Almost every sector of the economy would benefit from oil sand development. But through all the positive economic growth Canada would receive, it is necessary to look at the impact on the environment it will have.

The refined oil will be transported through pipelines. Any released bitumen through a spill, leak, or rupture can contaminate the surrounding land or water. Tailing ponds to store the liquid to retrieve the oil can be shown to leak chemicals into the surrounding water supply like the Athabasca River and the Mackenzie River. Additionally, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted in the area shows that the overall quantity of chemicals (PAH) is lower than that which naturally occurs in recovering petrol. A change in formula can have health risks to the surrounding population.

These chemicals can cause upper respiratory issues on site. Moreover, the chemicals that are released through a spill, leak, or rupture, that do not work directly on-site will soon have more complicated issues like headache, nausea, skin rashes, and respiratory symptoms which coincide with exposure to crude oil.

Working on the oil sands can have an increased health risk, and during the current COVID-19 pandemic it will make it much worse. According to unnamed contractors, workers did not have inadequate distancing, testing, or sanitization Those that currently work at CNRL Horizon in the Alberta Oil sands have stated, “We don’t feel safe here, but we keep working because everybody wants to work,” one contractor at Horizon said.

It is difficult for these workers to bring complaints about these safety issues to those higher on the corporate ladder,  due to fear of losing their job. The liability does not fall on the oil sand operators anymore regarding the environment or the health and safety of the workers.

“We’re all feeling like, head down, blinders on. Don’t even look around you and just try to get through your shift without getting sick.”

It is frivolous to think that mining for crude oil will disappear in the next 10 years. But companies should have federal and provincial policies in place to protect the health of their workers – and the general public – from irreversible harm. “Personally, with experience in seeing all sides of corporate and environmental relationships, I know products must exist for now. But it is difficult for me to understand why an unexplored market could be so scary to a company when investments are made all the time for new products. 

Do you think you could help me understand?

The post The liability falls where in Alberta? appeared first on A\J.

Deter Kruger turns 111 years old and 124 days old on May 17. He is currently living in the rural Queensland state town of Roma. He dedicates his long life to eating chicken brains. 

“There is only a little bite,” Kruger says.

It sounds crazy, but brains can be used in a sausage ingredient, and can also be eaten boiled, braised, and cooked in liquid, poached,  or scrambled.

Dexter was a previous cattle rancher and dedicates his long career to eating unconventional cuts of meat. Over half of the waste of animals are not suitable for human consumption due to physical characteristics but is still edible.  It has been estimated that 11.4% of the gross income from beef and 7.5% of the income from pork, come from the by-products. Eating the product from the cut has the ability to cut down on the greenhouse gases emitted from the industry. Approximately it takes 9.3 gallons per bird of freshwater, the contaminated water needs to be made worth it. 

People who were able to interact with him at his nursing home said his memory is “amazing” for a 111-year old. 

On the contrary, a French-Canadian Marie-Louise Meilleur was named the world’s oldest person at 122. Her strict vegetarian diet consisted of additional items such as olive oil, port wine, and chocolate. If somebody were to adapt to a vegetarian diet for 20 years or more, they would add four years to their lifespan according to Dr. Pramil Singh. Adapting to the vegetarian diet would be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10 percent per capita. 

There is no proven-based diet that could structure whether you would live longer and all-cause mortality and are still being studied. 

Would you try non-conventional cuts of meat? Would you be able to cut all the meat out to live longer? Do you want to live longer and see the world change? 

Your menu has all the choices- now it is up to you.

If you want to keep up with Deter Kruger- Australia’s Oldest Man, his Twitter is located here.

The post Would you like the Meat or the Veggie Entrée? appeared first on A\J.

I had the pleasure of speaking to Laurie Simmonds, the president and CEO of Green Living Enterprises (aka the Boss of Green Business), for our upcoming issue Playbook for Progress. Laurie shared her experiences and wisdom from her successful career in green business and marketing, and gave some valuable advice for new grads. Here’s a sneak peek into our conversation!

“It’s been 20 years and it’s been incredible to watch the innovation explode. Not just big corporations but small entrepreneurs in every sector,” Laurie shared about the surge of green business. “It’s been very rewarding to see publicly-traded companies commit to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, to a significant ESG performance metric, finally understanding that they can run a company that benefits people, planet and profits. It’s undeniable that things are changing. We can see corporations and entrepreneurs really working hard to keep up with that, and seeing the rewards of it, which is really the most important thing – that they actually now understand that they can still make a lot of money, be very profitable, but do good and do well.” 

Green Living Enterprises’ Office // Credit: Kourosh Keshiri

To hear that both big corporations and small and medium businesses are on the right track and committing to sustainability goals is very encouraging for two reasons. 1) Businesses have an obligation to advance the environmental movement, so they need to do their part for consumers to follow suit, and 2) more and more businesses are taking part in this positive shift because it pays to be sustainable. 

When asked about the obligation of businesses in advancing sustainability, Laurie said, “It’s introducing consumers to a much more healthy and sustainable lifestyle, showing them the way with these products and services. That’s how we’re going to affect change – consumers choosing a healthy and sustainable lifestyle, voting with their dollar by supporting those companies. Businesses’ obligation to their stakeholders is to make money in a sustainable and socially responsible way. The other obligation is to, of course, continually increase their ESG commitments – reduce their footprint, become more inclusive, watch the social impacts of their corporation, commit to good governance, and communicate transparently to their stakeholders and their customers about their commitment to ESG. We’re starting to see rankings really significantly demonstrate that those corporations that commit to this are increasing in value, in profitability, have strong brand value, and strong consumer loyalty … It’s incredibly hopeful for the future. I think the technological advancements are happening so quickly now and the commitments by big corporations are so enormous that we are galloping forward. It’s like someone has just pulled out all the stops and it’s moving very fast now.”

Laurie and Green Living Enterprises’ management team, 2018 // Credit: Kourosh Keshiri

For more from Laurie Simmonds be sure to check out our next issue, Playbook for Progress, in which she shares her story of turning her vision of Green Living Enterprises into reality, the key practices that put her on the path to success, her golden rules to using business as a tool for environmental change, and more. Stay tuned!!!

Laurie Simmonds is the president and CEO of Green Living Enterprises – an impact agency that markets solutions to social and environmental issues. In her 20+ year career as an environmental entrepreneur and marketing expert, she has built Green Living Enterprises from the ground up while leading an award-winning team in the world of green business. Her work focuses on the intersections between health, social justice, and the environment.

The post GREEN MEANS GO… FASTER! appeared first on A\J.

We can see this complexity playing out in the way wolves in some regions are caught in the paradox of adapting to anthropocentric change while contributing to the demise of caribou herds, at risk of extinction in multiple jurisdictions throughout Canada and the United States. In response, the B.C. government has expanded wolf culls as a way of managing growing threats of extinction while negating responsibility for addressing the deeper issues behind alarming rates of wildlife habitat loss in these same jurisdictions. Both criticized and upheld as an imperfect solution, wolf culls are in fact not a new practice and part of a well-worn colonial management approach that harkens back to its first appearance on this continent in 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Almost 400 years later, what has changed? Amid growing concerns from scientists, First Nations, ranchers, conservationists, hunters, animal rights activists and citizens on all sides of the debate, governments continue to overwhelmingly reach toward this expensive and controversial management approach for a solution to the threat of extinction. Have we stopped to consider the value placed on holding some creatures in the world and not others? In a recent in-depth report, journalist Sarah Cox revealed the B.C. government spent upwards of $2 million last winter on initiatives to kill 432 wolves, the most expensive of which was in the Kootenay region where, according to the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development, they spent $100,000 to kill 10 wolves. Perhaps we need to step back from the zero-sum game of ‘yes versus no’ to think more deeply about who bears the true cost of turning away from the deeper issues behind our current crisis of wildlife extinction? More importantly, what we are willing to do about it as a society?

What often gets missed in the perpetual loop of applying wolf culls as so-called short-term solutions, is the long story of failed policy mechanisms that were supposed to prevent us from getting here in the first place. One of these is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM), which positions wildlife as a resource to be managed on behalf of what is referred to as the public trust. Whose voices are taken seriously as constituting members of the public trust is a question that needs greater attention? Who do governments manage wildlife for and who gets consulted in the process?

Figure 1: Wolf track in snow. Photo taken during carnivore surveys, Salmo, B.C., Selkirk mountains. January, 2017. Credit: Rhiannon Kirton

While competition between caribou and other cervids (e.g., moose or deer) can lead to increased caribou predation by wolves, this is simply the most recent proximate cause of declines. Historically, caribou decline has been attributed not only to predation as a result of habitat augmentation and apparent competition, but also to high levels of legal and illegal harvest in the 1960s and 70s and adverse weather, amongst other factors (Environment Canada). While predator and moose reductions have been shown to increase caribou numbers in the short term, at best they have been shown to be a band aid solution versus a viable long-term strategy for success. As awareness of the ultimate driver of dangerous levels of caribou decline grows, there is an increasing recognition of the central issue being one of habitat loss, by those both for and against the wolf cull (Fig 1; Bridger, 2019). Although conservation and other advocacy groups continue to push for protection of old growth caribou habitat, the question of why government decision makers continue to drag their heels along such an ineffectual path gets harder to ignore. Why continue to allow habitats to be degraded and logged at the expense of both caribou and wolves? Whose voices do governments prioritize in the process of continued failure to protect caribou habitat? (Palm et al., 2020; MCRI, 2009). Is failing to do so a breach of NAM’s principle of acting on behalf of the public trust? What, if any, mechanisms exist to hold those in power accountable?  

Figure 2: Caribou habitat. South Selkirk mountain range close to White Water Ski. Resort photo taken during aerial caribou survey. February 2017. Credit: Rhiannon Kirton

NAM denotes a public ownership of wildlife resources which “is held in trust for the benefit of present and future generations by government”, although in real terms, this public often is rarely inclusive of First Nations and Native American peoples, a problem unto itself that we cannot do justice here (Eichler and Baumeister, 2018). The prospect of such entitlement being translated into a meaningful, productive public stewardship is uncertain, given “governance model for wildlife conservation decision making is typically at the (elected) ministerial level”, while boards and commissions exert limited impact. Despite governments admitting the need to modify the model for a greater participatory decision making, the caribou case manifests minimal progress in this respect. Unfortunately, caribou being federally listed as a Species At Risk in Canada has not translated into provincial habitat protection outside of federally owned lands. Why? Part of the reason is that voices of those outside of the decision-making structure might not only be ignored, but also be rendered silent. What does it say about our society in a time of ecological crisis to prioritize industry stakeholders above the value of a functioning ecosystem, which contains intact guilds of predators and ungulates alike? How, why and on whose terms is this discrepancy allowed to continue? 

In discussing the future of the North American Model (NAM), this statement is overwhelmingly instrumentalist: “the maintenance and fostering of landscapes that can sustain viable populations of all wildlife to ensure conservation of biodiversity and human use and enjoyment are of paramount concern”.  Among recommendations of applying and upgrading the model, citizen engagement in the conservation of biodiversity is stressed with grand and empty guidance. Why bend the goal of wildlife conservation to benefit industry stakeholders for short-term economic gain, if doing so erodes understandings of, and possibilities for, biodiversity as an integral component for our collective survival and prosperity? Given everything we now know about the importance of biodiversity in maintaining a healthy and sustainable world, shouldn’t we be promoting interdependency and reciprocity with nature as ultimate goals in public policy, for example, NAM’s wildlife management policy frameworks and application? The model does not need to stress the paramount importance of “the maintenance and fostering landscapes that can sustain viable populations of all wildlife to ensure conservation of biodiversity” and “human use and enjoyment”, because once the former is secured, it enables the latter. There do not exist two natural worlds, an abstract one that is servile to profit-driven human needs and a real one with lives we’ve never been familiar with. The problem of the model, nevertheless, further entrenches a rupture between humans and nature.

Figure 3: Wolf tracks. Simonette River, Municipal District of Greenview, AB. August 2020. Credit: Narda Nelson.

At such a precarious juncture for many creatures and habitats on the brink of extinction, can the story of contemporary wolves be rewritten beyond polarizing figures of either hero or villain? More than simply an inflammatory topic of debate, wolf culls point to the deeper problem of a collective refusal to step back from polarizing debates to better understand and take responsibility for contributing to the very issues that define these challenging times. To restore and safeguard the ecosystems that our existence depends on, it seems increasingly obvious that we should look to Indigenous peoples who have successfully protected the land for millennia. Perhaps the NAM’s failing is in its application and exclusion of Indigenous voices and the centering of colonial forms of management. There are varied approaches and opinions regarding wolf culls within First Nations across Turtle Island. Some, like the Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations, are already succeeding in holding caribou populations in the world where governments have failed.  Perhaps it’s time to seriously reconsider alternatives to continuing to implement the NAM and instead follow their lead.

This article is part of our March 2021 Western Student Editorial Series – a series that showcases the works of students in the Collaborative Specialization in Environment and Sustainability program. Read more articles from this series here!

References

Brook, R.K., Cattet, M., Darimont, C.T., Paquet, P.C., & Proulx, G. (2015). Maintaining ethical standards during conservation crises. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management (4), 72-79.

Lavoie, J. (2018, April 5). Seeking the Science Behind B.C.’s Wolf Cull. The Narwhal. https://thenarwhal.ca/seeking-science-behind-b-c-s-wolf-cull/ 

Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan. (2009) http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/progress_board_update20090213.pdf  

Palm, E. C., Fluker, S., Nesbitt, H. K., Jacob, A. L., & Hebblewhite, M. (2020). The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(7), e219.

The post Wolf Culls: Public Trust or Failed Policy? appeared first on A\J.

Due to this strict lockdown, it is projected that the world’s CO2 emissions will drop 8% in 2020 (although at the time of this article, they are already projected to increase again). With this global pandemic being top of mind, there is another looming threat: climate change. In recent years, we have consistently seen record-breaking environmental disasters that have been made worse by the climate crisis. According to the UN, over 7,300 extreme weather events have been recorded since 2000. Simultaneously, nine of the ten warmest years on record occurred between 2005 and 2019, with the world’s five warmest years occurring from 2015 to 2019.

…this is our chance to get on top of climate change. The question is, how do we do that, and will we be able to rise to the challenge?

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Australia and California have experienced their worst wildfire seasons on record. Increasingly severe droughts in South America and Africa resulted in widespread famine this summer. Flooding in Europe and North America has continued consistently breaking the previous years’ records as storms continue getting bigger, more dangerous and more common around the world. Evidently, the short-term emissions decrease from the COVID-19 pandemic will not be enough to impact the very real threat the climate crisis poses. COVID-19 has been hailed as humanity’s chance to “click the reset button” to “build back better”, with the idea that this is our chance to get on top of climate change. The question is, how do we do that, and will we be able to rise to the challenge?

Man at a climate protest. Sign reads, “Now is not the time for business as usual. Climate action NOW”. // Source: Unsplash

Now is the time for governments to push ambitious climate policy when restarting economies

Although energy-related CO2 was expected to drop in 2020, what matters is what we do next. During the initial phases of the pandemic, government relief packages around the world have focused on sustaining livelihoods and providing immediate relief. Stimulus packages will now be focused on global economic recovery. From the last economic crash in 2008, many stimulus packages focused on propping up fossil fuel-based companies, and in 2010 global emissions saw the largest increase ever recorded.

To learn from our mistakes, and continue this trend of declining emissions, governments should consider three main policy strategies according to the International Energy Agency (IEA):  

1. Governments should ensure policy predictability and reassure investors of their energy and climate commitments. This will be crucial for industries to establish business plans focused on sustainability.
2. Governments should reduce administrative barriers to renewable energy projects by streamlining permits and other administrative tasks.
3. Renewables should be a key part of stimulus packages. Investments should prioritize industries that have high job creation and are building infrastructure that supports efficient, resilient energy systems that will lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There should be a focus on the labor-intensive building sector, prioritizing renovation programs to increase energy efficiency and installation of renewable heat sources. In addition to labor intensive jobs, the government should focus on stimulating companies in the smart, digital, and resilient energy infrastructure industries.

Overall, short term policy actions should relate to ambitious medium- and long-term visions for emissions reductions.

There are additional measures that governments can take according to Dr. Fatih Birol, executive director with IEA. Incentives can be put in place to encourage consumers to upgrade large purchases to more energy efficient ones, such as cars and washing machines. With an increase in people working from home, emphasis can be put on upgrading electricity and internet infrastructure, basing these networks on clean, renewable power. Investment can be made in industries that will be vital in the clean energy transition such as batteries, hydrogen, and carbon capture to name a few. This can help scale up these technologies, so they become competitive in the current energy market. Governments can also bring in more private investment by providing clarity in the market. Investments may come in the form of carbon pricing, removing fossil fuel subsidies, and offering loans on renewable energy projects. These measures are crucial because governments drive more than 70% of global energy investments according to the IEA.

Divestment in Fossil Fuel is Trending

Source: Shuttershock 

This push for sustainability as a priority in rebuilding the economy comes at a time when many large institutions are pulling their money out of fossil fuels. BlackRock, the world’s biggest financial investment firm, announced in January that it would be pulling investments from coal. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, said that “climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.” BlackRock states that it will make sustainability one of its key investment factors and will offer investment portfolios that exclude fossil fuels. Fink also stated that “in the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital” citing the transition of investments away from fossil fuels, towards sustainable alternatives. This came after a 2019 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that BlackRock lost an estimated $90 billion over the past decade by ignoring the financial risk of investing in fossil fuels. BlackRock’s multi-billion-dollar investments in oil companies – such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP – were among the reasons for the losses in the $6.5 trillion assets that they manage. Also, BlackRock was the biggest investor in the coal industry and one of the top three investors in big oil companies.

BlackRock joins a growing movement of divestment of fossil fuels. The approximated value of institutions who have committed to divest from fossil fuels is at $14.48 trillion worldwide, with 1248 institutions divesting. These institutions cover almost every aspect of society. There are huge banks, faith groups, countries, cities, non-for-profits, retirement funds, and the list is expected to grow continuously. This clearly shows a trend in society to stop funding fossil fuel projects, and COVID-19 has accelerated the clear need for divestment from fossil fuels.

How Governments are Faring in their Recovery Packages

Some governments are watching market trends and prioritizing sustainability in their recovery packages. On May 27th, the European Union unveiled their new economic recovery plan in response to COVID-19, which highlighted a €750 billion ($1.163 trillion CAD) economic stimulus package and featured a considerable investment in Green initiatives. EU representatives earmarked 30% of total expenditure for spending to effectively achieve climate-oriented goals outlined in both the Paris Agreement and UN Sustainable Development Goals. Green spending laid out in the stimulus package is comprised of five main elements including: building efficiency, clean technology investment, low-carbon vehicles, agriculture & land, and a category for miscellaneous investments to foster a ‘just transition’. Each of the five elements aim to create and maintain thousands of jobs while improving the carbon footprint of each nation and establishing a foundation for future green industries.

Compared to the intensive COVID-19 response plan of the EU, Canada has failed to establish a defined response plan or actively fund green industries. The Canadian government has reportedly spent $18.12 billion CAD in supporting the fossil fuel industry since the beginning of the pandemic in the form of supporting fossil fuel infrastructure, suspending requirements for environmental reporting, and tax relief for petroleum producers. This spending comes despite many banks and insurers pulling out of Canadian oil and tar sands projects, and BP oil forecasting that oil demand peaked last year. Additionally, the United Nations Environment Program has stated that current national government plans would lock the world into 120 times more emissions than what is needed to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature increase, and that 85 percent of planned oil and gas development is in North America.

This fossil fuel spending is in contrast with $15 billion CAD in supporting sustainability projects. A total of $2.5 billion CAD has been provided to fund two separate energy related initiatives. $1.72 billion CAD was allocated to clean up retired oil and gas wells, maintaining some 5,200 jobs in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta. Another $750 million CAD was allotted to launch the emissions reduction fund that aims to support workers and reduce emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector. On November 19th, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act was presented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and outlines a system for which future Canadian governments must establish 5-year targets and reviews moving forward to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Despite the creation of this system requiring future governments to create emission targets and reviews, there are no binding rules or penalties for failure to meet targets.

Canada’s COVID-19 response creates a framework for a review system but fails to define a plan of action and set into motion specific goals and projects. The Net-Zero Emissions Act creates a framework for future governments but does not address current industry issues during the pandemic the way the EU COVID-19 response stimulus package does. Advocacy groups have criticized the Prime Minister’s new bill, claiming it is an empty plan that fails to spur immediate action or create penalties for missed targets. Comparatively, the EU’s stimulus package illustrated an organized and structured plan with specific goals moving beyond the pandemic. The recovery plan and stimulus package presented by the EU should serve as a model upon which Canada could immediately begin to construct a sustainable economic future.

This article is part of our March 2021 Western Student Editorial Series – a series that showcases the works of students in the Collaborative Specialization in Environment and Sustainability program. Read more articles from this series here!

The post “Now is the Time” appeared first on A\J.

The post The Evolving Role of Not-For-Profits appeared first on A\J.

Environmental Value

Rivers come in many different shapes and sizes and present themselves as habitat for many species across the globe. Rivers are known to have some of the richest biodiversity in the world, and yes it goes beyond just fish. From snails, to alligators, to pollutant-sucking plants and piranhas; the habitat these rivers supply is of immense value to the world’s aquatic organisms. According to the Living Planet Index, freshwater vertebrate species have declined by 81% since 1970, which is a steeper decline than both terrestrial and marine species. Conserving freshwater species is important to ensure that our ecosystems are resilient to changes in the environment, as these ecosystems provide us with many other benefits related to culture and economics as well.

Additionally, rivers help us regulate our climate, which is becoming more important with increasing concerns of climate change. Rivers across the world help reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by flushing carbon from land into the ocean. Scientists have estimated that the world’s rivers transport 200 million tons of carbon to the ocean every year. This equals about 0.02% percent of the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere. Over thousands of years, that number really adds up to significant amounts of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, which can no longer contribute to atmospheric warming and climate change. Rivers also play a significant role in several other environmental processes such as nutrient cycling and air quality regulation.

Cultural Value

Rivers are vital to maintaining the function of ecosystems and the environment, yet their cultural importance is often overlooked. Since ancient times, rivers have influenced the way we live our everyday lives and our relationship to the environment, whether through farming, fishing, or powering homes. Fishing communities have always relied on the conservation of this resource to supply food and promote trade, especially among indigenous communities. Several agricultural communities benefit from rivers since farmers can use natural streams to develop and enhance irrigation systems to reliably water their crops. Despite the Nile River being the longest in the world, its cultural importance is like that of the Don River in Toronto. The Nile River was the means of life for settlements since 6000 BCE. The Nile holds religious significance since civilizations believed that the gods were responsible for annual flooding of the river, which deposited fertile soil along the riverbanks. Furthermore, the river was also a source of recreation among Egyptians, commonly used for water jousting and swimming.

In southern Toronto, like any other port, the city’s shoreline and the Don River have been built out extensively over the past century. Because of this development, and the sharp angles of the mouth of the Don River (which do not allow for the slowing of water like a winding river does), there is extensive flooding during rainy seasons. The federal, provincial, and municipal  governments have invested millions of dollars to re-naturalize the mouth of the Don River to reduce flooding within the city. The re-naturalization project has allowed for the revitalization of contaminated port lands in which oil and chemical industries historically dominated. Moreover, this will also allow city dwellers to escape the “city aesthetic” and immerse themselves in nature, hopefully improving mental and physical health. The Don River and Nile River are two of thousands that have the power to cultivate life and stimulate economic growth.

Economic Value

Rivers are of great economic importance, with many coastal communities globally depending on rivers to support their livelihoods. The most apparent economic value of our rivers is the drinking water source it supplies; it is estimated that 2 billion people receive their drinking water supply from dammed rivers. Indirectly, our existence fully depends on a river’s water supply as the driver of agricultural irrigation and hydropower. Less apparent is the dependence of the transport, tourism, and fishing industry on rivers. Historically, societies have always been found near water, due to the ease of transportation from ports. Rivers and their canals were vital to the transport of goods and people globally, and today there are more than 17,700 km of commercially significant navigation channels in the United States alone. Additionally, river tourism is a major economic resource supplying transportation, spectacular views, as well as supplying a sense of heritage and adventure. Rivers, particularly those that are left in their natural state, support some of the largest freshwater fish harvests in the world. A good example would be the Mekong River in East Asia which has an annual harvest of 4.4 million tonnes, valued at $17 billion USD per year. Unfortunately, migratory freshwater fish populations have declined by 76% since 1970, with the biggest driver being habitat degradation. Continual degradation of rivers due to human activities will undoubtedly jeopardize the vital source of food and livelihood that water supports, especially for vulnerable, rural communities and third world countries.

With increasing threats such as habitat degradation, climate change, and much more our rivers are at greater risk than ever before. River restoration projects are receiving more attention as a result, yet more can be done. In conclusion, there are many distinct reasons that make it necessary to maintain the health of our rivers across the world. From preserving the environment, to conserving our own culture and economies, humans have a high stake in the wellbeing of our rivers and their ecosystems. Individually, being a steward for rivers will help them continue to thrive for future generations.

This article is part of our March 2021 Western Student Editorial Series – a series that showcases the works of students in the Collaborative Specialization in Environment and Sustainability program. Read more articles from this series here!

The post Why is it Vital to Conserve Rivers? appeared first on A\J.

Many people believe that growing our fuel will improve energy security and independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote rural development. The Biofuel Delusion contends that such perceived advantages are quite simply not the case.

Authors Mario Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi dedicate much of this book to energetics – an area of study that considers the feasibility and desirability of energy sources, and how they may affect the structure of society. To determine the feasibility of a new energy supply, for example, researchers use the Output- Input (OI) ratio, which determines how much net energy the new source provides society, once we have subtracted the energy spent to obtain it. An OI of 1.0 indicates an energy supply that uses up all its energy to produce itself, and therefore has no surplus energy. Giampietro and Mayumi suggest that an OI below 3.0 is not worth the effort in energetic terms. Most fossil fuels range from an OI of 13 to 20, while US corn ethanol is often calculated at roughly 1.1 (ouch!) and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol at about 7.

Energetics also involves the study of the amount of energy produced by an energy supply for every hour of human labour devoted to its production. Developed societies are predicated on obtaining fantastically high labour productivity from the energy and agricultural sectors. The US, for example, requires 47,000 megajoules (MJ) of net energy for every hour of labour in the energy sector. By contrast, the energy-labour productivity of US corn-ethanol and Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol are both below 400 MJ per hour. To produce three per cent of US fuel needs from ethanol would require an unbelievable 48 per cent of the country’s workforce, after absorbing all the unemployed. If only producing energy was as much fun as consuming it.

After providing a crash course in energetics, the authors set their sights on agro-biofuels directly. They suggest that biofuels cannot possibly produce energy in sufficient quantity, nor with sufficiently high labour productivity, to meet the requirements of complex society. Given the low OI ratio of biofuels, there is simply not enough land for it.

The post Fool’s Fuel appeared first on A\J.

Former Alberta environment minister Lorne Taylor was reported to have remarked to David Suzuki that without a strong, growing economy, Canadians simply could not afford to protect the environment.

Most economists today continue to promote the idea that the wealthier the economy, the more money we will have to reduce pollution, invest in green technologies and protect wilderness areas. So why on Earth would we want to dispense with the pursuit of economic growth, particularly when the global economy is so vulnerable?

For Tim Jackson, the answer is simple: the relationship between growth and prosperity has fundamentally broken down. His most recent book, Prosperity without Growth, grew out of a report he wrote in 2009 for the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, the government’s independent watchdog on sustainable development. Based on three years of research, the report looked into the connections and conflicts between sustainability, growth and well-being.

As Jackson rightly notes, realizing the legitimate desire for all of humanity to lead full and prosperous lives – given the planet’s finite resource base – may well be the most profound dilemma of our times. What can prosperity possibly look like, he asks, in a world with a global population expected to reach nine billion by mid-century? The traditional economic response has been to associate prosperity with income and to call upon continued growth to deliver it.

But prosperity, Jackson argues, is not the same as material wealth. The former resides in our ability to “flourish as human beings, in the quality of our lives, the strength of our relationships, participation in our communities and the health and happiness of our families” – none of which are automatically delivered by continued growth.

Although Jackson believes there is no case to abandon the growth imperative in all countries, it has thus far failed to eliminate poverty, reduce income disparities or make citizens of developed countries any more satisfied with their lives. The growth model may be undermining happiness and causing a “social recession,” he says. Even if growth were socially desirable, the author makes the case that it would be ecologically impossible to provide the material comforts found in developed countries to the entire global population.

The post Stable De-growth appeared first on A\J.

Like many things, the truth usually lies somewhere down the middle. Yes, we have made progress this year, but we still have a long way to go. We must take the time to celebrate our wins but remain aware of the hills and mountains left to climb. 

As many of you know, the team at A\J have been writing a weekly column called WTF (the Week this Friday) where we take the time to reflect and report on the environmental stories from the week passed. As one of the most pivotal years of this century comes to a close, we think it is only fitting to highlight the environmental wins and losses of the year…WTF 2020!

1. Air pollution levels lowered from the coronavirus

Source: Pixabay

One silver lining from lockdowns this year was the eco benefit it seemed to have on the natural world. Less people moving around translated to less greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Guardian, back in March, at the height of China’s lockdown “NO2 levels were down by 38% from 2019 and levels of PM 2.5 were down by 34%”.

Unfortunately, as lockdowns eased up, people began moving around again and the highest polluting industries wasted no time in recovering. According to scientists from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, once lockdowns eased up again in spring/summer, NO2 levels in China quickly recovered.

According to scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, emissions would have to drop by approximately 20-30% for 6 to 12 months to actually make a difference. However, global emissions this year likely only dropped by about 7% compared to 2019. 

One of the few good things that came out of the coronavirus pandemic was the realization that we could live in a much less mobile world. During lockdown, we witnessed massive reductions of global CO2 and other GHG emissions which contribute to climate change (even if this was just temporarily). Experts and citizens alike encouraged decisions makers that this is the time to rebuild in a more sustainable way. Unfortunately, unless governments get serious about rebuilding into a more green recovery, it looks like we are just going to go back to our old ways.

2. New Delhi drops down to second place in the most polluted city in the world

Source: Pixabay 

This year, Lahore, Pakistan was named the most polluted city in the world with a particulate matter (PM) rating of 423with an AQI (air quality index) of 301. In previous years, New Delhi was ranked the most polluted city. This year, they dropped down to second place with a PM rating of 229.

For reference, the US Environmental Protection Agency has previously stated air that is “satisfactory” falls under an AQI of 50. 

Years of smog, dust from construction, and crop burning have all likely contributed to such high PM and AQI levels. Air quality in Lahore worsens from October to February when farmers are most likely to burn their crops, which contributes to the overall smog problem. To protect themselves from the pollution, Lahore’s residents are advised to wear a mask, run air purifiers and close windows in their homes, and avoid outdoor exercise. 

3. The Amazon forest fires

Source: Pixabay 

Back in August, 2020 was on course to be the worst year in over a decade for deforestation in the Amazon. Illegal tree loss was accelerating. In May, after facing immense global pressure, Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, had sent in the army to fight illegal logging – this plan was dubbed ‘Operation Green Brazil 2’. Although this was likely all just for show (deforestation has accelerated ever since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, growing by 209%). 

One area of the forest that had fared worse than the others in tree loss was Rondônia, an area that has seen growing deforestation since the mid-80’s. Rondônia is almost the same size as the UK has been burned and cut down to make way for crops and logging businesses. In the summer, NBC Forensics focused on Rondônia as the military was sent in – meant to track the ‘successes’ and accomplishments of Bolsonaro’s mission.

Bolsonaro falsely claimed the mission a success. However, the figures supplied by the government’s own space research agency demonstrated deforestation rates in May of 2020 and higher than in May 2019. In fact, the government’s own data showed that deforestation is increasing every single month since the previous year for 13 months in a row. 

What is happening in Rondônia is a reflection of what is happening throughout the Amazon. Eventually, the Amazon will reach a tipping point, where the tree loss will result in a rainforest that cannot produce enough rain to sustain itself. 

4. Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement 

Source: Pixabay

This year, the United States officially withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. 

It was first announced back in 2017 that Donald Trump would back out of the Paris agreement. However, the Paris agreement requires nations to wait a minimum of three years before giving notice to leave (partly to prevent future presidents from withdrawing from the deal in the name of short term interests). This is why the US did not formally leave until the end of 2020. 

The Paris agreement was established in 2015 in order to collectively battle the threat of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2C above pre-industrial measures. 

The United States is ranked the second top polluting country, accounting for over 15% of global emissions. Pulling out of the agreement poorly reflects the values of American in regards to climate change.

However, this news isn’t all bad. Joe Biden, new president elect recently announced that his administration will rejoin the Paris agreement once he takes office. Phew! 

5. Canada’s proposal to ban single use plastics and a new Net zero plan 

Source: Pixabay 

My favorite story of the year! 

This year, Ottawa announced single-use plastic straws and plastic shopping bans are among the six items that the federal government plans to ban in 2021. The six items include: stir sticks, six-pack rings, plastic cutlery and plastic food take-out containers. This decision is part of a broader initiative to divert plastics from landfills and classify them as a “toxic substance”. 

This ban is one of elements of a broader plan on their list to reach zero plastic waste by 2030. The government will consult on it’s plans this December because they are sure to experience pushback from industry groups and the Albertan government which have already voiced concerns – especially about the toxic classification on plastics. Alberta is worried that this federal plan will undermine the provinces’ petrochemical sector and its goal of becoming a plastics-recycling hub. Instead, Alberta states that Ottawa should focus on creating a circular economy whereby plastics from manufacturing go through recycling. 

Environment and Climate Change Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, pressed on that the ban is necessary because of the significant harm plastics are causing to Canada’s wildlife and coastlines. A daunting statistic was mentioned: In Canada, only 9% of the plastic that is thrown out is recycled. The government also plans to set recycled-content requirements on products and packaging and will further consult with all provinces and territories to set up these targets. Additionally, earlier this year the federal government released a draft state-of-the-science assessment on plastic pollution – effectively arming Ottawa with the scientific basis to regulate plastics. Basically, the assessment discussed the dangers of macro and microplastics causing harm to the environment and on wildlife. 

Members of Greenpeace have criticized the ban, saying that this is simply not enough of a response for the severity of the global plastics problem. I would have to disagree; I think this is a great first step.

Moreover, other governments have tried to implement a ban on single use plastics in some form or another in the past (read about Laredo’s plastic bag ban), and have lost because big oil won’t go down without a fight and is eager send their reps into the courtroom or lean on old legislation to prevent a plastic ban from going through. With these past failures in mind, I would rather take small victories over a huge loss. 

6. Coral reefs: The Great Barrier Reef moved to critical conservation outlook  

Source: Pixabay

According to the International Union for Conservation for Nature (IUCN), the health of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s most extensive and once spectacular coral reef ecosystem, is in a critical state and deteriorating as climate change warms up the waters in which it lies. The Reef has lost more than half its coral in the past three decades. Coral-bleaching in 2016, 2017 and now 2020 has further damaged its health and affected its animal, bird and marine population.  

Coral bleaching occurs when hotter water temperatures destroy the algae which corals feed on, causing them to turn completely stark white. Because of mass bleaching events, the IUCN moved the reef’s status to critical and deteriorating on its watchlist. Some activities which threaten it, like fishing and coastal development, can be tackled by the management authorities. 

“Other pressures cannot be addressed at the site level, such as climate change, which is recognized as the greatest threat,” the IUCN explained. Although efforts to safeguard the reef are rising, the process has been slow under a long-term sustainability plan through 2050. HSBC and the Queensland government said back in October that they would buy “Reef Credits”, a tradable unit that quantifies and values the work undertaken to improve water quality flowing onto the reef. 

According to Optimist Daily, “Buying one credit is the equivalent of removing one kilogram of nitrogen from the water, or preventing 538 kilograms of sediment from entering the ocean.”

Cool!

7. The rise of jobs in the sustainability sector (Netflix, Microsoft… did big hirings this year) 

Source: Pixabay

As a sustainability grad, one of the most promising changes (stories) of the year was witnessing the rise of jobs in the sustainability sector. Companies that would have never before considered hiring a team “to make them more green” now have huge departments all focussed on reducing company emissions and leaving behind a better legacy. To name just a few examples, this year Netflix, Microsoft and Tesla have all been making major hiring moves in sustainability. 

According to ECO Canada, “In the next 3 – 5 years, 84% of sustainability consulting firms expect to hire, creating about 400 new positions. A further 3,800 new jobs will be added to this number as 46% of other sustainability employers increase their staff…The top employers of sustainability professionals are governments (employing 27% of sustainability professionals), research institutions and not-for-profits (24%), large companies in manufacturing, oil & gas, mining, forestry and utilities (10%) and businesses in retail, finance and insurance (10%).”

Good news for sustainability! 

8. The Earthshot Prize 

Source: Flood Control Asia 

Move over Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Prize for environmentalism is coming through!

Back in October, Sir David Attenborough joined forces with Prince William to launch “The Earthshot Prize”. According to BBC, this is the biggest environmental prize to date. They are searching for 50 solutions to the world’s biggest environmental problems, allocating five one million-pound prizes (valuing at $1,704,300 CAD each) to be awarded over the next decade. 

Prince William believes this prize could be the positivity that the environmentalism movement is missing, “The Earthshot prize is really about harnessing that optimism and that urgency to find some of the world’s solutions to some of the greatest environmental problems,” he told the BBC.

According to the Earthshot website, the prize was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s Moonshot, “which united millions of people around an organising goal to put man on the moon and catalysed the development of new technology in the 1960s.” Attenborough believes it’s this same spirit that can guide the next generation of thinkers and dreamers to solve some of earth’s problems.

The announcement came just after Sir David Attenborough released his latest documentary, “A Life on Our Planet”. 

I am looking forward to seeing where this goes.

9. Tree’s ability to socialize and “speak” to each other. 

Source: Unsplash

This December, the New York Times shared that forests are social and communicate with one another through dense fungi networks in the soil below the canopy.

More specifically, “trees and fungi form partnerships known as mycorrhizas: Threadlike fungi envelop and fuse with tree roots, helping them extract water and nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen in exchange for some of the carbon-rich sugars the trees make through photosynthesis.”

Suzanne Simard, a professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia, has been studying these relationships in the wild, coastal forests of North America. Through her research, Sinard discovered that these fungal threads link EVERY tree together in the forest- even ones of different species!

These linkages allow vital molecules including carbon, water, and other nutrients to pass through the network circuits. Wait, it gets better. Simard also stated that chemical signals are also passed through this network, allowing trees to signal to others nearby when there is danger.

“If a tree is on the brink of death, it sometimes bequeaths a substantial share of its carbon to its neighbors.”

Is anyone cutting onions in here?

10. Doug Ford’s conservation authority changes

Source: NationalPost

In December, the Ontario government passed its new budget bill. One major change to this bill was the new constraints on the conservation authorities in the province to regulate development and “introduced new channels through which developers can obtain permits.”

According to the Globe and Mail, there are 36 conservation authorities in Ontario (with most of them in the southern end) all tasked with protecting the various watersheds that make up the province. This might include operating dams, defending against flooding or erosion, regulating development on wetlands, protecting water sources, and managing natural parks. Ultimately, conservation authorities are nature’s defender against poor land use policies. 

Unfortunately, their ability to defend will be threatened with the upcoming changes as a result of the new bill. And this isn’t the first time the government has tried to sidestep these authorities. Past budget cuts and using ministerial zoning orders (MZO) has allowed the government to circumvent the rules and bypass conservation authorities. 

Schedule 6 of the new bill will only add to this momentum. Changes include:

• The conservation authorities must now issue a permit once an MZO has been issued
• Developers can more easily appeal a conservation authorities decision

The decisions ultimately allow developers to take the path of least resistance if they want to build on a naturally significant area, while making it harder for conservation authorities to fight back and stand up for what they are meant to do.

11. Buzzworthy – Honeybee venom shown to kill cancer cells

Source: Unsplash

Now here is some news to buzz about, scientists in Australia have found that Honeybee venom has been linked to killing some aggressive breast cancer cells. This exciting news shows signs of hope for treatment of breast cancer – which is the leading cancer in women across the globe, representing 25% of all cancers in women.

Melittin – the compound within the venom were used to destroy two cancer types: triple-negative and HER2-enriched. Bee venom has been discussed to have anti-cancer properties before but there is still a long way to go from watching cancer cells be destroyed in petri dishes to being applied in medicinal practice.

It does provide us with hope and has proven to be yet another prime example of how nature is really the best doctor we have. Dr. Ciara Duffy a 25-year-old PhD researcher led the study and found the venom killed the cancer cells within an hour! We hope to see more development with this great news, and hopefully it increases acceptance towards incorporating more holistic approaches to cancer and medicinal treatments. Now that is buzzworthy.

12. Stay away poachers: rare white giraffe is now being tracked 

Source: Unsplash

Being the only white giraffe left is causing a stir up around the world to protect the remarkable creature, the extremely rare giraffe now has a tracker attached to it in order to trace its whereabouts hourly – this allows rangers in Kenya to monitor the giraffe and keep it out of danger from poachers. The device was planted on one of the horns on the animal on November 8th.. 

The white colour of the giraffe is from the absence of pigmentation in its skin – also called leucism, which is a rare genetic condition that can affect a variety of animals. Due to its rarity – the  animal is in a critical position to stay alive as the rest of its family has been killed off by poachers and making this one especially lucrative in the poaching and wildlife trafficking underground market.

The conservation status of the species as a whole is vulnerable, with over 68,000 giraffes in the world. Two white giraffes of the same family were killed in march and there was discussion that there was one found in Tanzania in 2015. With the tracking device, this hopes to protect the vulnerable giraffe and keep it out of harm’s way.

13. Shell Canada going carbon neutral

Source: Unsplash

Shell will become the first gas retailer in Canada to offer a program that offsets emissions from customer fuel purchases with an optional buy-in at the pump. The Drive Carbon Neutral program will be available to 1,400 stations Canada wide. The program allows customers to offset their carbon emissions from fossil fuels for two cents a litre. Shell states that many of their carbon conscious customers were demanding them to do more. They also stated that many individuals cannot afford to buy an electric car but still want to offset their carbon footprint – this will allow this to happen. This is a model that was taken from a program in Europe, which saw positive feedback and adoption levels with nearly 20 percent of people in the Netherlands using it.

Shell also announced their plan to reforest British Columbia in a partnership with Central Chilcotin Rehabilitation. They aim to plant 840,000 native trees in effort to resort much of what was lost in the 2017 wildfires. They plan to do this over a two-year planting period, with the cost being unreleased. Meanwhile Environmental Defence is arguing that this is “pure greenwashing”, as it directs the cost onto the consumer rather than the giant who is profiting from the world using fossil fuels.

14. A galaxy of microfibers in California – literally

Source: Unsplash 

Invisible but plentiful is a good way to describe the unfortunate situation of the plastic microfiber problem. A whooping 13.3 quadrillion (yes, quadrillion) plastic fibers are found in California alone – that is more than 130,000 times more fibers as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy. In 2019, an estimated 4,000 metric tons were released into California’s natural environment. With these fibers ending up in our water systems, a study found that 73% of fish caught at mid-ocean depth in the Atlantic had microplastics in their stomachs. 

The fibers are under 5mm in length and most often come from washing materials in our laundry. Mostly from synthetic fibers that make up our clothing, they go from our washing machines all the way to our water streams. Just one load alone can pass out more than 700,000 fibers alone. The amount of microfibers shed also depends on the material, wash temperature, detergent, etc. 

15. Hottest Temperatures EVER recorded 

Source: Unsplash

We hit a record again! There is no surprise of temperatures reaching soaring highs with the rising records of fossil fuels emissions, every year seems to hit a new heat record. But Death Valley held the flaming torch of the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth, sitting at 54.4C (130F).

Death Valley is a desert valley in the Mojave Desert that lies 86 meters below sea level. It is one of the hottest places on Earth but these soaring temperatures this high have never been accurately recorded before. There were extreme heat advisories, urging people to not walk in the desert past 10AM. 

It serves as the hottest air temperature ever recorded, this begs the question of what is to come in the future. It is so hot, that the sweat evaporates so fast off your skin that you actually don’t feel wet. Talk about a hot – n – not sweaty?

16. Zero carbon flights by 2035? 

Source: Unsplash

By 2020, we may have already expected flying cars – while our expectations may have been sold short, we do have something as exciting in the talks. Transportation giant Airbus has revealed their plans for the first commercial emission-free flight by 2035. Airbus has three ZEROe concepts in store, all to use hydrogen to power the planes.

In order to truly make this a feasible carbon-free option, it relies on finding large quantities of renewable or low-emitting sources of hydrogen. As this process currently relies mostly on methane and fossil fuels – it is not exactly a low-carbon option but more innovative solutions to hopefully come in future announcements.

One of the concept designs could carry up to 200 passengers for more than 2,000 miles. This is a milestone waiting to happen in the aviation industry and would mark a remarkable moment in history – with hopes that all travel and transportation can one day be emission free.

17. Google now has a carbon footprint of zero.

Source: Shutterstock

The tech giant has set the bar again. Although already being carbon neutral since 2007, Google now has offset their entire carbon footprint to ever exist. While many in the technology industry are right behind Google – such as Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft has released a statement to become “carbon negative” by 2030, and Apple is announcing to be carbon neutral for their business and the supply chain for their products by 2030. 

Google is also moving into using carbon-free energy by 2030 by using renewable energy such as solar and wind to power their operations. They also plan to increase their use of battery storage. Artificial intelligence will also come into play by allowing AI to forecast the demand of electricity. This shift would create over 12,000 jobs in the span of five years. Not only will it be good for the environment to turn away from oil and gas but it will also contribute to the economy, as they vowed to no longer create AI for oil and gas exploration. Nice one Google!

18. Thailand will shut national parks regularly to protect nature 

Source: Unsplash 

Footsteps are not the only things left on the beach. Many tourists flock to Thailand to enjoy their sandy beaches, crystal clear water, and a beautiful culture. Being a travel and tourism hotspot for many years, this has left a lasting impact on the natural environment. 

However, thanks to COVID-19, the closure of parks has allowed nature to recover by seeing the return of whales and turtles. This is a lesson that speaks volumes as the Natural Resources & Environment authorities now want to close the national parks yearly for two to four months to ensure the ecosystem and wildlife health remains stable and is not overexerted. 

Thailand has more than a 100 national parks and attracts between 10 – 20 million visitors, with this year expecting to drop below 7 million visitors. While tourism is one of the main economic pillars for Thailand’s economy, amounting to one-fifth to their gross domestic product, it could not keep up with the unsustainable degradation the heavy tourism brought. In order to sustain future tourism and a healthy ecosystem, Thailand conservation authorities saw first hand through the pandemic how with time, nature can begin to restore itself.

19. We can see penguin colonies from space

Source: Unsplash

Want the good news or the bad news first? We’ll start with the good. Emperor penguins are very difficult to study due to their extremely remote nature, making them often inaccessible with Arctic temperature conditions dropping below -50 degrees celsius. But good news, a new study using satellite mapping tech reveals that there are 20% more emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica than was previously thought. The scientists from British Arctic Survey (BAS) explain that they used images from European Commission’s Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite mission to locate birds. They were able to find 11 new emperor penguin colonies, three of which were previously identified, but not confirmed. These findings take the global census to 61 colonies around the continent. 

BAS scientists have been searching for new colonies for the past 10 years using land-based research methods. Dr. Peter Fretwell, a BAS geographer, says that satellite images have enabled scientists to discover colonies that would have been extremely difficult to find otherwise.  

Now here comes the bad news as promised, the colonies are so few and far between that this discovery takes the overall population count up by 5-10% to just over half a million penguins in total. Emperor penguins are known to be vulnerable to loss of sea ice (their breeding habitat). Given current climate change projections, this habitat is likely to further decline. Most of the new colonies are on the edge of the breeding ground meaning that they are likely to be lost as the climate warms. 

20. Water is now trading on wall street

Source: Unsplash

Water, a necessity to all life on our planet, is now being traded on Wall street. We should have seen this one coming, another natural resource commodified and brought onto Wall street. CME Group – the company in charge of managing the contracts states that water will be traded on Wall Street due to the fear of rising scarcity in the future. As with other traded commodities like oil and gold, the price will fluctuate due to supply and demand.

According to the Nasdaq Velez California Water Index, the price of water has doubled in the last year, and the market price of it is at 1.1 billion dollars. On December 7th the trading price started at $486.53 per acre-foot equating to 1,233 cubic meters.

Water contracts are a first of their kind, incubated by the heat and wildfires in California, this change hopes to protect the resource for California’s consumers to indicate the scarcity and the value it holds. Over 2 billion people live amongst water scarcity around the world…This foreshadows the grim future of millions of people getting displaced by this factor. Not only will water limit industries, but it will trickle down to limited supply for human consumption too.

—

Well 2020 being crazy and turbulent are just a few words we can agree on describing this year in a nutshell (basically this year was one big WTF, right?) With the ever so dynamic natural world and constantly shifting state of politics, it can often make it hard to keep up with what is going on in the ‘green’ world. That is why our team has had the pleasure of picking our top six weekly environmental stories in our weekly column, The WTF (The Weekly This Friday). 

We hope to have even more environmental wins for 2021 for us to document every Friday – yes we are extending the series into the next year (woo!) We are hoping to hear less about the pandemic and leave it in the rearview mirror of 2020, and make more strides and reach even more environmental triumphs. We hope you had the pleasure coming along this ride with us of reading these stories as much as we had writing them.

The post WTF 2020 appeared first on A\J.