Over recent months, climate activists around the world have captured headlines by staging public protests, often daring as much as they are disruptive. There is no doubt that change is needed, but well-intentioned though they may be, are their messages getting mixed up in the methods?

—

Amid a worsening climate crisis, certain groups have stepped forward to make their voices known, getting up on their soapboxes and calling out for radical change. In nations around the world, these organisations of concerned global citizens have banded together under unified messages, identifying the individuals, power structures, or corporate entities that are responsible for harming the environment, and pressuring them to implement sustainable solutions to preserve long-term habitability on the planet. Although advocates of climate action have appeared across the headlines in recent months, this civic movement has existed for as long as humanity has started acknowledging that the Earth was changing, a movement that began in the 1970s. 

Since then, as the crisis increases in scale and as certain political maneuverings constrain the process of effective change, the movement has grown, expanding to incorporate people from all walks of life. The climate crisis is one that can impact everyone regardless of nationality, religion, gender, or sexuality. However, some are disproportionately impacted more than others, and just the same, some are disproportionately causing more damage than others. As such, activist groups have come to encapsulate the most diverse generation of citizens in decades, blurring arbitrary lines as they come together with similar goals. Yet the means employed to reach said goals have garnered no small amount of controversy. 

Protests, by their nature, need to be public and disruptive. They need to be a shock to the system that grabs the attention of the wider populace and mobilises action from those in power. To that end, climate activists have certainly used inventive methods to achieve their goals, and common tactics include disrupting public spaces or events to make their agendas known.

You might also like: Environmental Group Extinction Rebellion UK Quits Public Disruption Tactics

Most recently, in August of 2023, a group of protestors representing the Seven Circles blockaded a road leading to the Burning Man festival, held each year in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert. Their demands were clear: ban the usage of private jets, single-use plastics, and excess fuel usage during the festival. The blockade remained in place for 36 minutes, much to the chagrin of the festival goers halted in traffic until tribal police officers forcibly removed the obstruction and arrested four of the protestors. 

In the United Kingdom, Just Stop Oil represents a body of citizens who oppose the government’s continual investment in fossil fuel development, demanding a halt to all such activities. In October 2022, they chose to communicate their message by throwing soup on a Van Gogh painting in London’s National Gallery. This year, members from Just Stop Oil interrupted two matches of the Wimbledon tournaments by charging the courts and tossing glitter and jigsaw puzzle pieces. 

Cases such as these are not isolated nor are they unique. 2023 alone has seen a string of similar events conducted by activist groups, all for similar reasons. In Italy, members of Ultima Generazione (‘Last Generation’) entered the Trevi Fountain in Rome, pouring a diluted charcoal mixture to dye the water black to illustrate their demands for ending public subsidies on fossil fuels. In France, the Prime Minister’s office in Paris was struck by Derniere Renovation, who spray-painted the front entrance and decried the government’s feeble attempts at addressing climate change. In Germany, Last Generation activists spray-painted a private jet at the Sylt Airport and hung banners on its wings, targeting the Chancellor of Germany and stating that the government’s climate protection measures have been insufficient. And if that wasn’t enough, a yacht belonging to the Walmart heiress was recently spray-painted in Ibiza, carried out by members of Futuro Vegetal, who later claimed that the richest 1% of the world population pollute more than the poorest 50%.

In their struggle to speak out, climate activist groups have earned themselves quite a bit of public backlash for their protests. There are other, less controversial forms of protest that do not attract as much public vitriol, while blocking traffic, defacing property, and disrupting events seem to be the most effective at grabbing attention. Many protestors from the aforementioned examples have been arrested with criminal charges for their efforts, yet these groups remain undeterred, and as the global movement picks up momentum, it raises an important question: Are the ends justifying the means?

You might also like: Greta Thunberg Found Guilty of Criminal Activity for Malmö Harbour Anti-Oil Protest

There appear to be two different ways of elevating an agenda; one, by appealing to the masses, and two, by pressuring those in power. The reality can be much more nuanced and complex than what this binary dynamic can portray, with factors dependent upon the country, the government, and the level of allowable civil resistance, but the comparison remains.

In the former case, when a protest occurs in public, say on a roadway, it is the public that bears the costs. Consider another example from the UK, when members of Just Stop Oil paraded into several locations along London’s M25 motorway during a Monday morning rush hour, halting traffic. The intended audience here were the motorists who were on their way to work, commuters who were trying to get to their jobs to make ends meet. 

An unforeseen interruption to the daily routines of an everyday, working-class citizen could mean lost wages, spelling out further consequences down the line. More important to consider is that on a different road or on a different day, critical emergency services like paramedics or firefighters might be delayed if another activist group decides to mount a blockade. This has already happened in Berlin when a bicyclist died on her way to work after being struck by a cement lorry, and protestors from the Last Generation who had glued themselves to the road delayed emergency services.

For these reasons, it comes as no surprise that certain climate activist groups receive so much backlash when their chosen methods of protest can cause so much damage, both real and potential. Blocking a road is an extreme measure against the wrong audience, galvanising negative feedback from those who are unsympathetic toward the cause, and even turning away those who are already sympathetic. Useless, disruptive acts such as these do nothing to garner the right attention but instead, they are met with hostility and criticism.

Rather, messages that target the right audience are key here. Namely, the examples previously discussed wherein a political office, a private jet, and a yacht were spray-painted by activists are cases in which the message was much more focused, and the audience was much more specific, producing little to no impact on the wider public. That said, property damage is still a criminal act, and this is not to excuse or justify such acts, yet nothing grabs more attention than when a figure of importance is forced to confront reality in a way they cannot ignore. 

As a question of efficacy, focusing on the right people with a strong message is more impactful than compared to inconveniencing, or potentially endangering the public citizenry. Depending on the case, it may even engender sympathy and support. However, as a question of ethics, this controversial brand of activism remains condemnable in the eyes of the law.

There are better and safer ways to protest that do not require such high levels of risk, remaining compatible with the principles of democracy and the rights afforded to politically active citizens. 

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons

You might also like: 10 Young Climate Activists Leading the Way on Global Climate Action

The post Are Climate Activists Reaching Too Far? appeared first on Earth.Org.

World Sea Turtle Day is celebrated every year on June 16 to raise awareness about the plight of sea turtles. Of the seven species of sea turtle found all over the world, six of them are classified as either threatened or endangered. Several factors are responsible for sea turtle species being endangered and placing them in such a vulnerable state, chief among which are the impacts of climate change and human activity. 

—

Green, Hawksbill, Kemp’s Ridley, Leatherback, Loggerhead, and Olive Ridley sea turtles are the six species that are currently threatened and endangered, and can be found in every ocean except the Arctic and Antarctic. Recent estimates place the total number of sea turtles in the wild at 6.5 million across all species, although there is variance from one to the next. Some species like the Kemp’s Ridley could have populations less than 10,000, making them critically endangered.  The only exception to this is the Flatback sea turtle, which resides in the waters around Australia and is classified as data deficient, meaning there is not enough information available to make a declaration of their conservation status. As marine creatures, they live within vast areas of the open seas where they feed, but they also habitually return to land in order to lay eggs and reproduce. Some will travel as far 6,000km back and forth each way, committing to a long journey in order to continue the life cycle of their species.

Moreover, sea turtles play an important role in maintaining the ecosystem of the world’s oceans. By grazing on seagrass beds and sea sponges within coral reefs, they prevent overgrowth which in turn improves current flows, nitrogen production, and promotes the healthy cultivation of flora and fauna. Some sea turtles also prey upon jellyfish and crustaceans, keeping their population numbers under control. They also provide sustenance for other fish since barnacles, algae, and small organisms can cling to their shells, supporting a robust food web. These positive feedback loops and the recycling of nutrients are vital for marine habitats, and due to their migratory lifestyles, sea turtles can transport nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from the oceans to the beaches they nest upon. 

Yet despite this, sea turtles are threatened by several factors which have led to declining populations. Climate change poses specific challenges such as harsher storms, rising sea levels, hotter sands, and shifting currents. Sea turtles depend upon beaches and coastlines for their reproduction cycles, and storms like hurricanes or cyclones, or the gradual rise in sea levels due to melting ice caps would cause erosion and flooding of these regions. Additionally, hotter sands and increasing regional temperatures can disproportionately impact the biological sex of sea turtle hatchlings, thereby lowering genetic diversity when it comes to reproduction. Finally, changes in the patterns of ocean currents directly affects the migration routes of sea turtles, which can drive them away from feeding grounds, altering their mating and nesting times, and exposing them to more risks from human activity. 

You might also like: Shortage of Male Sea Turtles in Florida as Temperatures Reach Record High

On that matter, coastal development, ocean pollution, and overfishing all present greater harm to vulnerable and endangered sea turtle species. Urban sprawl and the encroachment of human settlements directly affects sea turtles by reducing the amount of viable land where they can lay their eggs. Artificial light sources from buildings have been known to confuse and misdirect new hatchlings, leading them away from the water where they are meant to go and deeper inland, succumbing to exhaustion, predation, and collisions with automobiles. On the other hand, trash, chemicals, plastics, and other pollutants produced by human activity are often discarded on beaches or in the ocean, causing illness and injury to sea turtles when they accidentally consume the waste or get tangled up in it. Aside from that, fishing practices and the presence of commercial boats are known to cause fatalities to sea turtles when they are caught in nets and fishing lines, or when they are struck by passing boats. 

Counter to these threats, however, there are cases to be made for human intervention on behalf of sea turtles. The Seychelles atoll, found within the Indian Ocean, has seen a surge in Green sea turtle numbers since the species was declared as protected there in 1968. Prior to then, they were hunted and exploited to near extinction by traders for over a century. Yet with conservation efforts and close monitoring by the Seychelles Islands Foundation, the Green sea turtle population residing near the atoll is back on the rise, increasing as much as 500% over the lows of the 1960s. 

There are many other organisations based around the world, all of which are dedicated to protecting endangered sea turtle species as well as promoting the cause of marine stewardship. Some of their work includes coastal clean-up projects and recycling programmes to reduce the amount of harmful pollution, establishing protected areas and habitats on beaches or at sea, and enforcing maritime laws and agreements that regulate fishing practices. On an individual level, concerned activists can enact local engagement with these types of initiatives, and no act alone is too small when every little bit counts. 

All in all, the sea turtle is a noble creature deserving of greater respect and dignity, but the ravages of climate change and the harms of human activity have endangered the survival of their species. Even so, it is not too late to reverse the declines in their population, and there is much more that can still be done to save the turtles. 

You might also like: The Implications of Global Warming For Sea Turtle Management and Survival

The post 6 Sea Turtle Species Endangered By Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

Amid the climate crisis currently gripping the world, there is a prominent discussion on clean and renewable energy alternatives to support sustainable development. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy are popular options, but equal consideration should also be given to nuclear energy and power generation. But many environmentalists are wary of the potential impacts of nuclear disasters, raising the question: “is nuclear energy clean”? 

—

What Is Nuclear Energy and What Advantages Does It Have?

Compared to its naturally occurring counterparts, nuclear power is a clean source of energy that generates zero carbon emissions, similar to wind, solar, or hydro. Power is generated through nuclear fission reactions, in which uranium atoms are split to create large quantities of steam, spinning turbines to produce electricity. There are no harmful emissions created in this process, and in 2019 alone, the United States was able to avoid 476 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to removing 100 million cars from the road. With a smaller land and carbon footprint, nuclear power generation outpaces conventional renewables. A standard 1000-megawatt plant requires only one square kilometre of space. Wind farms require at least 360 times more space, and solar farms require at least 75 times more space. With such efficiency, nuclear power has supplied a fifth of the United States’ energy since 1990, accounting for 92.5% of capacity factors. 

Beyond the United States, a recent study has shown that across several countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), nuclear power has worked consistently in reducing emissions from production-based sources. Over long-term projections, nuclear power holds notable market potential by being cost effective, ensuring energy security and economic growth. Against renewables, wind and solar are intermittent by nature, and their capacity to produce electricity may not always match with demand. Within power grids which draw from renewables, other power sources must be occasionally utilised to increase or decrease supply on short notice. Conversely, nuclear power is far more consistent and reliable. However, there are notable shortcomings.

Over short-term projections, nuclear power faces higher construction and setup costs, with greater technicality and regulation involved, especially compared with renewable projects of similar scale. Per dollar invested, renewables offer quicker emission reductions by being cheaper and easier to implement. Continual investment into renewables also fosters positive experiential learning, whereby increased deployment can result in lower costs and improved performance, becoming more efficient with time. This is in contrast to the merits of nuclear power, which despite its performance record, must contend with negative public perception. 

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

The Main Disadvantage of Nuclear Energy

There are three notable footnotes in the history of nuclear power generation, those being the Three Mile Island Accident, the Chernobyl Disaster, and the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster. 

In short, the Three Mile Island Accident occurred on March 28, 1979, within Harrisburg, Pennsylvania of the United States. A pressurised water reactor experienced a loss of coolant, causing damage to nuclear fuel. The Chernobyl Disaster occurred on April 26, 1989, within the city of Pripyat in Ukraine. Human errors during a routine test procedure caused a catastrophic explosion in reactor four of the power plant. Lastly, the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster occurred on March 11, 2011, when a severe earthquake and a tsunami struck the northeast of Japan, causing extensive damage to the entire facility.

A study which provided an extensive overview of all three events showed that in each case, the incidents led to the dispersion of harmful radioactive material to varying degrees. To this day, the Chernobyl Disaster remains the worst incident of its kind in history, followed by Fukushima. These events had a profound and lasting impact on the nuclear industry, influencing regulatory practices, disaster management strategies, and communication transparency. 

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima each had their own unique constraining factors, but what they shared in common was that the authorities responsible for dealing with the incidents were ineffective at communicating the full extent of the damage with their concerned public. This led to hasty cleanup efforts, large evacuations, and environmental damage, all of which would be difficult to reconcile in a court of public opinion. Since then, these events have placed the nuclear industry beneath a negative light. Regardless of economic or environmental benefits, the damage has been done, and nuclear power is judged not on its successes, but rather its failures. 

Even so, the issue of nuclear power is quite divisive around the world. In countries such as Belarus, Turkey, or Bangladesh, new power plants are currently under construction. On the other hand, other countries are scaling down their dependency on nuclear power. Germany remains committed to their plans to phase out nuclear power, yet the war in Ukraine and the call for Europe to wean itself off of Russian oil and gas has caused some delays with the rollout of this policy.

Final Thoughts

With regard to the debate on sustainable development in the midst of the climate crisis, the inherent risks involved with nuclear power cannot be ignored. Just the same, all options must be left on the table and considered equally. As policy experts and scientists have proven, nuclear power can be clean and remains a viable energy alternative with a consistently successful track record, despite some major hurdles.

You might also like: Nuclear & the Rest: Which is the Safest Energy Source?

The post The Role of Nuclear Energy in Sustainable Development appeared first on Earth.Org.

Bees are essential for the health of people and the planet. Unfortunately, environmental degradation caused by encroaching climate change is threatening endangered bee species and other insect pollinators. These threats are anthropocentric, meaning they are a direct consequence of human activities. 

—

The humble honey bee is a small and assuming creature, but they play a very important role in managing the globe’s ecosystems. As pollinators, they are crucial within the life cycle of plants, forming one link within a long chain of interdependent species, each one providing a vital environmental service for human life. However, the honey bee as well as other endangered bee species are being threatened by the advance of climate change, placing the species in a sensitive position that can lead to harmful impacts on global biodiversity. 

Pollination is a natural relationship that exists between plants, which require pollen to reproduce, and pollinators to distribute the pollen. As such, honey bees are integral to maintaining stability in agricultural production. To illustrate this in numbers, insect pollinators account for roughly 35% of total global food production, and of that number, honey bees take up 90% of that workload. And to illustrate this in economic value, global pollination services account for USD$577 billion annually, or about 10% of all agricultural markets. Therefore, declining bee populations would negatively affect the chain of agricultural production. Far-reaching impacts would ripple through the global ecosystem and create global food insecurity, nutritional deficiencies, and further imbalance parts of the world that are already sensitive due to climate change. 

There are several threats that challenge the existence of the honey bee, most of which are the result of human activity. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon that was first identified in 2006, describing the steady and annual decline in bee colonies around the world. These losses are caused by things such as agricultural land development, pesticide and fungicide usage, increasing regional temperatures, and the introduction of invasive species. 

Agricultural land development is the main cause of CCD due to deforestation and clear cutting, destroying natural habitats for bee colonies. For instance, in Brazil, their main agricultural products are coffee, canola, soybeans, apples, passion fruit, and tomatoes, the last of which yielded a profit of USD$2 billion in 2011 alone. As such, the continual appropriation of land for agricultural production is expected to inflict large-scale colony reduction in Brazil. Alongside that is the heavy usage of pesticides or fungicides, which are known to directly harm bees and pollinators. Neonicotinoids, a pesticide, are among the most widely used in agricultural industries across the United States and Europe. They saturate plants and pollen, thereby poisoning bees when they try to feed on them. By reducing food sources and lowering plant diversity, the nutritional capacity required to sustain existing bee colonies is further strained. 

Increasing regional temperatures impact bee populations by causing widespread dispersion of their habitats. In Australia, the carpenter bee has been experiencing gradual displacement towards coastal and mountainous regions while also being driven closer to urbanised centres. Similar conditions are found in Europe and North America where rising temperatures and declining precipitation have contributed to lowered occupancy within arid regions. In both cases, close proximity to human cities, towns, or neighbourhoods would inflict unique urban stressors to bee colonies. Namely, things like smog or pollution. 

Finally, invasive species like the small hive beetle have been seen on every continent since 1996, introduced by the global trade of products such as food, wax, and honey. The small hive beetle is a parasitic insect that harms most bees, and in 1998 alone, they accounted for USD$3 million of apiculture damage within Florida. The survival of the small hive beetle benefits from high soil temperature and humidity, factors caused by climate change that allow them to quickly reproduce and occupy large areas of land. It follows that continual warming would lead to higher small hive beetle populations, crowding out bee colonies. 

You might also like: The American Bumblebee Population Has Dropped By 90% Within 20 Years

Despite these challenges, there are possible solutions. First, the most obvious thing to do is stop the usage of pesticides like neonicotinoids. This has already been done in Europe as early as the 1990s, when the French government started regulating its usage. It was banned in Germany in 2008, and in 2013, three million Europeans signed a petition which led to the creation of the European Food Safety Authority, imposing further restrictions and regulations on pesticide use. 

Second, with shifting bee habitats, urban agriculture is a feasible option to decrease stressors on bee colonies. It has been shown to mitigate food insecurity, reduce heat island effects, and create sustainable and resilient communities through the provision of ecological refuges for native pollinators. Green roofs and increased garden spaces, along with protected public parks and dedicated apiculture farms would help in making the most efficient use out of available urban space. 

Finally, land degradation is extensive due to the ever-increasing area needed for planting crops. To that end, establishing apiaries at an equivalent rate to the land being used would work towards bringing the equilibrium back into balance. National regulations could be implemented that require a certain amount of bee colonies for every square kilometre of crops. Government subsidy programmes would also encourage investment in protecting pollination services. 

All in all, climate change doesn’t just impact humans. It impacts the species that sustain the earth’s vital ecosystem services. The honey bee forms just one link in a long chain of other species that support human life, but as with any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link. Under the threats that are imposed by environmental degradation, the honey bee, along with other endangered bee species, are at greater risk than ever before. 

You might also like: Climate Stress Gives Bumblebees Asymmetrical Wings: Study

The post How Climate Change Is Threatening Honey Bees and Other Endangered Bee Species appeared first on Earth.Org.

With climate change producing mounting harms throughout the world, as well as the war in Ukraine raging on, the issue of a global food price inflation and shortages has reached international attention. Food security is not a new phenomenon, but one that has existed for years now, backgrounded against more pressing concerns.

—

Growing levels of food insecurity have been observed around the world, caused by a myriad of factors including reduced incomes, disrupted supply chains, socioeconomic conditions, climate change, and conflict, even before the COVID-19 pandemic. On top of that, the war in Ukraine has impacted supply chains, hamstringing production, trade, and consumption all around the globe. From a European perspective, Russia and Ukraine account for at least 30% of global agricultural trade. Russia alone is the second largest producer of wheat in the world, while Ukraine is the eighth largest producer, although they rank first in highest production of sunflower seeds. Together, they form a major breadbasket region for Europe.

However, external anthropogenic factors have impacted production for some major exporters. In Europe, rising input costs and increasing gas prices have resulted in decreased production of ammonia, a key ingredient for nitrogen-based fertilisers, which are used in agricultural processes. Similarly, in China, the largest producer of wheat and rice, diammonium phosphate fertiliser exports have been curtailed in order to ensure domestic availability amid shortages and higher demand from foreign markets.

Coupled with external climate change factors, human activities necessary to maintaining global stability are also threatened. A report from the International Panel on Climate Change concluded that the industries of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture are beginning to struggle to meet demands. Crop yields are compromised by deteriorating surface ozone, caused by greenhouse gas emissions, increasing temperatures, and warmer, drier conditions. Viable food production zones and growing areas are experiencing decline, causing mismatches in biological events such as flowering and pollinator emergence. At sea, flooding and marine heatwaves create production losses and disturbances to fish resources, thereby lowering nutritional capacities.

Together, these factors have resulted in global food price inflation. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),  global food prices have jumped more than 70% since mid-2020, reaching their highest levels in March 2022. Food commodity prices are also up by a third compared to the previous year amid disruptions to supply chains. This has led to more food protectionism, which in turn could push costs even higher. 

Comparing food price inflation from 2019 to 2021. Figure by: World Economic Forum/FAO

You might also like: How Wheat Shortage Is Sparking a Global Food Crisis

Consequently, millions of people around the globe are at increased risk of food insecurity and malnutrition-related deaths, and place additional stressors on top of already strained ecosystem services. In particular, indigenous people, women, children, and the elderly within regions across Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and small islands are the most vulnerable to these harms. The destruction of livelihoods, increased cost of living, and competition over scarce resources like land, food, or water are impacts that can be seen and felt all over the world. The increase over resources and food also fuels more conflicts, putting even more lives at risk. 

Bleak as the situation may be, the IPCC has published a comprehensive document for policymakers, laying out adaptation measures that would foster climate resilient development. In short, resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society, and private sector actors make inclusive choices that highlight the importance of risk reduction, poverty, equity, and justice. Quite broadly, this includes measures to facilitate international cooperation between governments and non-state actors, combining financial resources, and addressing structural inequalities, all to safeguard vital ecosystems and biodiversity. Inclusive governance is the lynchpin of resilient, sustainable development, and the current climate crisis demands equitable and fair access to the decision-making process, built upon shared technologies, knowledge, and experiences.

Therefore, since hunger is a very real problem that can be experienced by anyone in the globe, it is in the common interest of the international community to start taking greater steps in addressing the basic needs that every human has a right to. Although, against the far-reaching impacts of climate change, as well as war and conflict, there remains much to be done. 

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

The post Climate Change is Fuelling Global Food Price Inflation and Shortages appeared first on Earth.Org.

Not only is California threatened by droughts and heatwaves, but also gradual sea level rise along the state’s coastal regions. In both cases, climate change is largely to blame, and as the planet continues to experience increases in temperature, these impacts are expected to worsen. Here, we examine the current state of sea level rise in California and future projections. 

—

Between 2020 to 2050, sea levels along the coastlines of the United States are expected to rise between 10-12 inches, with some variance due to regional differences in geography. Along the west coast alone, a rise of four to eight inches is projected, threatening the state of California. While these numbers may seem insignificant, this incremental rise also corresponds with extreme coastal flooding and more severe storm surges which will reach further inland. Predictably, these changes are caused by factors of human activity and climate change, associated with the burning of fossil fuels which creates greenhouse gases. In turn, this warms the atmosphere and melts ice caps and glaciers, causing expansion in ocean water. At current emission levels, by 2100, sea levels are expected to rise by two feet across US coastlines, and a failure to curb emissions effectively would cause an additional 3.5-7 feet of sea level rise.

Higher waters would drown coastal regions, and in the United States, 40% of the population lives within 60 miles of coastlines. Across the Californian coast, flooding of just one foot would cause 15 billion dollars of property damage, and significantly impact the livelihoods of 38,000 people. Low-lying communities along cliffs and beaches are at the most risk of such damages, where erosion and coastal degradation would reduce the amount of livable space. Aside from property, damages to public infrastructure would limit state capacities in providing health, transportation, power generation, waste processing, and water treatment services. Access to natural resources and agricultural supplies are also threatened due to saltwater intrusion within freshwater sources, or toxic contamination from hazardous pollution. Disruptions of access to ports and railways would cause billions in revenue loss for the entire state, severely impacting economic activities.

Thankfully, sea level rise in California is a slow and incremental process, one that can be addressed given the appropriate allocation of time and resources. The California Ocean Protection Council recently published a detailed action plan, outlining a five-year roadmap of agenda items designed to help the state adapt to sea level rise. It includes measures to improve the resilience of coastlines, inland areas, bays, and estuaries against the threats of flooding, erosion, and habitat degradation. In brief, the plan is based upon several principles, taking advantage of scientific knowledge, strategic partnerships and alignment, transparent communications, local involvement, long-term resilience projects, and social equity. 

In practice, the state is already beginning to implement certain resilience measures. For example, the community of Gleason Beach, located on the Sonoma Coast, has been experiencing gradual cliff erosion by one foot a year, which is causing damage to sections of a nearby highway. Under a 26 million dollar project, people, buildings, and infrastructure are being relocated further inland. This process, called managed retreat, also involves accommodation and protection by building flood-resistant buildings, or by installing engineered barriers along beaches and waterways to improve land retention. In addition to man made structures, there are natural barriers that help protect coastlines and beaches from erosion, storm surges, and flooding. 

Coral reefs, aside from providing a healthy ecosystem for marine life, also serve as breakwaters, armoring vulnerable shores from the kinetic energy of wave impacts. Though coral reefs around the world are threatened by warming oceans and sea level rise, in 2020, over 30 acres of new reef habitats were constructed off the coast of southern California, as part of a habitat restoration project. Conversely, mangrove forests, which prevent coastal erosion and reduce the severity of tidal currents, also offer another natural alternative form of coastal protection while serving as valuable carbon sinks. Native to tropical regions, red, black, and white mangroves can be found within wetlands across the Baja California Peninsula. Together, reef restoration and mangrove proliferation can be utilised in conjunction, on top of existing efforts, to aid in protecting coastal regions.

Even if climate change is anthropogenically driven, the solutions need not rely upon the human factor, and natural options should be considered first when addressing sea level rise. With some help, coral reefs and mangroves, where their growth is supported by the optimal environment, would be instrumental by being relatively simple to implement, at the same time as yielding positive long-term results through habitat restoration and carbon absorption. In more ways than one, on coastal fronts, these natural solutions can address the causes and impacts of sea level rise.

The post What You Need to Know About Sea Level Rise in California appeared first on Earth.Org.

When it comes to the discussion on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide is often touted the most. Methane emissions are also classified as a greenhouse gas, and are deserving of as much attention as carbon when discussing strategies to mitigate climate change. Here, we look at the anthropogenic sources of methane in the atmosphere and whether a methane tax is feasible to reducing this planet-warming greenhouse gas. 

–

What is Methane? 

The term greenhouse gas is a catch-all, umbrella term that refers to several different types of emissions, produced either naturally or anthropogenically. In short, any type of gas that traps heat within the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. To break it down, in 2020, carbon dioxide accounted for 79% of emissions, with methane accounting for 11%, nitrous oxide with 7%, and fluorinated gases with 3%. Carbon emissions are created by burning fossil fuels, solid waste, and biological materials, whereas methane is created in the production and transport of fossil fuels, as well as agricultural byproducts and decaying organic matter. While carbon certainly makes up the majority of emissions, methane has a shorter lifespan by comparison and is 25 times more effective at trapping heat within the atmosphere. 

Despite its harmful compounding effects, methane continues to be lumped in with carbon under more general emissions taxation policies, though there are certain measures being taken to increase the regulation of methane emissions across international standards. The Global Methane Pledge is one example of an organisation of states acknowledging the need for greater management of methane emissions, formed in November of 2021 at COP26. With 111 countries signed on, the pledge encapsulates roughly 45% of total global emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions by at least 30% below 2020 levels by the year 2030. However, the pledge is non-binding, members are not assigned individual reduction targets, and heavy emitters like China, India, or Russia have notably not joined in. As such, the pledge is largely symbolic posturing, providing a general goal to work towards, yet it does not specify any actions or steps in achieving its targets. 

Can We Widely Adopt A Methane Tax?

That said, on an individual basis, there are certain countries that are innovating on methane regulation. Prior to the formation of the Global Methane Pledge, in 2016, Canada had already announced plans to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector by 40-45% below 2012 levels by the year 2025. Since then, adjustments have been made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to reflect such ambitions through provincial regulations and federal investment programmes. As of December of 2021, the Canadian government has affirmed that they are on track to meeting their methane reduction goals. However, it is important to note that despite such regulation, Canada’s carbon tax does not apply to methane emissions, due to a lack of robust baseline measurement. 

Conversely, Norway was one of the first countries in the world to formally introduce a carbon tax in 1991, targeting the fossil fuel industry. Aside from carbon, harmful gases regulated by the tax also include methane, among several others. Overall, Norway has been able to encourage energy efficient measures within fossil fuel activities, and thanks to their policy, they have been able to maintain consistently low methane emissions by combining stringent regulatory standards with robust taxation measures.

In the United States, the Biden Administration is also committing to their own action plan, involving multiple institutions of the government and new actors to help the country achieve the goals of the Global Methane Pledge. As per the Methane Emissions Reduction Plan, the US government aims to clean up orphaned oil and gas wells, implement a Methane Reduction Infrastructure Initiative, cut down on methane leaks from pipeline systems, reduce emissions from beef and dairy farms, and form a Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Measurement Interagency Working Group to engage with key stakeholders.

However, it is important to consider that despite some degree of regulation, taxation policies that explicitly prioritise methane emissions do not yet exist in any meaningful capacity. Since methane is much shorter-lived and more harmful as opposed to carbon, policy options need to be timely and effective, rather than band-aid, stopgap measures. Innovation is possible, as shown by the examples of Canada, Norway, and the United States, yet there is more that could be done and those three countries have demonstrated that robust methane taxation policies can be feasible.

The International Energy Agency maintains an online policy database that catalogues emissions reduction strategies in countries around the world, geared toward cutting back on the heaviest sources of emission, all to varying degrees of success. Therefore, in countries where methane regulation has shown promising potential, a methane tax would facilitate faster and more effective results. In the past, carbon taxes have encouraged the adoption of clean and more energy efficient technologies, transition away from fossil fuel dependence, and resulted in revenue gains. With such a track record, taxes focused on methane emissions would likely follow suit.

More specifically, with the examples of Canada, Norway, and the United States, the policy structure on industry-wide emissions regulation already exists, so something like a methane tax would not come as a shock to the system. Of course, internal politics present the most significant obstacle that must be overcome. In the United States, a proposed methane tax, as part of a larger climate bill, is still being debated. On a case to case basis between country to country, the possible implementation of a methane tax will look different, yet that does not preclude the fact that existing regulations even before escalating to that scale have been effective. Contextually, a methane tax levied against the heaviest sources of emission is not only feasible, but necessary. 

The climate crisis is scaling up, not down, so policy responses need to be proportional and commensurate to counteract the declining health of the planet. As such, when it comes to cutting back greenhouse gas emissions, methane needs to be prioritised. With all of the calls for action and innovation, all options need to be considered, and taxing methane is one move in the right direction.

You might also like: Why Limiting Methane Emissions Should be our Main Concern

The post Can We Widely Adopt A Methane Tax to Cut the Greenhouse Gas? appeared first on Earth.Org.

As California experiences its third year of drought, heatwaves and wildfire seasons are expected to worsen, straining existing water sources even further and putting greater pressure on state authorities to address the situation. Here, we discuss the drivers of why California is still in a drought and the water shortage issues that have arise.

—

Climate change and water shortages are in large part responsible for causing the drought within California in the US, as well as other western states. This has been an ongoing trend for three years now, and in 2022 alone, California has experienced 1,402 wildfires that have consumed at least 6,507 acres of land. However, there is also a weather phenomenon known as La Niña, trade winds that blow across the Pacific Ocean that bring warmer and drier winters to the western United States. This produces little precipitation, thereby leading to less snowmelt and runoff during the spring thaw, which then leads into optimal drought conditions. Naturally, La Niña and exacerbating climate factors would strain already dwindling water sources. 

California has been called the most hydrologically altered landmass on the planet, since most of its deserts and grasslands have been converted to reservoirs or farmland for agricultural development. Current water sources support roughly 35 million people and irrigate 5.68 million acres of farmland, yet 75% of California’s available water is found in the northern region of the state, whereas 80% of urban and agricultural demands are required in the southern regions. 

Water is drawn from two sources, either as surface water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs, or as groundwater from aquifers. These sources are primarily replenished by winter precipitation and snowmelt, refilling 10 major drainage basins found in the North Coast, San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Central Coast, Tulare Lake, South Lahontan, South Coast, and the Colorado River.

You might also like: Causes and Effects of Water Shortage

However, demand continues to outpace supply, and California has an unquenchable thirst since it has the largest agricultural economy in the entire United States, generating over 50 billion dollars in annual revenue. Intensified production coupled with the continual drought has reduced surface water deliveries, increased groundwater pumping costs, inflicted a loss of agricultural revenue by as much as USD$1.7 billion, and contributed to the loss of 14,600 jobs. As such, stopgap measures are being implemented, and government authorities are faced with an ongoing crisis. The Public Policy Institute of California has suggested implementing pumping restrictions to mitigate impacts in high-risk areas, managing demand with groundwater allocation caps to encourage water trading and land repurposing, and improving water storage to increase saturation within aquifers and reservoirs.

Across the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Ventura, water shortage emergencies have been declared, affecting six million citizens. Authorities are calling upon citizens to reduce their water usage by at least 30%, which can be achieved through the recycling of water in home usage or the installation of more efficient hydro utilities. Yet despite these efforts, California’s household water use continues to soar; water use in March 2021 was the highest for the month since 2015 to keep up lawns and gardens. 

The state government has failed to address the unsustainable drain on California’s water sources without any means to replenish them. For that, the most popular and most ambitious solution is quite simple. 

As per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act passed in 2014, state authorities must control overdraft of groundwater usage by 2040. Recharging aquifers and reservoirs would top up existing sources, thereby strengthening state capacities to mitigate the harmful impacts of extreme drought conditions. In practice, recharging water sources involves redirecting winter precipitation and snowmelt into runoff channels that lead toward basins, wells, and high-risk flood zones. Important to consider is the fact that much of California’s ageing irrigation infrastructure would need to be expanded and improved upon in order to accommodate larger swells of water. 

Even so, it remains unclear if California’s water debt can ever be resolved. The San Joaquin valley alone overdraws water by two million acre-feet per year, but with climate change affecting weather patterns, it may also intensify boom and bust cycles between the seasons, exacerbating water shortage in California. Summers could become hotter and drier, while spring thaws could yield larger floods with greater precipitation, so there is a possible silver lining on the horizon. 

Regardless, California is still in a drought and the entire state is being challenged to provide a substance essential for human survival. Short of a miracle flood appearing from thin air, it would appear that the only solutions are to tightly curtail water usage and closely monitor the levels of existing reservoirs and aquifers. Until La Niña departs from the west and climate conditions improve, the pressure is on state authorities to mitigate this crisis. 

You might also like: What Causes California Wildfires?

The post California Still In A Drought: 3 Years and Counting appeared first on Earth.Org.

Carbon capture and sequestration or storage is a term that refers to the process in which carbon emissions are taken and either disposed of safely, or recycled in an efficient manner. In the fight against climate change, CCS has become an important point of discussion among scientists and policymakers. 

—

The process of carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves capturing carbon emissions from natural occurrences and manmade sources. These emissions are then transported elsewhere and stored away safely, preventing the release of additional carbon as well as reducing the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. This is done in three different ways: biologically, geologically, and technologically.

Biological methods refer to the storage of carbon within oceans, vegetation, and soils. Oceans absorb about 25% of the globe’s carbon emissions, with colder regions like the north or south poles absorbing more emissions than compared to warmer regions. Forests and grasslands account for another 25% of emissions absorption, converting carbon dioxide into oxygen through the process of photosynthesis. Lastly, soils can absorb carbon and convert it into carbonates, an inorganic component with the ability to store carbon for over 70,000 years, but the process could take thousands of years to form. 

Geological methods refer to the storage of carbon in underground formations. Emissions are typically captured from manmade sources, namely the outputs of industrial production and power generation. They are then transported away to designated storage sites as solid matter or dissolved particulates, after which they are injected into porous rock foundations where they are rendered harmless. This method ensures that carbon is never released into the atmosphere as harmful emissions. 

Technological methods refer to the recycling of carbon through scientific methods and innovative engineering. Rather than a waste material, carbon is utilised as a resource. It can be used as a raw material in the production of graphene, an important component in the construction of smartphones as well as other electronic devices. Specialised facilities and refineries can also take in emissions through direct air capture, although this method is energy and capital intensive. Engineered molecules are specifically designed compounds that would be capable of singling out carbon from the atmosphere at the elemental level, acting as an air filter. 

You might also like: Carbon Capture Technology is Finally Underway

On these fronts, the most recent report on climate change mitigation, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has noted the continued signs of success and progress in the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Despite the fact that these methods of decarbonisation are becoming cheaper and easier to produce, the level of global demand for conventional fossil fuel usage in energy production is expected to increase. The problem then is not in the failure of CCS implementation, rather, it is political in nature. The technology is still relatively new and it faces economic, institutional, environmental, and socio-cultural barriers that prevent it from becoming more widespread. 

Regardless, the importance of CCS as an instrument in mitigating carbon emissions cannot be overstated. Coal, oil, and gas are expected to continue dominating energy production, dependency on which has been steadily rising since 2000 and even despite the advent of lower-cost renewable alternatives. To meet the goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 °C as outlined in the Paris Agreement, the largest sources of emissions need to be curtailed. Without CCS, reliance on fossil fuels would need to be severed completely, yet this is not feasible nor is it realistic within a short time frame. As such, CCS is an effective stopgap measure in gradually weaning reliance away from fossil fuels, creating flexible energy systems that can adapt to cleaner renewable alternatives, and facilitating the process of phasing out non-renewable resources. 

Altogether, CCS may not be the miracle solution that can stop climate change in its tracks, nor should it be thought of as such. Even so, it is a crucial instrument when it comes to innovating existing energy systems, and it has already proven to be effective in blunting the impact of emissions-intensive sources of power generation. Therefore, the role of carbon capture and sequestration technologies should continue to be discussed between scientists and policymakers, ideally implementing this measure on a wider scale to aid in the fight against climate change. 

You might also like: World’s Largest Direct Air Capture Plant Starts Carbon Capture and Storage

The post Explainer: What Is Carbon Capture and Sequestration? appeared first on Earth.Org.

The ethical management of the environment and the support of fundamental human rights are the central pillars of climate justice. It is the idea that justice should be balanced for the natural world and the humans that live in it. We examine some of the climate justice organizations and examples leading the way. 

—

Climate Justice Definition

Officially recognised by the United Nations, climate justice is a concept built upon the notion that the impacts of climate change are not distributed equally across the world, with different groups being more affected than others regardless of national origin or wealth. Since the 1990s when it was first popularised, climate justice has encompassed the struggles of minority groups such as indigenous people, people of colour, women, and disabled people. In most cases, minority groups within developing nations are impacted the most due to how globalisation has established the world order, with the wealthy and the powerful profiting off the poor and the powerless. 

The essence of climate justice is that existing issues of social, economic, and political inequality are further exacerbated when exposed to the encroaching impacts of climate change. As such, ongoing debates have shifted to incorporate considerations for certain principles that address these inequalities, with the overall goal of improving the lives of current and future generations. These principles are as follows:

• Respect and protect human rights

The greatest priority is to uphold the basic minimums and standards for human life. Based on moral imperatives and legal precedents, appropriate climate justice measures should be based in equality and fairness for all people. 

• Support the right to development

Developing nations have historically produced wealth for developed nations while sustaining all of the environmental harms. Wealth gaps and other disparities have driven additional wedges between the global north and south, and therefore, it is crucial to bring the worlds closer together for balance. 

• Share benefits and burdens equitably

The positive outcomes of actions taken to respond to climate change must be distributed in a fair manner, and the same is true for negative outcomes. Those who profit by producing environmental harms have an obligation to share such benefits with those who suffer from its burdens. 

• Ensure that decisions on climate change are participatory, transparent, and accountable

Opportunities for participation within multilateral institutions and important decision-making processes must be open and accessible. It is important to provide a platform for those who are the most vulnerable to climate change, allowing them to make their voices heard and their issues validated.

• Highlight gender equality and equity

Impoverished women are more likely to bear the burdens in situations where climate change has impacted their livelihoods. Therefore, there must be greater consideration and support for their struggles. 

1. Harness the transformative power for education for climate stewardship 

Responsible management of the climate necessitates the inclusion of enhanced education geared towards raising environmental awareness, consciousness of new insights, and scientific data within political discourse. As a fundamental human right of its own, education is the most important factor in pushing the agenda of climate justice. 

• Use effective partnerships to secure climate justice

International organisations and intergovernmental bodies are the primary drivers of climate justice, since the issue itself requires collaborative action on a global scale. Resources, knowledge, and expertise must be shared and distributed in order to foster more cooperation on key issues. 

A climate rally in Quezon City, Philippines. Photo by: 350/Leo M. Sabangan II

Climate Justice Organizations 

Climate justice is a global issue, seen in different forms and experienced by different groups on every continent. In practice, here are some examples of how the agenda is being pushed forward around the world by climate justice organizations. 

Climate Justice Alliance

In North America, the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) is a non-governmental organization that brings communities together to form a holistic, grassroots-type movement. Established in 2013, the CJA has worked to provide solutions on extractive industries harming human livelihoods through civic action, encouraging the transition to renewables, and the reduction of carbon emissions as well as community development within urban and rural societies for underrepresented minority groups.

The Nature Conservancy, Latin America

As part of a global collective, the Latin America division of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) employs the scientific method when it comes to dealing with issues of climate justice. Using evidence-based research, TNC incorporates insights from scientists, industry leaders, and most importantly, local communities and indigenous peoples to inform environmental policy, educate youth, drive technological innovation, and encourage investment into preserving Latin America’s natural capital. 

The European Environmental Bureau

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) is a network of citizen organizations spread across the entire European Union within 35 different countries. As the largest citizen-led organization, the EEB advocates for progressive and sustainable policy aimed towards reducing the impacts of climate change, encouraging the role of good governance, and ensuring that democracy remains as open, fair, equitable, and representative as possible. 

350 Africa, The Climate Justice Coalition 

Across Africa, local movements, campaigns, and organizations are affiliated with 350 Africa, a coalition of members who all share the common goal of fighting climate change and improving human livelihoods. Under the 350 Africa umbrella, activists are given the instruments to address issues of climate justice such as economic inequality, poverty, and environmental degradation through the mobilisation of civic action groups. 

Climate Action Network Southeast Asia

The Climate Action Network Southeast Asia (CANSEA) is part of the much larger international Climate Action Network, focused on addressing social and political issues stemming from the impacts of climate change. Designed to create synergy within the Southeast Asia region as well as other partners around the world, CANSEA advocates for sustainable development, social equality, climate justice, and green economies through lobbying and giving a voice to developing nations. 

Environmental Justice Australia 

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) works to empower local communities and indigenous peoples, preserve nature, and achieve social and environmental justice through the provision of legal assistance and advocacy support. EJA accomplishes these goals by fostering collaborative action within community groups, conducting research to inform public debates, and holding the government and corporations accountable in court. 

You might also like: Indigenous Climate Justice in a Warming Arctic

Climate Justice Examples

Aside from climate justice organizations, many individuals and smaller movements are doing their part. To highlight an ongoing case study, the Fairy Creek protest in Canada provides a good example of climate justice principles being put into action. 

Last summer in British Columbia, the largest movement of civil disobedience in Canadian history took place over the issue of old-growth forest logging. The Fairy Creek protest, which started in 2020 and continues to this day, concerns a rainforest watershed located on the southern end of Vancouver Island. Home to a unique array of wildlife and biodiversity, the trees there are some of the oldest in Canada, with some as long lived as 250 years old. 

A logging company, Teal-Jones, acquired government approval to cut down 12.8 hectares within the Fairy Creek region, attracting the attention of hundreds of protestors who blockaded logging roads and barricaded access to the trees. More than 1,100 protestors have been arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and most recently, a court ruling extended an injunction which effectively bans logging protests.

Regardless, the issue has gained the support of activist groups, indigenous peoples, and concerned citizens alike. As an issue of climate justice, the Fairy Creek watershed and the surrounding forests provide a vital ecosystem service by acting as a carbon sink, absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. Still, the police, the logging company, and the courts have impinged upon public interest by allowing the logging of old-growth trees to continue. 

Cases like Fairy Creek are unfortunately common. In Indonesia, Astra Agro Lestari, a palm oil company which supplies larger companies like PepsiCo, is linked to illegal deforestation and land rights violations of local farmers. Similarly, in Papua New Guinea, palm oil suppliers to brands like Nestlé and Kellogg’s have been reported to use illegal child labour, inflicting abusage of human rights. 

No matter where in the world, issues of climate justice remain prevalent and at the forefront of public discourse. That being said, it raises the question of what else can be done to address it? 

What Else Can be Done?

As per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is now a greater call to climate action than ever before, stressing the need for urgent responses to ensure the security of present and future generations. Increasing risks from inclement weather and extreme climate events necessitates immediate measures to reduce their harm, aimed towards conserving nature and sustainable development. Cities around the world and other urbanised areas present the most significant environmental damages, yet they also provide the greatest opportunities for innovation in renewable energy, transportation services, and cleaner infrastructure. 

With these focus areas in mind, there is also more room across the board, whether nationally or internationally, for climate justice organizations to play a larger role. In rolling out community-led initiatives, lobbying governments, influencing policy makers, and raising awareness on important intersections of the environment and social equity, they can ensure that the process of climate justice is as open, fair, accountable, and representative as possible of impacted minority groups. As such, all hands are needed on deck, and to live up to the principles shared by so many organizations, the top-down approach of multilateral institutions needs to be harmonised with the bottom-up approach of grassroots movements. 

On all fronts, climate justice and the fight against climate change has unquestionably become the defining issue for not only this generation, but future generations as well. Therefore, it is better to learn hard lessons now and put them into practice, ensuring that the message of climate justice is heard all around the world. 

Featured image by: 350/Flickr

The post Lessons to be Learned from Climate Justice Organizations appeared first on Earth.Org.