Fishing is an ancient practice dating back to at least 40,000 years ago. But like so many other age-old human practices, in the 21st century it has become an industrialized, globalized industry worth billions: on any given day across the world, tens of thousands of fishing boats of every size haul in hundreds of thousands of tons of fish. Close to half a billion people make a living, directly or indirectly, through fisheries and aquaculture (fish farms) in the developing world alone. Continue reading
According to an Australian study published in Current Biology, Earth has lost 10 percent of its wilderness — around 1.2 million square miles, equivalent to twice the size of Alaska — in just the last two decades. This leaves just 12 million square miles intact.
As the above maps show, losses were most severe in the Amazon, central Africa, and central Russia, with some areas — such as the Northwestern Congolian Lowland Forests, the Northern New Guinea Lowland Rain and Freshwater Swamp Forests of Southeast Asia — becoming almost totally wiped out. Continue reading
Brazil and Indonesia are heirs to some of the most biodiverse and extensive rainforests in the world. Yet they are also facing one of the fastest rates of deforestation, accounting for more than half of the world’s forest loss between 1990 and 2010.
As many can likely guess, this troubling trend is being driven largely be economic calculations: there is lots of money to be made from harvesting forest resources or making room for agricultural commodities. Continue reading
According to a report by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 75 percent of the world’s food crops — including apples, almonds, cacao, coffee, cotton, and mangoes — are in jeopardy as 40 percent of invertebrate pollinator species (such as bees and butterflies) and 16 percent of vertebrate pollinators (such as bats and birds) face extinction.
The report draws from around 3,000 scientific papers, as well as local knowledge and information from over 60 locations worldwide, so the conclusion seems strongly built.
The culprits include intensive use of pesticides, the destruction and alteration of pollinators’ habitats, the introduction of invasive species and pests, climate change, and the forgoing of more sustainable traditional practices such as maintaining diverse gardens and landscapes to support pollinators. The report highlighted indigenous methods as being especially useful in curtailing these issues.
Solutions included promoting “sustainable agriculture” and diverse habitats; practicing crop rotation and other methods that minimize degradation of the environment; curtailing the use of pesticides in favor of alternative forms of pest control; and improving the management of bee colonies and other commercial pollinators.
Here is hoping governments and companies heed these warnings and recommendations, although their continued obstinance in the face of similar reports does not leave me too encouraged.
Friends and longtime readers are no doubt well away of my fondness for international rankings of all kinds. So it is nice to spice up the usual indexes of social, economic, or political performance and instead compare countries by the interesting new metric of tree wealth.
A team of researchers led by Thomas Crowther of Yale University recently published a study in Nature that looks at where the world’s over 3 trillion trees are located, and how this compares with a country’s geographic size, population, and more.
This might seem like an odd attribute to look at — perhaps suited for nothing more than an amusing fun fact — but as the Washington Post points out, trees are an often vital natural resource well worth studying and preserving.
[Having] lots of trees in a country provides a huge host of benefits — trees are both a natural resource and an asset to humans. They filter water, combat air pollution, sequester huge amounts of carbon that would otherwise reside in the atmosphere, and even, it appears, contribute to human psychological and health benefits. Indeed, large parts of the world population depend on forests for food.
And then, there’s just the emotional connection to nature. “I think people inherently value trees”, said Clara Rowe, a co-author of the study and a recent graduate of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, by e-mail. “In the days since our study was published, we’ve heard from individuals all over the world who are concerned about forest resources in their countries.”
Amid widespread environmental degradation and worsening global climate change, such scientific and public interest in the health and abundance of trees is well founded. Where they naturally exist, they are a barometer for the health, vitality, and sustainability of the local ecosystem. So those nations that have managed to preserve as many trees as possible have much to gain, as well as a lot to offer the world at large. Tree wealth is an apt description.
Starting with the most basic measurement, here are the countries with absolute most trees. (The researchers note that these estimates are more accurate with larger countries and less so with smaller ones.)
You can find an interactive version in the Post article, which allows you to select an individual country to see its estimated number of trees.
As one can plainly see, the countries with the most trees in total are, unsurprisingly, the largest ones.
Based on this approach, the world’s overall tree leader is clearly Russia, with 642 billion total trees, followed by Canada with 318 billion and Brazil with 302 billion. The United States is actually fourth overall in this ranking, with 228 billion trees. Other countries with over 100 billion trees include China, with 140 billion and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with 101 billion. Indonesia comes in 7th, with 81 billion, and Australia 8th, with 77 billion.
Adjusting for territorial size, the next measurement looks at tree density, e.g., the number of trees within a square kilometer (roughly equal to a little over a third of a square mile).
The difference is dramatic: countries with lots of trees in absolute numbers rank low once you adjust for size. Naturally, this applies most strongly to drier countries, such as the desert nations of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, each with just 1 tree per square kilometer.
Relatively large countries like Finland, Sweden, Bolivia, and Indonesia still fare pretty well, as do smaller countries like Gabon, Laos, New Zealand, and Slovenia. As the researchers note in the study:
…in “northern latitudes, limited temperature and moisture lead to the establishment of stress-tolerant coniferous tree species that can reach the highest densities on Earth”. There is more total forest in the tropics, they found, but it isn’t as dense. So the type of forest that a country fosters has a big influence on this metric.
Next up is the number of trees per person. One could imagine that countries with large populations would have a lot less tree wealth to go around, especially with the subsequently high need for space, shelter, and farmland.
[Once] again … vast northern countries like Russia and Canada are surprisingly “tree rich”, with thousands of trees per resident. There are a whopping 8,953 trees per person in Canada. But tropical countries of the southern hemisphere can also hold their own. Here, Bolivia (5,465 trees per person), Gabon (8,131), and the Central African Republic (5,152) also fared quite well.
By contrast, desert countries once again were quite low – Egypt was estimated to have only about one tree per person. The metric is also highly sensitive to population size, meaning that India, with a population of 1.27 billion and a tree population of only about 35 billion, had just 28 trees per person.
Very high tree-to-person numbers were clustered in the northeast of South America: Suriname had 15,279 trees per person, Guyana 14,692, and French Guiana a stunning 20,226. Of course, these countries all have populations under a million people.
So we have gone over the number of trees as they relate to size, density, and population. But what about wealth? Intuitively, fast-growing poorer countries would seem likelier to strip their forests clean, given the greater need for readily available farmland, fuel, and construction material. Most industrialized nations have moved on to other sources, or have the luxury of more efficient (and thus less land-intensive) agriculture; urban parks and tree planting are also a hallmark of greater wealth and development. Various reports and studies seem to bear this out, too.
Let the data do the talking.
Ultimately, the researchers concluded that “it was not clear that there was any meaningful difference overall”.
Rather, it was simply the case that one emerging country grouping, “Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan” was quite low on trees — but then, that’s not surprising given the prevalence of desert in these countries. So it seems odd to relate this to economics, rather than simple geography. Simply put, some countries, due to their environments and climatic regimes, just can’t host as many trees as others.
“If you said to me, okay, the GDP per capita of Costa Rica is $8,000, I would have no way of telling you how many trees there are in Costa Rica or how dense those trees are”, said Yale’s Clara Rowe. She said that the most meaningful way of looking at the relationship between a country’s wealth and its tree resources would be to calculate a nation’s “forest potential” — how many trees it is actually capable of supporting — and then compare that with how many it actually has, which would then reflect how much the country has exploited those resources, as opposed to preserving them.
“That can really give us a better sense of what percentage of forest can be lost in every single country, and then maybe we can start relating that to things like GDP”, Rowe said. But the researchers haven’t done that analysis on a country-by-country level yet.
Studying “forest potential” would definitely be the next step. Granted, it is important to keep in mind that there is a big difference between having lots of trees and having lots of forest; a country’s cities might have plenty of trees in its parks, medians, and public spaces, but these would not support the sort of thriving ecosystem as an unspoiled forest would. While trees are important in their own right, for reasons specified earlier, they need to be in abundant number and left undisturbed to support certain wildlife. That would be a whole different sort of wealth to look into.
An interesting article from Wired discusses what impact climate change will have on our global ecosystems. While the planet is warming and sea levels are rising, mot all regions, species, and ecological areas are being impacted the same; across all biological kingdoms, there will be winners and losers — including among humans, of whom those in coastal, agricultural, and poor communities will be hit the hardest (though everyone will ultimately be affected in some negative way; it is only the severity that will vary).
Climate change will be the end of the world as we know it. But it also will be the beginning of another.
Mass extinctions will open ecological niches, and environmental changes will create new ones. New creatures will evolve to fill them, guided by unforeseen selection pressures. What this new world will look like, exactly, is impossible to predict, and humans aren’t guaranteed to survive in it. (And that’s if civilization somehow manages to survive the climate disasters coming its way in the meantime, from superstorms to sea level rise to agriculture-destroying droughts).
Among the changes will be “simpler” rainforests lacking the capacity to host complex ecosystems (and thus thousands of different wildlife); acidic oceans dominated by crustaceans, jellyfish, and smaller fish species; and — to take a much longer view — the rapid evolution of surviving species (including humans) into something more adapted to warmer temperatures.
The article concludes with a bittersweet message: it might be too late for the current planet we know, but there is still a chance we can mitigate the impact of the transition and ensure that this new Earth, whatever it will look like, is a bit better. The science and resources are there, but the public and political will remains sorely lacking. If it is still difficult to muster up action, is there any chance we will learn our lesson once the worst changes are visible?
While climate change presents one of humanity’s greatest challenges, many scientists and policy advocates warn that framing the consequences in apocalyptic terms is both scientifically inaccurate and counterproductive. As Allison Schrager over at Quartz writes:
Considering what’s at stake, the extreme measures and playing up the stark predictions are understandable. But exaggerating the likelihood of extreme outcomes not only give deniers ammunition, it undermines convincing—even if not entirely certain—science. Gernot Wagner, the lead senior economist for the Environmental Defense Fund and research association at Harvard Kennedy School, told Quartz: “Even enviros get it wrong, they have a knee jerk reaction against anyone who questions the science.”
Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman co-authored the recent book Climate Shock: the economic consequences of a hotter planet, and they share my view that people can make good decisions when faced with an uncertain future. They use finance theory to argue the presence of risk is precisely why we need to limit carbon emissions sooner rather than later. In finance, risk poses a cost. You can pay to reduce it and often, the sooner you do, the cheaper it is to deal with the risk.
And the fact is, there still exists considerable uncertainty around the consequences of climate change. We know the planet is getting warmer. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the last 30 years may be the warmest in the last 1,400 years in the Northern hemisphere—the globally averaged temperature increased 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012.
We also know that humans are largely to blame. But our precise share is hard to know. Some of the temperature increase is caused by man and some of it may be naturally occurring because global temperatures naturally vary. The evidence is very compelling that human activity is responsible for a large share of global warming. Since the industrial revolution, humans have burned lots of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fossil fuels have increased the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to unprecedented levels, at least within the last 800,000 years. We’ve known since the 19th century that higher levels of CO2 increases the earth’s temperature. The fact that we put lots of CO2 into the atmosphere and temperatures have since increased makes a compelling case we’re largely at fault.
So there is no denying that humans have impacted the climate, and that the changes will be felt across ecosystems and societies (albeit to varying degrees). But the specific consequences span a continuum of possibilities, particularly into the longer term. Continue reading
An article from TruthOut.org, obtained via the Daily Kos, offers an in-depth and sobering look at China’s impending environmental crisis, and the foreign business and corrupt government officials responsible. Written by Richard Smith of the London-based Institute for Policy Research and Development, it combines damning research with equally damning accounts from those having to live with the degradation of their air, land, water, and public health.
The following excerpted vignettes, courtesy of the Daily Kos, should alone be enough to arouse alarm and concern.
The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he could not believe his eyes. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their factory compound without a word. . . . When the dumping began, crops wilted from the white dust, which sometimes rose in clouds several feet off the ground and spread over the fields as the liquid dried. Village farmers began to faint and became ill. . . .Reckless dumping of industrial waste is everywhere in China. But what caught the attention of The Washington Post was that the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Company was a “green energy” company producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world.
But China’s rise has come at a horrific social and environmental cost. It’s difficult to grasp the demonic violence and wanton recklessness of China’s profit-driven assault on nature and on the Chinese themselves. Ten years ago, in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine in March 2005, Pan Yue, China’s eloquent, young vice-minister of China’s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) told the magazine, “the Chinese miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace.” Pan Yue added:
We are using too many raw materials to sustain [our] growth … Our raw materials are scarce, we don’t have enough land, and our population is constantly growing. Currently there [are] 1.3 billion people living in China, that’s twice as many as 50 years ago. In 2020 there will be 1.5 billion … but desert areas are expanding at the same time; habitable and usable land has been halved over the past 50 years … Acid rain is falling on one third of Chinese territory, half of the water in our seven largest rivers is completely useless, while one fourth of our citizens do not have access to clean drinking water. One third of the urban population is breathing polluted air, and less than 20 percent of the trash in cities is treated and processed in an environmentally sustainable manner … Because air and water are polluted, we are losing between 8 and 15 percent of our gross domestic product. And that doesn’t include the costs for health … In Beijing alone, 70 to 80 percent of all deadly cancer cases are related to the environment.
As the Daily Kos points out during its own assessment of the report, China’s government, let alone the foreign companies it colludes with, has done little to address the problem (setting aside minor “green” initiatives and official pronouncements).
Members get rich by corruption-generated loot provided by underlings, and security is generated by passing a portion of the loot to patrons. And that loot is generated by exploiting the country — its natural resources and its people — through industry as thoroughly and harshly as possible. There are no incentives for reining industry’s polluting ways in, or for environmental protection generally, amongst those in control in China, only incentives to loot.
These incentives have also led to the numerous bizarre construction projects in China – the building of ghost cities, modern airports for flights that don’t exist, intercity freeways for vehicular traffic that doesn’t exist, and so on – all designed to generate income and support existing networks of guanxi, and all of which encourage more environmental destruction.
Also as a result, with respect at least to the environment, China has no functioning regulatory state, legislature, or judiciary. The ruling class essentially is a mass of completely unregulated capitalist enterprises, a legion of polluters with absolutely no brakes. And yet, the ruling class, the Communist Party members, live very well compared to the people they exploit.
And China’s people, the day-to-day workers, farmers and villagers? They have no voice. They live in the world created by the CCP members, and suffer.
At 45 pages, it is a long and often heartbreaking read, but it is well worth your time. Not only are over 1.5 billion lives — close to 17 percent of the world’s population — threatened by this crisis, but so are hundreds of millions more people around the world. An ecological disaster on this scale cannot be localized within any one country’s national borders. The world has practically exported all of its most hazardous and polluting industries to far-off places like China, failing to account for the bigger picture: the impact on the global climate, let alone the immediate effect on hundreds of millions of people.
From IFLS comes an exciting update on history’s fully underground farming site:
Located 33 meters (108 feet) beneath the Clapham area [of London], the farm – called Growing Underground –consists of a sealed room fitted with sophisticated hydroponic systems, which allow the growth of plants without soil, a customized ventilation system and low-energy LEDs for lighting. Because the irrigation system is closed-loop, whereby the 18 cubic meters of nutrient-rich water necessary for crop growth are recycled on site, the company claims to require 70% less water than traditional open-field farming. Furthermore, this has the added benefit of zero run-off, which can cause problems for ecosystems surrounding farmland.
There are a whole host of other benefits to this style of farming, too: The crops are not subjected to unpredictable weather, there are no seasons so production can continue year-round, and the complete lack of pests and weeds means the plants don’t need to be drenched in chemicals. And by supplying to local buyers, the produce doesn’t need to travel far, slashing food miles and therefore further energy demands. Ultimately, the company hopes to become carbon neutral.