Another Covid negative

I was going to try and not mention the dreaded C-word (coronavirus) too much, if at all, in my posts, if I possibly could.

However, like many people, I have been dwelling quite a bit on it - probably far too much - how it is affecting people directly (those with COVID and those self-isolating) and indirectly (those who have lost their jobs, both temporarily and permanently, because their company or site has shut down); how it is affecting our general way of life (shopping, entertainment, visiting family and friends); and also, how we are going to finally get out of this situation - the so-called exit strategy.

The short-term response that has slowly been adopted around the world - that of isolating as many people as possible, for as much of the time as possible - is clearly the best solution to stop the spread of the virus for now and limit the number of deaths.

And in that short-term, people are generally reacting and coping fairly well with this, let's be honest, massive curtailing of our normal societal liberties. We are mostly managing to put on that brave face, stiff upper lip, call it what you will - that we will do our bit and come out the other side in one piece, albeit a bit shaken and disturbed by it all.

There have been many positive stories emerging out of this global crisis; there is the selfless work of NHS staff and other critical workers; but there are also those going out of their way to help others - whether that be chatting to someone stuck on their own, going shopping for an elderly relative or neighbour, running some kind of free online tuition to keep people engaged / exercised / learning.

There is another side to all of this though and it is one that is only just starting to be mentioned out loud - and that is because it is a dark place we usually don't like to visit in public.

Mental health.

For all the impetus and campaigning that has gone on over the last few years by businesses and government alike on the subject, talking about your mental health is still something of a taboo subject.

But phase two of the crisis, as we hopefully start to plateau in terms of new COVID cases, will start to focus around how and when we return to some form of normality. 

There is much uncertainty about what format this will take (it may well be very different in every country, depending on their experiences with the virus to date) - and this uncertainty all adds to the mental health picture.

That's because people crave certainty in their lives. If you told people that they had to isolate for two weeks, four weeks, maybe even six weeks - but at the end of that period all would be well and we could return to normal - most people would be fine with that. That scenario offers a defined ending, which means you can plan how you will cope, both mentally and financially.

But the messages are mixed. We may have to do this for three weeks (initially in the UK - 12 weeks for those in 'at-risk' categories) - but then that may be extended for another indeterminate period, or, the restrictions may get even more severe. Who knows?

How do we get out of it? Do we have to continue like this to some degree for a year or more until a vaccine is ready? Will we come out of this for a few months and have to do it all over again in the autumn / winter? Will warmer summer weather negate some of the worst impacts of the spread of the virus?

All we have is questions and so few answers yet. This is all bad for our mental health - this lack of certainty feeds anxiety, which can feed depression.

What if you own a small (or large) business whose doors are closed for this indeterminate amount of time - or you lost your job as the restrictions took effect - or a pay-cut - or an undefined period of unpaid leave (I am on a pay cut for at least 3 months as a result of this - but at least I still have a job to go to)?

The stark fact seems to be that when we get major hits to the economy (both national and global), these mental health concerns grow. And when they grow, so does that other dark topic - suicide.

I have yet to hear anyone much talk about this in public - but we should. For despite everything that the UK government (and other governments around the world) is doing to protect businesses and individuals as much as they can through all of this, we will still fall into recession and many businesses will not re-open their doors when the time comes.

This means, potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK looking for work, and hundreds or thousands of business owners picking up the shattered pieces of all they worked and sacrificed so much to build.

Even without all this, the suicide rate in the UK had hit a 16-year high in 2018 (at 6,507). Three-quarters of those were men and there was a rising trend in the under-25 category (up almost 25%), although the 45-49 year old range remains the highest rate. I'm sure not all of these were related to unemployment and financial issues, but I bet plenty were.

The Samaritans issued a report on 'Men and Suicide; why it's a social issue' in 2012, which looked at some of the traits that are factors;

• Personality traits
• Masculinity - taking risks to react to stressful situations
• Relationship breakdowns - which are more likely to negatively affect men
• Mid-life issues - the highest rate of poor mental health
• Emotional illiteracy - men are more likely to have a negative view of therapy
• Socio-economic factors - like unemployment

Suicides are two or three times more likely in a time of recession and men in the most deprived areas of the country are ten times more at risk than the highest social classes!

In 2009-11, during the last big global recession, there were over 10,000 more suicides across Europe and North America because of it!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or indeed a psychiatrist, to see that there is a second potential health crisis looming on the horizon - one that is even harder to manage, as it often remains so hidden.

So in these difficult times - watch out for each other, check on each other, be nice to each other - and most importantly look for signs of depression among your friends, family and neighbours;

• continuous low mood or sadness
• feeling hopeless and helpless
• having low self-esteem
• feeling tearful
• feeling guilt-ridden
• feeling irritable and intolerant of others
• having no motivation or interest in things
• finding it difficult to make decisions
• not getting any enjoyment out of life
• feeling anxious or worried
• having suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming them/yourself

These signs won't always be on obvious display or shout themselves from the rooftop - so please be vigilant - and also, look after yourself!

Research:
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/middle-aged-men-suicide/
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/suicide-facts-and-figures/ 
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-suicide https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/clinical-depression/symptoms/

Is Bristol the greenest city in the UK?

Well, according to a report recently released by Good Move, Bristol is the greenest city in the UK for 2019.

How did it come to this verdict? 
Well the choices and criteria are not perhaps the best and most exhaustive list in the world, but let's not overly criticise and take a bit of a further look....

Firstly, Good Move only looked at ten UK cities to begin with, and those were selected based on the ten with the most green space within them - which may be assumed to give them a head-start over other possible cities. Once they had that list, it seems they looked at four key criteria to rank them;

• Carbon emissions from the city
• Recycling rates (average domestic rate)
• Gas consumption (average per capita) - but not electricity?
• Number of Green Party councillors!?! 
• (Surely this is more of a reflection of how good / bad the local Green Party are at canvassing in that area - and also implies that no other party cares about the environment [which may or may not be true])

Anyway, what result did this lead to? 
Well the post title has kind of given that bit away - it was, of course, Bristol. And it's not that this is a bad choice per se; it topped the charts of their calculations, with an average 47% domestic recycling rate amongst other things. 

To be fair, it has done much in recent years to up its green credentials - it became a Fair Trade City in 2005; by 2014/15 it had carbon reductions of 38% from a 2005 baseline, meaning it hit its 2020 target five years early; and also in 2015, it got the European Green Capital Award - the first British city to win - recognising it as a happy, healthy and more environmentally friendly place to live and work.

Bristol was also one of the first local authorities to commit to purchasing renewable energy in its mix. It had an initial target of reaching 15% renewables by 2010, which it did in part by switching all 34,000 of its streetlights to this from January 2007. The council also committed to investing £1.4 m in improving the energy efficiency of its council properties through the '90s and '00s.

How did the other cities fair?
So we can see that Bristol did at least have some claim to be justified in winning this accolade, but what did the other British cities do right, and wrong (besides not having enough green space to be considered in the first place), to get their place in the top ten?

Edinburgh did enough to impress their way into second place, based in large part around their impressive 49 hectares of green space in the city - the most in the country. But at the other end you have London in 9th place, predominantly dragged that low by its huge carbon footprint (actually seven times higher than the city that eventually came in 10th!).

And who came at the bottom end?
That honour went to Birmingham! And they may feel hard done by for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above - their carbon emission rate was actually around seven times better than that of London. Birmingham's undoing in this ranking was due to its very poor domestic recycling rate (22%) and relatively low levels of green space compared to the other contenders (only 24.6 hectares). 

The second reason for the city to feel a bit peeved is that the way that this has been reported would imply that they are the least environmentally friendly city in the UK, rather than the worst from a list of ten (and based on somewhat spurious criteria).

The Good Move Top Ten:

1. Bristol
2. Edinburgh
3. Manchester (targeting being zero-carbon by 2038)
4. Sheffield
5. Bradford
6. Liverpool
7. Glasgow (had the first Low Emission Zone in Scotland)
8. Leeds (aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030)
9. London
10. Birmingham

Another version:
To contrast with the Good Move list, in early 2019, First Mile (a waste management company) put together their own list of greenest cities. So what conclusions did they come up with?

Well firstly, their list of criteria certainly appears a little deeper; the looked at the number of Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs), Recycling per capita, amount of green space, Air Quality, pollution levels, efforts around reduction of plastic use and also fast-fashion consumption.

So, how does their list compare? 
First thing to note is that only six of the cities that made the Good Move top ten, make it in here - and, they show up in quite a different order. London didn't even make the top ten - coming in at #11 - largely owing to its horrific air quality problems! But for the record, this is how the First Mile top ten looked;

1. Edinburgh
2. Aberdeen
3. Glasgow
4. York
5. Oxford
6. Bristol
7. Newcastle
8. Leeds
9. Sheffield
10. Birmingham

An incredible Scottish 1-2-3! Given the emphasis that the Scottish government appears to be giving Scotland as the place to come for sustainable businesses (presumably at least partially with an eye to the future, as North Sea oil/gas starts to decline) and the pride it has in its fantastic natural landscapes, this verdict is possibly not so surprising.

Fairly obviously, some of this will always be subjective too. I could devise a list with a completely different set of criteria and weighting factors and end up with another version. I haven't visited all of the cities mentioned here, in recent times, so giving too much of a subjective opinion now would not be all that fair. Spending a lot of time in Birmingham for work, I could say - is that really a better place than London? But that would neglect that when I visit London or Birmingham, it tends to only be to certain parts, and these lists look at the cities as a whole.

What do you think? What cities would you like to see in a top ten - and what criteria do you think should be used to judge?

Research:
https://goodmove.co.uk/blog/how-bristol-became-uks-greenest-city/ 
https://goodmove.co.uk/britains-green-cities/
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-greenest-cities-scotland-top-three_uk_5c50392de4b0d9f9be69086e?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9Z29vZCttb3ZlK2dyZWVuZXN0K2NpdHkrdWsraHVmZitwb3N0JnFzPW4mZm9ybT1RQlJFJnNwPS0xJnBxPWdvb2QrbW92ZStncmVlbmVzdCtjaXR5K3VrK2h1ZmYrcG9zdCZzYz0xLTM2JnNrPSZjdmlkPUI3RTY1QjRENDE1MTQ5OTk4MDZDQTEwRjhERkZCNjQ5&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKhKmAkIFJSZOSOR_j1f773yloi3kDnJxIym-lTkgZjfdq8xKP89CW38ZEg3i0ZPUhaLfnUbbT6CKH3mp9ojEMslM1HL7Dd0U8P6bCXu95h7mlizo4zGTP6Dw-Jp8aU2YJ9rSeu7iVe_AstL8g29k8MZQ5XiVwFQMSjhdehddsi4

Hope for the Jaguar and other migratory species

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) has held the 13th Conference of Parties Wildlife Summit in Gandhinagar, Gujurat, India, this week.

One of the big headlines has been around an initiative to help strengthen protections for the Jaguar across the Americas. It ranges across an area stretching from the southern US border with Mexico, down through Central America and into South America, where it can be found as far down as Paraguay and northern Argentina.

It has seen about 40% of its habitat lost over the last hundred years, and while laws exist in each country it can be found in, it is hoped that new measures for migratory species will strengthen protection for it (and other species) as it goes across international borders. Threats include deforestation and poaching.

The CMS covers all migratory species, including the jaguar, and its existence can help bring about protection to vital habitats, and maintaining vital wildlife corridors that allow animals to move between areas. Without these, animals can become isolated - once isolated, the chances of them facing extinction grow....

Jaguar (image: Wikipedia)

Rebecca Regney, Deputy Director for the Human Society International, hopes that the CMS will create a vital legal framework. "This will provide increased incentives and funding opportunities for this work and that is crucial for curbing habitat destruction, maintaining key migratory corridors and addressing killings for retaliation and trafficking."

Help for the Asian elephants - and more:

The CMS also provides hope for many other migratory species, including the Asian elephant. It too has faced loss of habitat, poaching, poisoning and disruption of its habitats, such as blockages by rail lines and the like.

India hosts around 60% of the remaining numbers of the species, but cross-border migration occurs with some of its neighbours, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar and Nepal. Mark Simmonds, also of the Humane Society International says of the CMS, "The highly migratory Asian elephant for example, is endangered throughout much of its substantial range, trying to survive in continually shrinking, degraded and fragmented habitats."

Representatives of 130 nations have signed the CMS, which will increase the conservation status of many species, including;

• Oceanic whitetip shark - now one of the most endangered shark species
• Great Indian bustard
• Antipodean albatross

Getting giraffes off the endangered list:

A century ago, there were over one million giraffes in sub-Saharan Africa. They used to roam at least 28 countries, but are now extinct in at least seven of them (Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria and Senegal). There are now estimated to only be around 100,000 left, and they are generally in fragmented populations.

This massive decline, 40% in just the last 30 years, has seen the species as a whole labelled as 'vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. Two sub-species, the Nubian and Kordofan giraffes, are now 'critically endangered'; while two more, the Reticulated and Masai giraffes, are 'endangered'.

Nubian giraffe (image: Wikipedia)

What is the IUCN Red List?

Established in 1964, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungus and plant species.

The IUCN Red List is a critical indicator of the health of the world’s biodiversity. Far more than a list of species and their status, it is a powerful tool to inform and catalyze action for biodiversity conservation and policy change, critical to protecting the natural resources we need to survive. It provides information about range, population size, habitat and ecology, use and/or trade, threats, and conservation actions that will help inform necessary conservation decisions.

As part of an effort to halt this decline, conservation measures have been submitted by six of the countries where giraffes can still be found; Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. They cite a number of issues faced by giraffes across their range:

• Fragmentation of habitat - roads, railways, power lines etc. all hinder their migration.
• Habitat loss - wildfires, livestock encroachment and human spread all increase this issue.
• Poaching / snaring - for bushmeat, skins and traditional medicine.

These issues are all further exacerbated by factors like disease, war and a lack of awareness and knowledge of the issues. The 'Concerted Action for the Giraffe' is calling for an Africa-wide strategy, with much more trans-boundary collaboration, better exchange of information and the creation of an international database. This, it is hoped, will lead to better legal protection, more research and ultimately a raising of awareness around the issues, which in itself may help to push it up the priority list for various governments.

Other stories from the Convention:

There is a commitment to evaluate the impacts of climate changes on migration, specifically through the lens of some focal species and ecosystems. It is hoped this will help animals adapt to a warming world, especially as January was the hottest one globally on record. This year it reached a point where it was 1.14°C above the global average for the twentieth century.

Ethiopia this week signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia (luckily more commonly known as the Raptors MOU). It was signed on behalf of the Ethiopian government by Kumara Wakjira, the Director General of the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority - bringing the total number of signatories to 61.

Wakjira said, on his country signing, "The country is a staging post for migratory birds, including raptors. Most species are coming from Europe and Asia for wintering. Nonetheless, due to growing habitat threats, the distribution and status of raptor species is declining. Ethiopia is thus pleased to sign the Raptors MOU to strengthen the protection of raptors."

Ethiopia is indeed a strategically important country for this, especially as it is located on the East African flyway, a significant route for millions of migrating birds of prey. 40 of the 93 species featured in the MOU can be found in Ethiopia, including the Steppe eagle, Sakar falcon and Egyptian vulture.

Research:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51561697 

https://www.cms.int/en/news 

https://www.cms.int/en/news/africa-wide-conservation-strategy-giraffe 

https://www.cms.int/en/news/cms-raptors-mou-welcomes-ethiopia-signatory 

https://www.iucnredlist.org/about/background-history 

The Road Ahead for Peru

Manu National Park in Peru is over 1.5 million hectares in size. It is designated as a World Heritage Site and UNESCO has said that it has an "unrivalled variety of plant and animal species." Those include Spider monkeys, Emperor tamarinds, Ocelot, Jaguar and Puma.

Eilidh Munro is a self-taught photographer and filmmaker from Edinburgh. She spent many evenings and weekends building her portfolio by learning from other filmmakers and editors, all whilst working a day job in an advertising agency.

Eilidh Munro films in the rainforest.

The Film:

These worlds have now collided, as Munro has managed to put together a film called 'Voices on the Road' about the park - but this time it is about the people more than the animals.

"They have never been asked what life is like in the middle of the rainforest," says Munro of the people she interviewed while making the film. They have no clean water, no sewerage and no easy access to markets to sell produce and make a living.

The 23 minute film is the result of ten months of work, with journalist Bethan Jones and biologist Shirley Jennifer Serrano-Rojas. The work centres on the 'better life' that is promised by a controversial road through the middle of the National Park and adjacent Amarakaeri Communal Reserve.

The Road:
The road is intended to link all the isolated communities in the park, with the outside world. Although construction started in 2015, work on the road was stopped by the Peruvian Environment Ministry. Regional Governors argue that the road will help with wealth creation for the local tribes, when they can sell their produce in new markets. This, they say, will ultimately lead to people being able to clothe and educate their children, as well as gain other luxuries like internet access.

Edgar Morales Gomez, a District Mayor in the region says, "The road will bring water, communications, internet - so many things. Only with the road can we change our life."

Illegal work on the road continued despite the order to cease; loggers carried on by hand and the destruction of the forest continued pretty much unabated. Then, in November 2018, after a three year battle, construction of the road was approved again.

Other say the benefits have been over-hyped. There could end up being 40,000 hectares of deforestation, which could also have a fishbone effect (lots of smaller side roads being cut to join up with it), lead to more loggers moving in and the possibility of the smugglers setting up base.

The Expedition:

Funding of the film came from the Scientific Exploration Society, with an additional £15,000 raise via crowdfunding.

Munro and Serrano-Rojos undertook a 40-day expedition to visit four communities in the making of the film; Diamante, Isla de los Valles, Shintuya and Shipetiari. They interviewed the community leaders first and didn't film at all for the first few days, in order to be discreet and put the communities at ease.

The film (which has been shown at a variety of small film festivals, but has had no general release yet) captures how these people are feeling; some long for the promised profit the road might bring - while others fear the havoc and loss of culture that it might herald.

The Communities:

Poor Andean farmers were encouraged into Manu with cheap land from the state, to exploit untapped natural resources. They were encouraged to farm with the promise that they would prosper from agriculture as the road advanced - and this has not happened.

The communities of Shipetiari and Shintuya have both struggled, even with the road connection already made, as they are forced to sell their goods through intermediaries. In the case of Sintuya, there has been a road to them for 50-years, without any of the supposed benefits, but with additional pollution and deforestation.

They are also in danger of losing their customs - "[we are] trying to rescue our culture, our identity, our respect," says Victoria Crispera. It seems that the desperation of the people may have been used, with the promise of empowerment, but only politicians profiting from a black economy.

© Eilidh Munro / Bethan Jones

Luis Otsuka Salazar:

Luis Otsuka Salazar is a former regional governor: "Here I see this poverty that disgusts me!" But this may be lip-service of fake promises.

It is illegal in Peru to build a road for the purpose of exploring for gas and oil, and the road would appear to be bordering on that illegality. Otsuka used to be the President of Mining Federation of Madre de Dios (Federmin). In Madre de Dios, 90% of the gold mining there is illegal and modern slavery is rife, with trafficking of women and girls into sex work being common. The final destination of the road is pretty much the epicentre of this illegal gold mining area!

The advance of the road, technically illegal or otherwise, seems to be unstoppable. Cocaine is now the new cash crop here, although it is declining elsewhere, production of coca in Madre de Dios is up by 52%.

This is a frightening prospect for some. Waldir Gomez Zorrillo says, "They could make us accomplices. The army, when they catch you, they catch you innocently because they think you're working. They blame us, It's us who pay!"

But the road hasn't reached Diamante yet. For them the road remains a symbol of hope, as they have become so obsessed with the possibility that it will improve their lives, that they will overlook all of the other negative potential outcomes. Oscar Guadalupe Zevallos, a director of human rights organisation Asociacion Huarayes, says, “We have a state that doesn’t worry about the employment of people. They play with people’s natural desire; they sell us roads, but they don’t sell us development. How are we going to use this tool - the road - to improve the family economically, to improve the education of our children?”

Munro believes there is still hope; “There’s also a big movement which is proving that protecting indigenous land rights is by far the best way to protect the environment and there are recent examples of South American indigenous groups who have successfully sued governments for misleading them in discussions around construction on their indigenous land, so there are small steps being made."

You can watch the 'Voices on the Road' trailer here - and also check if there are any other screenings planned.

Research:

Transform magazine: 'A perilous road ahead' - December 2019

https://theecologist.org/2019/may/07/voices-road

https://www.voicesontheroadfilm.com/

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/voices-on-the-road-scottish-filmmaker-explores-why-indigenous-communities-are-contributing-to-amazons-environmental-demise/

UK emissions already surpassing other countries!

An Oxfam report on 6th January highlighted the fact that the per capita emissions for the UK had already surpassed Rwanda's expected total for the whole year!

With UK citizens averaging over 8 tonnes of carbon emissions per year (2017 data), it only took us 5 days of the new year to surpass what Rwanda would expect to generate, per person, in an entire year. Beyond that, by the 12th of the month, we would have gone past the annual figures for Malawi, Ethiopia, Uganda, Madagascar, Guinea and Burkina Faso!

Oxfam-GB Chief Executive, Danny Sriskandarajah, said, "The sheer scale of global inequality when it comes to carbon emissions is staggering." This would appear to be borne out by a quick check of some of those 2017 figures;

• UK - 8.34t per capita, per year
• Rwanda - 0.09t per capita, per year
• Burkina Faso - 0.25t per capita, per year
• Nigeria - 0.49t per capita, per year
• India - 1.68t per capita, per year
• Global Average - 4.7t per capita, per yea

Oxfam commissioned a YouGov poll to find out more about what Britons feel on the subject, with the overall consensus that we are concerned, with many worried about climate change impacts and wanting to do more.

• 79% said that they are more likely to recycle more
• 38% said they might change their diet (e.g. less meat and dairy)
• 2/3 said they use more energy efficient products and/or renewable energy providers
• Around 1/2 said they are trying to limit their air travel
• 61% say they want the government to do more to fight the climate emergency

That last one is always is a bit of a cop-out; yes, the government needs to be leading the way, but we all have a role to play and it will be consumer pressure that ultimately drives businesses to make the big everyday changes we need to see for meaningful change; ultimately it is us who decide when and where we travel, what type of energy we power our houses with and if we ethically / environmentally source our clothes.

"As the UK government gets ready to host global climate talks this year, it needs to show that it is deadly serious about leading the fight against climate change," says Sriskandarajah.

What does it really mean?
In actuality, despite this frightening statistic, the UK is actually only ranked 36th in the world for CO2 emissions per capita! So despite our average being almost twice the global average, there are still 35 more countries with worse per capita rates than us.

The Global Carbon Atlas - here - is a great tool to play around with if you have any interest, and where most of the statistics for the post have originated from.

18 of the 20 nations at the bottom of this list are in Africa, while the Top 3 looks like this;

1. Luxembourg - 40t per capita
2. Qatar - 30t per capita
3. Trinidad & Tobago - 27t per capita

All of the top 25 on this list are averaging over 10 tonnes CO2 per capita! But you will notice that these three most 'troublesome' countries, are all tiny - so perhaps this metric is a little misleading?

Other charts:
So, let us look at some of the other ways in which they measure emissions, and see if that helps give a slightly more realistic perspective.

When measured against GDP (Gross Domestic Product), the list changes, but perhaps not how you may expect. The Top 10 in this list now has 3 Asian countries (Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan), 4 from Africa (Togo, South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana), 2 from Europe (Ukraine, Estonia) and only 1 from North America (and that is Trinidad again, in the Caribbean, rather than the mainland).

1. Trinidad & Tobago - 0.93 kgCO2/GDP
2. Kyrgyzstan - 0.80 kgCOP2/GDP
3. Ukraine - 0.71 kgCO2/GDP

The USA pops up at number 30, with a rate of 0.333 kgCO2/GDP - while the UK is way down at 80th position, with a rate of 0.21 kgCO2/GDP. In this set of (2017) data, there are over 100 countries with no data measured.

The GDP way balances emissions against how industrialised a country is becoming, so it is perhaps no surprise that it is largely what we would see as developing countries having high emissions measured against low, or growing, economies - whereas more (so-called) western nations have large economies to balance their emissions against (which also means they have the capacity to start carbon reduction programmes which may be viewed as more of a luxury in some nations).

The 'actual' truth:
So the last way to look at this, is perhaps the crudest - just plain old, straight up 'actual' emissions. What a country emits, regardless of how big it is, how much money it makes, or how many people live there.

This chart gives us a chart that perhaps makes more sense to what we know about the world - here are the Top 5 for 2017;

1. China - 8549 mtCO2 (megatons)
2. USA - 5687 mtCO2
3. India - 2260 mtCO2
4. Japan - 1393 mtCO2
5. Russia - 1373 mtCO2

The UK sits at 12th in this list (557mt), which makes sense when judged against other countries we might view as being similar. Germany is sixth (895mt) and France 17th (459mt); emerging nation, Brazil, is 14th at 513mt.

When we now look at some of those nations on the other lists, through this window, we see a different picture.

• Qatar - 47th - 82mt
• Trinidad & Tobago - 66th - 37mt
• Luxembourg - 73rd - 24mt
• Kyrgyzstan - 88th - 16mt

The difficulty now is that developing nations want the 'luxuries' that fossil fuels brought the western world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - but because we now know the problems that brings, we are effectively telling them they can't have that! We need to find ways to try and give such countries the way of life they want, but in as sustainable a way as possible.


Research:
https://transform.iema.net/article/uk-emissions-already-outstrip-rwandas-annual-total-2020-oxfam?redirectcounter=1
http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/british-carbon-footprint-africa-emissions-oxfam-climate-change-a9271861.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

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