Pollution, extreme weather, and natural hazards are just some examples of events caused by global warming. The US is currently experiencing some of its worst droughts and heatwaves. Water as well as air pollution are rising to unprecedented levels across the country. We explore the worst states for climate change in the US.

—

Worst States for Climate Change: Pollution

1. Water Pollution

Caused by sewage, oil spills, industrial waste, as well as plastic waste, water pollution has catastrophic effects on the marine ecosystem and it can lead to algal bloom in the marine environment, which in turn reduces oxygen levels in water. This process is known as eutrophication, which suffocates plants and animals, and harms the marine ecology. Besides, chemicals and heavy metals from wastewater are toxic to aquatic life, posing a serious threat to the food chain.

It is reported that 50% of assessed river and stream miles across the US – amounting to more than 700,000 miles of waterways – as well as 55% of lake acres and 25% of estuary miles are impaired due to pollution. 

Below is a list of the country’s top 10 states with the most polluted river and stream in 2020, ranked according to the percentage of their total river and stream impaired: 

• Delaware (97%)
• New Jersey (95%)
• Hawaii (91%)
• California (87%)
• Louisiana (86%)
• Oregon (86%)
• Iowa (84%)
• South Carolina (81%)
• Kansas (79%)
• South Dakota (78%)

Water pollution can also harm our health by entering our tap water system. A report published in July 2022 showed that 371 of California’s water systems – which supply water to more than 920,000 people mostly located in the Central Valley – had unsafe levels of contamination including arsenic and nitrate. Its negative impacts on human health include liver and kidney failure as well as cancer. In fact, thousands of people in the United States get sick every year from Legionnaires’ disease, a severe form of pneumonia contracted from water sources such as piped water.

Below are the 10 states in the US with the worst tap water in 2020:

1. Washington
2. California
3. Arizona
4. Florida
5. New Jersey
6. Pennsylvania
7. Georgia
8. Puerto Rico
9. Texas
10. Ohio

You might also like: Tainted California’s Water Poses Health Risks for 1 Million in State: Report

2. Air Pollution

Air pollution is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, wildfires, ozone and smog. It is detrimental not only to the environment, but also to our health, and may referred to it as “a silent public health emergency”. About 68 million tons of air pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the US in 2020 alone. In addition, 4 in 10 individuals in the country – accounting for about 135 million people – are currently living in areas with unhealthy and polluted air. 

Unfortunately, the situation is expected to further worsen in coming years due to climate change, as large-scale wildfires, which are becoming increasingly frequent as a result of global warming, release carbon emissions, smog and pollutants into the air. 

Below listed the 15 most polluted cities in the country for particulate matter (PM 2.5) levels according to the country’s 2022 State of the Air report.

• Visalia, California (annual PM2.5 of 16.6 μg/m3)
• Fresno-Madera-Hanford, California (annual PM2.5 of 16.6 μg/m3)
• San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, California (annual PM2.5 of 14.5 μg/m3)
• Los Angeles-Long Beach, California (annual PM2.5 of 14.2 μg/m3)
• Medford-Grants Pass, Oregon (annual PM2.5 of 13.9 μg/m3)
• Fairbanks, Alaska (annual PM2.5 of 13 μg/m3)
• Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona (annual PM2.5 of 12.8 μg/m3)
• Chico, California (annual PM2.5 of 12.2 μg/m3)
• El Centro, California (annual PM2.5 of 12.1 μg/m3)

You might also like: 15 Most Polluted Cities in the US

Worst States for Climate Change: Extreme Weather 

Extreme weather is ultimately prompted by climate change. As the average global temperature rises, the water cycle speeds up with an increase in evaporation rate from soil and transpiration from plants, influencing the precipitation pattern. It is found that some historically wet areas are likely to experience an increase in precipitation, accompanied by an increased risk of flooding, while historically dry areas are likely to experience less precipitation with a higher risk of droughts and wildfires.

3. Heatwaves

A heatwave is a period of higher than average temperatures in a particular region, usually lasting for a few days. 

Global warming has caused heatwaves to be increasingly longer, more intense, and more frequent in recent years. An average of two heatwaves per year was observed in the US during the 1960s. The number increased steadily and it currently sits at around six heatwaves yearly. Of the 50 metropolitan areas in the indicator by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 17 of them experienced an increase in heatwave intensity between the 1960s and 2020s. 

Prolonged exposure to excessive heat can also damage crops and affect livestock and can raise the risk of wildfires, which not only threaten the ecosystem but also humans. About 65.2 million people — 20% of the US population — live in the areas expected to have dangerous levels of heat and hundreds of people die as a result of extreme temperatures every year in the country.  

Here are the five cities that have a record-breaking heatwave that hit the country in June 2022: 

• Paducah, Kentucky (97°F)
• Evansville, Indiana (98°F)
• Cape Girardeau, Missouri (100°F)
• Poplar Bluff, Missouri (100°F)
• Carbondale, Illinois (99°F)

You might also like: Water Shortage in Texas

4. Tropical Cyclones

Tropical cyclones – which can be categorised as hurricanes, tropical depression, and tropical storms – are rotating, organised systems of clouds and thunderstorms that originate over tropical or subtropical waters.

Over the past 50 years, tropical cyclones had cost the country a staggering US$1,407.6 billion, equivalent to an average of $78 million loss every day. They have also caused nearly 880,000 casualties, an average of 43 deaths a day. 

Due to climate change, tropical cyclones are becoming progressively more devastating, resulting in even more economic and human losses. These extreme weather events are expected to be more frequent, more intense with higher wind speeds, and have heavier rains, as the increase in sea surface temperatures provides them more energy.

States that are subject to topical cyclones should therefore be more cautious and plan investments to ramp up their resilience and preventive measures. Below are the states that experienced the most hurricanes between 1851 and 2020

1. Florida (120 hurricanes)
2. Texas (64 hurricanes)
3. Louisiana (62 hurricanes)
4. North Carolina (58 hurricanes)
5. South Carolina (31 hurricanes)
6. Alabama (23 hurricanes)
7. Georgia (21 hurricanes)
8. New York (15 hurricanes)
9. Mississippi (14 hurricanes)
10. Virginia (13 hurricanes)

Worst States for Climate Change: Natural Hazards

5. Droughts

Drought refers to the extended imbalance between precipitation and evaporation, which lead to a prolonged period of dry weather, often resulting in serious water shortage. 

Droughts in the US have catastrophic impacts. With each drought, the country experiences an estimated USD$9.6 billion economic loss. The agriculture sector inevitably bears the brunt, dealing with a decrease in productivity of the farmland. 229 million acres of crops were found to be undergoing drought conditions in July 2022. 

As of September 2021, 88% of the population in California lived in drought, with nearly 50% in exceptional drought areas, experiencing the most intense kind of drought. With global warming, droughts are expected to become even more frequent and intense in the coming years. 

You might also like: California Still In A Drought: 3 Years and Counting

Here are the 5 states that most frequently encounter exceptional drought:

• California
• Colorado
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• Texas

6. Wildfires

Similar to drought, wildfires have become much more concerning with climate change. Hotter temperatures cause severe heatwaves and longer droughts. These increase the amount of dry vegetation, which exacerbates the risk of more intense and destructive fires developing. 

In the US, a typical fire season used to last for four months. Now, fire seasons usually last up to eight months. In 2020, the US experienced one of the largest wildfires in history, which lasted for the entire year, tearing through parts of California, Oregon and Washington state.

Wildfires impact both humans and the environment. A public health crisis is always the imminent and pressing result. Suffocating smoke is especially harmful, if not fatal, to people with pre-existing respiratory diseases. Forests, home to millions of valuable species and also important to the ecosystem, perished after wildfires. Over the past two years, over 10,000 sequoia trees in California were destroyed by wildfires.

Below listed the top 10 states with the highest total number of acres burned by wildfire in 2021:

• California (2,233,666 acres)
• Oregon (828,777 acres)
• Montana (747,678 acres)
• Washington (674,222 acres)
• Arizona (524,428 acres)
• Idaho (439,600 acres)
• Alaska (253,357 acres)
• Texas (168,258 acres)
• Kansas (163,982 acres)
• New Mexico (123,792 acres)

You might also like: 15 Largest Wildfires in US History

7. Floods

A flood is the accumulation of water over dry land, which can be caused by the overflow of inland waters such as rivers and streams, or by an unusual accumulation of water from sources such as heavy rains. Floods are the most common and among the most deadly natural hazards in the US. It is estimated that 41 million US residents are at risk from river flooding, while 8.6 million are at risk from coastal flooding, which result in more than 100 fatalities annually.

Intense precipitation, hurricanes, and rainstorms triggered by climate change result in easier overflow of rivers and accumulation of waters, leading to more flooding. The floodplains in the US are expected to grow by approximately 45% by the century’s end, while coastal flooding are estimated to double within a decade. The Mississippi River Valley, Midwest and Northeast United States will be much more prone to flooding in the future.

Here are the states with the highest risk of flooding, ranked according to the percentage of  the state within flood hazard areas:

• Louisiana (50.56%)
• Florida (40.08%)
• Mississippi (23.14%)
• Arkansas (22.57%)
• New Jersey (19.27%)
• South Carolina (19.2%)
• Maryland (19.17%)
• Delaware (19.12%)
• District Columbia (17.71%)
• North Carolina (17.13%)

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

Future Outlook

To counter climate change, the US has set to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030, and pledged to reach net-zero emission by 2050. 

The government plans to invested nearly US$1 billion in Climate-Smart Agriculture, producing commodities that use climate-smart practices. Regulations will be re-established to protect America’s waterways, ensuring environmental protections for water bodies that are critical to the health, safety and economic vitality of communities. On an international level, President Biden worked with EU counterparts to rally more than 100 countries to join the Global Methane Pledge, a new partnership to reduce super-polluting methane emissions 30% from 2020 levels by 2030.

The US Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan was also issued, with more than 40 actions across multiple agencies pledging to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, agriculture, buildings, and more. 

Only with continuous and substantial efforts not only from the government but also from companies and individuals, the country can hope to reach its climate targets.

If you enjoyed this article on the worst states for climate change in the US, you might also like: Best Places to Live to Avoid Climate Change

The post The Worst States for Climate Change in the US appeared first on Earth.Org.

Water rights are most commonly assigned according to prior appropriation, a queuing system summarised as “first in time, first in right.” Another water management method, water trading on the stock market, however, is deemed to be a more efficient way for water allocation. Water trading is recommended as it not only improves market efficiency but also alleviates water scarcity and insecurity amid more frequent droughts as a result of climate change. The socio-economic, as well as environmental benefit of water trading is therefore worth discussing. Here, we take a look at how the water trading market works, using the development of water trading in Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), a crucial water catchment in Australia, as a case study. 

—

What is Water Trade and the Water Trading Market?

Water trades are transactions to buy, sell or lease a water right, in whole or in part. Water trades can be classified into two types: permanent and temporary trade. Permanent trade is the trade of water entitlements, a right to exclusive access to a share of water. Temporary trade is the annual trade of water allocations. Temporary trade can be settled in any season, based on firms’ business model.

When water rights are freely traded between end users, a water market is thus developed. The market price of water reflects the resource’s demand and supply, and may be different across regions and types of rights. Prices will change in response to any fluctuations in supply and demand. Consider a situation where drought is persistent and water is, therefore, low in supply, the price of water would presumably increase. Motivated by the high price and a higher economic incentive, sectors or industries that are less water-intensive may sell or trade their excess water to those more water-intensive businesses that are facing shortages. The market mechanism of water trade thus allows scarce water resources to be allocated in accordance to the highest valued use, reallocating water from low to high valued uses to encourage efficiency gains. The economic incentive of water trade also promotes water conservation and discourages over-irrigation or overuse of water, as the saved excess water can be sold while paying is required when there are water shortages.

Water trade reallocates water to those who value and demand water more, improving market efficiency and water conservation. This efficient and effective water management method could therefore be significant in areas where drought and water scarcity are severe. Australia has been practising water trade since the 1980s, and will soon extend its water trading market to the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), bringing both positive and negative social, economic, and environmental impacts to the area.

The boundary of the Murray–Darling Basin.Source: Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)

You might also like: Causes and Effects of Water Shortage

The Murray-Darling Basin in Australia

MDB is Australia’s largest river system, made up of 22 major catchments, with 40% of all Australian farms located in the basin. Socio-economically speaking, it supports 7,300 irrigated agriculture businesses and is home to 2.3 million people, while producing AUD$22 billion worth of food and fibre every year. Ecologically speaking, the basin has a diverse and delicate ecosystem, housing 120 waterbird species, more than 50 native fish species, and 16 internationally recognised and protected wetlands. Without a sustainable water supply, it could potentially devastate both the local economy and the environment of the MDB.

Extreme climate and drought have added uncertainty and fluctuation to the water supply of MDB. It is observed that the average winter rainfall has reduced in southern Australia, while overall temperatures across the country have risen in the last 20 years – the average temperature is forecasted to increase 0.6 to 1. C by 2030, MDB has been hugely affected by climate change; it recorded its worst drought in over a century in 2019. A decrease in water supply from drought, together with an increase in water demand prompted by an improvement in living standards, and a rising in population, continues to add pressure to the water security of MDB. An efficient water management system is thus essential to the MDB in times of persistent drought.

Australian surface air temperature has been increasing. Source: Commonwealth of Australia 2022, Bureau of Meteorology

The Water Trading Market in the MDB

Water trade has been in practice in the MDB for its efficiency in water allocation. MDB is the most active water trading market in Australia, accounting for 97% of all allocation trade and 77% of all entitlement trade in 2016-17. The average water market turnover for the basin in the last decade is nearly AUD$2 billion per year. Traded water is used primarily for agricultural purposes, used for products such as cotton, cereals and pastures.

Annual volume of water trade in the southern MDB, 1983-84 to 2016-17. Source: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (ABARES), Australian Government

Water trade has brought both positivity and negativity to the social, economic and environmental aspects of the MDB.

In regards to its social impact, some are worried that water trade might lead to population and employment loss. Water trade might prompt farmers to leave the rural district, which would reduce local spending, leading to fewer employment prospects and a decline in social services. The loss of farmers may further induce the decline in council revenues and house prices. Out-migration of young people might result as well, affecting the local community. Yet, it is observed in a survey that many farmers stayed in their local area after selling water entitlements to the government. How the water trade affects the community in the longer term is still uncertain.

From an economic perspective, a generally positive impact is observed from water trading, contributed by the improvement of market efficiency. It is found that water trading in the southern MDB increased Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) by AUD$220 million in 2008-2009, while in the 2006-2007 and 2010-2011 periods, the production with water trade was estimated to be AUD$4.3 billion higher than that without trade. The loss brought by drought also declined with the introduction of water trade, dropping from AUD$11.7 billion 2006- 2007 to AUD$7 billion in 2010- 2011 in southern MDB. Water trade therefore prompts a more optimal market, increasing social benefit and economic welfare.

However, the water trading market creates both negative and positive impacts for the environment. The salinity of water increases under water trade in MDB, upsetting the ecosystem of streams. Groundwater salinity levels are naturally higher in downstream southern MDB river sections. With water trade leading to more active farming activities, as well as a large movement of water to downstream areas, in-stream salinity further increases with more groundwater seepage to rivers.

On the other hand, water trade also facilitates environmental protection and water conservation. Without adequate water, the ecosystem is harmed, with the river system likely to face an increase in salinity and outbreaks of algae, causing loss of native animals due to destruction of breeding spots and food sources. Vegetation is also lost, affecting the food supply and shelter of native animals. A Steady and abundant supply of water dedicated to the environment thus becomes essential. Environmental water is used to improve the health of rivers, wetlands and floodplains, restoring river health by delivering planned flows to where nature needs it. Under the water trading market mechanism, the Australian Government has conducted water purchases of environmental water. Between April 2015 and March 2020, it secured a total of 68,267.8 megalitres of environmental water, which is used to support the recovery of important native wetland and riverbank plants and help reconnect rivers in the Basin.

Total water available for irrigation plus environmental water, southern MDB. Source: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (ABARES), Australian Government

Water conservation is encouraged under water trade, especially when facing a high purchase price of water. Water-saving technology for instance drip and sprinkler irrigation methods is adopted, which helps reduce over-irrigation and salinisation of land, preventing soil erosion and thus maintaining land productivity. 

Water trading, although it could largely improve market efficiency and social welfare, might still pose certain potential threats to society and the environment. Careful and attentive planning is needed when introducing and developing water trading. Regulation and intervention might be handy to limit the market. Other water management could also be used as a complement to water trading.

Other Water Management Measures

Investment has been the preferred new strategy for the Australian government in hopes to replace water purchases, which have been losing their effectiveness in recent years. The 2020 Murray- Darling Communities Investment Package injected AUD$2.1 million in 2022-23 for detailed development work to implement early actions to improve water markets. Water limits are imposed on water consumption, with sustainable diversion limits set, limiting how much water, on average, can be consumed in the Basin by towns and communities, farmers, and industries, while maintaining a healthy river and environment. Infrastructure development, operation and maintenance are also concerned, with dams, barrages and weirs being developed and built to regulate water flows. Compliance and regulation on water trading are enforced, with penalties imposed on law-offender. Evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness of water management, water trading included, should be formed regularly.

All in all, efficient water management will continue to be of utmost importance in dealing with more frequent and severe droughts under extreme climates. Water trading might only be a short-term remedy that could not reach and solve the entrenched cause of climate change. Countries that currently practise water trading, for instance, Chile, the United Kingdom, the United States – with markets in California and Arizona – should make good use of the short-term benefit brought by water trading, while continuously developing long-term solutions for the problem of water scarcity. Lowering our water demand by adopting a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle can certainly help to address the crux of the issue. Together with the act and support of the government on water management, our individual actions play a large part in achieving water sustainability.

Featured image by: Jussie D.Brito/Flickr

You might also like: Are We Running Out of Water?

The post Water Trading Market: A Solution to Water Scarcity? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Global warming has long reached the boiling point that resolute and immediate action is needed. As the primary contributor to the issue, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) has been the main focus in alleviating climate change. Methane, a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, has been found to also have a substantial role in the climate crisis, particularly emissions in the energy sector. Here, we examine the environmental impacts brought by methane emissions, how leakage and venting from the energy sector is a major source of it, as well as potential solutions. 

—

How Does Methane Emissions Affect Global Warming?

Methane (CH4) is a major contributor to the total GHG emissions, second only to carbon dioxide (CO2). Though CO2 is more commonly and widely discussed, concerns about methane emission should not be ignored.  

Global methane emissions have been on the rise, with an annual increase of 17 parts per billion in atmospheric methane in 2021, the largest annual increase recorded since 1983. Atmospheric methane levels are also shown to be 162% higher than pre-industrial levels, alarming the scientific community. 

Besides its worryingly growing emission, methane is found to be a significant and impactful GHG; it is 84 times more potent in trapping the heat than carbon dioxide over a two-decade period. The gas also possesses a global warming potential 25 times more than that of carbon dioxide. 

Though one particular feature of methane that should be noted: its shorter life span. Methane will be broken down in less than a decade, which is a much faster rate compared with CO2 but stays in the atmosphere for more than a century. Lowering methane emissions could therefore yield a rapid decline in the rate of global warming. 

Professor Drew Shindell, physicist and climate specialist at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, agrees that targeting methane makes for a quick and short-term solution to climate change. “We’re seeing so many aspects of climate change manifest themselves in the real world faster than our projections,” he noted. “We don’t have a lot we can do about that, other than this powerful lever on near-term climate of reducing methane. We should do this for the wellbeing of everybody on the planet over the next 20 to 30 years.”

Methane and the Energy Sector

Though the agricultural sector is the major culprit of the human-caused or anthropogenic methane emissions, the energy sector also contributes a large proportion of emissions, closely following the farming industry. During the different production stages of energy generation, emission of methane can occur. 

Methane emissions can be classified into unintentional and intentional emissions. 

Methane leakage refers to the unintentional and involuntary release of gas, while venting refers to the intentional and controlled release of it. Leakage occurs most likely in aged equipment and facilities which lack regular and proper maintenance, whereas venting is done to  dispose gases that lack value. Natural gas flaring is another intentional release of methane, defined as the controlled combustion of natural gas for operational, safety, or economic reasons.

Since fossil fuels, which include coal, oil and natural gas, remain to be the main sources for the energy sector, their production is closely tied to methane leakage and emissions. 

1. Coal

Methane is produced during coalification, the geological formation of coal. Extraction, crushing and other coal mining activities release methane that is trapped around and within the rock strata. The majority of methane emissions from coal could be found in active underground mines, underground or closed mines, as well as surface mines. Methane is released through the degasification systems and ventilation systems in the active underground mines. Venting of methane, due to safety reasons, is released from diffuse vents, ventilation pipes, boreholes, or fissures in the ground from the abandoned or close mines. 

2. Oil and Natural Gas

Similar to coal, a large number of methane deposits are produced during the geological formation of oil. The GHG are released during the extraction and drilling of oil, as well as during refinement, transportation and storage. Incomplete and inefficient combustion of oil, as with other fossil fuels, will also unintentionally emit methane. 

For natural gas, compressors, valves, pumps, flanges, gauges and pipe connectors are some of the many individual components that are easily subject to methane leaks. Methane can also be intentionally released after hydraulic fracturing, vented from storage tanks, dehydrators, as well as depressurising equipment. Venting from the production of natural gas, as well as oil, is often due to system upset conditions or pressure release emergencies.

Methane is released along the supply chain of both oil and natural gas. Production, processing, transmission, as well as distribution are some of the supply stages in which unintentional leakage and venting of methane could be found.

During the production stage, methane is leaked from pneumatic controllers, gathering and boosting stations, chemical injection pumps etc. For the processing stage, gas engines, reciprocating compressors, as well as centrifugal compressors are some of the contributors to the methane emission. For the transmission stage, pipelines, station venting, and station fugitives are other emitters that should be played attention to. Lastly, for the distribution stage, methane leakage could be found at industrial meters, residential meters, unprotected steel etc. 

Methane Leakage Solutions

It is estimated that with proper and adequate abatement options, 75% of total oil and gas methane emissions could be avoided, 40% of which could have been prevented with zero-net-cost measures. The solution to methane leakage can therefore be cost-effective, and more measures should be taken in order to alleviate the issue.

1. Environmental Technology and Innovation

Together with detecting and monitoring equipment such as satellite and infrared cameras, software systems are developed to track the location where methane leakage occurs. Plane-mounted sensors and satellites allow high-precision measurements of methane emissions, and assist with the monitoring of methane vents. Installing systems also could be designed to capture the vented and leaked methane, reusing the leakages as fuel and supplemental power source for the facility. 

Besides detecting and monitoring, replacing aged equipment with advanced one is key to lowering methane emissions. “Zero-bleed” electric motors could replace gas-driven pneumatic devices, which constantly release methane. Electric motors can also be used to replace diesel or gas engines during drilling. Instrument air systems are another option. 

While technological advancement could tackle some of the methane leakage problems, research on environmental technology and innovation is also needed. Natural Resources Canada, for instance, is actively developing and advancing its green technology, and initiating an aerial and satellite-based methane detection network. Advanced Methane Detection, Analytics and Mitigation Project researches the use of remote sensing sensors, software, solar electric system solutions sensor and related technologies to address methane emission in the energy sector. 

2. Action from International Organisations

International organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union can play an important role in regulating and monitoring environmental issues, encouraging collective action and exchange of information among countries.  

The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0 framework, initiated by the EU, has proposed certain measurements for the regulation of methane emission. For the oil and gas sector, venting is only allowed for safety reasons under unavoidable circumstances. Flaring is prohibited in incomplete combustion to reduce emissions from inefficient combustion. For coal, venting and flaring from drainage stations are being proposed to be banned by 2025, and from ventilation shafts by 2027. Member states are also required to set up plans for abandoned coal mines and inactive oil and fossil gas wells.

Similarly, the International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) set up by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) aims to generate a public dataset of empirically verified, near-real-time methane emissions data. Data is sourced from companies, satellites, scientific studies and national inventories, creating peer-reviewed data streams using advanced data science methodologies. With this disclosure, accurate and credible data sources for research are provided, and increases public transparency regarding companies’ emissions of GHG.

3. Role of Government

Governments play a large part in environmental protection, with its ability to legalise and standardise certain regulations. Clear standards and requirements are needed to create acceptable levels of methane emission, as well as the technological level needed for the equipment. Regular maintenance and inspection of facilities should be required to detect any leakage and venting of methane. Legalisation of these regulations can therefore penalise (via taxes or fines) companies that fail to comply and deter them from repeating offences. 

Subsidy, loans or other financial incentives should be offered to encourage technological research for environmental innovation as well. 

The methane emission trend will take some time to be flattened, but substantial and active steps are critical from different sectors and stakeholders. Regular maintenance and replacement of facilities by the energy companies are a must, and an increase in their cost in regular maintenance and replacement of worn-out equipment is likely. Adopting more advanced green technology will also increase firms’ expenses. Fossil fuel companies should be asked to bear more corporate social responsibility while governments should provide more assistance and subsidise research on green technology. Combined, methane emissions could certainly face a diminishing trend soon.

You might also like: Can We Widely Adopt A Methane Tax to Cut the Greenhouse Gas?

Featured image by: Ken Doerr/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The post The Importance of Addressing Planet-Warming Methane Emissions in the Energy Sector appeared first on Earth.Org.

The volcanic islands of Hawaii have been subject to the looming threat of rising sea levels. In 2015, the government set a target to achieve 100% electricity sales from renewable energy by 2045 in order to fight global warming. Since then, clean energy – solar energy in particular – has seen huge and continuous development. We examine some of the policies implemented by the government in terms of renewable energy in a bid to fight climate change in Hawaii.

—

Overview: Solar in Hawaii

Because of its geographical isolation, Hawaii heavily relies on imported petroleum and is the most petroleum-dependent state in the US. Thankfully, the state is making great strides in substituting it with clean energy, particularly solar power. 

In 2020, the total amount of petroleum-fired generation declined to the lowest level in more than two decades, despite still accounting for 60% of Hawaii’s energy mix. In the same year, 30% of Hawaii’s electricity was supplied by renewables, with 17% coming from solar panels. As of the first quarter of 2022, the solar installations in Hawaii generated enough energy to power more than 368,000 homes. 

The government invested a total of US$3.8 billion in solar power generation as of the first quarter of 2022 and further US$137.46 million in 2021, and it was projected that 728 megawatts can be further provided within the next 5 years. Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii, has the highest solar capacity per capita among all the other US cities in 2022, accounting for 1,134 watts per person.

Solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels can alleviate climate change significantly, as it does not generate any greenhouse gas emissions during generation itself, with studies showing that solar power has a considerably smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels over its life cycle.

You might also like: Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy

 2045 Target: 100% Renewable Energy

The government’s commitment to put the brakes on its petroleum reliance in order to combat climate change in Hawaii is noticeable. Its legislature amended the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2015, making Hawaii the very first state to set a legally binding deadline on achieving 100% of electricity sales from renewable energy by 2045. 

The target was followed in 2018 by the passage of Act 15 in 2018, which requires Hawaii to become net carbon negative “as soon as practicable, but no later than 2045.” In 2020, the interim requirement of 30% renewable energy had been met, and the next energy efficiency standard will be to reduce electricity consumption by 40% by 2030.

Some tangible action has been taken to achieve this 100% renewable energy goal and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including the three Hawaii solar projects, Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI), and the Powering Past Coal Task Force (PPCTF).

Picture 1: Governor Ige signed bill setting 100% renewable energy goal in power sector

Three Hawaii Solar Projects

Three grid-scale solar power projects at Kawailoa, Waipio and Mililani on the island of Oahu were proposed in 2018, which contribute significantly to the 2045 goal of clean energy. All three projects were completed in 2019, generating a total of 110 megawatts each year that can be used by about 11% of Oahu households. The project is also the largest block of grid-scale solar power ever installed in Hawaii. 

“Hawaii is on the front lines of the fight against climate change, and the shift to renewable energy is one of our best weapons,” said Hawaii Gov. David Ige. 

“Building solar energy at this scale represents tremendous progress toward our renewable energy goals. I thank all the partners involved for making it happen.”

Kawailoa Solar is not only the largest among these three solar projects, but also the largest in Hawaii, holding a contracted capacity of 49 megawatts and supplying energy to 14,300 households. Waipio Solar has a slightly lower contracted capacity, reaching 45.9 megawatts and powering 13,400 households. The last project, Mililani Solar II, led to the construction of 150,000 solar panels which hold a capacity of 14.7 megawatts.

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI)

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) is a framework of statutes and regulations supported by a diverse group of stakeholders committed to Hawaii’s clean energy future. Launched in 2008, HCEI has a primary goal of meeting 70% of Hawaii’s energy needs through renewables by 2030.

HCEI is propelled by the help of more than 100 community members and national experts who formed working groups dedicated to achieving the primary target. Partnerships with public and private sectors such as Drive Electric Hawaii, Hawaii-Okinawa Memorandum of Cooperation, Hawaii Advanced Visualization Environment Nexus are also instrumental in promoting clean energy through HCEI.

Besides collaboration, significant progress is also made through policy action in HCEI. In 2016, Act 202 was enacted, establishing a renewable fuels production tax credit which grants sellers an income tax reduction for the renewable energy sold. In 2017, Act 32, an act relating to climate change which helps align Hawaii with Paris Agreement goals, was further enacted.

In 2018, ten years after its launch, HCEI has seen considerable achievement. 60 utility-scale renewable energy projects were installed in total, while energy performance contracts for a total value of US$507 million were signed. 5,100 people were employed in energy efficiency, with 4,900 worked in the solar industry.

Powering Past Coal Task Force (PPCTF)

Several renewable power projects that are intended to substitute the electricity from the coal plant, particularly those in fall 2022 and summer 2023, have been delayed because of global supply chain headwinds and pricing pressures. 

Established in March 2021 by Governor David Ige, Powering Past Coal Task Force (PPCTF) aims to track and coordinate the progress of these behind-schedule projects and measures. Stakeholders will actively engage in project permitting and site development to help avoid further delays of crucial projects and programs. Coming from diverse backgrounds, participants of PPCTF include the Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaiian Electric, Hawaii Energy, and Earthjustice.

Conclusion

As seen from its vision of combating climate change in Hawaii, the state will continue its effort in developing renewable energy with conspicuous results. In fact, Hawaii’s last-ever coal shipment arrived in Oahu in July 2022, bound for the last remaining coal-fired power plant, which will be shut down in September. The transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is remarkable. With substantial help from the government as well as both the public and private sectors, Hawaii is on track to reach its 2045 goal of 100% renewable energy, setting a successful precedent for not only the other states in the US, but many other cities around the world.

You might also like: All You Need to Know About The US Inflation Reduction Act

The post Fighting Climate Change in Hawaii with Solar Energy appeared first on Earth.Org.

Rice is an essential staple food for 3.5 billion people, nearly half of the world’s population. Yet, this popular food is accompanied by its negative impact on the environment. In particular, rice is responsible for 10% of global methane emissions. System of Rice Intensification (SRI), which promotes a farming system that produces more outputs with reduced inputs, can be a better farming practice that conserves the environment by lowering polluting inputs while sustaining food security. We explore how SRI works, the benefits that come with it, and the future outlook of this innovative farming method.

—

System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is an agro-ecological methodology used to increase the productivity of irrigated rice by changing the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients. This farming system was developed in the 1980s in Madagascar by Father Henri de Laulanié, a French priest who spent 34 years working with farmers to improve rural livelihoods by increasing rice productivity.

SRI differs from conventional rice production in several aspects, from the age and number of seedlings, spacing of plants, water management, soil fertilisation, as well as the pest control mechanisms employed. Farmers will first raise seedlings in carefully managed nurseries, then transplant single, young (8-15 days old) seedlings at wide plant spacing (starting at 25×25 cm, but going up to 50×50 cm). Irrigation is then provided intermittently to avoid permanent flooding during the vegetative growth phase. Soil nutrients are added in organic forms such as compost instead of chemical fertiliser. Last but not least, intensive manual or mechanical weed control is done without herbicide use.

SRI is said to be a better farming practice than the conventional one as it is able to bring more environmental, economic, and social benefits.

Environmental Benefits

1. Conserve Water Resources

The increase in global temperature has made water shortages more serious. It is estimated that 2.7 billion people worldwide currently suffer water scarcity for at least one month a year. Worse still, 15-20 million of the world’s irrigated rice lowlands are expected to face a certain degree of water scarcity by 2050. With the SRI method, however, water resources can be conserved. It is estimated that between 25% and 50% of the water used for paddy cultivation is saved under SRI. Using less water for rice production can free up water for other crops, promoting crop diversification.

2. Reduce Methane Gas Emissions

Agricultural activities, including farming on inundated rice fields, release a huge amount of methane, a major greenhouse gas that is 310 times more impactful than carbon dioxide on global warming. In fact, rice is responsible for 10% of global methane emissions and as much as 25-33% of the total methane emissions of the world’s major rice producer – Southeast Asia. The continuous flooding and inundating of fields deprive the soils of oxygen, which is conducive to producing methane. It is estimated that about SRI can save at least one-third of methane emissions, when flooded rice fields are drained at least once during the growing season.

You might also like: Addressing Planet-Warming Methane Emissions in the Energy Sector

3. Reduced Use of Nitrogen Fertilisers

Nitrogen fertilisers are commonly used to sustain crop yields. Yet, the nitrogen released from them will exacerbate global warming, result in acid rain as well as pollute drinking water sources. With the continuous increase in demand for fertilisers, the nitrogen released into the atmosphere and waterways is projected to double by 2050. Under SRI, these fertilisers can be substituted by organic matter, a much more environmentally friendly alternative, resulting in a 20%-30% reduction in chemical fertiliser compared to traditional rice cultivation methods.

As plants are stronger and more deeply rooted, the SRI crop also stands to show greater resilience towards natural hazards such as drought, strong winds and storms, which are becoming more frequent and extreme because of climate change.

Economic and Social Benefits

SRI enables farmers to produce more outputs with reduced inputs. It is estimated that SRI can lead to a 90% reduction in seeds, a 23% reduction in cost, as well as a 68% increase in income for farmers per hectare. Thus, while the costs of seeds, synthetic fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides decrease, more output is generated and can be sold to consumers.

Having lower expenses, farmers can produce more rice, improving both their income and food security while further benefiting their health by using fewer agrochemicals.

With all these benefits brought by SRI, many countries, especially those that rely on rice as a staple food such as India and Indonesia, have been adopting SRI extensively, as well as actively promoting it to farmers. Countries that actively support SRI include Kenya, Peru, Nepal, and Malaysia.

Figure 1: Global Adoption of SRI in 2018

System of Rice Intensification in Nepal

 Nepal is vulnerable to food insecurity. 2017 data showed that, out of Nepal’s 75 districts, 38 suffered from food deficiency. The situation is even worse during droughts periods. Rice production in Nepal is averaging about 5 million tons as only 18% of the land receives adequate irrigation. Rice deficit reaches about 1 million annually even during years with good monsoons. Rice yield in Nepal dropped by about 5% in 2015 from the year prior due to an extensive drought. 

SRI is a valid and sustainable solution deployed to increase the country’s food supply. For this reason, the government has promoted several programs to promote this farming method across the nation.

In 2015, the Mega Rice Production Program (MRPP) was launched in 15 districts of Nepal, and further expanded to 35 districts in 2016. The program emphasises wider spacing of plants, line transplanting, and mechanical weed management, integrating SRI principles into the conventional rice production system.

In 2017, SRI continued to help increase rice production. Crop yield had doubled in many places while using half the amount of seedlings and less water. The Mahadevsthan village, located in central Nepal, had reported to experience an average yield 30% higher than farmers using standard practices after adopting SRI. In some cases, yield increases were as high as 62%. 

In 2018, the Lutheran World Federation programme in Nepal, together with the local NGO Digo Bikash Samaj-Kailali, introduced SRI methods to marginalised households. An initial training was given to 30 farmers, who later assisted in farmer-to-farmer training. The increase in yield compared to conventional practices had given enough rice to extend household sufficiency of basic grain by three months.

System of Rice Intensification in Malaysia

With the introduction of SRI, the paddy yields in Malaysia almost doubled between 1980 and 2009, increasing from 1,85 to 3,68 tons per hectare. Yet, Malaysia’s rice production has only achieved a self-sufficiency rate of about 70% in 2022, and has always been dependent on imported food as its own supply could not sustain the needs of the local demand. 

Several programmes and projects have been carried out in recent years to promote the use of SRI in Malaysia.

In 2018, a two-day workshop held by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia took place in Long Langai village in Sarawak, encouraging and promoting the use of SRI. Basic SRI training was given, while information on how to use simple ingredients to substitute commercially-produced fertilisers was also provided. Participants were also urged to apply for myOrganic certification under the Department of Agriculture. The certificate recognises farms that operate organically in the production, processing, handling, labelling and marketing stage, making their agricultural products easily recognisable and competitive on both domestic and international markets.

The SRI-Mas, short for “The Malaysian Agroecology Society for Sustainable Resource Intensification”, attended the 5th International Rice Congress held in Singapore in October 2018. In addition to the SRI presentation made during the conference sessions, SRI-Mas participated in a side event on SRI Research that provided an overview of global research on this farming method. 33 published scientific researches were later included in the Global SRI Research Network’s Malaysia collection.

In 2019, SRI training was given in Tanjung Karang through the Farmer Field School Project. About 40 participants attended the training, which was held at the new Sawah Sempadan SRI Learning Center. This one-day course provided information on the topic of SRI plant establishment and pest control through good SRI management and ecology-based solutions.

Future Outlook: SRI-2030

System of Rice Intensification continues to develop, with numerous research and programmes expected to be conducted in the coming years. SRI-2030 is one of the many future projects that aims to help promote SRI. Initiated by the Homeland Conservation, SRI-2030 aim to rapidly expand the use of eco-friendly agricultural practices around the world, particularly SRI. Works of millions of farmers in over 60 countries, and more than two decades of research have been built under SRI-30.SRI-2030 future targets included increasing the currently estimated 6.7 million hectares of land under SRI cultivation to 50 million hectares by 2030. This can be achieved by uniting governments, institutions, agencies, and individuals worldwide. It is estimated that the extra 1 billion tons of rice yield created combined with reduced inputs will generate an extra US$275 billion in profits for farmers by 2030, and $1.6 trillion by 2050.

All in all, the System of Rice Intensification is a great solution that can help reduce methane emissions from rice cultivation as well as improve food security. More research can be done to further boost the productivity of the SRI method, for example, on how technology can be used to further increase crop yields. Government supports and funding is also crucial in the development of SRI. Organisations and NGOs can also continue to provide programmes and courses to educate local farmers on some major principles of SRI.

You might also like: Ways in Which Vertical Farming Can Benefit Our Environment

The post System of Rice Intensification: A Solution to Methane Emissions and Food Insecurity appeared first on Earth.Org.

Tidal energy is a growing renewable, clean, and environmentally friendly energy source that produces far fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Moreover, its high predictability and elevated power output are also among the advantages of tidal energy. In this article, we examine what tidal energy is, its advantages and disadvantages as well as the future trends of this still unpopular but highly promising renewable energy source.

—

What Is Tidal Energy And How Does it Work?

Tidal energy is a form of power produced by the natural rise and fall of tides caused by the gravitational interaction between Earth, the sun, and the moon. The potential or kinetic energy of tide movement is captured and converted into electricity. This energy is renewable, derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than consumed, creating far less greenhouse gas emissions than burning fossil fuels. The global potential for tidal energy is huge, estimated to be around 500 gigawatts in 2020, equivalent to about one-fourth of the world’s coal capacity at that time.

3 Tidal Energy Technologies

Tidal energy technology can be classified into three types: tidal range, tidal current, and hybrid forms technologies.

1. Tidal Range Technologies

Tidal range technologies make use of the potential energy in the difference in height between high and low tides. 

Tidal barrage makes use of tidal range technologies. Similar to dams or barriers, the barrage is constructed to hold a large body of water. The difference between the water height inside and outside the enclosed area will then cause water to flow from one side to the other, letting the water flow through the turbines inside the barrage, thus generating electricity. Annapolis Royal Generating Station in Canada is a power plant that used tidal barrage.

Tidal lagoons are very much like tidal barrages, except that they are not necessarily 

connected to the shore and can sit within the ocean. The environmental impacts brought by the lagoons are far less than those of tidal barrages, making them an encouraged alternative to the latter. Other newly developed tidal range technologies include tidal reefs, tidal fences, and low-head tidal barrages.

2. Tidal Current Technologies

Tidal current technologies – or tidal stream technologies – make use of the kinetic energy of moving water to power turbines, similar to how wind turbines are moved by air. Due to its relatively low cost and limited ecological impact, this method has become more prevalent compared to tidal range technologies.

Horizontal- and vertical-axis turbines are an example of this type of technologies. The rotors of the turbine are turned by tidal currents, oriented either horizontally or vertically. Tidal kite, best used in slower tidal flows area, is also a common tidal current technology. The kite is tethered to the seabed, flying through the water with a turbine attached below its wing to generate power from motion. With up to 398 megawatts of generation capacity, the MeyGen Tidal Energy project in Scotland is expected to be the largest tidal generating station with tidal current technologies.

3. Hybrid Forms Technologies

Hybrid forms make use of both tidal current and tidal range technologies for electricity generation. Dynamic Tidal Power (DTP) is a recent development in these technologies. A long dam is constructed perpendicular to the coastline, with a barrier built at the end of the dam. DTP makes use of the height difference to create potential energy, while also using turbines to generate electricity.

Figure 1: How tidal power generators capture energy from the natural ebb and flow of the oceans

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

Now that we know how energy is generated from tidal current and range, let’s examine the advantages and disadvantages of tidal energy to see if it is an ideal and feasible renewable source.

Advantages of Tidal Energy

High Predictability

Unlike wind and solar energy – which are subject to the variability and uncertainty of atmospheric forcing – tidal energy is much more predictable and reliable. Low tide and high tide cycles are easy to forecast and rarely experience unanticipated variation. Long-term and accurate predictions of tidal currents can even be made hundreds of years in advance. In addition, tidal range is hardly influenced by weather conditions. 

While tidal currents may be slightly more subjected to the impact of weather, the fluctuations are still low and steady relative to wind and solar energy. The UK had experienced a sharp decrease in wind energy in the past. As a result, wind power generated from UK wind farms fell from more than 6,000 millivolts to less than 500 millivolts within 9 days. 

“Variations in wind patterns, weather, and turbulence make it ​​inherently challenging to predict (wind farms’ electricity generation) across different time scales,” said Michael Howland, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT, who studies the physics of the Earth’s atmosphere and renewable energy generation systems. “Tidal patterns” – he added – “are well-known and well-understood. That’s a clear incentive for using [this type of] power”.

High Power Output and Space Saving

As water is about 830 times denser than air, tidal devices capture more energy than their wind counterparts. This also implies that tidal energy is able to generate more energy per unit area than winds, taking up far less space than both solar and wind energy. 

Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Plant in South Korea – the largest tidal power station in the world – consists of a seawall that spans 12.7 kilometres. Contrarily, wind turbines and solar panels usually require more space. For example, the Roscoe wind farm in Texas takes up 400 square kilometres of land, while Indiana’s Fowler Ridge wind project, despite being a smaller wind farm, also takes up about 200 square kilometres. Solar power faces the same issue, with the Bhadla Industrial Solar Park in India spreading across 45 square kilometres.

Disadvantages of Tidal Energy

High Construction and Maintenance Cost

The average commercial tidal energy project costs as high as US$280 per megawatt hour, while wind energy only costs roughly US$20 per megawatt hour, according to a 2019 study from the US Department of Energy. The expensive cost of tidal power comes from the high upfront costs of building plants as well as from expenses associated with maintaining machinery that can survive corrosive seawater and engineering work. What’s more, the generating cost of other more mature renewable energy, including wind and solar power, while the costs of tidal, being a far less widespread renewable energy source, are still relatively high.

Currently, there are no plans to developed supply chains and expand this technology. Hence, costs of tidal energy are expected to remain high. More technological research is needed to identify new methods that can lower the cost.

Geographical Limitations

Locations that are suitable for tidal systems are limited. Tidal energy power plants can only operate along the coastline. Tidal turbines cannot be installed in shallow water with waves-caused turbulence, nor can they be placed in deep water with a lack of current velocity.

Tidal range technologies will require a large tidal range – preferably about 3.05 meters, while for tidal current technologies, a stream speed of at least 1.5 to 2 meters per second is needed. Australia, Canada, the UK, the USA, France, alongside Easter Africa, are found to have very high tidal ranges. Although only limited studies are conducted on tidal current technologies, it is found that Australia, Spain, Africa, and Norway have the potential to develop tidal current technologies.

Figure 2: World map of average tidal range

Environmental Impacts: Advantage or Disadvantage?

Tidal energy has both advantages and disadvantages to the environment and the overall effect on the ecosystem is still ambivalent, although this very much depends on the power plant site.

The construction of tidal power plants may pose threat to the environment. Underwater structures of the power plant may change the ambient flow field and water quality, harming the habitats of marine life. Rotating turbine blades are very likely to hurt sea creatures. Animal navigation and communication are also badly disturbed by the underwater noise produced by the turbines. Located in Canada, Annapolis Royal Generating Station has been shut down by the local authority last year due to the serious harm posed to fish.

On the other hand, tidal power plants may be beneficial to the environment. Altering of gradient that benefits aquatic ecology is found after the construction of power plants; an increase in oxygen content is often observed, indicating an improvement in water quality.

Both pros and cons brought to the ecology by tidal power can be observed in the two following examples of tidal power stations: Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station and La Rance Tidal Power Station.

Examples of Tidal Power Station

Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station

Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station, located in South Korea, is the world’s largest tidal power station with an installed capacity of 254 megawatts. The plant, which uses tidal barrage, is able to produce 552.7 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, equivalent to 862,000 barrels of oil, and 315,000 tons of carbon dioxide, enough to support the domestic needs of a city with a population of 500,000. The power station cost a total of US$560 million, making it the world’s most expensive tidal installation to date.

The continuous circulation of water between the lake near the plant and the outer sea during the power generation process has improved the water quality. In 1998, the chemical oxygen level in Sihwa Lake was 17 parts per million but has since been reduced to 2 parts per million, indicating an enhancement in water quality. The circulation of the lake water also created a new mud flat upstream, providing new shelters for various organisms.

La Rance Tidal Power Station

With an installed capacity of  240 megawatts, just a bit behind the Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station, La Rance Tidal Power Station is the second-largest and also the first tidal power station in the world. This French power plant also relies on tidal barrage, producing an annual output of approximately 600 gigawatt hours of electricity, enough to power 130,000 houses.

During the three-years construction phase of the power plant, marine flora and fauna in the Rance Basin, located near the power station, disappeared due to heavy sedimentation and accumulation of organic matter in the basin. The ecosystem remained fragile for a decade after construction was completed. Not until 1976 was Rance Basin considered richly diversified again, with new biological equilibrium and flourished aquatic life found.

The Future of Tidal Energy

More and more tidal power plant projects are in the pipeline. The Morlais project, initiated in Wales, Britain, proposed to install turbines at what will be one of the largest tidal stream energy sites in the world, covering 13 square miles of the seabed. The project is expected to power 180,000 homes when fully operational. Other future tidal power plants include Incheon Tidal Power Station in South Korea and Penzhinskaya Tidal Power Plant in Russia.

More research on tidal technologies is needed to overcome its geographical limitation, high expense, as well as its ecological impacts. The marine energy sector in the UK is provided with US$213 million in fundings for innovation and research. US$24 million of budget are also provided to further develop tidal stream energy. Funding for technological research is crucial in overcoming existing constraints and limitations.

All in all, renewable energy will continue to be a hot topic with its increasing importance in the energy sector. While many of these clean energy are still in the development stage, there is no doubt that the only way we have to lower our emissions of greenhouse gases and reverse climate change is by transition to societies fully powered by renewable energy.

Featured image by Juergen Adolph (CC BY 2.0)

You might also like: 4 Indisputable Advantages of Wind Energy

The post Tidal Energy: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Future Trends appeared first on Earth.Org.

Ocean acidification is threatening marine ecosystems and it is the main cause of mass coral bleaching events. It is estimated that by 2100, this phenomenon could cost the global economy US$3 trillion a year, with huge repercussions on the fishing and tourism industries. Due to its devastating impacts on the planet, this is undoubtedly a paramount environmental issue that is worth addressing. What is it and what are the effects of ocean acidification on marine life, ecosystems, and human life? 

—

What Is Ocean Acidification?

Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time. The pH unit is used to measure the water acidity on a scale of 0 to 14, with the lower value indicating a higher acidity. A continuous reduction in the pH thus reflects ongoing acidification of the ocean. 

The acidity of ocean water is largely exacerbated by hydrogen ions (H+), a chemical proton. The higher the concentrations of hydrogen ions, the more acidic the water gets, meaning that its pH value descreases. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is essentially the main culprit of the acidification of the ocean, as it can be easily broken down into hydrogen ions. To put it simply, carbon dioxide can combine with water to create carbonic acid, which can then further break apart into hydrogen ions, making the water more acidic.

Depending on seasonal and regional factors, the pH value of ocean water will fluctuate naturally. For example, pH is generally lower in cold water as carbon dioxide dissolves well in colder temperatures. The polar regions are therefore found to be particularly prone to ocean acidification. For the same reason, the seawater in winter is usually more acidic. The pH value can also be lower in volcanic areas, where large amounts of carbon dioxide escape from natural volcanic sources. 

All things considered, it is easy to see the connection between global warming and ocean acidification: both are primarily caused by an increase in carbon dioxide levels. The oceans have absorbed between a third and a half of the carbon dioxide humans have released into the atmosphere since 1850. It is exactly for this reason that oceans, along with forests, are considered the world’s biggest carbon sinks. By absorbing emissions, they help alleviate the consequences of global warming. Yet, the ever-rising carbon dioxide emissions are overloading the capacity of these carbon sinks, leading to the worsening of ocean acidification. This means that there is no climate change without more acidic oceans. In other words, unless we reverse global warming, our oceans will keep getting more acidic.

How Acidic Is the Ocean? Some Statistics

The pH value of global seawater – which naturally contains alkaline ions that come from the weathering process of continental rocks – has remained stable at an average of 8.2 for millions of years. However, since industrialisation began around the 1760s, the value has decreased to about 8.1. 

While this change might seem insignificant, it is important to keep in mind that the pH scale is logarithmic and thus a small change in pH can cause an exponential change in acidity. In fact, a change of 1pH unit represents a tenfold change in acidity. This slight decrease in average water acidity is also found to represent a 26% increase in acidity over about 250 years, a rate that is 100 times faster than marine species have experienced in tens of millions of years. Worse still, the acidification is not expected to come to a halt, with the pH of ocean water estimated to further drop by 0.3 to 0.4 units by 2100, equivalent to a 150% increase in acidity over preindustrial times. 

Figure: Pre-industrial pH levels and predicted pH levels for 2100

A study published in 2014 by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has provided a comprehensive set of statistics on global marine acidity. In this study, 2005 is used as a reference year to draw on four decades of measurements. 

Scientists found that the acidity of the Bering Sea – located in the Northern Pacific Ocean and dividing Alaska and Siberia – has reached a pH value of 7.7, making it the world’s most acidic sea. The sea is even more acidic than that in the Antarctic, which is said to be more vulnerable to acidification because of the cold climate. The difference in acidity can be attributed to the fact that the Bering Sea is partially enclosed by land. While acidic water can easily flow out of the Antarctic region, the water in the Bering sea remains trapped.

While the pH value of the equatorial Pacific is subject to high variability because of El Niño and La Niña events, the tropical and temperate oceans were recorded to have the least variation, with pH ranging between 8.05 and 8.15 as temperatures fluctuate in winter and summer. Temperate oceans were also found to be less acidic compared to the other regions.

You Might Also Like: What are El Niño and La Niña?

What Are The Effects of Ocean Acidification And Should We Be Concerned?

The acidification of the ocean is dangerous, if not catastrophic, to the marine ecosystem. Because acidic water removes carbonate ions – a crucial building block for shells and skeletons – lots of marine organisms are particularly at risk in a more acidic ocean. 

Coral reefs – large underwater structures composed of the skeletons of colonial marine invertebrates called coral – contain one of themost biodiverse ecosystems on earth and are thus incredibly valuable to our planet. They are sources of nitrogen and other nutrients for marine food chains, and also offer protection to coastlines from the damaging effects of wave action and tropical storms. It is therefore imperative to preserve them.

Unfortunately, mass coral bleaching events, typically associated with ocean acidification, are occurring at an unprecedented rate. Indeed, more acidic water reduces the water’s carrying capacity for calcium carbonate, which is crucial for coral reefs to rebuild their exoskeletons. Today, coral reefs are experiencing more acidity than they have at any time in the last 400,000 years. This is threatening the survival of coral reefs all over the world, from Australia to Hawaii. 

You Might Also Like: 5 Coral Reefs That Are Currently Under Threat and Dying

Ocean acidification also brings socio-economic impacts to societies. The tourism industry is expected to bear the brunt of this crisis. Countries that rely on marine ecosystems such as coral reefs to attract tourists, are particularly affected. One example is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia, which every year generates approximately A$5.4 billion (US$3.7 billion) in revenue.

Food security is another negative effect of ocean acidification. Commercially viable marine species – such as oysters and mussels – are heavily impacted by this pehnomenon. It is estimated that the global annual costs of molluscs loss from ocean acidification could be over US$100 billion by 2100. New Bedford – a city in US that relies completely on scallops to sustain its economy, may experience huge financial losses due to ocean acidification.

Finally, the destruction of coral reefs adds more financial burden on coastal protection. Indeed, without protection from the coral reefs, shorelines are much more vulnerable to destruction from storms and cyclones. The loss of coral reefs will cause coastal erosion and result in damage of properties, with experts estimating costs of up to US$9 billion per year.

What Can Be Done to Tackle Ocean Acidification? 

The US National Science and Technology Council was asked to review federal efforts to address ocean acidification. In December 2016, it issued a document titled “Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification”, a comprehensive guide on the scientific understanding of the effects of ocean acidification, the extent to which federal agencies have implemented plans and policies to tackle this issue, as well suggestions on additional actions that could be taken to advance the federal response to ocean acidification. 

Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – a scientific and regulatory agency in the US – co-leads a pioneering network known as the “Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network”, engaging 66 nations in monitoring the progression of acidification, identifying areas of highest risk.

Other countries have also implemented measures and formed competent bodies in charge of monitoring and tackling ocean acidification. 

The Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) in Australia operates a network of coastal and ocean observing systems to track many features in the ocean. Data is provided back to scientists to interrogate changes in ocean carbon, contributing to national and international studies.

Besides setting up networks and monitoring systems, countries must step up their efforts in reaching their climate pledges. As the latest IPCC report highlighted, we are still far from limiting global temperature rise below 2C and it is probably too late to keep it under 1.5C, a target that was set in 2015 in the Paris Agreement. 

The report suggested that we must peak global greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 at the latest, and cut emissions by 43% by 2030. Reaching this target will help tremendously in alleviating not only ocean acidification but also many other environmental issues including global warming and air pollution.

We as individuals can also play a role by lowering our own environmental footprint. Buy locally grown products, recycle our waste and reduce our consumption of plastics, opt for renewable energy to power our homes and avoiding the use of cars that run on fossil fuels whenever possible are just some of the ways to cut down carbon footprint. By taking incremental steps, we can help preserve the health of our oceans.

You might also like: Changing Tides: How Does Ocean Acidification Affect Marine Life?

The post Explainer: What Is Ocean Acidification? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Every year, more than 8 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Microplastics, just like any other type of plastic, can take hundreds or even thousands of years to decompose. Its ecological impacts on the environment represent a looming threat that needs to be critically examined. We discuss how microplastics undermine different water bodies and possible solutions to solve one of the worst environmental issues of our lifetime. 

—

What Are Microplastics?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles that are less than five millimetres (0.2 inches) in diameter. They can be categorised into two types – primary and secondary. Primary microplastics are tiny particles and microfibers that are shed from commercial products such as cosmetics, clothing and other textiles, and also fishing nets. Secondary microplastics are particles that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, such as water bottles. This breakdown can be caused by exposure to environmental factors, such as sun’s radiation and ocean waves. Researchers found that secondary microplastics make up the majority of microplastics.

Microplastics have been lurking around in every little corner of the environment, including air, soil and water. Drinking water, oceans, freshwater and water in the polar region are some of have been all found to contain high amounts of these toxic particles.

You Might Also Like: Are Microplastics Harmful And How Can We Avoid Them?

Microplastics in Drinking Water

Microplastics have been found in drinking water, both tap water and bottled water. According to a research conducted in 2017, of the 159 samples collected from 14 countries, 83% were found to contain plastic particles. The US scored the highest contamination rate at 94%, while European nations, including the UK, Germany, and France had the lowest rate, despite still scoring a staggering 72%. 

Microplastic Contamination in Tap Water. Image: Guardian.

At first glance, this founding might seem to signal an alarming threat to human health. Yet – as stated by the World Health Organization (WTO) – no evidence so far has supported the claim that microplastics in drinking water pose big health hazards to humans. 

According to the European Food Safety Authority, microplastics larger than 150 micrometer are unlikely to be absorbed in the human body, passing through the gut without being digested. The uptake of smaller particles is also expected to be limited. Chemical toxication from plastic is unlikely with its low exposure level in drinking water. The biofilms effect – which is the attaching and colonisation of microplastics from microorganisms, such as bacteria – is also reported to be negligible. 

Given these findings, the World Health Organization (WTO) suggested we need not be too worried. With that being said, scientists admit that more research is needed for further accuracy.

“Based on the conclusions of our report, while we think that the risks to human health are low, this is based on a limited evidence base and we recognise that there is need for more research,” said Jennifer de France, technical expert on water, sanitation and hygiene at the Department of Public Health and Environment at World Health Organization (WHO).

The potential risk of microplastics in drinking water therefore remains a concern. The European Drinking Water Directive (DWD) has aimed to include microplastic on the watch list of emerging compounds by 2024, encouraging member states to take preventive measures to reduce microplastic in case too high numbers are reported. 

It is also worth noting that, though microplastic in drinking water may not have major health impacts on humans, its detrimental effects can still be imposed through inhalation, dermal contact, and food consumption.

Microplastics in the Ocean

The ill-famed Great Pacific Garbage Patch – a collection of debris including microplastics in the North Pacific Ocean – has raised grave concerns toward the danger that microplastics pose to the marine ecosystem. Research conducted in 2021 estimated that there were 24.4 trillion pieces of microplastics in the world’s upper oceans, with a combined weight of 82,000 to 578,000 tons, equivalent to roughly 30 billion 500-ml plastic water bottles.

Though its impacts from drinking water may be limited on human health, microplastic is found to be harmful, if not fatal, to aquatic species. The entanglement effect is notorious for threatening the aquatic life by means of drowning, suffocating or strangulating. 55% of marine organisms incidences are associated with entanglement, with sea turtles, seabirds and crustaceans among the most threatened animal species. Other than the entanglement effect, ingestion of microplastic also jeopardises the health of marine life, contributing to 31% of all incidences.

You Might Also Like: Ocean Plastic Pollution is Widely Underestimated – Study

Microplastics in Freshwater

Microplastic contamination has been found in natural freshwater systems, including wetlands, lakes and rivers around the globe. Lake Superior in North America, Swiss lakes in Europe, and Lake Taihu in China have been all found to contain large amounts of microplastics. Their concentration, however, differs: the surface water of lakes in China and Saudi Arabia have been found to be much more contaminated than waterbodies in other countries in Europe, North America and Africa, suggesting that developing nations are dealing with a much more severe microplastic problem.

Similar to marine life in ocean, organisms in freshwater systems also face the threat of entanglement and ingestion of microplastic. What’s more, freshwater systems – and rivers in particular – favour the accumulation of microplastics, causing far-reaching implications for the ecosystem. 

A 2022 study found that microplastic accumulates within the freshwater systems, especially at the source of river or stream, the area where pollutants usually reside the longest because of the relatively low speed of flow of water there. The source may take up to seven years to move just one kilometre during the low-flow conditions, favouring the piling up of microplastics. 

Organisms that live in this area, including some marine animals, are thus more prone to ingestion of microplastics. Plastic debris stored in animals eventually enters the food web and human diets, potentially degrading the whole food chain. In 2016 and 2017, Loyola University Chicago biologists sampled 74 fish from the Muskegon and St. Joseph rivers in Michigan and the Milwaukee River in Wisconsin. Their research concluded that 85% of the sampled fish had microplastics in their digestive tract, with an average of 13 particles per fish. Another study conducted in 2020 found microplastic fragments in human placentas, yet another evidence that microplastics have been passing through the food chain.

“The retention of microplastics we observed wasn’t a surprise because we already understood this happens with natural organic particles,” said Aaron Packman, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering and director of the Northwestern Center for Water Research. “The difference is that natural particles biodegrade, whereas a lot of plastics just accumulate. Because plastics don’t degrade, they stay in the freshwater environment for a long time – until they are washed out by river flow.”

With this information provided, Packman suggested researchers to further assess and understand the long-term impacts of microplastic pollution on freshwater systems.

Microplastic in Polar Regions

Further away from populated cities and commercial activities, the polar regions may be thought to be free from microplastic pollution. Yet, this plastic debris has been spotted in the ice cores and snow within both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and is found to be transported to those areas through dusts, wind, ocean currents, as well as other meteorological conditions.

In the Arctic region, it is found that 2.04 trillion cubic metres of ice will melt in the coming time span due to climate change, releasing at least one trillion pieces of stored plastic. As for Antarctica, microplastics had been found in freshly fallen snow for the first time in 2022, estimated to have contained 29 microplastic particles per litre of melted snow, higher than the concentrations reported previously in Antarctic sea ice, which was an average of about 12 pieces of plastic per litre of water.

The microplastic pollution in the sea ice in Antarctica will impede, if not paralyse, the marine food chain.

“Sea ice is habitat for key foraging species,” said professor Delphine Lannuzel from the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania. “Krill defines everything else in the food chain and it relies on sea ice algae to grow. When you think now that sea ice algae is associated to plastics, you can think about the bioaccumulation of the plastics in krill and in whales.”

Besides its catastrophic impacts brought to the polar region, microplastics also exacerbate and accelerate global warming. Snowfields, ice caps and glaciers around the polar are already melting more rapidly than ever before. Though clean snowpacks, icefields and glaciers can reflect much of the sunlight, scientists had found that dark-coloured microplastics deposited at these locations can worsen the situation by absorbing sunlight and thus enhancing local heating.

You Might Also Like: Glaciers Are Melting More Rapidly Than Ever Before, Risking Floods and Droughts

How Can We Solve Microplastics Pollution in Water Bodies?

Both preventive and removal measures are adopted in tackling the microplastic contamination in water. Wastewater and drinking water treatment systems are some of the most effective removal measures, with more than 90% of microplastics moved from wastewater. Such systems are expected to have similar effectiveness in removing microplastics from drinking water.

Different programs have been carried out to raise awareness of the issue. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has been promoting less plastic use, encouraging recycling, and evaluating disposal facilities. Educational measures were set up, engaging over 40 million people from 120 countries. Another program was also initiated in 2011 under the Joint Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations. It aims to reduce waste and outline commitment to support a number of assessments toward littering.

A groundbreaking invention – the so-called robo-fish – has provided us with another solution for tackling microplastics in water. This robot fish is designed to be self-propelled, swimming around and latching onto free-floating microplastics. These particles contain organic dyes, antibiotics, and heavy metals, which have strong chemical bonds and electrostatic interactions with the fish’s materials. The microplastics will then cling to the surface of the fish, allowing it to collect and remove microplastics from the water. Though the robo-fish can now only works on water surfaces, scientists are already working to develop a more functionally complex fish that can explore deeper waters.

Besides clean-up programs and technological innovation, individuals can also play a key role in reducing microplastic in water. Products that are made with bio-based and biodegradable plastics and wrapped in sustainable packaging can be favoured as an alternative to conventional plastics products. Recycling and reusing plastic products will be as effective remedies if every individual actively participates.

EO’s Position: We have all the instruments we need to drastically reduce the detrimental impact of the food packaging industry on the environment. While consumers can do their part by shopping more consciously at grocery stores and bringing reusable containers when getting takeaway food, the situation will not change unless food retailers and restaurants step up the game as well. If we want to cut packaging waste, we need big companies to take the lead and make the necessary switch to more sustainable food packaging alternatives.

You Might Also Like: 10 Plastic Pollution in the Ocean Facts You Need to Know

The post Microplastics in Water: Threats and Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

The problem of water scarcity has cast a shadow over the wellbeing of humans. According to estimates, in 2016, nearly 4 billion people – equivalent to two-thirds of the global population – experience severe water scarcity for a prolonged period of time. If the situation doesn’t improve, 700 million people worldwide could be displaced by intense water scarcity by 2030. Africa, in particular, is facing severe water scarcity and the situation is worsening day by day. Resolute and substantial action is needed to address the issue.

—

Water Scarcity in Africa: An Overview

Water scarcity is the condition where the demand for water exceeds supply and where available water resources are approaching or have exceeded sustainable limits. 

The problem of water scarcity in Africa is not only a pressing one but it is also getting worse day by day. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), water scarcity affects 1 in 3 people in the African Region and the situation is deteriorating because of factors such as population growth and urbanisation but also climate change.

Water scarcity can be classified into two types: physical and economic. Physical water scarcity occurs when water resources are overexploited for different uses and no longer meet the needs of the population. In this case, there is not enough water available in physical terms. Economic water scarcity, on the other hand, is linked to poor governance, poor infrastructure, and limited investments. The latter type of water scarcity can exist even in countries or areas where water resources and infrastructure are adequate. 

As reported by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in 2011, arid regions of the continent – mainly located in North Africa – experience frequent physical water scarcity, while Sub-Saharan Africa undergoes mainly economic water scarcity. Indeed, the latter region has a decent levels of physical water, mainly thanks to the abundant, though highly seasonal and unevenly distributed supply of rainwater. This region’s access to water, however, is constrained due to poor infrastructure, resulting in mainly economic rather than physical water scarcity.

Figure 1: Map of physical and economic water scarcity at basin level in 2007 across the African continent.

You might also like: Countries With Water Scarcity Right Now

In a 2022 study conducted on behalf of the United Nations University Institute for Water Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), researchers employed indicators to quantify water security in all of Africa’s countries. They found that only 13 out of 54 countries reached a modest level of water security in recent years, with Egypt, Botswana, Gabon, Mauritius and Tunisia representing the better-off countries in Africa in terms of water security. 

19 countries – which are home to half a billion people – are deemed to have levels of water security below the threshold of 45 on a scale of 1 to 100. On the other hand, Somalia, Chad, and Niger are the continent’s least water-secure countries.

Egypt performs the best regarding access to drinking water while the Central African Republic performs the worst. The latter, however, has the highest per capita water availability while half of North African countries are characterised by absolute water scarcity. This again shows that Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Africa face economic water scarcity more than physical water scarcity. 

Causes of Water Scarcity in Africa

Human activities, which result in overexploitation and global warming, are the main culprit for the water scarcity in Africa. Overexploitation is the main contributor to physical water scarcity. A 2018 report published by the Institute for Security Studies stated that more than 60% of South Africa’s rivers are being overexploited and only one-third of the country’s main rivers are in good condition. Lake Chad – once deemed Africa’s largest freshwater body and important freshwater reservoir – is shrinking because of overexploitation of its water. According to a 2019 report, for this reason alone, the water body of the lake has diminished by 90% since the 1960s, with the surface area of the lake decreasing from 26,000 square kilometres in 1963 to less than 1,500 square kilometres in 2018. 

Figure 2: The size of Lake Chad shows a massive shrinking between 1972 and 2007.

The underlying cause for overexploitation can be further broken down to the increase in water demand, driven by the rise in population growth and rate of urbanisation. 

Population in Sub-Saharan Africa is growing at a rate of 2.7% a year in 2020, more than twice that of South Asia (1.2%) and Latin America (0.9%). Meanwhile, the population of Nigeria – a country in West Africa – is forecasted to double by 2050. As for the rate of urbanisation, according to the United Nations, 21 out of the 30 fastest-growing cities in the world in 2018 are deemed to be in Africa. Cities such as Bamako in Mali and Yaounde in Cameroon have experience explosive growth. 

The booming population will inevitably lead to more food demand, a faster rate of urbanisation and an rise in industrial activities, all of which require abundant water supply.

Climate change and global warming – mainly caused by an increase in human and commercial activities – equally contribute to water scarcity in Africa. As a report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa found, a 1C rise in global temperatures would result in a reduction of runoff  – excess rainwater that flows across the land’s surface – by up to 10%. Another study stated that the declining trends of rainfall caused by global warming will continue in North Africa, limiting groundwater recharge and exacerbating groundwater depletion. Although in areas closer to the equator, a soar in precipitation will likely occur as a result of global warming, the increased potential evapotranspiration  – the combined loss of water through the plant’s process of transpiration and evaporation of water from the earth’s surface – and drought risks in the majority of the continent still outweigh the increased rainfall in these areas. 

Consequences of Water Scarcity in Africa

Water scarcity is expected to affect the economic condition, the health of citizens as well as ecosystems in Africa. 

In economic terms, the agriculture sector is likely to be hampered under severe water scarcity. Agriculture is one of the most pivotal economic sectors for Africa, employing the majority of the population. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, it accounts for nearly 14% of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As the sector that relies on water the most, agriculture is already heavily impacted by water scarcity and the situation is expected to further deteriorate, leading to other issues such as food shortages and, in the worst cases, famine.

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

Not surprisingly, water shortage is an immense threat to human’s health. In times of water scarcity, people are often forced to get their water supply from contaminated ponds and streams. When ingested, polluted water results in widespread diarrhoeal diseases including cholera, typhoid fever, salmonellosis, other gastrointestinal viruses, and dysentery. Quality of healthcare services in many African countries is low, with only 48% African people having access to healthcare. The poor system has made diarrhoeal diseases life-threatening and in many cases even fatal. 

A study published in 2021 found that severe diarrheal disease accounts for about 600,000 deaths each year in sub-Saharan Africa, with the majority being children and elderly. Diarrheal disease is the third-leading cause of disease and death among African children under the age of five, a situation that public health authorities blame on poor quality of water and sanitation. 

Lastly, water shortages jeopardise ecosystems and contribute to a loss in biodiversity. Africa is home to some of the most unique freshwater ecosystems in the world. Lake Turkana is the world’s largest desert lake, while Lake Malawi hosts the richest freshwater fish fauna in the world, home to a staggering 14% of the world’s freshwater fish species. If not tackled, water scarcity will disrupt and likely terminate freshwater and marine ecosystems in the continent. 

You might also like: 10 of the Most Endangered Species in Africa

Solutions to Water Scarcity in Africa

Remedies for water scarcity are observed on a local, national, and international scale. 

Local communities are taking adaptation action. Many opt for drought-tolerant crops instead of crops that require large amounts of water, a strategy to mitigate both water scarcity and food insecurity. Conservation or regenerative agriculture is also introduced to help infiltration and soil moisture retention through mulching and no-tillage approaches. Countries such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Ethiopia have all adopted such techniques in recent years.

Several governments are also taking steps to tackle water scarcity across the continent. For example, the government of Namibia financed the construction of a urban wastewater management in the capital Windhoek, significantly improving the management of water resources and thus lowering the risk of water scarcity. 

International organisations also lend a helping hand in times of water scarcity. In recent years, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) promoted several initiatives and implemented innovative financing model to alleviate this pressing issue. In regions in eastern and southern Africa, UNICEF is cooperating with the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) and other international agencies and organisations to evaluate and implement bankable projects in a blended financing mode, particularly targeting the urban areas. For example, the European Union donated €19 million for the construction of water supply systems in the Eswatini’s cities of Siphofaneni, Somntongo, and Matsanjeni. Similarly, the DBSA contributed about €150 million to the construction of the Lomahasha Water Supply. Booster pumping stations as well as reinforced concrete reservoirs are also constructed with the support of international actors.

You might also like: One Woman’s Mission to Fight Water Scarcity in Africa

Conclusion

All in all, the water scarcity problem in Africa is likely to exacerbate under the ever-increasing water demand and rise in global temperatures. Tangible action from all parties is constantly required to tackle this massive problem. Individuals can equally play an important role in alleviating water scarcity in Africa by adopting a more environmental-friendly lifestyle and taking actions in their daily lives to mitigate the effect of climate change and they can develop mindful practises that help safe water, one of the most important resources for life on Earth.

The post Water Scarcity in Africa: Causes, Effects, and Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

Carbon is an essential element for all life forms on Earth. The intake and output of carbon are necessary components of all plant and animal life, whether these life forms absorb carbon to help manufacture food or release it as part of respiration.  Maintaining the stability of the carbon cycle is therefore crucial for the well-being of living species. Yet, human activities such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests are disrupting the balance of the cycle, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases and contributing to climate change. How does deforestation affects the carbon cycle and what are some of the solutions that could reduce the impact of this phenomenon?

—

What is the carbon cycle?

The carbon cycle describes the process in which carbon atoms continually travel from the atmosphere into different organisms in the Earth and then back into the atmosphere, over and over again. These atoms encounter several major reservoirs along the cycle, including the atmosphere, oceans, lithosphere, terrestrial biosphere, aquatic biosphere, as well as fossil fuels. Since the Earth is a closed system, the total amount of carbon found here remains unchanged. However, the amount of carbon in a specific reservoir can change over time as carbon moves from one reservoir to another.

Maintaining a balance of carbon among the different reservoirs – which requires the amount of carbon naturally released from reservoirs to be equal to the amount they absorb – is imperative. Yet, through human interventions – first and foremost deforestation – the carbon cycle is facing a loss in balance, with more carbon gases released into the atmosphere under the clearance of forests.

Figure 1: The Carbon Cycle

What is Deforestation?

Deforestation is the conversion of forested areas to non-forest land use such as arable land, urban use, logged area, or wasteland. Tough its rate has been declining substantially, deforestation remains a pressing problem that cannot be ignored. Among the direct causes of deforestation is agricultural expansion, with forests being converted to cropland and pasture in order to grow crops and raise livestock, infrastructure expansion resulting from urbanization as well as logging – both illegal and legal.

Since 1990, humans have cleared around 420 million hectares of forests worldwide. Tropical rainforests such as the Amazon rainforest in South America, the Congo rainforest in Africa, as well as the tropical islands in Southeast Asia, are among the most affected by deforestation. Around 17% of the Amazon has been lost in the last 50 years, mainly owing to forest conversion for cattle ranching. In 2019, 1.17 million acres of primary forest disappeared in Congo, second only to Brazil’s total deforestation that year. This continuous and ongoing clearance of forests has a major impact on the environment and the carbon cycle.

Figure 2: Annual Deforestation, 2015

You Might Also Like: 8 Phenomenal Rainforest Facts That Will Blow Your Mind

How does deforestation affect the carbon cycle?

Carbon travels from the atmosphere to biomass reservoirs through photosynthesis: in this process, plants absorb carbon dioxide and sunlight to create fuel required for the development of their structures, including tree trunks, roots, branches, and leaves. 

Along with oceans, forests are important carbon sinks, capable of holding 861 gigatons of carbon. The Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest, is a natural carbon sink and provides one of the greatest services for planet: absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Its ability to do so is crucial in our fight against the climate crisis. In trees and carbon-rich solid, the forest stores the equivalent of four to five years worth of human-made carbon emissions, up to 200 gigatons of carbon. Yet, as a result of persistent deforestation and a sharp increase in wildfires, the Amazon has been converted into a source of carbon, and is now emitting a greater amount of carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. Forest fires produce three times more carbon than the forests can absorb, thus creating a negative loop. As Yadvinder Malhi – a professor of ecosystem science at the University of Oxford – explains: “If our sink is disappearing” – argues Malhi – ”you’re losing the service that the biosphere provides.”

This is just an example of how human interventions have interfered with the balance and stability of the carbon cycle. Through a technique called slash-and-burn – a farming method that involves the cutting and burning of plants in a forest or woodland – the carbon stored in trees is released, returning back to the atmosphere. Soil, without trees or vegetation, will also become a large source of accumulated carbon emissions, especially when the soil is rich in partially decayed organic matter known as peat. Without forest cover, previously inundated peat soil is left exposed and wil gradually oxidise and decay. During these processes, huge amounts of carbon stored in the soil are released back into the atmosphere.

Depending on the forest-clearing method, the release of carbon from the biosphere back to the atmosphere may take place at different speeds. For example, clearance by burning causes immediate release of carbon. However, twigs, branches or stumps, and many other components of the forest biomass that are left after harvesting will decay over time, releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere in a much slower process that takes years or even decades.

Solution to deforestation

Afforestation and reforestation are common ways to restore forests. The first one is the conversion of long-time non-forested land into the forest, while reforestation refers to the replanting of trees on more recently deforested land. Since most emissions of carbon from deforestation occur immediately, afforestation and reforestation might not be adequate in removing carbon from the atmosphere due to their slow process and should be adopted only as a long-term solution. In the meantime, other short-term solutions are needed.

To begin with, local governments should provide financial incentives and actively work with forest communities to encourage the sustainable harvesting of non-wood forest products such as rubber, cork, produce, or medicinal plants to substitute wood. Low-impact agricultural activities such as shade farming – a farming practice that leaves many of the original rainforest trees to provide shade for shade-loving crops – can also be promoted to the communities to further discourage deforestation.

Unfortunately, most conservation and protected areas in the world are not well-funded and thus more prone to deforestation. To tackle this issue, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) initiated the Project Finance for Permanence (PFP), a programme that creates funds to support the proper management of protected areas around the world as well as promote the creation of new ones.

Besides solutions on a local scale, international organisations such as the United Nations play a huge role. A great example of an effective campaign to reduce deforestation is REDD (Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation), a collaborative programme first initiated by the UN in 2005. REDD provides incentives to change the ways in which forest resources are used. The programme funds environmentally-friendly forest management, restricts poor forest management, and introduces carbon trading as an economic incentive. 

REDD+ – an extension of the REDD programme – was introduced in 2013 by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This climate change mitigation solution puts further emphasis on the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries by developing and implementing national action plans and public policies. Once the action plan of a country is verified, REDD+ can provide financial support to implement strategies to tackle forest degradation and reduce deforestation.

As of January 2020, a total of 50 developing countries have submitted a REDD+ forest reference level or forest reference emission level for technical assessment to UNFCCC, covering more than 70% of the total forest area in developing countries. Through periodical assessments, the UNFCC can keep track of the conservation progress made by the countries, providing further support and assistance when necessary.

EO Position: The problem of deforestation will continue to be an ongoing challenge that warrants our attention. Besides its effect on the carbon cycle, the detrimental impacts of this phenomenon on the Earth’s biodiversity, water cycle, soil, and public health need to be addressed as well. Aside from the action taken by local government and international organizations, all of us could also take part in protecting the forest by purchasing products that are certified as sustainably produced or harvested. With substantial help from different parties, the negative impact brought by deforestation could certainly be alleviated, if not eliminated, in the coming future.

You Might Also Like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

The post How Does Deforestation Affect the Carbon Cycle? appeared first on Earth.Org.