Plastic pollution is leaving behind impacts for generations to come. If our current rate of pollution continues, experts predict that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. It is clear that we need solutions to rectify this pressing issue. Thanks to innovation and research, scientists have been able to pioneer ground-breaking technology to help collect and prevent plastic pollution. 

—

Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues the world faces today. As most of the plastics that we use don’t break down and dissolve easily, it is slowly filling up our oceans, which will take centuries to disintegrate, posing tremendous issues for aquatic life, human health, and the marine ecosystem. Studies have estimated that by 2050, there will be more plastic in the sea than fish. 

The world’s rivers, oceans, and seas have been acting as convenient transport vectors as well as dumping sites for plastic produced by human activity. This pollution comes at a huge cost, from the clean-up and repair efforts and loss of revenue for tourism and the societal price of polluted and degraded environments. 

Around 300 million tonnes of plastic is produced worldwide annually, and only half of this can be recycled. Some believe the solution to global plastic pollution is to simply reduce the amount of  plastic that is being used. However, some issues arise with this sweeping assumption. Firstly, it does not tackle the issue of plastic that is already present in the ocean; and secondly, current policies have not been effective against plastic production as studies have shown that production is in fact increasing, and is projected to keep climbing. 

But all hope is not lost, and it is certainly not too late. While there are ways in which individuals can reduce their use of plastic in their daily activity, science and technology have allowed us to push the boundaries of what we thought was possible. Collective action is imperative. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was introduced to prevent further damage caused to Earth’s ozone layer. Over a period of time, humanity was able to phase out over 98% of the harmful substances that were causing the damage, preventing approximately 2 million cases of skin cancer as a result. If we were able to come together as we did in 1987, we can collectively tackle the plastic pollution problem.

10 Scientific Solutions to Plastic Pollution

1. The Ocean Clean-Up

The Ocean Clean-up is an excellent example of collective action. Inspired by a scuba diving trip in Greece, Dutch CEO Boyan Slat created the organisation consisting of a large team of people and technology designed to effectively collect plastic from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Using what is called the System 001, which consists of 600m-long floating structures intended to contain marine debris and designed to collect microplastics, one of the problematic forms of plastic and can be dangerous to both marine animals and humans if ingested, the system relies on wind and ocean currents to collect the plastic. Upon collection,  the plastic waste is transported by a vessel back to land, to be then recycled. 

Currently located in the garbage patch between Hawaii and California, the aim of The Ocean Clean-up is to deploy their system to the four other garbage patches located over the world, and hopefully clean up 50% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch within five years. 

2. NASA Satellite Technology

Concentrations of ocean plastic can now be detected by NASA satellite technology that was created in 2016. This ground-breaking research method can be fundamental in tracking and managing ocean plastic debris and one of many crucial scientific solutions to plastic pollution. NASA’s Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System, also known as CYGNSS, was originally created to predict hurricanes by monitoring tropical wind speed over the ocean. Scientists discovered that this technology can detect the concentration of microplastic in the water by measuring the surface of the water. It will also provide a huge contribution to further research on the effects of microplastic on the ecosystem, help non-profit and private organisations clean up the sea, and protect aquatic life. 

3. The Plastic-Eating Enzyme 

One of the most important scientific solutions to plastic pollution that have emerged is the plastic-eating enzyme. In Japan 2016, a scientist discovered a plastic-eating enzyme that was capable of breaking down Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – the most commonly used type of plastic. This enzyme, known as Ideonella Sakaiensis 201-F6, is a bacteria that can digest plastic by secreting an enzyme called PETase, and ingesting the carbon in PET to be used as a food source. Though the breakdown process remains to be relatively slow, scientists have been working to speed it up. An international team of scientists have been able to modify the molecular composition of the enzyme, and tweak it to consume PET 20% faster than it originally did. 

More on the topic: A French Start-Up is Using Enzyme to Breakdown and Recycle PET Plastic

4. Plastic-Eating Mushrooms

A darkly pigmented species of fungus, known as Aspergillus Tubingensis, has been found to contain agents that can degrade polyurethane (PU). Samantha Jenkins, lead biotech engineer for bio-manufacturing firm Biohm was studying different types of fungus in a research project, when she came across the plastic-eating fungus and found the fungus had eaten its way through the plastic sponge that was used to seal it. Jenkins is in the process of testing the fungus on PET and PU plastic and discovered the fungus to populate as it consumes more plastic, potentially creating a new source of biomaterial “for food, or feed stocks for animals, or antibiotics”. 

More on the topic: The Untapped Potential of the Amazon’s Plastic-Eating Mushroom

5. Magnetic Coils

Scientists have created a magnetic coil that is able to target microplastics in the ocean. This experimental nanotechnology is able to break down microplastic in the water without causing any harm to marine life. Thinner than a human hair, these coils resemble bed springs under a microscope, and are coated in nitrogen and a magnetic metal called manganese. When they react with oxygen molecules, they attack plastic and can help to break it down. Xiaoguang Duan, a co-author of this study found that nano-coils have a 30% to 50% reduction rate in microplastics over a period of eight hours in early experiments. 

Every day, the equivalent of over 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic is dumped into our oceans, rivers & lakes.

This #WorldEnvironmentDay is a call to #BeatPlasticPollution.

We must work as one to break our addiction to plastic, champion zero waste & build a circular economy. pic.twitter.com/W9IHyhE61b

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) June 4, 2023

6. Converting to Fuel

Australian company Licella Holdings has developed a new patented technology, known as the Catalytic Hydrothermal Reactor (Cat-HTR), that can convert unrecyclable plastic into oil, it has been able to melt plastic and convert it into liquid fuel. Through a process similar to a commercial-sized pressure-cooker, it reduces plastic to its component parts, producing a range of materials including oils, waxes and plastics that can be turned into other plastic products or fuels.

What makes this technology so unique is its versatile nature. No plastic is a match for this device. The Cat-HTR chemically recycles mixed plastics without the need to separate the different plastic types. This includes end-of-life plastic that would otherwise be sent to landfills, incineration or end up in our oceans. It allows plastic waste to be recycled over and over again and on a commercial scale, and could convert 20,000 tonnes of plastic waste annually. However, critics have labelled the technology as an environmental trade-off as the process may produce further carbon emissions. 

7. Converting to Roads

One of the many scientific solutions to plastic pollution is to convert waste into roads. A project known as PlasticRoad, created a bike path in the Dutch city of Zwolle and a road in Overjissel in 2018 using 70% recycled plastic. The plan is to increase this to 100%. The project has been proven successful as plastic is more durable than asphalt and requires less heavy equipment and time to install, which makes its carbon footprint smaller. PlasticRoad intends to carry on designing, creating and supplying these sustainable, climate-proof and circular roads, made from municipal plastic waste and “with the smallest possible negative impact on our planet and natural resources.” 

8. Substitute with Seaweed

One of the most significant scientific solutions to plastic pollution to emerge in recent years is bioplastic. A plastic alternative comprised of materials produced from renewable biomass sources. Indonesian start-up company Evoware has been researching ways of converting seaweed into a bioplastic. They work with local seaweed farmers to create a range of different types of packaging such as sandwich wraps, burger wraps, sachets for spices, and soap, which can be dissolved in hot water, and in some cases, edible. Indonesia produces 10 million tonnes of seaweed each year and could reach up to 19 million tonnes by 2020, which could help supply Evoware’s expanding efforts.  

Despite the innovative creativity behind such a thoughtful invention, these seaweed-based substitutes are not without its challenges. For example, Evoware’s edible seaweed-based Ello Jello cone can be up to five times more expensive than ordinary crepe cones. Additionally, it still uses wrappings of plastic and paper to preserve its texture. 

You might also like: Solution for Plastic Pollution: 6 Policies and Innovations Tackling Plastics

9. Social Plastic Policies

A social enterprise known as Plastic Bank is paying above-market rates for plastic waste. They act as a convenience store for the world’s poor communities, and accept plastic waste as a form of currency. Their recycling ecosystem is sustained through the sale and use of what they call “Social Plastic®”. This encourages people to collect ocean-bound plastic before it enters the waterways, and it can be traded for social benefits, including money, food and other services (such as school fees). Plastic Bank aims to make plastic too valuable to throw away. Upon collection, plastic waste will then be sold to corporations, who will pay around three times more than what plastics normally cost.

10. Nicholas Institute’s Plastic Technology Inventory 

A study released by the Nicholas Institute addressed the gap between knowledge for technology to tackle plastic pollution, and created a comprehensive inventory of 52 technologies currently being used or in development to prevent the leakage of plastic pollution or collect existing plastic pollution. The study concluded that both the prevention of plastic from entering waterways and plastic collection are matters of urgency, highlighting the importance of ensuring the care of aquatic systems and human health. 

Two examples from this list include Plastic Fischer Trash Boom and Hoola One. The former was created in Germany in 2019, whose technology aims to collect microplastics from the water, while Hoola One was a vacuum created in Canada in 2019, intended to extract microplastics and macroplastics from marine environments. 

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

The post 10 Scientific Solutions to Plastic Pollution appeared first on Earth.Org.

Food waste is one of the biggest environmental problems and challenges of our lifetime and it must be eradicated at all costs. However, some see it as a business opportunity ready for innovative solutions. If we properly educate ourselves about food waste, we would see that taking the steps to reduce it can be an excellent way to lower costs, generate profits, and alleviate climate change. Here are 11 effective solutions to tackle food waste for businesses, producers, retailers, and consumers. 

__

The issue of food waste ranges from industrial to individual; there are many contributing factors towards why food is wasted, such as purchasing preferences, excess production, retail standards, convenience, cost and more. 

Food waste affects all three realms of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. It is a societal issue that touches everyone around the globe, and it contributes to the larger issue of climate change. It has been estimated that food waste accounts for one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and generates 8% of greenhouse gases annually. 

Solutions for food waste are needed now more than ever. Everyone can be a part of the solution to food waste, from large corporations to small communities. Innovators have explored food waste solutions in the science and technology industry, but there is still more that needs to be done. 

Addressing food waste does not need to be a charitable thing or a form of philanthropy. What often goes unrecognised are the huge benefits that can be achieved from reducing food waste, and they are not just environmental. They can differ from improvements in one’s health, to profits generated in a company with innovative solutions to tackle the crisis. 

If businesses redirect excess food to communities with limited access to it, they can save money and reduce their methane emissions at the same time. Educating the public about the benefits of reducing food waste will also encourage businesses and consumers to monitor their waste more closely. 

You might also like: What is Food Waste?

Creating Circular Food Systems

Businesses can benefit in the reduction of food waste economically, socially and on a broader scale, environmentally.

Inspired by Patagonia’s sustainability effort, the University of Maine’s Mitchell Center Team Project conducted a research project that looked into “Food Management: Empowering Main Businesses Towards Sustainability”. This study was conducted in collaboration with stakeholders who were persuading business owners to adapt food waste solutions into their practices. 

The aim of the project was to determine how easily these changes can be adapted to fit the individual lifestyles of consumers. 

The stakeholders involved work in Maine’s food-related industries, such as grocery stores, farms, restaurants, and hospitals. Key stakeholders included Hannaford, Northern Light: Maine Coast Hospital, City of Portland, and the Maine DEP, as well as many others.

In this study, using a triple bottom line approach, businesses were encouraged to equally prioritise their monetary profits with their environmental and social responsibilities. 

They recommended food systems to be reworked from a linear one into a circular one. In a linear system, there is a simple relationship between production to consumption, in which the end result is waste. However, with a circular economy, the goal is to recycle waste into a resource that can be used to create new products. 

The study was successful in that stakeholders were interested in collaboration at the end of the project. It also highlighted the importance of education and accessibility to landfill alternatives. Six solutions were developed from the collaboration in the project:

1. Measuring and tracking all food storage 

Businesses were encouraged to use pre-existing food waste tracking technology. These systems can help make businesses aware of the money they are wasting on food waste that never gets to consumers. 

2. Creating a “Food Rescue” system

This solution utilised a web-based system that matched locally available food to local food needs and volunteers to transfer the food to the ones that need it. 

3. Promoting statewide consumer and producer waste education

Consumer education and awareness about the food system and the waste was encouraged. Doing so helped people see the true value of the food they are purchasing. There is a general lack of awareness, so implementing education programmes in schools can be an effective way to educate the public. 

4. Building of food handling and processing infrastructure

This solution focuses on “upcycling” food that is already in the system, e.g. turning tomatoes into tomato sauce and increasing demand in canning and processing food for long-term storage. 

The aim here is to connect key members of the food system and create synergy among handling and processing stakeholders. Primary issues to be addressed are transportation availability, storage limitations, and restrictions associated with food donation. 

5. Educate producers on the advantages of donating 

This solution is also related to the second solution. The primary goal for this solution is to educate stakeholders on food donation incentives, legal protection, and offer guidance on relevant governmental agencies. 

6. Composting alternatives 

This solution aims to increase available options for composting and other alternatives to disposal of food in landfills. Developing statewide practices to divert food waste from landfills can make huge cost savings possible. 

Changing Food Crops

The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)  recommends producers and farmers to consider a change in crops. They believe that improving food security and lowering greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved through changing what we eat, and growing more sustainable and hardy crops. These types of crops can be ones that are low maintenance, can cope with extreme weather events, and crops that can be interspersed with pastures and arable land.

Avoiding deforestation for additional farmland could also prevent more than 70 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions.

For other ways to reduce food waste on the producer level, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recommended the following solutions for producers and farmers: 

1. On-farm storage 

On-farm storage is a great way to reduce post-harvest loss. Farmers should have effective, safe and accessible storage for their products. Some countries might offer a farm storage facility loan programme (USDA) where they provide low-interest financing to help producers build or upgrade storage. 

2. Value-added products

This is where you can enhance the value of products by upcycling them into another product. The potential to reduce food waste can be made if we create value-added products. A good example of this is growing out black solider fly larvae to bioconvert the organic waste into sustainable insect protein, oil and frass which eliminates or abates on farm emissions. 

3. Secondary markets that produce delivery services

There are many businesses in some countries that offer weekly or bimonthly boxes of food products that have been directly sourced from the farmers. Farmers could directly collaborate with these markets to effectively control their food production. 

4. Donations 

Donations from farmers can help provide individuals with fresh produce if they have limited access to it. There have been laws and programs created to make donations easy —  liability protection, tax benefits, picking and pack-out costs, gleaning etc. 

5. Feeding animals 

Using the food scraps as feed for animals can also be done. This is a common practice that has been around for centuries and is an easy way to divert food waste. However these animals especially cattle – produce methane. So better ways to recycle the waste need to be deployed, such as insect farming. 

Redirecting Food Surplus and Educational Campaigns

Food waste from restaurants and business constitutes 28% of the food wasted. To rectify this, we can push for policies that limit waste and redirect uneaten food to places where it is needed. This can be in the form of food recovery programmes to direct surplus to shelters.

There are other wide varieties of changes retailers can make in order to reduce their food waste. Some of these include upgrading their hardware with the latest technology, focusing on long-term sustainability rather than maximising returns from a product in the short-term, modifying their policies and regulations and ensuring all food is accepted to be sold etc.

Supermarkets can also create campaigns, where they provide education, inspiration and advice to their customers. Sainsbury’s – the second largest chain of supermarkets in the UK – research found that people look to supermarkets for guidance on how to tackle food waste, therefore retailers could provide literature in the form of magazines and membership programmes, that can provide ideas on how customers can prevent food waste, as well as recipes on how to utilise leftover food.

A good example is the rising number of “wonky” vegetable initiatives that have been implemented by supermarkets in recent years. These initiatives encourage consumers to buy food that does not meet aesthetic criteria, and they have been marketed in a way to make them appealing. In 2021, it was reported that Tesco’s food waste scheme Perfectly Imperfect saved at least 50 million packs of fruit and vegetables from being discarded.

Rethink Our Food Perceptions and Habits

Food waste is also the responsibility of us as individuals, as food waste at home can amount to 37% of overall food waste. We need to change our habits in ways that significantly reduce the amount of food that we waste.

One of the easiest solutions for food waste is through organisation methods. We could organise our fridge in a way that ensures the food that will go off first is clearly visible to us when we open the fridge. We could keep a list of the food we have bought on hand, and make a note of all the use-by labels. While this can be time consuming, a study in 2020 indicated that if you put these small efforts into reducing food waste, you could end up saving a substantial amount of money.

We also need to change our minds and the way we perceive food. Rather than preparing and cooking a meal we are in the mood for, we should base our cooking decisions off of the food we see in the fridge that needs to be used first.

Researching literature or buying cookbooks that provide ideas on how to utilise food scraps and leftover food can also be beneficial. Additionally, composting your food waste can help reduce carbon by equivalent of 12 million passenger vehicles off the road for 30 years.

Changes to our diet also need to be made. Experts have stated that there is too much fish, fats, sugars, dairy products and processed foods in our diets. Aside from incorporating more fruit and vegetables in our diets, Dr. Debra Roberts, co-chair of IPCC Working Group II, has recommended that we change our diet to consist primarily of low-CO2 emission food. By doing so, we can ensure that we maintain a balanced diet based on foods such as secondary cereals, pulses, fruits, vegetables, and even animal foods obtained with low CO2 emissions. We can do this by making conscious decisions to eat food that has a low carbon footprint such as plant-based foods. Meal-prepping is another great way to save time and resources, which can also prevent you from overbuying during food shopping. 

You might also like: 25 Shocking Facts About Food Waste

6 Key Facts to Help Consumers Make More Conscious Choices

Most foods are labelled in supermarkets and retailers, and understanding what these labels mean can help you organise your food shopping. 

1. “Sell by” date 

This is the date the retailer should display the product until withdrawing it from the shelves. This date does not indicate that the food has spoiled, but merely specifies the day that it will be past its best quality. The food is still safe to consume.

2. “Best if used by (or before)” date 

This date is for sellers and indicates when the food will be at its best quality to eat. It does not mean the food is inedible after this date, but merely informs the customer of when the best time to consume the food will be for it’s flavour and freshness etc. 

3. “Guaranteed fresh” date 

This date refers to the date when the item is at its optimal freshness. This is usually used for bakery items. 

4. “Pack date” 

This is usually the date on canned or packaged food. This date tells us when the product was packed. It does not indicate when it needs to be consumed by. 

5. “Use By” date 

This is the last date that the manufacturer guarantees the product to be at its maximum quality. 

6. “Expires on” date 

This date refers to the date that it is recommended that the product should be consumed by. If you decide to eat the food after the date, it is at your own risk. 

Overall, knowing the meaning of these dates is useful. However, it should be noted that some manufacturers might not put them on their products. For example, if you go to a meat market or a fish market, you may receive products in an ordinary bag, without a label. 

Here is a basic guide for when food is safe to eat:

• Milk – usually safe after one week after selling
• Eggs – often fine from three – five weeks from the date of purchase
• Poultry and seafood – cook or freeze within one or two days after purchase
• Beef or pork – cook or freeze within three-five days
• Canned goods – five-18 months, depending on the acidity of the product

Benefits of Reducing Food Waste at Home

Even though you will be making a conscious effort to help the environment, you will also be receiving benefits from reducing your food waste:

1. Money saved by planning what to buy properly
2. Maintaining a healthy weight and preventing overeating
3. Lessening the chances of food poisoning in your household, as storing contaminated food could accidentally be consumed without you realising
4. A well-organised, fresh-smelling pantry. There will be no bad smell or messy food waste around your pantry
5. Pest control You can keep away pests, such as rats, flies and cockroaches

Earth.Org believes that there is a gargantuan opportunity to recycle organic waste and believes companies like FlyFarm, Ynsect and Innovafeed are showing that insect bioconversion eliminates emissions at the same time as produces high value sustainable protein. Challenges remain for post consumer waste around waste segregation and incentives for consumers to ensure their waste is free of contaminants. Governments should focus on ensuring that organic waste can be recycled.

Featured image by Marco Verch/Flickr

The post 11 Effective Solutions for Food Waste appeared first on Earth.Org.

In a world where people are dying from hunger, one-third of all food produced is thrown away every year. Not only does food waste exacerbate food insecurity, but it also causes severe damage to our environment. When we factor in all the different variables that go into producing the food we eat, the hidden impact it has on the environment is revealed. How does food waste affect the environment? Read on to find out.

__

Tossing away uneaten food may appear like meagre damage to the planet when compared to other issues, but the haunting reality is that it is just as harmful. 

When we throw away food, we also throw away the precious resources that went into producing this food. This includes the use of land and natural resources, the social cost to the environment, and our biodiversity. Food waste accounts for one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and generates 8% of greenhouse gases annually. With these statistics in place, there is a huge need to reduce this environmental footprint. 

Preventing food waste has been highlighted in the UN Environment Programme GEO-6 report as one of three important actions that need to be taken in transforming our food system. 

What Is Food Waste?

Food waste is food that is intended for human consumption that is wasted and lost, and can occur anywhere throughout the entire supply chain from farm stage to harvest to households. Although the term may be self-explanatory, two types of food waste are apparent. The first being “food loss”, which refers to the food that we lose at the early stages of its production process. The second being “food wastage”, which refers to food that is perfectly fit for human consumption, but it gets discarded for a different reason. 

How Is Food Waste Produced?

The typical stages of the food production process consists of the food being grown, processed, sorted, packaged, transported, marketed, and then eventually sold. When we look at the statistics, food waste can be identified as occurring at all stages throughout its production. Therefore, every time food is wasted, all the resources used in each step of the production is also wasted, bringing the social cost up even higher. 

Looking at the production process as a chain framework can help identify where the issues are. At the beginning of this chain, also known as the “upstream” stage, the food is grown, harvested, processed and sent to be sold. At later stages of the chain, also known as the “downstream” stage, food is successfully processed and sent to consumers and commerce markets but it is wasted for other reasons unrelated to whether it is fit for human consumption or not. 

The later the food is wasted along the chain, the greater its environmental impact is as the further down the chain we go, the more energy and natural resources are needed in the complete production process of the food. 

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) released a report that analysed the impacts of global food wastage on the environment. They identified patterns in food waste on a global level. 

They found that middle to higher income countries’ food waste occurs in the “downstream” phase of the production process, as they found that their food was wasted by consumers and commerce businesses. They also established that developing countries were more likely to contribute to food waste in the “upstream” phase of the production process, usually due to infrastructural challenges such as lack of refrigeration, improper storage facilities, technical constraints in harvesting techniques etc.

How Does Food Waste Affect the Environment?

1. Waste of Natural Resources 

There are a number of ways in which food waste can affect the environment. When we waste food, we waste the natural resources used for producing that food, the three main ones being energy, fuel and water. 

Water is needed for all stages of the food production process, as well as in all types of food produced. Agriculture accounts for 70% of the water used throughout the world. This includes the irrigation and spraying required for crops, and the water needed for rearing cattle, poultry and fish. By wasting food, we are wasting fresh water. Given that countries have a severe water shortage, with countries being predicted to be uninhabitable in a few decades, conserving freshwater should be a global mission. 

Growing plants and rearing animals drains a huge volume of fresh water. Food such as fruit and vegetables are water-laden, and require a huge amount of water to grow. Additionally, different types of plants need different amounts of water to grow. Animals also require a large amount of water for both their growth and their feed. Producing meat requires more water supply, yet meat is the food that is thrown out the most. 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) established that food waste ends up wasting a quarter of our water supply in the form of uneaten food. That’s equated to USD$172billion in wasted water. They also determined that we spend over $220billion in growing, transporting and processing almost 70million tons of food that eventually ends up in landfills. 

Therefore, growing food that goes to waste ends up using up to 21% of freshwater, 19% of our fertilisers, 18% of our cropland, and 21% of our landfill volume. Throwing away a kilogram of beef is equivalent to throwing away 50,000 litres of water. Pouring a glass of milk down the sink is nearly 1,000 litres of water wasted. Additionally, taking into account global food transportation, large amounts of oil, diesel and other fossil fuels are consumed as well. 

You might also like: 20 Shocking Facts About Food Waste

2. Contribution to Climate Change 

When food is left to rot in our landfills, it subsequently releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas twenty-five times stronger than carbon dioxide. When methane is released, it lingers for 12 years and traps heat from the sun. 

It contributes towards 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions released. When we factor in the greenhouse gas emissions released from the use of natural resources, the contribution to climate change is astonishing. If a decent food waste treatment system were implemented, it would stop 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research found that a third of all human-contributed greenhouse gas emissions are from food waste. If food waste were a country, its greenhouse gas emissions would be the third largest in the world, following the US and China. 

If we stopped throwing food away, we can save the equivalent of 17 metric tonnes of CO2, which can be the environmental equivalent of five cars off the roads in the UK. 

3. Degradation of Land 

Our irresponsible use of food products has an adverse impact on the physical land itself. There are two ways in which we waste land. The land we use for producing the food, and the land we used for dumping the food. 

Agriculture uses 11.5million hectares of the global land surface. There are two types of land; “arable” land (that can grow crops), and “non-arable” land (that cannot grow crops). 900 million hectares of non-arable land is used for livestock to produce meat and dairy products. As meat is in higher demand, more arable landscapes are being converted into pastures for animals to graze. By doing so, we are gradually degrading our natural land in a way that prohibits anything natural from growing on it. 

These statistics show that we are over-stressing land for food production and if we are not mindful in the future, the ability to yield will diminish overtime as we gradually degrade the land. Not only are we disrupting our beautiful, natural landscapes, but we are also harming the biodiversity present in nature, as converting arable land into pastures will cause a loss of habitat for animals and could also severely disrupt food chains in the ecosystem. 

4. Harm to Biodiversity 

Biodiversity simply refers to the different species and organisms that make up an environment’s ecosystem. 

Agriculture in general causes harm to our biodiversity. Mono-cropping and converting our wild lands into pastures and suitable agricultural terrains is a common practice where there is an increase in demand for the production of livestock. 

Deforestation and conversion of our natural lands into non-arable land destroys the natural flora and fauna present, and in some cases, to the point of their extinction. 

Marine life has also been recorded decreasing in population, with the large quantities of fish being caught causing the decimation of our marine ecosystems.  The average annual increase in global fish consumption is reportedly outpacing population growth, yet at the same time, places like Europe are discarding 40-60% of fish because they do not meet supermarket quality standards. As the world continues to overexploit and depleting fish stocks, we are creating a severe disruption to the marine ecosystems and food chains, as well as threatening aquatic food security. 

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

What’s Next?

As with every other current issue posed against the environment, a global effort needs to be achieved in order to tackle the problem of food waste. Farmers, individual consumers, commercial businesses, governments, NGOs and the private sector all need to play their part and work together to fight this issue. 

Consumer re-education has to be broadened, investment into waste treatment infrastructure needs to be made, food collection methods in line with redistribution have to be discussed, waste diversion systems need to be created for the commercial and retail sector, and further research as to the best ways to recycle and reuse the food waste that cannot be consumed have to be carried out. 

Jose Graziano da Silva, director-general of the FAO gave suggestions on ways in which we could tackle this global problem. Changes need to be brought to every stage of the food production process. 

More research and effort into developing food harvesting techniques, storing processes and redistribution processes are needed to be invested in. Steps need to be taken to ensure that food waste from oversupplying should be redistributed and diverted to people who need it the most. 

You might also like: Solutions for Food Waste

Consumers and suppliers lower down the production chain need to take action and education. Consumers need to be encouraged to budget their meals as well as to ensure their meal plans are suitable to their eating habits. Suppliers need to loosen their restrictions on food aesthetics and think up ways in which they can sell the products that can be consumed yet would have been rejected simply due to aesthetic appeal. In 2016, France passed a law that now ensures that supermarkets can no longer throw away their unsold food. They are required to donate it to food banks instead. 

Food that is unfit for human consumption needs to be recycled. It can be used for feeding livestock in the food production process, or even used as home compost in the home of consumers.

The post How Does Food Waste Affect the Environment? appeared first on Earth.Org.

All living things on Earth are connected to support and maintain life cycles, therefore biodiversity is extremely important for the functioning of ecosystems on the Earth. Biodiversity loss prevention is imperative to the sustenance of all kinds of ecosystems on Earth, as humans are dependent on wildlife, plants, fisheries and more for their livelihoods. Here are seven solutions to address the issue of biodiversity loss. 

__

Biodiversity refers to the variety of living organisms on Earth, and it provides ecological, economic, and social benefits. It is declining however at such a rate that it has even been predicted that we are on the path to a sixth mass extinction event. 

Climate change has pushed biodiversity to the top of the agenda on the international stage, focusing us to urgently assess and address the interconnected problems of biodiversity, climate change, and desertification 

Causes of biodiversity loss include both natural and anthropogenic activities. Natural activities come in the form of extreme weather, floods, volcanic eruptions and more. Anthropogenic activities come in the form of human-induced climate change, habitat loss, species introduction, land pollution, marine pollution, land clearing for mining and industrial activities, agriculture, ocean acidification and coral bleaching, drainage of wetlands, and mangroves.

Biodiversity loss can come in the form of habitat loss through land converted to agriculture, combined with land degradation through intensive farming practices – which is the principal contributor to the decline and extinction of species – and it can also come in the form of unsustainable food production, where our meat and dairy consumption habits are to blame, as livestock farming requires disproportionate areas of land to be used.

Solutions to Biodiversity Loss

Species of plants and animals that are vulnerable to extinction require our utmost attention. We need to ensure that significant changes at a policy and a collective individual level are made.

1. Biodiversity conservation

This is the one of most important solutions to biodiversity loss: conserving biodiversity that is at risk of extinction by protecting them with adequate conservation strategies. 

Biodiversity conservation covers a wide range of activities that can be done. Protecting habitats is an extremely important biodiversity conservation activity; done by identifying the habitats facing threats and eliminating these threats in order to maintain the natural area. This also comes in the form of leaving wildlife undisturbed, especially nesting and denning areas, and wildlife habitats can be promoted by setting up man-made bird and bat houses. 

Limiting and modifying agricultural activities also falls into the category of biodiversity conservation. This can be done by conserving water in wetlands and reducing irrigation, and by  managing livestock grazing through maintaining good quality range conditions and leaving areas ungrazed. 

Biodiversity conservation can also come in the form of domestic conservation. This involves an individual taking responsibility for any wildlife they have direct control over. Maintaining your garden by eradicating and controlling weed growth can be particularly beneficial to conserving wildlife. Reducing disturbance to wildlife and monitoring pets and their behaviour with wild animals are also domestic biodiversity conservation solutions. 

2. Restructuring business plans

There is a fundamental business risk from an ecosystem failure. This is a concept that needs to be acknowledged, along with the realisation that there is also a reputational risk of unsustainable supply chains. 

Some commodities, such as cocoa and coffee, are integral to an economy, but also depend on its growth from the delicate ecosystem. Growth of such commodities require a stable ecosystem tailored to its needs. Therefore, businesses need to factor these considerations into their risk analysis and allocate capital investment accordingly. 

Additionally, businesses have also been said to have a “fundamentally crucial role” in sustainability transformation. Therefore, they also need to set some standards and rules that address biodiversity loss reduction.

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

3. Pressure on governments 

Pressure needs to be put on governments to draft, pass, and enforce legislation to protect biodiversity. All governments should strive to create an environment that welcomes intergovernmental bodies and international policymakers to collaborate in advocacy in regards to issues of biodiversity. 

Unsustainable food production can also be a cause of biodiversity loss. Therefore, governments can ensure that company policies are put in place to encourage more sustainable methods by ensuring sustainable fishing methods through certification of seafood products, for example. 

They can also protect national parks and other areas with flora and fauna through laws, and they can provide incentives and subsidies to farmers to encourage production methods towards sustainable land stewardship.

4. Funding directed to innovative solutions

Technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, so directing funding and research into technological biodiversity loss prevention methods can be extremely beneficial. 

Reforestation drones are an excellent example of using technology as an innovative solution. A UK company called Biocarbon Engineering came up with this potential idea. One of the main causes of biodiversity loss is habitat loss and fragmentation caused by deforestation, so a simple solution would be to plant more trees, however, tree planting by hand can be slow and labour intensive. Biocarbon Engineering came up with this solution to tackle this issue by first mapping the area of regeneration via the drone. Next, the drone will fly around two to three metres above the surface, and then shoot biodegradable seed pods into the soil which contain all the nutrients the tree needs to start growing. Biocarbon Engineering estimates this speeds up the planting of trees by 10 times and at 15% of the cost.

5. Substitute products 

Obtaining the resources to create the products we consume is severely damaging to biodiversity. Examples include, meat consumption, baked goods containing palm oil, mass produced-cheap clothing, and the use of plastic straws. 

One of the most simplest solutions to biodiversity loss is by substitute products with sustainable and environmentally-friendly replacements. 

Lab-grown meat is an excellent example. The way in which we currently rely upon to produce meat is by rearing animals until they grow large enough to kill and consume. This practice requires huge amounts of land, particularly for beef production. Land use does not exclusively limit to raising cattle but is often dedicated to producing food for cows and other livestock. The simplest solution to this would be to encourage people to eat less meat. But this may take too long and it can be challenging to encourage people to change their lifestyle. A solution to this issue is therefore, “lab-grown meat” – also known as cultured meat. The meat is not a meat-substitute, but rather meat produced in a different way through a process known as intro-vitro cultivation with methods. Taken from medical research where scientists have figured out how to regenerate organic tissues, the technology is currently being worked on by many companies around the world in a race to get it to market. At the moment, the main barriers are cost and ensuring that the taste matches the original animal product. 

Using microalgae as a palm oil alternative is another example of an excellent solution to replacing a harmful product that is heavily consumed globally.

Photo: Second Nexus

6. Vertical ocean farming

Human action has affected the oceans too. Sea life has been impacted through pollution and climate change, but the changes impacting the ecosystem the most are those caused by overfishing.

Overfishing occurs when fish are caught from the ocean at a faster rate than the populations can replenish. Many other sea creatures, such as oysters, have been severely overfished and the practices to catch them now involve scraping the bottom of the ocean, catching all sorts of unintended fish, and destroying the habitat at the same time.

GreenWave, a charity which promotes the use of restorative vertical ocean farming was created to address this issue. Co-founder, Bren Smith, describes vertical ocean farming as an ‘underwater garden’ where they grow kelp, mussels, scallops and oysters, by mimicking the habitats that would have previously existed in the ocean. 

Having these gardens remove the need to trawl the ocean floor with large nets and they can even provide food for other wildlife, such as fish and seals. An additional benefit about vertical ocean farming methods is that the seaweeds and shellfish require no fresh water, feed or fertiliser, which dramatically reduces the overall environmental impact and keeps costs down.

More on the topic: Ways in Which Vertical Farming Can Benefit Our Environment

7. Change your individual choices

Biodiversity loss comes from our direct action, therefore, making conscious decisions to make sustainable and biodiversity-friendly choices is an important solution. 

There are a number of solutions to biodiversity loss, but do not overlook small choices, such as bringing your own bag to the supermarket and using a metal straw to drink. If each individual makes a small change to their lifestyle, the collective impact of these changes would be monumental. 

The post 7 Solutions to Biodiversity Loss appeared first on Earth.Org.

As the first Asian country to implement a carbon tax, Japan and its policymakers are, in some ways, ahead of the game when it comes to addressing climate change. Yet opinions on Japan’s status as a climate change leader are somewhat conflicted. Some claim they already have a strong presence on the global stage as an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy, whereas others argue against this notion, arguing that their carbon emissions have not significantly reduced since the 1990s. So just how effective is the carbon tax in Japan? Can any reform be made for climate change policies in the future?

—

For centuries, Japan has long held its presence as a regional power in the world, with only the US and China bearing larger economies than it does today.

In 1997, Japan hosted the third formal meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto and helped broker the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol – a treaty aimed to manage and reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases that have consistently been referred to in climate change conferences. 

In his first policy address to parliament since taking office, the (now former) Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga pledged to cut carbon greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. 

Therefore, it’s unsurprising that this developed country is expected to take the lead on tackling climate change. 

Japan’s geographical position in the Pacific makes them especially susceptible to the consequences of climate change. The threat of rising sea levels, intense typhoons, coastal erosion, and summer droughts pose a daunting threat on this East Asia superpower. 

Ecological changes are taking place on a daily basis. In 2015, Japan’s Central Environment Council released a report on the assessment of the impacts of climate change. They found a variety of detrimental impacts occurring, such as the decline in the quality of rice, and severe rainfall creating an environment for disastrous flooding. 

There has even been evidence of delays in the first springtime appearance of insects, and proof of the early blooming of cherry blossoms, Japan’s prominent cultural flowers. The Japan Meteorological Agency believes these changes have been influenced by long-term temperature rises. 

The Japanese government claims that carbon emissions in Japan fell between 2019 and 2022, for the seventh consecutive year. They believe their emissions to be lower than emissions of the period 1990 – 1991. Yet, Japan remains to be the world’s third largest climate change emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and they have been criticised for only demonstrating a slight decrease in emissions, with some asserting that the figures fell an alarmingly small amount between 2014 – 2015. It’s been proposed that further cuts are needed if they are to be in line with their fair share in their pledge with the Paris Agreement – to cap global temperatures increase to 1.5-2 degree Celsius above industrial levels. 

It would, however, be completely unfair to uphold Japan to this small decrease as following the Fukushima disaster where Japan turned off all their nuclear power plants and moved towards fossil fuels. Thereby unsurprisingly, emissions rose between 2009 – 2013. 

Does Japan Have a Carbon Tax?

Japan was the first Asian country to implement a carbon tax. Science Direct recently published a study assessing their carbon tax, defining its limitation, and offered policy reform suggestions. 

Their carbon tax was introduced in October 2012, as part of overall tax reform policies. The aim from this tax was to reduce 80% of Japan’s GHG emissions by 2050. The carbon tax is revenue neutral. Revenue generated is directed to supplement renewable energy projects and to enhance energy-saving measures.  Japan has made steady progress in reducing their carbon emissions, and has other policies and measures in place to address carbon emissions. They have their emissions trading system (ETS), and subsidiary programmes; these are known as the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), J-Credit, non-fossil fuel energy certificates. and voluntary credits. 

Set up in 2013, the JCM is a system that quantifies participant’s efforts and cooperates with developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This joint mechanism has 17 countries participating. 

J-Credit was also implemented in 2013, and is a market participant trading system. The J-Credit Scheme is designed to certify the amount of greenhouse gas emissions reduced and removed by sinks within Japan.

They also had an auction system set up in 2018, where you can sell non-fossil fuel energy certificates that the government verifies as generating renewable resources. 

You might also like: What Countries Have A Carbon Tax?

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Is the Japan Carbon Tax Adequate? 

There have been limitations identified in Japan’s climate policies. They have not addressed the urgent climate crisis and made any substantial changes to domestic carbon reductions. 

The carbon tax itself has been criticised as being too low, citing ineffective carbon rates in industrial and electrical sectors. Japan has one of the lowest carbon tax rates amongst OECD and G20 countries. There were supposed to be annual increases in the tax rate, however these increases have stalled since 2016. 

The UNFCCC believes that Japan needs to make a 76% reduction in carbon emissions, whereas Japan has only pledged to reduce 26% by 2030. Their pledge does not fall within the calculated reductions scientists believe Japan needs to adopt. 

The tax applies to the fossil fuels sectors, such as petroleum, oil products, natural gas, and coal. However, the Japanese government also extends several exemptions and refund measures on carbon tax rates for fossil fuels products used in particular energy-intensive industries. 

Exemptions and refund measures are extended to fossil fuels for rates added by the carbon tax. A lot of support measures are given to energy-intensive industries, with even additional relaxing of tax obligations for some firms. 

The Liberal Democratic Party – Komeito Coalition government has expressed that their carbon policies need reform, with discussions currently in the process. 

The Impact of the Fukushima Disaster

It would be unfair not to acknowledge the hit taken by Japan following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the most severe nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986. In 2011 when the disaster occurred, Japan made the decision to transition away from nuclear power. By 2013, Japan had shuttered all its nuclear plants and they moved towards a large expansion of gas and oil. 

Gas-based electricity became the largest contributor to fill the energy gap that was created when power plants were closed. 

Since Fukushima, coal power has risen, and accounted for 34% of Japan’s electricity production in 2017, a huge increase from their 27% in 2010. 

Japan is gradually opening nuclear power back up, however this topic remains contested amongst the Japanese populus. 

They need to phase out coal plants by 2030, if they are to align with their shared Paris agreement goals. 

Advancements in Renewable Energy

Being among the most technically-advanced and innovative countries in the world, Japan has vast potential for renewable energy adoption.

Japan has been expanding renewable power in recent years. By 2030, Japan expects to meet targets for 22%-24% share of renewable energy use by claiming they intend to bring in more electricity from solar, hydro, biomass, and wind. These predictions would be a significant increase from their 18% in 2017. 

Despite these predictions, a paradox still exists within their ability to advance in renewable energy. 

Although Japanese investors, (such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation of Japan) support renewable energy projects overseas, investments in the country’s green energy projects are stagnating.

Policy Reform Recommendation

There have been talks of the setting up of a carbon credit market, with a demonstration set to launch in 2022-2023. Their intention is to combine the market with already existing carbon trade systems. 

Japan needs to be more proactive, particularly when countries such as Germany and the US have implemented carbon policy reform. 

This is significant, as Japan, Germany, and the US have similar economies. Therefore, it may be helpful to explore whether the changes made in Germany and the US can be applied to Japan. 

German and US markets are important export destinations for Japanese exports. EU and US laws have influence in the Japanese legal system, and all three of their economies have similar characteristics. 

Japan’s and Germany’s economies are rather similar in that they have the same Gross Domestic Product (GDP) performance, similar-sized territories, limited resources, and rely heavily on energy exports. 

Japan and the US also have strong bilateral economic ties, as well as close partnership in areas of science and technology. They work closely together in international climate change efforts, and they were both signatories to the Paris Agreement and Kyoto protocol. Both countries have even faced strong domestic political resistance to improvements in climate pricing and climate policies. 

Analysing and studying both Germany and the US’ recently adopted carbon reforms can provide predictions and insights into potential policy measures that could be compatible with Japan’s economic system. 

By taking into consideration the reforms made in both Western countries, the following seven points could be explored in discussions on reforming carbon tax policy:

1. Focus on revenue generation opportunities

These revenue reforms could be considered in conjunction with discussions on subsidy support reform and carbon tax revenue treatment. 

2. Increase the carbon tax price 

The current tax has often been criticised as being too low. Therefore a steady increase should be introduced in order to ensure firms can adjust their business strategies to a future low-carbon economy. 

3. Revisit current exemptions in carbon intensive sectors 

Reducing fossil fuel subsidy support every year with an increase in subsidy support for green energy industries could be a good way to encourage the transition to cleaner energy. 

Consider expanding the scope of carbon tax or existing regional emissions trading systems to ensure that carbon intensive sectors are not exempted. 

4. Provide compensation to low-income households 

Easing the financial burden on low-income households would be a great way to generate public support for carbon tax increases. Providing compensation in the form of lump sum transfers, tax rebates, tax deductions, and even further financial support for families who live in colder regions. 

5. Revise the possibility of Border Adjustment Taxes

Both Germany and the US have made reforms addressing the implementation of Carbon Adjustment Border Taxes to address concerns of international competitiveness and carbon leakage. 

6. Keep a global presence in international carbon pricing committees

Keeping up-to-date in international carbon pricing discussions and policies could harmonise domestic and international pricing standards, carbon content calculations and carbon treatment in international trade. 

7. Further research in science and technology 

Further research can be invested in science and technology. More renewable energy uses and resources need to be discovered if we are to transition to a zero-coal-dependency future. 

Additionally, research areas of technology that can monitor and prevent data falsifications for carbon tax pricing calculations will be useful also.

Featured image by: Photoeverywhere/Free Images Live

You might also like: How India’s Carbon Tax Implementation Could Set a Precedent for G20 Countries

The post Assessing Japan’s Carbon Tax appeared first on Earth.Org.

Emissions from food waste are at least three times the emissions generated from the aviation industry on a global scale. One quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions are produced by food waste rotting in landfills, taking the form of methane gas. Not only do these emissions contribute to global warming, but they can also have an adverse effect on us as consumers. Here are five areas that climate change from food waste can affect us. 

__

How Does Food Waste Affect Climate Change

Food is wasted for a number of different reasons. Studies have found that a third of the world’s food ends up in the rubbish before it even reaches the tables of consumers. A staggering 1.3 billion tons of fruit, meat, dairy, seafood, grains and vegetables gets discarded annually. 

Food waste occurs throughout the whole production process. This waste usually takes place at all four levels of the supply chain: producer, distributor, seller and consumer. Discarded food takes up a large percentage of our landfills – more than plastic, paper, wood and glass. 

Three types of food have been identified as being discarded: good food that has gone bad, food we think that has gone bad but it has not, and food we know is consumable but we simply don’t want it anymore. In fact, only a small portion of the food discarded is actually inedible. 

A large portion of the food wasted takes the form of rejected food from retailers, food and produce being discarded as they do not meet the aesthetics requirements to be sold in their stores. The other portion of food thrown out is food that we have discarded simply because we do not want it. Food can (and should be) donated to someone who needs it, however resources, money and transport to do so comes with logistical restrictions, and can often outweigh the perceived benefits of donating the food. 

At the same time, the number of people affected by hunger is slowly rising. Malnutrition affects 10.5% of humanity, whilst 26% are obese. A United Nations (UN) report on food security found that nearly 690 million people are hungry. That’s 8.9% of the world’s population – up to 10 million people in one year, and nearly 60 million in five years. 

The world produces more than enough food to feed everybody, so why is there such a large number of people suffering from hunger? In a world where food poverty can be eliminated, we need to do a better job at ensuring the unwanted, edible food reaches those who need it the most. 

The way we perceive food is problematic. We may not think twice about pouring milk down the sink, or throwing away leftovers that we had forgotten. In some areas of the world, it is even considered polite to leave a small amount of food on the plate to show that the host has not scrimped on potions. 

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) 2011 report established that food waste alone accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the warming of the Earth’s surface. 

When we discard food, we need to consider three problem areas that are affected from wasting food: resources expenditures, environmental externalities and social costs. All three of these areas can have an adverse effect on the climate. 

Emissions from food waste are at least three times the emissions generated from the aviation industry on a global scale. One quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions are produced by food waste, taking the form of methane gas. Methane gas, a gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide itself, is released when the food waste is left in the landfills to rot. 

We have a window limit of 1.5°C for climate change, meaning we need to be eliminating our greenhouse gas emissions as soon as we possibly can. Food waste accounts for 6% of the total greenhouse gas emissions released globally, and it could be higher if we factor in the cost of losses on the farm during the production and harvesting stage. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on food security found there to be a multiple number of reasons and factors that affect food waste. It identified low income countries as contributing 40% of food waste, and high income countries to be contributing 53% of food waste. 

The reasons for food waste in countries is based on their level of development. The high income countries, such as the US, Europe, China, Japan and Australia, appear to have the most food waste occurring during the distribution part of the production process. This is when the food reaches the consumer’s refrigerators, or when they are transported and reach the retailers. 

In contrast, less-developed countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean all appear to have their food loss occur at almost all areas of the food production chain, as they generally have poorer infrastructures, archaic technologies and fewer production resources. Food waste may typically occur in the earlier stages of the production, where the production process may face infrastructural challenges such as lack of refrigeration, improper storage facilities, technical constraints in harvesting techniques etc.

You might also like: 25 Facts About Food Waste

Professor Priyadarshi Shukla, co-chair of IPCC Work Group III, believes that further problems to food security in the future will rise, caused by the results from climate change — such as lower yields (especially in the tropics), higher prices, a loss of nutritional value and supply chain disruptions. These can be correlated with the issues that arise from food waste. 

1. Environmental Cost

It’s no surprise that climate change caused by food waste carries a huge environmental cost. When we waste food, we are also wasting all the resources that were used to produce the food, the three main ones being energy, fuel and water.

A large amount of freshwater is wasted on the agricultural process and feeding animals. This wasted water comes at a time where the world is suffering from a freshwater shortage, with countries predicted to become uninhabitable in the foreseeable future. 

Additionally, food waste emits one of the leading gasses that is the culprit of climate change: methane. 

2. Lower Yields

There is a clear impact of climate change in our agricultural system. Several factors influence the yield of a crop – the mass of harvest crops produced in a specific area. These factors can be grouped into three basic categories: technological (managerial decisions, agricultural practices etc.), biological (diseases, weeds, pests, insects etc.) and environmental (soil fertility, climatic conditions, water quality etc.).

Therefore, climate change from food waste is also having an impact on the volume and quality of the food that is being produced. 

Adverse weather can have a severe impact on the production of food. For example, droughts followed by intense rain can increase the likelihood for flooding, which can then create conditions that favour fungal infestations of roots, leaves and tuber crops. Other factors, such as the reduction of bees’ density due to global climate change, can lead to the local extinction of several plant species. 

In addition to the unpredictable intensity of weather conditions, there is pressure to increase crop production in many countries, to keep up with consumer demands. This has resulted in the expansion of land area for agriculture, erosion of land to create non-arable terrains, deforestation and the intensification of cropland management practices through agricultural methods such as irrigation, use of large quantities of inorganic fertilisers and synthetic chemicals used for weed and pest control. These practices can have an adverse effect on water quality, soil fertility and even accelerate the degradation of soil properties and water quality. 

In today’s era of climate change, trying to keep a balance between producing enough food to match population growth and preserving the environment is challenging.  

3. Higher Prices

With the wastage of food comes the loss of consumer surplus, particularly in situations where retailers have rejected perfectly edible food, as it does not meet their strict aesthetic requirements and policies. 

As this consumer surplus is loss, retailers may start to increase the price of food to replace this loss of surplus. This can hit families financially, particularly those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The increase in pricing may create issues of food poverty and even cause individuals to experience nutritional deficiencies, as they may not be able to afford the best foods to nourish themselves. 

4. Loss of Nutritional Value

Agricultural research has found that our most important foods have been getting less nutritious for some time. Studies on vegetables and fruits have shown that minerals, protein and vitamins have measurably dropped in the past 70 years. It has been assumed that the reason for this is that we have been breeding and choosing crops based on their capacity to produce higher-yields, rather than nutritional value. Higher-yielding crops such as wheat, tomatoes and broccoli have been chosen to be grown in bulk, despite being less nutrient-packed than other foods. 

Aside from climate change caused by food waste, other forms of pollution can also have a direct impact on the nutritional value of the crops we yield. The atmosphere plays a large role in the growth process of food, and can affect the nutritional value each crop holds. The more greenhouse gasses we emit, the more indirect nutritional changes we influence on the food we eat. 

The more pollution there is in the air, the more sugars are made in plants. This influence on the growth of crops, also known as the “junk-food affect”, has been found to be occurring in fields and forests all over the world. 

“Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising,” stated Irakl Loladze, a biologist at Arizona State University who made the discovery. “We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history – [an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”

You might also like: The Importance of Diversity Within the Global Food System

5. Supply Chain Disruptions

Although food waste itself can be caused by supply chain disruptions, the supply chain disruptions can also be caused by food waste. As food waste is such a large global issue, this can cause uncertainty in the food supply chain. This uncertainty stems from consumers and suppliers quickly switching their consuming habits, to meet the needs of societal fads. 

A good example to illustrate this point is the effects COVID-19 has had on the supply chain. As governments have been imposing restrictions and “social distancing” measures, consumers have to quickly switch from dining out, to cooking at home. This quick switch can either cause food surpluses or shortages along the food chain, as the changes were done so abruptly, and the other parts of the food production chain could not meet these demands in time. 

Additionally, the changes in types of food can have an effect as well. It was found that when COVID-19 measures were implemented, there was a rise in “comfort foods” such as frozen pizzas, liquor and macaroni and cheese, being consumed. This dramatic shift in food demand caused volatility to the amount of foods that needed to be produced to meet demands and the food prices. Large amounts of food that ended up being wasted were milk, eggs, onions, beans, potatoes etc. 

Therefore, introducing changes needs to be done carefully and slowly, so other parts of the supply chain can keep up. 

What’s Next?

Reducing food waste is an initiative that does not cost a lot to implement, and the financial and environmental benefits can be monumental. Approximately 6%-8% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced if we stop wasting food. It has been predicted that if food waste is halved in 30 years, we can avoid emitting at least 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide. This would be equivalent to 2,570 coal-fired power plants being taken offline. 

Policies can be implemented to help alleviate food waste, however it must be done carefully, and in a manner that does not harm the livelihood of the masses. In Germany, when food waste measures were implemented, 30 billion euros was saved, however 600,000 jobs were lost. 

We have to be prepared for externalities to arise if any policies were implemented. For example, if a tax were to be implemented for food waste, we need to be prepared that this could discourage people from buying food. By discouraging people from buying good, producers will have to produce less food, but this could cause the prices of the food to increase. 

Despite the potential consequences however, other policies have been largely successful in reducing food waste. In Vermont, a universal recycling law was implemented in 2012, and big waste generators were barred from throwing away uneaten food. The state food banks saw donations triple after this law was implemented. 

“They don’t attribute all of that to the universal recycling program, but some of it definitely is,” said Josh Kelly, materials management section chief for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.

The post 5 Areas Climate Change from Food Waste Affects Us appeared first on Earth.Org.

At the forefront of our technological advances are researchers that dedicate their career to investigating and studying the possibility of new innovations. Without research, our world would not experience progress and problems posed against humanity would go unanswered. As plastic pollution remains one of the world’s biggest environmental problems, targeted scientific research is key to finding solutions to the pervasive issue. Here are 7 key research areas that will help us progress further in solving the plastic crisis. 

__

Aside from technological advancements and inventions, targeted area research will bring imperative benefits in tackling the plastic crisis. Without it, scientists would not have uncovered the plastic-eating enzyme that will play an important role in drafting further future solutions, and we would not have discovered that our current NASA technology used to predict extreme weather can also be used to monitor and track microplastics in our oceans. 

Needless to say, research is fundamental to pioneering groundbreaking technology, as well as finding solutions to political issues and governance within our communities. The journal One Earth published an article asking leading researchers in the industry what they believe the best science-based research to the solution to the plastic crisis should be. This has been summed up in the following:

• Enforcing Political Change 

Tamara Golloway from the University of Exeter believes that unsustainable use of plastic is widely occurring around the world. To alleviate the plastic crisis, she asserts that we need research on how we tackle the plastic crisis on a political level.  This includes adopting “circular-economy approaches to focus on creating closed-loop resource flows that can keep products in use longer, thereby reducing waste and carbon budgets, and conserving natural resources.” Galloway implies that the current use and shelf-life of plastic is unsustainable, and we need to bring together governments and scientific researchers to find ways in which plastic can be used in a more sustainable way. 

Britta Denise Hardesty from Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation also believes that research should be conducted into political change in the form of a plastic tax that incorporates the true social cost of plastic. 

“When we put a price on plastic, when we value the many polymers that compose the plastics in society today, and when we incorporate the true costs into what we pay for these materials – from pellet form to finished product and from manufacturing to recovery – we will not only wasteless but also design better and smarter,” said Hardesty. 

• Plastic Governance 

Marcus Haward of University of Tasmania believes that more research should be carried out on the governance of plastic, focusing specifically on its production and use, as current regulations and government responses have failed to properly address plastic waste. 

“Plastic pollution is a case of regulatory, market, and community failure, and so traditional governance responses such as looking to market instruments to address regulatory failure or community actions to address market failures are insufficient,” stated Haward. 

• Plastic Pollution on Human and Ecosystem Health 

Sherri A Mason of Penn State Behrend believes that to ignite collective action, more research is needed studying the effects of plastic pollution on human health and what it is directly doing to our bodies. 

“The research questions at the forefront of plastic pollution research and those that are most likely to lead to real solutions are those that are looking at the impact of plastic pollution, specifically micro-and nanoplastics, on human health,” Mason said. “When people know it is affecting them and/or their children and other loved ones, they will demand action and our representatives will be hard pressed to rationalise anything but.”

Alice Horton of National Oceanography Centre agrees, adding that research should also look into its effects on ecosystems, food chains and human health. “Understanding the distribution and forms of plastics in the environment will help us to better understand ecosystem exposure and to predict accumulation and hazard,” Horton said. “Further investigating the harm that different types of plastics can cause will ultimately help us to target those that are the biggest threats, i.e., the ‘‘problem plastics,’’ and thus implement strategies to reduce the production of these products and their effect on the environment.”

You might also like: Solution for Plastic Pollution: 6 Policies and Innovations Tackling Plastics

• Plastic Consumption

Joshua O Babayemi of Anchor University in Lagos believes research should be carried out on the consumption of plastic and ways in which they can be modified to make them recyclable and sustainable for the economy. Babayemi notes that there is a huge issue of unrecyclable plastic bags dominating their economies in Africa. “Despite the global outcry against plastic littering and pollution, these ‘‘unrecyclable’’ plastics currently litter almost every street and make up a major component of wastes in all dumpsites,” Babayami stated. “It is not uncommon to see plastic bags caught on plants.”

Babayemi added: “This raises several research questions. Why are these categories of plastic wastes not usually sought after by recyclers in African countries? Can deposit return schemes be a way out? Is the continent ripe for a complete ban of single-use plastics? Can the composition of plastic bags be modified to be more suitable for recycling? Finding the answers will be a critical step in addressing plastic pollution in Africa.”

• Plastic Sources, Sinks and Transport Pathways 

Stefan Krause of the University of Birmingham believes we need further research into the sources, sinks and transport pathways of plastic. This would mean investigating how plastic is altered throughout its journey into the economy, and how these alterations are affecting aquatic life, human health and ecosystems. 

“There are still severe knowledge gaps in understanding the principles that govern the spatial and temporal dynamics of plastic transport and accumulation in river corridors,” stated Krause. “This includes how microplastic particles are altered during transport – how they degrade in freshwater environments, how they enter and propagate through food webs, and ultimately how they affect human and environmental health.”

• Bioplastic and Plastic Alternatives 

Joleah Lamb of the University of California Irvine argues we need to put our attention towards technological and innovative advancements of bioplastics. There’s currently a “social hesitation” in the use of plastic alternative materials, which warrants further research in this key area. Lamb stresses that social understanding is imperative. 

When discussing replacing plastic with bioplastic, she asserts that “transforming a waste stream into the main component of a new product might not be well received by consumers, resulting in low uptake despite the positive environmental impact.” 

“For example, when several leading car companies started using plant-based wiring, concerned consumers filed class-action lawsuits, and the products were withdrawn,” she added. 

• Tracking and Monitoring Plastic

Ivan A Hinojosa of Universidad Catolica de la Santısima Concepcion highlights the need to examine approaches in tracking plastics through the use of chemical markers that enable labelling and identification. He further believes that large companies need to be held responsible for their negligence. “The big producers of plastic pollution must be held responsible,” Hinojosa said. “The scientific community could potentially facilitate producer accountability by investigating approaches to tracking plastics through chemical markers that enable labelling and identification.” 

What’s Next? 

It is clear that targeted key research is just as imperative as the technology created by our inventors and engineers. To support the furtherance of such research discussed above, governments need to prioritise environmental issues in their agenda. For instance, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report providing countries with a Green Budgeting Framework that can help governments achieve their environmental and climate goals. 

In redirecting their budget and ensuring that they are investing enough money to help fund the expansion and future of these types of research, we might have a change in tackling global pervasive problems including plastic pollution. 

The post 7 Key Research Areas That Could Help Solve the Plastic Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

The notion of a carbon tax is a hot topic among many climate change activists, think tanks and policymakers. With the simple aim of encouraging corporations to invest in sustainable energy sources, it is difficult for proponents of carbon pricing to not be drawn to its implementation. However, this debate is so complex that even supporters of such a policy are divided on the way it should be enacted. Despite its success in some countries, its failure in others has indicated that this subject should be carefully and thoroughly debated, with legitimate concerns and criticisms addressed. These are just some of the pros and cons of a carbon tax. 

__

As global temperatures continue to rise and ice caps continue to diminish, one thing is starting to become visibly clear: COP26 is not working in the way we had hoped, so we need to seek alternative means to monitor and reduce our carbon emissions. 

In simple terms, a carbon tax imposes a price on the carbon emitted by countries and corporations. It puts the responsibility of the social cost of carbon pollution onto the individuals and firms that are emitting it. Enshrined in the “Polluter Pays Principle” established in the Rio 1992 Summit, a carbon tax’s aim is to reduce our carbon footprint, whilst also encouraging investment in environmentally friendly alternatives. 

The fundamental logic of such a policy is that if you want less of something, you make it more expensive. An effective carbon tax would need to be high enough to encourage corporate polluters to change to sustainable options, whilst also being able to ensure they can maintain their future profitability. The tax itself should reflect the actual cost that it has on society. Recent research published by the think tank Resources for the Future established that even a modest price would significantly reduce carbon emissions, and a higher price would be able to cut them faster and further. 

Carbon tax comes with its pros and cons; The debate for a carbon tax is a unique topic of interest as it unites people on the political left and right, yet the requirement for such a policy is divided. Proponents of the policy believe it to be the only effective way to hold corporations liable for their negligence, and encourage them to seek alternative low-carbon options. On the other hand, opponents of carbon pricing may not even believe that climate change exists, or might simply believe it to be a bad strategy that is dangerous to enact.  

They also claim that this policy would be ineffective, as consumers may still be willing to pay the extra cost for the product that has been produced, regardless of the price increase. Demand may also be unchanged, as there are no substitutes for carbon-based commodities like electricity and petrol. 

Carbon Tax Pros and Cons

1. Implementing the Policy

If a country were to implement a carbon tax, policymakers would need to take on the role of setting, monitoring, and enforcing the caps on greenhouse gas emissions, and to ensure they are thoroughly regulating the energy sector. 

There are many arguments surrounding the implementation of such a policy, and whether the administration work and costs will be outweighed by the benefits needed to be taken into consideration. 

Pros: The proponents claim this would be easy to administrate, as there are already special taxes in place in the energy sector that can be used as the foundation to the new carbon tax policy. If the policy were to be enacted, a large percentage of a country’s carbon emissions will be monitored and sanctioned. For example, a carbon tax could cover 98% of the US’ carbon dioxide emissions. 

Cons: The opponents to the policy believe that it is impossible to guarantee that such a policy could be easy to enact, making it an unattractive option. Gaining the trust of the electorate is imperative if such a policy were to be enacted, but the political reality is that a tax will always be viewed with caution by the masses. 

Other opponents believe that a carbon tax will have a “distortionary” effect on the free market, and could encourage the reduction of gross domestic product growth in a country. They also believe that the implementation of such a policy can cause a “leakage” effect i.e. businesses will relocate their productions and businesses overseas in countries where a carbon tax is not enforced. This however could potentially be solved by a carbon border tax, which is a tax on emissions attributed to imported goods that have not been carbon-taxed at source – a financial mechanism the EU hopes to implement in the next few years. 

2. Setting the Price 

Once the foundation of the policy has been drafted by legislation and interest groups, they will then need to agree on how to accurately value and price the carbon, to ensure transparency and fairness. 

Some countries, such as the US, already have a “social cost” of carbon equation so determining the current social cost in certain countries may not be difficult. However, problems start to arise when agreeing upon the correct model to use for such a policy. Not only does the current value need to be taken into consideration, but the future metric ton value also needs to be determined. Therefore, the model that sets the price could either be based upon people anticipating a near-term crisis or not. People may become divided on how to draw up this model. 

Pros: Those in favour of a carbon tax policy may not see this issue as particularly difficult, and policymakers should be able to find common ground and agree to a price when taking into consideration the social cost of carbon and its implementation. 

The carbon tax could also be used to lower other taxes to ensure inflation and aggregate real income be left untouched. This could address the risk of what opponents have labelled as “greenflation”, where political damage may incur from a terrible tax policy in the form of rising prices to materials, such as metal and copper, that are essential to renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power. 

Some also fear the possibility that it may harm international trade, however this argument is subjective to different countries, as it depends on who they are currently trading with. In the US, more than 80% of their trade is with countries who already have a carbon price in place, therefore this argument may not be particularly effective in the US. 

There are also fears that some poor developing countries may suffer as a result of the policy, as some may not be able to afford the extra cost increases. However, carbon border adjustment tariffs can be put in place for countries that do or do not already have a carbon tax. This would depend on each individual case, but can alleviate the burden on developing countries, and can ensure countries that already have a carbon tax are not incurring further costs. 

Cons: Some argue that there should be no price set at all, and that doing so will encourage the “leakage” issue that has been referred to above. These opponents may argue that such an economy-wide burden will create little change to the overall global trajectory of emissions as larger countries with no carbon tax regulations, such as China and India, may just grow larger and pollute more. This will then encourage industrial corporate polluters to relocate their operations to those countries, also known as “pollution havens”, therefore deeming the carbon tax counter-productive. Additionally, the high price could also encourage tax evasion and some firms may even try to hide their carbon emissions. 

The price increase from the carbon tax would not be the only cost, some believe. There would be additional administration costs in measuring the pollution and collecting the tax itself. Therefore, this would reduce the efficiency and productivity of the tax. 

3. Distributing the Revenue  

Finally, once the policy has been drafted and the price has been set, a decision needs to be made on the best method to distribute the revenue that has been collected. 

Many have argued against a carbon tax policy on the basis that it is “regressive” i.e. it hits lower-income families the hardest. Additionally, the burden may not be evenly regionally distributed, as some areas of a country may be more energy intensive than other parts of the country. For example, in the US, the tax burden would be unevenly distributed as it would affect workers more in states with more energy intensive industries, such as Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia. 

They believe that rather than a carbon tax, it would be beneficial to give benefits to firms producing sustainable commodities rather than impose a sanction on the ones that are not. These benefits can take the form of tax breaks or regulations on pricing to ensure that they are kept affordable. 

This third issue is where the proponents can become divided. As there is no clear natural solution, some believe that the revenue should be used to address other societal issues that are not just limited to the environment, whilst others believe it should be invested into low-carbon technology research and development, and it’s also been argued that it should be returned to the electorate in the form of a tax rebate. 

You might also like: Carbon Tax: A Shared Global Responsibility For Carbon Emissions

4. Address Societal Problems

Many progressives believe that the revenue collected should be used to address other societal problems that are not just limited to environmental issues. These can go as far as covering health inequality and be used towards other governmental spending priorities. 

However, some may argue this to be unfair as it does not rectify the “regressive” issue, and other supporters of the carbon tax believe that the money should be restricted to climate change alleviation only. 

5. Invest in Low-Carbon Technologies 

Many other proponents believe that the generated revenue should be invested back into low-carbon technological research and development. Not only will this provide additional support to the country’s climate change budget, but will also encourage companies to convert their operations to low-carbon technologies and influence them to invest into more environmentally friendly options. 

Although grounds for this argument are sound, it still does not tackle the issue of lower-income socioeconomic families being hit the hardest. 

6. Return to the Electorate 

Realistically speaking, imposing a carbon tax has a high possibility of hitting families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds harder. The Congressional Budget Office in the US noted that there will be an increase in costs for households. They released a report stating that “ a carbon tax policy that set a price of USD$28 per metric ton on CO2 emissions would increase costs for households by amounts that would equal about 2.5% of after-tax income for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of the income distribution but less than 1 % of after-tax income for the average household in the highest quintiles.”

A reasonable solution to rectify the regression issue would be to return the revenue to the poorer, hard-hit families in the form of a Wealth Distribution Scheme. Although this may appear like an excellent solution to the problem, this may also be difficult to enact, as this method of redistribution may not be supported by conservatives.

Many conservative supporters of the policy may only support the implementation of a carbon tax if it were to be “revenue neutral” i.e. they believe that a change in tax law should not result in a change in the revenue coming into the government’s office. This is premised on the idea that a carbon tax will only make sense if it “offsets the tax burden on corporations and is part of a broader set of reforms that simplify the tax code”. 

What Countries Have a Carbon Tax?

A carbon tax is not a new concept to adopt. As the World Bank reported, 40 countries and 20 municipalities use carbon taxes, or other forms of carbon emissions trading. This covers approximately 13% of greenhouse gas emissions produced globally. 

They also reported in 2018 that 88 countries intend to use a carbon tax to meet their Paris Agreement goals in the future. This represents 56% of global emissions. In addition, there are 51 regional and local initiatives. The COP26 UN climate summit adopted the Glasgow Climate Pact, which laid down rules for a global carbon market for the first time, which has the potential of unlocking trillions of dollars worth of investments into clean energy, green technologies and financing resilience and adaptation measures in the developing world.

Successful Cases

The United Kingdom – In 2013, following a carbon tax of approximately USD$25 per ton, the use of coal sharply decreased. It was found that UK greenhouse gas emissions were at their lowest level since 1890.
Canada – In 2008, British Columbia introduced a charge on carbon. In the first four years of the scheme, it was found that fossil fuels had decreased by more than 17%.
Sweden – Since the mid-1990s, emission levels in Sweden have fallen by 20%, whilst still able to maintain a period of strong economic growth. This was due to a carbon tax of EUR€33 per ton being introduced in 1991, which over time increased to EUR€120 per ton, with discounted rates being offered to corporations in the manufacturing, agriculture and forestry sectors. 

Cases of Failure 

Australia – Due to a lack of political understanding and poor communication on who would benefit from it, Australia’s carbon tax that was introduced in 2012 was quickly abolished in 2014. Although the carbon tax they implemented met equity and efficiency goals, it did not succeed, as its political communication failed. What is interesting in this case is that carbon emissions did significantly decrease when the tax was in place, and they significantly increased after the tax was abolished. This clearly demonstrates that politics and the way in which the purpose of the tax is communicated to the electorate are important factors to consider when deciding to draft a carbon tax policy. 

You might also like: Benefits of A Carbon Tax: A Shared Global Responsibility For Carbon Emissions

The post Carbon Tax Pros and Cons: Is Carbon Pricing the Right Policy to Implement? appeared first on Earth.Org.

US military pollution is a significant contributor to climate change. If it were a nation state, it would be the 47th largest emitter in the world. Their negligence, nuclear testing and disregard for human life has come at a huge environmental cost, and reform needs to be taken into consideration to protect our planet. 

__

In October 2021, the US military released a report analysing the Department of Defense’s climate risk. The Pentagon thoughtfully acknowledged that rising temperatures are “reshaping” the world with “more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather conditions caused by climate change”, but they failed to analyse the Defense Department’s own contributions to climate change. 

This came as a surprise, as ample evidence has been published before the report detailing how dangerous the US military’s climate change contributions are. In 2019, a report released by Durham and Lancaster University found the US military to be “one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries”. It established that if the US military were a nation state, it would be the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world. These figures were from taking into account the emissions from fuel usage alone.

This report did not come as a shock. The US military is a vast infrastructure and relies upon an extensive global network of trucks, cargo planes and container ships to supply its operations. These operations can range from anything – to humanitarian aid, to bombs and hydrocarbon fuels. 

Gathering data about the US Armed Forces can be difficult. With their decision to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the US is exempt from reporting their military emissions. However, gathering statistics from their negligent actions can be obtained through local news organisations, NGOs, lobbyists and Freedom of Information requests. 

US Military Air Pollution

The US military is consistently contributing to enlarging the carbon footprint suffered by our planet. 

In Minden, LA, the military were found to be burning explosives and munition waste several times a day with no environmental emission control measures being taken. Residents complained so the military moved the burning of these toxic substances to Colfax, LA. 

In 2017, the US Air Force bought US$4.9billion worth of fuels, the Navy bought $2.8billion, the Army $947million and the Marines $36million. The US military was also found to have purchased 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilo-tonnes of carbon dioxide. 

These two examples are not exceptions. The Cost of Wars Project found that US military pollution had accounted for 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which amount to 257 million passenger cars annually. They compared this astonishing output as higher than the emissions from whole countries like Sweden, Morocco, and Switzerland.  

The report released by Durham and Lancaster University was an independent public assessment of the US military’s greenhouse gas emissions and calculated US military pollution through critical analysis of its logistical supply chains around the world. This study establishes the US military as one of the world’s largest institutional consumers of hydrocarbons. 

Report co-author Dr Patrick Bigger, of Lancaster University Environment Centre, said: “The US military has long understood it is not immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising it as a threat multiplier that can exacerbate other threats – nor has it ignored its own contribution to the problem.”

“Yet its climate policy is fundamentally contradictory – confronting the effects of climate change while remaining the largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world, a situation it is locked into for years to come because of its dependence on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations around the globe,“ Bigger added. 

Co-author Dr Benjamin Neimark, Associate Director of the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster, said: “This research provides ample evidence to support recent calls by activist networks to include the US military in Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and other international climate treaties.”

“Our research demonstrates that to account for the US military as a major climate actor, you must understand the logistical supply chain that makes its acquisition and consumption of hydrocarbon-based fuels possible,” added co-author Dr Oliver Belcher, of Durham University’s Department of Geography. 

Belcher continued: “How do we account for the most far-reaching, sophisticated supply chains, and the largest climate polluter in history? While incremental changes can amount to radical effects in the long-run, there is no shortage of evidence that the climate is at a tipping point and more is needed.”

US Military Land Pollution

Two of the most harrowing cases of US military pollution activity were the nuclear weapons tests they performed in the Marshall Islands and the Navajo Indian reservation. 

From 1946 to 1958, the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons in what is now known as the Republic of the Marshall Islands. These weapons tests have been equated to being 1,000 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb, and the fallout from the tests had the largest impact on four northern atolls: Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap, and Utrok, each of which were evacuated due to radiation emitted from these tests. Radiation poisoning, birth defects, leukaemia, thyroid and other cancers are just a few of the detrimental life-threatening consequences experienced by the residents of those islands more than 75 years later. 

Between 1944 and 1977, Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state released radioactive toxic gases and fluids, affecting the fish that provide food and economic subsistence to the residences. In addition to this, Uranium mining and aboveground nuclear-weapons tests had been occurring for approximately 50 years on and around these reservations. These actions have caused dramatic increases in cancer rates among indigenous people that reside in this region.

US military land pollution does not only take the form of nuclear testing, but it can also take the form of military real estate. Reports have indicated both domestic and foreign US military bases to rank as among some of the most polluted in the world. This is due to the astonishing amount of toxic chemicals, such as perchlorate and other components to jet fuel, that are found to contaminate drinking water, aquifers and the soil surrounding the bases. 

Additionally, a lot of the land is wasted by the US military. Abandoned military sites are very common, with reports finding that almost 900 of the 1,200 Superfund sites in the US alone are abandoned military sites. These military sites are also said to be contaminated, with special clean up grants distributed to them from the government. 

“Almost every military site in this country is seriously contaminated,” John D. Dingell, a retired Michigan congressman and war veteran, told Newsweek in 2014. “Lejeune is one of many.”

The US military have claimed they are implementing positive changes into their policies, but these efforts have been so slight that it begs the question of whether they take these issues seriously. They have made efforts to increase renewable electric generators on the military bases in a bid to reduce their carbon footprint, although these efforts have been minimal. Additionally, the US Navy Task Force Climate Change initiative that was attempting to prepare military bases for global shifts in sea levels and warming ocean temperatures was quietly shut down. 

US Military Water Pollution

The damage the US military has inflicted is shocking, and they have shown complete negligence and disregard of human life. 

In 2017, the US Naval Air Station Oceana in Norfolk, VA was found to have spilled 84,000 gallons of jet fuel into a waterway. Similarly, in 2019, statistics arose claiming that the Air Force contractor had been dumping industrial solvent Trichloroethylene (TCE) into the ground surrounding the Tucson International Airport for 29 years. It was found that over 1,350 residents suffered from cancer and other illnesses, due to these negligent actions. Filed claims were brought against the Air Force by many South Tucsonans, who claim to continue to suffer from the damage caused by drinking the polluted water to this day. 

This negligence and disregard of life is not new behaviour from the US military. From 1953-1986, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina was found to have been contaminating the groundwater with harmful chemicals that far exceeded safety standards. As a result of this negligence, a large number of servicemen contracted cancer and other illnesses. 

American Intervention

Aside from their destructive contribution to climate change, US military wars have had a devastating effect on the economies and population of the countries they intervene in. Perhaps one of the most recent cases to their detrimental environmental record is the intervention of Iraq. The Iraqi economy is suffering tremendously as they are now forced to import more than 80% of their food, due to the desertification of 90% of Iraqi territory. Furthermore, US policies are negligent and disregard the safety of their servicemen as well as the Iraqi population. Open-air burn pits used to dispose of waste in the 2003 invasion has caused those exposed to suffer from cancer, and the depleted uranium left over from the Gulf War still causes a big environmental burden. 

The irony is that a great deal of US interventions occur as American corporations wish to protect their access to oil and other fossil fuels. We see this dependence on oil as one of the driving factors of why there is such a heavy US military presence in many parts of the Middle East. 

These interventions not only come with a high cost to life, but to the environment too. The Cost of Wars Project found the total emissions from war-related activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria to be estimated at more than 400 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide alone.

A refugee crisis following a war is inevitable, and this is another dangerous result from American interventions. Surges of migrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and Central America have been attempting to flee to Europe and the US, and unfortunately, the response from both Europe and the US has been to tighten their borders and to increase their military activity. Furthermore, refugees and internally displaced people are “on the frontlines” of the climate emergency, and are the most vulnerable people who are likely to be disproportionately affected, as reported by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHRC). 

What Can Be Done?

As former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated in 2014, “The environment has long been a silent casualty of war and armed conflict. From the contamination of land and the destruction of forest to the plunder of natural resources and the collapse of management systems, the environmental consequences of war are often widespread and devastating.” 

Three possible reforms could be: 

• Reducing the budget. The simplest thing to do would be to reduce the Pentagon’s budget, however this is difficult as Washington lawmakers have announced they will increase the military spending budget in the coming year. Therefore, the international community needs to put pressure on Washington to reduce their military budget. 
• Holding the military accountable. The US military has committed numerous human rights violations, through their negligence, nuclear testing and wars. They need to be held accountable by other powerful countries in the international community for these violations. 
• Redirect funding. Rather than spending their budget on distributing and procuring fuel and wars, they could redirect their budget into other peaceful measures, such as funding a Green New Deal to alleviate climate change. 

The post US Military Pollution: The World’s Biggest Climate Change Enabler? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Marine heatwaves have been predicted to cause a huge loss to jobs, marine life and fish stocks, by a new University of British Columbia (UBC) study published this month. It found that there may be a 6% drop in a country’s catch, and a 77% drop in biomass for species that are fished, during these predicted periods of hot temperatures. These projections were on top of projections for long term impacts on fisheries that were already established before the study was published. 

—

A new UBC study has predicted that further marine heatwaves will have a detrimental effect on marine life, fish stocks and millions of jobs worldwide. It found that globally, on top of projections for long term impacts on fisheries from climate change already established before the study, there may be a 6% drop in a country’s catch, causing millions to lose their jobs, and a negative long term impact on fisheries and marine life. 

The model used to create the projections was based off of a worse-case scenario event of the Earth experiencing extreme high temperatures due to nothing being done to alleviate the heating of the planet. It incorporated extreme ocean temperatures in Exclusive Economic Zones, where the majority of global fish catches occur, and looked at the three areas of: (1) fish stocks; (2) the fishing industry; and (3) their dependent human communities. 

It created predictions of a 6% drop in a country’s catch, with 77% of species that are fished set to decrease in their biomass (population and weight) during these predicted periods of hot temperatures. These projections are not limited to North America, as they have predicted this to happen on a global scale, affecting the fishing industries in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, the Pacific Coast of the Americas and some countries in West Africa. 

“These extreme annual temperatures will be an additional shock to an overloaded system,” said lead author Dr. William Cheung, professor and director of UBC’s Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries (IOF). “We see that in the countries where fisheries are already weakened by long-term changes, like ocean warming and deoxygenation, adding the shock of temperature extremes will exacerbate the impacts to a point that will likely exceed the capacity for these fisheries to adapt. It’s not unlike how COVID-19 stresses the healthcare system by adding an extra burden.”

Extreme temperature events are projected to occur more frequently in the future, says co-author Dr. Thomas Frölicher, professor at the climate and environmental physics division of the University of Bern. “Today’s marine heatwaves and their severe impacts on fisheries are bellwethers of the future as these events are generating environmental conditions that long-term global warming will not create for decades.”

In Pacific Canada, there have been predictions of a decrease in Sockeye salmon catches, with estimates of them decreasing by 26% during high temperature events up until 2050, with an annual loss being predicted at 260 – 520 tonnes of fish. 

Additionally, Peruvian Anchovetas are projected to decline by 34% in extreme high temperatures up until 2050 – that is more than 900,000 tonnes a year. This would therefore cause a loss of more than five million to the potential catch of Peruvian anchovetas, and can cause a 25% drop in annual revenues for the Peruvian anchovetas fishers – a loss of around USD$600million. 

Nearly three million jobs are predicted to be lost in the Indonesian fisheries-related industry up until 2050. 

It also predicted that in Bangladesh, where fisheries-related sectors employ one-third of the county’s workforce, a 2% cut (approximately one million) to the country’s fishery jobs can be predicted to occur during these extreme marine heatwaves. It can be expected that more than six million jobs may be lost by 2050, due to this long-term climate change. 

There is a similar situation in Ecuador. It is predicted that extreme high temperatures can cause an additional 10% (around USD$100million) of the country’s fisheries revenue, on top of the 25% reduction that is expected to occur by the mid-21st century. 

“This study really highlights the need to develop ways to deal with marine temperature extremes, and soon,” Dr Cheung said. “These temperature extremes are often difficult to predict in terms of when and where they occur, particularly in the hot spots with limited capacity to provide robust scientific predictions for their fisheries. We need to consider that unpredictability when we plan for adaptations to long-term climate change.”

“We need to have mechanisms in place to deal with it,” said Dr Cheung. He stressed the importance of active fisheries management. This could include changes such as adjusting catch quotas in areas where fish stocks are low from high temperatures, or even shutting fisheries in some cases, to allow the stocks to rebuild and grow. 

Co-author Dr. Colette Wabnitz, an IOF research associate and lead scientist at the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, agrees that there should be collective management of these fisheries in place, and some decisions should be based on communities’ livelihoods, as well as food and nutrition security. 

“Stakeholders are diverse, and include not only industry, but also indigenous communities, small-scale fisheries and others. They should be involved in discussions about the effects of climate change and marine heatwaves as well as the design and implementation of solutions.”

Marine heatwaves have been a pressing issue for decades. We see them creating a state of inhabitability in the Middle East, and leaving catastrophic long-term effects with the droughts they are causing. 

This year, a UN Climate Change Report warned that extreme weather conditions are happening at an accelerated rate. It found that weather events such as heatwaves and droughts that should be happening every 50 years, will soon be happening every four years. 

It came to this conclusion by using a model that quantifies the likelihood of extreme weather events happening in a wide variety of worse-case scenarios, similar to the model that was used in this UBC study. 

For example, the report found that heavy rain events that should occur once-in-a-decade, are already 6.7% wetter and 1.3 times more likely to occur, than compared with the 50 years leading up to 1900, when human-driven warning began to occur. Additionally, droughts that previously happened once a decade now occur every five or six years.

Researchers from the report also warned that other “tipping point” events occurring is a possibility. They stated that: “Abrupt responses and tipping points of the climate system, such as strongly increased Antarctic ice sheet melt and forest dieback, cannot be ruled out.”

Dr Robert Rohde, lead scientist of Berkeley Earth, said: “What were once-in-50-year heat extremes are now occurring every 10 years… By a rise of 2C, those same extremes will occur every 3.5 years.”

Xuebin Zhang, a climatologist with Environment Canada in Toronto, warned that as climate change progresses further, such extreme weather events will not just become more frequent, but also more severe. He believes that compound events such as heat waves and long-term droughts should be expected to occur simultaneously. 

“We are not going to be hit just by one thing, we are going to be hit by multiple things at the same time,” said Zhang.

What Can Governments Do to Help?

Although it may seem like the climate change crisis is far from being resolved, there are still things individual governments can do to alleviate the hardships caused by these heatwaves. 

In the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been criticised for not doing enough to protect populations from the consequences of droughts. 

FEMA has been found to devote much fewer resources to natural disasters caused by heatwaves, than compared to the resources it dedicates for disasters like floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. 

Recommendations come in the form of the following, and these could be applied to governments globally:

• Cooling centres should be provided – these can be areas that people can go to when their homes are too hot. These can come in the form of convention centres, school auditoriums, sports arenas, cafeterias, houses of worship, recreation centres, and any other large covered spaces. 
• Urban heat island effect should be alleviated – this can be done by planting more trees and conscious efforts should be made in conserving the vegetation and greenery of the land. 

Make use of the legal tools available – new policies and laws can be passed to alleviate the hardships on the population. For example, landlords can be legally obligated to provide cooling facilities as well as heating facilities in their properties, and low income households can be given grants towards buying air conditioners and the cost of running these air conditioners.

Featured image by: Hippopx

The post Marine Heatwaves Predicted to Cause Huge Loss to Jobs and Fish Stocks appeared first on Earth.Org.