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 

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

The need to change is now!

So, sitting in my study at the end of a day spent in London when it was at least 32­°C and not all that much lower several hours later, brings my mind back to some of the stuff I was looking at when I first thought about this blog.

Back at the end of last year, the UK Met Office released its first set of climate predictions in almost 10 years; the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18). These look at four potential climate scenarios in the UK, and how they would pan out over the coming decades. 

This report is useful for planning purposes, and has become even more pertinent given the government legislating for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, to try and do our part in keeping global temperature rises down to around 1.5°C. Also, there has been the rise in prominence of things like Extinction Rebellion, climate emergencies and student activism through people such as Greta Thunberg.

As some background, the report shows some interesting observations for where we find ourselves at the moment, including;

• Average temperature over the decade up to 2017 was 0.3°C warmer than 1981-2010 average, and 0.8°C warmer than 1961-1990
• 9 of the 10 warmest years in the UK have happened since 2002
• In 1961-1990, the average hottest day was 26°C. 
• In the last decade the average was 0.8°C warmer
• Average rainfall, especially in Scotland, has increased over the last two decades.
• There has been a 4% increase in Scotland against the 1981-2010 average
• 2008-2017 – UK summers were an average 17% wetter than 1981-2010, and 20% wetter than 1961-1990
• Mean sea level on the UK coast has risen 16cm (6.3 in) since the start of the 20^th century 

UKCP18 maps out 4 nattily titled Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to demonstrate the potential effects. We are starting to use this in our business as a means to demonstrate to senior management that there are likely to be quite severe risks (and maybe some opportunities) that need to be faced even when trying to do 'business as usual' - and the more prepared and flexible a business is, the more chance it has of staying in the game (and therefore be sustainable).

As a business, we have taken RCP2.6 - which assumes that loads of stuff is achieved, and we tackle much of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) problem, and RCP8.0 - which assumes almost nothing is done to tackle GHG's at all, completely out of the equation.

Instead we focus on the moderate projections of RCP4.5 and 6.0 (i.e. some actions will be taken, but probably not enough to meet the 1.5 - 2°C scenarios).

1. Moderate projections show that by mid-century, average summer temperatures will increase by around 2-3°C (and possibly 4°C in southern England), and by around 1-3°C in the winter.
2. Moderate projections show that by mid-century, average summer rainfall will decrease by around 10% in northern Scotland and up to 40% along the southern English coast, while increasing by up to 40% in parts of northern Scotland, and 10-30% elsewhere, in the winter.

So what?
There are still a frightening number of people who cannot connect the dots between scientific evidence, the changing weather patterns they have been witnessing over the last few decades, and the potential impacts these changes have, and may more frequently have in the future, on our lives. 

Even worse, there are those that see all of this, and choose to ignore it. There are more than a few politicians who fall into one or other of these camps, naming no orange-skinned, toupee wearing names in particular.

Even though we hear that many of the more catastrophic impacts will be felt elsewhere in the world (so no need to panic, eh) - it always seems to be the poorest people that bear the brunt of this - with increased likelihoods of tropical storms, severe flooding and prolonged drought periods. 

Here in the UK there will almost certainly still be some harsh impacts. Failure to take heed of these will cost us a lot of money (and probably quite a bit more than the cost of properly preparing ourselves), and ultimately, it may cost many lives as well!

How might it look to us?

• Increased flood events - remember the devastation of the flooding in the SW in 2014, or Storm Desmond the following year? Those kind of one in a hundred and one in a decade storms, are becoming much more frequent.
• More high winds - that equals more power lines down, building damage etc. (and then too dangerous conditions for anyone to fix them)
• Prolonged dry periods - will put pressure on water resources, will cause areas to become more prone to wildfires, and dry out soil leading to erosion and compacted ground (which in turn, increased the negative effects of flooding)
• Higher storm surges - leading to increased coastal erosion and damage
• Water scarcity = water rationing
• All of the above = disruption to movement of goods and services; so harder for our food and medicines to get to where they need to be, harder for emergency services to respond, harder for key staff to get into work to fix some of the problems that occur

If you look at the centre boxes to the left - you can get an idea of how summer precipitation may look by the latter part of the century, using the moderate projections.

It is showing a more than reasonable likelihood of rainfall decreasing by at least 10-20%, with areas of the south and south-west getting up towards 30-40% decreases.

While I have said to ignore the more extreme RCP8.5 scenario, you can very clearly see the potential result of doing little or nothing over the next few decades. Those dark brown splodges over the southern half of England indicate rainfall decreasing up to 80%!

And no one should be laughing, because even the places that get off 'lightly' will see rainfall decrease by around 40-50%.

There isn't much to laugh about when looking at the temperature either.

Again, look at the moderate projections for our summer temperatures by late this century. Most of the southern half of England is looking at possible mean temperature rises of maybe 4 or 5°C.

You may say, 'so what?' 
But that could mean your typical August day being 30° instead of 25°C - and a very hot day being 37°C instead of 32° (and I use that example, because it was at least 32° today)!

And like before, look at the possible implications for taking no action on climate change. The top right box (the most extreme of the probabilities) is almost off-the-chart dark red - showing potential mean temperature rises of 8°C or more across all of England, Wales and southern Scotland!










The accusation, and with a degree of truth, that has previously been made of climate scientists, is that there messages are always all 'doom and gloom', and that they aren't very good at discussing the subject in terms that people can, or want, to relate to.

This is fair - and five or ten years ago, we should have been talking less about apocalypses and catastrophes - and more about how the changes we need to make will also make for a world that is much more pleasant to live in (less air pollution, more trees, more green spaces etc.). 

And while that is all still largely a true reflection of what we could have if we get it right - because, to some degree, we didn't get the message across very well and it has been largely ignored - we are now really teetering on the edge of the precipice. 

Research:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboration/ukcp

Climate and Carbon: where is the UK at?

The UK governments recent announcement that we will aim for net-zero with carbon emissions by 2050, and for it to be enshrined in law, is a big step forward. 

A recent climate conference in London pointed out that achieving this target would put us in line with the projected outcomes for a +1.5°C world (that is, of course, assuming the entire rest of the world took a similar stance), rather than the far worse +2 to +4°C scenarios.

This conference also pointed out several key things about the UK's carbon journey over the last few decades, and how it is shaping up for the next few (the squeamish might want to look away now);

• The Climate Change Act 2008 committed us to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - against a 1990 baseline.
• Unfortunately, in the almost 30 years since 1990, we have only achieved about 30% - meaning there is another 70% or so to find in the next 30 years!
• One good point is that it seems that financially it shouldn't cost much more to realise the 100% target instead of 80%.
• We are currently on a target for the +3°C scenario at our current rate of action.
• But - there is a lot we can achieve relatively quickly - with some willpower and a bit of cash.
• Speed up the rate of Electric Vehicle Charge Point (EVCP) installation to meet the growing demand (it is currently way behind schedule). 
• This would also instil the confidence in more people that the infrastructure will be properly available if they choose to buy an EV.
• Continue investment in alternative fuel vehicles, especially at the heavy (truck) end. 
• It currently seems to be very hard to see past diesel - biodiesel is seen to be more damaging to engine components; hydrogen has potential but is hard to get a hold of; the same with CNG (Compressed Natural Gas).
• EV trucks may not be such a pipe dream. 
• A lot of work is being done on things like wireless on-road charging - such as the electric rail under the carriageway that can charge a vehicle as it moves along the road (a 2km demo section was laid in Sweden - they say, at €1m per km, it is around 50 times cheaper than laying urban tram lines). 
• And the added bonus for trucks, is that this kind of technology would mean that battery sizes would be reduced - which is a current stumbling block for trucks at the moment.
• Upgrades of domestic boilers from gas to smart electric. 
• This issue will be time, willpower and coordination rather than cost.

So there clearly needs to be a lot of focus - by government, by business leaders, and by financial markets (who put pressure on both of the other two to make changes). They all need to start to work in tandem on this, and they need to start right around now.

This also has to be replicated around the world - if not the 3°C, or frighteningly, the 4°C are more likely without this global action.

As an example: many of you will be aware that coral reefs have been struggling over recent decades. Warming oceans ruin the symbiosis enjoyed between the coral polyps and the algae needed for their survival. If the world achieves its hoped for limiting of global warming to just 1.5°C by 2050 - the estimate is that up to 90% of all coral reefs will still die. If global warming hits the +2°C mark, that estimate is more like 99%!

***
Of course, all this is not to belittle all the smaller changes we can also make as individuals, as families, as businesses and as consumers.

Agricultural practice has a huge impact on global carbon emissions, currently coming in at around 15% . And red meat, especially beef, is one of the big culprits;

• Producing beef takes 28 times more land, and uses 11 times more water, than pork
• Cutting out 1 beef meal a week (100g / 4oz) will reduce your carbon emissions by 1.3kg
• That's 67.6kg / person / year!
• If 1 million meat lovers did that - this would eliminate over 67,000 tonnes of carbon a year.

Other small things that make a difference if we all do them include;

• Switch off your IT equipment when not in use - monitors, printers etc. overnight
• Don't idle your car unnecessarily
• Consider public transport over your car whenever possible
• Recycle whatever you can - waste in landfill gives huge amounts of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) including CO2

So, while we need to focus on the BIG stuff - keep on doing the LITTLE stuff. As a certain supermarket says - 'every little helps'.

Research:
https://timeforchange.org/eat-less-meat-co2-emission-of-food
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/great-barrier-reef-faces-dire-threat-with-2c-global-warming-un-report-says