food – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

Tiny oceanic plankton adapted to warming during the last ice age, but probably won’t survive future climate change – new study

Posted on December 2, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Global temperature records are expected to exceed the 1.5 °C threshold for the first time this year. This has happened much sooner than predicted. So can life on the planet adapt quickly enough?

In our new research, published today in Nature, we explored the ability of tiny marine organisms called plankton to adapt to global warming. Our conclusion: some plankton are less able to adapt now than they were in the past.

Plankton live in the top few metres of ocean. These algae (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) are transported by ocean currents as they do not actively swim.

Climate change is increasing the frequency of heatwaves in the sea. But predicting the future effects of climate change is difficult because some projections depend on ocean physics and chemistry, while others consider the effects on ecosystems and their services.

Some data suggest that current climate change have already altered the marine plankton dramatically. Models project a shift of plankton towards both poles (where ocean temperatures are cooler), and losses to zooplankton in the tropics but might not predict the patterns we see in data. Satellite data for plankton biomass are still too short term to determine trends through time.

To overcome these problems, we have compared how plankton responded to past environmental change and modelled how they could respond to future climate changes. As the scientist Charles Lyell said, “the past is the key to the present”.

We explored one of the best fossil records from a group of marine plankton with hard shells called Foraminifera. This comprehensive database of current and past distributions, compiled by researchers at the University of Bremen, has been collected by hundreds of scientists from the seafloor across the globe since the 1960s. We compared data from the last ice age, around 21,000 years ago, and modern records to see what happened when the world has previously warmed.

We used computational models, which combine climate trends with traits of marine plankton and their effect on marine plankton, to simulate the oceanic ecosystems from the last ice age to the pre-industrial age. Comparing the model with the data from the fossil record is giving us support that the model simulated the rules determining plankton growth and distribution.

We found that some subtropical and tropical species’ optimum temperature for peak growth and reproduction could deal with seawater warming in the past, supported by both fossil data and model. Colder water species of plankton managed to drift to flourish under more favourable water temperatures.

Our analysis shows that Foraminifera could handle the natural climate change, even without the need to adapt via evolution. But could they deal with the current warming and future changes in ocean conditions, such as temperature?

Future of the food chain

We used this model to predict the future under four different degrees of warming from 1.5 to 4 °C. Unfortunately, this type of plankton’s ability to deal with climate change is much more limited than it was during past warming. Our study highlights the difference between faster human-induced and slower-paced geological warming for marine plankton. Current climate change is too rapid and is reducing food supply due to ocean stratification, both making plankton difficult to adapt to this time.

Phytoplankton produce around 50% of the world’s oxygen. So every second breath we take comes from marine algae, while the rest comes from plants on land. Some plankton eat other plankton. That in turn gets eaten by fish and then marine mammals, so energy transfers further up the food chain. As it photosynthesises, phytoplankton is also a natural carbon fixation machine, storing 45 times more carbon than the atmosphere.

Around the world, many people depend heavily on food from the ocean as their primary protein sources. When climate change threatens marine plankton, this has huge knock-on effects throughout the rest of the marine food web. Plankton-eating marine mammals like whales won’t have enough food to prey on and there’ll be fewer fish to eat for predators (and people). Reducing warming magnitude and slowing down the warming rate are necessary to protect ocean health.

——————————

This blog is written by Rui Ying, Postdoctoral Researcher, Marine Ecology, and Daniela Schmidt, Professor in Palaebiology, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Breaking down ‘the beef’: Unpacking British animal farmers’ attitudes towards veganism

Posted on November 12, 2024November 12, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

In recent years, plant-based diets have spiked across the UK. These trends are accompanied by increased discussions about consumption choices, in which vegans and livestock farmers are often depicted as rivals in a highly polarised public debate. Debates often centre on the modern meat industry, predominately criticised for its exploitative animal husbandry and/or its unsustainable farming practices. As livestock farmers’ activities are placed under the microscope, are their reputations falling in respectability?

Attempts have been made to improve communication between farmers and consumers, addressing a so called urban-rural ‘disconnect’. The thought goes that when communication is poor between these parties, polarization and stereotypes are given greater space to thrive. This issue became the springboard for my project. As veganism’s objections to animal farming are well-documented, I wanted to hear more from UK farmers’ themselves about their relatively unheard views on veganism.

Research realities

The nature of this study called for qualitative research: semi-structured interviews aiming to gain detailed, ‘close-up’ information on farmers’ lived experiences. With resources limited, my participants comprised of 12 British meat and dairy farmers, allowing me to explore sheep, cattle and pig farms of different shapes-and-sizes.

Although UK farming communities are recognised as an especially hard-to-reach demographic for research engagement, I was able to utilize my ‘insider’ status to secure a high response rate. Whilst I am from a farming background, I am also a vegetarian: an ‘outsider’ dietary choice that is frequently met with negativity in the agricultural world.

Spatial distribution of interviewees across the UK

Farmers’ ‘issues’

The livestock farmers I interviewed expressed two broad issues with veganism. The first issue spoke of the ‘urban disconnect’ from everyday, rural cultures and lifestyles on the farm. Farmers cast vegans as estranged ‘city people’ who therefore create misconceptions about farming practices. Speaking of artificial insemination, one farmer with a micro-dairy explained that animal rights activists are “just totally wrong” by commonly naming AI as “raping a cow”. He named these claims as an “anthropocentrism […] [The cows are] not in any distress with it […] The idea that it goes against the will of the cow is just incorrect” (Farmer J).

Farmers also saw veganism’s disconnection from the realities of livestock farming as leaving no scope for there to be any positive kind of relationships between farmer and animal. Things like

sheep running through the field […] the farmer helping a ewe give birth […] The kind of joyful sides of it […] If a farmer says: ‘but no, there’s a relationship and it’s like a symbiotic thing’, it’s like ‘fuck off is it symbiotic, it’s the most exploitative relationship possible’ (Mixed livestock farmer).

In general, farmers spoke of complicated and intimate farmer-animal relationships. Whilst acknowledging that livestock are kept for economic purposes, they felt that animals can equally shape ways of being in the world for farmers. They believed that most vegans failed to recognise this, only having the scope to consider the worst bits of livestock farming. In other words, they see “the end product, and the end product is death”.

Secondly, many farmers problematised veganism as an unsuitable paradigm for UK agriculture to holistically follow:

I think that veganism is still just as dependent on the worst bits of our food system, as in the agro chemistries […] I think it’s just as dependent on all of these, but it has falsely blamed animals as the consequence of the environmental degradation (Sheep farmer).

Situated in the no-meat/pro-meat debate, many farmers I spoke with joined the rising number of people championing small-scale, naturalistic animal farming. Contrary to veganism, they saw livestock — extensively managed — as necessary for any healthy, farmed ecosystem. This mirrors one micro-dairy farmers’ discussion on the reintegration of livestock onto degraded arable land:

There could be a really important role for livestock on repairing arable lands that could also help with transitioning away from artificial fertilizers and heavy use of fossil fuels in arable.

Overall, farmers critiqued veganism for failing to recognise the damage that conventional farming practices elicit, whilst promoting a singularly negative view of animal farming. They named the movement responsible for the successful “demonizing of cows”, claiming instead that it’s not the cow, it’s the how.

A less politically charged takeaway, however, is the idea that the UK’s fundamentally unsustainable food system is not being challenged by veganism. Farmers spoke about the need to reform the UK’s import-culture, in which only 55% of our food is home-grown. One believed that an ethical diet can’t be based on “unjust global structures either” as, for example, “problems [are] being caused for Mexican people by [the UK] importing so many avocados”.

Farmers felt that veganism falsely implies that ‘the food system is fine, just as long as customers do the correct thing and don’t eat animal produce’. Instead, many prefer to aspire towards a system that they felt does address deeper food system issues, such as a ‘farm-gate to plate’ model of local, agroecologically produced food.

Livestock farmers praise veganism

However, to focus solely on livestock farmers’ issues with veganism would paint a false image of what was said. Most farmers interviewed defended certain aspects of veganism, with a minority actively praising the movement:

So, where I think they do [understand the realities of livestock farming] is the […] refusal to look away from the bad aspects, from the dirtier aspects or the bloodier aspects of livestock farming […] I think a lot of meat-eaters just totally disavow that as if it doesn’t exist […] So I think vegans understand sometimes the realities of eating meat more than meat-eaters (Sheep farmer).

Here, this farmer approved of veganism for encouraging animal welfare debates. This reveals veganism’s potentially positive role in farmers’ eyes, overcoming some of the romantic ignorance about primary food production that persists in the UK. These welfare discussions often led to farmers passionately claiming that, as a nation, we need to drastically reduce our meat consumption, naming it “quite frightening” that meat consumption continues to rise “even with the vegan movement”.

Unlike existing narratives — casting vegans and livestock farmers as opposites — many farmers in my study sympathised with veganism’s goals. When discussing vegans’ decisions to eschew animal produce, one sheep farmer even said: “I totally get it and I certainly get the point where I don’t want to kill it because it’s beautiful”. These results reveal novel connections between two seemingly polarised groups. One mixed-livestock farmer even claimed that “for people to make a stance and make a decision, I applaud that”.

Farmers’ perspectives will always be diverse and complex. Nonetheless, there was a strong sense that many farmers are feeling that, within the realm of consumption, ignorance may just lie in focusing too much on what we eat, and not enough on the environment in which our food is from.

—————————————-

This blog was written by Sophie Wise, a postgraduate student in Sociology (with a study abroad) at the University of Bristol.

Building resilience of the UK food system to weather and climate shocks

Posted on September 11, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Climate-driven changes in extreme weather events are one of the highest-risk future shocks to the UK food system, underlining the importance of preparedness across the food chain. However, the CCC’s 2023 report on adaptation progress highlighted that current climate adaptation plans and policies, and their delivery and implementation for UK food security are either insufficient or limited. Through an ongoing Met Office cross-academic partnership activity (‘SuperRAP’) working across all eight partner universities (including Bristol), Defra, the Food Standards Agency, UKRI-BBSRC and the Global Food Security Programme, a recent perspective paper, and associated online workshops and surveys in January 2023 have:

Scoped out the direct impacts of weather and climate extremes on the UK food supply chain,
Highlighted areas where weather and climate information could support resilience across time and space scales through decision making and action,
Identified key knowledge gaps,
Made recommendations for future research and funding, and
Scoped out the potential adaptation/policy responses to the direct impacts of weather and climate extremes on the food chain, and the resulting trade-offs and consequences

The potential for weather and climate information to support decision making in agricultural and food system-related activities, and improved resilience to weather and climate shocks across time and space scales. Grey background boxes represent generalised meteorological capabilities; light blue ellipses with white outlines denote potential applications. © Crown Copyright 2021, Met Office. From Falloon et al. 2022.

However, a major gap remains in understanding the changes needed to rapidly increase the delivery and implementation of climate adaptation in support of resilience in the UK food system. A workshop on this topic was held at the University of Reading’s Henley Business School on 13-14 June 2024 bringing together academics across a wide range of disciplines and presented findings back to industry and government stakeholders for their feedback and prioritisation.

The workshop aimed to consider key areas for supporting resilience and adaptation to climate change identified by the January 2023 workshop including innovation and trialling novel management and production approaches, social innovation and enabling behavioural shifts, mutual learning, and underpinning evidence gaps. The workshop was supported by a cross-sector survey on adaptation barriers and priorities.

Overarching themes identified in the workshop included the need for a strategic, system-wide, and long-term approach, underpinned by strong inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration.

Critical evidence gaps include improving understanding of:

Impacts of international dimensions and trade on UK food ingredient and packaging availability, compared to UK-sourced products – and their interactions
Impacts of climate extremes on production and transport and effective adaptation options
Impacts of climate shocks on UK livelihood systems, households and consumers
Broader adaptation and transformation needed to escape existing ‘doom loops’
Application of tech solutions (e.g. GM/gene editing) for climate resilience and adaptation

Other issues raised included thresholds for change, land pressures, substitutability of different foods, impacts of government policy, nutrition, regenerative practices, and interactions with the energy sector.

Recommended ways forward include:

Tools, models, and methods that consider risks across the food chain and system outcomes
A focus on inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches.
Increased international collaboration/cooperation, and stronger government-science interactions
Enhancing food chain data access, use and integration, and a supportive enabling environment
Long-term trials: to provide evidence of impacts of alternative practices
Preparing the transport network for climate extremes.
A refresh of the National Food Strategy, building on latest science
A new funding landscape: long-term, strategic, visionary, systemic, trans- and interdisciplinary, co-designed and coordinated.

Other issues raised included: sharing responsibility and joined-up, transparent approaches across sectors and institutions; risk mitigation tools; use cases and roadmaps; welfare responses; interdisciplinary skills training; and research across a wider range of crops.

We are aiming to produce a peer-reviewed perspective paper on critical research (and practice) gaps, and recommendations for the way forward.

———————————–

This blog was written by Professor Pete Falloon from the Cabot Institute for the Environment and Met Office.

A bald headed man smiling with dark rimmed glasses. — Professor Pete Falloon

‘They don’t have enough’ – schools in England are running food banks for families

Posted on May 13, 2024May 13, 2024 by adele.hulin

The peak of the cost-of-living crisis may have passed, but millions of families are struggling to buy enough food to feed their children. Experiencing food insecurity can be deeply damaging for children and negatively affects their achievement at school.

My research, alongside other studies, shows that schools are operating their own food banks and providing charitable food aid to families. This shows how the education system – from early years to secondary schools – is increasingly at the front line in responding to child poverty, food insecurity, and destitution.

At the start of the financial crisis in 2008 there were few food banks in the UK. Now they are in towns and cities across the country. In 2010-11, charity the Trussell Trust operated 35 food bank centres. Now, the charity runs over 1400.

Recent research from the charity the Food Foundation estimates that one in five families with children do not have secure access to food.

After almost a decade and a half of Conservative governments, a significant number of schools are running food banks to support families and children.

I interviewed school staff at 25 schools across England, in towns and cities including Bristol, Liverpool and London. I wanted to understand how and why schools are providing charitable food to families.

The message was clear: schools were running food banks because they were faced with growing poverty and families struggling financially. Parents can’t afford to buy food or pay bills, and turn to schools for help. As one staff member I spoke to said:

They don’t have enough food, they don’t eat typically well because they can’t afford it, and that’s no fault of their own.

Teachers talked about the cost of living crisis and changes to the UK’s benefit system – in particular the replacement of a number of previous benefit allowances with universal credit – as reasons the food banks were necessary. Research has suggested that the switch to universal credit is leaving some families worse off. “It’s less than what they’re on before. And we have that period where you swap [systems] where you haven’t got any money,” one teacher said.

Child receiving school lunch — Some of the children whose families used school food banks did not qualify for free school meals. Africa Studio/Shutterstock

Some of the families supported by school food banks did not qualify for free school meals for their children but were still struggling. Commenting on who made use of the foodbank, one teacher said:

Sometimes it’s the ones who have free school meals and sometimes it’s the next lot up that are working families and just have absolutely no money at all and no-one to support them or help them with that because they just miss it.

The growth of food banks in schools shows how schools are often acting as an emergency service. “The government has dismantled public services over the past decade and schools are the last people standing,” Ann Longfield, former children’s commissioner for England, has recently commented.

A growing problem

The latest research I am working on with colleagues throws the situation facing families and schools into even starker relief. We are currently investigating how many school-based food banks there are in England and the sorts of schools they are located in.

Our new research, which has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggests that 21% of primary and secondary schools operate some kind of food bank. We estimate that this amounts to over 4,000 school-based food banks across England.

This would mean that there are now more food banks inside schools than the combined total of food banks operated by charities the Trussell Trust – the UK’s largest food bank operator – and the Independent Food Aid Network.

If schools are now systematically supporting families through charitable food aid, they need guidance, support and funding. Families need well-paid and secure work and a social security system that provides people with both dignity and the financial means to buy essentials, which includes being able to buy food and clothes and heat their homes.

It’s worth remembering that the goal of a well-functioning welfare state should be to prevent poverty and destitution in the first place rather than provide relief for them after the fact.

Plans to dramatically reduce child poverty, food insecurity and inequality must be central to all political parties’ election manifestos.

This blog is written by Dr Will Baker, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

UK peatlands are being destroyed to grow mushrooms, lettuce and houseplants – here’s how to stop it

Posted on February 8, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Peat is a natural carbon sink but is often found in house plants and other retail products, particularly within the food and farming industry.
New Africa/Shutterstock

During the long, solitary days of lockdown, I found solace in raising houseplants. Suddenly stuck at home, I had more time to perfect the watering routine of a fussy Swiss cheese plant, and lovingly train our devil’s ivy to delicately frame the bookcases.

But I started noticing that these plants, sourced online, often arrived in the post with a passport. Most had travelled from all over Europe, with one common tagline: contains peat.

As a peatland scientist, these labels instantly filled me with horror. Hidden Peat, a new campaign launched by The Wildlife Trusts, is now highlighting the presence of peat in all sorts of consumer products, including house plants.

Peatlands, such as bogs and fens, store more carbon than all of the world’s forests combined. They trap this carbon in the ground for centuries, preventing it from being released into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases that would further warm the climate.

Peatlands have multiple environmental benefits. They are havens for wildlife, providing habitat for wetland birds, insects and reptiles. They supply more than 70% of our drinking water and help protect our homes from flooding.

So why on earth is peat being ripped from these vital ecosystems and stuffed inside plant pots?

From sink to source

Despite their importance, peatlands have been systematically drained, farmed, dug up and sold over the last century. In the UK, only 1% of lowland peat remains in its natural state.

Instead of acting as a carbon sink, it has become one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK’s land use sector. When waterlogged peat soils are drained, microbes decompose the plant material within it and that results in the release of greenhouse gases such as methane into the air.

Most of the peat excavated, bagged up and sold in the UK is used as a growing medium for plants. Gardeners have become increasingly aware of this problem. Peat-free alternatives have been gaining popularity and major retailers have been phasing out peat-based bagged compost in recent years.

Indeed, the UK government announced they would ban sales of all peat-based compost by 2024. But this legislation has not yet been written and it seems unlikely it will be enacted before the end of the current parliament.

Even if brought in to law, this ban would only stop the sales of peat-based bagged compost of the type you might pick up in the garden centre. Legislation for commercial growers is not expected until 2030 at the earliest. So the continued decimation of the UK’s peatlands could remain hidden in supply chains long after we stop spreading peat on our gardens.

Hide and seek peat

For consumers, it’s almost impossible to identify products that contain peat or use peat in their production. All large-scale commercial mushroom farming involves peat and it is used for growing most leafy salads. It gives that characteristic peaty aroma to whisky, and, as I found out, is a popular growing medium for potted plants.

But you’d struggle to find a peat-free lettuce in the supermarket. The Hidden Peat campaign asks consumers to call for clear labelling that would enable shoppers to more easily identify peat-containing products. Shoppers are also encouraged to demand transparency from retailers on their commitment to removing peat from their supply chains.

You can ask your local supermarket about how they plan to phase out peat from their produce. Some supermarkets are actively investing in new technologies for peat-free mushroom farming.

Make informed purchases by checking the labels on garden centre potted plants or source plants from peat-free nurseries. The Royal Horticultural Society lists more than 70 UK nurseries dedicated to peat-free growing.

You can write to your MP to support a ban on peat extraction and, crucially, the sale of peat and peat-containing products in the UK. That ensures that peat wouldn’t just get imported from other European countries.

Pilots and progress

The UK government recently announced £3.1m funding for pilot projects to rewet and preserve lowland peat, with peat restoration seen as a cornerstone of net zero ambitions. This campaign calls for further acceleration of peatland restoration across the UK.

As a research of the science behind peatland restoration, I see firsthand the enormous effort involved in this: the installation of dams to block old agricultural drainage ditches, the delicate management of water levels and painstaking monitoring of the peat wetness.

I spend a lot of time taking samples, monitoring the progress, feeding results back to the land managers. Like many other conservationists, I work hard to find ways to preserve these critical habitats.

But sometimes, there may be a digger in the adjacent field doing more damage in a day than we could undo in a lifetime. That’s the reality, and the insanity, of the UK’s current peatland policies.

We heavily invest in restoring peatlands, yet fail to ban its extraction – the one action that would have the most dramatic impact. By demanding that peat is not only eradicated from garden compost, but weeded out of our supply chains, we can keep peat in the ground, not in pots.

—————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member, Dr Casey Bryce, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Casey Bryce

Are you a journalist looking for climate experts for COP28? We’ve got you covered

Posted on October 30, 2023November 28, 2023 by amanda.woodman-hardy

We’ve got lots of media trained climate change experts. If you need an expert for an interview, here is a list of our experts you can approach. All media enquiries should be made via Victoria Tagg, our dedicated Media and PR Manager at the University of Bristol.

Email victoria.tagg@bristol.ac.uk or call +44 (0)117 428 2489.

Climate change / climate emergency / climate science / climate-induced disasters

Dr Eunice Lo – expert in changes in extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cold spells, and how these changes translate to negative health outcomes including illnesses and deaths. Follow on Twitter/X @EuniceLoClimate.

Professor Daniela Schmidt – expert in the causes and effects of climate change on marine systems. Dani is also a Lead Author on the IPCC reports.

Dr Katerina Michalides – expert in drylands, drought and desertification and helping East African rural communities to adapt to droughts and future climate change. Follow on Twitter/X @_kmichaelides.

Professor Dann Mitchell – expert in how climate change alters the atmospheric circulation, extreme events, and impacts on human health. Dann is also a Met Office Chair. Follow on Twitter/X @ClimateDann.

Professor Dan Lunt – expert on past climate change, with a focus on understanding how and why climate has changed in the past and what we can learn about the future from the past. Dan is also a Lead Author on IPCC AR6. Follow on Twitter/X @ClimateSamwell.

Professor Jonathan Bamber – expert on the impact of melting land ice on sea level rise (SLR) and the response of the ocean to changes in freshwater forcing. Follow on Twitter/X @jlbamber

Professor Paul Bates CBE – expert in the science of flooding, risk and reducing threats to life and economic losses worldwide. Follow on Twitter/X @paul_d_bates

Dr Matt Palmer – expert in sea level and ocean heat content at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Bristol. Follow on Twitter/X @mpclimate.

Professor Guy Howard – expertise in building resilience and supporting adaptation in water systems, sanitation, health care facilities, and housing. Expert in wider infrastructure resilience assessment.

Net Zero / Energy / Renewables

Dr Caitlin Robinson – expert on energy poverty and energy justice and also in mapping ambient vulnerabilities in UK cities. Caitlin will be virtually attending COP28. Follow on Twitter/X @CaitHRobin.

Professor Philip Taylor – Expert in net zero, energy systems, energy storage, utilities, electric power distribution. Also Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Bristol. Follow on Twitter/X @rolyatlihp.

Dr Colin Nolden – expert in sustainable energy policy, regulation and business models and interactions with secondary markets such as carbon markets and other sectors such as mobility. Colin will be in attendance in the Blue Zone at COP28 during week 2.

Professor Charl Faul – expert in novel functional materials for sustainable energy applications e.g. in CO2 capture and conversion and energy storage devices. Follow on Twitter/X @Charl_FJ_Faul.

Climate finance / Loss and damage

Dr Rachel James – Expert in climate finance, damage, loss and decision making. Also has expertise in African climate systems and contemporary and future climate change. Follow on Twitter/X @_RachelJames.

Dr Katharina Richter – expert in decolonial environmental politics and equitable development in times of climate crises. Also an expert on degrowth and Buen Vivir, two alternatives to growth-based development from the Global North and South. Katarina will be virtually attending COP28. @DrKatRichter.

Climate justice

Dr Alix Dietzel – climate justice and climate policy expert. Focusing on the global and local scale and interested in how just the response to climate change is and how we can ensure a just transition. Alix will be in attendance in the Blue Zone at COP28 during week 1. Follow on Twitter/X @alixdietzel.

Dr Ed Atkins – expert on environmental and energy policy, politics and governance and how they must be equitable and inclusive. Also interested in local politics of climate change policies and energy generation and consumption. Follow on Twitter/X @edatkins_.

Dr Karen Tucker – expert on colonial politics of knowledge that shape encounters with indigenous knowledges, bodies and natures, and the decolonial practices that can reveal and remake them. Karen will be in attending the Blue Zone of COP28 in week 2.

Climate change and health

Dr Dan O’Hare – expert in climate anxiety and educational psychologist. Follow on Twitter/X @edpsydan.

Professor Guy Howard – expert in influence of climate change on infectious water-related disease, including waterborne disease and vector-borne disease.

Professor Rachael Gooberman-Hill – expert in health research, including long-term health conditions and design of ways to support and improve health. @EBIBristol (this account is only monitored in office hours).

Youth, children, education and skills

Dr Dan O’Hare – expert in climate anxiety in children and educational psychologist. Follow on Twitter/X @edpsydan.

Dr Camilla Morelli – expert in how children and young people imagine the future, asking what are the key challenges they face towards the adulthoods they desire and implementing impact strategies to make these desires attainable. Follow on Twitter/X @DrCamiMorelli.

Dr Helen Thomas-Hughes – expert in engaging, empowering, and inspiring diverse student bodies as collaborative environmental change makers. Also Lead of the Cabot Institute’s MScR in Global Environmental Challenges. Follow on Twitter/X @Researchhelen.

Professor Daniela Schmidt – expert in the causes and effects of climate change on marine systems. Dani is also a Lead Author on the IPCC reports. Also part of the Waves of Change project with Dr Camilla Morelli, looking at the intersection of social, economic and climatic impacts on young people’s lives and futures around the world.

Climate activism / Extinction Rebellion

Dr Oscar Berglund – expert on climate change activism and particularly Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the use of civil disobedience. Follow on Twitter @berglund_oscar.

Land / Nature / Food

Dr Jo House – expert on land and climate interactions, including emissions of carbon dioxide from land use change (e.g. deforestation), climate mitigation potential from the land (e.g. afforestation, bioenergy), and implications of science for policy. Previously Government Office for Science’s Head of Climate Advice. Follow on Twitter @Drjohouse.

Professor Steve Simpson – expert marine biology and fish ecology, with particular interests in the behaviour of coral reef fishes, bioacoustics, effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, conservation and management. Follow on Twitter/X @DrSteveSimpson.

Dr Taro Takahashi – expert on farming, livestock production systems as well as programme evaluation and general equilibrium modelling of pasture and livestock-based economies.

Dr Maria Paula Escobar-Tello – expert on tensions and intersections between livestock farming and the environment.

Air pollution / Greenhouse gases

Dr Aoife Grant – expert in greenhouse gases and methane. Set up a monitoring station at Glasgow for COP26 to record emissions.

Professor Matt Rigby – expert on sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances. Follow on Twitter @TheOtherMRigby.

Professor Guy Howard – expert in contribution of waste and wastewater systems to methane emissions in low- and middle-income countries

Plastic and the environment

Dr Charlotte Lloyd – expert on the fate of chemicals in the terrestrial environment, including plastics, bioplastics and agricultural wastes. Follow on Twitter @DrCharlLloyd.

Cabot Institute for the Environment at COP28

We will have three media trained academics in attendance at the Blue Zone at COP28. These are: Dr Alix Dietzel (week 1), Dr Colin Nolden (week 2) and Dr Karen Tucker (week 2). We will also have two academics attending virtually: Dr Caitlin Robinson and Dr Katharina Richter.

Read more about COP on our website at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we-do/projects/cop/
——————————
This blog was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Communications and Engagement Officer at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. Follow on Twitter @Enviro_Mand and @cabotinstitute.

Watch our Cabot Conversations – 10 conversations between 2 experts on a climate change issue, all whilst an artist listens in the background and interprets the conversation into a beautiful piece of art in real time. Find out more at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/conversations.

Why are neonicotinoids so polarised?

Posted on June 22, 2023 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Bee on yellow flower

The use of neonicotinoid insecticides has been, and still is, a topic of huge controversy and dispute. To use an appropriate analogy, stakeholders appear to fall into one of two neighbouring fields, distinctly fenced off from one another.

In one field, there are those that believe that the scientific evidence revealing the impacts of neonicotinoid compounds on pollinators and the wider environment is more than sufficient to strictly ban their use as a pest management tool. In the other field, interested parties argue that the evidence is convoluted and context specific, and that in some circumstances neonicotinoid use can be a safe, and environmentally resourceful strategy.

But why has this topic become so polarised? And why is there increasingly less space for those that wish to ‘sit on the fence’? This blog summarises the research published in a recent paper by Hannah Romanowski and Lauren Blake. The paper investigates the causes of controversy, and analyses the viability of alternatives in the UK sugar beet system.

What are neonicotinoids?

Neonicotinoids (neonics) are a group of synthetic compounds used as the active ingredient in some insecticides. They are neuroactive, which means that they act on the nervous system of the insect, causing changes in behaviour. They specifically bind to receptors of the nicotinic acetylcholine (nAChRs) enzyme, which are specific to insects, meaning neonics have low toxicity to vertebrates, such as mammals. They are used to control a variety of pests, especially sap-feeding insects such as aphids. Neonics are a systemic pesticide, meaning that they are absorbed by the whole plant (either by seed coating or spraying) and distribute throughout all the plants tissue.

Are neonics legal in the UK?

That’s where things get confusing… the answer is both yes and no. In 2018, the UK prohibited the outdoor use of neonics following a review of the evidence about their risk to pollinators, published by the European Food Safety Authority. However, the UK and many other EU member states have since granted emergency authorisations, which allows the use of neonics under a set of specific circumstances and conditions. The best-known example of this in the UK is the emergency authorisations granted in 2021, 2022 and 2023 for the use of thiamethoxam, one of the banned neonicotinoid compounds, on sugar beet.

However, even if an emergency authorisation is approved by UK Government, the predicted virus incidence (forecasted by Rothamsted Insect Survey) in a given year must be above a decided threshold before authorisation is fully granted. If the threshold is not met, neonicotinoids use remains prohibited. In 2021 for example, Defra set the threshold at 9%, and since the forecast of the virus was only 8.37%, the neonicotinoid seed treatment was not used. The crop went on to grew successfully unscathed by the virus.

Why is sugar beet an exception?

The Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) produced a framework in 2020 that laid out a list of requirements for an emergency authorisation of a prohibited pesticide. Requirements include not having an alternative, adequate evidence of safety, limited scale and control of use, and evidence of a permanent solution in development. In essence, the long-term economic and environmental benefits of granting the temporary emergency authorisation must outweigh any potential adverse effects resulting from the authorisation.

Sugar beet farm in Switzerland — Sugar beet farm. Source: Volker Prasuhn, Wikimedia.

Sugar beet is extremely vulnerable to a yield-diminishing group of viruses known as yellows virus (YV). YV are transmitted by an aphid vector, Myzus persicae, which are effectively controlled by neonic seed treatment. Compared to other crop systems, sugar beet is also considered low risk and ‘safer’ as it does not flower before harvest and is therefore not as attractive to pollinator insects. As was found during the research of this paper, there are currently no alternatives as effective as neonics in this system, but long-term solutions are in development. Since sugar beet produces 60% of white sugar consumed in the UK, the economic and environmental impacts of yield loss (i.e. from sugar imports) would be serious. In 2021, the government felt that sugar beet sufficiently met the requirements outlined by the ECP, and emergency authorisation was granted.

What were the aims of this paper?

The main aim of this study was to identify the key issues associated with the debate surrounding the emergency authorisation of neonics on sugar beet, and evaluate and compare current policy with potential alternatives.

Most of the data for this study was collected through semi-structured interviews with nine respondents, each representing a key stakeholder in this discussion. Interviews took place in 2021, just after the announcement that neonics would not be authorised, despite granting the emergency authorisation, as the threshold was not met.

What did this research find?

The main take-home from this research was that uncertainty around the scientific evidence was not the biggest concern to respondents, as was predicted. Instead, respondents were alarmed at the level of polarisation of the narrative. It was broadly felt that the neonicotinoid debate illustrates the wider issues around environment discussions, that are falsely perceived as a dichotomy, fuelled by media attention, and undermining of science.

The organisation of the sugar beet industry was also considered an issue. In east England, where sugar beet is grown, local growers supply only one buyer, British Sugar. This means that for British Sugar to meet demand they use a contractual system, whereby growers are contracted each year to meet a particular yield. This adds pressure to growers, and means that British Sugar controls the seed supply and therefore the treatment of seeds with synthetic pesticides. One respondent in the study said, “At one time you couldn’t order seed that wasn’t treated with neonicotinoid’.

The study also found that alternatives such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Host Plant Resistance (HPR) were not yet effective in this system. There were 3 reasons why IPM fails. Firstly, sugar beet has a very low yield diminishing threshold for the virus, meaning that it does not take much infection to significantly effect yield. Secondly, the system is extremely specific, meaning that general IPM practices do not work and research on specific methods of IPM (such as natural predators of Myzus persicae) are limited. HPR is in development, and some new varieties of plant with host resistance have been produced, but the virus has multiple strains and no HPR varieties are resistant to all of them. Finally, there is no incentivisation for farmers to take up alternative practices. Due to the contract system, the risk to growers of sugar beet to try new pest management strategies is too high.

What is the latest in 2023?

In 2023, another emergency authorisation was granted, however the threshold set by Defra was increased to 63% virulence. In March, the Rothamsted Virus Yellows forecast predicted an incidence of 67.51%, and so the neonicotinoid seed treatment was used. With this authorisation there are still conditions that growers are required to meet to mitigate any risk to pollinators. This includes no flowering crops being grown for 32 months after neonic treated sugar beet has grown, using herbicides to reduce the number of flowering weeds that may attract pollinators to the field growing treated sugar beet, and compliance with stewardship schemes such as monitoring of neonicotinoid residues in the environment.

————————–

This blog is written by Hannah Romanowski, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol. The paper that this blog is based on can be found here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-023-00830-z.

Degrowth isn’t the same as a recession – it’s an alternative to growing the economy forever

Posted on May 24, 2023 by amanda.woodman-hardy

The UK economy unexpectedly shrank by 0.3% in March, according to the Office of National Statistics. And though the country is likely to narrowly avoid an official recession in 2023, just as it did the previous year, the economy is projected to hit the worst growth rates since the Great Depression, and the worst in the G7.

For many people, this certainly feels like a recession, with food prices soaring and pay falling dramatically below inflation meaning many people are having to reduce their standard of living.

Against this backdrop, the main political parties are focused on delivering economic growth for a better future. One of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s five priorities for 2023 is simply “growing the economy”, while opposition leader Keir Starmer has pledged to turn the UK into the fastest growing G7 economy.

Sunak and Starmer’s priorities reflect conventional economic wisdom that “growth, growth, growth” increases incomes and standards of living, employment and business investment. When the economy doesn’t grow, we see unemployment, hardship and inequality.

Growth cannot solve everything

However, economic growth on its own is not going to solve these multiple and intersecting crises, as it only counts the total value of goods and services produced without measuring qualitative change – whether this stuff makes you feel happy or secure.

TVs in a shop — GDP measures things not feelings.
Luckies / shutterstock

In contrast, an increasing number of policymakers, thinkers and activists argue for abandoning our obsession with growth at all costs. Instead of pursuing GDP growth, they suggest orienting the economy towards social equality and wellbeing, environmental sustainability and democratic decision making. The most far reaching of those proposals are made under the umbrella term of degrowth.

Degrowth is a set of ideas and a social movement that presents a comprehensive solution to these issues. The pandemic demonstrated that a new normal can be achieved at pace, as we saw sweeping changes to how many of us lived, worked, and travelled.

At the time, headlines equated the pandemic-related GDP squeeze with the perceived “misery of degrowth”. With persistently high inflation rates and the cost of living still spiralling, these debates are going to resurface.

Degrowth is not the same as shrinking GDP

To begin with, degrowth is not the same as negative GDP growth. Instead, degrowth envisions a society in which wellbeing does not depend on economic growth and the environmental and social consequences of its pursuit. Degrowth proposes an equitable, voluntary reduction of overconsumption in affluent economies.

Equally important is to shift the economy away from the ecologically and socially harmful idea that producing more stuff is always good. Instead, economic activity could focus on promoting care, cooperation and autonomy, which would also increase wellbeing and give people a bigger say in how their lives are run.

Yet, for many people the word smacks of misery and the type of frugality they are trying to escape from during the cost of living crisis.

But degrowth, if successfully achieved, would arguably feel better than a recession or a cost-of-living crisis. Here are three reasons why:

1. Degrowth is democratic

The first is the undemocratic and unplanned nature of a recession or cost-of-living crisis. Most citizens would agree, for example, that they had little to no control over the deregulation of the finance industry, and subsequent boom in sub-prime mortgage lending and derivatives trading that caused the 2008/09 financial crash.

Cranes in skyline — Things would still be built – but not just to satisfy a need for growth.
Oleg Totskyi / shutterstock

Degrowth, on the other hand, is a profoundly democratic project. It emphasises direct democracy and deliberation, which means citizens can shape which economic sectors are decreased and by how much, and which ones will grow and by how much.

One example of such a democratic endeavour is the Climate Assembly UK, whose 108 members were selected through a civic lottery process and were broadly representative of the population. After listening to expert testimony, the assembly issued a number of recommendations to support the UK’s net zero climate target. Over a third of all members prioritised support for sustainable growth. Economic growth itself was not among the top 25 priorities.

2. Degrowth would be egalitarian

Recessions, especially when coupled with fiscal austerity, tend to amplify existing inequalities by hitting the poorest members of society first, including women, working-class communities and ethnic minorities.

Degrowth drastically differs from a recession because it is a redistributive project. For instance, a universal basic income), an unconditional monthly state payment to all citizens, is a popular policy with degrowthers.

The degrowth vision is that basic income should guarantee a dignified living standard, remunerate unpaid care, and provide access to healthcare, food and accommodation for those in need. It could be financed by “climate income” schemes that tax carbon and return revenues to the public.

3. Degrowth wouldn’t hinder climate action

In an economy reliant on growth, a recession is generally bad news for the environment.

For instance, for the UK to hit its net zero targets, it must make annual public investments of between £4 billion and £6 billion by 2030. A recession would threaten public spending as well as the confidence investors have in low carbon developments in transport, housing or energy.

But such investments do not have to depend on growth but could instead be made through collective and democratic decisions to make climate action a priority. Carbon taxes will play a large part in this, as will stopping fossil fuel subsidies like the £3.75 billion tax break granted to develop the Rosebank oil and gas field in the sea north of Scotland.

To make sure we stay within the environmental limits within which we can safely operate, sometimes known as our planetary boundaries, degrowth suggests democratically establishing limits on resource use. For example, global greenhouse gas emissions or non-renewable energy use could be capped at a given level, and decline annually.

Sharing these resource “caps” among the population would ensure that while we stay within these safe environmental spaces, everyone has equitable access to the resources required to lead a fulfilling life. In contrast to the pursuit of endless growth, degrowth puts both climate action and human wellbeing at its heart.

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member, Dr Katharina Richter, Lecturer in Climate, Politics and Society, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Seasonal Worker visa route encounters problems

Posted on February 27, 2023March 3, 2023 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Radio 4 interview with Dr Lydia Medland

Following the Home Office revocation of the license of one of the seasonal agricultural worker recruitment operators, Dr Lydia Medland spoke to BBC farming today on 20th February 2023 about the scheme (listen here).

The UK Seasonal Worker visa route allows workers to come from around the world to work for up to six months. There are (or were) seven ‘operators’ of the scheme. These are licenced by the government as the recruiters and sponsors of the workers and are responsible for both enforcement of the scheme requirements, particularly ensuring that workers go home at the end of their stay, and for worker protection.

The UK has had some form of seasonal worker migration scheme since the end of World War II, but the current scheme dates from 2019, when following Brexit, EU workers no longer had access to the UK labour market, and UK fruit and vegetable growers and food producers had to look elsewhere to fill seasonal labour vacancies.

At the end of 2021, Dr Medland and Dr Scott (University of Gloucestershire) wrote a briefing outlining problems in the design of the scheme recommending major changes including a guaranteed minimum income, and for workers to have full access to public services.

In her interview with Radio 4 on 20th February Dr Medland spoke of her concerns that the same companies are responsible for ensuring workers’ return as are responsible for preventing their exploitation, saying that with ‘…outsourcing to for-profit businesses of this dual very important role, it isn’t surprising that something has gone wrong, I think the UK should go back to the drawing board on this scheme.’ Academic research has found (see for example Costello and Freedland, 2014) that where there is an interaction between protection of workers and enforcement of migration law, the enforcement role takes precedence. This leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation because they fear the same organisations and laws that are also meant to protect them.

Radio 4 put these comments to the Home Office who said, ‘The seasonal workers route has been running for three years and each year there have been improvements.’ However, the increasing scrutiny of the scheme by researchers, NGOs and journalists may be having some impact because on 23rd February 2023 Mark Spencer, the Farming Minister announced that Seasonal Workers coming to the UK on the scheme would be guaranteed 32 hours a week of work. This is in response to reports that workers are returning in debt because of there is less work than originally expected.

Whilst the Seasonal Workers visa route is no longer officially a ‘pilot’ it has only been renewed until the end of 2024 and it remains open to significant review. This policy is part of the focus of the ‘Working for 5 a day’ project because seasonal migrant workers are a vital part of the labour force that ensures consumers have access to fruit and vegetables. We will continue to follow this policy development and its changing context.

——————————-

This blog was written by and has been reposted with kind permission from Cabot Institute for the Environment member Dr Lydia Medland. View the original blog.

The Horn of Africa has had years of drought, yet groundwater supplies are increasing – why?

Posted on November 7, 2022March 29, 2023 by janet.crompton

The Horn of Africa – which includes Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and some surrounding countries – has been hit by increasingly frequent and devastating droughts. Despite this, it seems the region has an increasing amount of groundwater. And this water could help support drought-stricken rural communities.

That’s the key finding from our new research, in which we discovered that while overall rainfall is decreasing, an increase in “high-intensity” rainfall has led to more water being stored deep underground. It’s a paradoxical finding, yet one that may help one of the world’s most vulnerable regions adapt to climate change.

In the Horn of Africa, rural communities live in a constant state of water scarcity punctuated by frequent periods of food insecurity. People there rely on the “long rains” between March and May and the “short rains” between October and December to support their lives and livelihoods.

As we write this, the region’s drylands are experiencing a fifth consecutive season of below-average rainfall. This has left 50 million people in acute food insecurity. The droughts have caused water shortages, livestock deaths, crop failures, conflict and even mental health challenges.

The drought is so severe that it is even affecting zebras, giraffes and other wildlife, as all surface waters are drying up and edible vegetation is becoming scarce. Worryingly, a sixth failed rainy season has already been predicted for March to May 2023.

Long rains down, short rains up

In a new paper we investigated changes in seasonal rainfall in the Horn of Africa over the past 30 years. We found the total rainfall within the “long rains” season is declining, perhaps related to the warming of a particular part of the Pacific Ocean. However, rainfall is increasing in the “short rains”. That’s largely due to a climate phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole, when a warmer-than-usual Indian Ocean produces higher rainfall in east Africa, similar to El Niño in the Pacific.

We then investigated what these rainfall trends mean for water stored below ground. Has it decreased in line with declining “long rains”, or risen due to the increasing “short rains”?

Map of East Africa — The Horn of Africa borders the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
Peter Hermes Furian / shutterstock

To do this we made use of a pair of satellites which orbit repeatedly and detect small changes in the Earth’s gravitational field that can be interpreted as changes in the mass of water storage. If there’s a significant increase in water storage underground, then the satellite will record a stronger gravity field at that location compared to the previous measurement, and vice versa. From this, the mass of water added or lost in that location can be determined.

Using these satellite-derived estimates, we found that water storage has been increasing in recent decades. The increase correlates with the increasing “short rains”, and has happened despite the “long rains” getting drier.

Given that the long rains deliver more seasonal rain than the short rains, we wanted to understand the paradoxical finding that underground water is increasing. A clue is given by examining how rainfall is converted into groundwater in drylands.

When rain is light and drizzly, much of the water that reaches the ground dampens the soil surface and soon evaporates back into the warm, dry atmosphere. To become groundwater, rainfall instead needs to be intense enough so that water will quickly infiltrate deep into the soil. This mostly happens when lots of rain falls at once and causes dry riverbeds to fill with water which can then leak into underground aquifers.

People stand in river, rainy sky. — Heavy rains fill a dry river bed in the Somali region of Ethiopia.
Stanley Dullea / shutterstock

These most intense rainfall events are increasing in the “short rains”, in line with the overall increase in total rain in that season. And despite a decrease in overall rainfall in the “long rains”, intense rainfall has remained consistently high over time. This means that both rainy seasons have enough intense rainfall to increase the amount of water stored underground.

Finally, we demonstrated that the increasing water storage in this region is not connected to any rise in soil moisture near the surface. It therefore represents “banked” water that resides deep below ground and likely contributes to a growing regional groundwater aquifer in this region.

Groundwater can help people adapt to climate change

While early warning networks and humanitarian organisations focus on the urgent impacts of drought, our new research points to a silver lining that may support long-term climate adaptation. Those rising groundwater supplies we have identified may potentially be exploited to support people in rural areas whose food and water are increasingly insecure.

But there are some caveats. First, we have not assessed the depth of the available groundwater across the region, but we suggest that the water table is shallow enough to be affected by seasonal rainfall. This means it may also be shallow enough to support new bore holes to extract it. Second, we do not know anything about the quality of the stored groundwater and whether it can be deemed suitable for drinking. Finally, we do not know exactly what will happen if the most extreme droughts of the past few seasons continue and both long and short rains fail, causing intense rainfall to decrease too.

Nevertheless, our findings point to the need for extensive groundwater surveys across the Horn of Africa drylands to ascertain whether this increasing water resource may be viable enough to offset the devastating droughts. Groundwater could potentially irrigate fields and provide drinking water for humans and livestock, as part of a strategy to help this vulnerable region adapt to the effects of climate change.

————————

This blog was written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Katerina Michaelides, Associate Professor, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol; Michael Singer, Professor in Physical Geography (Hydrology and Geomorphology), Cardiff University; and Markus Adloff, PostDoctoral Researcher, Earth System Modelling, Université de Berne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.