Murky waters for our Coral Reefs

Coral reefs only take up around 0.1% of the world's oceans, but account for about one third of all marine biodiversity. And they are under severe threat....

The most iconic reef of them all must be the Great Barrier Reef. This incredible structure is 2,300km long and sites off of the east coast of Australia, and has been a World Heritage Site since 1981. Australian law dictates that the managing Park must submit a report on its condition every 5 years. This year has seen its status officially downgraded from 'poor' to 'very poor' as a result of climate change.

Human aided global warming has caused sea temperatures to rise, putting stress on the reef, and now UNESCO are considering adding it to their 'in danger' list of sites.

• The 2009 report found the Barrier Reef at a "crossroads between a positive, well-managed future and a less certain one."
• By 2014 it was being seen as an "icon under pressure."
• The 2019 edition is even less rosy, saying that the Barrier Reef is, "changed and less resilient."

  

  Flynn Reef, Great Barrier - quite likely to have been hard hit in the bleaching events of 2016-17
  (photo: commons.wikimedia)

Mass bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 really took their toll - in fact estimates show that between 30 and 50% of all coral was lost in those two years! The current report states clearly that, "the window of opportunity to improve the Reef's long-term future is now." It found that new coral populations had crashed by 89% along a 1,500km stretch (around two-thirds) from the effects of these bleaching events.

Despite Australia pledging A$500m to help with protection measures for the reef in 2018, Imogen Zethoven, Director of Strategy at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, says that more is needed from the country's leaders - "saving it means being a leader here and internationally to bring greenhouse (GHG) emissions down."

What is coral bleaching?

Bleaching occurs when sea temperatures rise, causing coral polyps to expel the vital symbiotic algae living in its tissues. When this algae is gone, the tissues start to die and the vibrant colours disappear, and get so brittle that bits break off from the coral skeleton. This can be so severe that scientists refer to this as 'Ghost Coral', because there is almost nothing left of it.

Bleached coral (photo: theconservation.com)

Situation globally:

A report released in Science Magazine in January 2018 (T.P. Hughes et al), reflected on studies of 100 coral reefs globally, between 1980 and 2016.

They discovered that these bleaching events had only occurred once every 25-30 years up to the early 1980's, but by now could be expected, on average, once every 6 years. And more than that, bleaching events used to only be a very local scale, measured in tens of kilometre's, and generally caused by local stress factors like sedimentation. They could then see these regional scale bleaching events occur in the growth bands of old coral - they particularly noted the Mesoamerican reef in the Caribbean, which developed stress bands along a 400km stretch after some particularly hot conditions.

Coral and climate change:

Recent studies have shown that after a heat event, big sea temperature rises are decaying reefs at a much quicker rate than previously thought. These events can weaken the coral by up to 15%, which as previously mentioned starts to make them brittle and fragments fall off.

Dr Mark Eakin at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told BBC News in 2018, "The acceleration in the return rate of bleaching events matches up very well with what the climate models have been telling us. They predict that by mid-century most of the world's coral reefs will be suffering from yearly, or near-yearly heat stress."

It is also worth noting that the 'cold' phases of the La Nina - El Nino cycle, are now actually warmer than the 'hot' phases were just three decades ago! So overall, cool water almost doesn't exist any more - just variations of warm and warmer.

Other threats to coral:

• Pollution from sewage and improperly treated wastewater adds additional nutrients, chemicals and bacteria to the ocean, which greatly upsets the delicate balance of coral reefs.
• Habitat destruction can come from marine debris from boats and trawlers, from mining coral for roadfill, taking prettier corals to sell to tourists, and blast fishing that is practised in some areas.
• Over-fishing affects as much as 55% of the world's reefs (Coral.org), and unchecked will remove the herbivorous species like Parrotfish and Surgeonfish that feed on the reefs. Without them, macroalgae can thrive and end up smothering reef sections.

Indirect impacts of reef destruction:

Reefs offer a great deal of coastal protection from big waves, storms and flooding. They provide the spawning and nursery grounds for a number of economically important fish stocks.

And while, tourism can cause damage to reefs (poor diving techniques, removing coral for sale etc.) - it provides a huge boon to many parts of the world. Reefs generate $billions in revenue and sustain hundreds and thousands of jobs in over one hundred countries. A 2002 estimate showed that reefs had a value of $10bn globally, with $360m a year in direct economic benefits.

As an example, the small Caribbean island of Bonaire can generate around $23m a year in revenue from tourism around its reefs, but it only costs them around $1m to manage the Park the reefs lie in.


So, the future looks fairly bleak for our coral reefs. Such an incredibly beautiful and vitally important part of our planet, which anyone of can summon up an image of even if we have never been to one, could be all but wiped from the seafloors by 2050 or so. Even if we keep global warming to around 1.5 to 2°C by then, in line with the Paris Agreement, 75% or more could be gone. Leave global warming relatively unchecked to rise up to 3, 4°C or more - they could be gone forever.

Research:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-49520949
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49255642
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42571484
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/80
https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/reef-threats/
https://coral.org/adapt/
https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/reef-threats/direct/
https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/why-care-about-reefs/tourism/

Dead and Bury-ed

Our communities are a huge part of the ethos of sustainability. The ones we live in, work in, play in - they are all important. They give us a sense of belonging, of identity, of family - a thing that can bind people of myriad backgrounds, races, religions together with a communal sense of pride. Even when they don't function quite right, they offer a great deal of value to us all.

Communities get involved and do things together; I was on my local village Carnival committee for 5 or 6 years, helping to fundraise, organise and run a major local event, that despite being very hard work, for one day each year brings everyone from several miles distant together to have a bit of fun. 

And this all brings me towards my thoughts tonight.

Football has always been a huge part of my life. To watch your local football team is to be a part of a slightly different kind of community - spending hours watching the highs and lows (many lows for me) of your team with like-minded people; revelling in the joy of that last minute winner, the despair of losing to your fiercest rivals, and the sheer jubilation of winning a cup or a league! 

But football clubs in the UK (and probably the world over) are much more than that. They are also generally a part of the wider community they sit in. Clubs make great efforts to get involved with those communities, to ensure that they are an integral part of them - apart from anything else, it makes sound business sense. Be nice to your neighbours and maybe one day they will come back and give you some support.

My local team - Aldershot - were early evidence that sustainable business is just as important in football as it should be in any other line of work, although it is often hidden, as people will like to remark that football 'isn't like normal business' so different rules somehow apply. In 1992, after years of mis-management and bad business decisions, that notion went out of the window as they went out of business mid-season - the first team to do that in 30 years (after Accrington Stanley in 1962). The pain was unbearable, despite the inevitability of it all in those last few desperate weeks. I was away at college at the time. Football is a big community, and I got a lot of sympathy from all my football loving mates - they know what supporting your team is about - and they knew how they would feel if it happened to their team.

Vicky Rogers, current programme editor for Aldershot Town, said in an article in Metro today (https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/28/we-rebuilt-our-football-club-heres-what-bury-fc-must-do-10644937/),

"If you can [empathise with Bury fans], it means that you too have stared down the barrel of empty Saturdays, with nothing to define yourself as, and felt the numbness that accompanies losing not only your football club, but all of the friends, experiences and emotions that accompany supporting a lower league team."

Aldershot bounced back (as Aldershot Town), and have spent the last 27 years moving up and down the semi-pro and pro football leagues - and just like before, there have been some truly great highs, and some simply awful ones where we thought the worst might happen again. 

And now it has happened to Bury. One of the oldest clubs in the football league, playing in the second tier of English football as recently as twenty years ago, and two times winners of the FA Cup. Gone. Hundreds of heartbroken fans have had their football community ripped away from them - and the wider of community of Bury, a proud Lancashire mill town, has had its football club ripped from its heart.

I don't want to get too much into the politics of it all; extremely poor ownership and management, lack of oversight from the league, ambivalence from the FA - all seem to have played parts to varying degrees. Whatever the reason, or combination of reasons for it - the tragedy lies with those who lost their jobs, and those who lost that part of their identity that is entwined with the club, and the community who lost a key local asset that put them on the map (although many won't admit it - in every town in this country, even those who don't actively support their local team, will always keep an eye open for their results each week).

There is hope though, as Rogers remembers, "Because in the end, it was the unity that set Aldershot Town back onto the road to recovery, the working together of supporters, led by two determined men who had the very best for the Shots and its supporters at the heart of everything they did."

Hopefully they will bounce back, and hopefully they will eventually regain their status. But communities are important, even football ones - and this is a stark reminder that even in the emotive world of football, sustainability is essential for survival. In this world of high-profile, big money Premier League teams, it is easy to forget this as clubs strive to reach for the next level up and sometimes throw huge quantities of cash in pursuit of that dream. But for every Bury there is a Bolton sitting on the brink (though hopefully they have been saved) and a dozen or more other ones teetering close to the brink...

This is an excellent and thought-provoking article by the BBC's Tom Fordyce on the subject.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49493499

Get the fork outside - gardening is good for you!

At work we are heading towards the climax of a competition we have been running that any of our operational sites can enter - Depots in Bloom. This started on one contract a few years ago, as a way to get our typically dreary maintenance compounds brightened up a bit, and encourage our staff to think about biodiversity and pollinators.

Now, two years later, it is open to all our contracts around England, and we have started to also realise the mental wellbeing benefits of being involved with this as well. Getting away from a desk or whatever other duties you have for 10 minutes to engage with a gardening task (yes, even weeding), to engage with colleagues doing something other than the regular day job, and just enjoy the way the depot has been enlivened - is giving many of our staff a lift, and a smile on their faces!

The benefits of gardening on our mental health are becoming increasingly well known, through numerous studies, but also for anyone who has been out there and done some gardening - we just know it.

Fox in my garden. Photo: James Geraghty

We now know that it can help with  depression, anxiety, stress, and can also combat high blood pressure and help with our physical fitness. But why is that the case? Colin Campbell-Preston, at Capital Gardens, has some ideas on this;

• Responsibility:
• By caring for plants so that they don't die, it gives people a sense of purpose and a sense of worth. By caring for other things, it helps us to learn how to care for ourselves.
• Connects us to nature:
• This is especially true in urban areas - being in a green space helps us to de-stress and relax.
• Non-judgemental:
• Plants don't judge us, which is really helpful if you suffer from anxiety.
• Exercise:
• Studies are showing that 3 to 4 hours in the garden burns the equivalent calories as an hour in the gym. It also releases endorphins, which make us satisfied and relaxed.
• Therapy:
• Getting out in the garden gets us away from those things that are weighing us down, maybe some bad news, or more bills to pay, and we can focus our attention onto a completely different task.
• Venting:
• Gardening can help us vent our anger and frustration. Have a bad day? Come home, grab a spade or some shears, and take it out on that overgrown hedge or weedy vegetable patch!

Ecotherapy:
This is a formal treatment you can get through your GP which research has shown, can help with mild to moderate depression. It combines physical exercise and social contact, with being outside in nature. The focus is on the activity rather than the illness, and people get to do activities and interact at the pace they choose.

National Garden Society:
Is already well known for having open days at gardens around the country, and since 2017 has held a Gardens and Health week in May, to promote the positive impacts of gardens and gardening on mental and physical health.

Walking through the grounds at Stourhead
is very relaxing. Photo: James Geraghty

Thrive:
Thrive is a charity specialising in Social & Therapeutic Horticulture (STH) - they say it can help people re-build after illness or a difficult time, and also slow the degradation rates of those with degenerative conditions, through;

• Using plants and gardens to improve physical and mental health, and also communication and thinking skills
• Setting tasks to suit each person - with goals that they want to achieve
• Through improving physical health, exercise also strengthens muscles and helps improve mobility
• Improving mental health by giving people a purpose and sense of achievement
• Gives people the opportunity to connect with nature and each other, reducing feelings of isolation and exclusion
• Offers people a chance to learn new skills - it may even improve their chances in the job market

Even if you have little or now garden to work with where you live, you can still make a start with this by planting a few salad leaves or herbs in a window box or plant pot. You could also consider applying to share an allotment, look for a community garden to get involved with, or even go fruit picking at a local 'pick your own' orchard.

Even in the city you can enjoy beautiful
places - like this canal close to the heart
of Birmingham, Photo: James Geraghty

Other ways to get enjoyment and therapy from green spaces include making artwork from stuff you have gathered on a walk, such as leaves or bark or feathers. You could also try your hand at drawing or painting scenes from local nature walks you have done, or take photos of your local park or woods and maybe have them as screensavers or wallpaper on your phone or computer.

Research:
https://www.capitalgardens.co.uk/blog/gardening-great-mental-health-wellbeing/
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/nature-and-mental-health/how-nature-benefits-mental-health/#.XWEj0uhKiUk
https://www.farmgarden.org.uk/
https://ngs.org.uk/gardens-and-health/
https://www.thrive.org.uk/how-we-help/what-we-do/social-therapeutic-horticulture

How eating meat impacts on the tropics

A study by the University of Edinburgh and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, has estimated that one quarter of the world's tropical land could disappear by the end of this century, unless meat and dairy consumption falls.

They say that around 9% of the earth's natural land (95% of which is in the tropics) will be gone in the next 80 years. They have studied the impact of consumption trends on biodiverse regions (i.e. those with lots of bird, mammal, amphibian and plant species), and found that a rapid increase in the amount of meat and dairy consumed has led to rapid land clearing in the tropics.

Meat production has a much higher land and water use rate, and higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, than anything else. As income starts to increase across the globe, those in developing nations are starting to replace their traditional starch-heavy roots and pulse based diets, with more meat, milk and refined sugars.

Basically, this type of trend will always occur when living standards improve. And that is not all that surprising. Livestock are crucial in the developing world; for small-scale farmers, cows and other ruminants offer a flexible option, as they convert relatively low-quality proteins (like grass), into high-quality proteins (like meat and milk). They are vital for those farming in marginal agricultural areas, that are unsuitable for most crops, as they provide a food resource when times are hard, and can also be sold for valuable cash (for medicine, schooling etc.) at other times.

The Edinburgh study says that replacing meat with a plant based diet could see the demand for new grazing land drop by 11% globally. They also point to industrial feed systems, as part of the problem, as they also add to the environmental degradation due to things like fertilisers. This goes along with the IPCC report that highlighted plant based diets as being an essential part of climate change mitigation.

Lead author, Dr Roslyn Henry, said, "Reducing meat and dairy consumption will have positive effects on greenhouse gas emissions and human health. It will also help biodiversity, which must be conserved to ensure the world's growing population is fed. Changing our diets will lead to a more sustainable future and complement food security goals, while addressing global food inequality."

It is anticipated that at current levels of consumption, by 2050 certain meats may be eaten at a rate 90% higher than in 2010 (World Resources Institute)! The global population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 - and that is 3 billion more of us than there were in 2010! So turning away from animal derived products could certainly help bridge the sustainability gap in terms of mitigating for food, land and GHG emissions.

Not all agree so wholeheartedly. Chris Barrett, an Agricultural Economist at Cornell University, thinks that pushing for a plant based diet, "are aspirations not components of a viable food security strategy." This is part of a belief that it is only really realistic to expect any sort of pressure to decrease meat consumption in already developed nations, where additional concerns around excessive meat eating can be linked to health conditions.

(Photo: CSIRO Science Image)

The particular issues with beef:
While beef production may have become more efficient over the years, there is still ever more forest being cut down to make way for pasture. And while many people will say that they will eat more plants and a bit less meat, consumption of meat is still on the rise.

Beef has particular links to climate change for several reasons;

• Production: 
• Ruminants emit more methane (their 'burps' are properly called enteric fermentation) than other livestock 
• It is also emitted from their manure
• You also get nitrous oxide from some of the fertilisers used on cattle crops.
• Also - CO2 is also released from the forests cut down to make way for the pastures - cutting trees released that stored carbon straight into the atmosphere.
• Emissions:
• The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported in 2013 that animal based agriculture is responsible for 14.5% of all human based emissions 
• Beef makes up 41% of that!
• They said that beef demand could grow by as much as 88% by 2050, from 2010 levels.
• And such an increase in demand would require an estimated 400m hectares of additional pasture (that's bigger than India)!
• More resource intensive: 
• Cows have lower growth and reproductive rates than pigs and poultry, so therefore require more feed per unit of meat produced.
• They also require up to 20 times more land, and produce 20 times more emissions than plant based protein production.

So, reducing the amount of beef consumed in developed countries to an average of 50 calories per day (equivalent to 1.5 burgers a week) would eliminate that need for agricultural expansion - even in a world with 10 billion people on it.

Strides are being made to improve how we produce beef;

• Improvements to feed quality and veterinarian care
• Developing breeds that convert feed to meat / milk more efficiently
• Use of rotational grazing - boosts soil health and increases production - and reduces GHG emissions
• There are also now feed additives that can reduce the amount of those 'cow burps'

So - no one is asking, or telling, you to cut out meat entirely. But if you are in a position to think about how your diet can affect the rest of the world - consider cutting back a bit.

Go vegetarian / vegan a couple of days a week - and maybe cut beef down to once a week, or once a fortnight. If every family in the developed world could do this - we could make a difference.

Research:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812102853.htm
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2019/diet-change-needed-to-save-vast-areas-of-tropics
http://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263290290_The_impact_of_meat_consumption_on_the_tropics_Reply_to_Machovina_and_Feeley
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/04/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered
https://www.ecowatch.com/beef-and-climate-change-2634244134.html

Arctic on fire

Are wildfires in the Arctic getting worse, and is climate change behind any such change?

The period 2006 - 2015 saw what was considered to be relatively low activity for Arctic wildfires. Despite its reputation for the cold, the Arctic does routinely suffer from wildfires, typically between May and October, with peak activity usually experienced in July / August.

The difference this year seems to be that the fire locations, the intensity and the length of time the fires are burning, are particularly unusual - at least according the EU's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS). Mark Parrington of CAMS says that they are at "unprecedented levels."

It seems that a very dry June is the key factor here; the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) say that globally, 2019 was the hottest June in the instrumented era. Dry storms and hot weather have seemingly caused the fire season to hit its peak earlier. Parrington says, "Extremely dry ground and hotter than average temperatures, combined with heat, lightning and strong winds, have caused the fires the spread aggressively."

Arctic average temperatures are rising at twice the global average rate. Parrington told CNN at the end of July that, "Temperatures in the Arctic have been increasing at a much faster rate than the global average, and warmer conditions encourage fires to grow and persist once they have been ignited."

Water-heavy peat, that is common throughout much of the area, can help prevent the spread of fires, but when it dries out, as is the case in parts of the Arctic at the moment, it becomes highly flammable.

Eastern Russia / Siberia:
The Russian Federal Forestry Agency says that 2.7m hectares (6.7m acres) of remote forest, across six Siberian and east Russian regions, including Buryatia and Sakha, are burning. Greenpeace puts the figure at nearer 3.3m hectares.

There is some controversy, with many Russians saying that the government has not been doing enough to combat the fires (citing the high exposure of the Notre Dame fire earlier this year), but officials respond by pointing out that the fires are in hard to reach places, and don't have direct impact on civilian populations.

However, there have been human impacts; smog from the fires are affecting several regions, leading to a state of emergency being declared in some. In the major city of Novosibirsk, smoke drifts across the urban areas, and there has been a rise in health complaints, particularly from people experiencing breathing difficulties.

It has been reported that June temperatures in parts of Siberia have been up to 10°C higher than the 1981-2010 averages! President Putin eventually has responded, sending in the army to help fight the fires, along with ten planes and ten helicopters fitted with firefighting equipment.

The image on the left shows thermal anomalies, that may include other features like volcanoes; the right hand image shows the smog impact across the region (Nasa, Aqua/Modis, GEOS-FP)

Alaska:
By 31 July, 105 large fires, and maybe as many as 400 fires in total, had been reported across the state. These are affecting around 0.7m hectares (1.78m acres) of land (although the Guardian quoted 2.06m acres), with most reported to have been started by lightning strikes (according to the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center).

But Dan Thompson of Natural Resources Canada, points out that this year is only the fifth busiest year for fires in Alaska in the last two decades. There was a record reached last month though; on 4th July, temperatures in the state reached up to 32.2°C in places - a new July record for Alaska.

Greenland:
The recent heatwave has seen sea ice melting at a faster rate here, You can see evidence of abundant melt ponds (in photo below), which are another effect of temperatures increasing.

Qeqqata fire shows towards bottom left - Greenland ice sheet, to the right, shows lots of blue dots, which are the melt ponds (image: Copernicus Sentinel 3 satellite)

The Danish Meteorological Institute say that 200 billion tons of ice have melted in July. By 31 July, a record 56.5% of the Greenland ice sheet was showing signs of melting. There is also a wildfire raging at Qeqqata Kommunia, which is close to the Arctic Circle Trail, a route popular with hikers.

Canada:
Meanwhile, in Canada, Thompson, who is a Forest Fire Research Scientist with Natural Resources Canada, says that it has been an "average" summer for fires there. One fire has been ravaging the Northwest Territories though - estimated to be about 45,500 acres in size, but the actual size may actually be much bigger.

Impacts:
Wildfires provide a range of devastating potential impacts on the globe and on humans;

• Release of toxic gases
• Thick smoke produced - reduces visibility and damages human health
• Soot produced
• Can get into animal lungs and bloodstreams
• Contributes to global warming effects
• Absorbs sunlight and warms the atmosphere
• When it falls on snow and ice, it reduces reflectivity and traps heat, which speeds up melting
• CO2 released
• 50 megatons were released in June
• This equates to Sweden's entire annual average
• This is more than all the CO2 emitted by all June wildfires between 2010 - 2018 combined
• 79 megatons released in July

Much of the greenhouse gas (GHG) being emitted by wildfires is actually from previously stored CO2 and methane in the ground / plants, which is released as it burns. Thomas Smith, an environmental geographer with the London School of Economics, says, "The fires are burning through long-term carbon stores.... emitting GHGs, which will further exacerbate greenhouse warming, leading to more fires." 

Atmospheric Scientist, Santiago Gasso, has estimated that the Siberian fires have created a smoke lid that is covering around 4.5m km2 (1.7m miles2) of central and northern Asia.

Next years wildfire patterns will go a long way to showing us whether this is the beginning of a pattern of worsening, and perhaps more prolonged, fires, or whether it will return to the lower ebb of a decade or so ago. 

One thing seems to be for sure - if the fires are bad, this can create a devastating feedback loop; increased concentrations of GHGs get released into the atmosphere - more warming occurs - creating hotter and drier conditions - which is ideal for fires and more carbon to be released into the atmosphere.......

Research:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-wildfires-1.5228945
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-wildfires-1.5228945
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arctic-burning-greenland-melting-thanks-record-heat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49125391