Roads melting, fires raging, people dying – the fact that we are living in a climate crisis has never been more apparent than at this moment in time. Across the globe, temperatures in cities across Europe, Asia, and the US have reached record highs once thought impossible. Alongside temperatures, cities have been suffering from flash flooding, rising sea levels, and infrastructure failure as a result of extremes that they are simply not equipped to contend with. Given that 56% of Earth’s population lives in urban areas, it is about time we rethink our cities and change how they are designed, constructed, and managed. Here are some innovative urban solutions leading the way.

—

Urban Solutions to Tackle Climate Change in Cities

1. Hamburg’s Algae-Powered Building

A building powered by plants? This is no longer science fiction, as the Bio Intelligent Quotient (B.I.Q.) apartment building located in Hamburg, Germany, demonstrates. The striking algae biomass façade generates renewable energy from biomass and solar thermal heat. Since the system is fully integrated with the building services, the excess heat from the photobioreactors can be used to help supply hot water and heat the building. Alternatively, it can be stored for later use. Nine years after the B.I.Q was constructed, the integration of biomass into architecture is still in its initial phases. However, this project has proven that micro-algae can outperform other renewable resources with their potential to absorb carbon dioxide, recycle wastewater, and release oxygen.

Living algae buildings provide an exciting prospect for future green cities.

You might also like: ​​The World’s 10 Greenest Cities

2. Green Tram Tracks

A common site across many European cities such as Bordeaux, Frankfurt, and Barcelona, green tram tracks provide an abundance of benefits. The vegetation reduces incidents of flash flooding by absorbing rainwater, besides cooling the surrounding area as the vegetation transpires. With flash flooding increasing in frequency and intensity because of climate change, green tram tracks are a critical small step cities can take to protect themselves. The benefits go beyond diminishing flood risk: the swathes of green tracks provide a habitable zone for numerous insects and invertebrates, and the soft surface also lessens the vibrations and noise of tram wheels.

3. Trees in Paris

After recording a temperature just shy of 43C in 2019, the French have desperately been looking at ways to cool their sweltering capital, Paris. The answer to their problems may come in the form of the planting of 160,000 trees. This summer, a temperature of 56C was recorded bouncing from the surface of one of the treeless streets; this was double the 28C found in the shade of a nearby tree-lined boulevard. Such temperature rises are known as the urban heat island effect, which refers to the situation in which a lack of tree cover and greenery makes urban areas much hotter than rural areas. Trees are the city’s best allies in reducing inner city temperatures, as well as fighting climate change.

4. Greece’s White Buildings

Among the most innovative urban solutions around the world we cannot omit the white buildings dominating landscapes of islands like Santorini in Greece. It turns out that these white houses do not just have aesthetic purposes. Humans have used the knowledge that white colours reflect the sun for hundreds of years. A recent study of buildings using barium sulfate paint has shown that this is able to keep internal temperatures around 4.5C lower than the outside air temperature. Technological breakthroughs like this may massively help those struggling in overheated homes. It also has the potential to significantly lower the cost of cooling buildings by reducing reliance on air conditioning.

You might also like: 4 Commonly-Used Smart City Technologies

5. Bringing Nature Into Buildings

The key to tackling climate change in cities is incorporating nature into their infrastructure. Third on our list of urban solutions is The Valley, a mixed-use skyrise in the financial district of Amsterdam and an innovative project which is a shining example of how biophilia can be embedded into city life. The 13,000 plants, trees, and shrubs incorporated into the building’s façade provide improved air quality, enhanced well-being, and localised cooling benefits. The integration of nature into cities must be the default design principle. Only then can cities continue to thrive in a changing climate.

This article was originally published on June 11, 2023

The post 5 Urban Solutions to Tackle Climate Change in Cities appeared first on Earth.Org.

A deadly respiratory virus is killed millions and has officials trying different measures, including lockdowns, to get it under control. The virus keeps mutating and is spreading asymptomatically. While this may sound like the haunting of Covid-19, it is, in fact, the worst avian flu outbreak in history.

—

What’s Happening?

We may have noticed a lack of eggs on supermarket shelves or high egg prices, but the reality is far grimmer than this mild inconvenience. The world is currently grappling with the largest avian flu outbreak in history, with over 140 million culled farmed birds since October 2021. In the United Kingdom alone, more than 4 million domesticated birds have been culled and an estimated 50,000 wild birds have died. The real figure of wild bird deaths is likely to be far higher than this; given that on an island with vast swathes of seabirds like the UK, the majority die at sea and their carcasses are never found. There are fears that the UK’s world-renowned seabird populations could be irreversibly damaged. Since 1986, the local population of breeding seabirds has fallen by almost a quarter, and they are already under immense pressure from overfishing, loss of habitat, and climate change. 

Unfortunately, it is not just birds that have been subjected to this virus. Avian flu (or ‘bird flu’) has been dubbed a ‘spillover event’ and has affected many mammals including otters, foxes, domesticated cats, and sea lions. 

Seabirds are international travellers, meaning that once they come in contact with the virus from the epicentre of the UK, they then spread it across the globe. 

Stretching 2,500 kilometres, the Peruvian coastline is home to one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world. The avian flu outbreak, however, has decimated local populations of sea lions, with 3,500 bodies found on their beaches in the last few months. At a farm in Spain, over 50,000 minks were euthanised after coming into contact with infected wild birds. This outbreak was a significant moment as it is believed that the avian influenza virus can also spread from mink to mink, indicating mammal-to-mammal spread, thus raising fears that humans could be more vulnerable. 

In February 2023, an 11-year-old Cambodian girl was the first to die from this H5N1 strain of avian flu, with her father also testing positive for the virus. The first known human cases of H5N1 were recorded in 1997 in Hong Kong and China: 18 people were infected through contact with infected birds, and 6 died. It is thought to have originated from a commercial geese farm in South China in 1996. Since then, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said that there have been 860 human infections across 90 countries, of which 53% have died. 

With Covid-19 having a fatality rate of around 1-2%, the high mortality rate of avian influenza is hugely alarming. However, this new strain of H5N1 sweeping the globe has been classified as ‘low risk’ as the genetic modification it would require to move between humans is quite substantial. Reassuringly, H5N1 has been around since 1996 and this specific genetic mutation has not yet happened. 

How Do We Stop the Outbreak?

When faced with such a widespread and complex issue, solutions can be difficult. 

Experts have discussed the possibilities of vaccines, for both humans and domesticated birds. With the latter, different countries have different practices when it comes to vaccinating poultry. 

China vaccinates their birds routinely as bird flu is endemic there, whereas birds in the UK and US are vaccinated very rarely as they do not normally have highly pathogenic avian influenza. This, however, might change soon. 

France recently announced it will start vaccinating its farmed birds from September 2023, and Ecuador has also ordered two million vaccines. With humans, three major vaccine manufacturers – GSK, Moderna, and CSL Seqirus – say they can make hundreds of millions of bird flu shots for humans available if the H5N1 influenza virus ever makes the jump to infecting people on a large scale, but it is hoped that this will not be the case.

It is a well-known fact that the human exploitation of animals for food, clothing, and entertainment provides the perfect opportunity for viruses like this to emerge. The most recent example of this is Covid-19, which originated in a wild animal market. And before that, HIV also made the leap to humans after bush hunters ate ape meat in the early 1900s. 

The overarching solution to avoid outbreaks like this would be to move away from intensive farming practices or wild animal trades in markets. As a consumer, we also have the power to influence the industry. If we opt not to eat chicken or consume eggs, we contribute to removing farmed birds from the equation and thus drastically reducing the chances of such avian influenza outbreaks occurring in the future. 

With the planet in such a fragile state already, having these kinds of viruses ripping through our wild bird populations can have severe conservation implications. 

Featured image: Raw Pixel

You might also like: What’s the Link Between Climate Change and Disease Outbreaks?

The post Unprecedented Avian Flu Outbreak Continues to Decimate Bird Populations appeared first on Earth.Org.

Cobalt is ubiquitous. From your smartphone in your pocket to the battery of the electric car you drive, or as a superalloy in the aircraft engine that whisked you to paradise – it is a critical component of modern life since the metal protects batteries from overheating, catching fire, and extends their lifespan. As demand for cobalt has skyrocketed over the last few decades, it is Congo, home to most of Earth’s cobalt reserves, which has bore the brunt. This article explores the environmental impacts of cobalt mining in Congo.

—

Cobalt Mining in Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Africa’s second-largest country, is endowed with an exceptional array of natural resources, from coffee, diamonds, and timber, to its famed biodiversity-rich Congo Basin – the world’s second-largest tropical rainforest. Yet it is cobalt that the nation is famed for since it possesses over half of the world’s cobalt reserves, at some four million tons as of 2022, and currently accounts for around 70% of global production.

With the electrification of the global energy system gathering momentum year after year, demand for cobalt has seen unprecedented growth. In 2021, the market grew by 22% and is expected to rise by 13% per year for at least the next five years. As such, mines – both legal and illegal – have been appearing all over the nation, and threatening the pristine tropical rainforest. 

Because of its size and diversity, scientific experts have characterised the Congo Basin’s Forest as a critical player in mitigating climate change because of its role to act as a carbon sink. Of the world’s three remaining largest tropical rainforests, only the Congo has enough standing forest left to remain a strong net carbon sink, both the Amazon and Southeast Asian rainforests now emit more carbon than they sequester.

It is difficult to establish just how large of an area of the Congo Basin has been deforested to make way for cobalt mines since the country’s richness in other natural resources contributes to the forest loss. However, it has been estimated that millions of trees have been clear-cut by giant mining companies, and satellite imagery illustrates a barren wasteland in areas of once thriving biodiversity.

You might also like: What is E-Waste Recycling and How Is it Done?

The Environmental Impacts of Cobalt Mining in Congo

Cobalt is fast turning from a miracle metal to a deadly chemical as toxic dumping is devastating landscapes, polluting water, and contaminating crops. High concentrations of cobalt have even been linked to the death of crops and worms, which are vital for soil fertility. 

“In this stream, the fish vanished long ago, killed by acids and waste from the mines,” says Congo resident Heritier Maloba, staring into the murky waters of his childhood fishing hole. This is a similar story across the cobalt regions of Congo. 

A study that collected fish from Tshangalale lake, which is adjacent to mining towns, found that the fish were contaminated with prominent levels of cobalt. This contamination is easily spread to humans through the consumption of fish or drinking of the lake’s water. Classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen, and being a radioactive element, this also poses an immense hazard to human health.

A further environmental impact of cobalt mining in Congo is the hazy air surrounding the mines, full of dust and grit, and toxic to breathe. Studies have shown that the risk of birth defects, such as limb abnormalities and spina bifida, greatly increased when a parent worked in a cobalt mine, linked to high levels of toxic pollution caused by the extraction of cobalt.

Commonly coined “blood cobalt”, unfortunately, it is not just Congo’s environment that has faced the brunt of cobalt mining, but its people too. Cobalt mines dial back the clock to centuries past, where people are working in subhuman degrading conditions, using pickaxes and shovels to hack at the earth in trenches and pits to gather cobalt and feed it up the supply chain. Congo’s cobalt boom has been subject to modern-day slavery, human trafficking, and child labour. More information can be found in Siddharth Kara’s highly esteemed book Congo Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives.

The quest for Congo’s cobalt has demonstrated how the clean energy revolution, meant to save the planet from perilously warming temperatures, is caught in a familiar cycle of environmental degradation, exploitation, and greed. 

More on this topic here: Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition

Solutions

The most obvious solution to break this cycle and halt the negative impacts of cobalt mining is to stop mining the metal altogether. However, this is impossible in a society that relies on cobalt to function.

The next best solution is reducing the demand for cobalt in the lithium-ion batteries found in electric devices. This could be through borrowing electric items, donating your unwanted electric goods to be recycled or repaired and redistributed to charities, and learning how to repair broken electronics. There are even large-scale funds, like the partnership between Virgin Media O2 and Hubbub which awards grants of between £10,000 – £75,000 for UK projects which reduce e-waste, encourage recycling of electronic goods, or support devices being used over and over again. 

All the above focus on e-waste recycling, which will in turn help meet the rising demand for cobalt and stem the environmental degradation and social pressures the mining brings.

Featured image by Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Environmental Impacts of Cobalt Mining in Congo appeared first on Earth.Org.

With two billion more people expected to be added to the planet by 2050, energy and food production are required to increase by 47% and 60% respectively to meet the demand. The problem is further accentuated by severe climate change, which diminishes many counties’ capacity to sufficiently meet their citizens’ food, energy, and water needs. We are facing an impending energy and food crisis that needs to be addressed carefully and with sustainable solutions at its heart. Agrivoltaics, the simultaneous use of land for both solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation and agricultural production, may be one of the answers we are looking for.

—

Agrivoltaics, agrophotovoltaics, or dual-use solar is the simultaneous use of land areas for solar photovoltaic power generation and agriculture.

The primary benefit of this revolutionary technology is that panels and plants can co-exist and mutually benefit each other. Panels are typically positioned about 7-10 feet (ca. 2-3 metres) above the ground, with some spacing to provide a mix of sun and shade to the plants below. Studies have found that this approach can offer compounding advantages such as shielding plants from excessive heat, cold and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, thereby increasing the yield of certain crops. 

As global temperatures rise with the climate emergency, solar panels can also help to conserve freshwater supplies by reducing evaporation from both plants and soil. The evaporation that does still occur underneath the panels has the added benefit of cooling the PVs and thus boosting their electricity production since their optimum operating temperature is between 20C and 25C. 

Image 1: Agrivoltaics Techniques

You might also like: What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy?

The term ‘agrivoltaics’ was only coined in 2011, as such the technology is still in its infancy as scientists continue to establish optimum configurations and crops for maximum yields and electricity generation. Some of the greatest benefits of agrivoltaics have been observed in hot and drought-stricken regions, where PVs provide shade and help the ground retain water. For instance, in Arizona, US, one study found that the production of cherry tomatoes doubled and chiltepin peppers tripled under solar panels. It is a similar story on a test plot in Kenya, which reduced the amount of water needed for irrigation by 47% and grew cabbages that were 24% larger. 

It is important to note that not all crops fare well with some shade. For instance, wheat is not compatible with agrivoltaics as the crop requires high levels of sunlight. If the soil below the photovoltaic panels is not suitable for plant growth, then sheep or other small livestock can graze the pasture below and use the panels to shelter from the weather, still allowing for dual use.

Image 2: The Dual Benefit of Agrivoltaics (source: RatedPower)

Currently, the main disadvantage of agrivoltaics is the high upfront cost required. Compared to conventional roof mounted PV, dual use solar systems require a larger, more complex mounting systems which can cost up to triple the cost of the installation of flat roof PVs. Further to this, deeper steel foundations are required for the PVs to provide stability and resilience in adverse weather conditions; the embodied carbon emissions associated with this are high.

Agrivoltaics produces more renewable energy and more food whilst using less water, fortifying the security of all three of these critical natural resources and providing a rare chance for true synergy. A balance must be found as the Earth’s population continues to rise and competition for these resources increases. With studies estimating that covering less than 1% of the world’s cropland with PV could generate all the world’s present electricity demands, agrivoltaics could be the answer.

Featured image by Chloride Exide/Dezeen

You might also like: Can We Build Solar Power Systems in Space?

The post The Advantages and Disadvantages of Agrivoltaics appeared first on Earth.Org.

The climate crisis needs a coordinated response from governments, community leaders and citizens. What is essential is a top-down approach from government leaders in the form of sensible policies that ideally tax carbon and place regulations on heavy-emitting industries to curb their environmental impact. Unfortunately, some world leaders haven’t gotten the memo on what environmental stewardship should look like. Here are 5 world leaders who are damaging the environment. 

—

1. Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil)

It would be unjust to list Jair Bolsonaro anywhere other than top of the list of world leaders who are damaging the environment. As president of Brazil, which is home to the largest tropical rainforest on the planet, Bolsonaro has wreaked havoc on the Amazon basin. From incentivising farmers to slash and burn the Amazon, to reversing environmental legislation, and discarding land reserved for environmental tribes, Bolsonaro is sabotaging Brazil’s best asset. A new report illustrates that since the Bolsonaro administration was sworn into office on 1 January 2019, the annual rate of tree felling in Brazil has almost doubled. In the first year of his presidency alone, deforestation increased four-fold, rising from 1 million hectares in 2018 to 3.9 million by the end of 2019. 

Such deforestation is fuelled by a deliberate lack of care and commitment under Bolsonaro’s government. They view environmental policies as obstacles for Brazil’s development, and so they set about ‘environmental dismantling’, removing environmental policies that were in place to protect the rainforest and tackle climate change. As a result, there is no federal effort to control deforestation, land is easier for businesses to exploit and violators are rarely punished. Over two years into Bolsonaro’s tyranny the statistics continue to get worse. In the first four months of 2021, approximately 433 000 acres of the pristine lush rainforest in the Brazilian Amazon were logged or burned, hitting a record 42.5% on-year rise in April. 

Recently, Bolsonaro may have gained favour as he pledged to double the budget for environmental enforcement and committed to net zero deforestation by 2030 under pressure from the Biden administration. However, less than 24 hours later, Bolsonaro signed off on the 2021 federal budget that included a 24% cut to the environment budget compared to the previous year. It is shocking, but hardly unexpected for Bolsonaro.

You might also like: G7 Pledges to End Support for Coal Power by End of 2021

2. Justin Trudeau (Canada)

In the words of Greta Thunberg, the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is “obviously not doing enough” on climate change. The data backs this up; Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase year on year, bucking the trend seen in many other developed nations. Canada does not have a reputation for damaging the environment, primarily because Trudeau repeatedly says the right things, and scores so highly on other issues surrounding immigration and women in government. Yet when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, Trudeau comes up short. 

In June 2019 the Canadian government declared a climate emergency, yet the next day it approved a new oil pipeline project. Trudeau’s government has continued to push oil and gas pipelines, specifically from Alberta’s tar sands. This is labelled as one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet as the oil lies under pristine boreal forest and peat bogs housing wildlife and indigenous people. In 2017 Trudeau got a standing ovation for saying “no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.” This figure is the estimate for recoverable oil in Alberta’s tar sands, meaning that if Canada extracts all this oil and sells it to the world to burn, it will produce 30% of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5°C target in the Paris Accord.

In April, at President Biden’s Leaders’ Summit on Climate, Canada’s new target of reducing emissions by between 40% and 45% of 2005 levels by 2030 falls short of both the USA’s and UK’s targets. Trudeau has also set this new target despite missing previous targets. 

3. Scott Morrison (Australia)

The current Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, has continued to fuel the devastation of Australia’s unique environment. As a highly coal-dependent economy, it comes as no surprise that Australia has one of the highest per capita greenhouse emission rates on the planet. Last year, the Climate Change Performance Index ranked Australia last of 57 countries for its climate policy. Morrison’s government has failed to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and issued no long-term mitigation strategy. Furthermore, the government continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels, has dismissed recent IPCC reports, withdrew funding for the Green Climate Fund, and did not attend last year’s critical UN Climate Action Summit. 

In 2017, Morrison famously addressed the House of Representatives while holding a lump of coal, stating. “This is coal. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be scared. It won’t hurt you.” Morrison failed to realise that air pollution, caused by the burning of coal and oil, was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018. Fossil fuels, like coal, are the key driving force behind rising global temperatures which have exacerbated drought, thus increasing both the intensity and frequency of Australia’s bushfires. The 2019-20 bushfire season was the worst on record, killing or displacing nearly three billion animals. Morrison refused to attribute climate change to the devastating fires, even though 2019 was Australia’s hottest and driest year in history. 

4. Vladimir Putin (Russia) 

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is a renowned climate sceptic. For decades, Putin has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, blaming it on some “processes in the universe.” He has called Greta Thunberg an “uninformed, impressionable teenager possibly being used in someone’s interests,” voiced scepticism about renewable energy, and expressed alarm at the danger of turbines to worms, causing them to “come out of the ground” by vibrating.

Therefore it does not seem surprising that Putin’s government has recently failed to improve Russia’s insufficient 2030 emissions target, with it currently in line with warming of 4°C. Russia is the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, so the country’s role in international climate politics is of particular consequence. However, state support for environmental protection does not exist in Russia, environmental spending is low and there has been little policy reform to help Russia address its serious environmental problems. 

It is disappointing that Putin holds such little regard for the environment, especially since Russia is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. Two-thirds of Russian territory is located on permafrost, which is rapidly thawing due to increasing temperatures. This is threatening the infrastructure built on it, including the two million people who live in Russia’s Arctic cities and the 200 000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines. Recent floods and wildfires have been among the planet’s worst climate-related disasters. Only last summer an area north of Russia’s Arctic circle reached a phenomenal 38°C, over 100°C warmer than the record low temperature of -68°C that was set in the 1990s.

5. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey)

In the 18 years that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has led Turkey, little has been achieved to protect both the environment and climate. More than six years after the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, Turkey is one of just six countries in the world, and the only G20 country, that has not ratified the agreement. By not being legally bound to the agreement, it signifies the country does not intend to pursue efforts to limit global temperatures to 1.5°C. This is deeply worrying as there has been a 190% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey since 1990, exacerbated by the country’s dependence on coal, oil and gas industries. 

Erdoğan’s government has not implemented a coal phase-out policy, despite fossil fuels accounting for a third of the country’s greenhouse gases. In fact, the government is pushing forward with plans to double its coal power capacity and continues to heavily subsidise the industry. This is despite the fact that air pollution is responsible for almost 5 000 premature deaths, 26 500 cases of bronchitis in children and more than 3 000 preterm births in Turkey per year, alongside a plethora of additional negative environmental impacts.

To give credit where credit is due, Erdoğan’s government has invested heavily in renewable energy, with almost 63% of their electricity coming from renewables in 2020. Yet this ambition does not extend to the natural environment. Erdoğan is notorious for not letting nature get in the way of building megaprojects; during the construction of Istanbul’s airport, over 2.5 million trees, and thus wildlife, were removed. The president insists that over 4.5 billion trees have been planted during his presidency, yet Turkey still has record deforestation and high tree mortality rate of new plantations. 

In 2021 it is incredibly frustrating and disappointing to witness five of the world’s key leaders failing the planet and all those who inhabit it. People are suffering, ecosystems are collapsing and a mass extinction event has begun, yet these leaders continue to favour economic growth over all else. It is pivotal that policies addressing climate change and environmental issues are at the forefront of these nations’ political agendas. Only once leaders start treating the climate crisis like the existential emergency it is, can we even begin to address the biggest challenge of our time. 

The post 5 World Leaders Who Are Damaging the Environment appeared first on Earth.Org.

The trade of natural resources and energy, including biomass, fossil fuels, minerals and metals, has increased dramatically over the past 50 years. The extraction and processing of natural resources is accelerating biodiversity loss, water stress and climate change. Such extraction is predicted to double by 2060, illustrating the urgent need for new, sustainability-focused trade rules to protect the planet, such as those that encourage a move to a circular economy.

—

The Environmental Impact of Trade

A report published in late 2020 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with the International Resource Panel (IRP), issues a stark warning on the environmental cost of trade. The current extraction and processing of the planet’s natural resources accounts for over 90% of our biodiversity loss and water stress, and approximately 50% our climate change impacts. 

This is driven by an increasing global demand for material resources like biomass (wood and crops for food, energy and plant-based materials), fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), metals (iron, aluminium and copper) and non-metallic minerals (sand, gravel and limestone).

Typically, high-income countries import from middle and low-income exporting countries, shifting the environmental burden to these countries. Such nations often have less stringent legal commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, alongside weaker environmental standards, causing greater environmental degradation in these countries. This can accentuate inequalities and cause health impacts associated with the extraction and processing activities. 

The outsourcing of electronic goods to China exemplifies this issue. For instance, if someone in the UK buys an iPhone, it is China, not the UK, that is handed the responsibility of the emissions. Not only does this mask the UK’s true greenhouse gas emissions, it also avoids the strict emissions control the manufacturer would be subjected to if the iPhone was made in the UK. China also must deal with the waste produced by electronics. 70% of global electronic waste ends up in China, causing serious environmental damage and permanent health risks including increased incidences of cancers and miscarriages.

You might also like: Shipping Line Aims for First Carbon-Neutral Container Ship by 2023

The Solution

The solution lies with a global shift towards a circular economic model. Currently, the demand for natural resources is driven by a linear economic model of take-make-use-discard. Instead, a new and innovative approach must be taken, where raw materials are thought of as nutrients that must be recycled, just as in nature. Businesses would use fewer resources, recycle more and extend the life of their products. Consumers also have a duty to buy less, save energy and repair broken items instead of throwing them away.

In essence, circular processes can be grouped into four categories:

1. Reduce by design: Reducing the amount of material used, particularly raw material, should be applied as an overall guiding principle from the earliest stages of design of products and services
2. From a user-to-user perspective: Refuse, reduce and reuse
3. From a user-to-business intermediary perspective: Repair, refurbish and remanufacture
4. From a business-to-business perspective: Repurpose and recycle

The Benefits of a Circular Economy Model

Adopting the principles of a circular economy could reduce the need for material resource extraction immensely, minimising both energy use and the negative environmental impact of extracting natural resources. The IRP has predicted that sustainable consumption and production, alongside resource efficiency, emission reduction and carbon removal policies, could potentially decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2060. 

The report acknowledges that there may be some economic challenges for the middle and low-income countries that depend on exporting natural resources. However, the switch to a circular economy would give rise to an abundance of new industries that focus on repair and recycling. By 2060 it is predicted that overall, a greener economic model could boost global GDP by 8% – especially for low and middle-income nations.

Inger Andersen, the Executive Director of UNEP, said: “There’s this idea out there that we have to log, mine and drill our way to prosperity. But that’s not true. By embracing circularity and reusing materials we can still drive economic growth while protecting the planet for future generations.”

How Trade Rules Can Help

Trade agreements – both regional and multilateral – can play a crucial part in facilitating a global uptake of the circular economy model. The report calls on the World Trade Organisation to step up and prioritise the environment when setting out new regulations, with a specific focus on resource extraction.

The report also recommends that regional trade pacts promote investments in planet-friendly industries, disincentivise harmful fossil fuel subsidies, while incentivising trade in renewable products, and avoid undercutting global environmental accords.

Some high-income countries such as Japan and the Netherlands have already started to incorporate aspects of a circular economy into their policies. Lower-income countries have also followed suit; in 2017 Rwanda, South Africa and Nigeria founded the African Circular Economy Alliance, which aims for widespread adoption of the circular economy on the continent.

With the Earth’s population on track to reach 10 billion by 2050, it is critical that the global economy is re-orientated to a circular model. This will relieve immense pressure on the planet by reducing toxic greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, plastics and waste. The next few decades are the final opportunity for us to build a green, harmonious and rich natural world. Moving towards a circular economy, supported by trade rules, is a leading option to secure our future on this planet.

The post New Trade Rules Assisting a Circular Economy Transition are Crucial to Protecting Our Planet appeared first on Earth.Org.

Despite Africa being rich in natural capital – including resources like water, forests, fisheries, rivers and wildlife – this asset has not always been a blessing. Africa is the least wealthy continent per capita in the world, with its poor economic growth in part due to a legacy of European colonisation, undemocratic rule, and unsustainable exploitation of its natural capital. It is crucial that such natural capital is managed effectively to unlock Africa’s potential and allow it to prosper economically, environmentally and socially.

—

Africa has long been a continent rich in natural resources. With a wealth of minerals like gold and diamonds, forests full of a dizzying array of wildlife and an abundance of oil, the continent holds a significant proportion of the world’s natural resources. Yet Africa’s entire combined GDP is barely a third of the US’. Behind this are decades of improper management, illegal activities and exploitation. Africa loses an estimated USD$195 billion annually of its natural capital through an array of illegal activities including financial flows, mining, logging and the wildlife trade, alongside unregulated fishing and environmental degradation. 

This lack of management of Africa’s natural resources has led to a plethora of problems including poverty, exacerbation of climate change, malnutrition and violence. The Sahel, a region stretching from Senegal to Sudan, is a prime example of this. The Sahel’s agricultural land has been so severely exploited and degraded that 80% of it has subsequently turned to desert through desertification. This means the region has experienced a colossal reduction in natural resource availability as soils are less able to support crops, livestock and wildlife. The Sahel’s issues have been further exacerbated by increased droughts caused by the current climate crisis. Such scarce natural resources have given rise to food insecurity, conflict and violence in the region. This has been seen with Mali’s current civil war, the origins of which have been linked to droughts and food shortages.

You might also like: The Environmental Consequences of Political Repression

A top UN humanitarian official, Mark Lowcock, has warned that Africa’s Sahel Region is at the centre of the accelerating climate crisis and a “canary in the coalmine of our warming planet”. He says: “We’ve seen a sharp deterioration over the past two years – humanitarian needs in the central Sahel are higher than they have ever been, and the rate at which needs have increased is truly alarming. Right now, in the central Sahel, the number of people forcibly displaced has risen more than twentyfold in the last two years. More than seven million people have been pushed into acute hunger. All told, more than thirteen million people need emergency assistance to survive. Five million of them are children.”

One project introduced in the Sahel to help alleviate the negative effects of desertification is the Great Green Wall of Africa, a 15 km wide and 8 000 km long plant barrier along the Sahel. First proposed in 2007, the African Union launched the idea of reforesting 100 million hectares of degraded land, four times the size of the United Kingdom. Such dimensions would surpass any collective work carried out by humankind. The sole purpose of this ‘wall’ was to reduce the incidents of drought in the Sahel region, reduce the impacts of climate change by sequestering carbon, and reduce conflict, terrorism and migration. Now well into its second decade, a UN status report published this year said that just 4% of the target has been met, with four million hectares of land rehabilitated. A lack of funding is the primary reason why this project has not been scaled at the necessary pace. 

Africa’s immense natural capital is its greatest asset, yet its greatest downfall. The economic boom of Africa is happening, but its development is being hindered by poor management of its rich natural resources that is causing many of Africa’s conflicts and environmental issues. Initiatives such as the Great Green Wall are an excellent start, but the key to managing its natural capital effectively is through good governance. Only then can political violence end, illegal activities be curbed, and Africa’s natural wealth be conserved. More international and regional cooperation is crucial to aid this process and achieve a peaceful and prosperous continent.

The post The Economic Growth of Africa Depends on the Successful Management of its Natural Capital appeared first on Earth.Org.

One of the most effective, efficient, and simplest ways to reduce carbon emissions and curb climate change is through putting a price on carbon, known as a carbon tax. Imposed by a government, a carbon tax is a per-ton tax on the carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels or other pollutants. By putting a direct price on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon-intensive activities and products become more expensive, and so people, businesses and governments are incentivised to lower emissions through cleaner fuels. 

—

Presently, the corporations that financially benefit from the burning of fossil fuels do not pay for the environmental damage they cause. Instead, the cost is put on the shoulders of future generations, particularly those in developing countries already suffering from the consequences of rising sea levels, shifting rainfall patterns and elevated temperatures. Imposing a carbon tax can help to correct this externality by raising the price of energy consumption to reflect its social cost.

As one of the first countries in the world to impose a carbon tax, Sweden is a leader in the carbon taxation sphere. In 1991 the country introduced a carbon tax on transport fuels at $26 per ton of CO2, steadily increasing to today’s rate of $126 – the highest in the world. It currently covers approximately 40% of Sweden’s greenhouse gases emitted due to the numerous exemptions for the industrial sector, as well as the mining, agricultural and forestry sectors. The result? The carbon tax has been credited with being an environmental and economic success. Since the tax was introduced, CO2 emissions from transport declined almost 11% in an average year, with 6% being from the carbon tax alone. Similarly, in the electricity, gas and heat sector, greenhouse gas emissions were 31% lower in the first quarter of 2020, compared with the same period in 2019; this can be attributed to the substitution of fossil fuels for biofuels. Overall, the Swedish carbon tax shows that it is possible to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth; between 1990 and 2017, GDP increased by 78%, while domestic greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 26%.

You might also like: Carbon Tax: A Shared Global Responsibility For Carbon Emissions

A graph illustrating the decline of Sweden’s GHG emissions, and rise of their GDP. Image: Government Offices of Sweden.

In 2019, a group of economists, including 27 Nobel Laureate Economists, released a public statement in The Wall Street Journal calling for the immediate implementation of a carbon tax. They described it as “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.”

Another example of a successful implementation of carbon tax has been seen in the UK regarding coal. In 2015, a carbon tax was introduced at a rate of £4.94 per ton of CO2 and is now capped at £18 per tonne until next year. This taxation is the main driver behind a 25% drop in the share of coal-fired electricity generation from 2015. It currently stands at just 3% as of September 2019, with the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions at their lowest level since 1890. Earlier this year the UK went a record-breaking 67 days without coal power, the longest period the UK has operated without coal power since the Industrial Revolution.

However, some economists argue that the potential of a carbon tax on all fossil fuels and other polluting products is limited because it is most likely to affect those who are already worse off. For instance, the average Bangladeshi individual often spends a larger share of their income than an American individual on carbon intensive items such as petrol and heating fuel. A tax on such items would negatively impact an already-poor individual. In many cases there is not always the option to use electric vehicles or established public transport networks, or for their houses to be powered by renewable energy. Furthermore, a tax may cause carbon-intensive production to shift to these developing countries, most of which are not subject to carbon taxes. This outsourcing can incentivise developing countries to expand their fossil fuel industries and increase their pollution levels further.

It is also likely that people living in rural areas would be negatively affected by carbon taxes. For those living in urban environments, if a carbon tax were to drive up the price of fuel, people could simply use public transport more. However, for those living in the countryside, there is often no other alternative. This argument was a primary reason behind the 2018 Yellow Vest Movement in France. In the year prior to the movement starting, diesel taxes increased by 14% over one year and petrol taxes by 7.5%. Protestors were concerned that the rising fuel prices would disproportionately affect the working and middle-class people of France, especially in rural areas. President Macron later suspended the carbon tax on vehicle fuel.

Such regressive impacts of a carbon tax are disputed. Many argue that they can be resolved if the revenue from the tax was redistributed to rural populations and those otherwise negatively impacted by increasing fuel prices. The money could also be used to subsidise green technologies, elevating the potential of a carbon tax further. Sweden generated EUR 2.40billion alone in revenue from the carbon tax in 2017, representing 1.5% of GDP when combined with the energy tax.

Carbon taxing is just one way of holding large emitters accountable for their role in harming the environment. Currently, carbon taxing still covers only a small part of global emissions at prices too low to significantly reduce emissions. Nevertheless, its global portfolio is increasing year on year. As of 2019, carbon taxes have been implemented or scheduled for implementation in 25 countries; while 46 countries have put some price on carbon, either through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes. However, if there is any hope of meeting the Paris Agreement, where global average temperatures are to be kept well below a 2 °C rise, then far more drastic measures are necessary.

Featured image by: Flickr

You might also like: Benefits of A Carbon Tax: A Shared Global Responsibility For Carbon Emissions

The post What Is a Carbon Tax? appeared first on Earth.Org.

A five year study of wild beavers in the UK has illustrated their many benefits to the surrounding environment. These include alleviation of flooding, reduced pollution, and the boosting of fish, amphibians and other wildlife populations. How do these creatures perform such valuable ecosystem services? 

—

The Eurasian beaver is a semi-aquatic rodent that was once a common sight across the British Isles. They are unlike any other British mammal, weighing up to 30kg and reaching lengths of over a metre. This herbivorous animal disappeared over 500 years ago from Great Britain, having been hunted to extinction for their fur, meat and castoreum (a secretion used in perfumes, food and medicine). Across Europe, their population shrunk to just 1 200 individuals by the early 20th century, yet eventually recovered to 600 000 by 2003 due to reintroduction and protection programmes. The Eurasian beaver is now found in Spain, Central Europe and Scandinavia, and even in some regions in China and Mongolia.

Beavers are crucial in shaping ecosystems because of the services and associated benefits their dams perform; they restrict water flow and create deep, still pools of water. It is in these pools that beavers, who mate for life, construct lodges to live and raise their young away from predators. These small pools also have additional benefits to other species; according to the study, they have 37% more fish than comparable stretches of river, providing a plentiful food source to riverine birds.

In 2013, a small wild beaver population was discovered living on the River Otter in Devon, yet rumours of them living on the waterway date back to 2006. Their origin is unknown, but it is thought they either escaped from captivity or were illegally released. These were not the first beavers to return to the UK; in 2009 the Scottish Government approved a trial reintroduction at Knapdale, Argyll. After plans to exterminate Devon’s wild beavers were met with public outcry, a five-year River Otter Beaver Trial was launched in 2015, led by the Devon Wildlife Trust and The University of Exeter. 

The report concluded that beavers bring measurable benefits to both wildlife and people. The beavers constructed six dams upstream of the small flood-prone village of East Budleigh. As a result, the flow of floodwater through the village has been slowed significantly, reducing peak flows during flood events. The scientists also discovered that the beavers play a crucial role in reducing pollution because their dams filter pollutants like manure, fertilisers and slurry. Furthermore, the new wetlands and pools created by the beavers helped boost local wildlife populations of fish, water voles and riverine birds. During high river flows, trout have even been sighted jumping over the beaver dams. 

You might also like: 68% Decline in Species Population Sizes Since 1970- WWF

However, the return of beavers to the River Otter has not been all good news. Their dams can flood valuable agricultural land, with the study illustrating how the flooding of a 0.4 hectare organic potato crop caused a financial loss to the farmer involved. However, a flow device was installed to mitigate this happening in the future; this cost effective and low-maintenance solution regulates the water level of the dams, and protects culverts from being plugged by beavers. Although, it is important to note that such adverse flooding impacts have only been seen at five sites in the 250km2 river catchment over the five-year study period. There was also concern that the beavers would fell the River Otter’s riverside orchards, yet the report states that most issues ‘can be addressed successfully by active management’; in this case, protective tree guards.

Mark Elliott, a wetland ecologist who led the River Otter beaver trial for Devon Wildlife Trust, said, “We’ve all been surprised by these amazing animals’ ability to thrive, once again, in our wetland ecosystems. It also shows their unrivalled capacity to breathe new life into our rivers and wetlands, very few of which are in good health. There are overwhelming reasons why beavers should be reintroduced back into the wider countryside.”

With the current UK beaver population standing at more than 400 individuals, with 15 family groups on the River Otter alone, their future is looking increasingly secure. This population growth illustrates how the River Otter environment can sustain a healthy and expanding beaver population. Reassuringly, the public mostly agree with beaver reintroduction; a 2017 survey of almost 3 000 people found 90% in favour. There is now hope that The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will confirm that the beaver can stay for good, making it officially recognised as a native species once again.

The post Flood and Pollution Reduction, Biodiversity Boost: The Ecological Benefits of Beavers appeared first on Earth.Org.

A report warns that the atmosphere above the Amazon rainforest has become increasingly dry over the past two decades due to human activities and is at risk of drying out completely. This could increase the rainforest’s demand for water and make it more vulnerable to droughts and fires. 

—

The study, published in the journal, Science, observed an increasing trend in a measure called Vapour Pressure Deficit (VPD) over tropical South America in dry season months. VPD is a combined function of air temperature and relative humidity and is a critical variable in determining plant photosynthesis. Higher VPD values indicate a decline in atmospheric moisture. This implies that the Amazon is likely to increasingly struggle to sustain its water demands, triggering more widespread and severe droughts. As a result, wildfire risk and tree mortality will increase, causing a significant loss of carbon over the Amazon basin. 

This has already been seen with previous droughts. After the 2005 megadrought, where more than 70 million hectares of pristine forests in southwestern Amazonia were affected, the most negative annual carbon balance ever was recorded in the region. This decrease can be attributed to extensive and severe damage to the forest canopy that was detectable by satellite. The older, larger, more vulnerable canopy trees were especially susceptible to dieback and tree falls. Even when rainfall levels recovered in the following years, about half of the forest affected by the 2005 megadrought – an area the size of California – did not recover by the time the next major drought began in 2010.

You might also like: How Relevant is the ‘Native vs Invasive’ Argument in a Warming World?

Furthermore, during the 2015 Amazonia drought, the highest VPD since 1979 was recorded. Similar values that are well beyond the scope of natural variability have been observed across the last decades, insinuating a human influence. The researchers suggest that elevated levels of greenhouse gases account for approximately half of the increase in atmospheric dryness. Other influencing factors are unclear, but burning of rainforest biomass for agriculture that causes widespread land-cover change, is thought to be another predominant cause. Satellite data taken in 2018 revealed that an area of Amazon rainforest roughly the size of a football pitch is now being cleared every single minute. 

Dr Armineh Barkhordarian from the University of California and lead author of the study said, “We observed that in the last two decades, there has been a significant increase in dryness in the atmosphere as well as in the atmospheric demand for water above the rainforest. In comparing this trend to data from models that estimate climate variability over thousands of years, we determined that the change in atmospheric aridity is well beyond what would be expected from natural climate variability.”

Higher VPD levels are concerning as the Amazon rainforest- commonly coined ‘the lungs of the Earth’- is critical in regulating the global climate. The multitude of flora found in tropical forests enable them to extract half of the atmospheric carbon dioxide via photosynthesis – thus helping to reduce levels of this greenhouse gas and help mitigate global warming. 

In addition, the Amazon basin plays an important role by regulating rainfall in the region. It cycles water between the forest and the atmosphere via rainfall and transpiration of leaves, leading to a freshwater ocean in South America – the rivers and groundwater – that maintains rainfall in the southern agricultural regions of the continent. However, the Amazon rainforest is extremely vulnerable to increases in atmospheric drying and warming, as they are thought to produce up to 80% of their own rainfall. A decrease in atmospheric moisture, combined with an increase in global temperatures, decreases the ability of the Amazon to regulate its rainfall, thus increasing the vulnerability of major Brazilian cities to water shortages. 

Will the Amazon rainforest survive?

The dire potential situation has highlighted the need for a greater focus on halting deforestation in the Amazon basin, in conjunction with decreasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Both will help decrease VPD and hence reduce the potential risk of droughts and the associated threat of wildfires and tree mortality. It has never been more critical to address this drying out issue because if the Amazon forest is lost, the crucial ecosystem services it provides will also be lost.

Featured image by: Anna & Michal

The post The Amazon is at Risk of Drying Out appeared first on Earth.Org.