Ecosystems – defined as ‘all the living things in an area and the way they affect each other and the environment’ – are central to how the natural world functions.

They depend on something referred to as ‘dynamic equilibrium’ for stability. That is to say, through constant rebalancing, a stable ecosystem can thrive.

The threats to balance in an ecosystem may be a natural disaster or the spread of disease, for example, but are also human interference and habitat destruction. Around the globe, human activity threatens the fine balance of the ecosystems that all life on earth, including our own, depends on.

Unfolding

Throughout history these ecosystems have been impacted, devalued, and devastated by human influence, as have the human and animal lives which directly depend on them.

The scale of this damage has increased in line with an industrialised, and increasingly powerful global society, and in the past century catastrophic and at times irreversible changes have taken place.

However, only relatively recently have large numbers of people in the Global North become actively engaged with the issue.

To those not directly impacted, widely available media on social networks, news articles, documentaries — such as the widely-acclaimed Netflix series ‘Our Planet’ — have brought the reality of ecological breakdown home to an audience of concerned viewers.

Images of bleached coral reefs devoid of life, seabirds dripping in oil, and walruses crammed onto tiny remnants of ice sheets demonstrate the severity of currently unfolding ecosystem impacts.

Spark

This societal shift in understanding is having implications in the political sphere, with grassroots social movements such as the UK Student Climate Network’s #YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion gaining increasing prominence.

This has been coupled with headline-dominating reports from the UN climate change panel (IPCC), which highlights the urgent requirement for action, now crystallised in the common-place use of the term ‘emergency’.

In this spirit, our parliamentarians in the UK have brought the climate and ecological crisis to the House of Commons a number of times in the form of debates and interventions, while voting to pass a symbolic parliamentary climate emergency motion. However, much more still needs to be done.

Furthermore, 2019 has seen a spike in reporting on unfolding environmental damage, with climate and environmental issues polling at their highest in terms of societal concerns in the UK.

Disasters and extreme weather can be the most obvious forms of climate change, and spark conversations in the social and political worlds.

Destroyed

Examples of this include the extreme water shortages in the cities of Chennai, India and Cape Town, South Africa, home to millions and millions of people. Thousands more of these disasters, particularly in the Global South, don’t even make it to our headlines.

Hurricanes and tropical storms become more ‘energetic’ as the planet warms, and have devastating impacts on humans and nature.

The impact that they have is not just due to the warming planet however, but is also due to the relative poverty and emergency structures in place where they land. Partly due to this, the same hurricane can have a deadly impact as it lands in Haiti, and continue on to the USA to inflict only material damage to buildings.

As this blog series progresses, we will continue to explore the interaction between the ‘ecosystems’ (the natural world) and the ‘political systems’ of our world, showing how they are in fact a single, global system. The current, dominant political system, not only devalues nature, but also values certain lives over others.

It’s easy to get lost in all of the headlines that spell out devastating and often unimaginable global destruction. A lot of the media doesn’t really break down the on-the-ground situation, how our ecosystems that comprise the natural world are being destroyed, so we’re going to try and do our best at just that.

Political

Life on Earth is currently experiencing the 6th mass extinction event in its history. The previous event occurred around 66 million years ago, wiping out around 75 percent of all species on earth. Shockingly, a 2018 report found that since 1970, humans have wiped out 60 percent of animal populations on Earth.

The primary direct cause of this destruction is the clearing of forests and other habitats to make way for agriculture (especially beef, and cereal crops) and for the production of commodities such as palm oil and rubber.

The unsustainable use of habitat destroying and non-discriminant fishing techniques are also emptying the seas of fish, while agriculture is polluting the soils and waters with chemicals.

So though climate breakdown is having an increasingly deadly impact on our ecosystems, it is not alone, but sits among other leading causes such as agricultural practices, resource extraction, and air and water pollution.

The natural world is threatened by all of these, all of them are worsened by human activity, and so all interact with our ‘political system’.

Jeopardise

Meanwhile, other industries such as fossil fuels and fashion sectors are also having immense impacts on ecosystems as companies compete to extract and harvest resources. As a result, UN’s Global Assessment Report states that “nature and its vital contributions to people” are “deteriorating worldwide”.

But what does that mean to young people across the world? We can live without nature right? WRONG.

Nature’s contributions to human life are invaluable and often irreplaceable. Whether it’s the air we breathe, the water we drink or the food we eat, we need the natural world. We are part of the natural world, not outside or above it — and like all life on Earth, we depend on it for survival.

So when we talk about nature, the natural world and how it sustains life on the planet, these are referred to as ‘ecosystem services’. As defined by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment:

Put in these terms, it seems obvious that we can’t do without them, and we certainly shouldn’t be doing anything to the natural world that may jeopardise such services.

Shift

However, as demonstrated previously, we’re destroying nature at such an alarming rate that our ecosystems, and the services they provide are very much at risk.  Though we can understand ecosystems to exist in a state of flux, change at this rate outstrips many species’ ability to adapt.

These species and ecosystems have intrinsic value (meaning that they have value regardless of the outside world, there is something within them which gives them value). However the role they play in human systems can be described through such services, to help us understand how systems can interact.

In the next blog, the sociopolitical systems we inhabit are explored further, allowing us to dissect the relationships between the two.

One system, our economic system, based upon continuous growth through the extraction of resources from the Earth, is putting dangerous stress on the ecosystems supporting life on our planet.

It’s even framing the very way we refer to nature, through phrases such as ‘ecosystem services’. Ensuring that balance can grow, that the natural world isn’t destroyed beyond repair, and that all life and all lives are valued, will require a shift in our economic, political and social modes of organising, in other words, system change.

This article

This article has been written by members of the UK Youth Climate Coalition for The Ecologist.

A tremor measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale has been felt near the UK’s only active fracking site, less than two days after a previously record-breaking tremor at the facility.

The British Geological Survey reported a large tremor related to fracking activity hit near Blackpool at 8.30am on Monday.

The tremor comes only two days after a 2.1 scale “micro seismic event” was detected at the Cuadrilla energy site late on Saturday evening, previously the largest tremor ever recorded at the site.

Suspended

That event lead to operations being suspended at the site, and they had not resumed by the time of Monday’s tremor, which had a depth of two kilometres and was strong enough to be felt by some residents.

According to the British Geological Survey, this is the third tremor at the Preston New Road site in a week after a 1.55-magnitude tremor was recorded last Wednesday.

Routine policy states hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, is paused for 18 hours following any tremors larger than 0.5 on the scale.

However all work on the site had been suspended following Saturday’s tremor to allow for an investigation by the Oil and Gas Authority.

The Oil and Gas Authority said: “Operations will remain suspended while the OGA gathers data from this and other recent seismic events and then considers carefully whether or not the hydraulic fracturing operations, mitigations and assumptions set out in the operator’s Hydraulic Fracture Plan continue to be appropriate to manage the risk of induced seismicity at the Preston New Road site.”

Control

The firm said in a statement: “Cuadrilla is aware of a seismic event which occurred at about 8.30am this morning in the area of our exploration site in Preston New Road, near Blackpool.

“We can confirm that no hydraulic fracturing was being carried out at the time and no hydraulic fracturing has been carried out over the weekend. We are investigating the event alongside the regulators who monitor Preston New Road.”

Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth has called for a complete fracking ban after the three large tremors.

Spokesman Jamie Peters said: “This issue of earthquakes in connection to unwanted fracking has always been serious but now it is getting out of hand.

“It’s clearly not under control and at this point there is only one thing that can fix this situation: a ban, right now.”

Interrupted

According to the campaign group, residents heard a “guttural roar” as the earthquake hit.

Heather Goodwin, a resident of Lytham St Anne’s near the plant said: “The walls of my house shook, there was a really deep, guttural roar. For a moment, I really thought my house was going to fall down.

“It only lasted a few seconds but I felt the need to go all round the house and check for damage. We’ve been afraid of this happening. How long before there’s real damage done and people injured?”

Cuadrilla began fracking at the Preston New Road site last year, but work has been interrupted by tremors from the site.

This Author

Jess Glass is a reporter with PA.

Labour has called for a ban on the importation of hunting trophies of threatened species.

Shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman said it is “cruel and indefensible” for a “few wealthy hunters” to bring such items into the UK.

Ms Hayman said it was wrong for hunters to import horns, antlers, hides or heads and display them as trophies.

Trophies

She said: “Shooting and importing animals so that their heads, antlers and skins can adorn the trophy rooms of a few wealthy hunters is cruel and indefensible.

“The trade is exacerbating the decline of threatened species and brings unnecessary suffering to animals.

“Labour is the party that introduced the Hunting Act and by working with the general public, conservation charities and animal rights organisations on our animal welfare manifesto, we will be the party to end the import of trophy animals.”

Eduardo Goncalves of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting said: “Trophy hunting is cruel, immoral and is devastating some of the world’s most endangered animals.”

Labour said that at present the import of hunting trophies is legal as long as the animal is licensed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

Banning

Ms Hayman said the proposed new ban would cover species classed as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered and extinct in the wild.

The move forms part of Labour’s 50-point animal welfare manifesto.

Environment Secretary Theresa Villiers said: “These are empty promises which Labour would not be able to deliver on.

“Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are already taking action to stop the import of wild animal trophies from endangered species.

“Delivering Brexit presents the opportunity to strengthen our position as a world leader on animal welfare; we will be able to take further action such as banning live animal exports – an opportunity which Labour would not seize because they want to stop Brexit.”

This Author

Shaun Connolly is the PA political correspondent. 

The UK has now gone an entire week without burning coal to produce electricity – for the first time since 1882. Solar panels and offshore wind farms took much of the credit for the event earlier this year, but far less attention was accorded to an increasingly vital source of renewable electricity: wood pellets.

Burning wood pellets to generate electricity is about 10–35 percent less efficient than burning coal. Since carbon dioxide released by wood pellets can theoretically be compensated for if trees are regrown on the same land after they have been harvested, however, their use is currently subsidised by the UK Government.

Around eight million tonnes of wood pellets were burned to generate electricity in the UK in 2018, almost all of them produced from trees growing in forests located abroad. In fact, 4.8 million tonnes of wood pellets were imported from the US alone, most of these being produced from the extensive forests of the US south.

Rapid growth

Much of this region’s 250 million acres of forest is explicitly referred to as ‘working forest’ – having long been used to produce paper, furniture, construction materials and other commodities.

Timber harvests in the region have increased significantly in the past 50 years. But wood pellet production in the region has itself grown rapidly, from almost nothing in the early 2000s, to around 10 million tonnes in 2017. In this context, concerns about the industry’s environmental impacts are running high.

In July this year, and despite concern that it could drive forest degradation and generate air pollution, regulators granted permission for a $140-million wood pellet plant to enter operation in the city of Lucedale, Mississippi.

The plant will produce 1.4 million tonnes of wood pellets each year, making it the largest facility in the world, and the latest addition to a tranche of more than 20 plants now operating across 11 states stretching from Texas in the west to Virginia and the Carolinas in the east.

‘Working’ forests?

Protagonists of wood pellet manufacturing insist that this new industry is good news both for the region’s forests, and for its people.

For one thing, strong markets for forest products incentivise landowners to keep forest as forest—or at least as ‘working forest’—reducing the likelihood of incursions from urban development or agriculture. And the industry generates employment; the Lucedale wood pellet plant, for example, will employ 90 workers, and could generate many more jobs indirectly.

When it comes to climate change specifically though, it matters that wood pellet manufacturing generates demandspecifically for smaller-diameter trees and forestry residues, historically the mainstay of a paper industry currently undergoing painful restructuring. 

Healthy markets for these kinds of wood push landowners to overplant their forests with many more trees than can be supported through to full saw-log size. As these trees grow and start to encroach on one another, the forest can then be ‘thinned’ out and sold to wood pellet plants or paper mills, enabling landowners to derive intermediate income many years before they will eventually go on to sell larger trees to sawtimber mills for the construction and furniture industries.

Crucially, protagonists of wood pellet manufacturing argue that because smaller trees grow faster than their older counterparts, they are also more efficient at sequestering carbon. Actively managing working forests to produce both wood pellets and other commodities might therefore enhance, at least in theory, the rate at which those forests draw carbon dioxide down from the atmosphere.

Environmental concerns

But the view being advanced here is not one of forests contributing to climate change mitigation by permanently storing carbon themselves. Rather, it is one of forests working harder to transfer carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into diverse forms elsewhere, whether as fuel, paper, furniture, or more permanent elements of the built environment. In short, these forests are not carbon sinks, but carbon conveyors.

Opponents of wood pellet manufacturing in the US South point to studies showing that it still takes many decadesto recoup the carbon emissions which are ultimately generated by burning wood pellets for electricity—time which countries cannot afford to waste if average global temperature increases are to be kept below 1.5, or even 2, degrees Celsius.

With regard to wider environmental impacts meanwhile, it matters not only that the working forests on which wood pellet producers rely are generally less biodiverse than older, unmanaged forests. There are also accusations that the industry is incentivising the clear-cutting of mature trees in ecologically sensitive landscapes, like the bottomland hardwood forests of the region’s coastal plains.

Furthermore, the impacts of wood pellet production itself—for instance in the form of air pollutants generated by the facilities which process trees into a pelletized form—are said to be borne disproportionately by low-income communities where rates of social exclusion and ill health are already very high.

In this context, it is perhaps little wonder that campaigners have argued for badly-needed new jobs in the region to be linked not to wood pellet manufacturing, but rather to investment in alternatives such as solar and wind power.

Future fuels?

Efforts to highlight the environmental and social costs of wood pellet manufacturing in the US South are vital, of course. But there is a more fundamental question at stake here as well. This is the question of what kind of future the working forests of the US South should ultimately be working for.

In making the case for working forests of the US South to be seen as climate-friendly sources of renewable electricity, protagonists of wood pellet manufacturing advocate replacing older, slower-growing trees with younger, faster-growing ones. In so doing, they impose upon forests a logic of value as something that is best derived from productivity increase, hard work, and perpetual growth. 

But this logic of value has its roots not in the ‘nature’ of forests themselves, but rather, as Cara Daggett has recently shown, in the industrial revolution and its promise of development and prosperity driven by the intensive exploitation of new-found fossil energy reserves.

There is no reason why abandoning fossil fuels should not also entail abandoning the idea that prosperity and energy consumption are necessarily linked.  

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making use of forests, of course—such practices have underpinned all civilisations, industrial and preindustrial. But there is also nothing which dictates that forests of the future should have to do the work previously performed by fossil fuels. And there is certainly nothing about the trees of the US South specifically that makes them ‘natural’ sources of renewable electricity for the UK.

Collective objectives 

So regardless of the precise social and environmental impacts of wood pellet manufacturing, local communities in the US South—including not only businesses, landowners and foresters, but wider citizens too—should still have an opportunity to redefine the collective objectives the forests and communities in the region should be working towards.

After all, if the wood pellet industry doesn’t offer the right kinds of jobs for the region’s people, it stands to reason that it probably doesn’t offer the right kinds of jobs for the region’s trees either.

This Author 

Dr James Palmer is Vice Chancellor’s Fellow in Environmental Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Bristol.

Image: US Department of Agriculture, Flickr. 

The Southern African Faith Communities Environmental Institute (SAFCEI) has closely monitored government planning and decision-making on energy procurement, following a 2017 court case that halted the Zuma government’s controversial plan to purchase a fleet of nuclear reactors. 

SAFCEI specifically outlines the need for accountability in nuclear energy planning and procurement in its submission to the Zondo Commission on State Capture, arguing that major energy procurement projects need independent oversight at all stages – pre-procurement, procurement and post-procurement – to prevent further corruption and state capture. 

SAFCEI’s submission contended: “A number of steps and events surrounding the then proposed nuclear new build programme planning and procurement process bear the features of state capture, and need to be investigated.”

Unlawful and unconstitutional

The role played by state actors and individuals warrant further scrutiny and investigation. According to the multi-faith NGO, the secret and highly problematic intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Russia, entered into in 2014 – and made binding without the necessary parliamentary approval – is one crucial example.

The determinations made by the Minister of Energy in 2013 and 2016 that new nuclear energy was required and should be procured, but which were found to have been unlawful and unconstitutional, are further examples.

The 33-page submission further highlights two procurement contracts that were awarded by the Department of Energy (DoE) without following competitive tender processes. These included a R171 million contract for a nuclear build programme management system, and a 3-month contract for advisory services (that quickly escalated from about R21 million to in the region of R100 million).

The submission also makes a number of recommendations, such as the need for a legislative provision requiring affordability and economic viability in energy planning and procurement to be activated.

Transparent, cost-effective and independent systems for energy infrastructure developments are currently lacking. Such systems are critical to protect the public and taxpayers from future large-scale over-expenditure on risky, outdated and expensive technologies such as nuclear, and to limit opportunities for rent-seeking and corruption.

Energy governance

An example of good energy governance is the mechanism created to oversee the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers procurement process, which has attracted over R200 billion investment and created over 35,000 jobs. This approach should be extended across energy procurement.

According to SAFCEI, the budget presented by Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe in July of this year, suggests that the government has not yet dealt with many of the concerns related to energy governance, with nuclear, coal and fracking firmly back on the table. This is despite their cost, both in real monetary terms and to the environment and communities.

Francesca de Gasparis, SAFCEI’s Executive Director, said: “Nuclear energy is the wrong policy decision for South Africa. It fails dismally as a just energy choice, particularly since it is unable to reach the two million rural households who have no access to the centralised grid.

“The government’s National Development Plan (NDP) to electrify rural households cannot be realised through a nuclear energy future. Rather, this goal will only be achievable and affordable by providing decentralised renewable energy for rural homesteads.”

This Author

Natasha Adonis is a communications consultant working predominantly with various NGO’s and civic organisations. She was part of the team who brought much-needed publicity on the SA Government’s secret nuclear deal – through the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), Earthlife-Africa JHB and the Heinrich Boell Foundation. Natasha is now also working with the Campaign for a Just Energy Future.

Image: Vladimir Putin with Jacob Zuma, President of the South African Republic from 2009-2018. Source: President of Russia. 

This week the heads of state of the economies that comprise the Group of 7 (the ‘G7’) gather in France to discuss the critical issues of our time – with the stated focus of fighting inequality.

The group first came together in the 1970s to find a collective solution to the oil crisis that was destabilizing economies worldwide. Since their first meeting, the leaders of the G7 have met annually to confront the economic challenges that bind us.

This G7 gathering could be historic, if they take the bold and swift action required to tackle inequality, as well as the climate emergency, and to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

Critical

As we brace ourselves for another financial crisis, inequality between and amongst countries continues to grow exponentially, breeding social and political unrest worldwide.

Within many of the G7 countries, affluence is not breeding happy and healthy societies but lonely and anxious ones. The global balance of power is shifting from nation states to Multinational Corporations threatening the very democratic principles that bind the G7 countries. All while the rapid rate of biodiversity loss and climate change threaten our very existence.

These existential issues cannot be solved by any single country alone. They are a product of a global economic system that desperately needs to be reformed. The G7 countries represent over half of global economic wealth and still have the power to change this system. Tinkering with exchange rates and select tax policies will not cut it.

We need our leaders to be brave at this critical juncture in history when the world is splintering, and to realize there is far more that binds us than divides us.

History

My new paper, published today by The Wellbeing Economy Alliance, offers 7 Ideas for the G7 in the spirit of hope and a belief that a more just and sustainable economy is not only possible, but a few strategic decisions away:

1.  Adopt alternative progress indicators to GDP:

Global obsession with Gross Domestic Product as a progress indicator has resulted in widespread confusion between means and ends. The G7 should abandon the objective of GDP growth and agree to focus on achieving real economic objectives that matter most to citizens.

2. Reform international economic organizations to promote wellbeing economies:

Perhaps no one has suffered more deeply from our dubious notion of progress than the global south. The G7 should work to reform the international economic organizations to encourage locally-oriented, context-appropriate economic development practices. We must abandon the idea that development or progress is a one-way street and create space for experimentation to identify systems of production and provision that can bring wellbeing to all. 

3. Binding code of conduct for multinational corporations (MNCs):

For too long, the global economy has allowed multinational corporations to accumulate unprecedented wealth and power, leading to a “race to the bottom” amongst countries to adopt the lowest environmental, labour and tax standards to attract or appease these global giants. A binding code of conduct would create greater space for upholding democratic governance of economies, and ensure more ethical production practices worldwide.

4. Global Competition Regulation:

Every sector in the global economy is dominated a handful of corporations. MNC controlled supply chains now account for over 80% of global trade each year. This level of economic conglomeration is economically unsustainable and ethically unacceptable. We need global competition regulation to minimize risk and ensure more equitable and balanced business development worldwide.

5. Create citizens wealth funds:

The rise of new technologies has created new wealth, much of it reliant on public funding for education and research. The G7 should recognize that technological development must benefit society as a whole and not just the select few – which requires a new tax and redistribution system. Through a windfall tax on technological breakthroughs G7 countries could develop Citizen Wealth Funds at the country level to fund universal basic income, public services and infrastructure development.

6. Ban and redistribute all off-shore bank account funds:

Due to lack of global economic coordination and oversight, it is now estimated that at least 10% of the world’s GDP is held in offshore bank accounts. We need an official ban of all off-shore banking, with the G7 using their collective intelligence to extract all money currently held within these institutions and put it directly into a “global citizens wealth fund” to combat climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. 

7. Financial Transaction Tax (Tobin Tax or ‘Robin Hood’ tax):

Global financial markets now move at lightning speed, generating immense wealth and at the same time universal vulnerabilities. France and Germany have been pushing for a global financial transaction tax at the G7 but have not succeeded in gaining substantial traction. This policy agenda would tax international financial transactions, particularly speculative currency exchange transactions, reducing financial volatility and raising billions to combat the global crises of our time.

These bold ideas are fully feasible given the wealth and power of the G7 countries. During World War II, the Army Corp of Engineer’s had a motto: “the difficult we do immediately, the impossible will take a little while.”

There are moments in history when paradigms shift. We are at this moment and if the G7 promotes these policies, we would be well on our way to achieving the “impossible”:  a global economic system that ensures we all live long and healthy lives in harmony with our natural environment.

This Author

Amanda Janoo is an economic policy expert and advisor to governments and international development organisations. Her work aims to enhance the capacities of governments to craft goal-oriented economic policies for a more just and sustainable world.

A close ally of Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been criticised for failing to publicly speak out during a trip to Brazil about the damage being wreaked upon the Amazon rainforest by wildfires.

Labour’s Barry Gardiner accused Trade Minister Conor Burns of “cosying up” to pro-deforestation ministers while on government business, and said he should instead have been calling on the country’s right-wing leadership to do “everything they can to protect the rainforest”.

Brazilian federal experts reported a record number of wildfires across the country this year – up 84 percent over the same period in 2018 – and environmental agencies have pointed the finger at the country’s government.

Far-right

Mr Burns posted on social media images of him drinking champagne with Brazilian minister Marcos Troyjo, who has backed President Jair Bolsonaro’s policy of deforestation of the Amazon.

The Conservative MP for Bournemouth West called Mr Troyjo “superb” after meeting him to discuss “increasing trade and prosperity” between Britain and Brazil.

The Department for International Trade said Mr Burns, who is currently in Chile, had “raised environmental concerns in every meeting he has been in” since arriving in South America.

Shadow trade secretary Mr Gardiner said: “While Bolsonaro lets agribusinesses burn theAmazon, this week a UK Government minister has been busy cosying up to the Brazilian President’s officials.

“Instead of posing for photographs with far-right Brazilian politicians, ministers should be calling on Brazil to do everything they can to protect the rainforest.

Escalated

“The government must insist that Brazil honours environmental clauses in existing trade agreements and fulfils their commitments under the Paris Agreement.”

Amnesty International blamed the Brazilian government for the fires, which have escalated international concern over the vast rainforest that is a major absorber of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Brazil contains about 60% of the Amazon rainforest, whose degradation could have severe consequences for global climate and rainfall.

There has been a public outcry, including from politicians, environmental agencies and celebrities, about the record number of forest fires in Brazil this summer.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called the wildfires an international crisis and said the leaders of the G7 group of nations should hold urgent discussions about them during their summit in Biarritz, France, this weekend.

Support

Mr Macron tweeted: “Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire.”

The likes of singer Madonna, footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and Formula 1 champion Lewis Hamilton have spoken out about the fires raging in the rainforest.

The British racing car driver said: “More than a soccer field is being destroyed every minute everyday, the world needs to come together and help.”

A Government spokesman said: “We are deeply saddened by the increase in fires in theAmazon rainforest. The impact of the tragic loss of these precious habitats will be felt around the world.

“The UK remains committed to protecting the world’s rainforests and will continue to do so in Brazil through our International Climate Finance programmes.

“In meetings with the Brazilian government, Minister Conor Burns raised the UK’s commitment to environmental protection and offered support to Brazil in the transition to renewable energy and a lower carbon economy.”

This Author

Patrick Daly is the PA political correspondent. 

British Muslims are being urged to take action on climate change, as a study suggests that rising temperatures will make pilgrimages to Mecca hazardous to human health.

Aid agency Islamic Relief UK is urging the Muslim community in the UK to become leaders in the fight to curb dangerous global warming, and put pressure on politicians to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The call comes as a new study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and in California warned that global warming poses an increasing risk to people’s health while they are on pilgrimage to Mecca.

Extreme

The Hajj, one of the five pillars of Muslim faith, takes place outdoors in and surrounding Mecca in the Saudi Arabian desert, and all Muslims are expected to take part at least once in their life, if their health and finances allow.

The annual religious event, whose timings shift each year because it is based on the lunar calendar, involves spending around 20 to 30 hours outdoors over a period of five days.

In a study published in the journal Geophysical Review Letters, researchers warn that rising global temperatures could push up heat and humidity in the region to the extent that people face “extreme danger” from harmful health effects when the Hajj takes place in the hottest summer months.

Unfavourable

Risks could already be serious this year and next year, and worsening over the century when the Hajj takes place again in the hottest summer months from 2047 to 2052 and from 2079 to 2086, the researchers warn.

Thresholds where heat and humidity pose a danger to human health are likely to be exceeded with or without action to curb global warming, but the situation will be more severe if nothing is done, they said.

Elfatih Eltahir, the civil and environmental engineer who led the research, said: “When the Hajj happens in summer, you can imagine, with climate change and increasing heat-stress levels, conditions could be unfavourable for outdoor activity.

Evident

“Hajj is the largest gathering of Muslims in the world. We are trying to bring in the perspective of what climate change could do to such large-scale outdoor activity.”

Tufail Hussain, director of Islamic Relief UK, said the research showed it was “now or never” to take up the fight against climate change, which is already one of the greatest threats to the people the aid agency supports.

“With the threat of catastrophic global heating becoming more evident each year, Islamic Relief UK is calling on the British Muslim community to take action before it is too late.

Zero

“It is time for the Muslim community to become the leaders in the fight, with not just countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan under threat now, but increasingly the holy site of Mecca.

“If we don’t act now, not only will people suffer the impact of more frequent and intense disasters, but our children born from today will no longer be able to perform the sacred duty of Hajj.”

The charity is encouraging people to call on their MPs to urge immediate moves by the government to bring in policies to reduce climate change, and push for action for the UK to reach “net zero” emissions by 2045 or before.

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Conservationists have hailed a “big win” for threatened giraffes as countries agreed to protect the African animals from unregulated trade.

Giraffes are facing what has been described as a “silent extinction”, with numbers falling by up to 40 percent over the last 30 years, wildlife experts said.

Threats to the world’s tallest land mammal include trade in their body parts, as well as habitat loss, illegal hunting and civil war, leaving the species vulnerable to extinction and some subspecies critically endangered.

Conservation

Countries meeting for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) have now voted to regulate the trade in products from giraffes such as hides, bones and meat.

The proposal from the Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Senegal to list giraffes in Appendix II of the Convention will not stop all trade in parts of the animals.

But conservationists said it will ensure trade is not contributing to further population declines and will provide data on the trade from around the world.

Previously the only data on the trade in giraffes has come from the US, which reported almost 40,000 giraffe items traded in a decade from 2006 to 2015 – showing trade is an issue for the species, experts said.

Matt Collis, director of international policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) and head of the organisation’s delegation at Cites, said: “This is a big conservation win for giraffes.

Iconic

“It was vital that this species was listed by Cites because up to now it has been impossible to say for certain how much of the giraffe’s huge population decline is due to trade.”

He added: “Listing on Appendix II is an important step in regulating trade in giraffes, preventing any illegal and unsustainable trade and helping to safeguard this iconic species for future generations.”

Adam Peyman, Humane Society International’s wildlife programmes and operations manager, said: “Securing Cites Appendix II protection for the giraffe throws a vital lifeline to this majestic species, which has been going quietly extinct for years.

“This listing could not come soon enough. Cites listing will ensure that giraffe parts in international trade were legally acquired and not detrimental to the survival of the species.”

International environment minister Zac Goldsmith said: “I am absolutely delighted by the decision to increase protection for giraffes around the world.”

“This is a very important step towards reducing the threat faced by these noble and iconic animals. I pay tribute to our own negotiators who made the case so firmly.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

The shipping industry is integral to our daily lives, but transporting goods from one side of the planet to the other burns a lot of fossil fuels and releases a lot of greenhouse gasses.

The industry as a whole isn’t as green as it could be, but that is changing. What new technologies are emerging that are helping the shipping industry reduce their emissions?

Maritime transport alone emits more than 940 million metric tons of CO2 every year, or about 2.5% of the planet’s total emissions.

Spectroscopy

The shipping industry is also growing exponentially, and if nothing changes, those emissions could increase between 50 percent and 250 percent between now and 2050. This would effectively undermine the Paris Climate Agreement, but the solution isn’t as simple as reducing maritime shipping.

International shipping carries around 90 percent of the world’s trade, and the majority of that is shipped by sea.

Reducing shipping would jeopardise more than a million jobs in 150 countries, not to mention the cost in trade impacts. How can the shipping industry reduce their carbon footprint without cutting back on shipments?

New technology is emerging that could provide part of the answer. Marine Emissions Sensors can continually monitor the amount of NO, NO2, SO2, and NH3 in a ship’s exhaust, allowing the shipowner to make changes to comply with local and international emissions laws.

These sensors use UV absorption spectroscopy, beaming UV light into the exhaust and measuring how much the light is absorbed. From there, the ship’s computer compares the readings with a library of chemical fingerprints, allowing it to determine how much of each gas is in the ship’s exhaust.

Blame

This isn’t a foolproof solution, but it is the first technology of it’s kind. It could also pave the way for emissions scrubbers and catalytic reduction systems that could work to reduce the number of greenhouse gasses generated by these massive transport ships.

The shipping industry is an international one. There are tens of thousands of ships on the ocean at any given time, with company owners and employees from 150 countries or more. This also means that there’s a lot of blame trading going on because no one wants to take responsibility for the emissions that the industry as a whole generates.

It’s not as simple as holding a single owner or company to task for the emissions of their ship. A single ship can find itself attached to a dozen companies or more — the one that built it, the ones that own it and the ones that operate it.

They carry cargo for hundreds or thousands of different companies and has picked up crew in a dozen different countries from a dozen different staffing agencies.

How do you assign blame when the shipping industry is so wide and varied, and so many people have their fingers in the proverbial pie? The answer is that you can’t, so you start making changes by hitting them where it hurts — in the wallet.

Energy-efficient

Money is currently the world’s best motivation, and major banks are hoping that it will convince shipping companies to take steps to lower their CO2 emissions.

As of June 2019, 11 major banks have updated their borrowing criteria for shipping companies to include climate impact.

The banks are basing their new requirements on the International Maritime Organization’s climate commitment. In 2019, the IMO committed to reducing their overall CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, and each ship’s individual emissions by 40% in the same time period.

Dubbed the “Poseidon Principles” this lending framework is the first of it’s kind. Together, these 11 banks represent 20 percent of the industry’s financial portfolio, or roughly $100 billion. More banks are expected to join in this crusade in the next few months.

As the maritime shipping industry continues to grow, it will need more ships. These lending rules will hopefully serve to ensure that the new ships are created to be cleaner and more energy-efficient than those of the past.

The shipping industry isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and is expected to continue to grow into 2050 and beyond. With new borrowing polices and new emissions technology on the horizon, we might be able to turn one of the world’s biggest industries into the greenest in the next few decades.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.