Animals
A “Hole” New Appreciation For Old Trees
The value of an old tree is often overlooked in the haste to plant new trees says environmentalist George Monbiot in a recent article in The Guardian. Trees that have been struck by lightening or are forked, twisted, rotten, or dead, are keystone structures of the forest on which many species depend. And the most important features of big, old and rotten trees are holes. Between 10% and 40% of the world’s forest birds and mammals need holes in trees in which to nest or roost. Holes are found in hollow trunks, branches, tunnels mined by insects, cavities dug out by woodpeckers and all make homes for other nesting birds and mammals. But such trees are fast disappearing. Our habit of treating trees as interchangeable is devastating to wildlife. A young sapling cannot replace an old tree and it’s important to appreciate that standing or fallen dead trees continue to provide crucial habitats — holes and all!
Food
Making Our Food More Secure
The ways we produce our food are increasingly threatened by weather extremes like drought and flooding, warming oceans, and disease. New research says food production would be more resilient if it happened mainly indoors or under cover, or even underground, and was based on mycoprotein, microalgae, larvae, kelp and farmed insects. These can all be produced efficiently in large quantities and in systems that are mostly shielded from risk. Such systems could also better contain pests and outbreaks of disease and — because they are flexible, small, mobile, and highly-productive — could produce food where land is limited, in harsh or remote environments, and reduce our dependence on global supply chains. Such systems would face significant hurdles like requiring new technologies, regulatory approvals and social acceptance. However, they could help secure a risk-resilient and sustainable food future, so they may be on the table.
the Climate Crisis
It’s Now or Never
The latest UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report didn’t hold back. A human-induced climate crisis is underway. The report ramped up the urgency for governments, policy makers, businesses and individuals to act, as humanity grapples with the devastating fires, floods, drought and record-shattering heat of a warming world. An upcoming series of UN Summits presents crucial opportunities for progress. The first ever UN Food Systems Summit will be held on Sept 23, in New York. COP15, the UN’s biggest Biodiversity Conference in a decade will be held virtually from Oct 11-15 in Kunming, China, with face-to-face meetings to negotiate targets for a new global biodiversity framework scheduled for April 25-May 8, 2022. And, the UN COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, takes place Oct 31-Nov 12. There, world leaders must agree to limit future global warming to a survivable amount. The science says it’s now or never.
words of wisdom
“Our food system is failing us, and too few people understand the true cost of the food we consume, and lack clear incentives to change a system that is costing us dearly. That’s why accounting for the true cost of the food we eat is the first, necessary step towards remaking the incentive structure that drives our food system today.”
— Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President, The Rockefeller Foundation.
“We don’t need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if they could.”
— James Cromwell (Award-winning actor)
Photo: Michael Waddell on Unsplash
on the horizon
Which Industry Do You Think Emits More Methane?
The recent Sixth Assessment Report from the UN IPCC says cutting emissions of methane – one of the most powerful greenhouse gases (GHG) — is crucial if we are to slow down climate change. This is yet another call from climate scientists that reducing methane emissions can provide a quick win in the battle to reduce GHG emissions by 2030.
Why methane? Methane is 84x more powerful in trapping heat than CO2 over a 20-year period and it has caused about 30% of global heating to-date. Also, it dissipates in the atmosphere within 10-12 years, unlike CO2 which remains in the air for centuries.
2020 saw a record rise in methane emissions. Source: Bioscience
Where does methane come from? According to the UN, agriculture is the number one source at 42%, 80% of which comes from the digestive systems of cows and sheep, their manure, and fertilizer to grow feed crops. The number two source is fossil fuels at 36%, especially shale gas wells and leaks in conventional oil and gas facilities, and number three is waste dumps at 18%.
Source: FAOSTAT data. Chart: Amada44 (CC BY 3.0)
There are over four billion ruminant livestock globally (an increase of one billion in the last 20 years), and they require more resources and land than any other source of food.
Another recent study from climate scientists focused on methane reduction in three of its six urgent calls to action. These were: cutting air pollution by significantly reducing methane; transforming food systems by switching to mostly plant-based diets; and reducing food waste. The study also called for a significant global carbon price to cover all GHGs in multiple sectors, including forestry and agriculture/food.
However, vested interests are prevaricating. Strategies to reduce methane being promoted by Big Food — such as seaweed additives in cattle feed — are not scalable or feasible for four billion ruminants. Nor will they deliver the emissions reductions and climate benefits of a significant reduction in meat consumption and an increase in plant-rich diets.
“Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years and complements necessary efforts to reduce carbon dioxide. We need international cooperation to urgently reduce methane emissions as much as possible this decade,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director, UN Environment Programme.
perspective
Six Ways to Lead Change
Those who’ve been following the science, are making the connection between more frequent extreme weather events – records are not just being broken but pulverized – and the climate crisis. The case for changing how we live on this planet is increasingly compelling especially for those of us living in richer nations. So, let’s assume we’ve started to make some lifestyle changes to lighten our carbon footprint – we’re throwing out less food, we’re eating more plants, we’re conserving energy – but what else can we do? Maybe we can influence others to make similar changes, but how?
Dr. Jane Goodall has dedicated her life to leading change. Her landmark studies of chimpanzees in Gombe, Africa, in the 1960s, were responsible for the groundbreaking discovery that it wasn’t only humans that used tools. And she’s been working ever since to defend animals, biodiversity and the environment from human encroachment and our unsustainable exploitation of Earth’s resources.
Dr. Goodall recently shared these six tips for influencing change in The New York Times Magazine:
1. Give people hope. Without hope people will just give up.
2. Recognize that most people will only change gradually.
3. Be reasonable, be prepared to compromise to keep the channel open.
4. Don’t demand. Talk about how the issue is affecting you, how you feel about it.
5. Tell stories, your stories and ask them how they feel.
6. Balance the ‘doom and gloom’ with stories of success – solutions, restorations, rescues.
For more inspiration on leading change, tune in to the Hopecast — a podcast series in which Dr. Goodall interviews leaders who are working to save the environment and biodiversity.
nurture nature
This precariously balanced Ibex symbolizes the plight of biodiversity if we continue to invade habitats.
Photo: kallerna, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The deeper dive
Photo: Feria de Productores, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Four Paths to Tackle the Climate Crisis and Nature Loss
The world’s most senior climate and biodiversity scientists warn that we will have to tackle the climate crisis and the species extinction crisis simultaneously because they are intertwined. A new report shows that failing to tackle the climate crisis will accelerate biodiversity loss and vice versa. Earth’s land and oceans absorb about half of human-caused GHGs.
Scientists say we can address climate change and biodiversity loss together with “nature-based solutions.” These measures can enhance the richness and diversity of life on Earth, help habitats store more carbon and reduce GHG emissions, making ecosystems more resilient while slowing down global warming.
Three top scientists boil down the comprehensive report to the four most effective paths forward:
1. PROTECT AND RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS
While most people are aware of the need to preserve tropical rainforests, other habitats are also in dire need of protection. Mangrove swamps occupy less than 1% of Earth’s surface, but they can store about 66% of total emissions from burning fossil fuels each year. More than 40 bird, 10 reptile and six mammal species are only found in mangroves.
Photo: Satdeep Gill, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Peatlands, the soggy ecosystems that include bogs and marshes, store twice as much carbon as all of the world’s forests. The top layer (15cm) stores more carbon below ground than tropical rainforests do above ground. Unfortunately, if peatlands are degraded, they become an emissions source, not a carbon sink.
2. MANAGE FARMLAND AND FISHERIES SUSTAINABLY
The global food system contributes one-third of all GHG emissions. Agroecology, which involves incorporating trees and habitats within farm fields, and sustainable fishing practices can protect and regenerate topsoil and seabed habitats, boosting biodiversity and improving the resiliency of these ecosystems to climate change.
Photo: USFS Region 5, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
3. CREATE NEW FORESTS – WITH CARE
We’ve already cut down three trillion trees – half of all the trees that once grew on Earth. Creating new woodlands and forests can draw down atmospheric carbon and provide diverse habitats for a range of species, but we need the right mix of trees in the right places. Vast plantations of non-native trees, especially single species, offer less viable habitats for wildlife, but a mix of native trees can benefit biodiversity and store more carbon. We can do the same thing in oceans by restoring seagrass meadows.
Photo: Lars Krogh Berg, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
4. SHIFT TO MORE PLANT-BASED DIETS
Globally, animal agriculture is a major contributor to biodiversity loss. Millions of hectares of Amazon rainforest, African Savanna and Central Asian grassland have been ploughed up to create pasture and plant feed crops (often exported around the world) for cows, pigs and chickens. Nearly 60% of all planet-warming emissions from food production originate in livestock farming.
Reducing demand for meat and dairy, through diet changes and cutting waste, reduces GHG emissions, reduces deforestation and habitat destruction, and frees more land for nature-based solutions.
The scientists also cautioned that nature-based solutions are no substitute for the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. And nature-based solutions should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity – not just carbon sequestration.
other victims of the climate crisis
While the headlines naturally focus on the human suffering caused by extreme weather events fueled by the climate crisis — floods, droughts and heat domes — they are equally devastating to animals. Whether it’s pets that are left behind when owners are forced to flee or livestock that are abandoned on factory farms or wildlife decimated in burning forests, the toll on billions of animals receives little attention. For more on the impact of climate-driven disasters on animals and a look at some of the people and organizations who work tirelessly to save them, see our latest blog.
Photo: We Animals Media
Good news
Photo: Robert Bye on Unsplash
“Where’s the Beef” — that’s what 44 major investors managing almost $6 trillion in assets are asking governments in an attempt to force the climate impact of animal agriculture onto the agenda for the COP26 climate summit to be held in November in Glasgow.
The investor coalition FAIRR is “highlighting the critical need to reduce the global GHG emissions of the animal agriculture sector” to meet the Paris climate goals.
Agriculture is responsible for up to 30% of global GHG emissions, the majority of which are from animal farming. Global meat production has more than tripled in the last 50 years and meat consumption is expected to keep rising along with incomes and a growing global population.
The investors say that “this trajectory generates a level of greenhouse gas emissions that is unsustainable” and that current production methods are leading to record levels of “destruction of some of our most important natural biomes on the planet through deforestation and biodiversity loss.”
“We ask all G20 nations to disclose specific targets for emissions reduction in agriculture within or alongside their national climate commitments at COP26.”
The coalition says a lack of clear national targets is undermining climate action and that one-third of the 60 largest animal protein producers showed an increase in emissions in 2019. They argue that bold and effective national targets for agricultural emissions has the potential to deliver 20% of the global emissions reductions needed by 2050.
Berkeley city council in California has become the first local authority in the US to commit to only buying plant-based food. It voted to halve its spending on meat, dairy, eggs and all other animal-based foods by 2024 – serving vegan food at public events, prisons, centres for older people and municipal buildings – with the aim of eventually going entirely plant-based.
Data Points
Photo: Alex Belogub on Unsplash
It would require more than all of the arable land in the world or 5x the land area of India to meet the carbon offset reforestation targets of the “net-zero targets” of governments and large companies, according to a report by the British anti-poverty NGO Oxfam. Not only is this totally unrealistic, the report says it would also negatively impact global food security, drive up food prices and undermine programs to address global poverty and inequality.
According to a leaked draft of a UN IPCC report due out in 2022, rich people everywhere are overwhelmingly more responsible for global warming.
The top 10% of emitters globally, who are the wealthiest 10%, contribute 36-45% of emissions – 10x more than the poorest 10%, who are responsible for 3-5%.
To significantly contribute to reducing emissions, the report highlights lifestyle changes — especially in rich countries and among the wealthy globally — such as: refraining from over-heating or over-cooling homes; walking and cycling; cutting air travel; and reducing use of energy-consuming appliances.
Eating patterns in many parts of the rich world were also singled out. “A shift to diets with a higher share of plant-based protein in regions with excess consumption of calories and animal-source food can lead to substantial reductions in emissions, while also providing health benefits … Plant-based diets can reduce emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission intensive western diet”.
93% of European citizens believe climate change is a serious problem and 78% consider it very serious, according to a recent Eurobarometer poll of almost 27,000 people in 27 EU countries. And 64% are already taking individual action.
When asked who is responsible for tackling climate change, in addition to individual action, 63% pointed to national governments and 58% said it should be business and industry. 74% agree that the cost of damages due to climate change are much higher than the investments needed for a green transition. These findings give policy makers even less excuse not to act.
The poll was conducted before the recent floods in Germany and the fires in Greece.
charting our path
Annual hidden costs of the US food system in billions of dollars. Source: True Cost of Food, The Rockefeller Foundation
The Hidden Costs of the US Food System
A new study shows that the true cost of food in the US is about 3x higher than the $1.1 trillion that consumers pay at checkout. According to a comprehensive report by The Rockefeller Foundation, when you include the hidden costs of the US food system, the total bill is $3.2 trillion per year.
A US supermarket food receipt reflects the cost of producing, processing, retailing and wholesaling. But, “Our food system has deep impacts that reach far beyond our plates. The U.S. food system’s current set-up has led to costly impacts on the health of people, society, and the planet. Global warming, reduced biodiversity, water and air pollution, food waste, and the high incidence of diet-related illnesses are key unintended consequences of the current production system,” the report says.
Source: True Cost of Food, The Rockefeller Foundation
The above chart shows that the unaccounted costs of the food system on the environment and biodiversity alone total almost $900 billion per year. GHG emissions contribute approximately $400 billion in additional costs, primarily due to GHGs from food production and plastic. For biodiversity, the use of cropland adds close to $180 billion, while grazing land adds nearly $160 billion.
The Rockefeller Foundation says the report is the first comprehensive national analysis of the currently unsustainable US food system, and is a tool for policy makers to drive necessary changes.
“Realizing a better food system requires facing hard facts. We must accurately calculate the full cost we pay for food today to successfully shape economic and regulatory incentives tomorrow.”
riveting reads
1. A critical look at the failure of US anti-trust measures to counter rapidly growing corporate concentration across a range of industries, with a focus on Big Food (The New York Times).
2. A good discussion of the implications of switching from meat to plant-based foods for those whose livelihoods depend on the meat industry (Vox).
What a plant-based future could mean for farmers and meatpacking workers
3. An in-depth look at the promise and perils of cultivated meat and the issues associated with the system it aims to replace (The Guardian).
Man v food: is lab-grown meat really going to solve our nasty agriculture problem?