lives

Decreasing Forest Area Per Capita | Earth Wise

September 7, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Over the past 60 years, global forest area has decreased by 315,000 square miles, an area about twice the size of California. Combined with global population growth over that period, this has resulted in more than a 60% decline in global forest area per capita.

The continuous loss as well as degradation of forest affects the integrity of forest ecosystems and reduces their ability to generate and provide essential services and sustain biodiversity. It impacts the lives of at least 1.6 billion people worldwide – primarily in developing countries – who depend upon forests in multiple ways.

According to the new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, forest losses have been occurring primarily in lower-income countries in the tropics while forest gains have occurred in higher-income countries in the mid-latitudes or extratropics.

More than half of the world’s forest losses were in Brazil, home to the Amazon rainforest. In the past 60 years, that country has had a net loss of 170,000 square miles of forest. While most high-income countries had net forest gains, Canada actually had a net loss of about 11,000 square miles of forest.

Economic growth has a stronger association with net forest gain than with net forest loss. Therefore, the study highlights the need to strengthen the support given to lower income countries, especially in the tropics, to help improve their capacity to minimize or curtail their forest losses. To help address this ongoing displacement of forest losses to lower income countries, higher-income nations need to reduce their dependence on imported tropic forest products.

**********

Web Links

New study finds global forest area per capita has decreased by over 60%

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saving Lives With Air Conditioning | Earth Wise

August 26, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

This summer, extreme heatwaves struck the United States, Europe, and Africa. Thousands of people died as a result. In July, the impact of extreme heat in places ill-prepared for it was evident. In the U.K., where air conditioning is uncommon, public transportation shut down, schools and offices closed, and hospitals cancelled non-emergency procedures.

Air conditioning, which we mostly take for granted in this country, is a life-saving tool during extreme heat waves. However, only about 8% of the 2.8 billion people living in the hottest – and often poorest – parts of the world have AC in their homes.

A new study at Harvard modeled the future demand for air conditioning as the number of days with extreme heat continues to increase across the globe. The researchers identified a massive gap between current AC capacity and what will be needed by 2050 to save lives, particularly in low-income and developing countries.

If the rate of greenhouse gas emissions continues on its present course, the study concluded that that at least 70% of the population in several countries will require air conditioning by 2050. The number will be even higher in equatorial countries like India and Indonesia. At this point, even if the goals of the Paris Climate Accords are met, an average of 40-50% of the population in many of the world’s warmest countries will still require AC.

The research looked at various scenarios. One in which emissions continue to increase leads to widespread need for air conditioning even in temperate countries. In Germany, 92% of the population would need it, and here in the U.S., 96% would need it.

Planning for future power systems must take into account the essential needs of a warming world.

**********

Web Links

In a hotter world, air conditioning isn’t a luxury, it’s a lifesaver

Photo, posted July 24, 2021, courtesy of Phyxter Home Services via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Building Resilient Food Systems | Earth Wise

August 12, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

According to the United Nations and The World Bank, global hunger levels in 2021 surpassed the previous record set in 2020. The organizations also found that acute food insecurity – defined as when a person’s inability to consume adequate food puts their lives or livelihoods in immediate danger – could continue to worsen this year in many countries around the world.

According to a new study led by researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder, increased demand for water will be the biggest threat to food security during the next 20 years, followed closely by heat waves, droughts, income inequality, and political instability.

The report, which was recently published in the journal One Earth, calls for increased collaboration to build a more resilient global food supply. The impacts of conflict and climate change are already measured and studied around the world. While these pressing threats are not new, the researchers found that better collaboration between these areas of research could fortify and strengthen global food security.

In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers surveyed 69 experts in various fields related to food security. They found that many effects of climate change – such as unpredictable weather changes – could have the greatest negative impacts on food security. The researchers also found that threats to food security from income inequality, global price shocks, and political instability and migration are highly likely during the next two decades. More than half of the world’s food insecure populations also live in conflict-prone regions.

According to the research team, food security has never been a problem of production. It’s a problem of distribution, access, and poverty, and can be exacerbated by conflict.

**********

Web Links

Amid climate change and conflict, more resilient food systems a must, report shows

Photo, posted July 19, 2009, courtesy of Danumurthi Mahendra via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Danger Of Relying On Future Technology | Earth Wise

May 22, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

The need to mitigate the effects of climate change has been a global focus for about 40 years and has seen ever-changing views on what actions are needed. The historical record has been defined by over-reliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change. Looking to future technology to save the environment has been an excuse to postpone necessary action and avoid inconvenient changes in how we do things.

A study at Lancaster University in the UK published in Nature Climate Change exposes how such promises have raised expectations of more effective policy options becoming available in the future and have enabled the continued politics of inadequate action and skirting around the truth.

Even after four decades, rather than acting forcefully to reduce emissions, we are hoping that nuclear fusion power, giant carbon sucking machines, ice-restoration using vast numbers of wind-powered pumps, and spraying particulates into the atmosphere can address the climate crisis rather than dramatic changes in fossil fuel use.

The researchers mapped the history of climate targets in five phases. Early on, the focus was on improved energy efficiency, large-scale enhancement of carbon sinks, and nuclear power. Next, the focus was on cutting emissions with efficiency, fuel switching, and carbon capture and storage. After that, bioenergy was the major focus. Then, global carbon budgeting and potential negative emission technologies. Currently, the focus is on temperature outcomes rather than emission targets.

Each novel promise competes with existing ideas and downplays any sense of urgency. The researchers conclude that putting our hopes on yet more new technologies is unwise. The time to act is now.

**********

Web Links

Why relying on new technology won’t save the planet

Photo, posted February 13, 2019, courtesy of Jonathan Cutrer via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Why Save Endangered Species?

December 9, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

One often hears the argument that humans need to save the world’s endangered species in order to save ourselves. Carl Safina, a marine ecologist and award-winning environmental writer, has written a thought-provoking essay that offers the viewpoint that we don’t actually need the wild species of the world but that they need us.

The truth is that human beings have thrived by destroying nature. We have exploited other species when they were useful to us and simply pushed them aside when they weren’t. We drove America’s most abundant bird – the passenger pigeon – to extinction. The most abundant large mammal – the bison – was driven to functional extinction.

In today’s world, people live at high densities in places devoid of wild species and natural beauty. And while we express concern for elephants, gorillas, sperm whales, tigers, and various other species, how would the lives of most of us be affected at all should they vanish entirely? The unfortunate truth is that it would make little difference to our lives.

The only species that are really essential to modern living are actually microbes of decay, a few insect pollinators, and the ocean’s photosynthesizing plankton. Life would go on little changed without most other co-inhabitants of our planet.

Safina argues that our obligation to protect endangered species does not come from our dependence upon them but rather on a moral obligation. Humans consider ourselves to be the most moral species and, as such, we have moral obligations. In this case, it is to protect the beauty and wonder of our world, which is not trivial but in fact is the most profound thing on earth.

Safina has much more to say about this and I strongly recommend reading his essay. You can find the link here.

**********

Web Links

The Real Case for Saving Species: We Don’t Need Them, But They Need Us

Photo, posted December 9, 2014, courtesy of Gerry Zambonini via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Cleaner Air Saves Lives

September 25, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

A new study by Columbia University has concluded that lower air pollution levels saved an estimated 5,660 lives in New York State in 2012, compared to 2002 mortality levels.

The study looked at New York State levels of the specific type of pollution known as fine particulate matter, referred to as PM2.5. These microscopic particulates are a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets that either come from burning fuel or are formed in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants, industries, and automobiles.

Long-term exposure to PM2.5 can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular problems.

The study looked at extensive amounts of data to analyze trends in PM2.5 levels across New York State. The data showed that PM2.5 levels dropped by 28 to 37% between 2002 and 2012. This was a result of continued progress in cleaner vehicles, the reduction of high sulfur-dioxide emitting coal-burning power plants, and other air pollution reduction programs. They calculated that this amount of reduction in PM2.5 reduced the air pollution mortality burden for New York State residents by 67% – from 8,410 premature deaths in 2002 to 2,750 deaths in 2012.

The study provides evidence that emission controls on air pollutants – which were initiated by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and later expanded in 1990 – have improved public health across New York State. According to the researchers, the study is a key step to documenting the health benefits from cleaner air.

**********

Web Links

Air Pollution Cuts Are Saving Lives in New York State

Photo, posted June 29, 2014, courtesy of Paul Comstock via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.