Sowing the seeds

Recent posts in this blog have attempted to show that sustainable, environmentally-sound policies can be sensible, practical and perhaps most importantly of all, do not require an economic or financial compromise. The following example is a small scale initiative but it has a big impact on local communities.

The Urban Pollinators Project run by the University of Bristol, aims to research pollinating insects in urban spaces and looks to help increase the abundance and diversity of urban pollinators by promoting urban flower meadows. These meadows can be grown in parks by replacing traditional plant choices with pollinator-friendly wild flowers. The meadows can also be created in other grassy areas such as along the road side, increasing the aesthetic appeal of these areas.

(photo from: Urban Pollinators Project)

The Decline of England's Bees, a policy review and recommendations report published by the University of Reading explains why pollinating insects are so important: 

"Pollination by insects is thought to be the main reproductive mechanism in 78% of temperate flowering plants and is essential to maintaining plant genetic diversity"

"Insect-pollinated plants and their fruits or seeds are also important to wider biodiversity, providing food, shelter and other resources to mammals, birds and other insects."

(photo from Urban Pollinators Project)

The protection of pollinating insects is not just about ecological integrity, there is also a significant economic motivation. Pollinating insects carry out very important work, for free. The Decline of England's Bees report quantifies this contribution to the UK economy:

"£510m of total crop sales value is thought to directly arise from pollination services as of 2009"

"To replace pollination services provided by bees with hand pollination could cost farmers around £1.8bn/year in labour and pollen alone"

(photo from Urban Pollinators Project)

The success of the Urban Pollinators Project was featured in the Guardian Newspaper this week and the article discusses the multiple benefits of urban meadows, apart from supporting a declining bee population and the related consequences of loss to biodiversity, the meadows are aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore they are a cheaper and more sustainable alternative to maintaining mowed grass, especially if perennial meadows are sown. These urban meadows are becoming a sensible choice for city councils faced with restricted budgets. The article also suggests that these meadows can even reduce antisocial behaviour:

"At St Andrews Park in Bristol, mini-meadows in petal shapes, spirals and wavy lines have been sown to gently discourage antisocial behaviour by stopping large groups of people gathering on the grass." 

The meadows successfully transformed the atmosphere of area and influenced the way the local community used the space

The success of urban meadows hints that win win policies are possible and that the environment and the economy are not always in direct opposition.

(photo from Urban Pollinators Project)

Staying afloat or going (down) under

So Australia has officially repealed its carbon tax. It is the first country to do so and the move has received global criticism, especially since Australia is a significant CO2 emitter.

The response is encapsulated by John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute:

“The result of repeal today is that Australia is bereft of credible climate policy just as the international community focuses on deeper reduction targets for 2025 and 2030, and even the heads of organisations like the International Monetary Fund, OECD and World Bank talk of the need to completely decarbonise the global economy by the second half of this century.”

“The last seven years have been a sorry and sordid tale of greed, incompetence and rotten luck, which has reduced Australian policy making to scaremongering, self-interest and reckless short termism.”

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott describes the carbon tax repeal: "a useless destructive tax, which damaged jobs, which hurt families cost of living, and which didn't actually help the environment is finally gone."  

It seems painfully clear that Tony Abbott needs to be introduced to the Polluter Pays Principle, i.e. that the polluter should bear the cost of the pollution that they create.

At some stage down the line someone will have to face the consequences of Australia's carbon emissions; it is naive, irresponsible and short-sighted of Australia to think that this can be avoided. It is further nonsensical to believe that companies which profit from this pollution should not be held accountable for it. If paying for the pollution that they create represents too great a financial burden, it perhaps tells us something about the viability of that industry. Instead of bailing out these industries it would better for the Australian Prime Minister to think bigger, to be progressive and innovative in policy making, to build an economy that looks towards a sustainable and secure future. Not only are such policies possible but they will become commonplace as energy security and environmental security threaten economic growth.

A report released by the World Bank last month, "Climate-Smart Development: Adding Up the Benefits of Actions that Help Build Prosperity, End Poverty and Combat Climate Change", shows that "government actions can boost economic performance and benefit lives, jobs, crops, energy, and GDP – as well as emissions reductions to combat climate change." This refutes the idea that sound environmental policies represent an economic burden. 

Rachel Kyte, World Bank Group Vice President & Special Envoy for Climate Change, describes the report:

"This study makes the case for actions that save lives, create jobs, grow economies and, at the same time, slow the rate of climate change. We place ourselves and our children at peril if we ignore these opportunities."  

It is the responsibility of the Australian people to demand more of their politicians, to demand fair and sustainable policies that will work for the Australian people of this generation and generations to come. At the very least demand a politician who isn't a global embarrassment.

Good, Gooder, Goodest

Many of the posts in this blog have discussed the ways in which society and the environment are compromised for human growth and development. This is the idea behind the question: how does the whole world fit into the anthrosphere? With insatiable demand and competition for resources and land, it seems obvious that not everyone can be left satisfied. Those who most often lose out are those whose needs represent the least profitability and those who are most vulnerable; this can include people, wildlife, communities and ecosystems. Sometimes it can seem that what is fair and sustainable is inherently contradictory to commercial and economic success. However this need not be the case.

The growth of the green economy and greater global awareness of issues such as climate change, social justice, biodiversity and inequality, has awoken a social and environmental conscience so that it makes good business sense to have ethical integrity, to be environmentally engaged and to be socially aware. In the below video Simon Anholt discusses the idea of a "good country" and the way in which countries with a positive reputation become more competitive. The idea can be applied to businesses and to people, and hopefully can help to change the idea that society and the environment are obstacles to growth and development, so that instead they might be seen as a pathway to prosperity. 

Simon Anholt: Which country does the most good for the world?

Devastating Deforestation

In a previous post I mentioned the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, the context of the post was the attention that this issue receives. The loss of the Amazon rainforest is well publicised and so there are high-profile efforts to protect the forest for environmental, conservation and ecological reasons. 

While this is a very worthwhile cause, the removal of tropical forest is not isolated to Brazil and a recent study published by Nature Climate Change has revealed that as of 2012 Indonesia leads the world in the destruction of primary forest. Between 2000-2012 6.02 million ha (over 60,000 sq km) of Indonesian primary forest was lost.

The study defines primary forest as:

"mature natural forests of 5 ha or more in extent that retain their natural composition and structure, and have not been completely cleared and re-planted in recent history"

These tropical forests are a global resource since they sequester and store carbon dioxide. The destruction of these forests releases the significant stores of terrestrial carbon and contributes to Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions. But deforestation is not just about carbon dioxide; the habitat loss associated with deforestation decreases biodiversity and endangers plants and animal species. This is especially relevant in Indonesia which has incredible biodiversity.

"Indonesia's forests contain high floral and faunal biodiversity including 10% of the world's plants, 12% of the world's mammals, 16% of the world's reptile-amphibians, and 17% of the world's bird species"  

In May 2011 Indonesia implemented a moratorium on deforestation, however it seems clear that this has not been successful, and it begs the question of the role that the rest of world should play in preserving these forests. It is too easy to condemn Indonesia's destruction of forest, but does this mean that the rest of the world has a responsibility to incentivise the maintenance of tropical forest? 

The land cleared by deforestation is used for agricultural and industrial uses, similarly to the way in which subsistence farmland is sold for commercial farming, to the detriment of the local community (as discussed in the previous post on land grabbing). Such commercial land use is more profitable in the short term but in the long term it is unsustainable and damaging to the environment, biodiversity and conservation. The growth of the industries that call for deforestation show no signs of slowing, but the earth's resources will not and cannot expand in the same way. So while some people will ask "how much forest cover will be lost before the limits of deforestation are reached?" for others the question is "how much money can be made before the limits of deforestation are reached?". The answers remain to be seen, but we can influence and determine the answers, if we so choose.