Generative AI has very quickly been adopted across various sectors. However, this has led to increased global electricity consumption that is only predicted to increase further as the technology expands, with many tech companies already at risk of defaulting on their net-zero commitments. 

—

OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT in late 2022 introduced the world to generative artificial intelligence –commonly referred to as “genAI” – allowing users to generate text and answer complex questions in an almost human-like manner and at incredible speed. The new technology took the world by storm, reaching 100 million active users in the first two months and sparking a race among companies to embed the technology across their operations and products. 

Beyond ChatGPT, genAI has already begun disrupting large industries, from biopharma, where the technology can generate millions of candidate molecules for certain diseases, to marketing, where it can personalise content and customer experiences. However, there is a dark side to all this.

Besides requiring huge quantities of fresh water to keep data centres cool, when powered by non-renewable energy sources, artificial intelligence also releases significant amounts of carbon emissions. Each individual use of genAI to answer a question or produce an image comes at an incredible cost to the planet; with the technology spreading at unprecedented pace around the world, its environmental footprint is only destined to increase. To put things into perspective, a single ChatGPT query requires 2.9 watt-hours of electricity, compared with 0.3 watt-hours for a Google search, as found in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Electricity 2024 forecast which was released earlier this year for global energy use over the next two years. For the first time, it included projections for energy consumption by data centres, cryptocurrency, and AI, citing market trends including the fast incorporation of AI across a variety of sectors as reasons for increasing electricity demand. 

Large Language Models (LLMs), which sit at the heart of many gen AI systems, are trained on vast stores of information, allowing them to generate a response to virtually any query from scratch. A December 2023 study, which is yet to be peer-reviewed, found that using large generative models to create outputs is far more energy-intensive than using smaller AI models tailored to specific tasks. The reason behind this conclusion is that generative AI models tend to do many things at once, such as generating, classifying, and summarising text; this results in the whole model getting activated in response to a query, which is “wildly inefficient from a computational perspective”. 

Gen AI runs an immense number of calculations to perform tasks very quickly, usually on specialised Graphical Processing Units (GPUs). Compared to other chips, GPUs are more energy-efficient for AI, and most efficient when running in large cloud data centres – specialised buildings containing computers equipped with those chips. The gen AI revolution led to the rapid expansion of these centres around the world, resulting in a significant rise in power consumption. The IEA’s report projects data centres’ electricity consumption in 2026 to double 2022 levels, reaching 1,000 terawatts, roughly Japan’s total consumption. 

Consequently, organisations have reported a rise in their emissions that goes against their commitments to reduce their environmental impact. According to a study by Google and UC Berkeley, training OpenAI’s GPT-3 generated 552 metric tonnes of carbon — the equivalent to driving 112 petrol cars for a year. Last year, Google’s total data centre electricity consumption grew by 17%. While the tech giant did not reveal how much of this was directly linked to gen AI, it admitted that it expects to see this trend grow in the future. Similarly, Microsoft announced in May that its emissions were up almost 30% from 2020 as a result of building new data centres. 

More on the topic: Google Emissions Grow 48% in Five Years Owing to Large-Scale AI Deployment, Jeopardizing Company’s Net Zero Plans

As mentioned earlier, the water usage of this technology cannot go unmentioned. To cool delicate electronics, water is required to be free of impurities, resulting in data centres competing for the same water used by people to drink, cook, and wash. In 2022, Google’s data centres consumed around 5 million gallons of freshwater for cooling, 20% more than in 2021. In the same time period, Microsoft’s water consumption rose by 34%. 

It is difficult to get accurate estimates on the impact of gen AI, in part due to machine learning models being incredibly variable, able to be configured in ways that can dramatically impact their power consumption, but also due to organisations like Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI not openly sharing relevant information. Data is not systematically collected on AI’s energy use and environmental impact and there is a need for greater transparency and tracking – especially as models grow and gen AI becomes more embedded into society.

As gen AI becomes more mainstream, environmental costs will grow. And with the world heating up, companies working to meet the rising demand of generative AI must commit to more transparency regarding their operations and begin shifting to clean energy. As the IEA report emphasises, governments must introduce regulations to restrain energy consumed by data centres, requiring mandatory reporting obligations, and setting energy efficiency standards, while companies must work on improving efficiency and reducing the amount of energy required by data centres. 

The post Generative AI Is Exhausting the Power Grid appeared first on Earth.Org.

London is the ninth-largest emitter of CO2 in the world. While the city has come a long way in terms of the quality of its environment since the Great Smog of 1952 – a severe air pollution event that affected London – toxic air, pollution, and biodiversity loss among others still pose major challenges to its residents. These issues are complex and interconnected and improving them requires time as well as huge political and financial efforts. Here are some of the biggest environmental problems in London and what the city is doing to address them.

—

Environmental Problems in London

1. Air Pollution

Air pollution is without a doubt among the most pressing environmental problems in London. The city is among the most polluted cities in the United Kingdom. The problem does not only affect central districts but rather the whole city and suburbs. In fact, 100% of its residents live in areas where pollution exceeds the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) of PM2.5 particulate matter – extremely fine particles able to enter deep into the lungs.

Besides energy production, industrial processes, and construction, transportation is a significant contributor to air pollution in the city. The volume of traffic and vehicles on the road is the single largest cause, producing nearly half the nitrogen oxides and emitting rubber and metals into the air. However, road traffic is not the only culprit. A Financial Times investigation on the air quality in the carriages of the London Underground found the levels of pollution to be alarmingly high, making the Tube the most polluted part of the city. The reason behind this is that, over the years, particulate matter of dust and metal has built up in tunnels. These toxic substances are stirred up by trains and inhaled by passengers. 

Inhaling such particles leads to a wide range of harmful health conditions related to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and other respiratory infections. Air pollution has also been linked to infertility and infant mortality. This major environmental issue contributes to an average of 9,000 premature deaths every year and costs London’s healthcare system between £1.4 and £3.7 billion (US$1.6 – 4.3 billion) per year. 

The government has taken significant steps to improve the air quality in the city. For example, the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – launched in 2019 and expanded in 2021 to cover a larger area – requires vehicles to meet specific emission standards. If these are not met, owners are subjected to a fee. Since the implementation of ULEZ, harmful pollutants found in the air in London’s central districts have been cut by almost half, with nitrogen oxide alone diminishing by a staggering 44%. Other efforts include operating cleaner public buses and taxis and supporting London residents to switch to cleaner modes of transport. 

2. Waste 

London – the largest city in the UK with a population of more than 9 million – inevitably generates a large amount of waste on a daily basis. Every year, the capital’s residents produce more than 18 million metric tonnes of waste. 9.7 million tonnes of it comes from the construction industry, 5 million tonnes from the commercial industry – which is related to business waste ranging from anything such as wrappers to food waste and cardboard – while over 3.1 million is household waste. 

The UK capital has one of the lowest rates of recycling in the country, with only 32% of all waste being recycled or composted and this makes waste one of the biggest environmental issues in London. This is by far one of the lowest rates as compared to the rest of the country. While some of London’s waste is sent to other parts of the UK and abroad, over half the waste in London is incinerated, the main alternative to landfills. The amount of incinerated waste more than doubled within the last decade. Waste plants do not sort through the waste before incineration, resulting in large amounts of recyclable materials being unnecessarily incinerated. For example, since not all boroughs of the city offer separate food waste collection, food waste, which could be safely sent through environmentally friendly processes, is instead burnt. 

Although burning waste can generate heat and electricity, burning some materials such as plastic creates and releases harmful heavy metals and toxic chemicals such as dioxins, causing long-term health issues. Unburned plastic litters the environment and can be ingested by animals, harming the environment. 

You might also like: The Detrimental Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Animals

By 2026, London aims to send no biodegradable waste (including food waste) to landfills and by 2030, the city hopes to recycle 65% of its municipal waste. To achieve this, multiple steps have been taken. Minimum recycling standards for waste authorities have been set, including a requirement for separate food waste collection. Multiple schemes have been implemented to reduce packaging waste such as water refill stations to reduce single-use plastic water bottles, working with stakeholders to reduce unnecessary packaging, and spreading awareness among  Londoners on how they can reduce their own waste.

3. Flooding

London is prone to flooding through five sources – tidal, fluvial (from rivers and tributaries), surface (from rainfall), sewer, and groundwater flooding. Most of London is at risk of flooding due to one or more of these, with the highest risk concentrated around the river Thames. Due to climate change – which would bring about wetter winters and heavier rains that can raise the sea level – both the risk and intensity of major flash floods have increased. 

You might also like: Sea Level Rise Projections: Top 10 Cities at Risk of Flooding

People’s homes and well-being are significantly affected by floods, especially those of people living in basements and inner-city areas with a high population density and little green space. Experts currently estimate that at least 80,000 properties are at risk of surface water flooding. Furthermore, without proper drainage in the city, a lack of green spaces, and an increase in the use of basements, the antiquated sewage infrastructure of the city is under significant strain. 

Since 1982, the Thames barrier and other defences in place have protected the city from tidal flooding. While London is well protected against tidal flooding, it has a much lower level of protection in place against surface-level flooding. To tackle this problem, the government must invest in infrastructure and urban solutions that can increase the city’s resilience to flooding. 

One such solution is to invest in more Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). These include investing in more porous pavements and road surfaces as well as an increased number of parks and green roofs on buildings, which help prevent water from running off quickly into drains or vulnerable areas. 

4. Energy Consumption

Heating makes up 40% of energy consumption in the UK. As stated by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC): “UK homes are not fit for the future”. Not only can many residents not afford to heat their homes, but old and inefficient boilers also have a significant detrimental impact, emitting pollutants into the environment. Boilers burn fuel to generate steam for heating and hot water. Fuel combustion results in toxic air emissions, contributing to air pollution. Furthermore, wastewater is created as waste from non-combustion activities and is released into the water.

While this is a considerable issue throughout the country, refitting and better insulating homes to be more efficient are especially challenging for London. Currently, London is falling behind on its target to make 2.9 million homes more efficient. A quarter of London homes and 37% of non-domestic buildings in the city have been certified E, G, and F, the worst energy ratings, by the Energy Performance Certificate, meaning that an incredibly large amount of energy is wasted every year. Houses and workplace buildings account for 36% and 42% of the city’s CO2 emissions respectively. 

The CCC proposed that by 2025, no new homes should be connected to the gas grid. To meet the target emissions, homes must switch to low-carbon heating. There are multiple ways in which this can be achieved. London wants to introduce more local and decentralised energy sources, with the mayor wanting the city-wide deployment of air-source heat pumps, a low-carbon heating system that runs on electricity and draws warmth from the environment, by 2030. However, gas contributes to 30% of London’s total emissions mostly to heat buildings, and without decarbonising gas networks and switching to greener gases such as hydrogen, London is unlikely to achieve net-zero emissions.

5. Biodiversity Loss

Biodiversity loss is also among the most pressing environmental problems in London. While it may seem unlikely, London has a rich flora and fauna, something rare in other parts of the UK. The identification of over 1,500 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) – covering 19% of Greater London – is “a recognition that the capital’s ecological assets are much more widespread and are critical to the functioning of the city” – said Mathew Frith, director of the London Wildlife Trust Conservation, in an interview.

However, due to climate change and rising temperatures that are making habitats increasingly inhabitable, these populations are under threat. In addition to that, population growth is another big threat. By 2050, London is predicted to house 11.1 million people and this population and economic growth will pose major challenges to the city’s environment and habitats. 

In May 2018, the mayor of London released the London Environment Strategy which details four strategic methods to ensure London’s biodiversity is able to thrive:

• Low carbon circular economy

A low carbon circular economy is one in which resources are efficiently used by maximising reusing and recycling before turning them into waste. As London grows, it must invest in low-carbon infrastructure and services. For example, by manufacturing goods that are made to last rather than be disposed of and by creating a system that allows goods to be reused and recycled.

• Smart digital city

Smart technologies can help address environmental challenges, making environmental systems such as energy, water, and waste, more efficient. For example, smart energy metres can help reduce energy use and smart heat networks can increase efficiency in heat production.

• Green infrastructure

Green infrastructure can help reduce the impact of climate change and store carbon. Promoting healthier life habits, such as reducing car dependency and encouraging more cycling, will also improve biodiversity and ecological resilience, as well as air and water quality.

• Healthy streets approach

The healthy streets approach provides a framework for putting the human experience at the heart of city planning. Environmental factors have a big impact on the way people interact with it. Improving the environment against healthy street indicators would ensure streets are inclusive and sustainable, helping create a better city.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like: 6 Biggest Environmental Issues in Hong Kong in 2024

The post Top 5 Environmental Challenges in London and How the City Is Addressing Them appeared first on Earth.Org.

At the 2021 UN climate summit COP26 in Glasgow, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi announced the Lifestyle for Environment (LiFe) movement. The purpose of this movement is to nudge individual choices and behaviours towards sustainability. In line with the movement, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change recently announced the Green Credit Programme initiative to encourage environmentally friendly practices. 

—

The LiFe movement was introduced to encourage “mindful and deliberate utilisation, instead of mindless and destructive consumption”. It focuses on behaviours and attitudes of individuals, aiming to mobilise at least one billion Indians to take action for protecting and conserving the environment. It also utilises climate-friendly social norms, beliefs, and daily household practices embedded in Indian culture to drive the campaign.

Prime Minister Modi announced the initiative’s launch at the recent COP28 in Dubai, which the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change described in a statement as “an innovative market-based mechanism designed to incentivize voluntary environmental actions across diverse sectors, by various stakeholders like individuals, communities, private sector industries, and companies”.

The new Green Credit Rules will incentivise individuals, organisations, and industries to undertake positive environmental projects, extending beyond simply carbon emissions reduction to include improvements in air and water quality, biodiversity, and more. Initially focusing on water conservation and afforestation projects, the new programme “envisions the issue of green credits for plantations on waste and degraded lands and the river catchments areas to restore their vitality”.

Similar to a carbon market system, where organisations can buy and sell carbon credits, entities will be able to claim green credits for actions undertaken that positively impact the environment, which can then be traded for financial benefits on a domestic market platform. 

A key benefit of the new system is its inclusivity; indeed, the program is accessible not only to organisations but also to individuals participating who want to partake in simple yet effective practices such as composting and community cleanups. There are several activities eligible for green credits, categorised into eight key areas:

• Tree plantation
• Water management
• Sustainable agriculture 
• Waste management 
• Air pollution reduction 
• Mangrove conservation and restoration
• Eco-mark labelling
• Sustainable building and architecture 

The green credit system will complement the carbon credit system. Any activity that is eligible for green credits will also be eligible for carbon credits if it leads to the reduction or removal of carbon emissions. The rules also clarify that any green credits that are generated or procured by organisations due to legal obligations cannot be traded.

The green credit system is a significant step taken towards reshaping financial systems for a more sustainable future. It will increase awareness and inspire collective action against climate change by building environmentally friendly habits. Unlike carbon credits, the new system looks beyond just carbon. With the risk of large-scale and irreversible environmental changes increasing, it is important to focus not only on preserving but also restoring natural resources. Furthermore, an incentive-based approach may be more effective than other measures such as taxation, which organisations may be able to get around, especially in countries with low levels of enforcement. 

You might also like: Explainer: What Are Carbon Credits and How Do They Work?

Sumit Agarwal, the managing direction at the National University of Singapore’s Sustainable and Green Finance Institute, cited the success of India’s Production Linked Incentive Scheme – which gave financial incentives to manufacturers for the production of high-performance solar panels – as an example of why green credits may be successful in driving positive environmental and economic outcomes. The scheme resulted in an additional 48-gigawatts of manufacturing capacity added to the country over the next three years. 

However, there are also reservations about the programme. 

For it to work, the scheme would have to reach scale. Targeting just the India market and thus having just a restricted number of participants could lead to inefficient transactions due to an unbalance in the number of buyers and sellers. Several other factors could also affect its success, such as market volatility, which would cause the value of green credits to fluctuate in value and result in businesses facing uncertainties related to their environmental investments. Furthermore, stronger regulations are needed to guarantee ongoing monitoring and validation of claims, which would otherwise risk being mere greenwashing. However, these would slow down the efficiency of the programme, with delays in receiving credit and receiving revenues from trades, and affect its success. 

Unlike the carbon market, which prices a standard unit per tonne of carbon emitted, the green credit system does not yet have a standard unit of measurement for the benefits, which will be more complex to determine as they are accrued from various activities and across different sectors. 

You might also like: 5 Biggest Environmental Issues in India in 2024

The post Unpacking India’s New Green Credit Programme appeared first on Earth.Org.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty aiming to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system. It has near-universal membership, with 198 countries having ratified the convention. This treaty has provided a foundation for international climate negotiations since it was established in 1994, including major agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. 

—

What Is the UNFCCC?

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) serves as a foundational framework for global efforts to mitigate climate change and adapt to its inevitable impacts. While it does not establish concrete targets, it provides a framework for future agreements and policies. Its primary objective is to stabilise greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate systems, stating that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

Common But Differentiated Responsibility

A fundamental principle of the UNFCCC is the recognition of “common but differentiated responsibility”, acknowledging that, while all countries share responsibility in addressing climate change, industrialised countries are historically major contributors to GHG emissions and therefore bear greater burden in combating this global issue. Furthermore, it acknowledges the importance of economic development to the world’s poorer countries and accepts that the share of planet-warming gases produced by developing countries will grow. The convention also pushes for the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries for action on climate change. 

Data-Gathering and Transparent Reporting

The UNFCCC establishes mechanisms for monitoring and reporting on countries’ progress towards their climate commitments, ensuring transparency and accountability in reaching the shared goal. Industrialised countries are required to report regularly on their climate change policies and measures and submit an annual inventory of their emissions. Developing countries report in more general terms on their actions to address climate change and adapt to its impacts. They are required to report less regularly than industrialised countries and their reporting is dependent on availability of funding for the preparation of the reports.  

You might also like: A Comprehensive Guide to COP28 and the Global Stocktake 

Conference of Parties

Central to the UNFCCC is the annual Conferences of Parties (COP), the decision-making body of the convention. Its purpose is reviewing and advancing the implementation of the Convention. Countries who have joined the UNFCCC meet to measure progress and negotiate multilateral responses to climate change. COPs have created global milestones for the climate movement, setting standards and advancing action. The COP brings together not only the government but also the private sector and thousands of representatives from the civil society, green and polluting industries, and non-governmental organisations to tackle the climate crisis. 

The first international climate agreement, was reached during COP21, marking a historic moment in global climate action. The Paris Agreement mobilised parties in taking action to decrease GHG emissions with an agreed-upon goal of staying below a global average temperature increase of 2C above pre-industrial levels but encouraging parties to strive to stay below a 1.5C increase.  

You might also like: What Is the Paths Agreement?

In an unprecedented move, the most recent COP, COP28 in Dubai, recognised the need to transition away from fossil fuels for the first time, after unprecedented pressure from the scientific community and the UN, which repeatedly said that limiting global heating to 1.5C is impossible without the phase out of all fossil fuels. In line with the framework, the final agreement acknowledges “common but differentiated responsibility”, with emphasis on phasing out fossil fuels with justice and equity.  

Criticisms to the UNFCCC

While the UNFCCC plays a pivotal role in providing a framework to combat climate change and facilitating global cooperation, it still has its shortcomings. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, was a historical agreement that legally bound key economic players to strict climate targets for the first time. However, by exempting developing countries from the emission reduction commitments, its effectiveness was limited, with China and India – the first and third largest emitters in the world, respectively – experiencing a significant rise in emissions in the decades that followed. By 2012, the year after the first commitment period, global emissions actually rose by 44% from 1997 levels, driven predominantly by the developing nations’ emissions.  

Consequently, the US senate refused to ratify the Protocol, with potential damage to the US economy as their reasoning. Their decision evtnaully led to other major countries such as Canada and Japan to pull out of the deal. 

COP28 has also been the subject of much backlash. While countries agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels for the first time, the text does not compel countries to take action and does not set a specific timeline. Furthermore, the COP28 agreement emphasises “the growing gap” between the needs of developing nations and the money provided to cut emissions, but there is no requirement for developed countries to provide more support. 

The Loss and Damage Fund agreed upon at COP27 came from the idea that richer countries – historically the main contributors – would have to compensate for the damages caused by climate change in poorer countries. However, this has been deeply contested, with wealthy countries like the US reluctant to accept liability, and only a relatively small amount of money pledged so far. 

You might also like: What Is Loss and Damage Compensation?

While the Kyoto Protocol is seen as controversial, it was still a historical agreement that, for the first time in history, raised the alarm and sparked global action. Despite its many controversies, COP28’s stance on fossil fuels remains monumental and the UNFCCC’s role in reaching this point was key. It has provided a crucial framework and platform for global cooperation, addressing complex and urgent issues and setting the foundation for future climate agreements.

Featured image: UNclimatechange/Flickr

The post Explainer: What Is the UNFCCC? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Instead of repairing their broken phones, consumers often discard their smartphones and replace them with newer ones because repairs are expensive and difficult. During the Covid19 pandemic, as the hospital rooms began to fill and ventilators began to break, hospitals were not able to fix them. This is just another example of electronic waste ending up in landfills. While the use of technology has made much advancement to machines, it has also left them more controllable by the manufacturer, leading to the rise of the ‘Right to Repair’ – a movement dedicated to giving consumers the right to repair their own devices, rather than buying newer ones. 

—

The increase in consumption of electronics, and consequently the frequency with which the waste is produced, has major ecological effects. Firstly, it has significantly increased the unsustainable process of mining that’s required for the materials needed to produce technological products and while a phone’s glass screen display is no longer laced with mercury and arsenic, most smartphones now run on lithium in batteries from which the metals are mined from salt flats in Argentina and Chile using large amounts of energy and water. Secondly, discarded devices produce large quantities of electronic waste, otherwise known as e-waste. The use of semiconductors and the entrance of new players from Brazil, China, and India has made the manufacturing of electronic portable devices relatively inexpensive while the inconvenience, difficulty, or high costs of repairs have made new purchases more appealing. If not disposed of properly, toxins from e-waste enter the soil and water, raising concerns about water pollution, soil pollution, and more. 

Firms have been pushing consumers into buying new items by artificially reducing lifespan of products for a long time. In 1924, a cartel between Osram, Phillips, Tungsram, and General Electric, which was dissolved in 1939, ensured that light bulbs would not exceed an expected lifespan of 1,000 hours. More recently, Apple was accused of slowing down old iPhones after widespread complaints which led to people having to replace their phones which, according to investigators, boosted iPhone sales “potentially by millions of devices per year”. Intentionally or not, manufacturers have been employing various ways to make repair difficult, such as using proprietary screws, declining to publish repair documentation, or gluing parts together.

You might also like: Global E-Waste Will Weigh More Than the Great Wall of China

However, the urgency for repairing devices, rather than replacing, really began during the pandemic. As ventilators broke, hospitals were constrained by medical technology manufacturers, who frequently kept repair instructions from the public, forcing hospitals to consult only with authorised repair technicians and even led to instances of biomedical technicians hacking into ventilators. 

The Right to Repair movement is a part of an anti-consumerism ideology that is opposed to consumerism and the continuous buying and consuming of material possessions. This movement has been gradually gaining power in the US and Europe. The Repair Association, a right to repair advocacy group, has put forward several policy objectives:

1. Make information available: Everyone should have reasonable access to manuals, schematics, and software updates. Software licenses shouldn’t limit support options and should make clear what is included in a sale.
2. Make parts and tools available: The parts and tools to service devices, including diagnostic tools, should be available to third parties, including individuals.
3. Allow unlocking: The government should legalise unlocking, adapting, or modifying a device, so an owner can install custom software.
4. Accommodate repair in the design: Devices should be designed in a way as to make repair possible. 

This has been opposed by technology giants, which impose limits on who can repair phones and other devices, saying that independent repair could lead to security risks by giving criminal access to technical information, safety risks from unauthorised repair, and risks to intellectual property. 

Earlier this year, President Biden signed an executive order that announced his support for better consumer protection for repairs and the Federal Trade Commission then voted unanimously to better enforce laws around the right to repair, bringing us a step closer to a greener economy. 

In the UK, new rules put into place since this summer has made manufacturers be legally obligated to make spare parts for products available to consumers for the first time. This aims to extend the lifespan of products by up to 10 years and is estimated to reduce 1.5 billion tonnes of electrical waste each year. 

Unnecessary waste from electronics is a major threat to the environment and is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. For the longest time, large companies have been ensuring ways to reduce lifespan of their products and making repairs expensive and difficult, pushing consumers towards buying new products. However, with movements such as the ‘Right to Repair’ movement, which are being opposed by the technology giants, progress is being made; as this can be seen through the new rules that are being, or will be, implemented around the world. 

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

The post The Environmental Impact of Broken Technology and the Right to Repair Movement appeared first on Earth.Org.

Not all species that are not native to a specific location are invasive. To be considered as such, they must adapt to new areas easily and reproduce quickly. By outcompeting the native species, invasive species thrive and cause harm to the habitat and the economy. Humans have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the environment leading to catastrophic climate crises, and threatening the planet and its inhabitants. However, can we really say that humans are an invasive species?

—

The National Geographic Society defines an invasive species as an “organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area and can cause great economic and environmental harm to the new area”. Similarly, the US National Invasive Species Information Centre defines invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” 

According to both the definitions outlined above, to be categorised as an invasive species, certain criteria must be fulfilled. These include being non-native to the locality, adapting and reproducing quickly, and causing environmental and economic harm to the area.

While the climate changes naturally, humans are now considered the main drivers of climate change. By attempting to modify the natural environment to conform to the needs of modern societies, humans have caused catastrophic events such as global warming, environmental degradation, mass extinction, and biodiversity loss that have led to an ecological crisis and ecological collapse. Humans have affected and changed biodiversity and the ecosystem in multiple ways. Approximately one million flora and fauna species are threatened with extinction, more than ever before in human history, as a direct result of human activity. A report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that three-quarters of land and 66% of the marine environment is significantly modified by human actions. 

You might also like: 10 of the Most Endangered Species in the Ocean

One of the most famous examples of a species that became extinct because of human actions is the dodo bird, a bird once native to the island of Mauritius. Discovered by Portuguese sailors in the 1500s, the specie was erased from existence less than 200 years later. Due to their flightless nature, the fact that they likely nested on the ground, possibly only laid a single egg every year, and had no natural predators making them unafraid of humans, they were an easy source of meat. As more and more humans settled on the island, the consequential loss of habitat further threatened the existence of the bird. The settling of humans also brought other animals to the island and the unsustainable harvesting of the dodo, combined with habitat loss and a losing competition with new species settling into the island eventually led to the complete eradication of the bird.

The Socio-Economic Impact of Biodiversity Loss

Loss of biodiversity is not only an environmental issue but also a socio-economic one. Research has found that biodiversity in the form of ecosystem services such as food provisioning, carbon storage, and water and air filtration has a high economic value – worth more than US$150 trillion annually. Loss of biodiversity comes as a significant threat to many businesses as they face higher raw material costs, as sources of food, fuel, structural materials, and medicinal resources are greatly reduced. Irreversible species loss and changes to biodiversity and ecosystem processes are likely to cause a non-linear increase in cost to society in the long run, especially once the threshold of the resilience of the ecosystem is crossed. Not only will there be economic losses to society but also social ones, as biodiversity greatly influences cultural, spiritual, and social values. 

Biodiversity Loss and Food Insecurity

Biodiversity forms the foundation of society’s food system. Not only is it directly the food we eat – such as domesticated and wild livestock and crops, and aquatic species – but it is also the variety of plans and organisms that are essential to production processes that maintain healthy soils, regulate water, and pollinate plants. 

The economic value of this contribution is considerable. Pollinating species, like bees, birds, bats, and many more, contribute directly to between 5%-8% of current global crop production, the annual value of which was US$235-577 billion in 2015. A higher density of pollinating species leads to higher crop yields and so their dramatic decline poses a substantial threat to the economy. As found by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the loss of animal pollinators would result in a net welfare loss of approximately US$160-191 billion to crop consumers across the globe and a further loss of US$207-497 billion to producers and consumers in other markets. 

You might also like: Climate Change Threats Against the Honey Bee and Endangered Bee Species

Food production has increased significantly over the years to keep up with growing demand. A key indirect driver of this loss of biodiversity and harm to the ecosystem is increased population. Since the 1970s, during which the global human population has more than doubled from 3.7 to 7.6 billion. One of the greatest risks a growing population poses is a rapid increase in per capita consumption. As the population has grown, habitat destruction such as deforestation has also had to increase to make space for agricultural land. Furthermore, urban sprawl and transportation infrastructure increase pollution and global temperatures, critically changing major habitats. 

Trends in agricultural production, fish harvest, bioenergy production, and harvest of materials have increased in response to population growth, rising demand, and technological development, which has come at a steep price. Between 1962 and 2017, it is estimated that approximately 340 million hectares of new croplands were created globally and 470 million hectares of natural ecosystems – around half the area of China – were converted into pastures. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has predicted that the number of endangered species rises in areas with high human population growth. 

Are Humans an Invasive Species? 

Humans have been the cause of a lot of ecological and economic harm worldwide. The species’ unprecedented population growth has resulted in numerous instances of modified habitats, which have led to significant losses of biodiversity. However, to be categorised as an invasive species, humans must also be non-native. Most anthropologists agree that Homo Sapiens originated from East Africa and managed to spread out to every continent on Earth. As humans continued to migrate and colonise previously inhabited parts of the earth, large-mammal extinctions ensued.  By crossing the land bridge into North America approximately 15,000 years ago, humans contributed to the disappearance of large animals such as mammoth and mastodons mainly due to a rapid increase in hunting activities.

As explored above, we can conclude that humans are an invasive species. As humans spread out to parts previously uninhabited by them, the increase in population caused losses in biodiversity even hundreds and thousands of years ago. This has continued to the present day and the ever-growing human population is still significantly altering the ecosystem and resulting in serious economic and ecological costs to this day.

How Can Humans Minimise Their Impact?

However, there are still ways in which these impacts can be minimised. To live more in harmony with the habitat, there must be sustainable human development, focusing not only on societies needs but also on taking into consideration the threshold of the planet’s ecosystems. Exploiting non-renewable resources alters the habitat in an unsustainable way and unrestricted human activity threatens not only the surrounding biodiversity due to climate change but also human life itself. 

The best way to develop a more sustainable relationship with the planet and the ecosystem is to phase out fossil fuels and further the development and utilisation of clean, renewable energy. Moreover, promoting education, alongside science and technology, is increasingly important to help understand efficient utilisation of natural resources and promote human awareness and participation in environmental education and living. Lastly, shifting to sustainable agricultural practices and promoting nature-based solutions for urban areas are extremely important steps to tackle the increasing human population and the consequential increase in consumption globally. 

You might also like: How to Feed a Growing Global Population

The post Are Humans an Invasive Species? appeared first on Earth.Org.

A recent report released by WWF-UK and Tesco in 2021 found that global food waste on farms amounted to 1.2 billion tonnes per year, approximately 15.3% of the food produced globally. This measures up to USD$370 million of food wasted on farms. 58% of this waste occurs in high- and middle- income countries of Europe, North America, and industrialised Asia, despite these countries having higher farm mechanisations and only 37% of the global population. 4.4 million square kilometres of land is used to grow food which is then wasted on farms per year, larger than the entire Indian subcontinent. When these statistics are viewed alongside with the recent findings reported by the Food Waste Index, which reported that 17% of food is wasted from retail to consumer stages of the supply chain, it suggests that significantly more than one third of the total food produce is wasted, possibly up to 40%. Food that was unharvested due to reasons such as the inability of farmers to fund harvesting labourers or market-based specifications not being included in these estimations, result in an underestimate of the true amounts of food waste on farms.

—

Food waste begins right at the first stage of the supply chains: on the farms. This waste is caused by multiple direct and indirect factors. One major direct driver cannot entirely be controlled is biological and environmental factors. Crops can be damaged by pests and other diseases and factors linked to the weather, climate, soil, water availability, extreme weather events and natural disasters.

Poor technology and infrastructure is another direct contributor of food waste due to reasons such as inadequate storage for harvested produce, poor harvesting technology, lack of temperature management of produce at harvest, and inappropriate fishing gear and lack of chilling of landed catch. Without adequate storage of perishable produce, farmers are forced to sell regardless of market prices, or risk they waste. 

Factors linked to decisions at the farm stage, such as poor harvesting and handling techniques, judgment of crop maturation, and timing of harvest, are also direct contributors. Within animal agriculture, drivers of waste include poor sanitation during milking which leads to diseases, poor standards of animal husbandry leading to high mortality rates, and fishing techniques that result in significant discards. However, through technological, financial, and education investment, food waste from these factors can be effectively reduced.

On a larger scale, these direct drivers are often influenced indirectly by socio-economic and market factors that shape the agriculture sector. Market factors such as market structure, the regulations and standards in place, access to finance that farmers have, and fair trade and contractual agreements are wider influences involving actors and agencies that impact the amount of food waste occurring,  something which farmers and farm-stage interventions have no control over. 

Supermarkets have also been found to play a visible and systematic role in the overproduction, and consequently, the waste of food on farms around the world. A report by Feedback, an environmental organisation that campaigns for the end of food waste at every level of the supply chain, investigated international supply chains and found that suppliers to UK supermarkets are forced to throw away large amounts of food for aesthetic reasons. 

Supermarkets impose strict cosmetic specifications to farmers and only buy produce that fit size, shape, and colour specifications regardless of its nutrition, taste, and value. While some farmers reported no waste due to this practice, 7.4% of respondents reported their crops were not sold to the market and had a loss of up to 40% due to these standards. Their survey also found that four out of 10 farmers said that “retailers use cosmetic standards as an excuse to reject produce when they can get a lower price elsewhere or their demand has fallen.” 

Overproduction is a normalised aspect for supplying producers, which has become a large driver of food waste at farmer level as farmers feel the need to overproduce to hedge against risk and ensure they can supply supermarkets. Feedback’s survey found that six out of 10 farmers reported overproducing due to pressure to always meet buyer order or risk losing contracts. This results in supply exceeding demand when there is good weather and abundant crops. This issue is especially evident in local seasonal produce, which supermarkets fail to market, as with the case in the UK in 2017 when there was a cauliflower glut, causing large amounts of the vegetable to go to waste and led several supermarkets to slash prices.

You might also like: How Does Food Waste Affect the Environment?

Cancelled or altered orders are also found to be a significant driver of waste, with eight out of 10 farmers reporting that retailers change the proportion of stock bought from suppliers to find the cheapest offer, resulting in unpredictable demand.  Last minute order cancellations make it difficult to find alternative buyers for produce before it deteriorates. 

The UK’s food retail market is one of the most concentrated in Europe and nearly half of the respondents reported that the concentration of power among the supermarkets has led to less outlets, such as local grocers, for surplus produce.

At a global level, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 aims to develop sustainable consumption and production patterns with the target of cutting food waste and loss in half by 2030. Reaching this target will require innovative approaches and the 2020 No Food Left Behind convening, held by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), saw the development of interventions that could reduce on-farm produce loss and surplus. 

The first tool to achieve this is a ‘Food Loss Measurement Tool Implementation and Amplification’. Measure is a first step in unlocking opportunities to reduce waste, financial gain, and food utilisation. These opportunities include utilising surplus for value-add-processing, identifying surplus to sell through new channels, improving forecasting for future planting, and then reducing total planted crops. This tool serves as a foundation and a necessary predecessor for two different interventions: Whole Crop Contracts and Maximising Imperfect and Surplus Products through E-Commerce Distribution. As mentioned earlier, retailers tend to purchase produce based on projected demand and strict cosmetic specifications which, along with the fact that farmers overproduce, rarely cover total supply. By offering whole crop contracts, which is a long-term contract that ensures absorption of surplus and edible imperfect crops by the buyer, retailers will utilise a greater proportion of total produce. With whole crop contracting, a possible channel for surplus product that may be absorbed by retailers is e-commerce. This would, again, use up a greater portion of farm produce while also helping retailers meet growing demand for online grocery shopping, which has increased significantly since COVID-19.  Altogether, these tools would reduce food waste on farms by absorbing total produce and reducing surplus. 

Food waste is a global issue and, in a world where one in nine people go hungry or are undernourished, nearly one third of the food produced goes to waste. Large amounts go to waste during the first stage of the supply chain itself, which are farms. There are multiple drivers of food waste, both on the farm level and on a larger scale. Supermarkets also play a significantly visible role in causing surplus and “imperfect” produce to go to waste on farms. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 12 and develop sustainable consumption and production, it is important to come together and reduce this waste through developing innovative interventions.  

The post Food Waste on Farms and its Environmental Impacts appeared first on Earth.Org.

‘Fast Fashion’ is a term used to define a highly profitable and exploitative business model that is “based on copying and replicating high end fashion designs”. The clothes are mass-produced, with workers often working in inhumane conditions, and are purposefully designed to be frail with a limited lifespan as designs change quickly and are cheap to produce. They are also consumed at a higher rate and so the expectations for the clothes’ lifespan decrease, leading to multiple ethical and sustainable issues. Fast fashion pollution creates not only long-term and potentially irreversible environmental damage, but exacerbate the effects of climate change. 

—

Fast fashion is fast in more ways than one. The rise of fast fashion is intertwined with the rise of social media and influencer culture. Consumer demand and tastes have become insatiable and ever-changing, leading to fast fashion companies rushing to reproduce items whenever an influencer posts a photo wearing a new outfit. However, they are not simply reacting to consumer demand but are also creating it. The clothes produced by these companies are purposefully not made to last; a strategy known as planned obsolescence. Due to fast changing trends, producers respond by manufacturing clothes more and more rapidly, which means that designs are not well stress-tested and cheap synthetic fabrics are used to keep costs low. With its reliance on unsustainable plastic fabrics, the industry’s enormous water usage, and the unethical treatment of its workers, the rise of fast fashion has had devastating consequences on the world. 

You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

Fast Fashion and Climate Change 

Fashion and its supply chain is the third largest polluting industry, after food and construction. It emitted 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, releasing 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, more than the shipping and the aviation industry combined. If it continues at the same pace, the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to increase by more than 50% by the year 2030.  These emissions come from the processes along the industry’s supply chain, from the raw materials to production and processing to transport and shipping. 

Fast Fashion Pollution

Due to how affordable fast fashion clothing is and how quickly trends come and go, the substantial increase in clothing consumption has led to a substantial increase in textile production. Global per capita production of textile increased from 5.9kg per year to 13kg per year from 1975 to 2018. Global consumption of apparel has risen to an approximate 62 million tonnes per year and is projected to further reach 102 million tonnes by the year 2030. As a result, fast fashion brands are producing twice the amount of clothes today than in the year 2000. This dramatic increase in production has also caused an increase in both pre- and post-production textile waste. Due to the number of cut outs for the clothing, a large number of materials get wasted as they cannot be used any further, with one study predicting that 15% of fabric used in garment manufacturing is wasted. Post-production, 60% of approximately 150 million garments produced globally in 2012 were discarded just a few years after production. Despite such high rates of textile waste, textile recycling remains too low, with 57% of all discarded clothing ending up in landfills, which poses multiple public health and environmental dangers as toxic substances including methane, a greenhouse gas that is at least 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are released when landfills are burned. 

You might also like: 10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics

Fibre production – which uses multiple pesticides, herbicides, and much more which can leach into the soil and reduce fertility, biodiversity, and cause much more harm to the natural environment – and textile manufacturing – which uses chemicals during spinning, weaving, and other processes – bring about toxic substances are a cause for concern even before the garment even has a chance to be sold. Not only does this fast fashion pollution lead to high environmental negative impacts from the chemicals, but it also creates an unsafe environment and increases risk of health issues for factory workers, cotton farmers, and even the consumers. Furthermore, the synthetic materials that are used are the primary reason for microplastics entering the oceans, usually through the water used in washing machines, accounting for 35% of all microplastics. To lower the price and produce clothing items for cheap, polyester is a popular material choice, which consists of plastic and releases a larger amount of carbon emissions than cotton. Not only is plastic slow to degrade in the ocean, it also creates a toxic substance when it degrades, which is harmful for marine life and marine ecosystems. These microplastics also end up in the human food chain, causing negative health effects. 

The fashion industry also uses large quantities of water; in fact, consuming one tenth of all the water used industrially to clean products and run factories, totalling 79 billion cubic metres in 2015. Currently, 44 trillion litres of water is used annually for irrigation, 95% of which is used for cotton production. It was estimated that 20% of water loss suffered by the Aral Sea was caused due to cotton demand and consumption in the EU. Furthermore, the textiles and fashion industry has caused a 7% decrease in local groundwater and drinking water globally, and especially in water stressed manufacturing countries such as India and China. 

Developing countries bear the burden of these environmental impacts from fast fashion pollution, while most of the consumption is done in the developed countries. Textile production occurs largely in developing countries due to cheap manufacturing and labour costs, and lax environmental regulations as compared to the developed countries. At the end of the cycle, the waste would be shipped back. However, this practice has reduced due to many countries banning the import of waste, including textile waste. 

It is essential for the textile and fashion industry to mitigate its environmental impacts caused by excessive water usage, release of toxins into the environment, and large amounts of waste generated. On an individual level, consumers can help by reducing their consumption of fast fashion, as it is more important for this industry to ultimately completely abandon the fast fashion business model, which, at its core, promotes overproduction and overconsumption, consequently also leading to high amounts of material waste. 

The post Fast Fashion Pollution and Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

The UN climate science panel has stated that man-made carbon dioxide levels need to fall by 45% by 2030 from 2010 levels, to have a good chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C and avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change. But the world has already heated up by 1.1°C and is on track for a warming of at least 3°C as emissions continue to rise, which would bring worsening weather and catastrophic sea level rise, making parts of the earth uninhabitable, forcing countries to pledge ambitious carbon emission targets mitigate the exacerbating climate crisis. 

—

What are the Emission Targets Major Emitting Countries Set for 2030? 

United States of America  

In 2019, the United States of America emitted 6.6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, out of which carbon dioxide accounted for 80%, making them the second largest producer of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, 14.5% of global emissions. 

To combat climate change, the USA has set an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030. 

In addition, the US also considered sector-by-sector emission reduction pathways:

Electricity – To reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035. Support rapid deployment of carbon pollution-free electricity generating resources, transmission, and energy storage. Also, support research and development of software and hardware to support a carbon pollution-free, reliable, and affordable electricity system.

Transportation – Policies that can contribute towards emission targets include tailpipe emissions and efficiency standards; incentives for zero emission personal vehicles; funding for charging infrastructure; public charging, and long-distance travel; research and development to support advances in very low carbon new-generation renewable fuels. Investment in a wider array of transportation infrastructure for transit, rail, biking, and pedestrian improvements. 

Buildings – Ongoing government support for energy efficiency and efficient electric heating and cooking in buildings, wider use of health pumps and induction stoves, and adoption of modern energy codes for new buildings. Also, invest in new technologies to reduce emissions associated with construction.

Industry – Support research and development of very low- and zero-carbon industrial processes and products. 

Agriculture and lands – Support scaling of climate smart agricultural practices, reforestation, rotational grazing, and nutrient management practices. Invest in forest protection and forest management and engage in intensive efforts to reduce the scope and intensity of wildfires, and to restore fire-damaged forest lands. Support nature based coastal resilience projects. 

You might also like: Is Biden’s New Emissions Reduction Target Good Enough?

China

China is the largest polluter in terms of fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the world, emitting 10.17 billion tonnes in 2019, taking up 27.92% of global emissions. 

During the Climate Ambition Summit, Xi Jinping announced their updated 2030 carbon target of reducing its carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels by 2030, as compared to their previous target of lowering it by 60-65%, meaning China would reach the peak of its emissions between 2025 and 2030.

They have also made commitments to boost their installed capacity of wind and solar power to more than 1,200 gigawatts by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 25%, as compared to the previous target of 20%, and increase forest stock volume by 6 billion cubic meters, previously 4.5 billion cubic meters.

However, no plans for halting new coal projects were mentioned during the speech. 

Russia

In 2019, Russia emitted 1.68 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, making it the fourth largest producer of fossil fuel emissions in the world. 

The Russian Federation has set its limit of greenhouse gas emissions to 70% relative to the 1990 level, or 30% reduction emission targets, taking into account the maximum possible absorptive capacity of forests and other ecosystems and subject to sustainable and balanced socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. 

In addition to the mitigation target, they also describe their national climate policies, target areas, and voluntary support for developing countries. According to their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the Russian Federation’s efforts focus on fiscal measures to stimulate greenhouse gas reductions, increasing energy efficiency in all sectors, and developing use of non-fuel and renewable energy sources. Other measures are aimed at improving the quality of natural sinks and storage of greenhouse gases. The Russian Federation will also update its greenhouse gas emission standards in line with the international standards for quantifying carbon footprint. 

The United Kingdom 

In 2019, the United Kingdom emitted 454.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 43.8% lower than they were in 1990. The UK is committing to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. 

The country will mobilise £12 billion of government investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs in the UK, and unlock three times as much private sector investment by 2030

10 Point Plan for Green Industrial Revolution:

1. Advancing offshore wind – By 2030, the UK plans to quadruple offshore wind capacity, backing new innovations to make most of this proven technology, aiming to produce 40GW of offshore wind. 
2. Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen – The UK is aiming for 5GW of low carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. 
3. Delivering new and advanced nuclear power – Deploy the first small modular reactors and advanced modular reactor demonstrator in the UK by early 2030s.
4. Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles – End the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030. Require all vehicles to have a significant zero emissions capability from 2030 and be 100% zero emissions from 2035. 
5. Green public transport, cycling, and walking – Invest in rail and bus services, and in measures to help pedestrians and cyclists. 
6. Jet zero and green ships – Invest in R&D to develop zero-emission aircraft and develop the infrastructure at airports and seaports. 
7. Greener buildings – Ensure that the public sector has reduced its direct emissions by 50% compared to a 2017 baseline by 2032. Build Future Homes Standards to be ‘zero-carbon ready’ and have 75-80% lower carbon dioxide emission than current standards. 
8. Investing in carbon capture, usage, and storage – Aim to capture and store 10 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2030.
9. Protecting our natural environment – Increasing the Green Recovery Challenge Fund to deliver over 100 nature projects. Protect 30% of UK land. Investment in flood defences across every region of England.
10. Green finance and innovation – Raising total R&D investment to 2.4%of GDP by 2027. Bring down the cost of net zero transition, nurture the development of better products and business models, and influence consumer behaviour. 

The European Union

In 2019, greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union were 2.54 billion tonnes of CO2, out of which Germany, the 7th largest emitter in the world and the largest in the EU, emitted 701.96 million tonnes. 

Combined, member states will deliver at least a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to 1990 levels by 2030. 

Under regulation, each EU member state has an emission target to reduce from 2005 levels by 2030:

Belgium 35%; Bulgaria 0%; Czech Republic 14%; Denmark 39%; Germany 38%; Estonia 13%; Ireland 30%; Greece 16%; Spain 26%; France 37%; Croatia 7%; Italy 33%; Cyprus 24%; Latvia 6%; Lithuania 9%; Luxembourg 40%; Hungary 7%; Malta 19%; Netherlands 36%; Austria 36%; Poland 7%; Portugal 17%; Romania 2%; Slovenia 15%; Slovakia 12%; Finland 39%; Sweden 40%.

Policy Tools:

EU Emissions Trading System – Strengthening cap on overall emissions with the aim to expand use of emission trading to more sectors. 

Energy efficiency – Launch a renovation wave to improve housing quality and strengthen the role of eco-design standards.

Renewable energy – Revisit and review the biomass sustainability criteria and develop a new European terminology and certification system for all renewable and low-carbon fuels.

Road transport CO2 emissions – Strengthen the CO2 standards for cars and vans for 2030 and beyond and reflect on the phase-out date for internal combustion engines.

Agriculture, Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry – Integrate approach to reduce emissions from agriculture, provide bio-based materials for our economy, protect and enhance the natural carbon sink and improve the resilience of forests and agriculture to climate change.

India

India, the third largest polluter in the world who emitted 2,597.4 million tonnes in 2019, has set emission targets reduce emissions by 33-35% by 2030 from 2005 levels. 

India plans to achieve this by aiming to install 40% cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030 with the help of the transfer of technology and low-cost international finance included from the Green Climate Fund. This would also create an additional carbon sink equivalent to additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

With a potential of more than 100GW, a target of 60 GW of wind power installed capacity by 2022 has instead been set. There is also a solar expansion programme which seeks to enhance capacity to 100GW by 2022, which is to be scaled up further thereafter, with solar power projects, solar parks, canal top solar projects, and solar pumps for farmers currently in development. They are also promoting solarisation of all 55,000 petrol pumps across the country, out of which 3,135 have already been solarised.

Additionally, multiple programmes have also been initiated for promotion of cleaner and more efficient use, including biomass-based electricity generation, which is envisioned to increase biomass installed capacity to 10GW by 2022. 

Japan

Japan, the fifth largest producer of fossil fuel emissions, emitted 1.11 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions and has vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 46%by 2030 from its 2013 levels, up from its previous target of 26% However, it is still under pressure to set a 50% emission targets. 

Some of their path to carbon neutrality include:

Automobiles and storage batteries – Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles to account for 20-30% of new passenger car sales by 2030. 

Carbon recycling – Reduce the costs of concrete and fuels that absorb carbon dioxide. Foster social implementation, through public procurement, deploying efforts globally. Eg. Reduce the price of carbon dioxide-absorbing concrete to the same level as existing products in 2030. 

Offshore wind power – Plans for domestic roll out of offshore wind power. Attract the wind power industry to Japan while enhancing competitiveness of domestic suppliers and building a resilient supply chain. 

Nuclear power innovations – Maintain stable supplies of carbon-free electricity and draw on nuclear power innovations to accommodate various societal needs, which include enhancing safety, reliability, efficiency, etc. 

Shipping – Promote development of engines, fuel tanks, and other components of ships using liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen, ammonia, and other gases as fuel which are essential for achieving the zero emission targets.

Infrastructure – Undertake a range of efforts to cut CO2 emissions from infrastructure, which include rolling out district heating and cooling systems that recover heat from sewage systems, switching to LED street lighting, installing renewable power plants, etc.

The major countries of the world have all pledged to have some reduction in their CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change and limit warming. The next steps would be to reach net-zero by 2050.  

Featured image by: Pxfuel

The post Emission Targets 2030 of World’s Largest Polluting Countries appeared first on Earth.Org.

On July 20, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, flew into space along with three other companions in one of Blue Origin’s human-rated capsules. Just nine days prior, Richard Branson boarded the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 Spaceflight, which blasted off into suborbital space for a few minutes. Both companies plan on selling commercial tickets to their spacecrafts soon. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, plans to launch its first civilian mission in September 2021. While much of the world watched in awe as these billionaires soared into space, scientists worry that the rise and future of space tourism business could harm the Earth’s atmosphere and exacerbate the effects of climate change. 

—

What are the Environmental Consequences of Space Tourism Business and Space Pollution? 

Space exploration pollution has been gaining more attention in recent years and should not be ignored. The spacecraft operated by Branson’s Virgin Galactic is powered by a hybrid engine. These engines burn rubber and other fuels, and they generate a lot of soot. A space tourism flight, which lasts about an hour-and-a-half, generates as much pollution as a 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight. This raises concern considering Virgin Galactic’s ambitions to fly tourists several times a day. 

Small particles such as soot and aluminium oxides, can have a severe impact on the atmosphere. A 2010 research paper modelled the effects of soot injected into the atmosphere from a thousand private suborbital flights a year and found that it would increase the temperature over the poles by 1 degree Celsius and reduce polar sea ice levels by 5%. 

SpaceX plans on launching 395 flights in space annually. However, a single flight reportedly can generate a carbon footprint equivalent of 278 people combined. The fuel for its Falcon 9 engine consists of kerosene and liquid oxygen, which creates a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt. Holding 440 tonnes of fuel, SpaceX would release 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year if its plans of launching every two weeks are achieved. 

Bezos’ New Shepard, on the other hand, has been hailed as one of the cleanest in the industry. Combining liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to generate thrust, the main emissions would consist of mainly water, some minor combustion products, and only a little bit of carbon dioxide. But that does not mean these space flights are totally clean, and the further down the supply chain you look, the more concerns pop up. Large amounts of electricity is required to make liquid hydrogen and oxygen for the propellant, while water from the rocket exhausts can increase the number of clouds in the atmosphere, thereby, impacting the upper atmospheric layers. Since there have been too few rocket launches, they were not regarded as a concern in climate modelling. 

Too little is known about the impact of emitting pollutants in spaces where you would not normally emit. Though it is predicted that space tourism business will expand and increase exponentially in the coming years, with the amount of fuel burned by the space industry being less than 1%, it is unknown at which point rocket launches will start to have a considerable effect on the environment. 

While these billionaires pour billions of dollars to take part in this ego-fuelled race to space, more than two hundred people have died due to extreme flooding in Germany and Belgium, hundreds have lost their lives due to record breaking temperatures and wildfires in Canada, and many more fatalities due to other catastrophic disasters that have been intensifying around the world due to climate change.

You might also like: How to Make Deep Decarbonisation A Reality

Better Uses for Money Spent on Space Tourism Business

Bezos thanked his amazon staff who “paid for all of this”, which was understandably met by criticisms as Amazon workers are notoriously underpaid and forced to work in exploitative work environments such as resorting to using bottles instead of having the time to take even bathroom breaks. For roughly four minutes of weightlessness in space, Bezos had spent approximately US$5.5 billion. By redirecting these expenses, these are seven problems that could have been solved with Bezos’ space flight money: 

• Plant up to 5 billion trees, which only cost around $1 to $3 to plant.
• 37.5 million people could have been saved from starvation, and if each billionaire flying into space, Bezos, Musk, and Branson, committed $6 billion, 41 million people could have been prevented from starving this year. 
• Fully funded COVAX, securing vaccines for 2 billion people in low-income countries. Bezos could have funded their initiative, which needs approximately $2.6 billion, two times over in the time of a deadly pandemic instead of going to space. 
• Working with the United Nations, he could fund humanitarian efforts in Nigeria ($1 billion), the Democratic Republic of Congo ($2 billion), Afghanistan ($1.2 billion), Venezuela ($0.7 billion), Yemen and the horn of Africa ($0.6 billion).
• Fully funded the International Fund for Agricultural Development which is $350 million short of its fundraising goal. 
• Fully funded Education Cannot Wait, providing education to children displaced by crises, nearly three times over. 
• Helped countries invest in renewable energy, restore ecosystems, and make buildings more energy efficient.

Featured image by: Piqsels

The post The Environmental Costs of the Space Tourism Business appeared first on Earth.Org.