodity-Driven Deforestation, with a target date of 2025. These leaders are showing what’s possible, and as our new analysis underlines, protecting themselves against financial, regulatory, and reputational risk in their portfolios.”
“By COP27 in November, we need investors and businesses to help accelerate the shift to a more resilient economy by investing in high-integrity carbon credits supporting nature-based solutions which put smallholders, indigenous peoples, and local communities at the centre,” added Mohieldin.
A forest fell view courtesy Julian Peter via Pexels
The report says the opportunity to capitalize on the benefits of a nature-positive future are significant; it values the market at USD$4.5 trillion, including opportunities for bio fertilizer, alternative proteins, and nature-based carbon credits.
The report is calling on the world’s leading companies to eliminate commodity-driven deforestation from their portfolios by 2025 and find Nature Based Solutions. It’s also calling on them to understand and seize the opportunities from land transition, and advocate for just land transition policies.
“Today’s new research underscores the critical role nature must play in how we – as investors – understand risk and spot opportunities,” Schroders Group CEO Peter Harrison, said. “The reality is stark: nature risk is fast becoming an integral factor to investment risk. That’s why accelerating a deforestation-free and nature-positive future goes to the heart of our fiduciary duty to our clients. As an active manager, we’re determined to use new insight, our influence over the real economy and to innovate new solutions, to have a tangible impact on nature, while we deliver robust, long-term returns.”
Deep sea mining could begin in the Pacific as early as this month, after regulators decided to allow The Metals Company to start mining the seafloor.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has granted permission to Nauru Oceans Resources, a subsidiary of The Metals Company, to begin exploratory mining in the Clarion Clipperton Zone between Hawai’i and Mexico.
According to the Financial Post, about 3600 tonnes of polymetallic nodules are expected to be collected during the trial beginning later this month with an expected conclusion in the fourth quarter of 2022.
Greenpeace Aotearoa is calling on world leaders to step in, and put a temporary ban on deep sea mining to protect the ocean.
Its seabed mining campaigner James Hita said Pacific peoples have been pushed aside for decades and excluded from decision-making processes in their own territories.
He said deep sea mining was yet another example of colonial forces exploiting Pacific land and seas, without regard to people’s way of life, food sources and spiritual connection to the ocean.
New destructive industry
Hita said the move signals the beginning of a new and destructive extractive industry that would place profit before people and biodiversity, threatening ocean health and people’s way of life.
“Deep sea mining is now right upon our doorstep and is a threat to each and every one of us. The ocean is home to over 90 percent of life on earth and is one of our greatest allies in the fight against climate change,” he said.
“The ISA was set up by the United Nations with the purpose of regulating the international seabed, with a mandate to protect it. Instead they are now enabling mining of the critically important international seafloor.
“The Legal and Technical Commission, that approved this mining pilot, meets entirely behind closed doors, allowing no room for civil society to hold them to account. This mechanism is simply unacceptable.”
“Right now people across the Pacific are taking a stand, calling for a halt to deep sea mining. Civil society, environmentalists and a growing alliance of Pacific nations are urging government leaders to stand on the right side of history and stop deep sea mining in its tracks. We must stand in solidarity with our Pacific neighbours and put a lid on this destructive industry to preserve ocean health for future generations,” said Hita.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New research says our understanding of endangered species is limited, and some species may face greater extinction risks than previously thought.
Conservation statuses for nearly 8,000 species with limited population data show a grim reality, according to research published in Communications Biology. More than half of those species likely face extinction, according to the researchers.
The findings
The study was led by Jan Borgelt, a doctoral candidate in industrial ecology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He says things could be “much worse than we actually realize.”
Photo by Zdeněk Macháček on Unsplash
Borgelt and his team looked at the available data on 7,699 species across the globe and compared it to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. That database currently categorizes extinction risks for more than 147,000 species. But, as many as 20 percent of species across plants, animals, and fungi, are data deficient, the researchers note.
This means a true assessment of their survival potential is difficult. For policymakers and scientists to best prioritize and act on conservation efforts, this data is crucial.
Data can be limited for a number of reasons including habitat or cryptic or hidden species—where animals can appear identical but are genetically distinct.
Extinction risks
Borgelt and his team say their model projections show more than half of the data deficient species face extinction. And some groups are more threatened than others; 85 percent of amphibians such as the Sierra Miahuatlan spikethumb frog, which the researchers say faces a 95 percent extinction risk; 62 percent of insects; 61 percent of mammals, including the newly recognized Rice’s whale; and 59 percent of reptiles are at risk.
In total, they looked at 21 taxonomic groups, which Borgelt says is still “a tiny fraction of what exists in the world.”
Photo by Ray Harrington on Unsplash
The findings also point to regional risks with Central Africa, southern Asia, and Madagascar at highest risk for species’ loss.
Among the most alarming findings is that data-deficient species may be more at risk of extinction than those with known conservation statuses, the researchers note.
The research team says they believe their predictions are accurate. Following the research, the IUCN updated the Red List including 123 species that had been listed as data deficient. Seventy-five percent of those wound up matching predictions made by Borgelt’s team.
We all know what happened in February when the U.S. temporarily halted imports of avocados from Mexico just ahead of Super Bowl Sunday. Could a sustainable faux avocado be the answer to that and avocado environmental impact? Meet Ecovado.
Made from a mixture of broad beans, hazelnuts, apples, and canola oil, a Central Saint Martins graduate has created Ecovado—an alternative to avocados that are supposed to mimic its flavor and texture without the environmental footprint.
Are avocados sustainable?
Avocados, like almonds, are inherently water-intensive— it takes between 1,000 and 2,000 liters of water to produce just one kilo of avocados. While many mature avocado trees can sustain themselves off of ground and rainwater, the demand for avocados sees a constant influx of new tree plantings. And parts of Mexico, which grows the majority of U.S. avocados, are in a major drought. Monterrey, Mexico, which is home to the chili peppers used in the popular sriracha hot sauce, recently put severe water restrictions in place for the city’s five million residents.
A whole nut in place of the pit
Arina Shokouhi, who developed the Ecovado, says while the trendy avocado is healthy and delicious, it is also one of the most unsustainable crops, “because of their delicate, easy-to-bruise nature, and the plantation-style monoculture farms required to meet the global demand for avocados are driving the deforestation of some of the most diverse landscapes in the world.”
Ecovado
Shokouhi developed the Ecovado for her final-year project, working with the University of Nottingham’s Food Innovation Centre to identify the exact chemical makeup of avocados. The goal was to use ingredients local to the U.K. to replicate the warm-weather fruit.
Buy Ecovado by the case without risk of spoiling
“The flavour of avocado is quite subtle and, overall, is most often described as ‘creamy’,” Shokouhi told Dezeen. “On the other hand, broad beans can contain quite a lot of bitter compounds called tannins and can have a beany flavour caused by lipoxygenase.”
“To reduce the bitterness, we reduced the amount of broad beans in the recipe,” she continued. “The flavour of avocado has been described as ‘nutty’. So we used creamed hazelnuts which would bring a good amount of fat, adding to the creaminess.”
The Ecovado even comes in a realistic, sustainable skin made from wax which can be upcycled into a candle, Shokouhi says.
Rewilding polluted land can help to heal soil, promote biodiversity, and sequester carbon. Two plants stand out, according to new research.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), more than 75 percent of Earth’s land areas are substantially degraded, putting pressure on global food supplies for a population on its way to ten billion by mid-century. By then, 95 percent of Earth’s land could be too degraded to farm.
“Land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural environment,” said Sir Robert Watson, chair of the (IPBES), said in 2018 following the platform’s research on soil health.
But new research published in the journal Horticulturae. points to two plants in particular that could help balance copper-polluted soil: zinnias and tobacco.
The findings
“Plants of the Asteraceae and Nightshade families, namely zinnia and tobacco, are copper-exclusive, their root system performs the function of copper accumulation,” Anastasia Tugbaeva, junior researcher at the Ural Federal University laboratory said in a statement.
“Using zinnia as an example, we have shown for the first time that it can grow in copper-contaminated soils and even flower faster than in pure soils. That is, it can be used for landscaping areas, it will grow well,” Tugbaeva said. “Tobacco, an important agricultural crop and useful fertilizer, also adapted to long-term exposure to copper in our experiments and grew comparable to control plants, despite the high content of copper in the substrate.”
Courtesy Sebastian Unrau via Unsplash
Copper accumulates is widely used in fertilizers and fungicides and quickly accumulates in soil. Too much copper can restrict plant root growth and interfere with nutrient absorption. Copper-contaminated soil may also interfere with soil’s natural carbon sequestration functions.
Both zinnia and tobacco were quick to adapt to copper in soil, transporting the mineral to aerial parts of the plant. The researchers say that plants can often thrive in difficult conditions.
“We conducted experiments for 20, 40, 60 days and used substrates in which the content of copper could even exceed its content in urban soils,” says Tugbaeva. “Under the influence of copper in the root and stem of plants, the expression of five genes responsible for the synthesis of phenolic compounds and lignin is enhanced. Lignin is one of the components of the plant cell wall, which makes it stronger. It is lignin that is the mechanism of plant adaptation, which limits the transfer of metals from the cell wall and the effects of metals on the intracellular structure of the plant.”
While more research is needed, the findings show rewilding potential. Rotating the ornamental zinnia along with tobacco into contaminated soil could help preserve soil health. Like the Blue Economy has been largely overlooked in fighting climate change and promoting biodiversity, soil is also often overlooked.
A new look at soil
New research published yesterday in the European Journal of Soil Science says the way we look at soil must change. The research team says an entirely new whole system approach to assessing soil health is critical. The research proposed looking signs of life in the soil, its function, complexity, and signs of emergence, or how it responds to and recovers from stressors.
Photo by Sandie Clarke on Unsplash
“Through this research, we want to start the conversation about how we move to a holistic picture of soil health assessment, looking at the interconnected elements of this universally important system. Taking steps towards a bigger-picture view of soil health could help make a huge difference to some of our big challenges, not least the climate crisis,” said lead author Jim Harris, Professor of Environmental Technology at Cranfield University.
“Although ‘soil health’ as a term is quite widely used now, it is problematic as it means different things to different people, and there is no single agreed way to measure the overall health of this system,” he said.
Eco-defenders in Somerset are occupying an ancient oak, to save it from a National Highways road expansion.
The Queen Camel oak near Sparkbrook is being threatened by plans to build a new slip road off the A303.
Indra Donfrancesco – the deputy mayor of Glastonbury, and one of the people who have occupied the area to protect the tree – recorded this video explaining her motivations:
According to Indra:
This tree behind me is in the way of this works happening. So that’s why we’re here, that’s why we’ve made camp, we’re up the trees. We’ve got tree hammocks up there, and we will be here until either Highways England or the contractors see sense, and […] know that this tree is not coming down.
We are occupying to highlight that the Gov is spending 6.1 billion on road projects which will increase carbon emissions whilst a 78% cut in emissions by 2035 is written into law.
The tree-sitters told us that a court failed to protect the tree last week, but they were planning to appeal to the High Court.
“We cannot afford to lose one more tree”
Indra told The Canary:
I have been camping underneath the Queen Camel oak this past week, and campaigning to keep it safe from a slip-road. I’m here because there are too many trees that are disappearing in the world. In our country we have the worst canopy cover in Europe. We are in a climate emergency, we cannot afford one more tree. This is a healthy 450-year-old plus oak tree
I am here to give voice to this tree, to tell its story of why it is more important to us than a road. In this time of climate emergency we cannot afford to lose one more tree
Julian Hight submitted a complaint to National Highways which points out that the Queen Camel oak was recorded on the first ever Ordinance Survey maps, made 100-150 years ago, but the tree is thought to be much older than that. This makes the Queen Camel oak a ‘veteran tree’.
Hight wrote:
veteran oak in particular, provide more habitat that any other native tree, supporting over 2,300 different species, 320 of them are found nowhere else. veteran trees are biodiversity hotspots.
Calls to protect biodiversity
Supporters on Twitter called for the ancient oak to be spared:
Save the Queen Camel Oak A healthy veteran oak is threatened by National Highways to be felled as part of a road widening scheme on the A303.
Conservationist and TV presenter Chris Packham also joined the calls to save the tree:
Brave protesters are peacefully camped in this beautiful ancient oak threatened by roadbuilding . They are fundraising for an injunction . We all need to make a last stand for nature – please give whatever you can afford https://t.co/3O3aLV7vAm#savethecamelqueen@XRebellionUK
Another of the tree-sitters – who preferred to remain anonymous – told The Canary:
I’m one of the activists who have been living up this tree for nearly two weeks now. We’ve made four different nests out of netting with pop-up tents on them, we’ve got a solar panel for charging, and we’ve been spending some really glorious nights looking at the stars from the top of an oak tree, it’s nice. There’s bats in it, evidence that squirrels were here but obviously they’ve moved out due to the construction. There’s owls here and lots of buzzards that nest in trees like this, as well as kestrels and sparrowhawks. There’s loads and loads of wildlife living off this massive veteran tree, and we just think that it really needs saving.
“A huge loss of biodiversity”
National Highways has previously estimated that the oak is 400-450 years old, but maintains that it is not subject to a protection order. We contacted the organisation to ask if it intended to change its plans in order to save the ancient tree. A spokesperson replied:
We respect the right to protest and will work with police and all relevant authorities, and those protesting, to ensure everyone is safe.
We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and are one of the largest tree planting organisations in the UK, with plans to plant an extra 3 million trees by 2030. We only cut back or fell trees where it is essential to keep people safe, protect the environment or where it is necessary to allow us to improve journeys.
Where we plan to remove old trees on the A303 Sparkford scheme, we have made sure to investigate other possibilities to see if we can avoid removal. Sadly, that was not possible on this occasion. We continue to work with ecologists and other specialists to make sure our environmental mitigations are as thorough and beneficial as possible.
But as the tree-sitter highlighted:
The council and the Highways England – who bought this land 30 years ago – always swore that they’d protect it to the farmer who they bought the land off of. Recently they have changed their tact and said that it needs to come down because its going to be on a piece of banking between the main A303 expansion and a sliproad, which is a private road to a private school – which already has perfectly good access to the existing Sparkford roundabout.
So we just feel that it doesn’t need to come down, it’s a huge loss of biodiversity. So we’re here to do what we can to protect it.
The Queen Camel campaigners have vowed to protect the oak. They are raising funds for camp equipment, and towards an injunction to prevent the felling of the tree. You can support them by donating to their crowdfunder.
Featured image via the tree-sitters, with their permission
Palau, Fiji, and Samoa have announced their opposition to deep-sea mining, calling for a moratorium on the emerging industry amid growing fears it will destroy the seafloor and damage biodiversity.
The alliance was announced just as a United Nations Oceans Conference began in Portugal this week.
The moratorium comes amid a wave of global interest in deep-sea mining despite environmental groups and governments urging to ban it or ensure it only goes ahead if regulations are in place.
The alliance between Palau, Fiji, and Samoa was made by Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr at an event co-hosted by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and the World Wildlife Fund as part of a side event at the United Nations Ocean Conference in Lisbon.
It comes after Vanuatu declared its opposition to deep-sea mining with Chile announcing support for a 15-year moratorium earlier this month, joining the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea who have already taken steps against deep-sea mining.
The Pacific liaison for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition Aotearoa, Phil McCabe, said a moratorium would prevent or slow the process of mining activity.
Pacific liaison for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition Aotearoa, Phil McCabe … “The deep-sea mining issue, it seems like it’s the hottest topic here at the Ocean conference.” Image: Phil Smith/VNP/RNZ
“It’s a pause on no more exploration licences being issued, no exploitation meaning no actual mining licenses being granted and not yet adopting or agreeing to the rules around how this activity might go ahead.”
Standing ovation
The Pacific leaders were given a standing ovation for their stance against deep-sea mining.
McCabe said the issue of mining was the most engaging topic at the event.
Surangel Whipps asked: “How can we in our right minds say ‘let’s go mining’ without knowing what the risks are?”
McCabe said Pacific leaders discussed the important role the ocean had in the region.
“The deep-sea mining issue, it seems like it’s the hottest topic here at the Ocean conference, there was a real heart space discussion around in the Pacific our relationship with the ocean and this activity just really attacking the base of that relationship — just inappropriate.
“And the leaders were acknowledged and there was a standing ovation,” he said.
Greenpeace Aotearoa campaigner James Hita is calling the new alliance “absolutely monumental” and said now was the time for the New Zealand government to take a strong stand on the issue.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New research published in the journal Science shows a drastic need to protect land areas in order to safeguard the planet’s biodiversity.
According to the research, led by the University of Amsterdam, 24.7 million square miles—nearly half of all land area—need some type of protection to mitigate biodiversity loss.
The findings
The research team came to that conclusion using advanced geospatial algorithms to map the areas best capable of protecting terrestrial species and their ecosystems. The team was also able to determine just how much land faces critical danger by 2030 as a result of human activity. The researchers suggest now all nations should aim to conserve 30 percent of their land through protected areas and other site-based approaches by 2030.
“Our study is the current best estimate of how much land we must conserve to stop the biodiversity crisis – it is essentially a conservation plan for the planet,” lead author Dr. James Allan from the University of Amsterdam, said in a statement. “We must act fast, our models show that over 1.3 million km2 of this important land – an area larger than South Africa – is likely to have its habitat cleared for human uses by 2030, which would be devastating for wildlife.”
Photo by Hans-Jurgen Mager on Unsplash
According to the research team, the findings suggest a critical need for policy with new goals and targets. The findings come as the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently working to develop a global biodiversity framework targeted for some time this year. This framework is expected to lead global conservation efforts for the next decade, requiring governments to regularly report on their progress.
“More than a decade ago, governments set a global target to conserve at least 17 percent of terrestrial areas through protected areas and other site-based approaches for improving the status of biodiversity and ecosystems,” explains co-author Dr. Kendall Jones, Conservation Planning Specialist at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “However, by 2020 it was clear that this was not enough for halting biodiversity declines and averting the biodiversity crisis.”
Recommendations
Jones says the research suggests that “more ambitious goals and policies” are needed to maintain ecological integrity beyond the recommended 30 percent target. “If nations are serious about safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services that underpin life on Earth, then they need immediately to scale-up their conservation efforts, not only in extent and intensity but also in effectiveness,” Jones said.
Photo by Derek Oyen on Unsplash
But that doesn’t mean all land needs to become designated conservation areas. The researchers say better management strategies could help ecosystems and species thrive, such as area-based conservation measures and sustainable land-use policies.
“Conservation actions that promote the autonomy and self-determination of people living on this land, whilst also maintaining ecological integrity are crucial,” said Dr. Allan. “We have many effective conservation tools available, from empowering Indigenous Peoples to manage their natural environment, through to policies that limit deforestation or provide sustainable livelihood options, and of course protected areas.”
Calling it the most sustainable factory of its kind in the world, the outdoor furniture manufacturer Vestre has opened the doors to its $30 million Magnor, Norway facility.
While Sweden’s Ikea gets most of the glory when it comes to sustainability, outdoor furniture manufacturer Vestre is giving the giant a run for its money. Designed by Danish architectural firm Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), Vestre’s new factory is centered inside a 300-acre area of woodland near the village Magnor, close to the Swedish border. The plus-shaped design began 18 months ago with sustainability at the core of the design.
The factory design
“Playfulness, democracy, and sustainability are at the heart of the Vestre brand and everything they do; our wooden, colourful factory in the middle of the Norwegian woods – surrounded by a public forest park where the local community can come to experience the gigantic Vestre furniture pieces sprinkled throughout – lives and breathes this philosophy,” David Zahle, Partner at BIG, said in a statement.
“There are no industrial buildings that have even come close to the highest standard, not even the second-highest,” BIG design lead Viktoria Millentrup told Dezeen. “So BREEAM-wise, there was not even an example building we could follow.”
Outside Vestre – Courtesy
“It’s untraditional for a factory to focus so much on sustainability,” Zahle said. “For a lot of companies, production is about keeping costs low and hiding it away.”
While the factory was built inside a forest, it’s not at the expense of trees.
“Normally, when we construct a building in the middle of the forest, we would take a lot more trees away,” said the project’s design manager Sindre Myrlund.
“Originally, we drew a line 10 metres away from the factory, which is more normal. And Vestre moved the line five metres in and said: ‘if you need to remove more trees, you need to ask and get it approved’.”
The factory ‘wings’ that extend out from the center all focus on different areas of the business: there’s the Color Factory, the Wood Factory, assembly, and the warehouse. The wings all meet at a central courtyard. The design embraces Norwegian culture’s Allemannsretten—the “right to roam” concept, so there are no fences or borders, the company says.
Sustainability at Vestre
The factory uses renewable energy, water recovery and purification, among other sustainability metrics. This reduces energy consumption by 60 percent and reduces emissions by 55 percent. The rooftop is covered in local vegetation as well as 900 solar panels. The property also includes 17 geothermal wells, and heat pumps in the walls to capture excess heat.
The 7,000 square-meter factory was constructed mainly of wood—PEFC-certified cross-laminated timber and glued-laminated timber. Its structure stores 1,400 tons of CO2, the company said.
The building also relies on the energy-efficient Passivhaus strategies as well as robotic production lines that help to reduce its energy use by 90 percent compared with conventional factory lines.
Inside Vestre – Courtesy
“The Plus is a factory for the people,” Stefan Tjust, Vestre’s CEO, said. “It is a project we have put an enormous amount of soul and energy into. This is an important day for us, but also for the Norwegian mainland industry and the Scandinavian export cooperation.”
The structure is also home to Norway’s tallest slide—yes, slide—that winds down the side of the building down to the forest floor.
Zahle says the project is “very transparent,” citing it as “almost open-source” about how the products are made and the open facade “to bring people closer,” he said.
“You invite people to play and you invite people to walk up on the roof and you create a park around it so that even a factory can become part of creating a good life.”
Last week, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization celebrated the first annual International Day of Plant Health—a tentpole built around investment and innovation aimed at boosting food security.
Eighty percent of our food comes from plants, but according to the FAO, 40 percent of food crops are lost due to pests and plant disease every year—a number that impacts food security and agriculture, both of which play crucial roles for rural communities and the health of the planet.
To emphasize this, the FAO has announced International Day of Plant Health, celebrated on May 12th.
International Day of Plant Health
“On this very first International Day of Plant Health, we reflect on plant health innovations for food security,” FAO Director-General QU Dongyu said in a statement. Dongyu says more investments are needed into research to find “more resilient and sustainable” additions to the human diet.
Photo by Roxanne Desgagnés on Unsplash
Plants are under threat, particularly as a result of climate change and human activity, says the FAO. Dongyu says protecting plants from pests and diseases is more cost-effective than navigating “plant health emergencies.”
As diseases and pests establish in crops, they can be more difficult to eradicate, calling for heavier applications of pesticides and herbicides, the FAO says. Proactive health measures are more cost-effective and healthier for the ecosystems and humans.
“We need to continue raising the global profile of plant health to transform agrifood systems to be more efficient, more inclusive, more resilient and more sustainable”, Dongyu said.
Plant health priorities
The FAO has identified several key priorities, including the development and implementation of the international standards on phytosanitary measures in order to protect global plant resources while facilitating safe trade; focusing on sustainable pest management and pesticides through the promotion of green and digital plant protection; and creating enabling surroundings for plant health by enhancing the health of soils, seeds, and pollinators.
Governments are also being urged to prioritize plant health and sustainable management, including policies and legislation that protects plants and fosters greater awareness of plant health. FAO is also urging academia and research institutions to produce science-based solutions to the challenges plant crops face.
Photo by Bob Bowie on Unsplash
The new annual event is focused on five goals, including efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly the Zero Hunger goal (SDG 2); through the development of international standards, minimize the risk of spreading plant pests through trade and travel; strengthen monitoring and early warning systems to protect plants and plant health; enable sustainable pest and pesticide management that keep plants healthy while minimizing impact on the environment; and promote investment in plant health innovations, research, development, and outreach.
The annual event will see organized celebrations at global, regional, and national levels “and even potentially, down on a farm, near you,” the FAO says.
7Mins Read The pandemic has exposed what scientists have long been warning about – our global food supply is so broken, disconnected, and insufficient that drastic changes must be made in order to feed the world healthily and sustainably. The global food supply chain was among the hardest hit amidst the coronavirus pandemic with 265 million people […]
3Mins Read The United Nations moves to build a “Blue Deal” coalition that will preserve oceans and create a sustainable, seaweed-based ocean economy. Ahead of the 2022 UN Ocean Conference taking place in Lisbon in June, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) says a “Blue Deal” coalition will create a sustainable and resilient ocean […]
On April 1, 2022 Roxy’s Law, a ban on trapping on New Mexico public lands more than a decade in the making, goes into effect after Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed it last year. Nearly 32 million acres of public lands, including state-owned parcels, national forests, and Bureau of Land Management holdings will be free not only of cruel leghold traps, which can amputate and maim, but also from strangulation snares, body-crushing traps, and deadly poisons like sodium cyanide bombs. From the beautiful Latir Peak Wilderness to the incredible Florida Mountains, vast amounts of New Mexico will be safer for people, pups, and wildlife alike.
Along with Roxy’s Law, New Mexico has recently taken other meaningful steps toward protecting wildlife.
When you imagine an octopus’s world, you might well see a curious creature in a complex undersea environment.
Yet the reality of life for some octopuses is existence within a barren tank, inescapably surrounded by humans and other octopuses. This is the bleak world of octopus farming – and soon there could be new commercial farms on the horizon.
Recently a Spanish company announced its intention to open a new industrial octopus farm, with a goal of producing 3,000 tonnes of octopus a year. This raises huge concerns for animal welfare – because there can be no doubt that octopuses are complex and intelligent animals.
Photo by Balland at Pexels.
Wild octopuses are masters of camouflage, rapidly changing their skin patterns to blend in with their backgrounds. Sometimes they cover themselves with shells or even carry coconut shells to hide from predators. And they are well-known escape artists in captivity, able to squeeze through extraordinarily small spaces.
They may even have a mischievous streak, with frequent reports of octopuses squirting water at unsuspecting visitors and caregivers. One octopus in Germany was renowned for repeatedly squirting water at the lights, seemingly aware that this would short-circuit the electricity and cause a commotion.
In a laboratory setting too, they have shown themselves adept at solving mazes and other puzzles to acquire a food reward.
And octopuses are not only intelligent. They are also sentient, capable of experiencing feelings such as pain and pleasure.
We recently produced a report for the UK government, after analysing over 300 scientific studies. We found strong evidence in favour of sentience in cephalopod molluscs (including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) and decapod crustaceans (such as crabs and lobsters).
For many scientists, our findings merely reaffirmed what they already believed: that octopuses are conscious animals with feelings and inner lives, just like vertebrates.
For us, all of this sits uneasily with the idea of octopus farming.
While octopus has long been an occasional menu item for many, demand for octopus meat is growing rapidly. And that has led to the proposals to start farming octopuses on an industrial scale. As well as Spain, there are similar efforts in Mexico, Chile, China and Japan.
Photo by Alex Favali at Pexels.
Huge ethical concerns
Octopuses are attractive candidates for commercial aquaculture, due to their high value, fast growth and rapid breeding.
But when working on our report, we assessed some of the greatest risks to the welfare of octopuses, and octopus farming was high on our list. The possibility of poor welfare is extremely concerning, especially as there are no protections for farmed octopus under animal welfare legislation anywhere in the world.
Octopuses have several characteristics that make them particularly ill-suited to intensive farming.
They are soft-bodied, with skin that damages easily through rough handling or collisions with tank walls or furniture, particularly when jetting away from perceived threats – their usual escape response. They are a vulnerable animal that prefers to hide and requires shelter to feel safe.
As solitary animals (with very rare exceptions), they are often aggressive and territorial, meaning they tend to react badly to the company of other octopuses, with cannibalism common for many octopus species. Stress from overcrowding can even lead octopuses to resort to self-cannibalism – they literally eat their own arms.
And since they are behaviourally and cognitively complex, they require complex environments that provide stimulation and opportunities to perform natural behaviours.
To make matters worse, there are currently no recognised methods of humane slaughter for octopus that would be feasible at a large commercial scale. For these reasons, we concluded in our report that we have “very high confidence that high-welfare commercial farming of cephalopods is currently impossible”.
In short, we had little doubt that it is a bad idea.
Photo from My Octopus Teacher.
It’s unsustainable too
Proponents of octopus farming claim the practice has environmental benefits. They say that it is a sustainable method of production that will reduce pressure on wild populations of octopus.
Currently, it is the case that around 350,000 tonnes of wild octopus are harvested annually. And if demand continues to increase, this harvest will also be expected to rise.
But we are not convinced by this claim of sustainability.
One problem is that octopuses are carnivores, which means they require fish or other seafood products such as fishmeal or fish oil in their diet. These products are still frequently harvested from the ocean. And as octopuses have a food conversion ratio of around three to one (meaning it takes roughly three kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of octopus), this is a highly inefficient use of resources.
A second problem is that it is not by any means clear that shifting to aquaculture will reduce pressure on wild stocks. It is just as likely that octopus farming will simply reduce prices and increase demand, as has been seen in fish aquaculture.
So, if we really want to protect wild octopus populations we need to move beyond a false choice between devastating overfishing and industrialised farming.
The emphasis should be on decreasing consumption rather than on trying to shift demand from wild to captive stocks – and to do that, we need to be wary of quick fixes such as artificially raising prices. That can lead to unwanted effects, such as creating perceived scarcity that drives up consumer desire – think here of “luxury” goods such as shark fin.
To find the best ways of profoundly changing our eating habits, they need to be designed and tested by behaviour change experts so that we can robustly shift demand. And there may be no single solution. Approaches might need to vary across different cultures and consumer groups.
BREAKING: Indigenous youth from across Turtle Island disrupt 
Diet for these whales?
Vegan Campaign Catering 
(@veggiesnottm) 
![NASA]](https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/science/EM_spectrum_compare_level1_lg.jpg){kind=link}