Climate anxiety is attracting increasing attention among climate and social scientists, as we begin to realise the psychological impact of climate change on our mental state. Categorised as a state of heightened anxiousness, climate anxiety is often described with terms like guilt, grief, and desperation as an overwhelming sense of doom about the state of the environment arises. Earth.Org takes a look at how this phenomenon is defined, what implications it has, and, most importantly, how we can cope with it. 

—

What Is Climate Anxiety?

Increasingly, the world at large is acknowledging that the climate is changing, and the climate crisis continues to attract the public’s attention as an emerging phenomenon. At the same, there has been a general shift in conversations from questioning the legitimacy of climate change to understanding the scope and scale of its impacts.

Since the environmental movement of the 1970’s, climate change has become an increasingly salient topic for the public, which is impacting people’s mental health and well-being. Climate anxiety research intersects clinical, natural and social sciences and, though limited, an interdisciplinary body of research has emerged that is generating opportunities to further investigate the mental health impacts of climate change. In research connecting environmental issues and mental health, terms like climate anxiety, eco-anxiety, eco-guilt and eco-grief have been introduced. 

There are a few definitions of climate anxiety that appear most frequently in research, including: 

• The American Psychological Association’s (APA) definition of climate anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom”. 
• The Australian environmental philosopher Glenn Albrecht has been instrumental in raising awareness of climate anxiety, defining it as “the generalised sense that the ecological foundations of existence are in the process of collapse”, and the “worry about our relationship to support environments”. 

Climate Anxiety Survey and Recent Research

In 2020, environmental non-profit Friends of the Earth estimated that over two-thirds of young people (18-24 year old) experience climate anxiety. In fact, Aaron Kiely, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, suggested: “as the group of people most likely to see the worsening effects of climate chaos, it’s not surprising that a surge of younger people is increasingly concerned, especially in the face of government inaction”. 

Image: Pexels.

In 2021, a group of researchers extended their studies to understand the extent of climate anxiety in young people across multiple countries and surveyed 10,000 young people (aged 16-25 years) in 10 countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA). They reported that participants across all countries were worried about climate change (59% were very or extremely worried and 84% were at least moderately worried). In fact, more than 50% reported each of the following emotions: sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty.

So, it’s becoming pretty obvious that researchers believe that the younger generations are experiencing climate anxiety (Gen Z has also been nicknamed the climate generation). But what about older generations? Surely there are more people who experience anxiety about environmental issues than 16 to 25 year old. In a 2003 paper, Scott Wright – a professor at the University of Utah conducting interdisciplinary research in gerontology – and his colleagues contended “the natural environment has been a missing topic from education and public policy forums concerning an ageing society,” and this doesn’t seem to have changed much by today.

Others have identified that older generations may care about the short-term impacts of climate change (like extreme weather, poor air quality and infectious diseases) because they will personally be more vulnerable. However, there is a lot of research on the physical impacts of climate change on an ageing population – but less about the toll it’s taking on their mental health. For example, feelings of guilt may create overwhelming climate anxiety because older generations feel responsible for the destruction of the environment that they have not left in a sustainable state for future generations (i.e. their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren etc.). 

You might also like: What is Climate Justice and Why Is It Important?

Drivers of Climate Anxiety 

Like any topic within mental health research, climate anxiety is complex and wide-ranging, and an individual can experience it in varying degrees with different drivers. We will focus on two particular drivers: the destruction of the physical environment, and the communication of climate change.

First, nature can act as both an exacerbator and a healer of climate anxiety. Anxieties can be triggered by events that physically damage the environment like natural disasters, land-use change and resource depletion. Those who recognise the fundamental value of nature can experience climate anxiety when there is a risk of a catastrophic event because their connectedness to nature may be disrupted, and is driven by climate change-related loss. 

On the other hand, being exposed to nature can also provide an element of healing. For example, this 2015 paper identified the importance of a connection between humans and green and blue spaces, arguing that it can rectify psychological strain. In fact, a quick online search of ways to cope with climate anxiety will generate suggestions involving going outside, experiencing nature and engaging with the outdoor environment to calm anxieties and connect with nature.

Another widely cited driver of climate anxiety is the ways in which climate change is communicated. Whether you consume your information from TV news channels, online articles or social media, any of these can exacerbate climate anxiety. And while environmental education must convey the importance of addressing climate change, certain approaches can exacerbate anxiety. More specifically, when the mainstream media adopts an ‘alarmist’ and apocalyptic tone in climate change reporting, this can worsen the audience’s climate anxiety.

With an ever-growing wealth of research identifying more species being extinct, rising temperatures and continually melting ice sheets, the sheer quantity of ‘bad news’ in the media, alongside the energetic ‘we must act now’ rhetoric of climate change may aggravate people’s stress levels and impair their psychological wel-lbeing. Plus, as social media has grown in popularity, it feels like we have on-demand access to a constant live-stream of information involving environmental disasters. As social media depends on the delivery of information with visual media, when the ‘bad news’ is accompanied by shocking images of dying coral reefs, pollinator loss, and melting Arctic sea ice, audiences are likely to feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the issue and their position as just one person on a planet of billions.

Even strong science-based findings are available right at our fingertips, confirming the catastrophic impacts of environmental destruction. For example, since 2018, the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C has gained significant media coverage in several nations, proposing that humanity has just 12 years left to prevent irreversible, disastrous impacts of climate change. This report often appears in climate anxiety literature because people have applied its quantitative science-led findings to the media’s apocalyptic claims about climate change and increased fear of environmental doom.

It is also important to note the rapidly increasing research around the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s mental health. Though COVID lockdowns may have led to a slower lifestyle in 2020, they also exacerbated the use of single-use plastics and domestic waste. As humanity appears to have re-adopted the high-consumption lifestyle of pre-COVID times, it can often feel like there is limited  potential for meaningful change.

What Are the Implications?

As mentioned before, climate anxiety is complex and can express itself in completely different ways in different people and circumstances. For some, climate anxiety could be the driver for active participation in environmental activism and awareness-raising. Take Greta Thunberg: the environmental activist who started the Fridays for the Future movement that politicised a significant portion of students around the world. She has openly talked about her severe climate anxiety, resulting in her strong stance on environmental activism and justice work. 

On the other hand, climate anxiety may create barriers to participation in climate action, as people become so overwhelmed with feelings of individual responsibility that they struggle to enact real change. The sense of personal insignificance can also hinder engagement in climate action, as we are constantly bombarded with the sheer size of global issues, and we doubt our individual ability to help in some way. 

How to Deal with Climate Change Anxiety

Although it may seem like a lot of the news and conversations around climate change are full of doom, searching for positive climate news stories can help to alleviate anxieties. Every day there are small wins all around the world – whether it’s a new technology to fight climate change, a species that is no longer classified as extinct, or a huge climate movement gaining momentum on social media, it’s undeniable that there are positive changes happening. Try to filter your Instagram feed, news app and other means of consumption to expose yourself to the good stories of innovation and successes.  

Even if you feel like you can’t engage in protests and public events, activism can remain in the home, too. For example, donating to and engaging with environmental charities may help to alleviate climate anxieties as people can remain in the ‘loop’ with activism (even if this is all done online). There are so many communities out there that are full of people who all feel similarly about the climate crisis, and openly talk about their mental struggles around this (have you ever heard of climate cafés?). Sometimes the stigma surrounding mental health struggles (especially when they’re related to the environment) can prevent us from opening up to others, so finding people who are experiencing the same thoughts and feelings as you can really help.

The lack of research about mental health and climate change means there is a strong need for a growing understanding about the topic. Researchers are increasingly investigating this topic, so conducting a quick online search about the latest publications can help to remind you that you’re not alone.

You might also like: Why Marginalised Groups are Disproportionately Affected by Climate Change

If you’d like to find out more about climate anxiety and how to navigate the very real and justified feelings, Sarah Jaquette Ray’s book, A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety, is a great place to start.

The post Explainer: What Is Climate Anxiety? appeared first on Earth.Org.

In recent years, climate change has led to huge environmental, social, and economic issues in Iraq. The country has been battling with extreme flooding, droughts, and dust storms that damaged infrastructure and forced thousands of people to flee. While countless solutions have been explored, a brand-new, tree planting initiative has attracted media attention as both the government and local communities join forces to deliver a new mitigation strategy to save the country and its resources. The plan involves planting five million palms and trees.

—

Climate Change in Iraq

15% of Iraq’s total surface area is currently categorised as being in a state of desertification. The country is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of its extensive oil reserves – with the fifth largest reserve in the world at over 140 billion barrels’ supply. 

Iraq’s fragile social contract under an oil-led growth model has reportedly been a source of economic volatility and, according to the new World Bank Group’s Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR), the country faces the challenge of moving away from total oil dependence towards a more sustainable future. Without the capacity to achieve sustainable development, leaders will have to come up with costly, extensive projects. 

For decades, Iraq has suffered from summer heatwaves, frequent droughts, and desertification triggered by intense dust storms – the duration and intensity of which are increasing due to global warming and increased vulnerability due to arid conditions almost all year round. 

According to government figures, more than seven million citizens have been affected by climate change, with extreme weather events and natural disasters displacing hundreds of thousands of people who rely on agriculture and hunting for a living. Climate change has also impacted the physical environment in Iraq, as declining surface water reserves, recurring drought and increasing water salinity continue to contribute to large-scale desertification. 

Projections of water availability in Iraq are highly uncertain under different climate change scenarios, which has huge implications for both human health and the natural environment. 

Iraq is dominated by two famous rivers: the Tigris and the Euphrates, flowing southeast from the highlands in the north of the country to the Persian Gulf. Climate change threatens the future of these two major rivers, which supply much of Iraq with life-sustaining water supplies. 

Iraq is particularly vulnerable to climate change due to its arid and semi-arid conditions. Photo by Abbas Raad/World Meteorological Organization (Flickr)

According to the United Nations, Iraq is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate shocks both in financial and physical terms. Not only have the environmental impacts of global warming had huge implications for the country’s natural resources; last year, dust storms swept across Baghdad – the country’s capital, forcing schools and airports to close. In addition to affecting the local economy, the dust triggered huge public health concerns as locals were instructed to stay indoors and medicine for those with respiratory problems to be kept handy.

Dust swept across Iraqi city, leaving dozens hospitalised. Photo by Felton Davis (Flickr)

Iraq’s Tree Planting Initiative

Trees help combat desertification, reduce soil erosion, and increase water availability, which is especially important in countries facing frequent droughts and water scarcity like Iraq. Tree planting is a great way to address desertification because trees play a critical role in preventing soil erosion and improving soil fertility. Desertification occurs when soil becomes degraded and unable to support plant life due to factors such as overgrazing, deforestation, and climate change.

Additionally, trees can help mitigate the impacts of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees are intended to help cool cities and provide a windbreak during dust storms. 

Learn more about desertification here: Desertification: Causes, Effects, And Solutions

In March 2023, the country launched a national campaign to plant five million trees across the country. The initiative, supported by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, aims at addressing the various environmental and socio-economic issues generated by climate change as well as creating green jobs and providing training and education to local communities on sustainable agricultural practices. The project has also attracted endorsement from several national and international organisations, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 

The campaign involves a wide range of activities, such as planting seedlings, creating nurseries, and providing training and education to local communities. The initiative also focuses on creating green jobs and promoting sustainable agriculture practices.

The campaign is being carried out in several Iraqi provinces, including Baghdad, Basra, and Diyala. The planting of trees will be done by local farmers and citizens, with the support of technical experts and resources provided by the government and partner organisations. 

Afforestation efforts have been implemented in other countries in the past. An example is the Great Green Wall of China project, which aimed to address aeolian desertification (caused by wind erosion), water and soil loss (caused by water erosion), and salinisation (caused by poor water management). By the time the project is due to be completed in 2050, approximately 88 million acres of forests will have been planted – and right now, the project is running ahead of schedule. Africa also has its Great Green Wall initiative, a project funded by the EU, the World Bank, and the United Nations. The plan is to plant a broad continuous band of trees covering 8,000 kilometres of land across the entire width of the Continent, from Senegal in West Africa to the Eastern Republic of Djibouti. 

Conclusion

Although this initiative has attracted widespread media attention throughout the country and support from international organisations, the road ahead is long and there will be many setbacks.

Depending on the climate change scenario, temperatures in Iraq are likely to rise by up to 4.8C by 2080 compared to pre-industrial levels. Therefore, the trees selected to be planted would need to have the capability to survive through this level of heat, while also generating the benefits to soil quality to tackle erosion. 

You might also like: The Great Green Wall Receives an Economic Boost, But Is It Enough to Save It?

The post Iraq Launches Tree Planting Initiative to Fight Desertification and Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

Following the world’s sixth warmest year on record, environmental experts agree that climate change has already caused widespread, irreversible losses for nature, which are only set to grow if we don’t take immediate action. The world’s ecosystems are sensitive and are reportedly reaching their limits of being able to thrive in a warming, polluted planet. Earth.Org looks back at the last twelve months to see how key systems responded to environmental and anthropogenic drivers and compare to previous years to understand whether we are on the right path to recovery. Here’s what we lost in 2022 in terms of land mass, forest coverage, and biodiversity.

—

In 2022, we saw many changes worldwide as we started to pursue ‘normality’ and recover from the global repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic. While many exciting developments were announced in climate and environmental news throughout the year scientists recorded losses in key systems that provide us with vital services, 2022 also saw catastrophic losses to our vital earth systems that pushed the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to announce an “Emergency Mode” for the environment.

Here’s what we lost in 2022 in terms of land mass, forest coverage, and biodiversity.

1. Land Mass Lost in 2022

Sea level rise (SLR) is a major concern for coastal regions – especially when they are heavily populated – as it threatens vital infrastructure as well as the health and livelihoods of entire communities. 

Small island nations but also coastal cities in more developed countries are at risk of being submerged. Approximately 10% of the world’s population is estimated to live in low-lying coastal regions, where local economies depend on trade, fishing, and tourism. In the UK alone, more than eight million people live in coastal areas.

Cities a risk from sea level rise of 0.5 metres by 2050s. Image: C40.org.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), since 1992, the global average sea level has risen by over 10cm. While some degree of rise is natural, human-caused SLR over the last thirty years was ten times that of natural SLR. On top of that, the global average SLR went from 2.5mm a year in the early 1990s to 3.9 mm over the last decade.

In 2021, the global sea level was measured at a new record high of 97mm above 1993 levels, and high tide was 3 to 9 times more frequent than it was 50 years ago. By 2022, the mean global sea level reached 102.2mm higher than in 1993. 

The ice-mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers to the ocean has a strong influence on regional sea levels, and a major portion of sea level rise is explained by meltwater. Arctic sea ice saw its 10th lowest minimum extent on record in 2022 and was generally at the low end of the historical range for the year. 

In 2022, scientists from NASA measured the loss of sea ice using remote sensing techniques and found that Greenland has lost 5 trillion tons of weight since the early 2000s. That equates to an average of 277 billion tons of mass loss a year. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coastal ecosystems have been impacted by the combination of SLR, climate-related ocean changes, and adverse effects from human activities on the ocean and land. Rising sea levels are often associated with coastal erosion, flooding, contamination, and habitat loss. While a diverse range of adaptation responses have been rolled out around the world, there is a long history of land mass being lost across the world’s coasts. 

Small, low-lying nations remain the most vulnerable to the impacts of SLR. At the United Nations’ second World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1990, 43 of the world’s smallest island and low-lying coastal countries forged a coalition known as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). This intergovernmental organisation has played a key role in giving underrepresented nations a voice and advocates for communities experiencing the catastrophic impacts of rising sea levels. 

Melting ice sheets have a strong influence on sea level rise.

You might also like: Sea Level Rise Projections: 10 Cities at Risk of Flooding

2. Forest Coverage Lost in 2022

Forests cover almost one-third of the world’s land area, harbouring most of the Earth’s terrestrial biodiversity. They are home to approximately 60,000 different tree species, 80% of amphibian species, 75% of bird species, and 68% of the world’s mammal species. Humans also depend on forests to support livelihoods and they provide more than 86 million green jobs. 

Deforestation is the purposeful clearing of forested land, often for agriculture and illegal logging purposes. Scientists have estimated that 10% of the world’s forest area (420 million hectares) has been lost in the last 30 years as humanity continues to consume natural resources. 

The Amazon Rainforest spans over 6.7 million square kilometres (2.587 million square miles), covering nine countries, and is home to 10% of known species on Earth. Despite its significance, an area equivalent to about 5 football pitches is lost every minute. Moreover, in the first nine months of 2022, the highest deforestation rate since 2016 was recorded in the Brazilian Amazon. According to analysis of satellite imagery by the National Space Research Institute (INPE) in the country, between August 2021 and July 2022, an area of 11,568 square kilometres, nearly equivalent to the size of Qatar, was cleared. 

You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

Wildfires are increasing as the effects of climate change worsen.

While deforestation has been cited as the main cause of lost forest coverage in recent decades, one stark reminder of recent climate change is the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires experienced worldwide. According to experts, they are “burning faster and hotter than ever before”, and forest areas are suffering catastrophic and irreversible impacts from them. 

The Guardian reported that in northern latitudes,  the consequences of wildfires are even worse and made up about 30% of tree loss cover in 2021. And according to the European Commission’s European Forest Fire Report, in 2022 we experienced “one of the most dramatic wildfire seasons ever recorded”, with a combination of historical drought and heatwaves that have created “unprecedented stress on vegetation and forests across Europe.”

3. Biodiversity 

When looking at all that we lost in 2022, we cannot leave out biodiversity. Hundreds of thousands of animal species around the world are threatened by human action and climate change. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is one of the most commonly cited information sources on the global extinction risk status of animals, categorising species as ‘extinct’ or ‘extinct in the wild’. In 2022, there were more than 150,300 species on the IUCN Red List, with more than 42,100 species threatened with extinction. 

With the help of technological advances, we have been able to track year-on-year losses of the world’s key ecosystems. With this development has come the realisation of what we already knew about the impacts of human activities and climate change on the natural environment. To put it simply, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification’s (UNCCD) evidence-based GLO2 Report warns that: “At no other point in modern history has humanity faced such an array of familiar and unfamiliar risks and hazards, interacting in a hyper-connected and rapidly changing world. We cannot afford to underestimate the scale and impact of these existential threats.”

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2023

The post ‘Emergency Mode For the Environment’: What We Lost In 2022 appeared first on Earth.Org.

Last month, scientists reported a breakthrough in nuclear fusion research when a reaction resulted in a net energy gain. Against a backdrop of fuel shortages, energy crises and blackouts across the globe, the possibility of powering the world with nuclear fusion is seemingly positive. However, critics have advised that there is still a long way to go to make nuclear fusion a viable, clean energy source, stressing that perhaps the recent news is not quite the ‘breakthrough’ they’d hoped for.

—

Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 440 power reactors located across 32 countries. However, this method generates electricity by splitting atoms (also known as nuclear fission). 

Instead, nuclear fusion is a relatively new concept, confined largely among the scientific community as it is yet to be a commercialised method of producing nuclear energy. In a nutshell, nuclear fusion is the exact opposite of nuclear fission; instead of splitting up, multiple smaller and lighter nuclei such as hydrogen are combined to form a heavier nucleus such as helium, which produces significant energy during the process. In other words, nuclear fusion generates energy by combining nuclei instead of splitting it up.

Learn more about nuclear fusion here: What is Nuclear Fusion?

Scientists have claimed that the reaction could provide ample clean energy, which is vital for the planet’s future, and some of the world’s major developed and emerging economies, including the EU, US, China, India, Japan, Korea, and Russia, are backing efforts to scale up nuclear fusion.

In December last year, reports that a successful nuclear fusion reaction achieved a net energy gain in the US generated excitement among the scientific community. The project – described as having “the power of the sun” – has sparked discussions on the reality of powering the world with nuclear fusion.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California reported that lasers delivered 2.05 million joules (MJ) of energy to the target, which resulted in a release of 3.15 MJ of energy – generating 54% more energy than went into the reaction (also described as an energy net gain). The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory director, Kim Budil, described the achievement as “the fundamental building block of an inertial confinement fusion power scheme.”

Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 440 power reactors located in 32 countries.

Research into the fusion process and capabilities has been ongoing since the early 1950s, but this is reportedly the first time that the laboratory produced more energy than it consumed. Initially, the news was hailed as a ‘milestone for future clean power’, but critics have highlighted the reasons why it may not be as great an achievement as it first seemed, and provide explanations for why nuclear fusion may not be available everywhere and soon enough. 

Firstly, many have highlighted that the NIF project has been running behind schedule for several years, and was initially intended to achieve ignition by 2012; however, delays and cost overrunning have affected the speed of success of the project. 

One of the key explanations for this is that NIF was not originally designed with the efficiency required for commercial fusion energy, but was instead designed “to be the biggest laser we could possibly build to give us the data we need for the [nuclear] stockpile research programme”, as David Hammer, a nuclear energy engineer at Cornell University (US), explained. 

Following the net gain reaction in December, many have questioned what the US Department of Energy will decide to do, as the drive for weapons research continues against a backdrop of the possibility of a laser programme focussing on fusion energy research.

In the past, the NIF project has been slow to achieve real results. For example, The New York Times reported that construction of the NIF began in 1997 and when it became operational in 2009, hardly any fusion was achieved. In 2014, the first successful project was reported, however, the energy produced was almost insignificant. 

Just weeks after the US projects’ success, a facility in France announced that their attempts to achieve the same result would likely face delays after ‘problems emerged at the facility’, such as corrosion in a thermal shield used to protect the outside world from the enormous heat created during the nuclear fusion. 

The US$22-billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) project explores ways to feasibly provide nuclear fusion as a ‘large-scale and carbon-free source of energy’, however, Pietro Barabaschi – the project’s director general – conveyed that fixing the issues “is not a question of weeks, but months, even years.” The project’s goal was to create the plasma by 2025 and enter the full phase in 2035. Although it is possible that Iter may make up for the delays, this is a key reminder of just how long the journey to utilise nuclear fusion as a viable energy source worldwide really is. As Tony Roulstone, a nuclear-energy researcher at the University of Cambridge (UK) put it: “Although positive news, this result is still a long way from the actual energy gain required for the production of energy”.

You might also like: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The post A ‘Breakthrough’ In Nuclear Fusion: What Does It Mean for the Future of Energy Generation? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Research shows that currently, 27.4% of land in China has undergone desertification, affecting about 400 million people. Studies are increasingly focusing on the effects of widespread desertification, which affects food security, people’s livelihoods, and the environment, destroying habitats and contributing to biodiversity loss. We take a look at the causes and effects of desertification in China and what the country is doing to halt it.

—

What is Desertification?

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) defines desertification as “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities,” while Carbon Brief describes the phenomenon as a “catch-all term for land degradation in water-scarce parts of the world”.

Desertification is the result of complex interactions between several factors, some of which include climate change, poor hydrological conditions, poor quality vegetation and soil, and sandstorms. To top this off, human activities are speeding up the process through unsustainable exploitation of the environment and crucial habitats through deforestation. 

Drylands reportedly cover approximately 54 million square kilometres of the world – that’s 40% of the global land area – and over half of them are located in Asia and Africa, continually increasing in extent. 

You might also like: Desertification: Causes, Effects, And Solutions

Green Cover in China (1984-present). Source: Earth.Org 

Drivers of Desertification in China

Growing research has explored the extensive desertification in China and the measures being put in place to combat it. The country is affected by severe desertification – which has rapidly increased since the 1980s – with the World Bank reporting that over one-quarter of the country is now covered in desert.

According to scientists and policymakers, behind such  widespread desertification in China is a combination of human and physical drivers.

It is easier to discuss desertification by acknowledging the huge influence that climate change has had across China to date. The land surface across the whole of the Earth is warming faster than we have seen before, and declining rainfall can allow soils to dry out and become more likely to erode. As human-induced climate change intensifies, the situation for those already affected by desertification will only worsen. 

In Northwest China, historical overgrazing of vegetation has led to dunes losing their protective vegetative cover and therefore becoming extremely unstable. Livestock overgrazing is often cited as one of the main causes of desertification but the intentional removal of vegetation by humans also has widespread repercussions on the land. In many rural areas, the issue is worsened due to the fact that most agricultural systems are rain-fed, and weak irrigation systems worsen land degradation in the area. Once the dunes are bare and vegetation has been destroyed, physical drivers will kick in as wind erosion catalyses the process of desertification and the issue unfolds. 

Overgrazing has been cited as one of the main causes of China’s desertification.

Poor water management is also a huge driver of desertification, as a lack of water retention in the ground below also compounds the issues caused by overgrazing. For example, water and soil loss due to water erosion in the Loess Plateau in western China is commonly cited by researchers. With the local environment unable to retain water, and anthropogenic activities exacerbating the problem to support livelihoods, the soil has little potential to recover or replenish moisture. 

In August 2022, an experiment by Rob Thomson (a research scientist from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading) went viral as it demonstrated just how much longer it takes for parched soil to soak water to soak, compared to wet grass. 

The Impacts of Desertification in China

Under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) – the international legal framework for tackling desertification, land degradation, and drought – 169 of the 194 Parties have declared they are affected by desertification, and China is one of them. The UNCCD describes desertification as a “silent, invisible crisis” that destabilises communities on a global scale. 

Desertification has proven to have extensive impacts on both people and the environment in China, as food production zones shift, leading to crops failing, livestock dying, and water sources drying up.

Desertification hinders progress toward sustainable development and has forced entire communities out of their homes, often having to enter new countries and communities as climate refugees. Internally displaced people and forced migrants may turn to other countries for help. The difficult situation, however, may also result in resource-driven wars for survival in response to food insecurity and water scarcity, jeopardising whole communities’ well-being and security. Without a clear path to adaptation, the prospect of conflict becomes more of a reality.

You might also like: Why We Should Care About Global Food Security

For those who have not yet been forced from their homes, sandstorms and dust pollution have become a regular occurrence in people’s lives – and this is only set to worsen. In early 2021, the Guardian reported that sandstorms “shrouded Beijing in a post-apocalyptic orange haze” as they “pelted the capital and spread as far as central China”. The storm reportedly affected about 380 million hectares of land across 12 Chinese provinces, posing a huge threat to human health as the huge amount of particulate matter (PM) in the air can damage external organs and the respiratory system.

The Great Green Wall of China

In 1978, the Chinese government rolled out the Three-North Shelterbelt project which aimed to plant millions of trees along the 2,800-mile (4,506 kilometres) border of northern China’s encroaching desert while also increasing the world’s forest cover. The Great Green Wall is predicted to cost up to US$8 billion, with a $1.2 billion oversight system of mapping and databases.

This project was initiated with the goal that the trees would act like a barrier (a ‘green wall’, as the name suggests) to combat desertification and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In addition, aforestation would help to combat soil erosion and slow the pace of desertification.

The ambitious project is due to be completed in 2050, by which time approximately 88 million acres of forest will have been planted – this year it was reported that the project is actually running ahead of schedule, having already raised forest coverage in the zone from 5%, to 13.5% of the 15% target. This is helped by an annual event on 12th March, as the country celebrates “Tree Planting Day”, reminding people aged over 11 years old to fulfil their legal duty to plant three saplings per year. 

You might also like: What is the ‘Great Green Wall’ of China?

Next Steps

As global players continue to focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the run-up to their 2030 deadline, it is important to understand how policy and developmental plans will link with desertification. For example, SDG 15 seeks to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. This has been strengthened by the fact that ‘The Future We Want’ – a declaration on sustainable development and a green economy adopted at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in 2012 – recognises the importance of “scientifically based, sound and socially inclusive methods and indicators for monitoring and assessing the extent of desertification”. 

The livelihoods and security of many people are resting on the progress that global leaders make in tackling both climate change more widely, and desertification as a specific issue. The impacts of desertification have clearly caught the attention of policymakers, but more must be done to make a meaningful impact.

You might also like: How These 5 Countries Are Fighting Desertification

The post Desertification in China: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

It seems like nowadays, the term ‘sustainable’ is used all around us – from food packaging to clothing companies and even tourism. In fact, ‘sustainability’ was one of the most-searched terms in fashion in 2019, and Google searches for the term have been on the rise, illustrating the public’s growing interest in the topic. But what is sustainability exactly and why is it so important?

—

What Is Sustainability

The go-to definition when discussing sustainability is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. And though you may have heard this before, many people do not know the origins of this definition in particular. In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission published this particular definition of sustainability in the Brundtland report, which called for a strategy that united development and the environment. Over the years, alternative definitions have emerged, but the Brundtland report’s 1980s take on the explanation is still commonly used. 

The ‘Three Pillars of Sustainability’ is another popular framework used to describe what sustainable development is. This tool conveys that sustainability consists of environmental, social, and economic factors that are vital when discussing the topic:

• Environmental sustainability is perhaps the most obvious of the three pillars, as it symbolises the importance of things like natural resources and biodiversity to support life on Earth. 
• Social sustainability places importance on social structures, well-being, and harmony; all factors that poverty, wars, and injustices can affect.
• Economic sustainability describes the ability of an economy to grow. This is especially important in today’s societies, at a time when many sustainable initiatives require financing and a strong economic rationale. 
•  

In order to find solutions to ongoing sustainability issues, it is imperative that we consider all three pillars.

You might also like: We Need Sustainable Food Packaging Now. Here’s Why.

What Are the Planetary Boundaries And How Do They Relate to Sustainability?

The concept of planetary boundaries (PB) is focussed on nine aspects that humanity needs in order to thrive in the future. This idea was developed in 2009 by the Stockholm Resilience Centre and other groups: “We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more […] may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing.”

At the time when this new concept was introduced, scientists believed that humanity had already transgressed three boundaries, and was rapidly approaching several others. In 2022, a re-assessment of the PBs by fourteen scientists concluded that humanity had transgressed additional boundaries, relating to freshwater and environmental pollutants in particular.

The PBs have been widely cited in sustainability literature over the last decade, and provide an illustrative tool to track and evaluate how we are depleting the Earth’s valuable ecosystem services and precious systems. Though the tool is mainly environmentally focused, it has informed various policies and practices, including the World Business Council on Sustainable Development’s Action 2020 Strategy. In turn, this has had a knock-on effect on social and economic aspects of global policy and governance, including “financial investment, food, textiles, building, technology and household goods sectors”. 

You might also like: Sustainable Alternatives to Fast Fashion

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by the UN Member States. One of the most well-known elements of this were the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which set out various goals that the international community must work together to achieve – ranging from environmental and social to economic issues. 

We cannot discuss the SDGs without first acknowledging their predecessor – the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – set out in September 2000. These goals ranged from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. By the end of the 15-year cycle of the MDGs in 2015, the UN established an even more ambitious set of goals – the SDGs – to enter into force on 1 January 2016. While not all of the MDGs were met globally, significant progress was made in several areas.

The SDGs have been continually monitored and provide key benchmarks for us to understand how sustainability is being achieved worldwide. Overview reports are regularly published and comment on the nuances that significant events bring to achieving the SDGs (like the COVID-19 pandemic, for example). You can read the 2022 SDG Report here. 

You might also like: Why the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 Are More Important Than Ever

Why Is Sustainability Important?

So far, we’ve discussed the different ways that sustainability is defined and the tools and metrics we have developed on a global scale to measure our impact on the environment, societies, and economies worldwide. But why is sustainability important? 

Here are a few reasons, although the list could go on for a lot longer: 

• Sustainability joins social, environmental, and economic issues together throughout global discussions, ensuring that key elements do not get left behind. Focusing on aspects other than the environment alone ensures a fairer, more equitable discussion (as long as a diverse range of players is at the table). 
• Sustainability opens up new conversations between a range of people with diverse skills and thought processes – for example scientists, sociologists, and economists all have key skills to enable humanity to thrive and sustain the Earth. 
• The SDGs are an impactful way to evaluate our progress and have encouraged key ideas and strategies to flourish while remaining realistic about the next steps and improvements.

The post Explainer: What Is Sustainability and Why Is It Important? appeared first on Earth.Org.

After being delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders finally reunited in Scotland last year for the COP26 summit. Many looked on with ambitious expectations five years after the historic COP21, which resulted in the Paris Agreement. As COP27 is set to commence in Sharm El-Sheikh next month, we reflect on the achievements made since the COP26 summit and how commitments have fallen short of what they were meant to achieve. We also explore the expectations of COP27 in a world that is becoming increasingly aware of the devastating consequences of global warming and a changing climate.

—

Since the first COP meeting in Berlin in 1995, annual conferences have been held in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to discuss and negotiate climate change policies, strategies, and visions for the future. These gatherings are frequently referred to as COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings and they have been quite influential in the implementation of international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. 

Recapping the COP26 Summit

COP26 took place amidst growing global concern about the effects of climate change, with increasing occurrences of extreme heat, ocean warming and acidification, storms, sea level rise, melting glaciers, habitat destruction, and biodiversity loss. This – coupled with the lingering ramifications of the global COVID-19 pandemic that pushed the conference back a year – raised the stakes and expectations for impactful actions and commitments at the conference. 

Over 120 world leaders and 40,000 registered participants gathered in Glasgow to “accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement”, informed by rapidly growing scientific data warning of climate catastrophe. The sentiment that “we must do more” has been a common theme among climate discussions over the past few years, and this was also echoed throughout the conference. 

The main goals and takeaways of the COP26 summit included:

1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5C degrees within reach by advancing the phase-out of unabated coal power – the single largest source of global warming, reducing deforestation, accelerating the switch to electric vehicles, and stimulating investment in the renewable energy market.
2. Adapt to protect communities and habitats.
3. Commit to at least $100bn in climate finance per year.
4. Finalise the Paris Rulebook and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through.

You might also like: Did the COP26 Summit Succeed Or Fail?

What’s Been Achieved in the Past Year?

After thirteen days of negotiations between almost 200 countries, two main headlines repeatedly emerged: the Glasgow Climate Pact was signed and the Paris Agreement’s Rulebook was delivered. 

The first one has been described as a “series of decisions and resolutions that build on the Paris accord”, but does not hold any particular countries accountable. The latter provides guidelines on how to deliver the Paris Agreement best. At the COP26 summit, attention was placed on the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of the Agreement’s signatories, which embody a country’s efforts to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Commitments in other areas including methane, car emissions, private finances, and forests were also made. In regards to the latter, over 100 countries signed an ambitious agreement to “halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030 while delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural transformation”.

Image 1: Map of annual change in forest area (2015). This pattern of deforestation has been cited by many scientists, urging global conferences (like COP26) to discuss the catastrophic effect on the climate. (Source: Our World in Data) 

You might also like: Why the COP26 Methane Agreement is a Big Deal

Finally, 22 countries signed the Clydebank Declaration, a plan to decarbonise shared shipping routes. The deal was part of a major discussion about accelerating the transition to 100% electric vehicles by 2040.

Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, addressed the attendees at the end of the conference, re-stressing the importance of keeping the 1.5C commitment alive and asked world leaders to “keep [their] promises and translate commitments into rapid action”. 

What Hasn’t Been Achieved?

Though many declarations were signed and meaningful discussions were encountered, the world still has a long way to go.

The first of COP26’s failures has to do with CO2 emissions. Although the Glasgow Climate Pact’s call for a “phase-down” in coal power was seen as ‘historic’ by some, many coal-reliant nations have no intention to give up fossil fuels anytime soon. The International Energy Agency reported that global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 6% in 2021, catalysed by unforeseeable situations like the recovery of the world economy from the COVID-19 crisis, the European energy crisis, and ongoing ramifications of climate change forcing some countries – such as India – to go back to coal. 

Second, although the prospects of climate finance were discussed, some have argued that significant progress has not been made. In fact, the funds discussed at the COP26 summit do not reflect the true carbon debt owed by rich countries for accelerating the destruction of the environment worldwide. As Friends of the Earth put it: “Only a fraction of that finance is now on the table”. The article offers an interesting perspective that the human race is in fact funding its own extinction as $1.8tn is spent per year on subsidies for environmentally damaging activities.  

The final point that most critics seem to agree on is that climate targets for 2030 remain weak. The Paris Agreement famously indicates that we must limit global warming to “well below 2C above preindustrial levels” and pursue efforts to limit this to 1.5C. However, even scientists and researchers behind the Climate Action Tracker seem to be among those who argue that “targets for 2030 remain totally inadequate” to tackle climate change in accordance with existing ambitions, and we are in fact on track for a 2.4C temperature increase by the end of the century. As the latest IPCC report rightly stated, limiting global warming is “now or never” if the world wants to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Image 2: The Climate Action Tracker predicts global warming of well above the 2 C limit with current strategies and actions. (Source: Climate Action Tracker) 

Reflecting On the Upcoming COP27

Nearly 30 years and 26 COPs later, it is still unclear whether we can limit the catastrophic impacts of climate change despite the establishment of many significant global agreements. 

Following last year’s COP meeting, professor Alexandre Antonelli, the  Director of Science of the Royal Botanic Gardens, suggested that the “devil is in the detail” when discussing strategies for reducing deforestation. He went on to explain that simply ‘planting trees’ is not good enough, and it must follow the best scientific practice – for example, planting the “right tree in the right place”, and starting with the biologically valuable ecosystems. Though commitments by global leaders are a good place to start, past promises have failed to generate effective enough action, and there is undoubtedly still a lot of work to be done.

Accountability also remains a challenge among the global efforts to curtail the impacts of climate change, as issues of environmental justice and responsibility for the warming climate provide an ongoing backdrop among the discussions. As parallel conversations about the importance of transparency when delivering climate pledges are being publicised, notions of accountability continue to contribute to evaluations of the COPs.

It is also important to note that, despite research showing that 80% of those displaced by climate change are women, they seemed to be missing from the top climate table. SHE Changes Climate, a campaign founded in 2020 to call for equal gender representation in climate negotiations, claimed that 10 of the 12 UK leadership team positions were occupied by men. In fact, SHE Changes Climate stated that “only 34% of COP26 committees, and 39% of those leading delegations, were women”. In addition, at the G7 Summit in 2021, there was just one woman among all decision-makers. 

These issues, combined with the frustration of the public at the seemingly unambitious approach in the past to tackle climate change, sparked protests in Glasgow at the site of the COP meetings. The downfalls may even have some people questioning the future of the COP process and its real impact.

Image 3: Demonstrators gathered outside COP26 in Glasgow. Photo by William Gibson on Unsplash

However, views on climate action and protests were not seemingly all negative – and the leaders seem to acknowledge this. In his closing remarks, UN Secretary-General António Guterres recognised the power of activists in sending messages to leaders and encouraging them to “never give up, never retreat, [and] keep pushing forward”. 

Featured image by Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street (Flickr)

You might also like: Young Climate Leaders from the Global South Excluded from UN Conferences

This information can be alarming to those who are worried about the state of the environment and climate change – this article has some tips about how to reflect on anxieties surrounding these issues. As we recognise World Mental Health Day this week, it’s important to make your mental health a priority. 

The post COP26 One Year Later: How Much Progress Have We Made? appeared first on Earth.Org.

As the cost of living and eco-conscious consumers are reportedly on the rise, the renewable energy market is growing at an unprecedented rate. However, with more research and development to advance these technologies, waste from spent infrastructure is starting to mount up. Some companies are exploring ways in which spent renewable energy infrastructure can be recycled or reused to extend its lifetime and improve the sustainability of a transition to a greener future.

—

The Renewable Energy Market

The global renewable energy market is growing rapidly, driven by emerging environmental policies and global leadership toward net-zero economies. The solar energy market alone is expected to grow in value from US$52.5 billion in 2018 to $223.3 billion by 2026, as it is regarded as one of the most efficient sources of unconventional energy. This – coupled with the rising energy prices across the world – will surely lead to an even larger increase in the demand for renewable power sources. 

You might also like: What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy?

What Happens to Spent Renewable Energy Infrastructure?

As with many technologies, when various upgrades and improvements are rolled out across the renewable energy market, spent infrastructure is discarded as waste. Currently, most used renewable infrastructure is shredded or sent to landfill, and as solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries grow in production and tumble in price, this waste will inevitably begin to add up. Approximately 600,000 metric tonnes of lithium-ion battery waste is expected from the first generation of electric vehicles by 2025, and this is set to grow to 11 million metric tonnes worldwide by 2030.

In recent years, spent infrastructure is becoming more valuable. According to an analysis by Rystad Energy, the value of recyclable materials from solar panels will grow exponentially over the next few years, ballooning to US$2.7 billion in 2030 from just $170 million this year. This can be explained by the increase in demand, shortages of materials, and technological developments that facilitate the extraction of valuable materials found in spent infrastructure. For example, silver – which accounts for just 0.05% of the total weight of a solar panel – makes up 14% of the material value.

Mineral demand for clean energy technologies must rise by at least four times by 2040 to meet climate goals – especially when considering the uptake of electric vehicles. Thus, adopting technologies to efficiently recycle minerals is vital in terms of sustainability.

Image 1: The estimated value of recyclable material in PV panels is projected to grow over the next few decades

It seems that extracting and recycling these components can save money and the resources used to gather precious materials. Additionally, the materials needed to build the components – such as silver, copper, and aluminium – come from a handful of countries, and reports of human rights abuses have been rising in recent years. 

You might also like: The Environmental Problems Caused by Mining

Currently, the market’s vulnerable supply chain leaves opportunities for abuse and mistreatment of power to supply a specialised demand. For example, the manufacturing of polysilicon, which is used in the production of solar panels, requires enormous amounts of energy and has been linked to labour abuses and socially harmful environments. Although research is limited, Maplecroft’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Index scores show that many of the countries with significant levels of solar panel production are often categorised as having ‘high’ or ‘extreme’ levels of risk.

Image 2: Health and safety risks are perceived as prevalent among the solar PV supply chain

How Can We Recycle Spent Renewable Infrastructure?

A recent unveiling of a large public art installation in Weston-Super-Mare (UK) made from a decommissioned North Sea oil rig reflects a more creative side of what we can do with spent infrastructure. Although the installation did not use renewable infrastructure, the See Monster enables visitors to walk among a waterfall and wild gardens, aiming to “inspire global conversations about reuse, renewables and the great British weather.” Harnessing the components of renewable energy infrastructure to teach the public about the importance of sustainability and the future technologies involved in supplying the modern world with green power sources is certainly an innovative way to ensure that spent infrastructure does not end up in landfills.

Image 3: The See Monster (photo credits: seamonster.co.uk)

Practical progress is also being made to utilise the recycled infrastructure. For example, Siemens Gamesa launched the world’s first recyclable wind turbine blade, marking a “milestone for the global wind industry. The company plans to install and pilot the innovative recyclable infrastructure at an offshore wind power plant in Germany. This indicates the progress that Siemens Gamesa is making towards its pledge to make all its turbines fully recyclable by 2040. 

More sophisticated methods of recycling lithium-ion batteries are also emerging, which allow manufacturers to save energy and water as well as generate significantly fewer emissions during the production process. However, experts have stressed that without a government mandate to recycle, there are no economies of scale yet, and costs remain high.

Conclusion

As the renewables market expands rapidly, the industry will surely is set to face an onslaught of materials and components that are no longer usable; and as countries around the world tighten waste rules with the goal of shifting toward a circular economy, it is a vital time for the renewable industry to develop ways to recycle spent renewables infrastructure; whether that is through the extraction and recycling of precious metals or taking a more creative approach to the use of the components in their ‘second’ lives.

You might also like: What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The post Can We Recycle Spent Renewable Energy Infrastructure? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate goals and new environmental policies have increased pressure on car manufacturers to cease the production of petrol and diesel cars and sparked a race to electrify supercars – high-performance sports cars that can cost up to US$1.2 million. Now more than ever, car companies are racing against the clock to shift design and production streams in order to electrify their engines. Where does the electric supercar industry stand and what’s the future of fossil fuel vehicles?

—

Net-Zero Strategies Targeting Fossil Fuel Cars

In recent years, several countries agreed to ban fossil fuel cars. For example, the EU saw major gains in the European Green Deal as member countries agreed to ban fossil fuel cars by 2035. In 2020, the UK also took a historic step towards net-zero by announcing that sales of new petrol and diesel cars will end by 2030. 

Though the ban has been praised, some are not convinced that it will have a significant impact. For example, New Automotive – an independent transport research organisation – has claimed that a deadline of 2026 is required for the UK government will have to meet its carbon budget. In addition, the UK ban does not include hybrid cars; former Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that new hybrid vehicles “that can drive a significant distance when no carbon is coming out of the tailpipe” can be sold until 2035. More recently, a historic High Court ruling in the UK found the government’s climate strategy “unlawful” as their Net Zero Strategy breaches the Climate Change Act. Now, the government has time until March 2023 to update it and deploy a strategy that is more feasible and effective. 

Electric Supercars: Where Things Stand

In 2021 alone, the global market for supercars was estimated to be worth over US$15.8 billion – and with thousands of manufacturers, owners, and enthusiasts contributing to the debate, opinions on the race to electrify engines are varied.

However, when looking at the supercar industry, the heavyweights seem to be dragging their heels when it comes to electrifying their engines. Of the approximately 22,000 supercars or luxury Grand Touring (GT) cars sold last year, not one was fully electric. Household names like McLaren, Aston Martin, Ferrari, and Lamborghini have been slow to implement any kind of plans for upcoming electric supercars. For example, the McLaren P1 – a limited-production mid-engine plug-in hybrid sports car produced by British automobile manufacturer McLaren Automotive – is considered the first hybrid supercar in the world and although it was released almost nine years ago, a fully electric counterpart has not yet surfaced. Although hybrid cars are not going to be phased out as quickly as fossil fuel cars, the end goal of policymakers seems to be the electrification of all cars on the road – supercars included. 

People who do not support the phase-out of fossil fuel electric supercars argue that they are not as damaging as typical cars because they are driven far less. Mat Rimac – founder of Croatian electric sports car company Rimac Automobili – said that “the environmental impact of these cars is so small, they are so small in number and they are hardly driven. You are basically selling pieces of art, and Europe is a world leader”. 

Benjamin Stephan – a spokesperson for Greenpeace – reported that Italy has continually attempted to delay the phase-out and create loopholes to “keep making supercars for the super-rich”. Many stakeholders in the supercar industry are also expressing their growing concern for the environmental impacts of fossil fuel engines and are voicing their support for electric cars. 

Some Formula 1 celebrities have also joined calls to electrify supercars. In 2020, Lewis Hamilton – one of F1’s most known faces – made headlines when he announced that he would be leaving his collection of supercars behind, and would only drive his electric vehicle. He also announced the creation of a new team to compete in Extreme E, an off-road race with electric SUVs in locations that have been damaged or affected by climate and environmental issues. F1 driver Nico Rosberg also publicly declared he supports the electrification of supercars: “Formula 1 has to go electric!” – the champion said. “The whole world is going electric so they can’t have a petrol engine. That would be weird.”

Despite celebrities’ support, it still seems that some companies are hesitant to make the big jump. As Lawrence Stroll – part-owner of the Aston Martin F1 Team – said: “We still have people who want the smell and the noise, and we are gradually on the way to getting to Electric Vehicle (EV), but we will continue offering both.”

The journey to the phase-out of fossil fuel cars is a hugely important, yet contentious one. When considering the amount of investment that goes into the supercars industry, it is not shocking to hear that many prioritise profits over the environment. With the shifting narratives of influential characters’ opinions, environmental policy changes, and manufacturers’ reluctance to release EVs en masse, the future of fossil fuel supercars remains unpredictable, while an exciting, yet ambiguous, future for electric supercars slowly approaches. 

You might also like: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment

The post Electric Supercars: Is the End of Fossil Fuel Vehicles Coming? appeared first on Earth.Org.

The IUCN is predicting that by the end of the current century, nearly all critically endangered species and 67% of endangered animal species in the world could be lost forever. Some scientists say that cloning could be the best way we have to preserve endangered species and will provide humans with the means to bring extinct species back. However, many oppose cloning, saying that humans should rather stop biodiversity loss by tackling the issues that cause this in the first place. We present the main advantages and disadvantages of this revolutionary technique to answer the question of whether or now we should clone endangered species.

—

The Sixth Mass Extinction 

In 1964, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established a Red List of Threatened Species. Conceived by Sir Peter Scott  – who also played a prominent role in the creation of WWF, the list has evolved to become one of the world’s most comprehensive sources on the global extinction risk status of different species. 

A 2018 WWF report showed an overall decline of 60% in species population sizes between 1970 and 2014. More recently, scientists estimated that species are declining at a rate between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate (i.e. the rate of species extinctions that would occur without human influence). With the IUCN predicting that 99.9% of critically endangered species and 67% of endangered species may be lost within the next 100 years, there are strong indicators for the presence of a Sixth Mass Extinction event. Unlike previous extinction events caused by natural phenomena, this mass extintion is driven by human activity, primarily the unsustainable use of land, water and energy use, and climate change.

You Might Also Like: Sixth Mass Extinction of Wildlife Accelerating- Study

The Cloning Controversy 

The topic of cloning is contentious and generates complex arguments, with valid pros and cons. In 1997, a group of scientists published a paper titled Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. They investigated whether cloned animals could be produced from cells at different stages of development. The result of this investigation was a cloned sheep that many people remember as Dolly the Sheep, the first animal to ever be cloned. Dolly’s birth  in 1996 became a recognisable milestone in proving that it is indeed possible to alter adult cells to make them behave like a cell from a newly fertilised embryo. 

Dolly the Sheep. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Could Cloning Save Endangered Species?

A new and controversial branch of conservation research has led scientists to explore the practicality of cloning endangered (and sometimes extinct) species in a bid to reverse the impacts of the Sixth Mass Extinction. 

In 2021, Elizabeth Ann – the world’s first black-footed ferret – was born. She attracted media attention as she was the clone of an individual named Willa who died over three decades ago. Elizabeth Ann’s unique DNA is predicted to bring fresh genetic diversity to the black-footed ferret captive-breeding programme and is certainly an important step toward helping other endangered species.

Cloning can also be used to re-introduce extinct species into an ecosystem that would greatly benefit from their existence. For example, a group of Russian scientists are trying to recreate an Ice Age biome named Pleistocene Park to combat climate change. One of the scientists involved in the project – Sergey Zimov – has reported that bringing back woolly mammoths could help revive ancient tundra grassland, therefore mitigating the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Some argue that extracting and freezing endangered species’ DNA could lead to successes mirrored by the Millennium Seed Bank (MSB) – an underground collection of over 2.4 billion seeds from around the world. The MSB, located in Sussex, United Kingdom, is the largest off-site conservation programme in the world, conserving seeds in -20C storage. Similar to the motivations behind cloning endangered species, the MSB reportedly provides a range of otherwise-unavailable, high quality, known-origin, genetically-diverse biological materials. 

Should We Clone Endangered Species?

It is important to note that, although that of Elizabeth Ann is a success story, it was also the result of decades of research and trials. Similarly, Dolly the Sheep was born after research spanned 277 attempts and 13 surrogate mothers and despite that, she experienced many health issues and only survived six years. To quote another example, in 2009, a team of scientists successfully cloned a bucardo (also known as a Pyrenean ibex), a species declared extinct in 2000. However, the newborn died due to defects in its lungs. 

A common argument against the cloning of endangered animals focuses on the sheer cost of such experiments. The process is expensive and time-consuming, and current cloning techniques have an average success rate of less than 5% (even when working with familiar species, let alone wild animals). 

Several conservation bodies argue that resources could be better directed towards saving endangered species by reducing the human impact on the environment. In many cases, conservation efforts have proven incredibly successful. In the 1950s, for example, the American alligator was recognised as nearly extinct due to hunting and trading. However, captive breeding and habitat protection have drastically increased the American alligator population, which today accounts for over five million individuals.

Cloning has perhaps not been as widely accepted because researchers believe that resilient habitats have not been developed to aid a sustainable population of endangered or extinct species. Given that humans are having such a catastrophic influence on species decline through key drivers of extinction like poaching, pollution, and habitat destruction, some argue that simply creating more animals is not the solution. 

Bringing a species back into an environment that is completely different to the one they once thrived in will unlikely contribute to a sustainable community. And even if the habitat was suitable, how can we be sure that cloned animals would not die of the same pressures, or be able to mimic learned behaviours of the past?

Conclusion

The current consensus appears to be that, at present, cloning is not a realistic or successful conservation strategy. Perhaps freezing animals’ DNA will give us the option to advance cloning techniques in the future, but conservation efforts to save current endangered animals should not be overlooked. As this article puts it: “The best approach to conservation is to keep species plentiful and their habitats and ecosystems intact. But [cloning] could be a valuable tool in worst-case scenarios.”

The post Should We Clone Endangered Species? appeared first on Earth.Org.