Deforestation in the next five years will release more CO2 than all aircraft since the Wright Brothers until at least 2025, but unlike almost all other sources of CO2, there are no market based incentives for efforts to reduce deforestation. Considering that forests have many other values on top of carbon storage - conserving biodiversity, generating rainfall, protecting watersheds, and cycling minerals to name a few - while there is little extra value to carbon stored underground by Carbon Capture and Storage for instance.
The Forests NOW declaration calls for new market based mechanisms to protect tropical forests, and end this illogical market failure. Sign it here and keep up to date with all their latest news on their new blog which will be continually updated from Bali.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
GM Crops
I have been meaning to write about GM crops for a while now, but kept putting it off, as I was unsure that I wanted to tackle what has become such a central policy of many environmental groups I know and love. However, a story that tied together so many environmental and health issues, which could all benefit from a new GM technology. The story was about a new strain of GM crop that has been engineered to contain higher levels of omega three fatty acids. Omega 3 is found in large quantities in fish, and is very good for the brain, memory and heart, so demand for fish oils is driving over-fishing. This new crop will provide an alternative sustainable source for omega three, meaning that everyone will be able to get the recommended allowance cheaply and without causing enormous damage to the oceans. Presumably many environmental groups will oppose trials of this crop, on the grounds that it could cause ill health, or that it could contaminate the environment.
Fortunately, an enormous experiment has been going on for the past twelve years on over 100million hectares of farmland in 22 countries and involving most of the food consumed in many of those countries, so we test whether their fears are founded. A review of the environmental impacts of GM technology concluded that it had caused reductions of GHG emissions equivalent to taking 4m cars of the road, 20% reduction in pesticide use, and 15% reduction in herbicide use. The review was published in a agricultural biotech journal, so may have been inclined to favour GM, but their methods seem sound. In terms of costs, there have been 160 reports of GM crops escaping into the environment, according to the Independent, but these were easily contained, and in terms of large scale environmental problems, I know of none.
On the scale of the environmental problems that exist around the world, GM crops have great potential for good, not only for protecting the Oceans, but also for protecting forests. Their potential for protecting forests is quite simple - GM crops can provide higher yield meaning that we can feed the world with less land. They can also make crops cheaper to grow, which may sound like the talk of a corporate whore, but it is also crucial for world hunger, and for deforestation. George Monbiot makes the first connection very clearly in this excellent article arguing for a moratorium on use of biofuels, in which he explains how each "increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline". The second connection is similar; with each increment in the price of crops, the economic incentive for cutting forests to bring more land into cultivation increases, and the rainforests fall. A single hectare of rainforest generally contain ten times more species of tree than in the entire UK (300 vs 33). All British tree species can be found elsewhere.
Therefore, the kind of visceral opposition to GM technologies that has dominated the debate in the UK for the past ten years, and led to incidents such as this, as well as smoothie companies and supermarkets falling over each other to declare how free they are of GM foods, is completely at odds with the evidence for the environmental impacts of this new technology in the world. The time has come to think about the actual impacts and the possibilities of this not so new technology. Does anyone know of any environmental groups that support the principle of GM technology (even if they oppose the way it has been used by certain large multinational companies)? If not, then who on the OUSU environment committee likes the idea of becoming the first?
FURTHER READING
Dick Traverne's very pro-GM article in Prospect Magazine
Jonathon Porritt's reply
Fortunately, an enormous experiment has been going on for the past twelve years on over 100million hectares of farmland in 22 countries and involving most of the food consumed in many of those countries, so we test whether their fears are founded. A review of the environmental impacts of GM technology concluded that it had caused reductions of GHG emissions equivalent to taking 4m cars of the road, 20% reduction in pesticide use, and 15% reduction in herbicide use. The review was published in a agricultural biotech journal, so may have been inclined to favour GM, but their methods seem sound. In terms of costs, there have been 160 reports of GM crops escaping into the environment, according to the Independent, but these were easily contained, and in terms of large scale environmental problems, I know of none.
On the scale of the environmental problems that exist around the world, GM crops have great potential for good, not only for protecting the Oceans, but also for protecting forests. Their potential for protecting forests is quite simple - GM crops can provide higher yield meaning that we can feed the world with less land. They can also make crops cheaper to grow, which may sound like the talk of a corporate whore, but it is also crucial for world hunger, and for deforestation. George Monbiot makes the first connection very clearly in this excellent article arguing for a moratorium on use of biofuels, in which he explains how each "increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline". The second connection is similar; with each increment in the price of crops, the economic incentive for cutting forests to bring more land into cultivation increases, and the rainforests fall. A single hectare of rainforest generally contain ten times more species of tree than in the entire UK (300 vs 33). All British tree species can be found elsewhere.
Therefore, the kind of visceral opposition to GM technologies that has dominated the debate in the UK for the past ten years, and led to incidents such as this, as well as smoothie companies and supermarkets falling over each other to declare how free they are of GM foods, is completely at odds with the evidence for the environmental impacts of this new technology in the world. The time has come to think about the actual impacts and the possibilities of this not so new technology. Does anyone know of any environmental groups that support the principle of GM technology (even if they oppose the way it has been used by certain large multinational companies)? If not, then who on the OUSU environment committee likes the idea of becoming the first?
FURTHER READING
Dick Traverne's very pro-GM article in Prospect Magazine
Jonathon Porritt's reply
An Update on Fish
Things are moving pretty fast in the campaign to stop unsustainably caught fish from being served in Oxford, but here is an excellent article (the economist again) about the economic benefits of marine reserves. As mentioned below, Britain has only one marine reserve (Lundy Island), which makes up about 0.002% of our waters. The government has been discussing a Marine Bill for some time now, but it did not make it onto the draft legislative programme that Gordon Brown outlined in July, nor onto the Queen's speech this month, despite thousands of letters of support for the bill, and strong pressure from environmental groups. The interests of the fishing industry have consistently been focused on short term benefits (Hurry while stocks last), and the government doesn't appear to be taking any action to preserve biodiversity for the future, which shows why consumer led action to dry up demand for unsustainably caught fish is so important.
Friday, 26 October 2007
Photos prove damage caused by trawlers
This striking photo shows Chinese trawlers scraping the sea bed and dredging up clouds of mud. If you eat deep sea fish, then this is probably how they were caught.
This is the factsheet and motion that we sent out to all college reps last week.:
When the shores of Newfoundland were first discovered by European explorers, it is said that if they were to dip a basket into the water it would come back up filled with Atlantic cod. An enormous industry was built on the back of this seemingly inexhaustible natural resource, and bigger boats with bigger nets scraped the sea floor for every fish they could get. By 1992, after years of ignoring scientific advice on how unsustainable these methods were, the cod stocks collapsed, and 40,000 people lots their jobs in a single year. Fifteen years later, the ban on fishing has been partially lifted, but catches are at less than 1% of their 1977 levels, as the ecology of the region has shifted, and fish have been unable to recover. The story of the decline of the Atlantic cod and its subsequent affects on Newfoundland is but one of a series of “fishy” horror stories around the world. In fact, fishery records from 1950 to 2000 show the collapse of 366 out of the world’s 1519 fisheries. The collapse of these fisheries has shifted the pressure onto those remaining, so that the journal Science has suggested that, if current trends continue, there will be a total marine collapse (defined as loss of 90% of stocks of each species) by 2050.
• Up to 25% of all sea creatures caught in fisheries are discarded (thrown back into the sea dead or dying) because they are not the fishermen’s intended target. In bottom trawling the proportion of bycatch rises to 50%.
• Protected areas can be enormously beneficial economically because they serve as “nurseries” where young fish grow to a large enough size.
• Scientists recommend that 20-30% of Britain’s seas should be protected. The figure is currently 0.002%.
However, the sea is a valuable natural resource that can provide some of our dietary requirements if it is harvested in an appropriate way using modern sustainable techniques. The over exploitation of our oceans by bottom trawling, high levels of bycatch and over-fishing of threatened species will mean that within our lifetimes the ecology of all seas will have shifted so dramatically that no edible fish species will survive to be of use to humans ever again. We have two options – we could “hurry while stocks last”, and eat all we can while there are any left, or choose the sustainable future, and demand that kitchens in Oxford are not driving demand for unsustainably caught fish, and send a clear message that we want sustainably harvested fish, or no fish at all.
Motion
This JCR notes that:
• Many species of commercially exploited fish are unsustainably caught and are in danger of being driven to extinction by overfishing, and that some of these fish are being served in college hall.
This JCR resolves to:
• Request that the college not serve unsustainably caught or endangered fish, and instead replace them with more sustainably caught species, ie those approved by the Marine Stewardship Council or those on the Marine Conservation Society ‘Fish To Eat’ list.
Sunday, 23 September 2007
Popluation
One of the most painful things to read is someone arguing badly and wrongly for something you believe in. Ju
st as creationists like this are the best possible advert for militant atheism, this article from the economist blog on why population doesn't matter is enough to make you believe that radical population control measures are the only solution to the environmental problems of the planet. The economist runs a blog on its website that it calls ‘green.view’, but is usually used to explain why environmental issues don’t matter. In this case, the column was a response to the sackloads of mail they received from people objecting to their front cover about population shrinkage, who variously suggested shrinking populations "are a reason to cheer", and that cap-and-trade birth permits are the only way to ensure our future.
This is an issue which has often been called the 'elephant in the drawing room' of environmentalism, as few have dared to talk about it, and those that do are often quickly sidelined as their conclusions are so unpopular. I have thought about the issue a lot, and have a few reasons to believe that we do not need to take radical action to prevent people giving birth. The economist blogger clearly did not think about it much, and so came up with the following argument:
Carbon Emissions in poor countries only increased by 2% per year between 1990 and 2002, while in rich countries emissions increased from 11.8 tonnes per head to 12.8 tonnes per head, with population fairly stable. Now this comparison sounds like good evidence for their argument at first glance, but you can normally expect the Economist to give more than just a glance to an argument, and any economist (small e) should be able to see that 2% a year over 12 years is almost 27%, while an increase from 11.8 to 12.8 is just 8.5%. In other words, the percentage increase in carbon emissions was much greater in developing countries than in developed, and as tackling climate change is very much a long term game, it is these broad trends that make the difference. Their major point 'lighten the footprint, but keep the feet', leaves you thinking, 'but surely it would be better to lighten the footprint AND lose some feet', because though they throw about some statistics to show that there is little correlation between population growth and emissions, their view is still that each person is essentially negative for the world, rather that each person can add something. Without this idea, it is impossible not to agree with the doom-mongerers and population fascists, but I think that each human can add more than he takes. Here's why:
The key to the future are the human qualities of Innovation, Invention and Imagination, the qualities that Julian Simon calls the Ultimate Resource. Without considering these factors, than Malthus's logic stands up, and our future can only be Malthusian, with shortages causing war, famine, disease and environmental destruction. However, it is easy to forget the most important fact of the past two hundred years - MALTHUS WAS WRONG. Two hundred years after he predicted widespread destruction, there are more people, living with more health, wealth and education than ever before (watch this amazing video to see the trends of development of the last fifty years). This must be the most important trend of human history, and understanding it is crucial for our future. A more recent example of the shortcomings of malthusian logic illustrates why he was wrong:
In the 1960s, a chap called Ehrlich wrote a book called "the population bomb" which stated "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now". He was taken up on his predictions by Julian Simon in 1980, who asked him to put his money where his mouth was and offered him a wager - Erlich was to choose five metals whose price they would bet on over ten years. If the prices went up, then Simon would pay the difference to Erlich, if they went down, then vice versa. Erlich gleefully accepted, and chose his metals - copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The logic seemed clear - demand for copper was increasing as more and more electrics were being used, while the supply was fast running out. How could he possibly lose?
When the bet ended, in 1990, after the decade with the biggest population rise in all history, the prices of every single metal had fallen in real terms, and Erlich owed $575. He had failed to predict the new technologies that would change the way all the metals were used. For copper, fiber optics replaced many of the electrical uses, while better extraction technologies made supply more plentiful.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet).
The message of this story is clear to me - human ingenuity and innovation will change our future immeasurably, and though we cannot for a moment be complacent about our own abilities, it is this factor that means that each human can add more than he takes away from the planet, and pave the way for a sustainable future. Encouraging and realising this potential for innovation must be the aim of every person everywhere if we are to address the challenges that lie ahead.
st as creationists like this are the best possible advert for militant atheism, this article from the economist blog on why population doesn't matter is enough to make you believe that radical population control measures are the only solution to the environmental problems of the planet. The economist runs a blog on its website that it calls ‘green.view’, but is usually used to explain why environmental issues don’t matter. In this case, the column was a response to the sackloads of mail they received from people objecting to their front cover about population shrinkage, who variously suggested shrinking populations "are a reason to cheer", and that cap-and-trade birth permits are the only way to ensure our future.This is an issue which has often been called the 'elephant in the drawing room' of environmentalism, as few have dared to talk about it, and those that do are often quickly sidelined as their conclusions are so unpopular. I have thought about the issue a lot, and have a few reasons to believe that we do not need to take radical action to prevent people giving birth. The economist blogger clearly did not think about it much, and so came up with the following argument:
Carbon Emissions in poor countries only increased by 2% per year between 1990 and 2002, while in rich countries emissions increased from 11.8 tonnes per head to 12.8 tonnes per head, with population fairly stable. Now this comparison sounds like good evidence for their argument at first glance, but you can normally expect the Economist to give more than just a glance to an argument, and any economist (small e) should be able to see that 2% a year over 12 years is almost 27%, while an increase from 11.8 to 12.8 is just 8.5%. In other words, the percentage increase in carbon emissions was much greater in developing countries than in developed, and as tackling climate change is very much a long term game, it is these broad trends that make the difference. Their major point 'lighten the footprint, but keep the feet', leaves you thinking, 'but surely it would be better to lighten the footprint AND lose some feet', because though they throw about some statistics to show that there is little correlation between population growth and emissions, their view is still that each person is essentially negative for the world, rather that each person can add something. Without this idea, it is impossible not to agree with the doom-mongerers and population fascists, but I think that each human can add more than he takes. Here's why:
The key to the future are the human qualities of Innovation, Invention and Imagination, the qualities that Julian Simon calls the Ultimate Resource. Without considering these factors, than Malthus's logic stands up, and our future can only be Malthusian, with shortages causing war, famine, disease and environmental destruction. However, it is easy to forget the most important fact of the past two hundred years - MALTHUS WAS WRONG. Two hundred years after he predicted widespread destruction, there are more people, living with more health, wealth and education than ever before (watch this amazing video to see the trends of development of the last fifty years). This must be the most important trend of human history, and understanding it is crucial for our future. A more recent example of the shortcomings of malthusian logic illustrates why he was wrong:
In the 1960s, a chap called Ehrlich wrote a book called "the population bomb" which stated "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now". He was taken up on his predictions by Julian Simon in 1980, who asked him to put his money where his mouth was and offered him a wager - Erlich was to choose five metals whose price they would bet on over ten years. If the prices went up, then Simon would pay the difference to Erlich, if they went down, then vice versa. Erlich gleefully accepted, and chose his metals - copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The logic seemed clear - demand for copper was increasing as more and more electrics were being used, while the supply was fast running out. How could he possibly lose?
When the bet ended, in 1990, after the decade with the biggest population rise in all history, the prices of every single metal had fallen in real terms, and Erlich owed $575. He had failed to predict the new technologies that would change the way all the metals were used. For copper, fiber optics replaced many of the electrical uses, while better extraction technologies made supply more plentiful.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet).
The message of this story is clear to me - human ingenuity and innovation will change our future immeasurably, and though we cannot for a moment be complacent about our own abilities, it is this factor that means that each human can add more than he takes away from the planet, and pave the way for a sustainable future. Encouraging and realising this potential for innovation must be the aim of every person everywhere if we are to address the challenges that lie ahead.
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Windmills and Birds
There's an article in nature today about the true cost of wind-turbines to the lives of birds. The conclusion - 3% of a bird per turbine per year, or one dead bird for every thirty or so turbines. They put the avian death toll from wind turbines at no more than 40,000 per year for the USA (the largest wind power producer in the world), compared to hundreds of millions of birds killed by cats. However, there are important limitations to this - mainly that the birds killed by turbines are often bigger, and bigger birds have smaller populations, so the death on an individual is more important.
The UN on biofuels
This week the UN has published a report on biofuels, warning that though biofuels have great potential in providing clean energy as well as employment and income to the poorer areas of the world, the impacts so far have been limited to increasing the rate of forest clearance in south east asia, and driving up the price of food around the world. This is a stark warning, and backs many of George Monbiot's outspoken views on biofuels, which i commented on last month.
The EU has recently mandated a 5.75% blend of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel into all pump fuels by 2012, but this come with no safeguard to ensure that it doesn't speed up deforestation, and escalate food prices. There is clearly an enormous and incredibly important debate to be had here, but it seems that if there are incentives offered to promote biofuels then they need to come with caveats to prevent the worst environmental and social problems that could follow. The government is currently proposing to make all fuel companies increase the amount of biofuel they supply as part of its Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, and we are currently in the consultation period. Greenpeace have organised a petition to make sure that "biofuels really are green fuels". Click here to visit the Greenpeace petition or here for the consultation on the Department for Transport website.
The EU has recently mandated a 5.75% blend of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel into all pump fuels by 2012, but this come with no safeguard to ensure that it doesn't speed up deforestation, and escalate food prices. There is clearly an enormous and incredibly important debate to be had here, but it seems that if there are incentives offered to promote biofuels then they need to come with caveats to prevent the worst environmental and social problems that could follow. The government is currently proposing to make all fuel companies increase the amount of biofuel they supply as part of its Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, and we are currently in the consultation period. Greenpeace have organised a petition to make sure that "biofuels really are green fuels". Click here to visit the Greenpeace petition or here for the consultation on the Department for Transport website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)