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/ 

On strike: the push to make a difference on climate change?

We had an interesting discussion at work last week around the Extinction Rebellion actions earlier this year and their demands for immediate action on climate change (they want zero carbon by 2025 and not 2050 as the government legislation has called for).

The conversation whirled around whether they achieved anything through their direct actions, and can a business support what they are doing?

With regards the first bit - the fact that the UK government has not only finally declared a climate emergency, but has also enacted legislation to have the UK at zero carbon emissions by 2050, would suggest that their work (and those of other activists) is finally making an impact. People have tried the polite lobbying of politicians and the like outside Westminster for a long time, without much joy, so this more 'in your face' method - while unpalatable to some, seems to be quite effective.

As to whether businesses can join in with this, is a much harder question. When I go to work I have to take off my idealist hat to some degree, and put on my more pragmatic one. Words like 'extinction' and 'rebellion' cause the standard and quite conservative standard business to recoil in horror. They tend to like slow and steady, rather than urgent and reactive. So, from a work perspective we have decided that we can show support for climate action, but we will perhaps have to choose our words more carefully.

What is a climate emergency?
Of course there is no precise definition, but this seems to be a byword for taking immediate action and developing policy to mitigate climate change beyond current government targets (before the new updated climate legislation, the Climate Change Act 2008 called for an 80% reduction in UK emissions by 2050 - from a 1990 base).

The phrase was already common among environmental groups, but seems to have first gained use in political circles with Carla Denyer, a Green Party councillor in Bristol, who used the term in November 2018.

Who has declared one?
Aside from the UK government, there have been a number of local authorities who joined in with these declarations (this list is taken from www.climateemergency.uk and was up to mid-July 2019).

• 3 Cities - Liverpool, Greater London Authority, West Yorkshire
• 16 Counties - from Devon to Leicestershire
• 99 Districts - from Maidstone all the way up to South Lakeland
• 22 London Boroughs
• 24 Metropolitan Boroughs
• 62 Unitary Authorities - including much of Scotland

Climate Strikes:
The rise of student activism and organised groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace culminated in last Friday's Climate Strike, which gained traction across the globe. An estimated 4 million people took part in over 4,600 events organised in at least 139 countries.

• London: at least 100,000 went to the main event, although many smaller ones were organised around the capital
• Edinburgh: estimated 20,000 people
• Brighton: estimated 10,000 people
• Belfast: estimated 3-4,000 people
• Birmingham: estimated 3,000 people
• New York City: school districts were giving pupils permission to attend events, and the main one around Battery Park saw an incredible 250,000 people convene
• Melbourne and Sydney: these cities saw some of the biggest mass protests in Australian history, with as many as 150,000 people at each event
• Certainly over 350,000 in total at the 110 organised rallies
• Berlin: Germany also had some big turn outs, with around 100,000 in the nations capital
• The German coalition government has pledged £48bn for schemes to cut greenhouse gases.

Some of the big tech company employees were also taking this very seriously.

• Amazon: around 1,800 global Amazon staff walked out on Friday.
• Jeff Bezos made a preemptive announcement on Thursday, saying that Amazon will be carbon neutral by 2040, and have 50% reduction in shipping footprint by 2030.
• His staff want more though: they are calling for zero emissions by 2030, more ULEV vehicles in their fleet, and to stop contracts with fossil fuel companies and support for climate change denying think-tanks.
• There were also walk-outs by Google and other big tech company staff

Greta Thunberg spoke at the NYC rally Friday; "We demand a safe future. Is that really too much to ask?" And she had this to say to her critics, "If you belong to that small group of people who feel threatened by us, we have some very bad news for you, because this is only the beginning. Change is coming whether they like it or not."

Jessica Ahmed, 16, attending one rally said, "If politicians were taking the appropriate action we need - and had been taking this action a long time ago when it was recognised the world was changing in a negative way - then I would not have to be skipping school."

The big picture:
There were also protests in Kiribati, that are somewhat poignant, as this is the country that could well be the first one to (literally) disappear, as it is so at risk from sea level rises. In Tuvalu last month, Australia thwarted an effort by the Pacific Island nations for more actions on climate change (one leader broke down with the emotion). Last week Australia and New Zealand, with 16 Pacific Island nations, finally reached some agreements, but these were far short of what was hoped for.

Research:
This article was researched from a wide range of rolling 'live' news sites, with numerous pages from each used - but for reference they were;
BBC News
The Guardian
CNN
The Standard

Climate Change and fossil fuel industry

I read three different articles this week, that all featured different aspects of the fossil fuel industry, and various relationships with it - so this seemed a good place to bring them together and summarise them.

1. Oil Firms going the wrong way?
A new report by Carbon Tracker has estimated that oil and gas companies have approved around $50bn of investment in new projects that undermine international climate targets since 2018!

This is a simply staggering revelation - that not one of the major oil firms is investing in a way that is compatible with the targets set by the Paris Agreement for keeping global warming at under 2°C. An example of this would be Exxon Mobil's $2.6bn Aspen project in Canada, for exploitation of greenfield oil sands.

"Every major is betting heavily against a 1.5°C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals. The best way to preserve shareholder value in the transition and alignment with climate change goals will be to focus on low cost projects that will deliver the highest returns." (Andrew Grant - senior analyst with Carbon Tracker)

Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Total, Conoco Phillips and Equinox - have all put at least 30% of their investments for 2018 into projects that are not compatible with Paris. Exxon is estimated to have put 90% of its potential spending up to 2030 into projects not in line with the Paris Agreement.

And investors are increasingly becoming concerned with the climate change risks to their portfolios, with initiatives like Climate Action 100+ trying to drive sustainability from the investment side.

2. Islam and oil:
This brings me rather neatly on to the second article. 

Three major Islamic faith-based organisations have written a joint statement calling for divestment from fossil fuels, and into renewable energy. The Bahu Trust, the Islamic Foundation for Environmental & Ecological Sciences (IFEES) and Mosques & Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) have written this letter pointing out that fossil fuel profiting in its current form is "morally wrong" and recounts a verse of the Quran that centres around human destruction of the natural world.

'Corruption has appeared on land and sea by what people's own hands have wrought; that He may let them taste the consequences of their deeds so that they may turn back.' (Quran 30:41)

The statement also refers to the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change which was authored by IFEES founder Dr Fazlun Khalid. This calls on Muslims to reduce their carbon footprint, and commit to 100% renewable energy.

"Loving the creation of Allah's is part of one's love for Allah. Divesting from fossil fuels and reinvesting in cleaner renewable energy is the only way to provide for a sustainable future for the generations already born and those to come."

This is a fantastic document, and well worth reading - the English language version can be downloaded here.

Elsewhere, the Fiqh Council of North America recently issued a fatwa (authoritative religious ruling), calling for a rapid transition to renewable energy. It also affirmed the divestment commitment made by the Islamic Society of North America in 2016, which called on all Islamic investment houses and funds to immediately develop fossil fuel free portfolios, and increase commitment to renewable and clean energy companies.

3. Investment may be the key to climate change:
Around $1.8trn invested into climate change adaptation measures over the next decade could yield around $7.1trn in net returns! So says a recent cost-benefit analysis by the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA).

This is not some weird fringe-element think-tank; but one being led by former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, World Bank CEO, Kristalina Georgieva and Microsoft founder, Bill Gates.

L-R: Ban Ki-Moon, Bill Gates, Kristaline Georgieva (Wikimedia / Wikicommons)

They warn that no investment in climate change adaptation will lead to ever more conflict and instability, and suggest five key areas for spending;

• Early warning systems
• Climate resilient infrastructure
• Improved dryland agriculture
• Mangrove protection
• Water resource resilience

"Climate change doesn't respect borders. It's an international problem that can only be solved with co-operation and collaboration across borders and worldwide." (Ban Ki-moon)

Climate change adaptation can deliver a 'triple dividend' by avoiding future losses, generating positive economic gains through innovation and delivering social and environmental benefits (such as protection for coastal communities from storms, or protecting mangrove in Thailand to improve habitat for fisheries).

The GCA show that resilience projects can deliver benefit to cost ration of between 2:1 and 10:1 (and occasionally even higher than that). They say that there are three revolutions needed; understanding - planning - finance. Climate change impacts need to be factored into every level of decision making - we'll leave the last word to Bill Gates;

"Adaptation is an urgent issue that needs support from governments and businesses to ensure those most at risk have the opportunities to thrive."

Research:
https://transform.iema.net/article/oil-giants-spend-50bn-new-projects-undermine-climate-targets?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
https://transform.iema.net/article/global-leaders-call-18trn-climate-adaption-investment?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
https://transform.iema.net/article/islamic-community-calls-fossil-fuel-divestment?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
https://twitter.com/bahutrustuk/status/1171357355109429248/photo/1