The Choice of Milks

A few years ago I moved away from dairy milk and started drinking plant base ones.  The main reason was for health, I have PCOS and they recommend cutting out milk for that, but I was also aware of the environmental factors, such as carbon emissions, and water and land use, involved.

It took me a little while to find the plant based milk that I liked as most of the flavours were actually off putting to me.  However, after A LOT of testing I now mainly drink Koko coconut milk, which has the right taste and texture for me and is fortified with calcium, B vitamins, and vitamin D.

Whilst my decision on which type of milk I drink is mainly due to taste I have been wondering recently if my choice in milk is actually the most environmentally friendly one.  So, a little bit of research was needed.

There are, of course, environmental impacts for all the milks available to us and that's not just in the growing.  Something that I had never really thought about before was just how far some of the primary ingredients may have to travel to be processed and then end up in our stores.  However, even when you include things like this plant based milks are still less environmentally damaging than dairy milk. In fact there is a really interesting journal article by the University of Oxford about this called 'Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers'.  Definitely worth a read.

A little more digging online took me to Simple Happy Kitchen, which do great illustrated guides on information that is good to know when you’re going vegan.  They had done a post on some of the different types of milk available and the environmental impact they might have, with an illustration with the numbers.  In a boring table they look like this (I would definitely go check out the illustration though):

What this shows is that even the worst of the non-dairy offenders still has less of an environmental impact then dairy.  But this article didn’t include the milk that I drink the most of, coconut, and no matter how much research I’ve done I haven’t been able to find actual figures for this type of milk.  If you know them please let me know, I would be very interested to see how they tie up with the other milks.

So, what have I found.  Whilst Soy milk is probably the healthiest, containing the most macronutrients and fats, it has a very high negative environmental impact.  I'm mainly thinking of the large amounts of the Amazon rainforest that has been destroyed to grow this particular plant.  The production also needs quite a large quantity of pesticide.  This, of course, leeches into the surrounding environment, killing ecologically important insects.

Almond milk also has a fairly high environmental impact, mainly in the vast amount of water needed to grow this plant.  Most of the almond growers in the world are actually based in California, which has been experiencing extreme draughts over the past few years.  To keep growing the amount of produce needed even more strain needs to be placed on the surrounding environment to collect the water needed, which is not sustainable.  This milk also needs to be fortified to actually contain any health benefits to the consumer.

Rice milk, whilst not requiring the same amount of water as almond or dairy milk, still requires a fair amount when compared to the other plant based milks.  There also seems to be a risk of arsenic contamination of the rice field paddies, which obviously has health and environmental implications.  Similar to almond milk, rice milk needs to be fortified to make it nutritious to consumers.

Of the two milks I drink the most, Coconut and Oat milk (when there’s no coconut milk available), oat milk is the most nutritious, especially when it comes to fighting bad cholesterol.  In fact, coconut milk also needs to be fortified to make it beneficial to drink at all.  However, even though oat milk itself has pretty low carbon emissions, water use, and land use, coconut milk seems to have the lower environmental impact.  The farms that grow the coconut tend to be eco-friendly using very low amounts of pesticide and herbicide, and only a small amount of water is actually needed to grow it.  The coconut trees also absorb CO2, meaning that they can also play a part in the drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere (I’m guessing this is similar for the almond trees).

The biggest winner of the milks (though again I’m finding it difficult to find any actual figures, help would be much appreciated here) is a surprising one. It’s Hemp milk.  It doesn’t need a lot of water or pesticide, and the way it is grown is generally very environmentally friendly.  Unlike most of the other milks where the whole plant is harvested but only the seeds are used, with hemp the whole plant is used reducing the amount of waste.  The only downside for me is the taste.  I've tried to like it but for some reason the flavour reminds me of fish and I just can’t get my head around that.  


So all in all, after all that research, I’m pretty happy with the choice of milk I've already made.  It might not be the most nutritious without being fortified, but it is one of the most environmentally friendly milks out there.  My other go to is oat milk and that seems to score pretty highly as well.  I wish there was more hard evidence out there, but for now I’ll just have to trust in the information I’ve been given and make changes when more information becomes available.

The IPCC Report 2018

During 2016 Paris climate talks the policymakers commissioned the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a 'Special Report' on the impact that a global warming of 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels would have and this was published last week.  As always, it is quite a dry report, but fall of important information about where we are so far and how it looks for the future (and you do get used to the style pretty quickly).

So here are some of what I think are the key points:

• Human activities has caused an estimated warming of around 1.0℃ above pre-industrial levels, ranging from 0.8℃ to 1.2℃ and in keeping with estimated rises for this period.  At the current rate we expect the temperature to rise to 1.5℃ between 2030 and 2052.
• Warming from human activity from the pre-industrial period until present will continue for at least millennia and carry on affecting our climate, but are unlikely to cause the rise in temperature to 1.5℃ on their own if we are able to reach and maintain 'net-zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions'.  However, in the future negative emissions in the future may be required in the future to prevent an increase in further warming due to earth systems feedback, to reduce sea level rise and sea acidification.
• The impact on natural and human systems will be greater at 1.5℃ then it is at 1.0℃, and greater at 2.0℃ then it is at 1.5℃.  This is quite an obvious statement, but these are some of the examples of how different:
• Keeping global warming at 1.5℃ rather than 2.0℃ may reduce the number of people exposed to climate induced water stress by 50%.
• Sea level rise will be 0.1m less in 1.5℃ global warming then 2.0℃ putting an estimated 10 million less people at risk and reducing the loss of coastal habitats.
• The loss of coral reefs at 2.0℃, at greater then 99%, is higher then at 1.5℃, at 70% to 90% (though, to be fair, both are pretty bad).
• A sea-ice-free summer Arctic Ocean is likely to occur once every century at 1.5℃ but once every decade at 2.0℃.
• The increased impact of climate change on the oceans will affect our fishing industries with one model showing projected decrease in global annual catch of 1.5 million tonnes for an increase of 1.5℃, but a decrease of 3.0 million tonnes for 2.0℃ of global warming.
• Poverty and disadvantages are expected to increase in some populations, especially in those that rely on agricultural and coastal livelihoods, but by limiting temperature rise to 1.5℃ rather than 2.0℃ reduces the number of people exposed to this risk by several hundred million by 2050.
• The current targets set by nations at the Paris Agreement are not enough to limit global warming to 1.5℃.  For this to happen carbon emissions need to start falling well before 2030.
• We will need to cut our emissions by about 45% by 2030, reducing it to zero by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5℃.  For a global warming in 2.0℃ that would be a reduction in our emissions of about 20% by 2030 and zero by 2075.  To limit global warming to 1.5℃ we will need to make 'rapid and far-reaching' changes to energy systems (with renewable energy supplying 70-85% of our energy and coals 0%), land systems (converting land for feed-crops to energy-crops and reforestation), and urban and infrastructure systems (low energy public transport), as well as industrial systems (such as carbon capture and the use of sustainable bio-based feedstocks).
• From the four pathways IPCC mapped out to achieve the 1.5℃ only increase in global warming (showing different combinations of land use and technological change) reforestation, adoption of carbon capture technology, changes to electric transportation, and significant changes to our behaviour were shown to be essential in all of them.
• If done properly, these changes could not only reduce climate change to 1.5℃ but also help sustainable development and help reduce poverty overall (I did find this repeated statement quite interesting as it removes the planet vs human argument people like to have as an excuse not to do anything).
• They admit that there is a knowledge gap and insufficient data to calculate the true cost of 'climate-resilient investments', but have estimated that reaching the 1.5℃  target may cost three to four times as much as the 2.0℃  targets.  However, adaptation costs will be far higher in the 2.0 global warming scenarios and far outweigh the cost of doing nothing.

'Needless to say the response to the IPCC 2018 Report by the world's governments has been overwhelming' is unfortunately not a statement I'm going to be making.  Instead it was the business as usual reaction with statements of 'this is terrible' but no actual changes implemented and even some governments stating it has nothing to do with humans (you know who they are, I'm not going to mention them here).  And what has the UK Government done?  Sent a letter to our Committee on Climate Change (CCC) asking for advise on if further action is needed to meet the Paris Agreement of 2016.  Way to go at really grabbing the climate bull by the horns, it's not like it's extinction threatening or anything.  

I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more urgent on the subject, but I'm not surprised by the response.  This is one subject that's always put on the back burning whilst they deal with something 'more important'.  However, we've been given only 12 years to reduce out carbon emissions by 45% and the report has made it clear that the 1.5℃ rise in temperature isn't just going to be bad for island communities, but for everyone.  '2.0℃ because we're not a tiny island' just isn't going to cut it.  More than anything this report reminds me that it's really important that I take action myself.  Whilst the governments need to step up and play their part (and we really need to start putting the pressure on them to do so), how I live my life also has an impact and by living more sustainably in all areas of my life I can be a part of the process that helps steer us to the 1.5℃ only rise in global temperature.  Relying on others to do it all just isn't going to cut it. 

Brexit and the Environment

So here we are, the six month count down to us officially leaving the EU has started and whilst all the talk all over the media has been about immigration and business I've been wondering about the environment (a particularly vague subject when it comes to the information we've been getting).  Information has been scares and without any final outcomes from the talks yet it's difficult to know exactly where the environment stands on this Government's agenda.

There are some things to be positive about, such as the fact that the UK Government has actually been one of the main driving forces at setting higher climate change ambitions and in attempted to green up the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  This government has made quite a few noises about a 'greener Brexit' producing their 25 Year Environmental Plan (25YEP) in January of this year and lots of positive noises coming from ministers' speeches with Teresa May insisting the Brexit will not mean the lowering of environmental standards.  This could also be seen as an opportunity to improve what are now the CAP and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), both of which are associated with environmental problems and unsustainable overproduction.  

However, the Conservative Party hasn't exactly got a great reputation when it comes to the environment and climate change, with a number of their politicians hinting that this Government, despite the rhetoric, is actually wanting to lax the policies we already have in place.  In fact, our own Environment Secretary, Michael Grove, stated that he believes the EU Bird Directive and Habitats Directive should be reformed or overturned once we leave the EU. Worrying.  And then there's the 25YEP.  On the surface it seems good (it's 155 pages and quite dry, but stick with it), but then you look at it closely it's pretty vague on details with a lot of lovely sounding goals and not a lot of information on how we're going to get there or what is going to be put in place to ensure they happen.  Call be cynical but I don't really trust politicians when it comes to words without any backing.

So here are the things that I'm worrying about:

• CAP and CFP.  As I've said before, whilst there have been attempts to improve both of these policies throughout the EU, there has been some issues with how 'green' and sustainable they have been and leaving the EU could be a great opportunity for us to improve on these in the UK.  As always we are getting mixed messages from the politicians on this one, but the thing that worries me to most is trade.  It sounds weird I know, but here's the thing.  If (or more probably when) we open our market up to more people other then the EU we will open the probability that we will be seeing products from other areas which are much cheaper due to their lower standards in environmental and social polices, undercutting our domestic products.  Whilst I would love to believe that we as a nation would support our homegrown products by buying the more expensive, more environmentally friendly items we all know how that is actually going to go.  The result is likely to be a lowering of our environmental policies to allow domestic trade to compete with the international trade.  Not only would this mean no improvements on CAP and CFP, but a reduction in the policies we already have in place.
• Fighting Climate Change.  On the surface this is an area we possibly don't need to worry too much about, after all we are part of a number of international commitments, including the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCC - you would think they would find a shorter name), have our own UK Climate Change Act (CCA) 2008, and an independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) which advises our government.  However, the EU has much stricter goals and timescales then the international community, and acts as a way of keeping track of our progress as well as providing the proverbial stick whenever we fail in the goals set.  Whilst the CCC is great at advising the government it has no actual enforcement powers to ensure we actually carry out the work needed, and this means that there is no real incentive to actually fight climate change once we leave the EU.
• The EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive.  Unlike climate change there is no real international agreement on these which could hold the UK accountable.  Whilst we do have sites that are classified as SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) they don't necessarily stop development in the same way these EU Directives have done (anyone remember that particular golf course built on part of Foveran Links, a SSSI site in Aberdeenshire, which is now 'partially destroyed').  The RSPB have suggested in a Guardian article that since the Natura 2000 and Habitats Directive have come into place they have reduced the loss of protected sites from 15% per year to just 1%.  The loss of these will be quite a blow and this is perhaps the area where the most pressure will need to be put on the Government to ensure that these areas remain protected after 2019 with policies that don't just fall away when money and development come knocking.
• Funding.  The UK has received a large amount of funding from the EU for research.  Figures from The Royal Society has shown that we received 8.8 million Euro between 2007 - 2013 and Greenpeace has shown that in the EU budget for 2014 - 2020 the UK will have received around 5.8 million Euro to funding projects supporting the environment and the fight against climate change.  This funding will need to found from the UK's own coffers and the worry that the money may be put 'to better use' reducing our ability to help protect our environment both locally and globally.
• Accountability.  Perhaps the thing that worries me the most is who is going to hold us accountable.  Whilst we are in the EU we have standards we have to adhere to and which are monitored and scrutinised with all the necessary reports.  There is no hiding what we are doing or not so subtly looking the other way, and if we do not adhere to these standards then there is the Court of Justice of the European Union, an independent justice service that can fine us substantial amounts for failing to comply.  One example of this happened at the beginning of this year when the UK failed to comply with EU air quality laws.  To ensure we stay on track when it comes to climate change and environmental protection we have to ensure that a new, independent watchdog is put in place which is able to work over all four UK countries and has the power and resources to be able to scrutinise and enforce the policies put in place.

One article I found particularly interesting in my research into Brexit and the environment was put together by Friends of the Earth on 'UK Environmental Policy Post-Brexit: A Risk Analysis'.  This report looks at the possible risk to the environment of five possible Brexit scenarios as well as the implications on Environmental Protection.  Whilst this covered most of the areas I'd already been looking at the one things it reminded me of, and which I had forgotten about, is that the UK has a devolved Government.  This is especially true when it comes to policies on energy, agriculture, and fisheries and this could be a sticking point when it comes to the UK Government putting together environmental policies after we have left the EU.  'In fighting' between the separate Governments could mean that areas remain unprotected for extended periods of time whilst the policies are put intp place and there is even more of a distraction from reaching our climate goals then already exists with the work on Brexit.  Not really something we can afford to do.

So these are my worries about us leaving the EU and what I've noticed so far in the proceedings when it comes to the environment and climate change.  Please let me know if you think I've missed anything when it comes to these issues and if there are any articles you think I should read - I'm always up for learning more.  From what I can see it'll be a waiting game until Brexit actually happens......and then we might have a fight on our hands to help protect our most valuable resource.

Book Review: Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet

Six Degrees is a non-fiction book about climate change.  The author, Mark Lynas, looks at the scientific journals published on climate change and summarises them here with each chapter being an increase in a degree.

Topics covered in this book are how positive feedback will accelerate climate change, carbon cycle feedback, destruction of the corals and rain forests, desertification, and the specific effects of methane is having on the warming of our planet.  Perhaps the most eye opening part of this book is how a rise in five or six degrees could lead to the tropics and subtropics being completely uninhabitable with shortages in water and food, and a mass migration of billions of people to the north and south of the planets with devastating outcomes.

This book was first published in 2007 and I first read this the next year, and have read it again since.  The information described in Six Degrees is still pretty accurate to the updated information being provided by the scientific community today and, there's no point beating around the bush here, it is quite stark.  It is also worrying to realise that we have already had a temperature rise of 1 degrees (making that chapter even more pertinent to read).

Perhaps the thing that is most amazing about this book is the fact that we have known about the effects these temperature rises will have on our planet for over 10 years now and yet we have carried on as normal with our head in the sands.  It seems odd to me that we haven't made the changes we need to make to swerve away from these scenarios and are now heading into a 3 degree rises.  

This book is a definite read for everyone, if only to prepare yourself for the world we are heading to, and a good way of giving yourself an incentive to make the changes we need to prevent us from reaching the worst that climate change will bring.  For me climate change is really about the world we leave for other species that share this planet with us, but if you are all about the humans this is a very good look at just how much it is going to effect us.  It is also important to be realistic about how humans behave in highly stressful situations, and it's no always with humanity and understanding.  We really need to fight climate change now and Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet is a good incentive to do so.

Book Review: The Soil Will Save Us

The Soil Will Save Us is a book that looks at the very overlooked microbials that can and should be found in our soil.  These not only help all plants (including those we eat) to obtain all the nutrients they need, but also sequester carbon into the soil storing it away for generations.  Unfortunately the methods of agriculture we have used over the last thousand years has meant that we have actually been destroying the health of our souls, reducing the health of the plants we grow but also releasing vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The author, journalist Kristin Ohlson, talks to farmers, ranchers, scientists, landscapers, and environmentalist who are working to improve the health of our soils both in the labs and on the ground.  Using methods previously used in farming before the industrialisation of agriculture and mimicking species interactions found in the wild there is evidence that their work is bringing the soil back to its previous health.

Research has shown that this healthy soil has not only improved the health of our food, reduced the cost to farmers and ranchers as the natural processes take over, reduced drought and erosion, and made improvements to air and water pollution, but also storing away large amounts of carbon helping with the fight against climate change.  This last point is especially important as this fact means we can remove the carbon we have already sent into the atmosphere.

Whilst this book is now about four years old and American centric it is still relevant today and provides information that could be used all over the world.  Despite the amount of science in this book, Ohlson has done a very good job in making this an easy and very understandable read.  This is a fascinating read and comes up with a viable solution usually overlooked when talks on tackling climate change occur.  Based on the imformation this book provides it does seems that the soil could really save us.  It is definitely worth a read.

Wearing a Green Heart

Next week is Valentine's Day where everywhere will be covered with red hearts.  However, The Climate Coalition has asked us this year (as the past three years) to wear and give a green heart instead of a red in support of the fight against climate change.

Made using a hobby you enjoy and from products you already have, the heart is meant to be a starting point for a conversation with others and to represent the thing you love which you would lose to climate change.  The special thing about these hearts is that they are all unique and a representation of you.  The green heart can really be made using whatever material you want and either individually or as a group where discussions can take place about the work towards stopping climate change.  There's a few ideas on The Climate Coalition website (show the love).

Knitting is something I was taught to do by my grandmother many years ago and have gone back to it, on and off ever since.  I am definitely not very good at it and more practice is needed, but it seemed to be a lovely way to connect the woman who taught to stand up for what I believe in to the thing I care about the most, this planet.

Once you've made your heart, or maybe whilst you're making it, you need to decide what it is that you love for the most.  The website suggests things like football pitches, the silent woodlands, or the crops that feed us.  However, for me it has to be something as non-specific as the living world.  To me this is the most amazing thing we have (though we don't own it).  It'll be centuries before we have discovered everything there is to know about it; it is a thing of immense beauty; it gives us the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe; it is the reason we even exist in the first place.  To me, it is the one thing that is worth halting climate change for.