Tag: global

Insects will struggle to keep pace with global temperature rise – which could be bad news for humans

Posted on by janet.crompton

Animals can only endure temperatures within a given range. The upper and lower temperatures of this range are called its critical thermal limits. As these limits are exceeded, an animal must either adjust or migrate to a cooler climate.

However, temperatures are rising across the world at a rapid pace. The record-breaking heatwaves experienced across Europe this summer are indicative of this. Heatwaves such as these can cause temperatures to regularly surpass critical thermal limits, endangering many species.

In a new study, my colleagues and I assessed how well 102 species of insect can adjust their critical thermal limits to survive temperature extremes. We found that insects have a weak capacity to do so, making them particularly vulnerable to climate change.

The impact of climate change on insects could have profound consequences for human life. Many insect species serve important ecological functions while the movement of others can disrupt the balance of ecosystems.

How do animals adjust to temperature extremes?

An animal can extend its critical thermal limits through either acclimation or adaptation.

Acclimation occurs within an animal’s lifetime (often within hours). It’s the process by which previous exposure helps give an animal or insect protection against later environmental stress. Humans acclimate to intense UV exposure through gradual tanning which later protects skin against harmful UV rays.

One way insects acclimate is by producing heat shock proteins in response to heat exposure. This prevents cells dying under temperature extremes.

A ladybird drinking a speck of water on a narrow leaf.
Insects in warmer environments develop fewer spots to reduce heat retention.
mehmetkrc/Shutterstock

Some insects can also use colour to acclimate. Ladybirds that develop in warm environments emerge from the pupal stage with less spots than insects that develop in the cold. As darker spots absorb heat, having fewer spots keeps the insect cooler.

Adaptation occurs when useful genes are passed through generations via evolution. There are multiple examples of animals evolving in response to climate change.

Over the past 150 years, some Australian parrot species such as gang-gang cockatoos and red-rumped parrots have evolved larger beaks. As a greater quantity of blood can be diverted to a larger beak, more heat can be lost into the surrounding environment.

A colourful red-rumped parrot perched on a branch.
The red-rumped parrot has evolved a larger beak to cope with higher temperatures.
Alamin-Khan/Shutterstock

But evolution occurs over a longer period than acclimation and may not allow critical thermal limits to adjust in line with the current pace of global temperature rise. Upper thermal limits are particularly slow to evolve, which may be due to the large genetic changes required for greater heat tolerance.

Research into how acclimation might help animals survive exceptional temperature rise has therefore become an area of growing scientific interest.

A weak ability to adjust to temperature extremes

When exposed to a 1℃ change in temperature, we found that insects could only modify their upper thermal limit by around 10% and their lower limit by around 15% on average. In comparison, a separate study found that fish and crustaceans could modify their limits by around 30%.

But we found that there are windows during development where an insect has a greater tolerance towards heat. As juvenile insects are less mobile than adults, they are less able to use their behaviour to modify their temperature. A caterpillar in its cocoon stage, for example, cannot move into the shade to escape the heat.

Exposed to greater temperature variations, this immobile life stage has faced strong evolutionary pressure to develop mechanisms to withstand temperature stress. Juvenile insects generally had a greater capacity for acclimating to rising temperatures than adult insects. Juveniles were able to modify their upper thermal limit by 11% on average, compared to 7% for adults.

But given that their capacity to acclimate is still relatively weak and may fall as an insect leaves this life stage, the impact is likely to be limited for adjusting to future climate change.

What does this mean for the future?

A weak ability to adjust to higher temperatures will mean many insects will need to migrate to cooler climates in order to survive. The movement of insects into new environments could upset the delicate balance of ecosystems.

Insect pests account for the loss of 40% of global crop production. As their geographical distribution changes, pests could further threaten food security. A UN report from 2021 concluded that fall armyworm populations, which feed on crops such as maize, have already expanded their range due to climate change.

A damaged corn crop following an attack by fall armyworms.
The fall armyworm is a damaging crop pest which is spreading due to climate change.
Alchemist from India/Shutterstock

Insect migration may also carry profound impacts on human health. Many of the major diseases affecting humans, including malaria, are transmitted by insects. The movement of insects over time increases the possibility of introducing infectious diseases to higher latitudes.

There have been over 770 cases of West Nile virus recorded in Europe this year. Italy’s Veneto region, where the majority of the cases originate, has emerged as an ideal habitat for Culex mosquitoes, which can host and transmit the virus. Earlier this year, scientists found that the number of mosquitoes in the region had increased by 27%.

Insect species incapable of migrating may also become extinct. This is of concern because many insects perform important ecological functions. Three quarters of the crops produced globally are fertilised by pollinators. Their loss could cause a sharp reduction in global food production.

The vulnerability of insects to temperature extremes means that we face an uncertain and worrying future if we cannot curb the pace of climate change. A clear way of protecting these species is to slow the pace of climate change by reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a smaller scale, the creation of shady habitats, which contain cooler microclimates, could provide essential respite for insects facing rising temperatures.The Conversation

—————————-

This blog is written by Hester Weaving, PhD Candidate in Entomology, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hester Weaving

 

 

Reflections on creating equitable partnerships in research

Posted on by janet.crompton

Bristol’s Research Development International (RDI) Team works with our academics and their partners across the globe to help them secure funding for research projects. We support applications to a wide range of external funding calls including those funded as part of the UK’s Aid budget and others focused on collaborations with global South partners.

We also run internal calls to help our researchers initiate, develop and sustain international partnerships. These schemes have sown the ground for partnerships to grow their projects and to successfully secure millions in funding.

A key aspect of our internal funding schemes is the need for projects to demonstrate that the partnership is equitable. This without doubt strengthens funding proposals and ensures outcomes meet the needs of the intended beneficiaries. We have also seen equitable partnerships become more of an expectation for external funders too, especially for calls that aim to tackle global challenges.

Equitable research partnerships that enable co-design and collaboration across sectors to combine diverse sources of knowledge are crucial for enabling transformative adaptation.

Tacking Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Opportunities, UKRI 2022

Global challenges – our principles

The University of Bristol’s principles for global challenges research activity include our commitment to build equitable relationships. We fully support these statements of expectations:

  • Partnerships should be transparent and based on mutual respect.
  • Partnerships should aim to have clearly articulated equitable responsibilities, efforts, benefits and distribution of resources.
  • Partnerships should recognise different inputs, different interests and different desired outcomes and should ensure the ethical sharing and use of data which is responsive to the identified needs of society.

Between 2017-2021 the University directly supported in excess of 120 global challenges projects with partners in over 55 countries located in the global South. These projects demonstrated the importance of investing time and resources into building equitable partnerships which are based on trust and understanding. The funding enabled researchers to gain and develop first-hand knowledge about how to develop inclusive partnerships where cultural differences are considered and understood. It also helped them to recognise that there are power dynamics within partnerships that are sometimes out of their control, for example the particular model of funding or Bristol’s own institutional processes. Others arise due to a lack of awareness of the local contexts in which overseas partners operate.

A collaborative research project on mitigating everyday risks in Peru. Read more about this project.

 

Developing international research collaborations

When we asked some of our award holders what advice they would give to researchers who would like to develop international global challenges research collaborations they commented:

“I think you have to go and visit and sit down and spend time talking, understanding perspectives, priorities, and local constraints.  There are constraints that if you are based in the UK, you don’t even know are possible constraints, until you are there.  People have got to like you, to feel you ‘hear’ them and are interested and understanding.”

“The basic element of overseas partnerships is to be respectful of your partners and recognise that they come with substantial technical expertise and understand their context far better than an overseas researcher will.  It is crucial to listen to the partners and be willing to change you own ideas and plans in light of the inputs, insights and advice from the partners.”

“Communication was often difficult in the early stages of our partnership.  If considering new partnerships again, I would ensure that we had more extensive discussions at the start about capacity, capability, and areas of particular interest so we maximise the likelihood that research designs match partner expectations”

“Recognise that the drivers for academics in other countries may not always be the same as those in the UK – your partners may care much more about community interaction or policy engagement than writing papers for instance.”

“Co-development and collaboration creates new possibilities in terms of outcomes and impact that are not possible alone – be patient and flexible with partners and processes that are needed to build these collaborations because the rewards can be significant.” 

How to find international research partners

If you are interested developing an international research collaboration, your first question may be how do I find an international partner(s)?   Some of our suggestions include:

  • Seek advice from your School Research Director or Faculty International Director;
  • Contact your research support colleagues who may be aware of existing projects working in a similar area and can put you in touch with your colleagues.
  • Speak to your institutions research institutes and centres. These are often closely linked to institutions’ international engagement strategies and can enable interdisciplinary links within the institution that can lead to developing international collaborations.
  • Like Bristol, your institution may be part of an existing international network, such as the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN).  Contact the network’s team to find out what partnerships exist already and whether they can facilitate links with these institutions
  • The South West International Development Network (SWIDN) is a cross-sector membership organisation of non-profit, academic institutions, businesses, consultants and individuals who are working in international development towards the SDGs. Your institution may have connections to similar organisations. If you are seeking partners for your research, they can share information with their NGO members.

What help does the RDI team provide to University of Bristol researchers and their international partners?

Our activities include discussing potential projects and how these fit with specific call requirements; how to complete applications, the information to be included and who in the University can provide additional support; how to generate impacts and policy; identifying potential future funding streams for sustaining partnerships; reviewing draft applications; assisting or signposting in respect of the associated administrative, financial and contractual requirements. We have also developed a toolkit to help Bristol researchers navigate all these aspects.

Hints and tips for global challenges research

Do

  • take time to build your partnerships.  Successful partnerships are built on trust and understanding.  Look out for funding streams which will help you to meet them face to face.
  • make sure the project is co-designed, it should be informed by the local contexts of the challenges(s) identified by partners and other stakeholders.
  • consider the potential for mutual learning and knowledge exchange.
  • recognise and understand that what you may think is a primary issue in a partner country, might not be a burning issue from your partner’s perspective.
  • think about cultural differences and how you will need to accommodate or address these as the project develops.
  • think about how time differences and different pressures may impact on how your project develops.
  • be aware that funding deadlines are often very short for global challenges research and applications can take a considerable time to complete
  • be aware that these funding streams are competitive.

Don’t

  • try to shoehorn your research to meet the aims of a particular call. Funding panels can usually spot where this is the case.
  • assume that professional services teams will be able to prioritise your application.  Liaise with them at an early stage in your planning. Take time to become familiar with the University’s research costing systems and the associated procedures in place.
  • assume that your University’s due diligence and contractual processes will always be straightforward and timely. These can be complex in some instances, especially where your partner(s).

Resources

Funding calls

Current UK funded international research development calls.

Recent equitable partnership projects

Here are some recent projects on global challenges that University of Bristol academics and their international research partners have been collaborating on:

Global trading: the good, the bad and the essential

Posted on by janet.crompton

In our last post, we began our journey considering food supply chains in times of pandemic and we touched upon their history. Here, we further consider some of the flaws in our globalised food systems and the historical trading patterns upon which they are based, which have remained largely unquestioned for centuries. Food is essential but the way consumer demands have shaped our food systems through overproduction and consumption is not.

We find ourselves dependent on socially unequitable and environmentally degrading global supply chains. Not all supply chains are created equal and there is no denying that in this crisis we need to pull together to meet ventilator demand and that staying global could be vital. Yet when it comes to food supply chains we need to think differently. How did we get to system where a banana costs 15p? And why do those who labour the most receive the least?

Source: Fairtrade Foundation 2014; Banana Link 2015

The figure below shows how small-scale farmers and workers have been squeezed within food value chains in the last 24 years

Source: Oxfam Ripe for Change report, 2018 p. 18
Despite this clear inequality, we often justify these practices and prices to ourselves by considering them outside their context, disregarding their very real costs. Economically, these inequalities are justified by ‘free trade’. Socially, we like to think that our consumption provides jobs. As Unilever describes it, by purchasing their products, they ‘feed the farmers that feed us’. We are creating jobs, but what do we say to the 8 year olds that are picking our cocoa? Environmentally, our consumption patterns in the global North are changing the landscape for food producers globally. For instance, coffee growers are finding it increasingly difficult to grow their crops as global temperatures fluctuate. Those who can, move to find the ‘right’ conditions, those who cannot experience the first wave of climate apartheid and poverty.

Poverty is both a macro-economic and a micro-economic problem. Poverty in ‘developing’ countries cannot be understood without reference to the global political economy that is controlled by ‘developed’ countries. The exploitative relationship between the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries is a major driver of poverty and hazard for the people of the ‘developing’ countries. The global supply chains of multinational companies are often the mechanisms through which this exploitation is organised. Our quests for new foods and superfoods, such as quinoa, has priced these developing nations out of their own staples.

Surely though, it must be better for local food producers in the UK? But increasingly, only large-scale producers are able to compete. And despite Brexit, and the push for local people doing local jobs, we are lacking essential food workers. This pandemic has highlighted our shortage of ‘local’ people to do manual jobs and the likelihood is we will once again have to import workers to do this essential work – we are even having to turn to volunteers for this essential work. And this isn’t unique to the UK. The French government, for example, has officially called upon unemployed people to join the “army of agriculture” to feed the nation.

UK farmers are no strangers to exploitation either

Now, more than ever, is the time to reflect on our consumption patterns and think about what we are eating. We need to consider the real cost of food, and as food poverty spreads, we call for more inclusionary food systems for all, which we believe will help us to avoid future pandemics.

——————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Dr Lucy McCarthy and Lee Matthews and Anne Touboulic from the University of Nottingham Future Food Beacon. This blog post first appeared on the University of Nottingham Future Food Beacon blog. View the original blog.

Dr Lucy McCarthy

 

 

Global food supply chains in times of pandemic

Posted on by janet.crompton

The public health crisis unfolding before us is unprecedented, unimaginable and catastrophic. It will profoundly impact our values and lifestyles as it exposes the implications of national austerity measures on public services and the precariousness of our globalised production and consumption systems. Food supply chains are no exception. Public awareness of the interconnectedness our food supply chains has soared in recent weeks; despite being largely disregarded throughout Brexit debates. It is imperative we interrogate the global connections that our food supply chains rely upon and create, especially as the current global pandemic is but one of the threats to humanity as we know it.

The “globalisation” of food is not a new phenomenon and our global food supply chains have their roots in historical trading patterns. These trading patterns and our organisation of global food chains can be understood from the perspective of traditional (and flawed) economic models that underpin capitalism and are a product of colonial history.

Whilst this legacy must be challenged, one must recognise that the mass availability of food and spread of food culture emerged from this global food system and the advent of the supermarket model in the 20th Century. In fact, we take for granted that we can consume anything, anytime and cheaply. The average consumer has little to no sense of seasonality or the real value of food. The socio-environmental costs – but also the economic ones to the least powerful players (e.g. growers/small-scale producers) – are seldom considered as our choices and lifestyles seem resolute.

Yet as COVID-19 spreads and supermarket shelves are left empty, the fragility and unsustainability of global food chains is exposed. We depend on complex and extended networks to provide goods to our table. As a result of the pandemic, one can expect global freight to decrease, especially for less essential goods, leading to the slow disappearance of tropical or out-of-season fruits on UK shelves but also to impact the import of key ingredients for our manufactured food products (for instance stock cubes and soups). We must question how to transform our food system into a resilient and equitable one. Promoting local and seasonal as the new normal seems like a step in the right direction.

We must acknowledge the unsustainability of our current model as it promotes the exploitation of natural resources and people to satisfy the insatiable consumers in the global North. Some argue this is a key reason for the outbreak, as our production and consumption systems infringe on nature and other species’ natural habitats. There is increasing recognition that human health cannot be understood independently of the health of the ecosystems, this relationship is being studied in a field of science called ‘Planetary Health’. The destruction of ecosystems is leading to an increase of human exposure to previously unknown pathogens. This is being wrought through land-system change, driven by the expansion of global food systems, and the consumption of bushmeat by millions of the world’s poor who are locked out of these food systems.

Will Covid-19 bring changes to our global food systems? This seems inevitable. But only if we become more informed about how supply chains work, the distribution of power within the system, and the alternative models for change.

To understand more about supply chains, we have pulled together the following resources:

——————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Dr Lucy McCarthy and Lee Matthews and Anne Touboulic from the University of Nottingham Future Food Beacon. This blog post first appeared on the University of Nottingham Future Food Beacon blog. View the original blog.

Food Connections

Posted on by janet.crompton

Last week the Bristol Food Connections festival explored “all that is GREAT about food in Bristol (and beyond)” [1]. This made me realise that what I am exploring are the separations in our global food system. While so much of food in Bristol is ‘GREAT’ there is still much work to do about what is NOT SO GREAT. In the global food system, the separations between those who produce and those who consume what is transported around the world are many: income, origin, lifestyle, language, history, opportunities, culture, diet, microbiome – you name it there are separations in the way we eat and live.

This weekend I co-facilitated an event, Philosophy Breakfast: The ethics of global food production, with Julian Baggini, philosopher and author of the book, Virtues of the table: How to eat and think, [2]. Julian focused our thoughts on ethics and justice, and I grounded us with a case study, on tomatoes produced in Morocco, based on my recent fieldwork. We were treated, literally, to food for thought, in the form of a breakfast bap and coffee from the Boston Tea Party as well as a full house of attendees ready and willing to reflect on their role in the food systems. I was determined that this group, who had been motivated enough to get up for a 10 am Sunday start, also be given space to tell us what we should be considering in relation to the ethics of food. So, we invited each table to choose a breakfast food element to reflect upon, bread, coffee, tea, bacon, tomatoes and mushrooms, as they slowly digested its nutrients and food dilemmas.

Framing the session Julian considered our role as consumers by drawing on the thoughts of some classical philosophers from Plato to Sen: we should not, he suggested, be afraid of always getting everything right, but we should at least do our best to avoid contributing to what we find clearly morally wrong. How to go about this? I asked our participants to think of questions which might help us reflect on each of the breakfast items to help us consider these dilemmas. Furthermore, perhaps we might have questions for others; for the supermarkets, for the governments, and for the companies involved. My favourite question from this savvy group was, for meat: “was it worth an animal dying for me to eat this?” something that connects to my blog on the great value of seeing meat as sacrifice: ‘L hawli‘.

My talk related more to the question about coffee, “What labour standards (how bad would they be) would stop you buying coffee?”. What a question. International labour standards usually boil down to a mutual agreement that the countries involved in trade will apply their national labour laws. They may also be required to ensure that these national laws meet international standards, but what are these international standards? Since the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO, 1998) [3], international labour law has been focused, or in practice narrowed, depending on your perspective, to just eight core conventions covering four areas (collective bargaining, forced labour, child labour, non-discrimination at work), out of a possible 189 conventions covering many other very important areas [4]. So this is a relatively weak starting point, which in most cases simply attempts to ensure already existing minimum standards (laws) are implemented.

What happens also, when national laws do not meet the needs of workers? Too often agricultural work is excluded from normal labour standards, or minimum wages are lower in this sector. This is not just the case in poorer countries. In the USA, the world’s richest state, many agricultural workers are exempted from minimum wage and overtime entitlements of the main national labour legislation, the Fair Labour Standards Act [5]. This is discrimination sanctioned by law.

Such discrimination between agriculture and other sectors is also the case in Morocco, where I carried out fieldwork. Whilst the legal minimum wage in other sectors is £8.29, the minimum day wage for agricultural workers is significantly lower at £5.37. OK, you may think, but life is cheaper there. Not that much cheaper. We can convert that minimum agricultural wage to a UK equivalent via the Purchasing Power Parity formula, (or PPP) this tells you what the equivalent wage would be in the UK. That equivalent of that minimum agricultural wage in a UK context with UK housing, food and other costs would be £13.51. This is not enough to live comfortably, barely enough to survive.

This is why then, the first findings chapter of my thesis is entitled “No Money”. If a major supply chain, feeding us year round with produce that we increasingly depend upon, rests on a starting point of an unreasonably low minimum wage, we cannot consider this a socially sustainable global food connection. And it is a connection. Although we are separated by distance, language, culture and long food chains, it was not difficult to find tomatoes just on our doorstep. Even last week when the ‘counter-season’ was officially over (as we now produce more in the UK so there is less market for non-EU producers) I could easily identify tomatoes in Bristol from a major company in business just outside of Agadir, Morocco (where my research is focused). I know workers from this company’s greenhouses and packhouses and spent months in daily conversations with them about what needs to change. They are calling for increases in wages and working conditions, better childcare and better social infrastructure. The separations then, are there to be bridged.

Transparency came up a lot on the morning of our event. How is there so much information about the attributes of food itself, and so little about those that produce it? We can only find out about food if actors involved in the sector are willing to be open (governments, retailers, employers). This showed at the Bristol Fruit Market, which I also visited as part of the Food Connections festival. The openness of the owners to discuss their business and show us around their distribution centre was in very clear contrast to the supermarket distribution centres which are shrouded in secrecy. Yet this is not the case at every stage of the process and it is only by asking questions, and showing that we care, that we can have any leverage at all to shift the harshest dynamics of global food systems.

Why are wages so low in the food sector? How can we revalue food? How can we keep alternative routes to market going (such as through wholesale)? How do we know if workers are treated fairly? What does that mean? How can we improve social and labour conditions in global production? These some of the questions that I am working on at the moment.

Groups feed back from their discussions at the Philosophy Breakfast event 17 June 2018

[1] Bristol Food Connections Festival website

[2] BAGGINI, J. 2014. The virtues of the table: How to eat and think, Granta Books.

[3] ILO 1998. ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. International Labour Conference. Geneva: International Labour Office.

[4] A list of the 189 ILO conventions

[5] See, Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act

[6] This is known locally as the difference of the SMIG, the minimum legal industrial wage, and the SMAG, the minimum legal agricultural wage. The SMIG is set by the hour (13.46 Moroccan Dirhams). An 8-hour equivalent of the SMIG comes to the GBP of £8.29. This can then be compared to the minimum agricultural wage, set by the day at 69.73 Moroccan Dirhams, equivalent to £5.37 per day.
——————————-
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Lydia Medland and has been reposted with kind permission from her original blog.  Lydia is from the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies at the University of Bristol.

Lydia Medland

Find out more about the Cabot Institute’s Food Security research theme.

Global carbon budget reveals dangerous footprints

Posted on by janet.crompton
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas produced by human activities, and one which is likely to cause significant global climate change if levels continue to increase at the current rates. This year’s Global Carbon Budget holds disappointing yet hardly unexpected news; in 2012, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose by 2.1% to the highest levels in human history, a total of 9.7 billion tonnes.
CDIAC Data; Le Quiere et al 2013.  Global Carbon Project 2013. Data not adjusted for leap year.
The annual Carbon Budget report is compiled by the Global Carbon Project, a collaboration of 77 scientists from around the world including the Cabot Institute’s own Dr Jo House. They predict that in 2013, global carbon emissions will have increased by a further 2.1%, setting a new record high.
Major CO2 emitters
China produced the most CO2 in 2012 (27% of total), which was almost twice as much as the second worst offender, the USA (14%). The European Union (EU) contributed 10% of emissions. China’s emissions increased 5.9% between 2011 and 2012, whilst the USA and EU continued to decrease their CO2 output (by 3.7% and 1.3% respectively).

CDIAC Data; Le Quiere et al 2013.  Global Carbon Project 2013.
 
While developing nations like China and India have high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to note that per capita the USA has by far the highest emission rate at 4.4 tonnes of carbon per person per year (tC/p/yr). China has reached EU levels of 1.9 tC/p/yr, while India produces just 0.5tC/p/yr. Since the Industrial Revolution the USA and Europe still have the highest cumulative output of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, something to consider before we become too self-righteous.

CDIAC Data; Le Quiere et al 2013.  Global Carbon Project 2013.
 
Carbon sinks
Image by Manfred Heyde
Increased CO2 emissions are absorbed by carbon sinks, specifically the atmosphere, the oceans and the land. On land, trees and other plants absorb around 27% of emitted CO2 for photosynthesis, which results in more growth and eventually more carbon stored as leaf litter in the soil.
In the oceans, algae may absorb some CO2 for photosynthesis (although not as much as was once hoped), but the water itself absorbs most of the 27% of CO2 stored in the oceans. Unfortunately when carbon dioxide dissolves in water it can react to form carbonic acid, a leading cause of ocean acidification. Since the Industrial Revolution, oceans have become approximately 30% more acidic. If present trends continue, oceans will be 170% more acidic by 2100, a devastating change for shellfish and corals which rely on an alkaline calcium carbonate exoskeleton, and the other marine life that depend on these species.
 
The atmosphere absorbs the remaining 45% of CO2 emissions. Over the past 250 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from 227 parts per million (ppm) to an average of 393ppm in 2012.  Back in May, the first CO2 reading of 400ppm was recorded, a significant milestone in the relentlessly increasing greenhouse gas levels. We are now on track to see a ‘likely’ 3.2-5.4°C increase in global temperature by 2100, causing severe droughts and desertification of agricultural land around the world and flooding of low lying coastal areas.

The Kyoto protocol

In 1992, 37 industrialised countries agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels during the period of 2008 to 2012. The Global Carbon Budget reported that whilst some regions such as Europe did reduce their CO2 output, other areas (eg. Asia, Africa, Middle East) doubled or even tripled their emissions, resulting in a net gain of 58% more CO2 emissions in 2012 than in 1990.

The biggest CO2 emitter, China, recently joined almost 200 other countries in agreeing to sign the pledge to reduce their carbon emissions at a summit in Paris in 2015. It is hoped that this climate change summit will follow on from the work started by the Kyoto protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to a more sustainable level.

What’s your carbon footprint?
We are at a critical stage in history. The Global Carbon Budget suggests that we have already produced 70% of the carbon dioxide it is possible to emit without causing a significant and irreversible change to the planet’s climate. It is vital that all nations work together to reduce carbon emissions to a sustainable level, preventing a 2°C increase in global temperature.
If you would like to calculate your carbon footprint, visit the government’s carbon calculator. 
 
This blog is written by Sarah Jose, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol

You can follow Sarah on Twitter @JoseSci

 
Sarah Jose
 
Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.