09/08/2019

IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Overhaul Of Food Production, Land Management

ABC ScienceNick Kilvert

Changes to land management, deforestation and food production are necessary to combat climate change. (Getty Images: Ted Mead)

Key points:

  • Land sector produces around a quarter of global emissions
  • Diets need to move to low emissions sources
  • Desertification will hit poorest and arid nations hardest
We must urgently revolutionise what we eat, how we grow it and the way we use land if the world is to combat dangerous climate change, according to today's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Transforming to clean energy, clean transport and industry alone will not cut global emissions enough to avoid dangerous warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report authors warn.
Today's IPCC Special Report: Climate Change and Land builds on last year's dire warning from the panel on the consequences of 1.5C and 2C warming, which we're currently on track to reach by 2040 and the 2060s respectively.
"The stability of food supply is projected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events that disrupt food chains increases," today's report authors state.
"At around 2C of global warming the risk from permafrost degradation and food supply instabilities are projected to be very high."
Shifting our farming practices presents an opportunity to cut emissions and improve health, the report states. (Getty Images: Glow Images)
Improving land management, reforestation, and soil regeneration are essential steps in reducing emissions from the land sector, according to report co-author Annette Cowie from the University of New England.
"We really do need to take drastic action urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Professor Cowie said.
"When we plant trees, when we do sustainable land management practices that build organic land and soil, we actually take carbon out of the atmosphere and we store it in the land."
Emissions from the global food system, including peripheral activities like packaging and transport, are estimated to comprise between 21 per cent and 37 per cent of the world's human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report.
"About a quarter of the Earth's ice-free land area is subject to human-induced degradation," the authors state.
And changing the way we farm could improve things for ourselves, as well as for the planet: "Balanced diets featuring plant-based foods such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetable, nuts and seeds and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-greenhouse-gas-emission systems present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health."
In Australia, where our meat consumption is particularly high on a global average, that means things like switching to low-emissions meat sources, ditching non-essential foods, and sourcing locally grown produce.
Reducing food waste is also identified as a key area to gain efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
Between 25 and 30 per cent of food is wasted worldwide, including crop waste, transport and store loss and personal waste.
"By 2050, reduced food loss and waste can free several million square kilometres of land," the authors write.
The report confirms the world has a double-edged sword hanging over its head, according to IPCC vice-chair Mark Howden.
"We ignore the interactions between climate change and the land at our peril."

Reforestation key to carbon reduction
Reforestation can help draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. (ABC Newcastle: Robert Virtue)
Systemic changes to agriculture to reverse soil erosion, rehabilitate degraded lands, minimise water and fertiliser use and increase carbon capture and storage are all identified as short- and long-term strategies for reducing greenhouse gases.
IPCC scientist Peter Newman from Curtin University said that while the energy sector has surged ahead in forging a path to low-to-no emissions, the land sector is dragging behind globally.
"Land has been a laggard because across the world there has been continued deforestation, which is fundamental to keeping carbon in the landscape," Professor Newman said.
"If you're cutting trees down more than you're planting, then that's not a great success story. And that has started to increase in recent years."
Deforestation in the Amazon has surged recently, but Australia's own deforestation rate has also climbed, drawing comparisons to Brazil.
"There was a lot of reforestation occurring right across Australia. It was certainly helped with the carbon tax because that was one way you could offset," Professor Newman said.
"[But] there's been an increase in deforestation, especially in Queensland, and that means we haven't been able to do nearly as well as the Federal Government has been saying."
One essential action that can immediately help reduce emissions, the report suggests, is protecting carbon-storing ecosystems such as forests, peatlands, rangelands and mangroves.
And rehabilitating these carbon-sink ecosystems can also achieve significant greenhouse-gas draw-down in the near future.
Recent research estimated that reforesting a billion hectares of degraded land globally could stall atmospheric carbon dioxide increase by around 20 years.
This could buy precious time while we continue to clean our energy, land-use, transport and industrial sectors, the researchers told the ABC earlier this year.
And there are dual benefits to reforesting and restoring ecosystems, according to today's report.
They include increasing habitat for threatened species, reducing invasive species and improving human health.
Alleviating poverty and empowering women in developing nations are two strategies that could improve land management and slow population growth, said ecologist Hugh Possingham from the University of Queensland and the Nature Conservancy.
"If you improve women's education and give them autonomy over reproduction and their lives, birth rates drop and infant mortality drops," Professor Possingham said.
"Everything is win-win — you can't complain about women's education and you can't complain about children not dying."

Impacts will hit the poor and arid nations hardest
Desertification is expected to increase under climate change. (Getty Images: Alexander Nicholson)
Under future climate change scenarios, droughts are predicted to become more intense and more common. While this is the first IPCC report to have been produced with a majority (53 per cent) of authors from developing countries, it is developing nations that will likely feel the worst effects of food security, according to report co-author Priyadarshi Shukla.
"We will see different effects in different countries, but there will be more drastic impacts on low-income countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean," he said.
Desertification in arid regions, including Australia, is expected to increase as tropical and subtropical climate zones expand poleward.
This is projected to put increasing pressure on already stretched agricultural sectors, driving up prices and threatening food security.
"Asia and Africa are projected to have the highest number of people vulnerable to increased desertification," the report says.
"The tropics and subtropics are projected to be most vulnerable to crop yield decline."
Already, the impacts of desertification are being felt due to land-use changes and climate change.
"The frequency and intensity of dust storms have increased over the last few decades due to land use and land-cover changes and climate-related factors," the report states.
"[Which is causing] increasing negative impacts on human health in regions such as the Arabian Peninsula and broader Middle East [and] Central Asia."
As well as educating and empowering women in developing nations, restoring indigenous land management practices can help rehabilitate land and curb emissions, according to the report.
"Agricultural practices that include indigenous and local knowledge can contribute to overcoming the combined challenges of climate change, food security, biodiversity conservation, and combating desertification and land degradation," the report states.
That position has the support of environment groups including the Nature Conservancy, according to country director Richard Gilmore.
"Give Aboriginal people the tools and resources to manage their land as they have done for thousands of years," he said.
"The Roman Empire was around 2,000 years ago, Aboriginal people have been managing the land here for 2,000 generations."

Links

Commonwealth Bank Warns Climate Change Could Slash Farm Productivity

Sydney Morning HeraldPeter Hannam

Climate change could slash the viability of farms in some parts of Australia over the next forty years as rainfall totals shrivel and days of heat stress increase, the Commonwealth Bank said in a new report.
The bank - which also reported a modest drop in annual profit and a plan to exit lending to thermal coal by 2030 - said it had done the analysis to "understand the risks [and] identify ways to support our customers".
Hard times down on the farm - and they may get even harder as climate change bites, Australia's biggest bank says. Credit: Christopher Lorrimer

The bank found grain-growing regions could see profitability declines as productivity falls by 50 per cent in some areas by 2060, compared with a 2018 baseline, with "changes in predicted rainfall" the driver.For the livestock sector, profitability could drop by 40 per cent over the same time period because of a decline in pasture quality and quality.
The dairy industry, too, faces "falls in most regions" of as much as 40 per cent drop in profitability by 2060 because of the rising likelihood of significant heat stress, the bank said. After five consecutive days of extreme conditions, cows can stop lactating and producing milk.
The CBA sees climate change hitting farming hard in some parts of the country. Credit: Glenn Hunt

The Commonwealth Bank is among the first big lenders to signal concern about farming productivity in the future.The bank, though, said "adaptive measures" could be moderate and even reverse those declines, such as the introduction of genetically modified grain able to increase the crop's resilience to extreme weather.
Similarly, new technology could help reduce overgrazing, while shade and water sprays could help keep cows cool, the bank said.
Even so, conditions may still deteroriate too much for some farms to cope.
"[T]he trend of declining rainfall could result in some regions becoming significantly less viable for crop production in the long term," the bank said.
Erwin Jackson, director of policy at Investor Group on Climate Change, said the physical effect of climate change was "increasingly recognised as a systemic financial risk requiring the same levels of governance and active management as any other dimension of material financial performance".
"Sophisticated investment tools are rapidly emerging to strengthen the resilience of infrastructure, the economy and our communities to the effects of climate change," he said.
"However, there are a number of practical barriers to investing in and supporting climate change adaptation [and] governments have a clear role in helping overcome these barriers."

Links

How The World’s Dirtiest Industries Have Learned To Pollute Our Politics

The Guardian

The fossil-fuel lobby is threatened by public concern over the climate crisis. So it’s buying influence to get the results it wants
A fracking rig in the US. Photograph: grandriver/Getty Images
The tragedy of our times is that the gathering collapse of our life support systems has coincided with the age of public disservice. Just as we need to rise above self-interest and short-termism, governments around the world now represent the meanest and dirtiest of special interests. In the United Kingdom, the US, Brazil, Australia and many other nations, pollutocrats rule.
The Earth’s systems are breaking down at astonishing speed. Wildfires roar across Siberia and Alaska – biting, in many places, deep into peat soils, releasing plumes of carbon dioxide and methane that cause more global heating. In July alone, Arctic wildfires are reckoned to have released as much carbon into the atmosphere as Austria does in a year: already the vicious twister of climate feedbacks has begun to turn.
Torrents of meltwater pour from the Greenland ice cap, sweltering under a 15C temperature anomaly. Daily ice losses on this scale are 50 years ahead of schedule: they were forecast in the climate models for 2070. A paper in Geophysical Research Letters reveals that the thawing of permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic now exceeds the depths of melting projected by scientists for 2090.
In the US, legislators in 18 states have put forward bills criminalising protests against pipelines
While record temperatures in Europe last month caused discomfort and disruption, in south-west Asia they are starting to reach the point at which the human body hits its thermal limits. Ever wider tracts of the world will come to rely on air conditioning, not only for basic comfort but also for human survival: another feedback spiral, as air conditioning requires massive energy use. Those who cannot afford it will either move or die. Already, climate breakdown is driving more people from their homes than either poverty or conflict, while contributing to both these other factors.A recent paper in Nature shows that we have little hope of preventing more than 1.5C of global heating unless we retire existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Even if no new gas or coal power plants, roads and airports are built, the carbon emissions from current installations are likely to push us past this threshold. Only by retiring some of this infrastructure before the end of its natural life could we secure a 50% chance of remaining within the temperature limit agreed in Paris in 2015. Yet, far from decommissioning this Earth-killing machine, almost everywhere governments and industry stoke its fires.
The oil and gas industry intends to spend $4.9tn over the next 10 years, exploring and developing new reserves, none of which we can afford to burn. According to the IMF, every year governments subsidise fossil fuels to the tune of $5tn – many times more than they spend on addressing our existential predicament. The US spends 10 times more on these mad subsidies than on its federal education budget. Last year, the world burned more fossil fuels than ever before.
Icebergs near Ilulissat, Greenland, in August 2019. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
An analysis by Barry Saxifrage in Canada’s National Observer shows that half the fossil fuels ever used by humans have been burned since 1990. While renewable and nuclear power supplies have also risen in this period, the gap between the production of fossil fuels and low-carbon energy has not been narrowing, but steadily widening. What counts, in seeking to prevent runaway global heating, is not the good things we start to do, but the bad things we cease to do. Shutting down fossil infrastructure requires government intervention.
But in many nations, governments intervene not to protect humanity from the existential threat of fossil fuels, but to protect the fossil fuel industry from the existential threat of public protest. In the US, legislators in 18 states have put forward bills criminalising protests against pipelines, seeking to crush democratic dissent on behalf of the oil industry. In June, Donald Trump’s administration proposed federal legislation that would jail people for up to 20 years for disrupting pipeline construction.
Global Witness reports that, in several nations, led by the Philippines, governments have incited the murder of environmental protesters. The process begins with rhetoric, demonising civil protest as extremism and terrorism, then shifts to legislation, criminalising attempts to protect the living planet. Criminalisation then helps legitimise physical assaults and murder. A similar demonisation has begun in Britain, with the publication by a dark money-funded lobby group, Policy Exchange, of a report smearing Extinction Rebellion. Like all such publications, it was given a series of major platforms by the BBC, which preserved its customary absence of curiosity about who funded it.
Secretly funded lobby groups – such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs – have supplied some of the key advisers to Boris Johnson’s government. He has also appointed Andrea Leadsom, an enthusiastic fracking advocate, to run the department responsible for climate policy, and Grant Shapps – who until last month chaired the British Infrastructure Group, which promotes the expansion of roads and airports – as transport secretary. Last week the Guardian revealed documents suggesting that the firm run by Johnson’s ally and adviser Lynton Crosby has produced unbranded Facebook ads on behalf of the coal industry.
What we see here looks like the denouement of the Pollution Paradox. Because the dirtiest industries attract the least public support, they have the greatest incentive to spend money on politics, to get the results they want and we don’t. They fund political parties, lobby groups and thinktanks, fake grassroots organisations and dark ads on social media. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest industries.
We are told to fear the “extremists” who protest against ecocide and challenge dirty industry and the dirty governments it buys. But the extremists we should fear are those who hold office.

Links