What should be the top environmental priority for the next 40 years?

Last week, in London, some of the world's experts in environmental change and challenges gathered, as part of Earthwatch, to discuss what aspect of environmental change should be our priority for the next 40 years. So, what factors came up during the discussion...........

Education and Population:

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, we have changed the character of the Earth;  hence the increasing use among geologists of the term Anthropocene to follow the Holocene epoch. Although a complex mix of factors are responsible for such changes, population growth is without a doubt the most dominant - and continues to be. The human population rose from around one million 12,000 years ago to around one billion 250 years ago. Since then there has been an extraordinary acceleration from 2 billion in 1930 to 6 billion at the end of the century and now approaching 7 billion this month, with projections suggesting a further rise (albeit at a slower rate) to 9 billion by 2045 - scary thought if ask me!!! As hopefully you have gathered from the AS Population module and our current Development A2 module, education is critical if we hope to solve the issue of population growth and thereby dilute the effect of the appending impacts - especially education of women ( = the Girl Effect) as where emancipation of women is achieved, CBR drastically drops, as seen in most industralised countries where the fertility rate is below replacement level fertility. However, in reflection, this does causes problems in its own right - think ageing populations - but, with regards to the environment, is no where near as detrimentally damaging. There are also many other issues such as increasing population density and rapid urbanisation, especially in the developing world, which are all causing global societal problems with secondary economic, political and environmental impacts.  To think that global education could attenuated many of these demographic issues is incredibe - if education is the answer, something which is perhaps possible to start to globally implement on the mentioned timescale, should it be our priority for the next 40 years?

Oceans:

I will try and keep this one short and simple as in truth I could probably write a few essays for you on this one! Approximately 70% of the globe is ocean and we are incredibly connected and consequently reliant on it in a multitude of ways. The oceans (although specifically the ocean circulation)  are a critical mechanizism in the Earth's heat transfer system, feeds over 25% of our population and, as a result of its close coupling with the atmosphere, absorbs the heat generated by our unhealthy addiction to burning fossil fuels. Although the oceans may look very stable and unchanged over recent decades, they are not, and are increasingly vulnerable to anthropogenic forcing. With more photosynthesis occuring on the sea surface than anywhere else, many consider that the oceans breathe for the planet, with the oceans also being the largest carbon sink. This is all set to change, if our unsustainable environmental usage and consequentially accentuated global climate change continues to happen and once a significant change happens within the oceans (as is already happening with depletion of the oceans fisheries, toxic contamination of the sea by industrial runoff and plastic pollution and acidification etc.) it will pose a great threat to the health of the world's population.

Water:

Water is a resource that many take for granted but it is a resource that we simply cannot survive without. Whilst we cannot live without it, when we are forced to drink that which is not clean it becomes lethal with diarrhoea the biggest killer of children in sub-Saharan Africa - preventable diarrhoea associated with dirty water and poor sanitation kills more children than Aids, malaria and TB combined.Water provokes other societal issues, especially for women and girls who bear the burden in developing countries of walking for miles in search of water whilst dirty water, poor sanitation and hygiene undermines maternal and child health and nutrition. This has knock on impacts on education, with 443 million schools lost due to water-related diseases, as girls, especially, are needed to find water thus cannot attend school. The World Health Organisation estimates that every $1 invested in water generates $8 in wider economic benefits. All of the above, are linked to water as a drinking resource, but it has wider uses to, in industry and agriculture. Agriculture is reliant on water supplies, with 70% of the globally available freshwater used for agriculture, making livelihoods even more reliant on water what with droughts and famines going hand in hand. It is a critical ingredient for industry - almost every manufacturing process needs water - whilst,  it's intertwined with energy and not just through hydropower but thermal power stations need water for cooling and for the steam needed to turn turbines.

Energy:

I am guessing that this one is quite obvious - we humans are different to other species on Earth as not only do we gain energy from the things we eat but also from things that we don't eat. Our energy usage throughout our history has changed, as both a consequence of our development and as a factor allowing for our development. Currently, the issue of generating energy sustainably is a huge issue for the global community, with climate change accelerated by our insatiable hunger for burning fossil fuels, a desire that is only likely to increase as the global population continues to grow and countries continue to reach higher levels of development.

Food security:

With water security and supplies under threat, whilst the population continues to expand, the challenge of feeding the world is a huge! This challenge is not going to be easy with our oil-reliant food system, our environment under stress from global climate change, distruption to water supplies and soil degradation/loss, weakening overturning in oceans, biodiversity loss, land use competition with people and animals needing space to live, space needed to grow food and people starting to utilise fertile land for energy production. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges is changing our attiutde towards food and waste as if every country fed its population to the extent that we do in the UK or the USA, we would need several planets just to grow food, with estimates that 40% of what is fit to eat we waste. If we have to feed 9 billion people by 2045 we cannot continue in the way that we are - especially if you factor in the likely future changes to agriculture patterns and productivity as a result of global climate change.


What do I think? Well, I think that just the above mentioned are cause for concern and there are other factors that I am shocked did not get on the list. We place a lot of focus on how oil fuels fighting and whilst it cannot be argued that it doesn't, I think greater focus should be placed on possible/likely future fighting over resources that are essential to our survival - primarily water and food. If we are prepared to start wars over oil what would countries be prepared to do when the resource we are all after is one intrinsic our survival. This is worthy of a few blog posts on its own but I am reading a really interesting, if not slightly worrying, book at the moment called Climate Wars which covers this - a book review will be on its ways shortly, once I have finished reading it, but it is definetly worth a read for any Geographer! Anyway, back to the question,  to be honest, I feel that all these factors (and many many more) are so closely interlinked that we cannot hope to untangle them and thus it is crucial that instead of trying to prioritise them we spend the time discussing how to prevent worse case scenairo's from occuring by developing mitigation techniques whilst also ways in which society can adapt to the inevitable consequences of the damage already caused by humankind. So, I suppose what I am trying to say is that I believe we need a more holistic approach to environmental change rather than trying to prioritise different aspects.

Anyway, the afore mentioned are the factors covered during Earthwatch, followed by my view for the need for a holistic approach but what do you think should be the top environmental priority for the next 40 years? Would you choose one of the above or do you think something is missing from the list? Let me know what you think!

I am a bit reluctant to tell you which of the above factors was voted to be the greatest environmental challenge and thus should be our priority over the next 40 years but I am guessing I probably should tell you and anyway, hopefully, by now you will have formed your own opinion. The chosen factor was Population and Education with the agruement for the desperate requirement to address expotential population growth and providing education for all, viewed as the most compelling. The speech given by Sir Crispin Tickell, on this topic, can be replayed here - do you agree with the factor chosen?

Are current farming practices sustainable?

Farming is something that affects everyone in some way or another and living in Somerset means that, for some of you, farming is part of your daily lives. My stepdad is a farmer and so farming has been a part of my life since I can remember  and we own sheep and chickens and we grow vegetables for either our consumption or the sheeps. Over the last few months I have read numerous articles about the problems that are going to arise, in terms of food supplies, as the global population continues to grow. I have also been reading (yes I know, I read rather a lot!) the weekly articles, which is part of a year long investigation that have been published in the Farmer's Weekly which discuss farm energy and the ways in farms could exploit renewable energy. All of this, accompanied with some of the things that Al Gore has mentioned in his second book Our Choice and my personal experience of farming, has made me really question whether or not our current farming practices are sustainable and how they are going to have to change in the future.

It is a well known fact that the global population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and, as many people starve everyday in the world at present, many are worried that we will struggle to feed 9 billion mouths if we continue to farm the land in the same way that we do at present. Also rising sea levels threaten to claim the world's most fertile farm land which would put even more pressure on farmers to efficiently grow crops as it takes roughly 3000 years for a metre of workable soil to form. On the other hand, some people take a more optimistic view, and believe that we already produce enough food to feed 9 billion people (one article I read even went as far to say that we currently produce enough food to feed 15 billion!) and that we just need to reduce the amount that we waste. It is estimated that in developing countries 30% of their harvest is eaten by rats or insects or rots in grain silos and in developed countries we throw away 25% of our food, uneaten and that each 'rich' person waste 800 calories of food each day (for more on reducing waste see previous blog post on 'can the world cope with the growing population'). If we could reduce this waste then perhaps not as many people would go hungry each day. To reduce wastage in developing countries it is going to come down to improving their farming methods but in developed countries I think a change in attitudes is required. I was discussing this whole issue with my family a few weeks ago and in relation to reducing waste, we all agreed that the power that supermarkets have needs to be reduced and we all need to care less about aesthetics. Next time you go to a supermarket, look at the fruit and veg and see if you can notice how it is all practically the same size and shape and colour. How much fresh food do you think is wasted because it either fails to meet the aesthetical requirements of supermarkets or it is not brought before it reaches its shelf life? I am guessing that it is possibly quite a lot and this does not just occur in supermarkets as I am sure that many of us are guilty of throwing out untouched food if, even if it is fine, but has just passed its best before date. Reducing waste could be one way of ensuring we can feed the growing population but, in the future, other factors are likely to provoke farming patterns to change.......

As we  worked our way through the energy module, it became increasingly apparent that life as we know it cannot exist without the use of fossil fuels and, as oil reserves in particular continue to dwindle, farmers are going to have to change the ways in which they use the land. All pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides are produced from oil and since the mechanisation of farming, large machinery has played a large part in food production. The use of all of the above is going to have to be reduced as oil reserves run out. An increase in organic farming, at first glance, may seem like an attractive alternative as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are not used on the crops. However, due to the fact that you are not permitted to use such things, tractor hours are drastically increased which makes it debatable whether or not increasing organic farming would actually consume less fossil fuels. So, how are we going to manage to increase productivity without the use of fertilizers and pesticides or large machinery. Is hydroponics going to have a play a bigger role in food production or is the way we utilise land going to have to change?

Energy plays a crucial part in farming as we know it, especially fossil fuels, but farms do have huge potentails in terms of renewables. I feel I need to mention the fact that biomass and biofuels are becoming increasingly popular in the UK but, as expressed previously (see 3 quick questions I have been meaning to put forward in relation to the energy module.......Can biofuels offer a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels? Do developed countries have the right to limit the amount of fossil fuels industralising countries use? And finally Does oil fuel aggression?) I question whether or not biofuels are a sustainable option for the future. Biogas is becoming increasingly popular amongst farmers, especially in Germany who now have 6000 fully functioning plants. This popularity has been provoked by the government's feed-in tarrif scheme which gives finicial support to those considering developing a biogas plant on their farm.  In the UK, wind turbines are slightly more popular at present, as they can be constructed on grazing land as they do not pose any potentail threat to lifestock. Farms, due to the UK's FiT scheme, are starting to exploit wind energy by constructing a few small 10-15kW turbines on their land to help generate some of the energy that they consume for lighting and heating etc. Solar energy, especially in the south east, is also proving to be increasingly popular with farmers.

At present farmers, within the EU, are paid subsidies to manage conservation and preserve the surrounding environment and, due to the costs involved with farming, the vast majority of farmers comply with these requirements to ensure they get the subsidies. These requirements often affect the size of land available for arable farming as, for example, farmers qualify for differing levels of subsidies depending on whether or not they leave a 6ft or 12ft margin around the field for conservation. The issue of whether or not we will be able to continue to preserve and protect the environment in this way when we have 9 billion people to feed featured greatly in the discussion I had in my family and my stepdad, who recognises the importance of preserving the environment for future generations, questions whether or not we will be able to continue to protect the environment in this way in the future without comprimising our ability to feed the people that live in it. Perhaps this is going to come down to deciding which  areas to extensively farm and which areas to conserve. For example, a recent government-backed report suggested that Wales should convert at least 20% of its farmland back to forestry because its agriculture is so unprofitable. So, what if we reduce our use of land and turn to hydroponics instead? Many Japanese farmers, due to a lack of flat fertile land, have tried this method of farming to increase yield and so is this the way for the future?

Another influential factor, that needs to be considered when discussing the future of farming is changes to climate. Currently arable farming in the UK is centred in the south east whereas pastoral farming occurs elsewhere where the climate is not as hot. However, with the predicted rises in temperatures experienced in the UK over the next 20 - 30 years, Scotland and Northern England are likely to experience the higher temperatures that are required to switch from livestock to higher value arable crops. Therefore, it will not only be a lack of fossil fuels that will provoke changes to farming but also changes to the climate which ultimately dictate what and when crops are grown.

From this, I think it is clear to see that our current farming practices, for various reasons, will not be able to be continued in the future and we have to change in response to a lack of resources, growing global population and an ever changing environment. Despite it being easy to say that they will have to change; it is harder to predict what exactly they will change to. Are we likely to turn to hydroponics, or is this unlikely as freshwater becomes scarce? Is organic farming the future of farming in the UK? Or are we going to have to revert back to subsistence farming to reduce the transportation of food and the need for large machinery?