Fighting Climate Change: the Drawdown Project

I was watching a few TED talks over the weekend and came across one I found particularly interesting about 100 solutions that would reverse global warming.  After watching the talk (my favourite bit is when he describes Regenerative Agriculture as a win, win, win, win, win solution) I decided to have a look at this organization.

Drawdown Project is a non-profit organization and coalition of scholars, scientists, entrepreneurs and advocates from across the globe with a mission to present the best available information on solutions against climate change.  For each solution they describe the impact they will have financially, socially, and environmentally over the next thirty years.  The goal of the organization is produce the outcome of drawdown, which they describe as being the 'point in time when the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases begins to decline on a year-to-year basis'. 

80 of the solutions they show are not new solutions that would need to be set up, but solutions that are already being carried out by people around the world.  They look at what results these solutions could produce if they were scaled up over the next thirty years and it's pretty interesting reading.  You can find the already existing solutions published on their website and I can guarantee that the order of the solutions will not be what you were expecting.  The top ten are:

1. Refrigerant Management - this looks at the HFCs that have replaced the CFCs and HCFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners to protect the ozone, but which have a 1000 to 9000 times capacity to warm the atmosphere then carbon dioxide.  These are in the process of being phased out.
2. Wind Turbines (onshore) - this is pretty self-explanatory, but the drop in prices of wind farm construction makes this a very viable and clean option, though the constant changing in region wind sources means this definitely needs to be part of an integrated system.
3. Reduced Food Waste - this is also self-explanatory and, at the moment, contributes to around 8% of the worlds carbon emissions.  The solutions differs for low income communities, where it's about improving infrastructure, and high incomes communities, where it's about reducing waste at the retailers and consumers side.  Here the solution would not only reduce carbon emissions but help meet future food demands.
4. Plant-Rich Diet - this is a subject that has gained momentum in the last few years based on the fact that the Western meat-based diet is responsible for a fifth of global emissions.  There would also be a reduce in cost due to a reduction in health issues and the stopping of government subsidies, which also distort the true price of meat.
5. Tropical Forests - tropical forest restoration is gaining momentum at the moment and could not only capture carbon but also support the water cycle, conserve the soil, supply of source of food and medicine, give people a home, and protect ecosystems. 
6. Educating Girls - the impact of educating girls is very large.  Not only will it help curb populations growth, but it also helps improve the health of those children who are born.  It also contributes to economic growth, reduces the chance of mortality for both mother and baby, reduced the number of child brides, lowers incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria, increases agriculture productivity, and increases resilience to the impacts of climate change.
7. Family Planning - this not only empowers women across the global but also increases the health and life expectancy of both the woman and the child.  The added benefit is to the planet, with a reduced population leading to a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted. 
8. Solar Farms - these operate like conventional power plants with the amount of electricity they produce, but with much lower emissions production and a price that never changes.  With initial costs dropping and a better infrastructure, this is practically unlimited and clean energy source.
9. Silvopasture - I have to admit I had never heard of this before but it is a ancient farming technique where trees and pasture are integrated into a single way of raising livestock.  Silvopasture is a very effective way of storing carbon with pastures with trees sequestering five to ten times more carbon then treeless pastures.  There is also the long financial benefit with the land and animals being healthier, and the additional production of nuts, fruits, and mushrooms.
10. Rooftop Solar - this is also pretty self explanatory, but with costs dropping and improvements in technology making them much more light weight and durable the number of rooftop solar installations is increasing.  It could also play a key role in the elimination of poverty in rural parts of low income countries.

Refrigerant Management was definitely a revelation to me, but the most surprising thing was that there were two solutions from the Women and Girls sector (6 and 7) so high up on the table as these are normally ignored when people talk about global warming solutions.  I also think it's good that family planning is there as this is normally the 'elephant in the room' when you discuss climate change with people.  It's made out to be such a sacred thing and no one likes to talk about the number of children people should be aiming for.

None of these solutions are meant to be done on their own, but instead used to help inform the decisions made as to which combination of solutions can be used in a given area.  In fact all really need to be implemented as all play their part and have more then just environmental benefits.  They also challenge social inequality, loss of biodiversity, and food insecurity.  

It might also look like this is just something to be used by businesses and governments, but I think that this could easily be used by individuals like you and me when making decisions about where to put our efforts and money when fighting global warming.  The information provided here shows that the best things we could do individually is reduce our food waste, have a more plant based diet, support those in the agricultural industry whose activities support the climate, and change our electricity providers to one that supports the wind and solar industries (in fact a look at the whole 80 shows that the decisions we make about the food we eat has the biggest impact overall).  If you have the money (and own your own property with a roof - not me at the moment unfortunately) then it would make sense to invest in rooftop solar before buying an electric car (though both is obviously better).  And finally, when looking at which charities to support, it's worth also looking at those which support educating girls and family planning as these will actually have a significant impact on climate change - an interesting factor I will definitely take into account when next looking at who I should next give money to.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is the little sting it puts into the reason we are usually given as to why we can't make changes that will be more environmentally friendly in the long run, and that is that it would have a long-term cost to our economy.  But Drawdown Project have shown that whilst it will cost a large $29,609.30 trillion to scale up these solutions we will make a savings of $74,362.37 trillion.  A savings of around $44,754 trillion!  Incentives all round really.

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. 

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.