THE
CLIMATE CRISIS ISSUE
FARID THE ZINE
EDITOR’S LETTER A huge thank you to everyone who has contributed to this issue. FARID is an incredible creative outlet as well as a way of highlighting so many interesting and important voices. We are so excited for this issue to finally be out in the world for you to enjoy. In this issue we’re addressing the significance of climate change. We’re discussing everything from how the pandemic has affected plastic pollution to is fake fur really that sustainable? Welcome to The Climate Crisis Issue! FROM YOUR EDITORS HANNAH SMITH ISAAC LEWIS
SPECIAL THANKS
NATALIE COOPER COURTNEY BRODRICK ASHLEIGH POOLE MORGAN OWEN HESHAM ABDELHAMID TREEPOINTS UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE UOG STUDENT UNION UOG JOURNALISM AND MAGAZINE JOURNALISM AND PRODUCTION
CONTENTS THE PLASTIC PANDEMIC FAST FASHION THE HANGING BO JO COP 26 ‘VIGIL FOR THE EARTH’ TALES FROM A CLIMATE VIGIL SIMPLE WAYS TO REDUCE YOUR IMPACT FROM YOUR HOME ANIMALS IN DANGER HOW TO HELP ANIMALS IN DANGER REAL FUR OR FAKE: WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE? THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF MENSTUAL PRODUCTS TREEPOINTS: SUPPORT AN ORGANISATION HOW YOU CAN HELP PUT A STOP TO DEFORESTATION CLIMATE CHANGE IS POLITICAL I’M A SCEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST
8 10 12 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 32 34 36 38
THE PLASTIC PANDEMIC By Maddison Ball
O
ur oceans are now roughly 26,000 tonnes heavier, and it’s all at our expense. In context, this is equal to the weight of around 2,000 double decker buses, polluting the ocean, all coming from plastic Covid waste, notably in the forms of personal protective equipment (PPE) like masks, aprons, or gloves. This means that there are now more microplastics in our ocean than stars in the milky way, and the milky way is BIG. This is not to say that we should not protect ourselves from the deadly Covid-19 respiratory virus, but shouldn’t we pay this same amount of attention and caution, or more, to the extent of climate change that is eventually going to cause much more of an effect that a virus? The two parallels are on a destructive see-saw, while one gets better the other worsens- while we protect ourselves with PPE from the Covid Pandemic, the Plastic Pandemic takes the runt of this in the form of polluted oceans and derelict sea life.
Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, there has had to have been a surge in the consumerism of single use plastics to limit the flow of germs, such as that wrapped around fruit and vegetables from supermarkets, disposable wipes in their masses and sanitizer bottles, seemingly spotted at every point you turn. Healthcare workers are obliged to follow government advice not to reuse their PPE for the same reason, which simultaneously implies several tonnes of plastic waste, alongside the huge amount of day-to-day detritus created anyway. This PPE so crucial to the limitations and hopefully the halt of the Covid spread, such as latex gloves, masks, aprons etc are mostly made of polymeric substances which can then enter the environment when disposed of unsuitably - making the blue oceans that everyone revels in, turn grey. Making the vibrant villages of aquatic life that we pay to experience when snorkelling on holiday, deserted. Eventually, making the place of your children’s core memories of summertime, dangerous. Plenty of photos and videos give scary clarification of this
8
new form of pollution already, epitomised by the clean-up charity Opération Mer Propre when they stated that there is a risk of there being more masks than jellyfish in our oceans. Green recovery solutions to this excessive use of single use plastics, in such a situation as a pandemic may not be as accessible as promptly needed currently, but lessons can definitely be taken from this, at the climates expense, to propose healthier alternatives that are equally as durable and efficient, while simultaneously incentivizing sustainability. The encouragement of eco-friendly solutions should be imposed by the government, such as reusing cloths, sustainable cleaning materials, energy efficiency, if they want to last the next 100 years to see the next pandemic through - that is if the environment doesn’t fail on us like we have failed it thus far. You can’t take care of your children without taking care of the planet they live on and doing so would make sure both would flourish in unison, as intended from day dot.
“You can’t take care of your children Photo credit: Maddison Ball.
without taking care of the planet they live on”
FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION FAST FASHION
N N N N N N N N
T
rends are everchanging, making it more important than ever for retailers to keep up. Fast fashion outlets such as Boohoo, Zara and ASOS are taking over the fashion scene. But how much damage are they actually causing? Previously, designers would take months at a time to produce and release an item of clothing, in reflection with the changing seasons. Predicting what the customers would want months in advance, the large preparation stage would allow high quality, well thought out pieces of clothing. This enabled designers to charge more for their product, given the amount of time and effort put into the garment. Nowadays, fast fashion is taking over the fashion industry. Fast fashion is a term used to describe inexpensive clothing which is released rapidly in response to the latest trends, Brands will produce about 52 ‘micro-seasons’ a year, resulting in a new ‘collection’ every week. With popular fashion brand ‘Missguided’ dropping around 1000 new products a week, the idea of fast fashion is well and truly out the window, and the idea of ‘rapid’ fashion comes into play. Each rapidly produced item of clothing isn’t built to last, and given how quickly it is to be produced, the speed for it to go is even quicker. Cheaply made clothes come with their disadvantages. Due to the urgency, the quality of the clothing thrown out the window, resulting in poorly made clothes. But as they are in with the trends, customers have no hesitations when coming to buy them, as long as they look good in their new Instagram post, that is all that matters right? The environmental costs of producing products this way is immense, not only due to the huge amounts of clothing thrown away per year, but the environmental impacts from the factories themselves. In this day and age, clothes are so easily accessible to purchase, we cycle through our wardrobes quickly, throwing clothes out as we go. I am guilty of this, we all are, and that is why it is estimated that £140 million worth of clothing goes to landfill each year. The production of these clothes occurs in factories all over the world, but typically in Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India and Indonesia. Responsible for 10% of annual global carbon emissions and predicted to surge by more than 50% by 2030, the fashion industry has a crippling impact on the environment. In addition to carbon emissions, waste from the factories often leads to water pollution, polluting water sources for local communities, resulting in water
borne diseases to be common. Making up 17-20% of all industrial water pollution, the fashion industry also uses a lot of water in the production of cotton. Cotton is an extremely thirsty plant, and the amount if cotton needed to produce a pair of jeans needs around 2,000 gallons of water, enough for one person to drink eight cups per day for 10 years. Cotton farming has damaging impacts which can already be seen in the Aral Sea. The Aral Sea has dried up after 50 years due to local farmers creating channels for irrigation to water their cotton farms. Leaving a few small ponds, the Aral Sea’s water volume dropped by 125ft, leaving many local fishing businesses struggling without any fish at shore. With the decreasing levels of water, the now desert like seabed is highly salty, and any water left behind contains a high level of salt. This has caused problems for the locals, with large amounts of salt being blown on land, causing deformities in children, doubling the infant mortality rates. This is just one extreme case of cotton farming, but the potential for it to happen again is always present. Cheap clothes mean cheap production costs, leaving to poor labour conditions. Clothes being produced in ‘sweatshops’ with low safety conditions and wages, makes many question the ethics behind many fast fashion brands. The employees work long hours doing hard manual labour in order for their families to survive. Stuck in poverty, western brands offer initially appealing looking jobs, but the true harsh reality of the job is revealed too late. With no other way to obtain an income they are trapped in the vicious cycle. What can we do to prevent the fashion industry tearing the world apart further than it already has? Sustainable fashion companies are out there, with many only producing garments which are made-toorder only and use sustainable or recycled fabrics. Or local homemade businesses are a great way to shop, supporting individuals, especially during the pandemic. This way, your order would be made to order, eliminating any potential waste clothing, decreasing the alarming amount of clothing ending up in landfill. But then again, many people rely on fast fashion. Either it is their job in the sweatshops or on social media, influencing their audience using fast fashion brands. Additionally, many cannot afford higher end, more sustainable fashion. So, the question is, how can we eliminate the negatives of fast fashion without impacting those who need it the most?
By Natalie Cooper
o B g n i g n a h e h T c n o s s e n e r a aw
By Jordan
H
anging Boris for the planet.’ Art students from the University of Manchester have made an exhibition of a hanging Boris Johnson out of recycled t-shirts as a bid to help send a message to the prime minister about sustainable fashion. The artwork can be seen here and is an accurate representation of the prime
minister. The 30m high artwork was part of the exhibition at Manchester central and students say they hope it will help encourage the government to tackle textile waste as it’s predicted that 206 tons of textile waste is handed out by the UK fashion industry each year. The piece itself was produced from hundreds of recycled t-shirts donated by sustainable fashion brand Eileen Fischer and took about a month to create. With the UK fashion industry developing more and more each year and becoming more and more expensive, the issue with climate change and the industry is also increasing, like the cost of a pair of new balance 991s. Since the 90s the UK fashion industry was baggy jeans, the ‘mom jean’ and oversized jumpers or zip ups. Brands like Fred Perry, Ben Sherman and Umbro thrived. The fashion of the UK 90s industry is still in fashion choice for some today and it has become ‘a trend’ to get outfits from thrift stores and charity shops. A case that would in fact help with the climate crisis. Now the UK fashion industry consists of New Balance, Champion and top fashion brands such as Burberry, all costing anywhere between £20 for a shirt to £200. Charity shop and thrift shop buying is, ‘in fashion’ and is economically sustainable. Sure, it’s not in the long run, the clothes will deteriorate and become unwearable. But it’s a start, and a good one. Secondhand clothing is in and is more ecofriendly than killing a cow and using its skin for a bag, or a shoe. More and more vintage clothing brands and thrift stores are in a higher demand,
12
o Jo to sprea d climate chan ge
n Gower
and more are popping up around the country. I don’t know about anyone else, but I prefer the worn look rather than the new look preteen look, there’s something about it that’s very appealing. If you want a new pair of New Balance 991s now, it will set you back around £180, but you could get a full outfit from a charity shop for around £50, if that. The cheaper option is to go to the charity shops. There aren’t just economic benefits about charity shop shopping, you’re also donating to charity causes. The British heart foundation alone generated an income of £176 million in 2016/17 financial year and has 724 stores located across the country. That a lot of money going towards heart and circulatory diseases. Also, looking into the ‘spending in charity shops in the UK from 2016 - 2019 there has been an increase from 677 million to 756 million, so a big increase of 79 million in 3 years. The bottom line is that the Art students of Manchester are fighting and trying to spread the message of climate change in a particular department, involving the UK fashion industry. There have been statistics that the fashion industry as a whole is the third largest manufacturing industry in the world, and by some calculations it produces up to 10% of the world’s emissions, it accounts for 20% of global wastewater and about 70 million barrels of oil a year are used to make polyester fibers. That’s an astonishing amount of worldwide emissions and something needs to change. Could it be the sudden rise in vintage and worn clothing trends that help? is the Manchester Central exhibition the eye opener the UK fashion industry needs to be aware of this problem? Or will humans do what they do and shove it off, and leave it for another day? I know I’m going to do my part to help the fight in this real-world struggle and start going to charity shops. u
13
COP-26 ‘Vigil for the Earth’
making a stand, quietly By Chloe Harvey
I
n late October, I spotted a hand-crafted fabric sign attached to a lamppost. Stitched onto the cloth, in urgent red capitals juxtaposing the soft floral patterns, was the following - ‘COP 26, VIGIL FOR THE EARTH’. This piqued my interest, and so on one golden morning, I headed to Cheltenham’s Promenade. I was greeted by some lovely women who were very welcoming. I sat down on a little camping chair to converse. They were Miriam Frings and Anne Knight-Elliott, who were very happy to answer my questions. To the side of us was a large painted tapestry, which has its own significance I will delve into later. Upon asking why they were there at the vigil, Anne said, “COP-26 is on and we want to bring people’s attention to that, in a quiet way. We also want to show our respect for the earth, and for those people at the event who are trying to make some very difficult decisions.” Miriam added that they “would like to encourage the local council, who declared a climate emergency in February 2019, to act on that emergency.” On this matter, she said that “progress has been slow to say the least.” So how did they think holding a vigil could support the climate crisis? Is encouraging their local council the main thing they wish to achieve? “We’re inviting the people of Cheltenham to leave a message for the council [on the tapestry], their dreams, their hopes, their fears, suggestions”, Miriam said, “and it’s giving people, we hope, a bit of focus rather than sitting at home, shouting at the television, or despairing. Maybe people feel they’d love to be in Glasgow and be part of the protest, but they can’t be there. So, we’re just doing something small and local. I felt we had to do something rather than nothing, because doing nothing we didn’t feel was an option.” The large tapestry in question had some suggestions already sewn onto it, which Miriam told me would
16
be presented to the council, hopefully filled with all the ideas people have to help the climate. “We’re trying to empower people because it’s so easy to feel absolutely hopeless,” Anne added, “so we’ve got some cards with some small suggestions if people aren’t sure what they can do, to try and stress that you may think it’s only you, but if everybody, say for instance, turns out their lights in the rooms they’re not using, that could be [a great number] of people in Gloucestershire. So just doing something small can actually make a big difference if everybody does it.” Speaking about the event COP-26 as a whole, Miriam said: “I think there’s a lot of brinkmanship going on, everybody knows what the problem is and that [they] have to do something, but they’re waiting for somebody else to make that step. So it’ll take a bold and brave leader to step out in front of the crowd and say, this is what we’re going to do, because it’s the right thing to do. And hopefully other people [will] fall in line or step alongside… everybody’s looking after their own narrow interests, but this problem affects us all.” Seeing that Sir David Attenborough made his presence at the event, I asked if he might help people rally for a good cause. Anne said, “yes, because he’s very measured and respected, and what he says is based on the truth. And I think that’s something for me, I’d like to see the government actually telling people the truth [since] it’s very frightening. They [could] tell them the truth and say, ‘this is how we can all go forward together’, giving some positive steps. A lot of people really don’t know the facts.” I asked if they had one question for the politicians there, what would it be? “Tell the truth, and take a lead, show us and let us all be in it together and do something,” Anne said. Miriam added, “act as if it’s an emergency. You can do it in a pandemic, the country shut down in the pandemic - desperate diseases need desperate measures. And we need desperate measures.”
17
Tales from a climate vigil is there still hope? By Chloe Harvey
18
I
met with Anne Knight-Elliott and Miriam Frings, who were holding a ‘Vigil for the Earth’ to make a quiet stand for the climate in Cheltenham’s Promenade. I interviewed them about their thoughts on the climate crisis, COP-26, and the primary aims of their vigil. The COP-26 event had concluded. The BBC summarised the key agreements made at the summit, agreed by 100 countries: • Phase down coal usage. • Significantly increase money to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change and make the switch to clean energy. • 100 countries, that have about 85% of Earth’s forests, promised to stop deforestation by 2030. • A scheme to cut 30% of methane emissions by 2030. How did Anne and Miriam feel about these results of COP-26, and their own vigil? I wanted to get back in touch with them, and we sent emails to one another after the event. I received some thought-provoking responses. In her write-up after the vigil, Anne said that the event organisers and herself were ‘driven by our love and grief for the Earth, the lives of our grandchildren and all the children of the world - we needed to stand and be counted. ‘So, from 31st October to the 12th November, for the duration of COP 26, we, a small group of three grandmothers, sat or stood by a bench [in front of] the War Memorial in the Promenade for four hours a day.’ Anne also spoke about their methods of encouraging the public. ‘We didn’t want to rage and shout and block roads. This had been already tried and, although with some limited success, we believed it frightened some and angered others. We were tired of drowning in the noise and the anger and the negative news. We wanted to offer positivity and support to the world, the world leaders and to the residents of Cheltenham. ‘We would sit quietly and hold a Vigil for the Earth. We decided we’d take responsibility for ourselves alone; we’d not be stressed by organisational problems; we wouldn’t worry who chose to come or who didn’t come. We’d be there in person, in peace, with hope, with sadness.’ Miriam shared her thoughts on how the vigil went, and whether they received the support they were after. ‘We’re so glad we did the vigil. It would have been good to have hundreds of people stopping by/ keeping vigil, but it was never just about the numbers. We did it because we wanted to make a statement for Mother Earth. Otherwise, we did nothing - and that wasn’t an option. So it went well! Lots of people did stop and support the vigil, write messages and talk about the climate emergency. Miriam also speculated on the Glasgow summit. ‘Are we pleased with the outcome of COP-26? Hmm, there are points of light in there. But so much more to do and there’s a danger it’ll slip down the news agenda (already happening). But we can all do our bit - we don’t have to wait for governments to lead. Every individual can make his/
her choices and it’s our duty also to keep informed and keep governments (and councils) to their pledges.’ Greta Thunberg, a well-known Swedish climate activist, had branded the COP-26 event as a “failure” and a “PR exercise”. I asked Miriam for her thoughts on this ‘Greta’s comments are probably true - it may not [have been] a resounding success from the point of view of what happened inside the venue. [However], speaking to someone who was up in Glasgow for the event, the energy and enthusiasm outside was amazing. So if nothing else it connected people and groups, and so many young people stepped up. ‘I believe and hope that that energy won’t dissipate. Glasgow City Council has, for example, pledged to make the centre of the city car-free within 5 years. So maybe it starts with a trickle, and a trickle becomes a flood.’ Anne wrote about the tapestry they created- ‘the Earth was painted on by Lorraine - an amazing artist. It was stunning. By the end of the vigil, the beautiful world that Lorraine created on the backdrop was covered with our footsteps of hope, worries and aspirations. A powerful metaphor. These footprints are all to be sewn into a quilt which will be presented to Cheltenham Borough Council.’ I wondered whether Miriam felt encouraged by the locals’ reaction to the vigil. ‘It would have been good to have loads of people attending. Hundreds turned out for Remembrance Sunday (also held in Cheltenham) - and maybe people haven’t made the connection that this is a new battle on a new front. And what sacrifices will this generation make for future generations?’ Anne wrote about the many different characters observed during their time at the vigil. ‘Some came just for a brief visit, some for a long stint; some came to pray. In my mind, I can see a figure sitting on a chair in a sliver of sunshine by the road saying her rosary. Many were friends, some were part of faith groups, others from different political organisations. ‘The Christian Climate group were a joy to be around - [there was] lots of banter and warmth, as if we had known each other for ages. One man in particular stands out in my mind - he must be at least six-foot-six, a large, engaging man with a cycle helmet firmly on his head. He was the first person who took it on himself to hand out the positive suggestion cards to passers by. He leapt and pirouetted into the air as he stretched across the pavement to catch cyclists or scooterists. None could refuse him and all smiled as they took the card he offered.’ However, there was a brief moment for Anne when it seemed some hope might have been trampled. ‘Many people just passed us by, clutching their shopping bags or work cases. Some even scuttled quickly past making weird evasive loops to avoid us. One day, feeling a little despondent, I expressed my concern to the person next to me that we might be making little impact. But she said that she had noticed many people looking at the A-boards of information that we had put out and believed that the message would be filtering through. Within about half an hour of her saying 19
this, a passer-by called out, “thank you for being here!” And this similar message was repeated on other occasions. So maybe the softly-softly approach could be working. ‘Who else joined us? Well, most were in their forties and above - they were people who were already concerned about the climate crisis. People who were friends and those we knew from different organisations such as the Green Party and ‘Foodloose’. Anne also reflected on how the vigil wasn’t all silence. ‘This wasn’t the quiet vigil which we had anticipated, people needed to chat, needed to talk about their concerns and their fears. We encountered two climate change deniers and one man who said as he passed that he had worked in the oil industry for all his life, but he could see MY problem. There were those who were concerned about vapour trail conspiracies and warnings of shape-shifting aliens. There were a few who believed it was too late to do anything. ‘One person came on the bus from Tewkesbury on a couple of occasions just for a short while. Some told us about their family histories, which had influenced their need to be present - a grandfather who had helped Jewish families escape Germany during the Second World War; a father who was a vicar and a soil scientist who loved trees. Throughout the fortnight we all made so many new connections. ‘For me, connectivity in the world is one of the most important things for or us all to realise. On the final day, Max Wilkinson, Council Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency and Alex Chalk, MP were able to join us briefly. Each of them wrote and pinned their own messages on the backcloth.’ Anne made an important point about how the crisis unites us all - ‘whatever your political persuasion, we all need to work together facing the climate emergency this is not a party thing, it affects all of the Earth’s inhabitants. We are in this together.’ Reflecting on the climate crisis and the positive message that Anne and Miriam were spreading reminded me of a proverb I was told when I was younger. I can’t remember it exactly, but it’s along the lines of this: a boy is throwing starfish into the ocean so they don’t die out. Someone approaches him and asks, “why are you doing that? There’s too many starfish, you won’t be able to save them all.” He responds, “No, but I made a difference to this one,” he throws a starfish, “and this one.” (and so forth). In short, whatever little things you do may not make a huge difference, but it will help somewhere along the line. It’s even better, as Anne pointed out, when you can encourage others to do these little things with you, to make a greater impact. Meeting Anne and Miriam and hearing their stories from the vigil made me feel encouraged. There may still be hope to turn the tide on potential disaster, starting with the people of Cheltenham. I remember well Anne and Miriam stressing the importance of my generation being the key group to make a difference to the climate crisis. I believe the spark needed to begin change, the energy and inspiration needed, is mostly present - it just needs to be put into positive actions and good deeds.
SMALL AND SIMPLE WAYS TO REDUCE CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT FROM YOUR HOME By Anna Preece
20
USE ENERGY WISELY Something as easy as changing your lightbulbs can help you save energy. LED and CFL bulbs use much less energy than regular bulbs and are easy to get hold of. There’re several other ways to save energy such as turning lights off or unplugging technology when it’s not being used. If it’s bright outside, you could open the curtains and keep your lights off. This may not seem like much but think about how much energy you could save if you did this daily.
THINK ABOUT WHERE YOU’RE GETTING YOUR FOOD FROM
YOU’VE HEARD IT BEFORE… REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE
Decisions about food can have a greater impact on the environment than you think. When doing our shopping, we often don’t consider the journey in which the food had to take to get into our trollies. Buying food locally means it will have a much shorter distance to travel. The average meal gets exported around 1,200 kilometres from its source to your stomach according to David Suzuki Foundation. Support local farms by shopping in farm shops for fresher food.
If people recycle more, then there’s less of a demand to take raw materials from the earth through methods such as deforestation. Recycling also reduces the chemicals and greenhouse gasses that are put into the air by waste in landfills. Millions of tons of single use plastics are thrown away each year and this can’t carry on, people need to start recycling more. Being crafty and turning your plastic bottles into something like a desk tidy can be a fun and easy way to reuse plastic.
Tackling climate change is a hefty task that the world needs to start doing a lot more of. As students and being part of the younger generation, seeing the government and people doing very little to help can be frustrating. However, there are small things that we can change in our day to day lives which we can all do to help reduce climate change right from our homes. The smallest changes may seem pointless, but if you and as many people as possible get into the habit of them, then that’s already a step forward in helping the environment. u
DON’T LEAVE YOUR WATER RUNNING As the population increases, the demand for water is becoming higher. This means that we have to supplement for water in ways that can be unsustainable, so saving water is vital. Turning the water off as you brush your teeth, taking shorter showers and making sure that your pipes aren’t leaking can all save an awful lot of water over time. Next time you’re using running water in the house, consider if you could use any less?
TRAVEL WISELY The Environmental Protection Agency say that a car driving an average of 12,500 miles per year will use 11,450 pounds of carbon dioxide. Cycling and walking, when possible, can help reduce how much carbon dioxide is put into the air and is also good in general for exercise. Taking public transport or doing a car share can also help a massive amount with this. If you do travel in your car, try not to carry more weight than needed, carrying more weight means that you will use extra fuel.
21
KEEP SPREADING THE WORD! Start conversations about climate change. Tell you friends, family, work colleagues, anyone possible, that things need to change. Simply talking to people will educate them and change little things that they do which could potentially affect the environment in the long run. There’re climate protests around the UK every day that are easy to take part in. Look out for local climate change events and get involved!
5 ANIMALS IN DANGE
as a result of climate change By Lucy Carlile Sadly because of the actions of humans, there are many species of animal dying out. From more obscure species to the ones most people know, it is crucial to keep these poor animals alive. Sometimes the results of our actions as humans can stick in the back of our minds, but hopefully, as more awareness is spread, we will take more of the necessary steps to tackle the climate change issue. This article explains which animals are affected by climate change and what factors put them at risk.
1
POLAR BEARS
Their habitats are destroyed as a result of climate change and to add to that, the number of seals to eat there are reduced. The polar bears rely on sea ice areas to hunt and live so human behaviour needs to change to keep these much-loved creatures alive and able to live the way they need to.
2 22
KOALA BEARS Koalas are suffering the effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant nutritional quality. That is what is required for their food. If this does not change, we could see koalas dying out from malnutrition which is of course extremely upsetting. Many animals are in danger of dying out for this reason so change needs to happen immediately!
ER
3
e
4
, ADELIE PENGUIN
Luckily the number of these penguins were increasing, but now they have fallen by 65%. Like the polar bear, they rely on sea ice areas for food, and these are being threatened due to climate change. We need to work to preserve these areas for the future, otherwise, we will be saying goodbye to these animals.
LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE
There are many ways in which these creatures could become endangered because of climate change. One is the increase of the temperature of nesting sands wipes out future populations. Whilst the sea level rises, heavy storms result in hatchlings being washed away. There are many elements of the sea and coastal development that are resulting in these beautiful creatures being threatened. Always make sure you recycle plastics and reduce the amount of plastic you use!
5
To ensure these animals stay in our future, it is critical that fast action is taken and as much awareness is spread as possible. Join a climate action group, spread the word in a creative way at university or in the local community. Donate to many organisations that are helping to battle climate change… There are endless ways to help and make a positive difference to the world and these amazing animals. Let’s not let it stay in the back of our minds, let’s put it first. 23
MONARCH BUTTERFLIES As beautiful and happy as they may seem to flutter through the skies, monarch butterflies are actually very much sensitive to temperature changes. These butterflies need the right temperature for prompt migration, hibernation, and reproduction. These are of course crucial elements for their survival and future population growth. In addition, the damage of trees and plants that these butterflies rely on are also putting them at
HOW TO HELP ANIMALS IN DANGER By Lucy Carlile
D
id you know that over 10,000 species of animals are affected by climate change? This number can change if immediate action from us takes place. From a cuddly polar bear to a pretty butterfly, there are so many animals we need to help save, because being endangered is permanent. We won’t get these animals back. Firstly, it is so important to think about what we are doing in our day to day lives. Even just changing our diet to not eating meat or choosing products that are reusable or can be recycled is a great start. This has to be consistent of course. As we all know, at least 14 million tons of plastic ends up in the ocean and it’s about time that people think about the amount of plastic they are using or really need to use. The sea turtle is a very endangered species because of this. As it’s winter, we all need some warmth in the house, but turning down the heat can reduce your carbon footprint so much. Even if you turn it down a tiny bit. It can also save you money in the long run and you could put the money towards a cozy and warm blanket instead. You could also use a hot water bottle to keep warm. When making your tea or coffee, you can always take a hot water bottle with you to fill up every so often during the day. Also be sure to always turn off your heating at night.
Transport is also a big aspect. Of course a lot of us need to commute to work, school and run our errands, but thinking about smarter ways to travel can really impact the environment. Think about it, do you really need to drive down to the store or is there a closer one that you can walk to? Cycling is also an option and it’s a bonus because walking and cycling are both very good for your health! Going vegan or vegetarian as mentioned above is also a brilliant way to keep healthy as well as saving the environment. Finally, supporting organisations such as WWF who are helping to battle climate change can really make a difference. Even just donating a few pounds could help massively because they are seriously dedicated to helping our planet’s animals. Is it doable? Some may ask. Obviously as humans we tend to not think about what we’re doing or how much we’re doing it. It is very hard to stay on track of everything we do. Sometimes we need to buy a quick and convenient drink, so we reach for a bottle in a shop, or sometimes we’re too tired to walk. But if we remind ourselves daily, it can all easily turn into a habit. If we all changed and stayed mindful of what how we are functioning on a daily basis then the world would for sure be a better place.
24
25
Real fur
e r o m s i h c i h w
E
thics around the use of real fur have become increasingly discussed more as the years have gone on. There’s no doubt, fake is kinder than fur. Killing animals purely for the use of their fur is unethical, and wasteful in many ways. But it has recently come to my attention that, if you wanted to wear a fur coat, maybe using fake fur isn’t the most sustainable option. If an animal has already been killed for its fur and that fur is already in use, reusing it time and time again would be a lot kinder to the environment than producing fake fur, often made by plastic fibres that
26
have a large impact on the environment. It is really a question of ethics or sustainability when you come to think about it. If a real fur coat has already been made and you buy it second hand and wear it time and time again, then this is kinder to the environment. You are creating less waste and plastic pollution which in turn will be better for the ecosystem. Understandably though, many people are against the idea of wearing fur. With animals having previously been killed for the sole purpose of using their fur, people can see wearing fur as unkind to animals. With fake fur being made mostly from nylon and
or fake:
? e l b a n i a t s u es polyester, fake fur is guilty of shedding a lot of microfibres. Real fur, however, is a natural product, that contributes nothing to the filling of landfill sites, as it is a material that will break down naturally over time and therefore could be argued as the more sustainable fashion option. Despite the fact that many people will choose fake fur over real as they feel it is more ethical, I came across a vegan recently who argued that she would be happy to wear real fur if it was already made and she had shopped it secondhand. She advocated the idea that if a piece of clothing has already been made, it is better to get the proper, full use out of the product rather than
create an alternative that will require more resources that can harm the environment. Reusing fur products, such as coats, mean that less plastic is produced for fake fur coats that serve the same style purpose in the fashion world. Ultimately, fake or fur? It’s your choice how you choose to shop. Research does show however, that when it comes to sustainability, real fur is better for the environment. It produces less plastic pollution and therefore contributes less to landfill as it is a natural product, making it a whole lot better for the environment than fake fur. u By Hollie Carnew
27
The damaging environmental impact of menstrual products By Sophie Hipkiss
28
M
enstrual products have been evolving for centuries now. However, due to the modern lifestyle these products now contain more then 90% of plastic within them, which has had a tragic impact on the environment. Using these sorts of products means that it takes over thousands of years for them to decompose, on top of this over half the people who use them are typically known to flush them away – one and a half to two billion are flushed away in Britain which has a devastating impact on the marine life. Some sources have estimate that a single person uses around 11,000 – 16,000 sanitary products within their lifetime. Some of these products can take up to 600 years to decompose - which is mind-blowing! Plastic within these products was introduced in the 1960’s and due to 50% of the population needing these products, proves how bad this issue really is, as it shows how many of these products are left in landfills. It has been recorded that over 200,000 tonnes of menstrual products are dumped in landfills every single year, with it taking hundreds of years to decompose shows the real damages this is having on the planet. The reason why the world seems to fall silent on this topic is because people just feel uncomfortable talking about menstruation, it is seen as a taboo subject. However, it’s time to talk about the products that can be used for people which are safe to use and just as good as the products that are damaging the world.
le
Reusab Pad:
loth e from c are mad nds and ts c u d a ro s These p ce thou . elp repla s and tampons which h lly d a p f o s d ey typica n th a s thou p-front, help u re re o o m m offers y cost ugh the rs which nt. Once they Even tho ree to five yea e m n o ir to v th en them in last up to benefitting the th to row ain later, le b s a rd n a the tow d ag , you are e and then use brand are used hat the chin w a h m it g w in il h ta e in a s e a m d w o c e in th k more ct. They o u d lo r ro erent e p v iff r you howe r the d cleaning sign odate fo offers to es to accomm brands who de iz s e rbent s f o e o s th e b a g y ran , typicall re more a w o y fl e f th o t levels ue tha d. pads arg disposable pa reusable than a
Men
str u cup al :
The are se prod m u ther ade fro cts are s mm mop h vagi edic aped li l a stic n a k prod a to cat isomer l-grade e a fun ne ch p silico uct t w h the i c ne, l l and mos o use eriod b h you a t t i l o cost - £2 help ood. T nsert tex, or 0 -e envi . They a ffective the env hey are into the re ro ir th o wom nmenta estima ption, c onment e best ted o l a s i n m t i to h ng a and ar usin pac in t bloo heir life g aroun t of disp ave less round e £ t d i o d typic (for 12 me, the 2,400 sable a than 1.5 13 y are tam n % hou ally d sa po drive rs a s a w !) than lso able ns and ves a any pad oma to h o s then n to use ther pro old mor e duct this any , wh othe sort ic of p r. rodu h ct
nic : are maedeen a s ey e b g Or ponble as tthhey haavy in thrreible m da r aw ho d tabiodegrtaton. Aofwtethemving anhye grocuann
d io ar : hich hsaisde r Pe we rwearfwabric ind fluidca. n er e undeers of e perio, they used d un usabl nt lay rb th ’s flow water ely
co thr lea to t on eft to s ly n l p e y ful ral re natu easil n’t b cles i tam are rticle , a i y a ins c o e t i y n e p s r l w n a h e Th m on ou c they tic pa -orga , as t toxic cha le y d s o s p o , n g r o f in int o d in eo ns fo pla use know ls or n. A n d cha own our me p mpo t o a , a o d c ta ss bin emic e oce ur fo reak effe et. S anic s - le ch r th ect o ey b hich plan org riod o aff , th c w he to . pe sti te t ing ble tchy se ily eas mpo ro pla pollu witch forta less i s c co de d mi e and hilst e com ey ’re an ildlif at w mor d th an w e th ice u not mps g r a a y cr the
d so n of re be rem re re bsor lp ab oma unt ext mpa nd a e he e w mo are t, co ls a rice es e a Th ltipl hich on th he a ucts men owe in p they u w m m, ing ay. T prod iron ary t nge ere ing t s the pend all d ese env sani lly ra n wh oy u on e De used sh th o th able ypica ing o e enj k up t c t l be to wa l on spos hey end eop a ba . p a di . T p s e m e r a days ,d at ve ni mi o wh s ha £15 . Som ys o flow a t on 6 p n £ from ow d vier tam wee ught ht fl hea e t be e bro on lig mor ar ese the th
So, if you are thinking about wanting to help make a change towards the planet, one easy way of doing this is changing your menstrual products up and using more sustainable products that benefit the world in such a positive way! There are so many different products to choose from, some costing more then others, however, will help make a real change to our planet. Menstrual cups and reusable period underwear aren’t for everyone, and that’s okay. This is where organic and plastic-free options come into play, as there’s no plastic, aren’t bleached and biodegradable.u
29
Support an or
TREEP
“We help you live
What is Treepoints?
Treepoints simplifies climate action. The aim is to help people and businesses understand their impact on the environment and what they can do to improve it and reduce their carbon footprint. We also provide a simple API integration for businesses to make their products and services climate positive through carbon offsetting, plastic collection and tree planting.
How did you come up with the idea? As individuals, we have long been worried about the impact of the climate crisis on our planet. During the pandemic, things fell quiet at Stasher, our travel tech company that connects travellers with an international luggage storage network. We decided that rather than waiting for the world to go back to normal, this was the perfect time to direct our energies towards doing something about climate change. From speaking to friends and family, we understood that lots of people are increasingly concerned about the climate crisis, but that knowing how to actually do something meaningful about it is a daunting prospect. How can you be sure that your money is making a positive difference? As just one person, what can you really do? These questions came up time and time again, and from this the idea for Treepoints was born. Our goal is to provide everyday individuals and businesses with a simple way to take meaningful climate action. We help people understand their carbon footprint and then do something about it through offsetting their emissions. It is vital to us that climate action is affordable and accessible to everyone - a subscription to offset your entire carbon footprint costs just £3.25 per month.
32
What trees are planted and where? Our trees are planted by our partners at Eden Reforestation Projects, who have over 16 years of experience in planting an extraordinary 650 million trees. Eden’s mission not only generates essential carbon sinks through the planting and restoration of healthy forests, but also supports vulnerable communities in developing countries, reducing poverty, and improving their quality of life. All of Eden’s projects work in partnership with local communities, training and hiring local people to plant and maintain their trees. They also support the development of lost or damaged biodiversity, which is not only a central pillar in the lives of local people but also allows life and species to thrive. To ensure these benefits, all Eden’s trees planted are native species to their planted location, maximising their benefit to local communities and ecosystems. In the past month, Eden’s trees have been planted across Indonesia, Brazil, Madagascar, and Kenya supporting local people through employment opportunities, whilst also creating valuable carbon sinks and ecosystems. The vast majority of these are mangroves... why? They quester carbon at a rate two to four times greater than mature tropical forests and contain the highest carbon density of all terrestrial ecosystems.
rganisation...
POINTS
e carbon neutral” Overall, what impact have you made?
What goals have you succeeded?
Treepoints launched the world’s first platform to reward you for reducing your carbon footprint in November 2020, featured in Forbes, FastCompany, The Independent.
We’ve pledged to plant 100 million trees by 2030. That pledge will see us plant over 1 tree for each person living in the UK by 2030 and will have captured around 30,807,250 tonnes of CO2e by 2080.
Became a social enterprise.
And although planting 100 million trees will not ‘fulfil our mission’, it will definitely reflect our seriousness here at Treepoints in halting the climate crisis. And so in terms of a measure of success, that is definitely one that we would consider a success in terms of doing everything we can to create a healthy world for future generations.
Partnered with the likes of Patagonia, Lush, Toms, Big Yellow, Allies of Skin and Mindful chef. Set up customizable API integrations for business partners. Named a finalist in the UK social enterprise awards, and StartUps magazine hustle awards. Recently featured in TechRound’s 29Under29. Became a B-Corp (pending). Planted 125K tree and on the way to planting one million trees
How are you feeling post COP26?
I guess the fact that a final agreement came to fruition is a huge success. With significant differences and growing global tensions, especially between the US and China, we had doubted any agreement signed by all 197 parties would be possible. That being said, the failure to create an agreement to keep global temperature rises below 1.5C from pre-industrial levels is an undeniable failure of the conference. We always say at Treepoints, the sum of individual action inspires collective action and this in turn influences legislation at government level. So of course change from the top is the most important, but for this to happen we all need to play our part.
Thank you to Treepoints and Joel Sanders for supplying the information.
Treepoints.green @treepoints.green @_treepoints 33
34
How you can help put a stop to deforestation By Ashleigh Poole
W
e’ve all heard of it, but why isn’t anyone doing anything about it? Deforestation is destroying a whole ecosystem. Did you know that forests cover a massive 30% of our earth? It’s so important that we put in everything we can to save the wonderful rainforests and their environments now before it’s too late. There are Carbon sinks, so it’s vital that we do something about it. A Carbon sink absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases, essentially helping us to live. Deforestation brutally emits carbon into the atmosphere, in fact, it is now producing more CO2 than it absorbs! Inevitably, the world’s oxygen supply is running out and we need to do something about it now more than ever… As well as the awful carbon emissions deforestation causes, animals’ homes are at risk too. 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest is brutally cut down every single day. Because of this, a devastating 50,000 species of animals go extinct yearly. Those facing extinction include Black Spider Monkeys, the beloved Orangutan and even Jaguars. This is all down to the loss of their habitats for products such as palm oil, land for cattle and metals and for wood extraction, just as an example. As well as the cutting down of trees, fires play a massive part in the destruction of rainforests. The Amazon is burning at a rate that’s the fastest it’s been in over a decade. These fires are mostly set by farmers and miners for industries that want to erase forest to expand their businesses – but this is tearing the ecosystem apart and undoubtedly endangering the planet. With the loss of The Amazon, comes a loss of oxygen and millions of different species.
What can you do to help? Donate to organisations fighting for what’s right There are many different organisations working hard to protect the rainforests against deforestation and destruction. Here are some you could help support:
1. Amazon Watch
Amazon Watch work tirelessly to protect the Amazon by working alongside indigenous people who are being stripped of their rights to protect the rainforest. They campaign for these rights and for corporate accountability.
2. World Land Trust
They are an international conservation charity with an aim to protect the world’s most threatened habitats. World Land Trust fight for awareness and to protect the biodiversity of the habitats affected.
3.
Cool Earth
Cool Earth works with rainforest communities to stop deforestation and the climate change that it causes. You can simply make a regular donation to all these amazing charities, or there are many ways to fundraise, which also raises awareness of what’s happening to these beautiful creatures’ homes. From setting up a ‘Facebook Fundraiser’, to doing a sponsored 10K, the possibilities are endless. Set up a page on JustGiving and plaster it across social media - the more support we can get, the more chance we have of saving our wonderful wildlife!
Spread awareness
The more that people are aware of how their own, personal actions are damaging these ecosystems, the sooner we can put a stop to this. Within 100 years, all rainforests truly could be wiped out. Which means not only will oxygen sources be reduced massively, but these habitats will also be destroyed along with the wonderful animals that live within them. You can spread awareness simply by spreading the word. Spark up a conversation with those around you, young or old, we can all make difference, and the world needs everyone’s help before it’s too late.
35
Think about your consumption You can help put a stop to deforestation through limiting your own habits as a consumer. For example, think about who you buy products from, are they sustainable? Aim to buy certified wood products with the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) label. They’re an international organisation dedicated to the responsible management of the world’s forests and our beloved animals’ environments. You can also help the cause by supporting products of companies who are on the same page. The more you buy from them, the more they’ll be encouraged to do for the planet! And finally, avoid things containing Palm Oil. This is a vegetable oil that’s a major product mined for in rainforests. From pizza to lipstick, Palm Oil is in almost everything we consume so it’s up to us to take action and stop the demand! Another way you can help our wonderful wildlife is to think about your diet. A major reason that these ecosystems are being destroyed is for land so that cattle can be reared for food. Cattle ranching releases 340 million tons of carbon each year, mostly from the Amazon. On top of the demand for land to raise the cattle on, there is the inevitable need to feed the animals. This comes from soy farming. Soybean is a widely used animal feed, so we consume it via meat and dairy products. The soy industry is a major cause of deforestation due to the demand for its production. We need to ensure that the rise of soy farming does not further harm natural habitats and we can encourage this by supporting its responsible production.u
Climate Change is Political by By Noemi d’Aversa “Climate change is already affecting every region on Earth, in multiple ways. The changes we experience will increase with additional warming,” said IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai.
U
nfortunately, nowadays ‘Climate Change’ is not a foreign concept to us or at least it should not be. We as society, as a result of years of evolution, have failed to protect the very same environment that has always given us life. This article has references to an interview performed by RTP (Radio e Televisao de Portugal) with Professor Noam Chomsky corroborated with articles from reliable sources, including official websites. On 9 August 2021, IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) an international group of scientists from almost 200 countries released their report titled “Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC”. Professor Noam Chomsky argues that this report is the darkest and scariest out of all the ones they have published. The day after the publication of the report, President Joe Biden appealed to the OPEC (The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) to increase production of fossil fuels due to the increase in gas prices which harms his electoral process. In one hand, Noam Chomsky boldly declares during the interview that Presidents Trump biggest crime is environmental destruction. Trump purposedly dedicated his efforts to maximizing the use of fossil fuels,
including the most danger of all of them, dismantling the regulatory system. Over four years, the Trump administration dismantled more than 100 major climate policies and rolled back many more rules governing clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals. These are eye-opening acts for us. We are encouraged to hold leaders accountable for their actions. On the other hand, the European Union has reasonable proposals, but they must implement them. We must carry out enormous pressure to compel political leaders to turn rhetoric into actions. “Climate change is intensifying the water cycle,” “climate change is affecting rainfall patterns,” “coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding in low-lying areas and coastal erosion,” “further warming will amplify permafrost thawing,” “changes to the ocean,”. Are mentioned in the report, as well as flooding, intense rainfall, intense drought, sea level rise and glaciers melting. The IPCC’s report projects that for the coming decades there will be a 1.5°C global warming, however climate change is not only about the temperature rising, but also significant changes in wetness and dryness, wind, snow, ice, coastal areas, and oceans. Our evolution process has affected the earth’s cycle which will end up affecting us. In cities, more urban and crowded
36
places, the heating levels will rise. In coastal areas the sea level will rise. The good news is we can help towards the cause of climate change, it is not too late yet. We can help simply by changing small habits on our everyday life, such as buying environmentally friendly products, consume less meat and help the carbon dioxide emissions, use public transportation, or walk more often, donate to legitimate causes towards climate change, recycle and reuse. u
“If we continue in the same path, the human experience will have a tragic end.” 37
I
By Steve Richards
I am a Sceptical Environmentalist
am always nervous about entering into a debate with strangers (or even friends) about climate change and what we should do about it. I am nervous because, like Brexit or immigration or many other contentious subjects, it is no longer a debate. We have, as a society, become highly divided on such issues and feel we have to take a position on one side or the other, with the other side being the bad guys and our side being the virtuous and well-informed. We can select our media to include mainly feeds from those who agree with us and which denigrate our opponents, so that we become increasingly dug into our positions and view anybody who holds views occupying the middle ground with suspicion. So, I am equally nervous about writing this article, but I think it is important that some of us who occupy the grey area between the black and white extremes have the courage to continue to speak out. The two sides of what was once the debate on climate change have morphed into the Believers and the Deniers, almost as if the issue was one of religion. Much like religion the Believers are the good guys who want to save the planet and will go to heaven, the Deniers are the evil ones who want to abuse and pillage Mother Earth until there is nothing left to do but shoot off in a rocket to a new source of wealth. No prizes for guessing where they will end up. Those in between, the agnostics if you like, are often conflated with the Deniers as misguided fools who will not believe the science, or who have been duped by the military-industrial complex. In keeping with the religion analogy, I have a confession to make – I am an agnostic or, to use a term I prefer, I am a Sceptical Environmentalist. I can’t take the credit for that label, it was coined by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist and author who is also considered a controversial figure and wrote a book of that title back in 2001 (more of Bjorn later). To me it means that I am unquestionably an environmentalist who takes protection of nature from the worst excesses of man very seriously, but who almost reflexively questions what I am being told about both the scale of the problem and the solutions proposed to solve it. That is enough to put me in the Denier camp for many people and attempts at debate can quickly get quite emotional. Even my wife, who obviously loves me to bits and who holds similar political views to me on most things, finds it challenging to talk to me on this subject, as she is definitely a Believer. Though she would concede that the “sceptical” part is entirely in character for a person whose favourite question is “why?”. I blame my education as an engineer and my later career as an analyst for the European Investment Bank (EIB) where my role was to investigate both the environmental impacts and mitigation measures of major projects and their economic benefits. As a result, I cannot resist asking, when someone suggests spending huge amounts of money to achieve a certain aim, what the benefits are from spending the money, and whether they justify those costs. On the subject of climate change this is what gets me into trouble. 38
At the time of writin held in Glasgow and th (well some of them at agree even more amb the rise in global temp agreeing ever more am reducing emissions of are not, in my view, dr cern for the environm few of the larger coun political pressure on th (even our Queen has b action – while still ensu exempt from certain k legislation across her v The environmental very successful at push up the political agenda no political leader who can afford to ignore th vious exception of Mr to hope was a one-off them for that, and I th like Greta Thunberg an like Extinction Rebellio raising public awarene course of getting the a at large, they have sim to be one of an immin which can only be ave which is claimed to be overwhelming majorit one who questions thi of denying the science sored by big business of them are). This unfo informed debate abou consequences are like drastic a solution is jus conduct. I doubt muc on that at COP 26 – dis about how much of a p to keep the voters (an nations) happy withou budget altogether. Thi wasting a lot of public which will in all likeliho and fail to protect the vulnerable to the effec which, as always, will b around the globe. You are probably th smartass Sceptical Env you ruled the world w Well firstly I would not based on political pres the top scientists toge economists. I would as run through the data q we all understood it, th economists to do som to spend money wisely rule the world, I tried t the issues which is how work of Mr Lomborg, w to do exactly that. I rea Environmentalist (his, and later his 2007 follo Skeptical Environment Warming. (If you are d ommend both books, are very heavy and con analysis so are not for people who are very b climate scientist (thou
ng this COP 26 is being he world leaders least) are trying to bitious targets to limit peratures, mainly by mbitious targets for f CO2. Those leaders riven by genuine conment (or at least very ntries are) but by the hem to do something been demanding uring she remains key environmental vast estate). movement has been hing climate change a to the point where o wants to be elected he issue (with the obTrump who we have anomaly). I applaud hink young activists nd pressure groups on do a great job of ess. However, in the attention of the public mplified the narrative nent climate disaster, erted by drastic action, e supported by an ty of scientists. Anyis narrative is accused e and being spon(and of course some ortunately makes ut how disastrous the ely to be, and how stified, very difficult to ch time is being spent scussions will be more promise is needed nd more powerful ut blowing the national is is sad, and it risks c funds on measures ood be unsuccessful people who are most cts of climate change – be the poorest people
hinking “OK Mr vironmentalist, if what would you do?”. t rush into a decision ssure. I would get all ether with a group of sk the scientists to quite carefully so that hen I would ask the me sums and see how y. As I am unlikely to to educate myself on w I came across the who has attempted ad the Skeptical American, spelling) ow up Cool it: The talists Guide to Global dead keen then I recbut I warn you they ntain lots of data and r the faint-hearted - or busy.) Lomborg is not a ugh he was head of the
Danish Environmental Assessment Institute) but he uses the data produced by the IPCC, which is also used by many environmental pressure groups, and, with the help of a number of top economists, investigates a number of the questions which I would get my hypothetical group of experts to look into. For example, he explains just how difficult it is to model the climate and its changes. It is difficult enough to measure how much the world is warming, and how quickly. The world is vast, with temperature varying hugely from place to place and from time to time, and there are no hard and fast rules about how to average all that out across the globe. Dedicated scientists spend their lifetimes collecting vast amounts of data from multiple sources and attempt to work out not only what the average global temperature is now, but to compare it with what it was in the past (when the data was not so extensive and not necessarily processed in the same way). There seems little doubt that the world is getting warmer, but there is a range of estimates from the models for how much warmer, and it is not happening uniformly around the globe. Once an estimated range of temperature increases has been arrived at the tougher task is then to work out why this happened. This can’t be measured directly, it has to be modelled, i.e. a number of assumptions have to be plugged into a model, based on theories about the mechanisms of warming the atmosphere, and then the results of the model have to be compared with the real data. Once the model seems to be able to replicate the observed level of past increases in temperature it is then used to forecast future temperature increases. Such forecasting techniques are not always reliable (similar models are used to predict the weather and forecasts more than a few weeks into the future are rarely accurate, as the climate is so complex) so need to be checked regularly against actual developments in temperature to see if the model and reality are diverging. Climate scientists have reached a consensus on the most likely mechanisms for global warming (which now seems to be called global heating as warming wasn’t considered dramatic enough). It is affected by how much of the sun’s energy is allowed through the atmosphere (which is why reflective barriers like the ozone layer are important to protect) and how much of that is retained within the atmosphere by the “greenhouse effect” in which certain gases and vapours trap heat reflected or radiated back off the earth’s surface within the atmosphere, thereby warming it. CO2 is by far the best-known greenhouse gas, but it is far from being the only one and again it is not possible to measure directly the effect of each one. Assumptions have to be put into the models for the possible effect of each contributor and the results compared with reality (it is possible, though not easy, to measure the levels of different gases in the atmosphere and then check if the temperature rise matches the model). IPCC report on a large number of models and in some of them the effect of water vapour in the >
39
< atmosphere is predicted to be the largest factor in the level of warming. There is not yet a clear consensus on which model is correct, and yet reduction in CO2 emissions has been the focus of most environmental policy to date. In one way it makes sense to focus on the emissions made by humans, as most climate activists do, as that is the thing we can control, whereas controlling the water vapour levels in the atmosphere may be beyond us. However, the risk remains that chasing ever lower CO2 emissions at huge cost might ultimately fail to limit global warming in the way that the model which puts the emphasis on CO2 predicts. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to limit emissions, but in working out what is best to do the cost and benefits of any measures should be calculated and all the scenarios reflected in the different models should be taken into account. This nuance to the argument seems to have been lost. In order to conduct a cost benefit analysis of spending money to reduce emissions (as opposed to spending it on something else) it is necessary to put a figure to the “do-nothing scenario”. This is the cost of the consequences if we allow emissions to continue unchecked. The estimates from the models on how much the temperature will rise in this scenario are pretty varied, so picking a figure to use in the analysis is difficult. Even once a figure is chosen it is no mean feat to work out what that might mean for the world of the future. The figure will be a global average, but temperatures won’t rise by that amount in every place. It is necessary to predict the rises more locally and then to calculate what effect that might have, e.g. to predict the rise at the poles and the likely effect on ice flows and sea levels that will result. That is not the end of the task – somebody then needs to estimate a cost that will be incurred due to a given rise in sea level in terms of lost land, the value of that land and the cost to the people who might be displaced. The calculations then need to be rerun for the predicted level of temperature rise if our emission reductions are successful (because we cannot limit that rise to zero in any of the models) and a comparison made of the money saved in impacts with the money spent on the emission reduction measures. Given the monumental nature of this task it is not surprising that few people are rushing to do this work. Lomborg and his team did their best to make a start. They added up the predicted effects of the latest international accord on emission limitations (at the time of his first book that was the Kyoto Protocol, but they have since updated this to include the Paris Accord with similar results) on CO2 levels, used the IPCC models to predict the effect on temperatures with and without this reduction, and used what information they could find on the costs of adaptation and mitigation for the two scenarios to conduct a crude cost-benefit analysis. In every case they found that the costs of the emissions reductions (which were anyway far short of the kind of reductions climate activists were seeking) massively outweighed the benefits
40
(i.e. the reduction in co the resulting climate ch These results have b course and, as I don’t h check them myself, I ha to believe, but to me th truth. Lomborg was acc dishonesty”, and invest sively, by the Danish M and was accused of “ch back up his arguments of that was going on, a a point to make, but cli guilty of the same crim worst-case scenarios fr models as anyone who “An Inconvenient Truth could testify. I don’t pro truth, I would just like t nature continued and r the debate, and for que no longer be classed as As if Lomborg had no enough people with his found the Copenhagen a Danish government-f looked at a number of global welfare and tried order of priority using m upon the theory of eco essence the ranking is ber of people effected b the level of benefit of a You have probably gue climate change did not with measures to addre and hunger ranking mu making him even more in with another finding group. A fairly uncontro they made was that the of man-made emission of the historic emission countries occurred dur industrial development economic growth, mea capita, reached a certa of emissions slowed dr wealthier populations d air and living environm ogy to provide these th widely affordable). So L to kill two birds with on Danish the saying is to smack). As poverty and ranked priorities for glo people getting richer d tions, developed count the trillions they are pr their own emission red to help developing cou the dirtiest phase of th as quickly as possible. B cuts to cleaner technol donations and technolo rather than burdening these developing count cost-benefit ratio could I love this idea, and I do would work, sadly the i of dollars away to coun can catch up, and pote country in the global ec never going to be a vot Lomborg doesn’t rea
osts of coping with hange). been challenged of have the resources to ave to decide what hey have the ring of cused of “scientific tigated, inconcluMinistry of Science, herry-picking” data to s. I don’t doubt a bit as he definitely had imate activists are me by focussing on the rom the various IPCC o watched Al Gore’s h” with an open mind ofess to know the to see work of this replicated to inform estions of this kind to s heretical. ot already upset s book, he went on to n Consensus Centre, funded institute. This ways of advancing d to rank them in methodologies based onomic welfare. In based on the numby a measure and achieving the goal. essed that tackling t come out at the top, ess global poverty uch higher. Despite e unpopular this tied g of the “Skeptical” oversial observation e records on levels ns show that most ns from developed ring their early t. Once the resulting asured as GDP per ain threshold the rate ramatically as the demanded cleaner ments (and as technolhings became more Lomborg proposed ne stone (though in kill two flies with one d hunger are the top obal welfare, and as drives emission reductries should spend roposing to waste on duction programmes untries get through heir own development By subsidising short logies (preferably via ogical collaboration them with debt) in tries, a far bigger d be achieved. Whilst o actually believe it idea of giving trillions ntries so that they entially overtake, your conomic stakes is te-winner. ally expect politicians
to do that either. What he asks them to do is divert money from poorly justified and hugely expensive environmental programmes into research and development. He believes that innovation will get us out of this mess, as it has with other messes created by humans, such as rapidly replacing CFC’s in our fridges and aerosols to reduce the impact on the ozone layer. Here he and I start to diverge a little. Whilst I agree with boosting R&D budgets significantly in all sorts of areas, especially health, I think technological solutions will treat the symptom and not the real cause. He has the mindset of an economist, and economists work within the confines of the dominant economic system that almost all countries operate – namely capitalism. This is where I make a sharp swerve to the left, leave the field of scepticism and dive into radicalism. As long as capitalism in its current form remains the dominant model for national economies, then however many experts I put in a room, and however many fully costed ideas we come up with to save the world, they will never be implemented. Nearly all the countries in the world measure success in terms of GDP, Gross Domestic Product. Even China, which is nominally communist when it comes to embracing democracy, is obsessed with growing its economy to be the biggest in the world, and is on the verge of achieving it. So the more we produce, and the more we consume, or convince others to consume, of what we produce, the better off we are. The more of the earth’s resources we consume in order to produce, and the more waste we generate, the better off we are. When the sea turns a funny colour and the fish start to taste a bit plasticky we might get a bit worried, and make slight adjustments to our consumption as a result, but we still vote in the party that promises economic growth, higher wages, lower taxes so that we can consume more. Four years later, despite the fact that most of this promised wealth seems to have gone to 1% of the population that run the country, we vote them in again. This is where I converge again with the deep green activists (who would kick me out as a Denier for the first part of my article) in saying that if we do not break this cycle then the environment that we live in will get gradually worse. My generation (the Baby Boomers born in the early sixties) has failed to convince enough of our contemporaries of the basic flaw in this system so that they vote for change. Hopefully young activists like Greta can mobilise the next generation sufficiently to demand real change via the ballot box. A few protesters super gluing themselves to the tarmac isn’t going to make this happen, it needs a grass roots movement that reaches a critical mass of people big enough to overcome the resistance of those who are making a killing from killing the planet. They are going to fight hard and dirty to keep things the way they are, just until they have made a bit more money. I think that day when the cycle is broken will come, I may even be around to see the beginnings of this change and, in that sense, I too am a Believer.
41
FOLLOW OUR SOCIALS @FARIDTHEZINE