Following decades of urbanisation, overexploitation, and pollution, China is now experiencing a serious water shortage and flooding made worse by the climate crisis. In July 2021, the Chinese city of Zhengzhou, Henan, battled the heaviest rain in a millennia and devastating floods that killed at least 31 people and displaced 1.24 million residents. Since early June, 24 provinces across China have suffered severe flooding, with over 443 rivers flooded, 33 of which have swelled beyond historic levels, with more than 23.85 million people affected, according to the Ministry of Water Resources. Water-related issues have increased in frequency and intensity over the last few decades, seriously affecting China’s society, environment, and infrastructure, incurring average annual economic losses of over RMB ¥251 billion (USD$36 billion) between 2007 and 2016. Adopting widespread sponge city concepts across China could reduce these risks in the country. 

—

Many of these issues lie in the urbanisation rate in the country, which has increased by 14.5% since 2008. By 2035, 70% of the Chinese population is projected to live in urban areas, putting immense pressure on urban infrastructure, local environments, and resources. This rapid urbanisation, alongside associated issues of pollution and unsustainable construction practices, is often seen as a consequence of economic reform and has created significant environmental and water-related problems in China’s urban areas.

What Is a Sponge City?

Since it was conceived in 2013 by Professor Kongjian Yu, the ‘sponge city concept’ has presented an opportunity for Chinese cities to implement new integrated urban water management (IUWM) strategies. Sponge city developments seek to control and mitigate flooding, water pollution and water scarcity in urban spaces as water becomes China’s ‘most critical resource’. These developments are a new type of Chinese eco-city that offer a holistic strategy to hopefully improve the ongoing development and urbanisation processes by explicitly considering the urban water cycle. 

Taking inspiration from international IUWM strategies, including sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) seen in the UK or low-impact developments (LID) in the US, sponge cities aim to control and improve urban flooding, water pollution and microclimates, recycle rainwater resources and re-instate degraded environments. The key features of the sponge city concept- to be environmentally adaptive, systematic and comprehensive, and environmentally friendly- envisions urban developments as systems that absorb, store, infiltrate and purify rainwater. 

Sponge cities aim to promote positive interactions between socio-economic systems within the cityscape and with the urban water cycle to enhance local urban resilience, particularly in the face of increasingly volatile water-related disasters. China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MHURD) supports this approach through the New National Urbanisation Plan with the aim of improving sustainability and urban quality over the 2014-2020 period. 

You might also like: What Are the Main Causes and Effects of Floods Around the World?

Sponge City Trends in China

A number of crucial factors make sponge cities necessary in China: rapid and extensive urbanisation, a recognition of urban and water sustainability issues, an awareness of these issues increasing in the future with the onset of anthropocentric climate change and its multifaceted threats and the associated economic losses.

Many Chinese eco-cities are reported to struggle with inter-provincial prestige gaining and a lack of accountability in creating consistent ‘eco’ urban developments. The lack of comprehensive regulatory definitions and frameworks and the ineffective macro-scale environmental governance in China results in minimal control over eco-city planning, which promotes greenwashing that is often seen in China’s eco-city agenda. China’s sponge city concept suggests a move away from greenwashing and towards more legitimate and effective environmental planning and governance. This is due to more robust planning frameworks and defined characteristics of the sponge city concept, coupled with the high importance in mitigating flooding and water shortages to protect lives, assets and habitats. Sponge cities, if successful, will be a significant and accountable eco-centric response to the ecological civilisation movement that hopes to implement resilient and adaptive cities and combat the monumental water crisis in China.

Sponge city developments are a highly contextual IUWM strategy, as a result of location and scale variations in water-related issues across China’s varied landscapes and climates. Traditionally, Chinese water management and urban planning are engineering-oriented. However, following developments in urban design seen in LIDs, sponge cities aim to incorporate a range of green and grey infrastructures such as interconnected greenways and waterways, contiguous open green spaces, green roofs, porous design interventions and drainage systems, water savings and recycling initiatives.

Challenges of Sponge Cities in China

Sponge cities are a relatively new concept. Since 2014, there have been two batches of 30 different pilot sponge cities implemented across China, with 16 schemes starting in 2015 and 14 in 2016. The pilot studies, such as in Beijing, Tianjin, Wuhan and Shenzhen, are creating practical, localised experiences in implementing IUWM strategies. The State Council has set 2030 as the target for the sponge cities to be integrated into regional urban development plans. This target is progressive and ambitious, particularly considering the three major challenges that these pilots have revealed: governance, design and financing. Overcoming these challenges will be vital for the successful implementation of sponge cities.

Firstly, the current top-down shared governance mechanisms used for the sponge city program in China’s current policy domain reveals a fragmented governance structure that misses opportunities for coordinated and participatory efforts needed for sponge cities. Additionally, a study of all 30 pilot sponge cities has shown that at the provincial level, water and land-use policies and property rights make regulation and implementation more complicated. The ineffective administrative boundaries, weak regulation and complexity of IUWM strategies will hinder the success of future sponge cities. 

Secondly, there are several uncertainties with urban design. As a relatively new concept, sponge city design and planning lack comprehensive standards and national guidelines that make them more challenging to implement. Many municipalities favour grey infrastructures over green and specific IUWM strategies, such as planter systems, underground infiltration or drain upgrades, are either currently unavailable for implementation or inappropriate for use and will cause further problems. Consequently, the essential low-impact green infrastructures needed for sponge cities are not readily available for use. 

Additionally, topography, climate and previous city design and sector prevalence will affect the extent to which sponge cities can be effectively implemented. In the eastern Shandong province, intense human activity has threatened to dry up the natural springs in Jinan. The location of Jinan’s Xiaoqing River near water treatment plants makes it difficult to control water pollution through sponge city and IUWM strategies, preventing the effective use of green and grey infrastructures to reduce water shortages. Baicheng, in northwestern Jilin province, also suffers from water scarcity and poor water quality but for very different reasons. The cold winter temperatures, which can reach -30°C for 15 days of the year, can kill off the more effective green infrastructures such as vegetation buffers. Furthermore, the ground can become unstable due to freeze-thawing, affecting grey infrastructures such as drainage regulation systems. 

Thirdly, the financing of sponge city pilots has shown various uncertainties and risks. Investments typically come from central and local government subsidies and public-private-partnership (PPP) funding. All 30 pilot schemes were allotted between 0.3 to 0.5 billion RMB from the central government for the first three years, which only accounts for 15-20% of total costs. Large-scale and highly effective IUWM strategies needed for sponge cities, such as afforestation and vegetation buffers, require tremendous financial support, yet they rarely attract non-government investment. Consequently, when central government’s subsidies and PPP investment cannot contribute enough funding, the local financial capacity may hinder China’s sponge city implementation. 

China’s MHURD actively encourages PPP to help finance sponge city construction. However, a recent study has revealed that there are not many examples of successful PPP investment cases. PPP’s are mainly investments based on the performance of sponge city program, but 19 of the 30 pilot cities have experienced flooding risks and related impacts since their launch, which is not an encouraging signal for investors and puts a strain on the relations between public and private stakeholders. In some cases, such as Wuhan’s pilot sponge city development, there is even distrust between private investors and the central government, which complicates relations and decreases the chances of PPP funding. Furthermore, the lack of inclusion of the general public in the decision making process often leads to low acceptance of sponge city developments and poor cooperation between residents and investors and contractors, further decreasing the chances of success. 

The sponge city concept is a strong contender as a solution to the current and future water struggles in China. Sponge cities represent a shift in environmental governance and planning in China, focusing on the increasingly evident impacts of years of resource exploitation and rapid urbanisation and seeking to mitigate the damaging implications from flooding, water shortages and pollution. Sponge city developments promise an accountable form of urban planning that steps away from green-washed eco-city plans to a more eco-centric version of China’s ecological civilisation, following a wider global trend in environmental and green-oriented developments. However, the sponge city pilots have highlighted a range of implementation challenges, such as governance issues, uncertain financing and out-of-date or unavailable urban design that will hinder sponge city implementation and its subsequent effectiveness and legitimacy. The sponge city concept is ahead of its time, and much research, policy changes, investment opportunities and progressive design solutions are needed to resolve the range of challenges for its necessary implementation.

Featured image by: Obermeyer

You might also like: How Cities Around the World Are Tackling the Urban Heat Crisis

The post Sponge City Concepts Could Be The Answer to China’s Impending Water Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

Once deemed a futuristic alternative, lab-grown meat is starting to become a reality following the recent news that the Singapore Food Agency approved lab-grown ‘chicken bites’ for sale from Eat Just. Lab-grown meat products (also known as in-vitro meat, cultured meat, cellular agriculture, or clean meat) are being created by dozens of firms worldwide to downsize and streamline traditional agricultural practices to lessen the environmental impacts and animal welfare issues associated with farming, among other problems. However, there are several barriers that need to be addressed for lab-grown meat to become a successful ethical and sustainable alternative to traditionally farmed products. 

—

Lab-Grown Meat: Global Statistics

Annually, between 11.8% and 14.5% of all global greenhouse gases are emitted by the agricultural sector. The impact from these GHGs exceed other sectors that emit similar percentages of emissions: methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) make up the majority of GHG emissions from livestock and farming practices, which are respectively 21 times and 300 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide (CO2) due to how these gases absorb solar radiation, how long they reside in the atmosphere, and their ability to deplete the ozone layer. Food production is the largest stress on biodiversity, with half of the world’s habitable land (51 million km2) currently covered by productive agricultural land.

From 1965 to 2015 there was an increase in the global average meat consumption per capita, from 24.2kg to 41.3kg. Despite this increase of global meat production, which peaked at 340 million tons in 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UN estimate that global meat production declined in 2019 and 2020. As this decline was partly forced by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, 2021 is expected to see similar declines in meat supply and demand. 

However, some countries are still seeing a major uptick in meat consumption. Most notably is China: following the reforms and opening-up of the nation under Deng Xiaoping in the 1970s, individual meat consumption has risen from less than 5kg per year in the 1960s, to 63kg today. China now consumes 28% of the world’s meat products, which includes 50% of all pork produce (China is also the leading producer of pork). Other countries with fast growing middle-income classes such as Brazil and Nigeria are also seeing rapid increases in their meat consumption. And, with the global population set to increase to 9.7 billion people by 2050, current rates of food production are expected to increase by an estimated 70% within the same timeframe. 

Lab-Grown Meat: Benefits and Barriers

A 2018 study in Science states that reducing meat consumption is the best way for an individual to reduce their carbon footprint and lessen the environmental and ecological impacts of livestock farming. While there is often a good range of plant-based alternatives to meat products available in many countries, the high demand for meat around the world necessitates the need for meat alternatives such as lab-grown meat that can mitigate agricultural-related environmental impacts and GHG emissions, while fulfilling the world’s demand for meat produce. A widely cited 2011 paper on the lifecycle assessment of lab-grown meat suggests that in comparison to conventional European-produced beef, lab-grown meat production emits 96% less GHGs, uses 99% less land, and consumes 45% less energy. Additionally, humanity’s relationship with animals and the consumption of conventional animal produce will need to change to reduce the frequency and prevalence of zoonotic diseases that have disastrous effects on global society, as seen with the current COVID-19 pandemic.

The process of creating lab-grown meat means that natural animal produce could almost be entirely removed from the food system in a ‘post-animal bioeconomy’. Lab-grown meat is created by extracting and growing stem cells on a biodegradable cell scaffold in culturing media to encourage muscle growth. Pieces of ‘meat’ are then cultivated from the solution and put together with fats and colouring to produce a consumable piece of ‘meat’ that typically resembles a beef steak, chicken breast or piece of shrimp.

A major strength of lab-grown meat is the improvements in animal welfare. By removing animals from the food production process, the need for intensive agricultural practices, battery farms and abattoirs is eliminated and takes animal suffering out of the equation. Globally, it is estimated that more than 70 billion land animals and 90 billion marine animals are killed annually for human consumption. By taking animals out of the food production process, issues related to animal welfare such as the mistreatment of animals, poor living conditions and disease outbreaks could start to be eliminated.

The current process for lab-grown meat production involves the use of foetal bovine serum (FBS). FBS is produced from blood extracted from calf foetuses or pregnant deceased cows, so the narrative that lab-grown meat does not use any animal products or byproducts to be created is currently false. Current technologies require a large number of animal cells and FBS, necessitating the death of animals. On a positive note, ongoing research by Newcastle University and CPI is seeking to develop a non-animal growth media to create a truly animal-free ‘meat’ product.

In the future, lab-grown meat could become an accessible and cheap protein source, and could be used to address food security issues and food shortages that have been recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, where access to meat is often noted as a specific cause of food inequality. A barrier to lab-grown meat being a successful and accessible product is its price. In 2013, the first lab-grown ‘beef burger’ cost over US$300 000. This price has reduced immensely, but it is still costly: lab-grown ‘ground beef’ from Memphis Meats costs around $2 400.00 per 450 grams, whereas conventional ground beef in the United States costs around $17.75 for the same amount. However, progressions in meat culturing technologies and the potential for upscaling production with increasing demand could mean that in a few years lab-grown meat products could enter the global market at a much more affordable price and as an economically viable alternative to conventional meat.  

As noted, lab-grown meat has only recently been approved in Singapore for sale – the first country to do so. New food products that enter the market need to maintain standards and require stringent regulations. Outside of Singapore, present regulatory frameworks over livestock and meat production do not take lab-grown meat into account. Due to the nature of lab-grown meat and how it is made, trade associations and food regulating bodies are apprehensive as to how this can be achieved, especially on a global scale. And, as with genetically modified crops (GMOs), enabling the unrestricted global trade of lab-grown meat products could be challenging, depending on how various countries and trade blocs regulate and authorise the production and sale of lab-grown meat. This could be resolved with an international regulating body to oversee global standards of lab-grown meat in order to allow more equitable and fair access to these products.  

With continued high demand for meat, increasing numbers of middle-class consumers, and a rising global population, the need for a viable and sustainable meat alternative has never been greater. Lab-grown meat technologies offer an exceptional chance for the global agricultural industry to decarbonise while still providing an accessible, sustainable and ethical product. However, given its relatively new conception, there are a number of barriers that need to be overcome. Namely, the cost, regulation and governance of the product and the conditions under which it is made must be considered for it to be a successful alternative to conventional meat. 

Featured image by: Flickr

You might also like: Lab-Grown Leather: A Sustainable Solution to the Fashion Industry?

The post Lab-Grown Meat: Benefits and Barriers to Becoming a Commercially Available Meat Product appeared first on Earth.Org.

Through modern innovation in the current age, satellites and space stations are integral for space exploration, scientific discovery, communications, and remote sensing. However, producing and implementing orbital systems is incredibly costly, both financially and environmentally. New technological advancements increasingly require the use of satellites, but with the mounting global ecological crisis, how essential are they?

—

Over 2 200 active satellites are orbiting Earth, with the US leading with the most satellites per country, followed by China and Russia. In 1966, only six states were participating in the ‘space race’; now, there are 72 countries with active programmes or satellites in orbit. Many satellites are controlled by governing bodies and institutions that cover individual states or trade blocs, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the US and the European Space Agency (ESA), or by national military departments. However, the vast majority of satellites are currently owned and controlled by private firms, an industry that has rapidly expanded in the past decade. The private space sector is experiencing a new uptick in scientific- or business-related endeavours, causing the number of active satellites in orbit to increase by the month. 

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, is launching one such endeavour, called Starlink, a network of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites that will eventually create a global communications system capable of high-speed broadband internet connections. By the end of 2020, SpaceX is set to launch over 1 400 new satellites to ensure global coverage by 2021, and over 12 000 satellites over the next eight years. Latest reports suggest that number will increase to as many as 42 000 satellites in total, meaning that one single enterprise – SpaceX – will launch and have control of more satellites than have ever been launched since 1957. Starlink purports to be a ‘clean’ satellite constellation, whereby the LEO satellites will de-orbit to keep space clean once their lifespan is complete. However, it is debatable as to how clean the production and launches of thousands of satellites will be in reality. 

SpaceX is not the only new commercial space-venturing company. OneWeb, based in the UK, Blue Origin, founded by Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, and the Luxembourg-based SES, which is already one of the largest satellite operators in the world, are among many firms looking to the stars to expand into the highly lucrative sector. These enterprises, along with other new government-led and research-based programmes, suggest a recent boom in the space economy that shows little signs of slowing down. Aside from the economic worth of the global satellite industry, which was estimated to be US$360 billion in 2019 (both commercial and government-led), there are many other advantages for society from utilising outer space.

The Role of Satellite in Climate Change

Satellites have a wide range of benefits. However, there are several important uses in the frame of the climate change. From the International Space Station (ISS) to hundreds of other observational satellites, remote sensing allows for climate and environmental monitoring. These imaging satellites are an incredible source of data for climate change research, enabling us to see the global changes on the planet that are happening more frequently, and with data freely available for anyone to view and use. For example, changing oceanic temperatures, currents and rising sea levels can be monitored by space-based research instruments. ISS measurements have indicated that global sea levels have increased by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year since 1993, due to melting glaciers and sea ice, and from thermal expansion within the oceans. Additionally, satellite imagery can show the changing sizes of glaciers and sea ice, which show that after 2017, 2019 had the second-lowest sea ice extent in the Arctic since 1978, with a similar situation in the Antarctic’s sea ice extent and coverage.

Remote sensing satellites, such as NASA’s Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite, can determine the changing precipitation patterns and flooding. Rainfall changes indicate that globally, more extreme weather events are happening, with more droughts, flooding and hurricanes. Vegetation cover changes are also observable, even with the naked eye from space. Along with NASA’s GPM, ESA’s Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite enables spatial mapping of biodiversity and biomass, agricultural impacts, soil degradation, forestry cover and deforestation (and afforestation). Understanding this is essential for understanding the bigger picture for better ground-level mitigation and management of degradative land uses, such as intensive agricultural practices.

Observations of how widespread wildfires have been would not have been possible without a satellite’s viewpoint, showing worsened conditions of increasing fire risk, frequency, and magnitude as a result of climate change, which also feedbacks to increase carbon dioxide emissions. In the recent (and ongoing) Australian bushfire crisis, satellite imagery has shown the extent of burnt land in the country, and the distance the smoke travelled at the peak of the fire season, reaching as far away as South America. More recently, satellite images have shown that nitrogen GHGs have dropped in areas affected by COVID-19 quarantine measures, such as in China and Italy.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) and temperature changes are also monitored from satellites, making them essential in modelling past, present and future differences to understand the atmospheric, terrestrial and oceanic implications from climate change. Instruments such as NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) satellite can measure GHG increases, such as CO2. Carbon dioxide levels are regularly monitored from space, showing that atmospheric CO2 levels have reached 413 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest concentration of CO2 that our planet has experienced in 3 million years. Satellites can also detect other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide, which often come from industrial leaks or oil and gas fields. Satellites are integral for compliance with international environmental treaties such as the Paris Agreement. In aiming to keep within the Agreement’s target of mitigating global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures by the end of the century, satellites show we are already at 0.98°C above, a number that fluctuates annually.

Aside from the fundamental need to understand climatic changes from space, satellites are useful for early warning systems for natural disasters, the increased occurrences of extreme weather events, or ‘human disasters’. Satellites can monitor weather events in case of necessary evacuations, such as hurricane or flooding events, which are usually in conjunction with land-based monitoring systems and institutions (e.g. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US). For natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis or landslides, satellites are just as important in answering disaster events. Satellites have even been able to detect minute changes in human-made infrastructures, such as monitoring changes in road surfaces before a bridge collapse.  

However, despite the array of advantages of satellites in the climate crisis, what are the implications and costs of utilising the space beyond our immediate atmosphere?

Space exploration and entrepreneurship are very costly ventures. Sourcing the parts for satellites is expensive due to the amount of rare and valuable materials within them; production, engineering and software costs are similarly very high, often upward of US$100 million per satellite. Consequently, only states, companies, and individuals with significant disposable capital (or those with sponsorship from state or private funds) can viably finance space programmes. As a result, there is a disproportionate allocation of control over space from entities and institutions that can financially support such ventures, prohibiting many countries from accessing the benefits of satellite control. 

The pollution crisis of the Earth’s waterways is well-documented. This notion is reflected beyond our atmosphere. Space debris is an issue that is not often talked about; apart from the International Space Station (ISS), most people will never have contact with outer space, and therefore it is not often an immediate concern. 

Old shuttles and satellite parts enter the planet’s atmosphere on a reasonably regular basis, estimated at 200-400 pieces a year. While these parts frequently burn up upon re-entry and have minimal direct impact on terrestrial regions, they do not disappear completely. By burning up, due to the intense friction of travelling from a vacuum to an atmosphere full of gases, noxious chemicals and GHGs are released in the upper atmosphere. These gases, while negligible in amount, are generally more potent than CO2, and can deplete the ozone layer or retain more thermal radiation. 

Estimates by ESA put the number of space junk objects in Earth’s orbit at approximately 900 000 objects over 1cm in size, of which around 5 400 of those are larger than one metre (including over 2 000 active satellites). Roughly 70% of these pieces are in LEO. Space debris can be anything from bolts, paint chips and instrument parts, to entire defunct satellites and rocket bodies. Any object 10cm in size or larger can have a significant effect on active spacecraft due to the high speeds that objects orbit at; most modern satellites and stations are fitted with debris shields for smaller pieces. 

Historically, space junk has destroyed active satellites, creating more debris in the process. In the future, a chain reaction of colliding space debris, known as the Kessler syndrome, could render LEO unusable. Such a reaction could inhibit the possibility of communication and essential remote sensing satellites that many people and organisations around the world rely on every day. It could also dissuade future space programmes from taking place due to the threat of extra-terrestrial debris. The implications of adding Starlink’s potential 42 000 new space instruments into orbit over the next decade or so, not to mention others, are innumerable in terms of impacting the already-fragile environment.

More positively, there have been several operations seeking to remove such debris from space. In 2018, British satellite RemoveDEBRIS was launched and deployed from the ISS to test new technologies that were successful in capturing space debris. Alternatively, another way to mitigate space debris in altitudes where satellites typically orbit is to move them to a ‘graveyard orbit’, where instruments near the end of their lifespan are sent to altitudes of 225 miles from Earth’s surface and higher, although this does not entirely solve the space junk crisis.

Unsurprisingly, the requirements for constructing a satellite make them incredibly resource-intensive. An immense array of elements and raw materials are used to create space structures; kevlar, aluminium, silicon, titanium or composite alloys such as nickel-cadmium and aluminium-beryllium are often essential. This is without considering the many resources necessary for electrical systems onboard the satellite, and the methods of building the space-faring instruments. The mining of metals alone is highly energy-intensive and degradative to the surrounding environment, including atmospheric and groundwater pollution. Following extraction, deoxidation or purification of the resources also contribute to the total emissions, along with transportation of the materials to production facilities. 

The effects of launch emissions from solid rocket fuel are not well understood and are difficult to measure. The majority of satellite launches produce a negligible amount of CO2, especially in comparison to other industries. However, particulates produced in the launch interact in the stratosphere and have a significant impact on ozone depletion. For instance, alumina particles are emitted from the launch and absorb sunlight, enabling thermal heating in the upper stratosphere and causing positive feedback and further latent warming. The effects of other gases and particles’ interactions with upper atmospheric environs have yet to be modelled, meaning every new rocket launch has unknown and potentially critical implications for climate change. 

Some reports state that liquid hydrogen, an alternative rocket fuel to solid propellants, is almost carbon neutral with 28 tons of CO2 per launch, alongside water vapour. However, the impacts of initially creating the specialised liquid fuel are estimated to be upward of 672 tons of CO2 per launch due to the industrial-scale amount of energy needed to produce the fuel, meaning the supposedly ‘clean’ fuel type is not as green when taken at face value. Ironically, satellite imaging will likely be the most effective tool in understanding the upper atmosphere’s composition and the impact of space programmes’ launch emissions on the atmosphere. 

Satellites are incredibly important in understanding and combating climate change. Understanding the climate crisis and its related issues are integral to combating it- if we cannot measure it, we cannot mitigate it. Without satellite capabilities, the knowledge and data on global warming and climate change today would not be anywhere as close to what we have available now, even with land-based sensing equipment. Nevertheless, there are implications and costs associated with satellites. When considering the Starlink programme, the overall impacts caused by one single private firm will be vast. There will be knock-on effects well into the future, such as production pollution, launch emissions from tens of thousands of satellites, and space debris. It is debatable as to how necessary a slightly higher coverage and faster internet speed will be in light of the ever-imminent climate crisis. 

With the onset of a ‘new space race’, policymakers need to be taking a serious look at the environmental costs of satellite use and improving research capabilities and regulation in order to mitigate these degradative implications. Future programmes need to invest in reducing or offsetting emissions and taking more responsibility for satellites once they have reached the end of their life. In the case of active satellites, retrofitting them to be less resource- or emission-intensive could be a viable solution in aiding this, depending on future technological and engineering advancements.

The post Outside Looking In: Satellites in the Climate Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

The humanitarian and ecological devastation caused by bushfire spreading across Australia is the new reality of the climate crisis. Fuelled by an extremely dry summer and soaring temperatures, these fires should be a wake up call for the rest of the world. 

—

Over the past few weeks, international news outlets and social media have picked up on the Australian bushfire crisis, projecting images of immense devastation and destruction, despite the fires starting in September 2019. Bushfires are common phenomena in Australia, occurring every year during the hotter months, which are triggered either naturally or from human activities. These bushfires are normally well controlled by fire fighting and management services across the country.

However, as a result of temperatures as high as 48.9°C and widespread lack of rainfall, the normally controllable fires have spread at an unprecedented rate covering a huge area. Since late 2019, the fires have burned over 60,000 sq km, about the same size as Lithuania’s entire land area. Some reports have described flames reaching as high as 70 metres, which is higher than the Sydney Opera House. 

An issue arising from fires of this size is that they can create their own weather systems. ‘Pyrocumulus clouds’ are produced when smoke rises and cools, mixing with water vapour to create dense clouds. In unstable conditions, these pyrocumulus clouds have the ability to induce thunderstorms, causing downbursts of winds reaching up to 170 mph (270 km/h),  ‘rain bombs’ (sudden localised torrential rain), and lightning that can start new fires in other areas, which have been reported by the Bureau of Meteorology in Victoria state. 

The damage from the Australia bushfire is colossal. Collectively, these fires are reported to have emitted over half of Australia’s annual CO2 emissions, which will have knock-on effects for air quality, water pollution, public and ecological health for the country in the months to come, and for countries close by. New Zealand has already been affected, with large clouds of smoke descending nearly 2 000 km away to cities such as Auckland. Professor Chris Dickman of The University of Sydney estimates that at the time of writing, around 480 million animals have been killed by fires in New South Wales alone, one of the worst affected states, since the start of local bushfires in September 2019. This is a loss that is difficult to comprehend: taken as the quantity of loss, this is comparable to more than two times the entire human population of Brazil, or approximately one third of China’s population, dying in four months from fire, smoke inhalation, dehydration or starvation. Current reports indicate that 25 people have died in the fires, and many are still missing or unaccounted for. Thousands of homes have been destroyed across the country, and tens of thousands of people have been forced to evacuate their homes and communities under blood-red and black skies. 

Australia Bushfire: Cause

Despite announcing aid efforts, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison is seen as a climate change denier lacking in leadership. This has knock-on effects for Australia’s climate and environmental policies. A lack of accountability for climate change, increasing CO2 emissions in the country, and investment into fossil fuel, mean that future political actions to prevent fires like this happening again could miss the essential link about the cause of the fires.

The relationship between climate change and Australia’s rising temperatures is unmistakable. Currently, average global temperatures are at 1°C above pre-industrial levels as a result of global CO2 emissions. Globally, the past decade (2010-2019) has been the hottest decade on record, pushing local and regional temperatures to new record highs. The past few years have seen widespread fires in California (USA), Siberia (Russia), Indonesia, Brazil, and sub-Saharan Africa, yet the Australia bushfire catastrophe far exceeds the damages seen in other countries by many orders of magnitude. 

By the end of the century, if all countries meet their Paris Agreement targets, average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 3°C; under a business-as-usual scenario, this rises to 5°C. These bushfires should be seen as an omen for the future- not just for Australia and those countries affected, but for the entire world. 

For someone who is not directly affected by the fires, it can be difficult to comprehend the scale of destruction. Donations can be made to:

• The NSW Rural Fire Service
• The Country Fire Authority
• The South Australian Country Fire Service
• Red Cross
• Foundation for Rural & Regional Renewal 
• The RSPCA 
• NSW Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES)

Featured image by: Flickr

The post Climate Crisis Now: The Australia Bushfire Catastrophe appeared first on Earth.Org.

For the nearly 850 million citizens who live in Chinese cities, physical and mental health issues are the lived reality as a result of the country’s rampant industrialisation. Environmental degradation is nearing a tipping point, but new urban greening measures, including green spaces, could be a solution to these problems faced by urban residents in China and all over the world.

Economic advancements and growth-orientated policies over the past 30 years have been a major cause of localised severe smog and poor air quality in China’s cities, which have a knock-on effect on regional and global air quality. In its quest to improve China’s standing as the world’s current largest net emitter of CO2, the National People’s Congress has made fighting pollution one of the ‘three critical battles’ faced by the country for the coming years. The territory has begun developing and implementing urban greening measures and green spaces in congested and densely populated towns and cities as a means of achieving this goal.  

Some of these measures include new green spaces, urban parks for residents and ecological corridors (pathways allowing biodiversity to travel between habitat areas that have been separated by buildings or human activities). Many cities, including Zhuji in China, as well as Hong Kong, have applied the tenets of the Chinese tradition, feng shui when implementing urban greening policies to promote wellbeing. 

You might also like: Could Biofuels Do More Harm Than Good?

Enhancing urban green space is a policy focus and priority for cities globally- not just in China- following the development of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 (especially Goal 11: Urban Sustainability).

Why are green spaces important?

Among other benefits, the creation of these green spaces improves air quality, reduces and regulates rainfall run-off, and reduces both the urban heat-island effect and severe localised weather events. Additionally, they protect and improve the health of the ecosystem and biodiversity of the surrounding areas. For the inhabitants of these urban societies, green spaces help to reduce the rate of respiratory illnesses, improve the physical health of those who engage in activities afforded by these spaces, improve psychological health and reduce health complications such as cancer and dementia. In many studies around the world it has been observed that an increase in ‘contact with nature’, facilitated through the implementation of green spaces, creates a greater propensity to care for the natural world and develops better environmental attitudes. 

Ways to Increase Green Spaces in Cities

In Shanghai, for example, the government imposed a Vision of 2035 in 2017 to make the city an innovative eco-friendly metropolis to bring its urban residents closer to nature. Here, 3% of Shanghai’s total yearly provincial economic output is invested in urban ecological development; the projects under which include low carbon developments, urban parks systems and ecosystem protection mechanisms.

Some provincial governments and urban developers have taken the implementation of urban green spaces a step further, through the creation of  ‘garden cities.’ While the sustainability of the construction of these ‘eco metropolises’ is questionable, the environmental and public health benefits these cities bring are important considerations for the sustainability of rapidly-increasing urban populations.

China’s environmental issues will take much longer to resolve than realised. Urban greening measures are a powerful solution for tackling environmental damage, as well as improving the lives of citizens and creating pro-environment attitudes and values. 

Using this example of China’s progress in urban green initiatives and implementing it around the world, where half of the population now lives in urban areas, the process of integrating nature into daily urban lives is a vital tool that can mitigate the climate crisis. However, while these measures can be successful when implemented and maintained properly, this is just one solution of many to help abate the climate crisis faced by humanity and the rest of the natural world.

The post How Urban Green Spaces are Impacting on China’s Environmental and Public Health appeared first on Earth.Org.