UK Farming and climate change

A bit more this time, on agriculture and the impact it has on climate change, and what the industry needs to do to do its bit in the UK.

Setting the scene:
UK farms are said to produce around 46.5m tCO2e in GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions each year; that is, around 10% of the total UK emissions. But additionally, we import around 48% of our food, so the carbon footprint from food production is probably much, much higher (and rising). A WWF-UK / Food Climate Resource Network report in 2010 said the actual UK footprint of farming could be more like 30%.

The relationship between farming and climate change has become somewhat fractious over the years. Farmers say that there is a distinct 'anti-meat' agenda out there, with Guy Smith, Deputy President of the NFU (National Farmers Union) saying, "The vegan lobby are hijacking the climate debate."

The politics can be quite confusing. The Conservative government of the 1990s, for example, told farmers that if they improved their standards, that people would be happy to pay a premium for that additional sustainability and welfare. A ban was put in place on sow stalls that restricted the movement of pregnant pigs - it was, the government said - what the consumer wanted. So farmers invested the money to overcome the law, but they were thwarted; there was no such restriction on imported pork and so that consumer support never happened, as people were happy to go for the cheaper (imported) option!

IPCC report:
The NFU, which represents 55,000 British farmers, says that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on 'Change and Land', has been misinterpreted by many - and especially the BBC - they say, basically boiling it down to 'eat less meat and save the planet.' They point that the actual text of the report says;

"Balanced diets, featuring plant based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruit and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health."

The industry claim that beef produced in western Europe, for example, is around 2.5 times more efficient in how carbon is managed than the global average.

This gets into another contentious issue. Beef production is the perceived bad boy of agriculture, in climate change terms, as it is a high producer of methane and nitrogen oxides - which are more damaging GHG's than CO2. While carbon dioxide takes a bit of a backseat in this discussion, scientists don't necessarily agree on the outcomes.

Methane was responsible for 56% of farming GHG emissions in 2017, and NO for 31%. This comes from the complexities of soil and microbial processes. The debate surrounds how much weighting they are given in the scientific outcomes. There are those who say that since they are the big GHG emitters, they must be weighted highly; the flip side is that their effects are easier to reverse, as they don't remain in the atmosphere as long, so the weighting should be lowered somewhat.

The NFU and the future:
The NFU vision, set out in September 2019, says that this 46.5m tonnes of emissions could be removed completely in the next 20 years. They say that;

• More efficient production will remove 11.5m tonnes
• Farmland as a store for carbon will remove 9m tonnes
• A boost to renewables and bioenergy will account for a whopping 22m tonnes

On that last point, countryside online say that farmers have already diversified to renewables production, to the point where they provide power for 10 million homes.

The NFU say that if farmers are offered rewards, then this is all achievable.

But there has been no real progress on reducing farming emissions since 2008. A 2013 target to plant 5,000ha of trees a year has also proved difficult; in England in the year up to March 2019, only 1,420ha was planted (according to the Woodland Trust). Guy Smith says, "We are happy with trees on farmland as long as it doesn't significantly curtail production. [Otherwise] you'll just offshore the carbon and they will continue ripping down the Amazon rainforest."

Countryside Online say that in 2017 there were 35,000 agri-environmental schemes happening with farmers in England, all helping to protect the environment and enhance biodiversity. 

The dairy industry has produced a Dairy Roadmap for 2020 - 2025, setting environmental targets, such as around fertiliser use and hedgerow protections. They claim that GHG emissions from the UK dairy industry have been reduced by 24% since 1990, and that most farmers now undertake nutrient and manure management programmes to minimise water pollution.

The Royal Society for the encouraging of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce (RSA) Food, Farming & Countryside Commission has a report out that says farming and food systems must be sustainable by 2030 to help with tackling climate change and meeting government targets.

They say meat must come from 'sustainable livestock', and reflect the NFU claim, that farmers could make these big changes over the next decade if they are given the right backing. 

One example would be agro-forestry, where trees are mixed with crop and grazing fields. One farmer engaged in this practice, Ben Raskin, says, "There's a lot of evidence that if an animal is sheltered it's more productive - so its' spending less energy keeping its core warm so it can put more energy into producing milk or putting on weight, which is good, obviously, for production on the farm."

The Wrap:
So, what we see is a need to strike a balance between the need for sustainability and putting in place measures to help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change; whilst simultaneously dealing with the ever growing demand for cheap (or at least reasonably priced) food.

As with other industries facing the climate change conundrum, it will be a mix of innovation, legislation and willing participation that will lead to UK farming successfully reaching their targets (or otherwise).

Research:
'Out to pasture?' Transform magazine - November 2019
https://www.countrysideonline.co.uk/food-and-farming/protecting-the-environment/how-are-british-farmers-helping-to-tackle-climate-change/ 
https://news.sky.com/story/make-uk-farming-sustainable-to-help-save-the-planet-report-11763956 

Will we see the wood for the trees?

Following on from a recent election based post - I was wondering if some of the, frankly massive, tree planting pledges being put forward by the various parties in the run up to the general election, are particularly realistic to achieve?

But first, let us go back a few years to see where the land lay....

The last pledge:

The government's last pledge on tree planting was 11 million trees a year in England. In 2016, Stuart Goodall, Chief Executive of the UK forestry industry body Confor, told the Environmental, Forestry & Rural Affairs committee in Westminster, that this target was most certainly achievable, but not with the current grant system in place at the time.

The target represented a shift in England to get from 10% tree cover, up to around 12% by 2060 - that is about 50,000 hectares a year. Goodall pointed out that the grant system was "overly complex and bureaucratic." It was felt that there had been a steady disconnect between policy and the realities of the timber industry over the previous 20 years.

Confor pointed to a number of new options that would be needed to get things going again. This would include ideas like productive mixed forestry being introduced in some areas of northern England where farmers were under pressure, and so something like this may be of interest. They also pointed to the out of date view of conifer planting being 'demonised' - without it, the timber industry would be facing major issues with sourcing supplies by the mid 2030's.

Then there was also a need for more experience in dealing with large scale schemes from the Forestry Commission and other such bodies, as many of them had not had to deal with such applications in many years. Sir William Worsley, Chairman of the National Forest for the East Midlands, said, "To look at hardwoods as being attractive and softwoods as unattractive and commercial is the wrong way to look at it. Well managed commercial forestry can be very beautiful."

The big pledges!

So since the last government targets were set, things have moved on at pace. Climate change is now front and centre on the agenda, in fact for some groups it will be the second or third most thing on their minds when voting this month.

The legislation in June of this year, making net-zero carbon emissions a legal commitment for the UK by 2050, meant that people (including those in power) suddenly had to give some thought on how to achieve this rather daunting target!

Step forward the humble tree! A thing of great beauty and of great importance for many ecosystems - now realised as a potential lifeline for achieving carbon emission reductions, through their ability to sequester CO2.

Oak Tree (photo: Wikimedia)

• Conservatives: pledging 30 million trees a year
• Lib Dems and SNP: both pledging to plant 60m a year
• Greens: they have gone for a pledge of 70m a year
• Labour: reckon they can plant 100m a year for the next 20 years. That's 2 billion more trees!

Now, there are some other issues around planting this number of trees, like can we provide enough nursery stock of suitable native trees to meet any of these demands? And where are such numbers going to be planted? Many sparsely populated areas, like say northern Scotland, actually don't necessarily need huge numbers of trees - northern Scotland would actually largely benefit from protecting and enhancing its peat bogs (another great CO2 sequesterer).

But lets just concentrate on the sheer numbers and not some of these other technicalities, that will have to be covered in great depth in the next few years, as one of these parties is actually going to have to try and enact what it has promised........ (or not)

The Labour party pledge represents planting a quarter of a million trees every day!

To put that in perspective, in the year to March 2019, 13,400ha was planted in the UK (11,200 of that was in Scotland). But there is some historic precedent of sorts, as in the 1980s we did manage to plant at a rate of around 30,000ha a year.

Depending on tree species, habitat, terrain etc., you can plant between 1,000 and 2,500 trees per hectare, so taking a reasonable average, that means 30,000ha would be covered by around 50 million trees.

The Woodland Trust say that things need to change fundamentally for large-scale planting to happen;

• More people need to get involved in planting - at national and local level, and in statutory bodies
• There needs to be a big boost in tree stocks
• There needs to be more money / grants for farmers and landowners to encourage them to plant trees
• Natural reforestation must be encouraged alongside planting

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has stated in its guidance that the UK needs a net gain of 32,000ha of trees per year for 30 years to help hit the net-zero emissions target by 2050. That is 1.5 billion trees. That would see the overall tree coverage for the UK going from 13% to 17% in that time - but that compares with an EU average of 35% tree cover.

Confor has analysed the tree planting pledges of the main parties - here is a little of what it has said on the four main national parties; 

Conifer forest (photo: Wikimedia)

• Conservatives: they need to do much more to meet the targets. It points out that they failed to reach the last, much more modest target, of 11m trees a year over 5 years.
• Labour: they need big leadership commitments to make any progress on such a target. Confor likes the recognition Labour have given to what the forestry / timber industries can do to help meet their green jobs pledge.
• Lib Dems: their targets are in line with what Confor have been suggesting is needed, but Confor say that their processes will need to be much improved. They also like the commitment to use more timber in house construction. Their position could be interesting if they end up holding a balance of power after the election.
• Greens: their targets, like the Lib Dems, line up with Confor ambitions, and will need similar overhaul of current processes. They also like their emphasis on integration between farming and forestry.

Research:

https://www.confor.org.uk/news/latest-news/ge2019-tree-planting-pledges-analysed/ 

http://www.confor.org.uk/news/latest-news/planting-targets-achievable-but-grant-system-not-fit-for-purpose/ 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50591261 

Will climate change be on the agenda at this election?

With the release today of the Green Party manifesto, it seems fitting to ponder whether climate change, and the environment in general, will feature heavily in the general election chat?

Climate change has leapt to the fore this year with Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion becoming household names around the world.

The other main UK parties all touch on climate and environment to varying degrees, but this is obviously the Green's main subject area - so what are their key proposals?

Not Now, When?

Is the name of their manifesto, by the way.... The headline pledge is that of making the UK net zero for carbon emissions by 2030 - something that is way ahead of the Liberal Democrats (LD), who call for it to happen by 2045, and the Tories who enacted the recent legislation for this to happen by 2050 (on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change [CCC]).

To get to this, the Green's say that they will spend £100bn a year on it for a decade. All petrol and diesel vehicles will be phased out by 2030; gas boilers switched out (to hydrogen maybe?); home insulation will be improved and all carbon emissions avoided or sequestered in rocks and trees.

They argue that with low interest rates on government borrowing at the moment, this creates "an unparalleled opportunity for public investment" to tackle the issue. There will be a carbon tax on the extraction of oil and gas, and more taxes on fuels, raising the prices for the consumer. The focus will be on creating new jobs in the clean and green industries, which will mean other industries would certainly face losses.

What else?

The manifesto also pledges an extra £6bn a year to 2030 for the NHS, with an additional £1bn a year for nursing higher education, and a reduction in private sector involvement in the health service.

They pledge to plant 700m trees by 2030, way ahead of both LD at 60m a year, and the Tories at 30m a year. They will also encourage farmers to adopt greener practices, anticipating that eventually 50% of agriculture will be agro-forestry (where food crops are planted between trees) inside a decade - something which perhaps surprisingly, farmer's unions say is not impossible.

There will be a scrapping of tuition fees. A basic income of £89 per person will be introduced, with extra for families and pensioners. Free personal care will be offered in the home to the over 65's.

With home energy efficiency currently averaging D on the EPC ratings, they will be looking at a 'deep retro-fitting' programme to improve that. In 2018, only 0.22% of registered properties reached an A on the EPC scale.

There will be a ban on single-use plastics, and an extension to the bag tax to include plastic bottles, single-use plastics and microplastics.

Climate Change and the election

While Brexit, and also the health service, will tend to dominate the election campaign this time around, will climate change and the environment muster very high on the agenda?

It is the single most important issue of this, or indeed any recent, generation (yes, even more than Brexit) - so it really needs to be front and centre of each debate. What the parties end up pledging and doing on this front is of vital importance to us in Britain, and elsewhere around the globe (especially if we are still the global player we say we are).

YouGov has tracked views on the environment for a decade or so, and it has generally tracked very low in terms of its importance to voters. When the bad storms hit in the winter of 2013-14, this level spiked, but soon returned to normal.

But this year there has been a more fundamental change. Pollster, Chris Curtis, says that 27% of people now have the topic in their top3 issues, along with Brexit and healthcare. Meanwhile, 45% of 18 - 24 year olds rank it as second most important! Therefore, one can argue that the topic will indeed be crucial in the run up to the election next month.

Extinction Rebellion upset some people and inspired others - but either way, undoubtedly furthered the debate. Greta Thunberg and the school strikes have caught the imagination of schoolchildren around the globe. Their more dramatic actions have actually forced changes - after years of people politely waving placards and camping outside in protest over things, this more direct approach, whilst ruffling more than a few feathers, has actually garnered results! Legislation has been enacted, and politicians and businesses are having to take this much more seriously than ever before.

The issue will not go away, as it will be on our minds on an ever increasing basis. We have had the Australian wildfires and the floods in northern England in the last week. 2019 has seen record breaking heatwaves in places, and rising temperatures are not a future issue, it is one we are already witnessing. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and 18 of the 19 hottest years have been during this century (we are only 2019)! The one exception? 1998 - just 2 years outside this century. It doesn't take a rocket (or indeed climate) scientist to see how this is going.....

What are the others saying?

Well it's too early to say much - remember the Green's were the first with their manifesto. The Tories have announced a ban on fracking, but this may be more of a well-timed pause!? They also point to their net-zero carbon commitment, with the UK being the first major economy to stake such an objective. Opposition parties want the achievement to happen sooner though. 

Labour have a Warm Homes plan, which will see 27m homes insulated, along with help for solar panels and heat pumps.

Labour, LD, Green's and SNP have all called for a live climate change debate as part of the election build-up - but as yet this has not been confirmed.

Whatever end date you set as a target, radical change is needed, as is heavy investment over the next decade. With the next climate conference (CoP26) happening in Glasgow next year - the eyes of the world will be on the UK, so it will be ever more important that whichever party (or parties) end up in control next month, take this subject very seriously.

Research:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50464641

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304

Apocalypse now?

Okay, so that title may seem a little dramatic, but the events unfolding across the globe in recent days, weeks and months, do seem to be pointing to a very concerning and troubled period for our precious planet (and that may well be an understatement).

We have seen perhaps unprecedented levels of wildfires in the Arctic this summer, there were wildfires in England even in February and not forgetting wildfires in California in the last few weeks.

Australia - 'catastrophic'!
But now we have wildfires in Australia that are being termed 'catastrophic', with fires said to be threatening Sydney itself potentially by Tuesday of this week. Temperatures are expected to reach 37°C by then, with strong winds fanning the flames, and this could well intensify what has already been one hell of a few months for New South Wales (NSW).

Hundred's of bush fires have been raging in the state for the last two months following a period of extended drought. Even some torrential rain storms last week (which had the poor, beleaguered farmers out celebrating for a while) were not enough to properly dampen the fires. There are now more than a hundred burning across NSW and Queensland, with at least three people dead so far, and thousands more displaced from their homes.

Fire rages in Bobin, north of Sydney, this weekend
 (photo: AFP)

The fires have spread across 1,000km (620 miles) of the eastern coast of Australia, and Sydney has spent days shrouded in smoke from fires burning up at Port Macquerie. By Friday, the Rural Fire Service Commissioner, Shane Fitzsimmons, said they were in 'uncharted territory', with 17 emergency level fires going, a number they say that they have never seen blazing concurrently.

But what really broke the devastation and despair around this situation home to me, was when Fitzsimmons said that they "will save as many people as possible." Not even an appearance of pretending that all will be well at the end of the day! There are already around 1,300 firefighters working tirelessly to try and stem these fires, with the help of around 70 aircraft. But getting water to some of the remoter areas, and even just getting water (it has been an awful drought, don't forget), has been a tough challenge. Additional firefighters have come over from New Zealand to try and give local crews some respite, and Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has not ruled out sending in the military to help.

Scientists are firmly putting this series of events at the door of climate change, saying that the Australian bush fire season is only going to get increasingly longer and more intense, all because of climate change. 2018 and 2017 were the third and fourth hottest Australian years on record, respectively. Morrison has been getting some stick over Australia's poor governmental track record on combating climate change (he is a good buddy of Trump don't forget - with a shared love of the coal industry), but he has been deflecting this by saying now is not the time for politics.

He may not be able to use this excuse for long, as Australians start to adjust to these potentially ever worsening periods of fire, and it seems that the farmers of NSW may become unlikely climate change warriors.

South Yorkshire
At the same time as eastern (and some western parts) Australia fights the ravages of drought and all that brings, large parts of northern England, and especially South Yorkshire, are fighting the effects of intense rainfall.

The last week or so has seen some prolific amounts of rainfall, with a months worth of rain falling in a day in some places. As of Sunday evening, there are almost 50 flood warning in place across England! Seven of these are listed as Severe (that is that they pose a threat to life) on the River Don alone, and the Environment Agency (EA) has posted a further 40 Warnings (flooding is expected) and 93 Alerts elsewhere.

Doncaster Council has been calling for the village of Fishlake to be evacuated, with many residents already being brought out by boat, but more still remaining and taking their chances. The situation there has led to renewed calls that the river (Don) needs to be dredged to help alleviate future issues.

Worksop has declared a 'major incident' after the River Ryton burst its banks. Derby city centre was almost evacuated too, after the river there reached unprecedented levels of 3.35m (11ft). Bentley, on the northern edge of Doncaster has been badly hit by flooding, and this follows it being swamped in floods 12 years ago too.

There is much pain and anger in places like this. People worry if they will be able to afford home insurance anymore (premiums went up after the events 12 years ago), or if they will even be able to get insurance. There was also anger and frustration directed at Doncaster Council, as many residents felt that they did not get protective sandbags issued quickly enough.

Shoppers rescued from the floods near
Parkgate Shopping Centre, Rotherham
(photo: South Yorkshire Police)

And while the chaos is not limited to this area, it does seem to have borne the brunt. There has been much disruption to Northern Rail services in the area and some road closures. Dozens were trapped in the Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield Thursday night after many city centre streets flooded leaving buses, cars and taxis unable to get through. Parkgate shopping centre in Rotherham also required boats to get some of its shoppers out, the other day.

South Yorkshire Fire Service have had to bring in five extra high volume pumps and five boat crews from elsewhere in the country to help deal with the demands they are facing.

The end result is the same...
While both of these events are vastly different in nature, the end results are often the same. In both cases people have tragically died, homes are being lost and businesses ruined. The costs to deal with these events, both during and in the aftermath, are staggering, as is the impact and negative effects on the local, regional and often national economies! 

Both events have strong links to climate change effects, and it seems this will happen again and again until we (and especially politicians) wake up to the facts. 

Money and effort has to be spent on measures to combat CO2 emissions, to try and prevent the warming scenarios associated with 1.5 - 2°C average temperature rises. This will help lessen the future likelihood of such events getting worse. 

Then there must also be money spent on preparation and mitigation to try and preempt what will happen as such events become more frequent / more intense (resolving issues around land use, flood defences, water usage etc.). This will mean that businesses, individuals, councils and governments have to change their mindset on what they do and how they do it - but if changes are not made, then the effects of such events will become more devastating to life, home and business.

Research:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50365131 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50341207
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50365468
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50341846

Is tourism sustainable?

Having just got back from a few days away in Cornwall, it got me thinking about the whole issue of tourism and whether or not it can ever be sustainable?

Sustainabletourism.net says that;

“Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building. Achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts, introducing the necessary preventive and/or corrective measures whenever necessary.

Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience to the tourists, raising their awareness about sustainability issues and promoting sustainable tourism practices amongst them.”

The conundrum for me is all around getting the balance right. At its heart, sustainability relies on the balance between the three core principles of environment, social aspects and finance; and tourism is a great topic area to highlight the potential issues with getting it right.

Many people overlook the financial aspect of sustainability. Whether you look at this as an individual, an organisation or a region or country - if you do not make yourselves financially viable, then the rest of the stuff is irrelevant!

So tourism is a great way to generate income, especially if you have a saleable tourist commodity - in Cornwall's case, there is landscape, ocean and history in abundance to draw people in. Cornwall is around 3,500km2 in size, with a population a little over half a million, and tourism accounts for around 24% of its income (2011 figures of £1.85bn).

This relates to tourism numbers of around 4.5 million visitors a year, yet successful marketing campaigns and an extra warm summer in 2018, saw those numbers jump by 20%. Is that kind of surge in numbers sustainable - especially in such a relatively small space (for American readers, Cornwall is around 500km2 smaller than Rhode Island, which is the smallest state in the US)? Well last year's rise in numbers seems to have caused an increase in safety and travel issues.

So we come back to the balance question. Bringing in more tourists, brings in more money, so that is the sustainable finance box ticked. But what about the potential impacts on the environment?

• Water: tourism can impact on local water resources - hotel pools, golf courses etc.
• Sewage: increased numbers can often put a strain on local sewage and water treatment facilities.
• Pollution: more tourism often leads to more traffic etc. which means more noise and air pollution.
• Littering: more people unfortunately generally leads to more litter.
• Aesthetics: the impacts of more people in an area, new buildings constructed to meet their needs, and the building sites themselves.
• Physical degradation impacts on coasts, forests, reefs and so on, both from trampling of tourist feet and being removed to make way for tourist facilities.

So there are big questions around whether the environmental sustainability boxes get ticked. This area will provide big headaches to local governments, businesses and organisations (like the National Trust) to get right. Ultimately, if the environment gets too degraded, then it become a less 'saleable' asset, so it should be in everyone's interest to keep it looking as nice as possible.

What about the social sustainability aspect? Well. going back to the Cornish example, despite all of this tourist revenue, and despite an unemployment rate of around 3.6% (below the national average of 4.5%), Cornwall is still considered one of the poorer counties in the UK, with a low average household income and a GDP only at 64% (2011) of the EU average. Things like expensive second homes have really made a negative impact here.

Another general social impact of tourism is the sheer disruption that it can cause - the clogged streets, overcrowded cafes and shops, and so on, can have a very detrimental affect on local people - and despite the financial benefits, it is often they who put the pressure on governments and businesses to address these issues. How often I have been to a beautiful place and thought, 'I could really live here', and then reconsidered when I have thought about whether I want a thousand extra people walking past my doorstep every day for over half the year......

Solutions?

Solutions are needed to get to this balance (especially on environmental impacts) and can be varied in scale and severity. Limiting the number of cruise ships docking, time limits on apartment rentals and charges (or increased charges) for attractions have all been used, or are being considered, in various places. And in parts of Asia, whole islands have been closed to allow for recovery (e.g. Borocay in the Philippines), and Iceland have banned construction permits for new hotels in Reykjavik. The traveller is also obviously part of the solution too - being considerate wherever you go, and where possible, trying to live a bit more of the local lifestyle, rather than just staying in the tourist bubble of hotel, pool, beach (getting a little off the tourist trail will also often help get money more directly into the pockets of local people).

Research:

https://sustainabletourism.net/sustainable-tourism/definitions/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall

https://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/envi/one.html

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/unemployment-levels-cornwall-increase-even-2006015
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/features/overtourism-how-to-make-global-tourism-sustainable/

Europe's fight with illegal logging: Romania on the frontline

Liviu Pop, is a recent victim of a war that pretty much no one seems to know about.

When we think of illegal logging, we tend to think of the Amazon or maybe southeast Asia, but perhaps not eastern Europe. But Romania contains almost half of Europe's remaining old growth and primeval forest, a vital ecosystem housing bears, wolves, lynx and wildcats.

Boreal Forest in Romania (photo: Wikimedia)

Rangers paying the price:

But it is under threat. The threat comes from illegal loggers who will resort to extreme violence to protect their shady business. The wood they take, ends up around Europe in paper, furniture and the like. Greenpeace Romania estimate that 3 hectares of forest cover is lost every hour in the country from degradation and illegal logging, as well as permitted work.

Pop was a Forest Ranger in the Maramures district of northern Romania, and last week while on duty, he disappeared from contact with his colleagues. Increasingly worried about his whereabouts, his body was found last Wednesday evening in a forest gorge. He had been shot with a hunting rifle - which may have been his own weapon.

A little more than a month earlier, Raducu Garciaia, a Ranger in the Pascani forest district in the northeast of the country, was found near his car with fatal injuries, possibly from an axe. Gabriel Paun, the head of environmental group Agent Green, has been attacked by forestry gangs on several occasions. One time, around four years ago, Paun was attacked in Retezat National Park, and suffered broken ribs and hand, and a cracked skull. His attackers have only just gone to trial.

Romsilva, the state owned forestry company, say they have counted 16 attacks this year alone. Silviu Geana, the head of the Silva Trade Union Federation, says that Rangers are unable to defend themselves, and six Rangers have dies in recent years.

In September 2019, NGO's including Agent Green, ClientEarth and EuroNatr, filed a complaint with the European Commission against the Romanian government for illegal logging practices, which they say contravene EU laws on nature conservation. The government says it has boosted the fight against such logging, with better inspection and monitoring introduced, although the EU say big challenges remain ahead.

The scale of Romania's forests:
There is no reliable inventory of the unique areas of wilderness and forest in Romania; and there is no adequate systems in place to protect such areas either. A 2005 survey by Dutch scientists did complete an inventory and mapping exercise, but it seems it contained many errors and omissions.

More was done in 2016 with a new government catalogue was created, with criteria for identifying virgin and quasi-virgin forest. Numerous studies have been handed in by Agent Green, Greenpeace and WWF, but only a few of them have been accepted - leading to complaints that the authorities are stalling, and that the government is under pressure from logging companies to ensure such areas are not designated.

These old forests used to be locally managed for firewood, crafts and housebuilding; but years of state backed lax regulation and corruption led to this being eroded. The giveaway was when factory processing of timber was far outstripping the legal timber cutting quotas. Locals started to sell their forest stakes to the big buyers, perhaps under pressure, and the old forests were becoming more easily broken up.

Environmental fight back?
Environmentalists have started to fight back, by trying to expose the unsustainability of the practices going on. There is now a Forest Inspector website, that makes transportation data available, and people can now report shipments they suspect might be illegal. 

But the corruption still largely remains, and there is a fear of reprisals for anyone thinking about speaking out.

In September 2017, a truck leaving the Fagaras mountains was stopped by activists. A subsequent investigation found that over-cutting in the area has been at a staggering 4,100 percent!

The World Heritage Commission recently recognised 24,000 hectares of beech forests as having "outstanding universal value." But activists have identified logging in buffer zones of several World Heritage areas, such as in Domogled National Park and Sinca Woods.

Sarmisegetuza Regia (photo: Wikimedia)

Sarmisegetuza Regia is the site of the ancient Dacian capital, and contains a ruined citadel over 2,000 years old - known as 'Romania's Macchu Pichu'. Nature and culture are bound together here - and at times quite literally - as the roots from trees surrounding the fortress help bind and stabilise the soil. Yet the government approved the cutting down of 100 trees, and the big logging tractors sent in to do the job caused irreparable damage. Once drone footage showed that many of these trees were well away from tourist trails (one key defence had been to remove dying trees for health and safety purposes), and this started to cause a stir among the Romanian public.

While much attention has been given to the horrific destruction going on in the Amazon's forests over the last few decades, the end result still seems to be largely unchanged - acre after acre of forest continues to disappear. But if the action has moved to our own (relative) back door - perhaps the activists of Europe will be joined by the rest of the public, and can make some noise and force some changes? To do that, there needs to be awareness - so spread the word please.......

Research:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50094830 
https://theecologist.org/2018/mar/07/protecting-romanias-primeval-forests 

The plastic we eat!

The humble lugworm may not figure in our thinking very often - but to researchers of microplastics, it can be a very illuminating species.

Lugworm (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Researchers from Royal Holloway (University of London) find them as they do their research on the coasts and islands of Scotland. Lugworms ingest anything they come across, including plastic, as they go along swallowing sand. And this ingested microplastic (anything less than 5mm long) gets passed up the food chain into birds and fish.

There are many unanswered questions around what impacts microplastics have, but these researchers are looking at how plastic is getting into the marine ecosystem. They are analysing the types of plastic polymer they are finding in the washed up plastic they find in Scotland, to try and guess where it might be coming from.

Microplastic is now considered to be one of the most widespread contaminants in the world, being found everywhere from deep oceans and in whale stomachs, to arctic regions. 

The Plastic Age?

Following on from the Bronze and Iron Ages, might we be entering the Plastic Age? Is this what our phase of civilisation will be remembered for?

Dr Jennifer Brandon, from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UC San Diego, is studying sedimentary rocks off the Californian coast. "I found this exponential increase in microplastics being left behind in our sediment record.... The plastic we're using is getting out into the ocean and we're leaving it behind in our fossil record."

(photo: ecomagazine.com)

This is incredible to think about - that centuries down the line, this (plastic) will be used by future geologists and archaeologists, as our geological marker!

Plastic in the wilderness:

Airborne microplastics have been found in the Pyrenees mountains (on the French / Spanish border), an area previously considered to be pristine wilderness. Researchers from Strathclyde and Toulouse Universities estimate that an average of 365 plastic pieces per m2, per day, are winding up in the Pyrenees - and some of them may be travelling up to 60 miles to get there!

Plastic in animals:

So if microplastic particles are being ingested by plankton and coral polyps; how much bio-accumulation (the gradual accumulation of substances in an organism) is going on by the time you go up the food chain to the larger fish species? If you buy a nice piece of fish, like a tuna steak, how much plastic has made its way into that animal?

University of Exeter and Plymouth Marine Laboratories examined 50 animals from 10 species of dolphin, seal and whale, and found that they all had microplastics in their gut. 84% of these were synthetic fibres, and the rest were fragments of food packaging and plastic bottles.

Lead researcher, Sarah Nelms, said, "The number of particles in each animal was relatively low suggesting they eventually pass through the digestive system or are regurgitated."

How does it affect us?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) released a report in August this year, which basically says that there is no conclusive proof that plastic particles found in tap and bottled water pose any type of health hazard to humans - but - more studies are needed.

They found that larger, and most smaller, particles pass through the human body without being absorbed. But they admit that this is based on limited information, as research has only begun in recent years, and also that there is no standardisation to tests being used. So that means that there is no risk, 'at current levels.'

WHO say that proper water treatment processes remove at least 90% of microplastics, and that water companies should focus on the known risks; so in the short-term that means faecal matter, as this is responsible for at least one million deaths each year.

We'll leave the last word to Dr Brandon, "We know that there's a lot of microplastic and we keep finding it everywhere we look for it. But the implications of the health effects of it and how it really affects animals and humans, we're only just starting to scratch the surface of those questions."

Research:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49798057 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47947235
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-47078733
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49430038

Is Ryanair really so green?

I stumbled on a story recently, from earlier this summer, where Ryanair has claimed to be the greenest airline in Europe.

(Wikipedia)

They say that their latest carbon figures show that they are emitting an average of 66g CO2 per passenger, per km flown. This is down from 82g ten years ago, and they have promised it will be down close to 60g per passenger by 2030. According to their figures, this compares to Lufthansa's (Europe's biggest aviation group after Ryanair) rate of 120g, and 110-119g posted by Turkish Airlines and IAG (owners of Aer Lingus and British Airways) - while budget rivals EasyJet, are at around 70-79g.

The 66g figure comes from 14.2 million passengers carried a total of 17,789m km, emitting around 1,167kt (kiloton) of carbon emissions. They point to an average family car emitting 248g/km and the EU target of 130g/km - both helping the claim that they are the cleanest airline in Europe. They point to their high load factors (seats sold) of 96%, as compared to the 80-85% rates posted by most other major airlines; and also that they have one of the youngest airline fleets in the sector (thy are all 737's with an average age of 6.5 years).

Ryanair say that they pay their environmental taxes to dispel the myth that the aviation does not pay such debts. Chief Marketing Officer, Kenny Jacobs, says, "[66g is] almost half the rate of other flag carrier European airlines..... Ryanair paid over €540m in environmental taxes in 2018 and will pay over €630m in 2019. This equates to €4.12 per passenger, which is 11% of Ryanair's average air fare."

New Boeing 737 MAX200 (Wikipedia)

They are now investing $20bn in their fleet, with 210 all new Boeing 737 "gamechanger" (Max200) on order, that will replace existing 737-800 models. The new aircraft will carry 4% more passengers, whilst burning 16% less fuel, 20% less CO2 and 40% less noise emissions. 

That 2% of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions come from flying, does not seem to be disputed. Aviation emissions have risen by 26.3% in the last five years in 2018 it increased by 3.9% year on year - at a time when all other industries in the Emissions Trading Scheme have dropped by 4.1%.

Jacobs says the solution is not with the airlines - "If Brussels wants to reduce CO2 by 5% in the next 12 months they just need to regulate air traffic control instead of leaving it to member states." This, they say, is because disruption caused by air traffic shortages and strikes causes aircraft to have to take longer routes, meaning they burn up to 20% more fuel.

Ryanair hits the Top Ten!

But these claims came soon after, in April, they hit the European Top Ten - for the worst emitters! This is an unwanted hit - until now, this had been the exclusive domain of coal plants. Ryanair's carbon emissions went up by 6.9% in 2018, and have in fact gone up 49% overall since 2013. Now of course, absolute emissions rates will almost always punish organisations that grow - which is why Ryanair, as most other companies, use normalised data (i.e. they divide the emissions by a normalising factor - usually turnover, but in this case in a per passenger way).

A study of small European airports by Transport & Environment, claims that the EU has effectively allowed Ryanair's carbon emissions to keep on rising, and has also subsidised many of the failing small airports across Europe. This, they say, is facilitating the rise in emissions. They say there is documented evidence that 35 such airports are receiving subsidies, and 17 deal with fewer than 500,000 passengers per year (the conservative estimate for profitability). Paris Vatry, for example, had only 108,000 passengers in 2017, and received €3m in subsidies. (Full report can be found here).

Andrew Murphy of Transport & Environment, says, "With governments struggling to rein in the sector's climate impact, the first step should be calling a halt to subsidies which are adding more fuel to the fire.... Ending state aid is a start but we also need to end aviation's tax holiday and encourage the uptake of zero emissions aviation fuels."

So - are Ryanair's claims nothing but greenwash - or are they unfairly picked on for being a healthy and expanding company? What is true, is that the whole sector, from governments and industry bodies, through to the airlines, aircraft manufacturers and airport operators, all need to play a part in this. We still fly (and more than ever) - and this trend is unlikely to be bucked anytime soon; so what else can be done across the board to remedy this major issue?

Research:

https://ukaviation.news/ryanair-cuts-co2-emissions-to-just-66g-per-passenger/ 

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/ryanair-pollution-eu-top-10-polluters-list-first-airline-carbon-emissions-504373 

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/ryanair-claims-it-is-greenest-airline-in-europe-on-emissions-1.3914840 

http://bright-green.org/2019/07/21/the-eu-is-subsidising-ryanairs-carbon-emissions/ 

Losing the conker fight?

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUNC) has been doing the research to update its Red List for endangered species, which gives us a picture of biodiversity health.

The research brought together over 150 experts from across Europe to contribute to the project, which was funded by organisations like the European Council, British Entomological Society and National Parks & Wildlife Service Ireland, as well as individual nations like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Netherlands.

One of the headlines of the 2019 update in the UK, published this month, is that the iconic horse chestnut tree is now one of many species on the vulnerable list, as moths and disease take their toll.

Horse Chestnut (photo: Wikipedia)

The IUCN have assessed 454 native tree species across Europe to gauge them for a risk of extinction, and found that 42% of them face being lost completely (rated as - Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered). The rate is at 58% for endemic species - that is, species that are only found in a specific area; 15% of endemic species (66) are at the Critically Endangered end of the list.

As well as our beloved conker tree, around three-quarters of the 170 or so members of the family that includes Rowan (Sorbus), are assessed as being threatened, and especially Mountain Ash (Sorbus aucuparia) and Crimean Rowan (Sorbus tauricola).

Going back to the conker (Aesculus hippocastanum); listed as being Vulnerable, it has suffered at the hands (or mouths) of the leaf-miner moth. This is an invasive species found in isolated and mountainous parts of Europe like the Balkans. The moth has added to the existing pressure of logging, forest fires and tourism pressure.

"Trees are essential for life on Earth and European trees in all their diversity are a source of food and shelter for countless animal species such as birds and squirrels, and play a key economic role," says Craig Hilton-Taylor, the head of the IUCN Red List Unit.

What's to blame?
There are a wide range of threats and reasons that are causing the danger to these trees (and other species), which include some, or all, of the following;

• Pest and disease
• Competition from invasive species
• Deforestation - and unsustainable logging practices
• Climate change
• Agricultural practices

Dr Steven Bachman, at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew, says, "The results reveal a disturbingly high level of extinction risk that requires urgent and effective conservation action at all levels."

What else is at risk?
The new research has also found that almost half of European shrub species are in trouble, as are a fifth of terrestrial molluscs (snails etc.) and bryophytes (things like mosses and liverworts). Mike Seddon, the Chief Executive for Forestry England, says that the climate crisis is posing a real threat to our woodlands. "Our efforts to have resilient forests include planting a greater variety of trees, including native species only grown in the UK."

Terrestrial molluscs play a key role in soil regeneration, and are seen as a good indicator of soil health. They also provide a vital source of food for birds and mammals. 90% of native European  mollusc species are also endemic, so it is worrying that 22% of the 2,469 species are at risk.

"The impact of human-led activities is resulting in population declines and a heightened risk of extinction of important species across Europe. This report has shown how dire the situation is for many overlooked, undervalued species that form the backbone of Europe's ecosystems and contribute to a healthy planet. We need to mitigate human impact on our ecosystems and prioritise the protection of these species."

Luc Bas - Director of IUCN European Regional Office

Research:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49838650 
https://www.iucn.org/news/species/201909/over-half-europes-endemic-trees-face-extinction 

Greta Thunberg speaks to the UN

I am doing two posts in one night for a change. That is because Greta Thunberg's speech to the United Nations yesterday cannot, and must not, be ignored - in fact it should be spread until everyone has read it.

The fact that so many, mostly older, mostly middle aged and mostly white, men and women get so angry about her making these speeches and pointing out pesky facts, paints a picture. It is not a nice picture - an ugly self-portrait of these shallow, selfish idiots.

Most of those we see dismissing, or worse, being outright rude to Thunberg, are generally well off individuals; people like the orange buffoon Trump, and his new sidekick (no not Boris) - Scott Morrison, the 'Liberal' (there must be a different meaning for this down there) Prime Minister of Australia - who is another one with a love affair for coal and other fossil fuels, despite the fact that his nation would seem ripe for exploiting solar power instead.

These critics don't have to be concerned about their own future; changes from climate will not affect them much in their lifetimes; and they are mostly old enough that it might not dramatically affect their children's lifetimes. 

But their grandchildren? Well their grandchildren, and my children too - are being set up to inherit a planet that is quite literally fucked (excuse me)! Screwed over by too many Trump's and Morrison's and Koch brothers, and all that ilk - who have never seen beyond the greed of their fat wallets, to look into the future and see what awaits their descendants. They are simply too selfish to care.

Great nailed it yesterday. They know she is right. They feel threatened by her and all the activists, but somehow it is the younger ones that they really go for - apparently being young and articulate means you have been brainwashed - so they condemn and they patronise.

So here it is. What she said is so angry, forthright and damn moving, it should make a difference. I hope it makes a difference. But with stone cold selfish idiots in positions of power - I worry that it won't make a difference.

My message is that we'll be watching you?

This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school, on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! 

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying.Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

For more than 30 years the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away, and come here saying that you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees (Celsius) and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. 

So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us – we who have to live with the consequences.

To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just "business as usual" and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than eight and a half years.

There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. 

We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not. 

Thank you. (Greta Thunberg, 23 September 2019)

If you read that unmoved, then you have a heart of stone - and you are no friend of mine.

Transcipt from - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/09/23/greta-thunberg-tells-un-summit-youth-not-forgive-climate-inaction/2421335001/