I've handed the reins of my blog over to Mark Avery for most of June. Mark's sharing the successes and challenges of saving nature around the world in the run up to the Rio+20 Earth Summit.
I think I’m pretty good at recycling compared with the people who live in my street. I used to glance left and right as I put out the rubbish and recycling separately and pride myself that I had so much to recycle and so little rubbish (and then worry a bit about all those wine bottles on display). Now we have bins, I can’t tell how we are all doing. Almost certainly, my street has not caught up with the average Swiss street which recycles about half of all domestic waste.
Burning fossil fuels taps into the energy stored in plants and animals that were alive millions of years ago – that’s what coal and oil are. Wouldn’t it be better to use plants growing now, get the energy from them, re-grow the crops, re-trap the carbon dioxide and simply recycle the carbon round and around and around? Fuel recycling, or biofuels?
It is a good idea in many ways, but it just doesn’t work out well in practice. Growing crops for fuel uses lots of energy in manufacturing fertilisers and pesticides, then there is the vehicle use in planting harvesting and transporting crops and there are other inefficiencies in the system. Probably more important though, is that the fertilisers we use are a potent source of nitrous oxide – a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and when that is taken into account then biofuels don’t do very well at all.
However, it gets worse. Growing biofuel crops takes lots of land – just like growing crops for food. We hear that we must grow more food to feed the world, and although that is a somewhat simplistic view (see article of 10 June) biofuels and food production compete for land and too much biofuel production will increase food prices.
However (again), it gets worse still. On a crowded planet with little spare productive land, the temptation is to go and chop down some forest and plant either food or biofuels on that land ignoring the shared ecosystems service that those forests provided (see article of 7 June).
If a farmer, whether he (or she) be in Iowa or Ipswich, grows fuel instead of food the world doesn’t say ‘I’ll go for a drive instead of eating’, it still demands its meal. Food and fuel are global commodities so that farmer’s action may persuade someone in Indonesia to cut down some more rainforest. And rainforests are such great carbon stores that the maths show that you only need tiny increases in rainforest destruction to wipe out any carbon savings from biofuels, and indeed to put yourself in carbon debt. In the worst case, if you chop down a rainforest to grow biofuels you may make money, but you don’t recoup the lost carbon for about 80 years.
But governments fell for the allure of biofuels and now, every time you fill up your car with fuel in the UK, that fuel has a splash of biofuel in it, and that biofuel will, whether it was grown just down the road or on the other side of the world, have hastened the destruction of rainforests and the wildlife that they support. And it won’t have reduced your carbon footprint very much, or maybe even at all.
Remember that when you fill up, you really may be putting a tiger in your tank, and in Brazil the boom in bioethanol production threatens the wildlife, carbon stores and productivity of the Cerrado.
There is another way you can step up for nature - are you a member of the RSPB? We're helping wildlife in so many ways, across the UK and beyond. Your support is crucial. Without our members we couldn't do all of this vital work for nature. Click through to learn more about becoming a member of the RSPB.
Dr Mark Avery is a former Conservation Director of the RSPB and now is a writer on environmental matters. We’ve asked Mark to write these 20 essays on the run up to the Rio+20 conference. His views are not necessarily those of the RSPB. Mark writes a daily blog about UK nature conservation issues.
One day last year I drove into New York City in a deluge. An American evangelist had predicted that that day would see the end of the world and although I was fairly confident that it wouldn’t, the weather seemed to be conspiring to make that happen. Later in a hotel room I had a shower and I filled my water bottles from the tap.
Water is an amazing thing isn’t it? You are, I am and the Archbishop of Canterbury is 60% water and we need it to stay alive and to get through the day. Hunger strikers can survive for weeks without food but only days without water.
And New York City’s 8 million people crowded into Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens etc need an awful lot of water and they expect it, as I did as a visitor, to be clean and safe. There’s an interesting story to New York’s water supply that I didn’t know while I was there but which illustrates some aspects of sustainable development.
Much of New York’s water comes from the Catskill Mountains, through which I had driven a couple of hours before arriving in the city, and where I had been admiring the view but cursing the rain for obliterating my chance of seeing a cerulean warbler. In the late 1990s, the water flowing off the Catskills had become sufficiently polluted with sewage, fertiliser and pesticides that it no longer met water standards and New York City authorities had to do something about it. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction would have been to solve the problem by building more water treatment works but their estimated cost was $6bn with considerable annual maintenance costs in addition.
New York took a different approach and invested money in habitat protection and management to solve the problem, literally, at source. This option was costed at a still-staggering, but much lower, $1.5bn and so represented a massive saving. I wish I had known that when I had my fingers on the tap in my hotel room. We all treat water as a cheap and easy commodity, but that’s because all the hard work to get it to us is done out of sight and out of our minds.
Water companies in the UK are exploring similar approaches and the RSPB is involved in exciting work with United Utilities.
Sometimes you can have too much water. When it comes to floods we are also finding that working with nature is sometimes a cheaper and better alternative to trying to dominate it. Restoring more natural wetlands can reduce floods through reducing the speed of water flows and introducing small wetlands into urban areas cleans water before releasing it back into watercourses.
It all sounds great doesn’t it? Does everyone win?
I think it is great, but that doesn’t mean that everyone wins. If there is a conflict between water supply and food production then if water supplies win, it means that food producers may lose. Encouraging landowners through incentives can attempt to square this circle locally and making sure that we choose the ‘best’ land use to incentivise is a way forward – but not a simple and easy way forward.
Wildlife is likely to win if we work with nature a little bit more. However, just as a rainforest doesn’t need tigers to store carbon, the Catskills don’t need cerulean warblers to provide clean water. Delivering ecosystem services such as clean water and carbon storage doesn’t always deliver wildlife alongside it, but protected rainforests and watersheds are a very good start.
There are some relatively small steps you can take at home. By using water more wisely in our homes, gardens and workplaces, we can ease the pressure on our wetlands and rivers in these times of stress. You could install a water butt, fix leaking taps and use a Hippo or Save-a-Flush device to reduce water used in toilet flushing. Alternatively, consider replacing water-greedy plants with drought-resistant ones.
The American ecologist Jared Diamond wrote of introduced alien species as one of the ecological horsemen of the apocalypse – a major cause of global extinctions. All over the world, including within the UK, our species’s carelessness or foolishness in moving species about the globe has caused declines and disappearances of native species.
I would guess that most people in the UK have seen a squirrel, but that very few of them have seen a wild red squirrel. The familiar grey squirrel is a native of North America and was deliberately released into the UK in the nineteenth century because it is cute. It is indeed cute, but it outcompetes the red squirrel and moreover transmits a squirrel disease which wipes out the red squirrel and so these days red squirrels are found in decent numbers only in those parts of the UK which grey squirrels have not reached: Northern Ireland, much of Scotland, the remoter parts of Wales including Anglesey and small pockets of England particularly islands such as the Isle of Wight and Brownsea Island in Dorset. Everywhere else now supports only the alien grey squirrel and none of our native red squirrel.
Hawaiian honeycreepers illustrate the potentially devastating impacts of introducing species and the diseases they carry with them. Of the 32 species found on Hawaii at the beginning of the 20th century 11 are already extinct and another nine are critically endangered with only two of the rest being assessed as being safe from extinction. Introduced bird species and introduced mosquitos carrying avian malaria have wiped out large parts of Hawaii’s avifauna with refuges being provided by the tops of mountains where the mosquitos cannot currently live (though climate change may well alter that).
Mammals such as cats, rats and goats (but not bats – even though they also end with ‘-ats’) have been potent sources of biodiversity loss when they have arrived on islands and eaten their way through the native fauna and/or flora. Rats, accidentally transported by ships, are the most potent threat to many island species, particularly birds which have evolved to be flightless.
There have been several successful projects to eradicate non-native rats from islands (see here, here, here and here). These mostly involve the blanket deployment of poison baits in the hope of wiping out the rats completely in a short period of time.
The RSPB is in the middle of a rat eradication programme on Henderson Island in the Pacific (one of the UK’s Overseas Territories) where non-native rats are threatening its endemic fauna including one of the world’s most truly oceanic of birds – the Henderson petrel. After dropping rat baits in August 2011 rats seemed to disappear from the island and the petrel breeding success soared but in March 2012 a few rats were seen, showing that the initial phase of the project had been almost completely successful but there was still more work to do.
Increased global trade and travel mean that few places are now really cut off from everywhere else. And that means that an accidental introduction of a species is only a plane journey or a boat trip away. Are accidental, but sometimes very damaging, species introductions an unavoidable consequence of modern life? And are there ways in which we could reduce the number of damaging cases and reduce the need for difficult and expensive projects to restore damaged species communities?
Our resident wildlife gardener, Adrian Thomas provides loads of tips on gardening for wildlife every week on his blog. Here's an example of one such recent post, highlighting the beauty and value of the Snake's-head Fritillary. Whilst not strictly native, it was certainly growing in the English meadows as far back as the 16th Century as Adrain points out.
The countdown to the Rio+20 conference continues and I hope that you (like me!) have been enjoying reading Mark’s short essays reflecting on the state of the planet and the challenges facing nature. Today, I am delighted to welcome a contribution from the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP. He will be leading the UK Government’s delegation to Rio next week and his ambitions are outlined below. At the end of his blog I have outlined how you can ask the DPM a question and I have also shared with you the ambitions that the RSPB has for the conference.
-------------------------------------------
From the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Next week I’m leading the UK delegation to the Rio+20 Summit, two decades after the original Earth Summit. Back then world leaders agreed – for the first time ever – that development must not come at any cost. They recognised the dangers of making a dash for growth by hoovering up or destroying precious resources: you’ll only find yourself poorer in the end.
But the legacy of that momentous meeting is seriously under threat. Despite the progress that has been made, the vision set out in 1992 remains a long way off. And, now, as turmoil continues in the Eurozone, there is a real risk that in many major economies we’ll see sustainability sacrificed in the name of growth.
That would be a huge mistake. Our economic and environmental agendas go hand in hand (a point the RSPB has been making for years). We will only deliver lasting prosperity by conserving resources and learning to live within our means. And it’s more important than ever that we respect the natural environment on which future wealth depends.
So Rio must – once again – deliver a show of solidarity from the international community: there can be no more living only for today if we are to deliver a better tomorrow. I want to pay tribute to the work Birdlife International has been doing to encourage governments around the world to be bold when we meet next week. I’ll be pushing – with the help of Caroline Spelman – for three big things:
First, national governments must move beyond a narrow understanding of wealth. Right now we judge how well a country is doing by looking almost exclusively at the money it makes. But to fully judge success we need a kind of ‘GDP+’, which takes into account the state of assets like forests or coastal areas – vital natural capital. We’re reforming the UK’s national accounts so that, by 2020, they also reflect our natural wealth. In Brazil I’ll be pressing our international partners to follow suit.
Second, Rio must set out a plan for the future. That’s why I want us to kickstart a package of Sustainable Development Goals to help meet the fundamental challenges we now face. Like feeding growing populations; ensuring everyone has clean water; giving people access to green energy too. Agreeing these goals will be no mean feat – it will take an enormous diplomatic effort. But now is the moment to get them off the ground.
Finally, Rio must get business on board. Many firms still have no idea how they impact on our environment. That isn’t just bad for the planet. It makes companies inefficient and depletes the resources they themselves depend on. Plus their customers and investors have a right to this information too. So it’s time for governments to give ‘sustainability reporting’ a much-needed global push, getting more companies to green their books.
1992 was a triumph and next week governments from across the globe must revive the spirit and ambition of our predecessors. It’s time to set the agenda for the next twenty years.
----------------------------------------------
What would you like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about Rio+20?
You can ask your question by commenting on this blog (if you are not already registered on RSPB Communities you will need to do so - see here for find out how) – alternatively we will be taking questions via Twitter and Facebook. We’ll pick the best 20 questions for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer on his return from Rio+20.
Finally, today two of my colleagues (Tim Stowe and Sacha Cleminson) will be flying out to the conference to join our BirfdLife International Partners in Rio. You will be able to recieve updates on their experiences by reading their blogs which will apear here. In preparation for this conference, we have worked with Green Alliance to produce a series of essays entitled ‘Rio+20 Where It Should Lead’ from business, political and NGO leaders to stimulate fresh debate about how we rise to the sustainable development challenge set twenty years ago. You can read a copy of this report here. As BirdLife International, we shall at Rio be making the case for the following:
1. A green economy in the context of sustainable development: We want governments to demonstrate global leadership to re-direct the global economy towards a sustainable pathway. The resilience of the global economy is intimately linked to the state of the environment . Will want governments to mainstream consideration of nature across policy formulation and decision-making processes, and reflect it clearly in indicators of socio-economic development and growth. We want governments to recognise that healthy ecosystems underpin our lives and that the poorest and most vulnerable are frequently the most dependent on them. Governments must provide the investment needed to maintain and restore healthy ecosystems. We also want governments to phase out and redirect harmful and perverse incentives that act to undermine sustainable development.
2. Securing our oceans: We strongly support efforts to protect and restore marine ecosystems and in particular we a) support the call for negotiation of an implementing agreement to the United Nations Law of the Sea that would address the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including effective safeguard for ecologically and biologically significant areas and b) calls on states to reduce fish harvest to levels that allow stocks to rebuild, in order to restore, by 2015, and maintain depleted fish stocks above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. For stocks which, despite targeted measures, fail to achieve this target, science-based management plans should be implemented in order to restore and maintain populations to these levels within the shortest timeframe biologically possible
3. Biodiversity and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): we support the development of a set of universally agreed Sustainable Development Goals that will accelerate and help measure progress towards sustainable development. However, it is essential that Governments ensure that a) the underpinning role of nature and biodiversity is clearly reflected in the SDGs b) the SDGs and their indicators link explicitly to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (agreed in Nagoya in 2010) and its associated indicators c) a process is established to follow from Rio+20 that will agree the themes of the SDGs.and d) Any indicative list of themes to be decided upon at Rio+20 should not restrict the choice of SDGs by this future process.
4. Framework for action: To ensure coherent progress towards sustainable development, priority cross-cutting issues (e.g. forests and biodiversity, oceans, food security and agriculture, energy and water) identified in the Rio+20 outcomes require urgent action. They must link and refer to the delivery of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Good luck to all those (politicians, business leaders and NGOs) that are going to Rio. Please do come back with concrete commitments. Mark’s final essays will appear over the next few days after which I shall reflect on the successes (we hope) of the Rio conference.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring which raised awareness over the use of pesticides and was one of the factors that led to the banning of products such as DDT many years later.
In the Northamptonshire arable fields near my home I still see farmers spraying the crops of wheat and oil seed rape. Should I be at all worried about this sight?
Each crop will receive many different sprays from growth regulators (to make the crop put most of its effort into seed rather than stalk), fertilisers and a variety of ‘-cides’. There are herbicides, fungicides, molluscicides, nematicides and insecticides where in each case the ‘-cide’ comes from the same Latin word as suicide, genocide and homicide – these are all about killing.
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT to its friends (and enemies), was a potent insecticide which helped, and because it is still used in some countries, helps, control diseases by killing their insect vectors. And it went through the testing regimes of the day and was regarded as safe to use.
Only after years of widespread use did we learn that DDT causes birds of prey to lay eggs with thin shells which break in the nest and this leads to population declines. Declines of the USA’s national bird, the bald eagle, helped draw attention to the harmful environmental impacts of this persistent agricultural chemical.
A general message from the DDT story is that testing chemicals for environmental safety is difficult. With the best will in the world, it would be difficult to predict eggshell-thinning and test for it before commercial release of a product.
I’m struck by two examples of chemicals that have, for me, surprising impacts. Neither is an agricultural pesticide; each is a medicine that you may be taking today. Aspirin is a great boon to our lives – but it can be lethal for cats. And if you take diclophenac instead of aspirin to easy your aches and pains then think of its lethal impacts on Asia’s vultures. Veterinary use of diclophenac for cattle has led to carcase-eating vultures being brought from populations of tens of millions to the brink of extinction because diclophenac kills vultures.
I bring DDT, cats and vultures to mind whenever I hear that a chemical has been rigorously tested and is completely safe. Complete safety is difficult to promise. Currently, concern is focussed on a set of insecticides in widespread use – the neonicotinoids (or neonics) (see recent media coverage: here, here, here).
The thinking behind neonics is good – instead of spraying them into the farmed environment the idea is to get them incorporated into the crop so that only pests eating the crop are harmed but it now seems that pollinators such as bees pick up the chemicals through pollen, and the doses they receive may kill them but may also intoxicate them.
If you tested alcohol on people in the laboratory you would find that it rarely killed people – even at high single doses, but you might notice some pretty strong behavioural changes – loss of inhibition, vows of eternal love, a propensity to anger and perhaps vomiting. We put very strong restrictions on the use of alcohol in our lives even though its impacts as a lethal poison are few.
The widespread use of agricultural chemicals is part of our lives and that of our farmers these days. Their use has helped increase food production but we must remain vigilant over unintended environmental harm.
Reducing the pesticides you use in the garden is just one small step you can take for the environment. Find out what else you can do in your garden here.