Viewing entries in
The Environment
Ignoring possible human suffering and death caused by climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts is no different than drone pilots disassociating from the effects of their bombing runs. Of course, sometimes drastic – and lethal – measures are justified. But trade-offs are involved – and if you care about human life, trade-offs must be seriously considered.
We know that a lot of people will die because of the havoc wreaked by climate change. The (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause roughly 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.
Climate change action priorities, simplified version: reduce green house gases, protect habitats, protect wildlife and protect humans. For this post, I’m going to focus on protecting humans – operationalized as reducing the extra deaths caused by climate change. A huge factor in reducing climate-change related deaths is economic development. Specifically, as GDP increases, mortality rates decrease. Mean death rates fall by 15% for every 10% increase in GDP. And we’re not just talking about old people getting a couple extra years: on average, a 10% increase in income means a 5% fall in infant mortality.
"Climate change could kill more than 500,000 adults in 2050 worldwide due to changes in diets and body weight from reduced crop productivity, according to new estimates. The research is the strongest evidence yet that climate change could have damaging consequences for food production and health worldwide." - Springmann et al (2016)
This chart is from the USDA Economic Research Service. It shows that US farmers consider the environmental effects of agricultural production, e.g., soil erosion and the loss of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to water, and have adopted conservation practices to mitigate these effects. Use of such practices has increased substantially over the past 20 years.
“The human mind comprises evolved intuitions that shape and constrain cultural preferences. In the case of GMOs, folk biology, religious intuitions, and emotions such as disgust leave the mind readily seduced by representations of GMOs as abnormal or toxic.”
- Blancke, S., F. Van Breusegem, G. De Jaeger, J. Braeckman, and M. Van Montagu. 2015. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science 20:414–418.
In a previous post, I calculate ground vehicle CO2 emissions using the following formula: number of miles driven per week * weeks in a year) / average vehicle fuel efficiency * pounds of CO2 emitted per gallon, which is about 20 pounds ...
Life cycle analysis is a “systematic approach of looking at a product's complete life cycle, from raw materials to final disposal of the product. It offers a 'cradle to grave' look at a product or process, considering environmental aspects and potential impacts.” (Life Cycle Analysis: A Step by Step Approach, 2009, Aida Sefic Williams).
For much of the last century, buying stuff has meant driving to a store, at least for most Americans most of the time. According to the federal government, “shopping and errands” accounted for 35.4% of all household vehicle travel in 1990 – more than double that of 1969. But the trend is reversing: in 2009, shopping and errands accounted for just 30.7% of household vehicle travel.
According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the EPA has found a clear level of concentration of the pesticide imidacloprid in which things start to go badly for the local honey bee population: "If nectar brought back to the hive from worker bees had more than 25parts per billion of the chemical, 'there's a significant effect,' namely fewer bees, less honey and 'a less robust hive,' ... But if the nectar chemical level was below 25 parts per billion, it was as if there were no imidacloprid at all, with no ill effects, Jones said. It was a clear line of harm or no harm, he said."
The last post included ideas on reducing emissions in freight transport. This and the next few posts will be about reducing the carbon footprint of personal vehicle travel. How much CO2 do cars actually emit?
Reducing emissions from transportation is mostly a matter of reducing demand for transported goods, improving fuel efficiency and improving transportation efficiency – that is, moving the same amount of cargo (e.g., people and things) with fewer trips and fewer vehicles. We’re going to start with freight transportation. This includes shipping, rail, and road transport.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the US are: • Electricity production (31% of 2013 GHG emissions), mostly from burning fossil fuels, especially coal and natural gas. ...
In a recent online poll of 1,009 individuals, over 60% of each age category said they prioritize life experiences over possessions. Whether “experiences” are more damaging to the environment than possessions depends on the experiences and the possessions.
Is it possible for human societies to achieve or maintain a high standard of living without causing significant environmental harm? As a first step in this exploration, I’m going to define a high standard of living as a situation where the basic needs of the population are taken care of and about 50% of income can go to discretionary spending.
Hope springs eternal, especially the having your cake and eating it too variety. One example is the idea of increasing environmental protection without sacrificing economic growth. Can it be done? Hardcore environmentalists tend to say no, economic activity is the main way humans hurt the environment.
In “Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign”, Avner de-Shalit discusses the various ways environmentalists alienate potential supporters. The Second Commandment is my favorite: Always Use the Terminology of Despair.
While organic farming methods can be as or more productive than conventional methods, for many large scale crops, organic just doesn’t compete. For instance, in the US, organic corn, soybean and wheat crop yields are much lower than conventional yields.
Today the Obama administration officially rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. As President Obama acknowledged, this decision was mostly symbolic. The existence of the pipeline itself would have made little difference in the battle against climate change, nor would its economic payoffs have been all that great.
As climate becomes less predictable, we’ll have to develop ways to better conserve, store, and transport water during years of favorable weather to soften the impact of the bad years. More reservoirs and canals would help, as would the development of crops that need less water and use water more efficiently. We would also need to continue the development of increasingly resilient crops able to thrive in variable conditions and continue to improve intensive sustainable farming practices.