10/05/2018

Food For Thought: Food Security, Population Growth & Over-Farming

Al Jazeera

We look at the state of global food security amid rising concerns about the world population and climate change.



There are currently 7.6 billion people on the planet, and they all need feeding. However, producing crops and rearing livestock is environmentally unsustainable. Nearly one-third of the Earth's land is severely degraded and 90 percent of our oceans are quickly being emptied of fish.
The pace of harvest is relentless and with the worldwide population expected to grow to 10 billion by 2050, it is clear that our planet won't be able to keep up the pace of food production.

3D Farming
Bren Smith is in the process of creating thousands of decent jobs, transform how we harvest food from the oceans, and blunt the effects of climate change and marine degradation - all at the same time.
The system he has developed to do this is called '3D Ocean Farm', a polyculture vertical farming system under the water's surface which grows a mix of seaweed crops and shellfish.
Scientists, fisherman and farmers have found that kelp reduces water acidification rate. It pulls so much carbon and nitrogen out that it changes the water quality [Alice Martineau/Al Jazeera]
Requiring zero inputs, it is the most sustainable form of food production on the planet, and it also sequesters carbon and rebuilds reef ecosystems. The crops can be used as food, fertiliser, animal feed and even energy.
"If you were to take a network of these farms, totalling five percent of US waters, you could remove the equivalent carbon output of over a million cars," says Smith.
"What the kelp does is it reduces the acidification rate. It pulls so much carbon and nitrogen out, that it changes the water quality."
In this episode of earthrise, we head to Connecticut to meet a commercial fisherman turned climate farmer who has developed a system of polyculture vertical agriculture in the ocean, called 3D farming.

Lab Meat
The global animal agriculture industry needs immediate and truly urgent attention. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, habitat destruction and is responsible for more CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year than all forms of transportation.
The impact of farming cattle on climate change is so significant that some experts believe that giving up beef reduces our carbon footprint more than giving up cars [University of Maastricht/ Al Jazeera]
While the statistics surrounding the industry are terrifying, there is no sign that the industry is slowing down. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75 percent by 2050.
Scientists at Mosa Meats in the Netherlands believe they have found a solution to this dangerous trend: growing meat in a lab.
This technique eliminates the need to harm live animals, eradicates the dedication of large swathes of land to the cultivation of animals and dramatically reduce methane emissions.
"Methane is actually a very powerful greenhouse gas," says Dr Mark Post at the University of Maastricht. Post is part of a number of teams involved in research surrounding the production of lab-grown meat.
"[Methane is] 20 times more powerful than C02 and livestock is accountable for 40 percent of all methane emissions. This process would reduce the number of animals from 1.5 billion to 30,000," continues Post.
In this episode of earthrise, we will visit the Mosa Meats lab who are at the forefront of this truly extraordinary meat movement, and examine the process behind it and learn of the huge benefits it could offer, while also looking at the varying social opinions on the new method of meat production.

Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018), World Resources Institute (2013-14), Science Direct (2016)
Links
at No comments:

Four Climate Change Lawsuits To Watch In 2018

Deutsche Welle - Anne-Sophie Brändlin

Did you know it's possible to take legal action to fight global warming? Ever more citizens are doing just that. Here are four landmark climate change lawsuits with significant decisions pending in 2018.

Citizens around the world are taking climate action to the courtroom by suing their own governments and some of the world's biggest oil and energy companies over failing to protect against the risks and consequences of climate change.
According to a survey by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia Law School, climate change lawsuits are on the increase — with nearly 900 cases in 24 countries as of March last year — and courts will play a greater role to in the fight against global warming over the year to come.
Here are four high-profile climate lawsuits to watch in 2018 — each is likely to make waves by setting a possible legal precedent in pressuring governments and companies to take responsibility over climate change.

Citizens vs. the government of the Netherlands
Plaintiffs wait for the verdict in Netherlands climate lawsuit
It started with a precedent-setting climate lawsuit in the summer of 2015, when 900 Dutch citizens, represented by the Urgenda Foundation, took their government to court to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
This was the first time a group of citizens sued their own government over climate change action — and won.
The lawsuit resulted in a Dutch court ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide by at least 25 percent by the year of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), forcing it to take more measures against climate change.

AUDIO

"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," the verdict read.
The landmark ruling is the first case in which regular citizens have managed to hold their government accountable for taking insufficient action to fight global warming. It is also the only case in the world thus far to define a government's obligation to control climate change.
While the Dutch government has taken concrete steps, such as announcing a coal exit, it is also appealing the verdict, and a first hearing is scheduled for May 2018.
The Dutch landmark case laid the foundations for similar lawsuits around the world, for instance by a group of Belgian artists, filmmakers and rock stars, who are suing the Belgian government to increase its climate change game, and make deeper greenhouse gas emission cuts.

Youth vs. the government of the United States 
Scientist James Hansen (right) with his granddaughter, who is among US youth suing their government over climate change
Another lawsuit inspired by the Dutch court case was started by a group of American youths, who are suing the US government for failing to curb climate change.
The 21 plaintiffs, who are between 10 and 21 years old, and come from all over the US, filed the climate change lawsuit together with their attorneys and climate scientist James Hansen in 2015.
All the kids and teenagers in the plaintiff group have been personally impacted by climate change. Some of them live on farms being affected by drought, while others have lost their homes due to floods, or face health issues due to forest fires.

AUDIO

In the unprecedented lawsuit, entitled "Juliana vs. US," the youth accuse the federal government of violating the younger generations' constitutional rights to life and liberty by failing to take action against global warming. They argue that the government is failing to protect essential public trust resources like air and water, which are vital to survival.
"Our role as plaintiffs is to show them the personal harm climate change is causing. We represent the children — not just of this nation, but of the entire world," 20-year-old student Tia Hatton told DW.
"We are all very worried about our future, health and safety from the climate change impacts that we're seeing already, and that will worsen as time goes on," said the plaintiff in the lawsuit.
An initial ruling in an Oregon district court upheld their main argument that "the government has known for more than 50 years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia."
Wildfire is among the impacts of climate change more strongly felt in recent years in the US
Yet, the court case argues, the government has failed to take action, making it responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change.
Since then, the landmark court case has been the target of strong opposition from lobby groups, the fossil fuel industry, and the US government, which sought for the case to be thrown out.
The US government has even asked a federal appeals court to block the lawsuit, claiming it could lead "to a constitutional crisis."
But motions for appeal were denied and the lawsuit was ruled valid by US District Judge Ann Aiken.
She wrote in her ruling: "This lawsuit may be groundbreaking, but the fact does not alter the legal standards governing the motions to dismiss. [...] Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environment law, and the world has suffered for it."
The case will now officially go to trial in February 2018.

Peruvian farmer vs. German energy company RWE
Peruvian farmer Saúl Lliuya ia taking on German energy company RWE over greenhouse gas emissions
Not just governments are facing legal challenges over climate — also a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide is suing German energy firm RWE.
He is claiming that the company's contribution to climate change is threatening his home, and is asking RWE to take on financial responsibility for the damage.
Saúl Lliuya from Huaraz, a city located in the Andean Mountains in western Peru, says his family and a large part of the city are facing catastrophic flooding as global warming melts a nearby glacier.
RWE's coal power emissions contribute to around 0.5 percent of global climate change, so the company should have to pay around half a percent of the measures required for protecting Lliyua's home and the area, says the plaintiff, who is being supported by environmental organization Germanwatch.

AUDIO

The farmer is asking for €17,000 ($20,000) from RWE, which would go toward funding flood defenses he plans to install for his community, as well as a further €6,384 in reimbursement for money he's already spent out of his own pocket on protective measures.
RWE says the case has no legal basis, and that the alleged danger of flooding has never been sufficiently demonstrated. The company further argues that emitting CO2 is not illegal, as RWE has authorization under carbon emissions trading laws.
Plus, RWE says climate change is a global problem that has to be solved on a state and international level, meaning individual companies should not be held responsible.
But a German court decided that Lliuya's allegations had merit and ruled to proceed with the case, which is due to hear evidence in 2018.
It is the first time a German civil court has been asked to rule on whether a company can be held financially responsible for its contribution to the effects of climate change in other parts of the world.

ExxonMobil vs. US state attorneys
Oil multinational ExxonMobil is accused of covering up research over climate change for decades
In the US, a similar case is coming to a head this year: the first-ever US legal action aimed at holding the oil giant ExxonMobil accountable for its climate change coverup.
The American multinational oil gas corporation is being sued over failing to safeguard Massachusetts communities against pollution relating to climate change impacts, and lying to the public about the risks of climate change.
The suit was started by a group of state attorneys general, led by New York's Eric Schneiderman, after it came to light that Exxon executives had been aware of the climate risks associated with fossil fuels as early as 1977, but launched a campaign to cover up those findings.
According to the lawsuit, ExxonMobil endangered communities by ignoring the threat posed by severe weather events and rising sea levels to its Everett facility along the Mystic River in Massachusetts — despite its long-held knowledge of the risks associated with climate change.
ExxonMobil has denied the claims, and said in a statement it would fight the lawsuit in court. A verdict is expected in 2018.
What went right for the environment in 2017? 
Bye bye, diesel 
Countries such as India, France and the United Kingdom have pledged to move away from gas and diesel cars in favor of less-polluting options, such as electric vehicles. Even China, the world's largest car market, is developing a plan to ban the production and sale of vehicles that rely purely on fossil fuels. 2018 could be an important year in the shift toward cleaner transportation.

Links
at No comments:

Global Warming Is Melting Antarctic Ice From Below

The Guardian - 

Warming oceans melting Antarctic ice shelves could accelerate sea level rise
A view of the leading edge of the remaining part of the Larsen B ice shelf that extends into the northwest part of the Weddell Sea is seen in this handout photo taken on March 4, 2008. Photograph: HO/REUTERS
We all know intuitively that in a warmer world there will be less ice. And, since the North and South Pole regions contain lots of ice, anyone who wants to see evidence of climate change can look there.
But beyond this simplistic view, things can get pretty complex. First, it’s important to recognize that the Arctic and the Antarctic are very different places. In the Arctic, almost all the ice is floating on water – there is very little land. So, we talk about ‘sea ice’ in the north, formed from frozen sea water. On the other hand, Antarctica is a massive land mass that is covered by ice formed from snowfall (called an ‘ice sheet’). There is some floating ice around the perimeter of the land, but the vast majority of Antarctic ice is on land.
This difference not only affects how these regions response to climate change, but it also impacts their importance. We know that when floating ice melts, the ocean levels will not rise, because the ice was already floating in the water. But, when land ice melts, the liquid water flows into the ocean and causes the water levels to rise. So, at least from a sea-level perspective, land ice is more important than floating ice.
There are other differences between the north and south. One feature of the south is that there is a strong current that travels around Antarctica and partially shields it from waters elsewhere in the ocean. The Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory provides a good summary of some of the differences between the poles.
With global warming, both of the poles are warming quite quickly, and this warming is causing ice to melt in both regions. When we think of ice melting, we may think of it melting from above, as the ice is heated from the air, from sunlight, or from infrared energy from the atmosphere. But in truth, a lot of the melting comes from below. For instance, in the Antarctic, the ice shelves extend from the land out over the water. The bottom of the ice shelf is exposed to the ocean. If the ocean warms up, it can melt the underside of the shelf and cause it to thin or break off into the ocean.
A new study, recently published in Science Advances, looked at these issues. One of the goals of this study was to better understand whether and how the waters underneath the shelf are changing. They had to deal with the buoyancy of the waters. We know that the saltier and colder water is, the denser it is.
Around Antarctica, water at the ocean surface cools down and becomes saltier. These combined effects make the surface waters sink down to the sea floor. But as ice melt increases, fresh water flows into the ocean and interrupts this buoyancy effect. This “freshening” of the water can slow down or shut down the vertical mixing of the ocean. When this happens, the cold waters at the surface cannot sink. The deeper waters retain their heat and melt the ice from below.
The study incorporated measurements of both temperature and salinity (saltiness) at three locations near the Dalton Iceberg Tongue on the Sabrina Coast in East Antarctica. The measurements covered approximately an entire year and gave direct evidence of seasonal variations to the buoyancy of the waters. The researchers showed that a really important component to water-flow patterns were ‘polynyas.’ These are regions of open water that are surrounded by ice, typically by land ice on one side and sea ice on the other side.
A satellite photograph of a polynya is shown below. When waters from the polynya are cold and salty, the waters sink downwards and form a cold curtain around the ice shelf. However, when the waters are not salty (because fresh water is flowing into the polynya), this protective curtain is disrupted and warm waters can intrude from outside, leading to more ice melt.
A polynya off the coast of Antarctica, near Ross Island and McMurdo Station on November 16, 2011. Photograph: Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE/EOSDIS MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC.
Based on this study, we may see increased ice loss in the future – sort of a feedback loop. That concerns us because it will mean more sea level rise (which is already accelerating), and more damage to coastal communities. I asked the lead author, Alesandro Silvano about this work:
We found that freshwater from melting ice shelves is already enough to stop formation of cold and salty waters in some locations around Antarctica. This process causes warming and freshening of Antarctic waters. Ocean warming increases melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing sea level to rise. Freshening of Antarctic waters weakens the currents that trap heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean, affecting the global climate. In this way local changes in Antarctica can have global implications. Multiple sources of evidence exist now to show that these changes are happening. However, what will happen in Antarctica in the next decades and centuries remains unclear and needs to be understood.
This is just another reason to take scientists seriously and act to slow down climate change before it is too late.

Links
at No comments:

Budget 2018: Climate Change Denial And Conservation Jobs Slashed

Independent Australia - 

Image via @FoEAustralia.
Climate change did not even rate a mention in Treasurer Scott Morrison's 2018 Budget announcement last night (Tuesday, 8 May).
The writing is on the wall for Australia’s unique environment as the Turnbull Government demonstrates its real agenda.
With revelations that one-third of the staff in the Department of Environment and Energy’s conservation and biodiversity division will be slashed, Australia is a sure bet to take up the dishonour of holding the global record of extinction.
These words are the substance of a major petition by Avaaz, which is circulating around the world:
'By 2020, two-thirds of the worl'd wild animals will be gone. Life is being extinguished as fast as when the dinosaurs disappeared — and it’s happening because humanity is taking a chainsaw to the tree of life.'
Should anyone believe these predictions have no validity, an article in The Guardian newspaper quotes renowned biologist, E. O. Wilson who wants to set aside half of the planet as protected areas for nature and says:
'If we don't change our ways, we will witness a mass extinction event that will not only leave our world a far more boring and lonely place but will undercut the very survival of our species.'
IMAGE
 As the Avaaz petition states:
We’re testing the boundaries of our planet’s ability to sustain us and all life, but the biodiversity crisis still isn’t high on the political agenda! If enough of us engage now, we could change that.

Scientists say our best chance to save our ecosystems and 80-90% of all species is giving them enough safe space to thrive, then nature uses its wisdom to regenerate. The 50% plan sounds ambitious but in fact it’s totally viable and likely the best way to sustain our intricate web of life. 
Many scientists are predicting the sixth mass extinction. A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is underway and is more severe than previously feared, according to recent scientific analysis.
Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, with just a short window of time in which to act.
IMAGE
A study published in the peer-reviewed journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences', eschews the normally sober tone of scientific papers and calls the massive loss of wildlife a “biological annihilation” that represents a 'frightening assault on the foundations of human civilisation'. 
Professor Gerardo Ceballos, of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work, said:
“The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.”
IMAGE
 Unfortunately, the Turnbull Government is deaf to the message.
Given Australia styles itself as a Western nation with an educated population, the Zen koan we must all ask is, how did we end up with a Prime Minister and a Government hell-bent on destroying Australia’s unique and irreplaceable species?
What must be done to ensure the environment becomes a critical primary policy of not only the Turnbull Government but the equally environmentally destructive Berejiklian Government?
Let’s not forget, Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world:

  • 87% of our mammal species, 93% of reptiles, 94% of frogs and 45% of our bird species are found only in Australia.
  • More than 1,700 species of animals and plants are listed by the Australian Government as being at risk of extinction.

A recent national review of threatened species monitoring found about one-third of 548 species were not being tracked at all.
According to Professor John Woinarski, Deputy Director of the Threatened Species Hub from Charles Darwin University:
Ten Australian birds and seven mammals are likely to become extinct over the next 20 years, if we continue with current management, according to new research.
Most of these extinctions could be prevented if conservation managers and our community are more aware of the risk these species face, and managers are able to respond effectively and rapidly.
Identifying the species at greatest risk of extinction is a crucial first step in avoiding their extinctions.
The fate of these species depends upon support from governments and communities, and public interest, awareness and involvement. 
Some of our other research recently published has compiled case studies of successful conservation for almost 50 Australian threatened species, so we know it can be done when the commitment is there. 
IMAGE
Last month, the Turnbull Government announced it would deliver half a billion dollars for the Great Barrier Reef 'to protect the Reef from climate change and pollution'. Oops! Does that mean that Adani's coal mine will be rejected given the massive carbon emissions it will deliver to the world’s environment if the mine goes ahead? Unlikely.
According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald:
' ... the Coalition tries to balance environmental concerns with its pro-mining focus through the Adani coal mine.'  
Exactly how half a billion dollars will protect the Reef from climate change amid Adani's destruction is not explained.
A new report by the Climate Council looked into Indian resources giant Adani's proposed Carmichael Coal Mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin.
If built, Carmichael would be Australia's largest ever coal mine. It would have six open cut pits as well as numerous underground mines. Coal would be transported 200 kilometres to a terminal at Abbot Point, adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. And it would only be the beginning. The report states that the development of the Carmichael mine would likely pave the way for other coal mines to go ahead in Queensland's Galilee Basin. The basin has around 250,000 square kilometres of thermal coal. If it were developed, Australia's carbon emissions would more than double.
IMAGE
At a dinner at Sydney Opera House, French President Emmanuel Macron challenged Turnbull to lift his game when it comes to tackling climate change.
However, our PM is as disinterested in climate change as President Trump in spite of overwhelming evidence of catastrophic consequences. As a former banker and a wealthy developer, one would expect that a balance sheet which covers the costs and benefits of a healthy environment would be the foundation of policy.
What is life on earth worth? Is there a price that can be attributed to species and ecosystems? What about our children and grandchildren? What price does the Turnbull Government put on their future?
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all will be a silent world. A world without birdsong and the wonder of nature. This will be the legacy of the Turnbull Government and all anti-environmental governments.
It’s up to us to change the paradigm.




Links
at No comments: