UK Farming and climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will we see the wood for the trees?

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

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

The last pledge:

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

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

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

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

The big pledges!

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

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

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

Oak Tree (photo: Wikimedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conifer forest (photo: Wikimedia)

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

Research:

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

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50591261 

Will climate change be on the agenda at this election?

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

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

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

Not Now, When?

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

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

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

What else?

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change and the election

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the others saying?

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

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

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

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

Research:

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

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

Apocalypse now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Ryanair really so green?

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

(Wikipedia)

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

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

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

New Boeing 737 MAX200 (Wikipedia)

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

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

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

Ryanair hits the Top Ten!

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

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

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

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

Research:

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

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

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

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

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

Murky waters for our Coral Reefs

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

What is coral bleaching?

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

Bleached coral (photo: theconservation.com)

Situation globally:

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

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

Coral and climate change:

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

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

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

Other threats to coral:

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

Indirect impacts of reef destruction:

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

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

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


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

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

How eating meat impacts on the tropics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo: CSIRO Science Image)

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

Beef has particular links to climate change for several reasons;

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

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

Strides are being made to improve how we produce beef;

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

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

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

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