Category Archives: Conservation

Earth Diagnosed with Stage 4 Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

In recent years, the parallels between climate change and a lethal disease like cancer have become increasingly evident. Our planet now has, what I like to call, Stage 4 Climate Change – a critical condition that demands urgent attention and decisive action if you want to avoid certain death.

Much like cancer, climate change is insidious. It started out almost imperceptibly, but has now escalated into a severe life-threatening condition that affects ecosystems, weather patterns, and the overall health of our planet. Had we noticed and accepted the issue much earlier, it would have been significantly easier to treat, but no, we stuck our heads in the sand.

Why? Perhaps because, also like cancer – where the chance of survival often depends on expensive treatment and socioeconomic factors – climate change comes with a large helping of inequality. Most of the historic CO2 emissions are the result of economic development in regions like Europe and North America, but the increasingly severe effects are most keenly felt in Africa, Asia and by the many Pacific island-nations literally struggling to keep their head above the water.

COP28 – what’s next?

The outcomes of last years’ COP28 underscore the urgency of addressing this global crisis. The final text indicates for the first time a collective acknowledgment of the severity of the issue, but completely lacks the concrete actions and commitments that are paramount to stave off the impending catastrophe.

We stand at a critical junction where decisions made today will determine the fate of future generations. Governments, industries, and individuals must unite to accelerate the adoption of renewable energies and innovation of climate-friendly technologies. Like in the treatment of cancer with new types of medication and procedures – the development of new climate-friendly technologies gives hope that we can yet “treat” this climate change and avoid the inevitable.

Natural refrigerants

One of the most promising avenues for climate change mitigation lies in the adoption of natural refrigerants. Traditional synthetic refrigerants (like HFCs), widely used in air conditioning and refrigeration systems, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions – and newer refrigerants that are supposedly better for the climate, are instead turning out to be potent sources of PFAS, a.k.a. forever chemicals, in other words, very bad for the environment and our own health. Recent research has even classified some of them as possibly carcinogenic, which is of course ironic considering the topic at hand here.

Natural refrigerants, on the other hand, offer a sustainable alternative that can drastically reduce our carbon footprint. In 2016, the UN adopted the Kigali Amendment, which calls upon countries to phase down HFCs. They have calculated that, if the amendment is fully implemented, we can reduce global warming by 0.4°C (0.72°F). That may not sound like much, but considering that we are on track for a 3°C rise in temperature, and we are trying to reduce that to 1.5°, it’s a LOT.

Stage 4 Climate Change

It’s therefore time to come together, leveraging solutions like natural refrigerants to combat the disease that is climate change. The time for change is now, and natural refrigerants offer a tangible and impactful solution in our fight against this global cancer.

Share

The secret source of PFAS

Posted on by
1

Makeup, non-stick kitchen equipment, waterproof clothing and even dental floss all contain PFAS. A fact that has garnered considerable public attention in the past few years, and rightly so.

This group of so-called forever chemicals can accumulate in nature and via the food chain end up in our bodies with detrimental effects. Research has shown that they damage our immune systems, cause increased risk of cancer, increased cholesterol levels and birth defects – among many other things.

The growing concern about PFAS has led to calls for the complete ban of these chemicals in consumer products.

However, one significant source of PFAS has gone largely unnoticed: the f-gas refrigerants used in AC, refrigeration systems and heat pumps. Modern day refrigerants called HFCs and HFOs are successors to CFCs (aka. Freon) – the ozone depleting substances banned in 1987. They contain fluorine atoms and when escaping into the atmosphere, they degrade into a compound called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA for short. Some are converted completely into TFA, others only partly.

TFA is one of the more than 12,000 compounds included in the EU definition of PFAS. It is highly soluble in water – returning from the atmosphere to our aquatic environments with rainwater – and accumulates there over time. In a 2021 study, TFA was found in 89% of drinking water boreholes tested in Denmark and once there, it is very difficult to remove.

The solution
TFA is luckily a problem that we can actually solve. We do it by switching to natural refrigerants!

Natural refrigerants are naturally occurring compounds like ammonia, hydrocarbons and even CO2. The do not contain PFAS and are very energy-efficient refrigerants. In other words, we already possess the technology to fix this problem. We just need to implement it.

In 2020, the EU proposed a complete ban on the “most harmful chemicals in consumer products” – including PFAS – as part the updated REACH legislation. Last summer, however, British newspaper The Guardian revealed that, under heavy pressure from the chemical industry, the European Commission was making a hasty retreat. With leaked documents The Guardian showed that the most likely scenario was now a ban on only 10% of these harmful chemicals.

In my humble opinion, it is downright despicable that the EU is bowing to pressure from an industry that makes huge profits off the back of our environment and health. We need to become less beholden to industry interests, so we can work towards sustainable solutions that prioritise environmental stewardship and human well-being over money and profit.

Share

Is single-use plastic really the root of all evil?

Posted on by
Reply

In 2017, the BBC programme Blue Planet ll opened a lot of eyes to the effects of plastic in marine environments. As a consequence, single use plastic has become a symbol of unsustainable behaviour. But, is single-use plastic really the root of all evil, or are there other, bigger problems that it can help us solve?

The movement against single-use plastic has many different parts. One of them aims to reduce food packaging. A number of organisations advocate for consumers to buy unwrapped fruits and vegetables, to buy in bulk instead of smaller packages, and to buy fresh produce instead of frozen or tinned products. All in the hope of reducing plastic packaging, and to create less waste that might end up in the ocean.

There are even those who have encouraged people to remove packaging from their groceries before leaving the shop as a form of civil protest – demonstrating to the stores and manufacturers that we want less packaging, not more.

Reduced packaging increases food waste
The problem with this is that a lot of the advice aiming to reduce food packaging ends up increasing food waste instead. We buy a large bag of salad instead of two smaller ones to save on packaging, and then we don’t manage to finish it before it goes off. We buy unwrapped fruit and vegetables that have been shuffled around by supermarket staff (and prodded and poked by other customers in the shop), and therefore goes off sooner than we expected; so again we don’t manage to eat it all before we have to throw it away.

Food waste occurs throughout the production chain, but a large part of it occurs after the product is bought by the consumer. A comparative study found that in both the UK and the US we throw away about 25 percent of the food we buy.

How do we then square that circle? Do we waste food, or create waste by protecting our fresh food better? And of the two issues, which is most pressing when we look at the bigger picture?

The bigger picture
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) published a report in 2011, estimating that each year, one third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted. That amounts to about 1.3 billion tonnes per year. Other estimates are even higher; some say up to 50 percent. This means that we are no longer able to produce enough food to feed all seven billion people on our planet. Consequently, around 1 billion regularly starve. We also continue to burn forests and drain wetlands to create enough arable land for this inefficient food production, thereby creating a whole different set of biodiversity issues.

Can we make plastic more of a non-issue?
Is it therefore possible to create a scenario where plastic bottles and other forms of packaging is used to prevent and reduce food waste, but doesn’t end up as an environmental catastrophe? The answer is yes, there are other options than to dump it in a river, or even a landfill, where it will take hundreds of years to decompose.

Altering consumer behaviour
One of the most common items seen in both rivers and oceans are plastic bottles and drinks cans. Efficient deposit schemes can ensure that containers are recycled (or even re-used) instead of ending up in the sea, and other places where they don’t belong. Several countries in Europe have deposit schemes already. In Germany such a system has existed for many years, and the recycling percentage is 97%. The equivalent number in the UK is at present 43%, according to The Guardian.

Turning waste into energy
It is also possible to burn plastic (and other) waste in in specialised power plants, where waste-to-energy incinerators create electricity and heating. It does create a certain amount of CO2, but burning one tonne of waste creates only a quarter of the CO2 burning a tonne of oil would. The plants are equipped with filters so toxins and potential pollutants don’t get discharged into the atmosphere. Denmark has such a system, and it works. Around 96% of all plastic waste in Denmark is either recycled or burned to create energy. In the UK, only 31% of plastic is currently recycled and no nationwide system exists to burn household rubbish.

Conclusion
In my opinion, we should be careful not to get caught up in focusing solely on reducing single-use plastic at all costs, we need to look at the bigger picture. With proper recycling systems that make it easy for customers to sort their waste, deposit schemes and ways of turning waste into energy – single-use plastic need not coninue being the same huge problem it is today. I am not saying we shouldn’t try and reduce the use of plastic, or get manufacturers to take greater responsibility for their products. I just believe it will be counterproductive if we focus too narrowly, and in the process potentially increase other problems like hunger and biodiversity loss.

Share

The ethics of NGOs: What happens when it fails?

Posted on by
Reply

Big NGOs like Greenpeace can have enormous impact on people’s perception of environmental issues. What happens when they use this power to further their own agenda, rather than the public good?

Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay.

Businesses all over the world are subjected to a multitude of legislation regulating their activities. Governments try to keep a lid on dubious claims about products and activities with litigation and/or fines.This happens to ensure that human health and the environment are not harmed during these efforts to make money. What happens however, when dubious activities are carried out by non-profit organisations?

Protectors of civil society

NGOs have been instrumental in building up civil society in many countries, protecting human rights and promoting progress. As a result, the regulations controlling these organisations are designed to facilitate and support, not to make judgement about their value or work. Under US law there is very little restriction on the freedom of expression and the US Government does not interfere with how NGOs accomplish their purposes. EU regulations also state that NGOs are self-governing bodies, not subject to direction by public authorities. These liberties comes with a price, though.

Greenpeace and GMO’s

Greenpeace is one of the largest environmental NGOs in the world. It has a code of ethics, which states that it is “committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral and legal business conduct”. They are also a founding member of the International NGO Accountability Charter.

One of Greenpeace’s most longstanding campaigns is to get genetically modified (GM) crops banned worldwide. The organisation claims that genetic engineering is a threat to the environment and human health. Additionally, its website states that GM crops should not be released into the environment since there’s no adequate scientific understanding of their potential impact.

Greenpeace has been very successful in this campaign. In 2015, the EU introduced legislation permitting individual member states and regions to ban cultivation of GM crops. More than half of the 28 members have opted to do so.

Ignoring the evidence

The problem is that Greenpeace is lying when they claim that the understanding of genetic engineering is extremely limited – and that we do not know the long term effects of releasing these organisms into the environment, and into the markets for human food and animal feeds.

In 2016, the US Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published a study on the development, use and effects of genetically engineering organisms. The Academies reviewed scientific evidence accumulated over the last two decades and examined almost 900 publications on the subject. The conclusion is clear. They found “No substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the genetically engineered crops.”

The report stresses that GMOs are not products in themselves, but are outcomes of processes by which scientists are trying to achieve certain characteristics in new crop varieties, exactly like conventional plant breeders do. In other words, all plants and crops we eat have been genetically modified for thousands of years; ever since the first farmers began selecting and breeding the plants giving them the best yields and the desired taste.

Greenpeace is ignoring these facts, while very skilfully manipulating the media and playing on people’s fears of a new technology they don’t understand. In Europe and North America this might not be a problem, because we can afford to choose what we eat. In poorer parts of the world however, where they do not have this luxury, it could cost people their lives.

Golden Rice

More than 100 Nobel Prize winners have signed an open letter asking Greenpeace to stop its efforts to block GM crops. They single out Golden Rice, a crop previously labelled as “environmentally irresponsible and risky to human health” by Greenpeace. Golden Rice contains an artificially inserted gene which boosts the level of (vitamin A-rich) beta-carotene the plant produces. The World Health Organisation estimates that a quarter of a billion people in developing nations suffer from vitamin A deficiency. This deficiency causes two million preventable deaths a year and half a million cases of childhood blindness. It is a problem Golden Rice could help rectify.

Does harm and profit go hand in hand?

So, is it acceptable to wilfully ignore scientific evidence and promote your cause, even if it harms people’s lives, as long as you are a non-profit organisation? Is it OK to manipulate the truth, if as long as you don’t do it for profit? Or, should environmental NGOs be regulated, held accountable and put under the same expectations for ethical behaviour as for-profit organisations? I say yes, because the harm you can do doesn’t depend on how much profit you make.

This is an updated version of a post from 2016, written for BioWeb.ie

Share

Wasting food or creating waste?

Posted on by
Reply
Organisations working to reduce food waste, and those calling for a reduction in packaging, are competing for attention these days. Which of the issues is the most pressing? When looking at the bigger picture there can be no doubt; wasting food is creating hunger and potentially a lot more environmental problems than surplus packaging.

croissant-1575702_1280Food packaging is not a subject that gives a lot of people sleepless nights. Packaging is considered a waste product. It’s something we remove from our groceries and put in the bin as soon as we return from the supermarket. Our food, especially fruit and vegetables, look more authentic without it and we don’t feel it has any value. On top of that, it creates enormous piles of waste.

Consequently a number of charities and environmental organisations have sprung up over the last 10-15 years advocating for consumers to buy unwrapped fruits and vegetables, to buy in bulk instead of smaller boxes and packages, and to buy fresh fruit and greens instead of frozen or tinned products; all in an effort to reduce unnecessary packaging and create less waste that needs to be disposed of. There are even those who have encouraged people to remove packaging from their groceries before leaving the shop as a form of civil protest; to tell the stores and manufacturers that we want less packaging, not more.

Reduced packaging increases food waste
The problem here is that a lot of the advice aimed at reducing food packaging, ends up increasing food waste instead. We buy a large bag of salad instead of a small, and then we don’t manage to finish before it goes off. We buy unwrapped fruit and vegetables that’s been prodded and poked by other people in the shop, and therefore goes off sooner than we expected; so again we don’t manage to eat it all before we have to throw it away. Food waste occurs throughout the production chain, but a large part of it comes after the product is bought by the consumer. A comparative study found that in both the UK and the US we throw away about 25 percent of the food we buy.

The Bigger Picture
How do we square that circle? Wasting food or creating waste? And of the two issues, which is most pressing when we look at the bigger picture?

The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) published a report in 2011, estimating that each year, one third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted. That amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year. Other estimates are even higher; some say up to 50 percent. This means that we are no longer able to produce enough food to feed all seven billion people on our planet. Consequently, around 1 billion regularly starve.

On the other hand, how much energy is spent on producing the packaging for our food? Packaging that protects it during transport and makes it last longer. Packaging that consequently reduces food waste, because less of it will go off before we have the chance to eat it.

Of the total amount of energy needed to get a food item to our kitchen table, around 80 percent is spent on producing the item itself, 15 percent on transport and only 5 percent on the packaging. So, if somewhere between one third and half of all the food produced on this planet every year is wasted, and 40 percent of that is wasted in the retail and consumer level, maybe those 5 percent spent on packaging is not the biggest issue?

The smaller issue
Yes, the packaging used to prevent and reduce food waste will of course still have be disposed of, but there are other options than to dump it in a landfill, where it will take hundreds of years to decompose.

Efficient bottle deposit schemes can ensure that drinks bottles and cans are recycled (or even re-used) instead of ending up in the sea and other places where they doesn’t belong. In Denmark such a system has existed for many years, and the recycling percentage is now 90%. The deposits from the 10% unreturned bottles are used to fund and improve the system.

It is also possible to burn plastic (and other) waste in in specialised power plants and create electricity and energy for heating that way. It creates a certain amount of CO2, but burning one ton of waste only creates a fourth of the CO2 burning a ton of oil would. Again, Denmark has such a system, and it works. Only four percent of all plastic waste in Denmark isn’t either recycled or burned to create energy.

In my opinion, we should therefore not focus on reducing packaging, but on reducing food waste. With proper recycling systems in place to make it easy for customers to sort their waste; and bottle deposit schemes like the Danish, waste from packaging need not be the problem it is today.

Combine recycling and burning with increased research into new forms of compostable packaging and we can hopefully get to a stage where we can produce enough food. That way, everybody can go to bed with a full stomach every night.

Share

Not-so-green games for a blue planet

Posted on by
Reply

The organisers of the Rio Olympic Games promised to clean up Rio’s dangerously polluted waterways and provide sanitation for at least 80% of the inhabitants before 2016. As the games draw near, they admit that they have failed, but claim that there are no risks to athletes or to the general public.

Back in 2009 Rio de Janeiro won the rights to organise the 2016 Olympic and Paralympics games. During the bidding process, Rio branded its vision for the event as ”Green Games for a Blue Planet”. One of the major pledges made was the “cleaning and regeneration of Rio’s waterways and lakes, through government projects for major new water treatment and sewerage works”.

Photo credit: Silvia Izquierdo / AP  Photo credit: Silvia Izquierdo / AP

The pledge was necessary because Rio has neglected to prioritise public sanitation for decades. This lack of focus, combined with intense urbanisation, has now created a city of more than 6 million inhabitants, many of whom do not even have access to basic sanitation. Raw sewage, including animal carcasses and household items, ends up in the Guanabara Bay on whose shores the city is located. This creates severe pollution and human health issues. Testing done by the Associated Press (AP) last July revealed some disease-causing viruses measured at levels up to 1.7 million times more than what is considered hazardous in the US and Europe.

Water pollution in Rio de Janeiro is not a new issue. The Guanabara Bay Clean-Up Programme was launched in the early ‘90s by the state government. The aim was to improve environmental and sanitary conditions of the Rio metropolitan area. The programme has not made much progress. By 2008, only 32% of the total sewage was treated.

Broken Promises

A specific goal set in Rio’s bid book was to raise this level to 80% before 2016. This they have also failed to accomplish. The number currently stands at 49%. Despite the lack of action, and their acknowledgement of failure to meet own targets, Brazilian officials insist that there is no danger to the public including the sailors and surfers who are to compete in the bay. The German sailor Erik Heil, might disagree. Shortly after having sailed in an Olympic event test last August, he had to undergo treatment for a flesh eating bacteria. He is only one of the many athletes who have already fallen ill.

Despite having had decades to deal with the problem, little has been done. It seems to be very low on the list of current priorities. Brazil is facing a deluge of problems: From a massive economic recession and a president being impeached for corruption. Additionally, huge public protests occur over the brutal evictions of residents from their homes, in order to make way for stadiums and the Olympic City. Regardless of the magnitude of problems, the Brazilian government seems determined that nothing is going to steal its moment in the spotlight; even though this enormous PR exercise costs approximately US$11 billion. This money could instead have been spent on improving the lives of the poor and the environment of the city they live in.

The Brazilian government is not the only one to ignore the problems piling up on the eve of the games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is also burying its head in the sand, trying to ignore anything which might compromise the success of the first ever Olympic Games to be held in South America. The IOC has, amongst other things, reneged on a promise it made in the wake of the AP test report: A promise to carry out viral testing of the venue waters. It now states that the organisers are to follow test procedures established by the World Health Organisation (WHO). These focus only on testing for bacteria. Something that makes the results look a lot less scary, since bacteria breaks down in salt water a lot faster that viruses do.

Sacrificing the Olympic Ideals

This refusal to deal with the problems isn’t because the IOC is without options. The Olympic Charter allows the IOC to withdraw the permission to host the games at any time if it has any concerns. The IOC seems determined to plough ahead though, even if it means running over its own Olympic Ideals in the process. Ideals which, among other things, state that the Olympic Movement is about “protecting the health of the athletes”.

Evidently it seems that the IOC is ignoring its own principles. Likewise, Brazil is failing to protect its own citizens and live up to its international obligations. The UN Sustainable Development Goals, which include commitment to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, seems to have been willfully ignored. Why? To make sure Rio looks good on the world’s TV screens for a few days in August.

This piece was originally published as part of Politheor’s Special Report RIO 2016: Perspectives beyond the mega event.

 

Share