Animals
Guess Who Else Is Flying Less?
Why are those Canada Geese hanging out at your local pond or golf course all year, don’t they fly south in the fall and north in the spring? There are about 7 million of these iconic birds in North America and most still migrate from the southern US to Arctic regions and back again, stopping in the same rest areas every year. These strong fliers, that weigh about 10 lbs. and live for 24 years, can cover an amazing 1,500 miles in a 24-hour period. But an increasing number are forgoing the long commute if they can find food and open water in suburban areas where they are safer from hunters and predators. On some major fly-ways, up to half of these geese are staying put, only starting to migrate again if their nesting fails.
Food
Growing a Bountiful Garden
At a time when many people are starting to grow their own food, a forest gardener in southwest England is growing 500 edible food crops on a small parcel of land with only a few hours of maintenance a month. A pioneer of modern agroforestry, Martin Crawford, grows a wide range of fruits, nuts, root crops and mushrooms to name a few. Rather than the conventional mono-crop farming system with annual plantings, he works with perennials such as large and small trees, bushes and shrubs, flowers, root crops and fungi in a natural forest ecosystem. With a 20-year track record, he says his bountiful harvests from diversified crops can withstand the increasing number of extreme weather events. His book explains how to get started. Also, see video.
the Climate Crisis
Six Signs of Hope
It’s generally agreed we aren’t making enough progress on the Paris Agreement’s climate goals but here are six signs of hope:
1. Over 1,000 companies, whose total annual carbon footprint is more than the annual emissions of France, have pledged major emissions reductions.
2. Half the world’s population lives in major cities and they are building climate resilience.
3. Financial institutions are recognizing fossil fuels as a bad investment.
4. Technological advances are making renewable energy more attainable.
5. There’s a growing public demand for climate action.
6. Country-level action is starting to accelerate.
words of wisdom
“There is no great mystery about the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic, or of any modern pandemic. The same human activities that drive climate change and biodiversity loss also drive pandemic risk.”
— Dr. Peter Daszak, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Photo: Amazon deforestation. Wilson Dias/Agencia Brasil, CC BY 3.O BR, via Wikimedia Commons.
perspective
Photo: Gestation crates. Humane Society of the United States, CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Compelling Reasons to Change the Food System
In a recent article, “The Effects of Food on Ecosystems and Biodiversity”, in Psychology Today, Marc Bekoff — professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado — describes a new book, “Rethinking Food and Agriculture: New Ways Forward” as a game changer. The book is a collection of essays edited by Drs. Amir Kassam and Laila Kassam, which lays out how humans have knowingly decimated a wide variety of ecosystems through our actions and our choices. For example, we’ve been aware for some time how our food choices are devastating not only the lives of countless nonhuman sentient beings, but also the planet.
He says who we eat — products of global food and industrial agricultural systems — is one of the main causes, if not the main cause, for the unprecedented and rampant ecological devastation of Earth's diverse ecosystems. As one of the essayists, NYU professor Dale Jamieson notes, "The addiction to beef that is characteristic of people in the industrialized countries is not only a moral atrocity for animals but also causes health problems for consumers, reduces grain supplies for the poor, precipitates social divisions in developing countries, contributes to climate change, leads to the conversion of forests to pasture lands, is a causal factor in overgrazing, and is implicated in the destruction of native plants and animals.”
Bekoff selects excerpts from the book’s introduction — testimony to some of the damage done:
Since 1970, human activities have wiped out 60% of wildlife populations.
Half of the planet’s topsoil has disappeared in the last 150 years and we are losing 24 billion tonnes every year.
Forests are also disappearing at an alarming rate. It is estimated that we have cut down 46% of trees since the start of human civilization.
We kill an ever-increasing number of land animals for food and other products such as wool, fur, and leather. In 1961, we slaughtered around 7 billion land animals for food, and we are currently killing approximately 70 billion a year (not including male chicks destroyed by the egg industry). We also kill around 80 billion farmed fish every year.
Life in the sea is also being destroyed by fishing and ocean acidification. We kill between 1 and 3 trillion wild aquatic animals every year for food. It is estimated that if we keep fishing at the current rate, there will be no fish in the oceans by 2048.
The editors add, "It is not, however, agricultural land use change alone that has been driving the destruction of nature, particularly since WWII. These changes, along with the industrial agriculture production systems that have developed with them, are servicing consumer demand for food products and diets that are leading not only to environmental destruction but to negative health impacts such as increased obesity, noncommunicable diseases such as cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, and general ill-health."
Bekoff urges us to pay close attention to the science and the wide array of facts that clearly show we must change our ways. “We can't continue denying the huge role we are playing in the rampant global destruction for which we are responsible”.
He says, “Our meal plans, lifestyles, and relationships we have with other animals surely are not sustainable and future generations will pay a huge price for our indiscretions. Indeed, we and other animals are suffering from how we live and who we choose to eat right now.”
While the message is daunting, it is more evidence that the world is waking up to the damage and dangers of the industrialized agriculture system which have been further exposed by the pandemic. These valuable perspectives from experts in the field are influencing public opinion, spurring people to shift their eating habits, raise their voices to governments, and stand up to those vested interests who put their narrow economic interests ahead of the common good.
The deeper dive
Photo: Gulfside Mike on Unsplash.
Will Pricing the True Cost of Food Drive Greener Choices?
A new study published in the journal Nature Communications, focuses on the climate costs of meat, and argues convincingly for a shift in the pricing of food to act as an incentive to choose those with a lower environmental footprint. If the planetary impact of food production was fully priced into our grocery bills, the price differences would be startling and the research suggests we would make very different choices in the supermarket. This would make for a healthier planet and spread the climate costs of our food choices more fairly across society.
The study examined all of the environmental costs incurred in producing our food — from land use to fertilizers, methane emissions, to heating and transport — to arrive at food prices that reflected these costs.
Using the German government’s estimate of climate damage costs (based on data from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), researchers compared organic and conventional processes of production for meat products, dairy, and plant-based foods in Germany.
Meat was the most costly for the planet due to its high emissions, followed by dairy products, and then plant-based foods. And, generally speaking, compared with conventional farming, organic farming lowered the emissions of dairy and plant-based products, making them less harmful. Plants grown organically (without chemical fertilizers) have half the climate costs of conventional produce but all plants have far lower emissions than animal products.
However, in the case of meat, both conventional and organic methods of production led to similarly high emissions costs. Organic livestock farming is less efficient than conventional farming. Its reliance on grass-feeding takes more land, it produces less meat, and because the livestock grow more slowly they emit GHGs for a longer period of time. Even the lowest impact meat — organic pork, is responsible for eight times more climate costs than the highest impact plants (conventional oil seeds).
Maximilian Pieper, at the Technical University of Munich, who led the research did note, “In certain other aspects, organic is certainly better than conventional farming.” Overuse of chemical fertilizers and mishandling of manure causes water and air pollution, while pesticides can harm wildlife.
Conventional livestock’s emissions come from their manure and, for cows and sheep, from burping methane. The grain they are fed can also result in high emissions, especially if it is associated with deforestation, such as in South America.
A key trend that emerged from the study was that the largest differences in emissions were driven by the type of food, rather than the farming method. That suggests that choosing what we eat might ultimately have more influence on environmental health, than the way our food is farmed.
The researchers made the environmental impacts tangible for consumers by calculating the increases required in prices paid to farmers to cover the climate costs. The results were that conventionally-farmed meat products would, on average, need to be almost 150% more expensive than they are now to account for its environmental toll. Dairy prices would have to soar by 91%. By comparison, the estimated increase in the price of organically-produced, plant-based foods would be 6%.
The price increase for organic meat would be about 25%, because it is more expensive to begin with. Conventional milk prices would rise by about 33% and organic milk by 20%, but the price of plant foods would barely change.
“The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories,” said Pieper. “The price increases required are 10 times higher than for dairy products and 68 times higher than for plant-based products.”
“The big difference is the simple effect that when you have a field of plants and you eat them directly, then that’s the end of the [emissions], basically,” he said. “But for beef, for example, you need 42kg of feed to just produce 1kg of beef. This huge inefficiency explains the gap.”
Amelie Michalke, at the University of Greifswald and part of the study team, said: “The prices are lying. Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs – they are not adequately put on to the [most polluting] products.”
The researchers said the analysis showed an urgent need for policies, such as meat taxes, to ensure food prices reflect their true costs. This would be fairer, they said, as consumers eating climate-damaging diets would pay for their pollution, rather than the costs of increased storms, floods and droughts being borne by society as a whole.
The research hinges on the principle of ‘polluter pays’, whereby those whose food choices cause greater harm to the environment, pay the cost. That would be reflected in the choice to eat a meatier diet over one that was more plant-based.
Not only does cheap meat belie the cost of its true impact on the planet, it also provides no incentive to make environmentally healthier food choices for the planet. But incorporating the environmental cost of food production into the price of our weekly groceries should encourage a shift away from more environmentally-harmful diets towards lower-impact plant-based ones.
In some developing countries, diets may need to include meat and dairy to achieve nutritional balance but they should not be unaffordable. The researchers pointed to the value of government subsidies and social compensation measures in helping to make this dietary transition fair for everyone.
The researchers predict that using costs to drive more sustainable food choices will cause meat consumption to decline. Also, by incorporating environmental costs into all foods, the price difference between conventionally-farmed and organically-produced food would narrow. This could make organically-farmed food more appealing to consumers — who would then be purchasing food derived from farming systems that, in their ideal forms, support soil health, and reduce pesticides and fertilizer use.
“This analysis confirms the high costs that animal-source foods have for the planet,” Dr. Marco Springmann, University of Oxford (who was not part of the study team), told The Guardian. “The policy implications are clear: applying an emissions price across all sectors of the economy, including agriculture, would provide a consistent and much-needed incentive to change towards healthier and more sustainable diets that are predominantly plant-based.”
There’s little doubt that pricing various foods to reflect the costs of their environmental impact will give consumers another opportunity to play an active role in protecting the planet’s health. But, will it happen?
We can’t just Pander to pandas
A new study challenges the assumption that if conservation efforts focus on an umbrella species, they will protect other species who share the same habitat. The study – which looked at four other species who live in the same protected range as China’s giant panda (a designated umbrella species) – showed their populations are in sharp decline. Comparing data from 2008-2018 with surveys from the 1950s-1970s, population losses were: 81% for leopards; 38% for snow leopards; 77% for wolves; and, 95% for dholes.
Showing that the conservation success of the panda does not translate for other species within their range means the umbrella method isn’t enough. Other species need programs specifically designed for them.
Good news
Photo: Bonnie Brown, co-founder of PassionPlacement.com
The stress of Covid and the dire environmental circumstances around the globe are driving many to re-examine how they spend their “9-to-5”. People are focusing on what is important to them for the future, including their health, how their food is sourced, and putting an end to animal agriculture, a leading contributor to climate change.
Tapping into the growing demand for “purpose-driven” employment, PassionPlacement.com is a new career matchmaking platform that aligns people with organizations that share the mission of taking animals out of the supply chain for the benefit of the planet, health and animals. It spans all types of positions and industries from the intern to the CEO, and from volunteer to board member.
Restaurant Brands International (RBI), owner of Burger King, Popeyes and Tim Hortons, recently released a cage-free policy affecting tens of millions of hens, following a public awareness campaign by a coalition of more than 80 animal protection organizations.
RBI has committed to banning the use of cages across their entire supply chain, with 92% of their global markets implementing these changes by the end of 2025. The remaining 8% of their markets will transition by 2030 or earlier.
RBI has over 27,000 locations in 100+ countries and are the first major restaurant group to make such a commitment which will free hens from being forced to live in cramped, dirty cages. While cage-free does not mean cruelty-free, it’s an important step. No animal deserves to spend their entire life locked in a cage.
A recent paper in Conservation Biology, proposes the use of satellite imagery to monitor habitat destruction (a key driver of biodiversity loss). Overhead snapshots of the planet can be run through algorithms to “identify and quantify land-cover changes and habitat loss,” say the authors, potentially enabling “systematic conservation monitoring.”
This will reveal the extent of current habitat degradation and inform recommendations for new protections, show where existing protections aren’t being enforced, and act as a deterrent to those who think “they can likely get away with habitat destruction without facing consequences.”
The algorithms were tested on four different areas where species are under threat and “effectively detected habitat loss” in all four cases, and did so “faster than human review”— the analysis took less than an hour. Land use changes aren’t always legal and the authors hope the “efficacy, efficiency, and flexibility” of these tools will encourage stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, to adopt them.
data points
Photo: Atlantic salmon. NOAA Fisheries.
There are now more salmon in the Atlantic Ocean that have escaped from salmon farms than there are wild salmon. This is not good news as interbreeding between the two types weakens the wild stock. Norwegian scientists estimate there are approximately 1.5 million wild Atlantic salmon remaining.
There were 18 climate disasters in 2020 in the US that caused at least $1 billion in damage — from hurricanes to wildfires and derechos — a new record. And, globally, there were 41 billion-dollar climate disasters including the Australian wildfires, super-typhoons and cyclones in South East Asia, twin Cat 4 hurricanes in Central America, and a $32 billion Yangtze River flood affecting more than 70 million people in southern China. Covering Climate Now.
One percent of farms operate 70% of the world’s farmland, highlighting the growing concentration and inherent inequality of the industrial agriculture system. The highest concentration of ownership is in the US and Europe. theguardian.com
The Committee on Climate Change, a panel of experts advising the UK government, says that expenditures of less than 1% of national wealth could reduce 78% of UK GHG emissions by 2035. Measures include having industry switch to clean technologies and individuals eating less red meat, curbing flying and driving less. bbcnews.com
charting our path
Chart: Planetary Health Diet, eatforum.org
Living Sustainably Will Help Secure Our Future
The above chart illustrates the extent to which humanity and our meat and dairy-heavy diets are now dominating the biomass of land mammals on the planet, and this is projected only to accelerate. The ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity through our encroachment on the habitats of wild animals has spelled disaster — not only for them — but for us as we suffer the effects of a once-in-100-year global pandemic. And, worse, the WHO warned this week that Covid-19 isn’t necessarily the Big One.
Another stark warning that we need to live sustainably on this planet.