Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

A heatwave known as the ‘blob’ may have killed a million birds – from just one species.

A heatwave known as the ‘blob’ may have killed a million birds – from just one species.
  • Many seabird numbers have declined in recent decades.
  • A marine heatwave in the Pacific killed an estimated one million common guillemots, according to a new report.
  • As climate change continues, the risk will only rise.

The common guillemot (known as the common murre in North America) breeds in both the Pacific and the Atlantic and is among the most abundant seabirds in the northern hemisphere. But like many other seabirds, its numbers have declined over the last few decades. Part of that decline is due to the marine environment – a seabird’s home and hunting ground – becoming increasingly unpredictable and difficult to survive in.

Between the summer of 2015 and the spring of 2016, a marine heatwave swept the northern Pacific Ocean that was hotter and lasted longer than any since records began in 1870. Known as “the blob”, the heatwave caused sea surface temperatures along the Pacific coast of North America to rise by 1-2°C. That may sound trivial, but it was enough to cause massive disruption in the marine ecosystem. The fish that common guillemots normally eat, such as herring, sardine and anchovy, either died or moved into cooler waters elsewhere, leaving the guillemots with little to eat. As a result, many birds starved.

 

6,540 common guillemot carcasses were found washed ashore in Alaska.
Image: David B. Irons, CC BY

 

A new study has revealed that one million common guillemots died due to the heatwave, and two thirds of them are thought to have been breeding adults. In a healthy population, about 95% of the breeding birds survive from one year to the next. But a bad year for adult survival causes big problems for the total population.

This is because guillemots live up to 40 years and mature slowly, producing a single egg per annual clutch. A female may start breeding at the age of seven and continue to breed each year until she dies. Most seabirds live similar lives because the food on which they rear their offspring is often a long way from land. Ferrying food back to the breeding colony is what limits how many offspring they can rear in any one year. Rearing just a single chick at a time makes sense, but if many adult birds of reproductive age die, there are no new chicks to replace those birds that are lost, and so the population declines.

 

Seabirds wrecked by ocean warming

Researchers based the estimate of one million dead guillemots on the numbers of dead or dying birds that washed up between California and the Gulf of Alaska. A total of 62,000 birds were found on 6,000km of coastline, but not all birds that die at sea end up on beaches. Previous studies have shown that the number of birds actually found dead needs to be multiplied by at least seven times – and possibly as much as several hundred times – to find the minimum estimate of the total numbers dead. That means that “one million dead seabirds” might actually be a conservative guess.

According to the new study, breeding populations in the Gulf of Alaska suffered a 10-20% decrease in numbers. Complete breeding failure, where birds either failed to lay eggs or failed to rear any chicks, was reported at 22 regularly monitored guillemot colonies in Alaska during the breeding seasons of 2015, 2016 and 2017. Complete breeding failure is extremely unusual among guillemots and it’s a clear sign that food is in extremely short supply.

 

The marine temperatures broke records during the heatwave.
Image: NOAA

 

The appearance of unusually high numbers of dead birds washed up on the shoreline is referred to as a “wreck”. Wrecks of common guillemots and related species such as puffins have been known about for many years. These population crashes may be a regular aspect of guillemot biology, but this one was far larger and over a much wider geographic area than any wreck seen before.

In most cases, wrecks are the result of persistent stormy conditions, disrupting the availability of fish on which seabirds like guillemots and puffins depend. When seas are rough and the weather harsh, the increased energy demands can kill many birds. The most recent wreck in the UK and western Europe occurred in the spring of 2014, and it killed at least 50,000 birds, mainly common guillemots and Atlantic puffins.

The common guillemot populations in the Pacific and western Europe will probably recover from both of these recent wrecks, providing there’s no further turmoil, but there’s no room for complacency. The only way scientists will know if populations have recovered is by monitoring the birds. It’s an activity that is generally regarded as the lowest form of scientific endeavour, but one that’s absolutely vital in a world of declining wildlife.

 

Professor Tim Birkhead and Dr Jess Meade on Skomer in Wales, 2012.
Image: Tim Birkhead

 

I’ve been studying and monitoring the number of common guillemots on Skomer Island, Wales since 1972. In that time, I’ve realised how essential this work is to understanding how guillemot populations work. Beach counts of dead seabirds allow scientists to detect unusual events, but these counts are meaningless without information on the overall size of the population. Without regular monitoring of seabird colonies on North America’s west coast, the researchers wouldn’t have known what proportion of the total population died, and would have missed the total breeding failures in the Alaskan colonies.

The North Pacific common guillemot wreck was unprecedented for the sheer numbers of birds killed, and the vast region over which it occurred. But the marine heatwave that caused it may be just a taste of what is to come for seabirds around the world as climate change accelerates.

 


 

3 charts that show how attitudes to climate science vary around the world.

3 charts that show how attitudes to climate science vary around the world.
  • Indians are the most trusting of climate science, according to a survey on global attitudes to climate change.
  • By region, almost a fifth of North American adults expressed little or no trust in climate science.

People in South Asia are the most trusting of climate science, according to a new survey.

More than 10,000 people in 30 countries were asked in an SAP and Qualtrics survey, “How much do you trust what scientists say about the environment?”

While more than half of the global respondents trust climate science, those in India were the most trusting. 86% said they trusted scientists ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’, followed by Bangladesh (78%) and Pakistan (70%).

 

India tops the list.
Image: SAP/Qualtrics

 

 

China and Turkey (both 69%) complete the top 5.

But, at the other end of the spectrum, only 23% of respondents from Russia said they trusted climate scientists ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’, with Japan (25%), Ukraine (33%), the US (45%) and France (47%) rounding out those countries that were the most skeptical.

By region, almost a fifth of North American adults expressed little (12%) or no (6%) trust in climate science, compared to South Asia: little trust (4%), no trust (2%).

There is overwhelming evidence of the connection between CO2 emissions and climate change, which is having a profound impact on the world’s oceans and weather patterns.

According to a new study, the oceans in 2019 were 0.075 degrees Celsius above the average for 1981 to 2010 – and the warmest ever recorded.

 

Changing attitudes

 

Trust in East Asia and the Pacific dropped 9 percentage points
Image: SAP/Qualtrics

 

Compared to last year, some regions are slightly less trusting of climate science in 2020.

East Asia and the Pacific saw the biggest decline in those trusting scientists ‘a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ – from 59% in 2019, to 50% in 2020.

 

Image: SAP/Qualtrics

 

Respondents were also asked for their views on whether they believed global warming exists and what causes it.

Overall, more than two-thirds of people agreed that it’s caused mostly by human activity – with the vast majority of those (78%) in Latin America and the Caribbean expressing this view.

Less that 60% of people shared this view in North America (59%), and East Asia and the Pacific (54%). The latter region had the highest percentage of people – almost four in 10 – who believe global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the Earth’s environment.

In North America, a third of people (32%) believe global warming has natural causes, while 9% said they believed global warming didn’t exist. This is compared to just 3% in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the second highest percentage of people believe it’s caused by human activity.

 

Taking action

Climate change is a key theme at the 2020 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.

Before Davos, the Forum, along with Boston Consulting Group, set out clear steps that companies governments and individuals must take to avert disaster, in the report The Net-Zero Challenge: Fast-Forward to Decisive Climate Action.

The Forum’s Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab wrote to all the attendees inviting them to “set a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner”.

The event will be an opportunity for heads of industry and government to come together with academics and climate campaigners to look for solutions to the climate crisis.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has been appointed as UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, will speaking at a session on Solving the Green Growth Equation, while climate campaigner Greta Thunberg will speak at a session on Averting a Climate Apocalypse.

 


 

The fashion industry’s impact on the planet – in 22 facts

The fashion industry’s impact on the planet – in 22 facts
  • Fast fashion makes shopping for clothes more affordable, but it comes at an environmental cost.
  • The fashion industry produces 10% of all humanity’s carbon emissions and is the second-largest consumer of the world’s water supply.

Some parts of modern life are, at this point, widely known to cause environmental harm – flying overseas, using disposable plastic items, and even driving to and from work, for example. But when it comes to our clothes, the impacts are less obvious.

As consumers worldwide buy more clothes, the growing market for cheap items and new styles is taking a toll on the environment. On average, people bought 60% more garments in 2014 than they did in 2000. Fashion production makes up 10% of humanity’s carbon emissions, dries up water sources, and pollutes rivers and streams.

What’s more, 85% of all textiles go to the dump each year. And washing some types of clothes sends thousands of bits of plastic into the ocean.

Here are the most significant impacts fast fashion has on the planet.

Clothing production has roughly doubled since 2000.

While people bought 60% more garments in 2014 than in 2000, they only kept the clothes for half as long.

In Europe, fashion companies went from an average offering of two collections per year in 2000 to five in 2011.

Some brands offer even more. Zara puts out 24 collections per year, while H&M offers between 12 and 16.

A lot of this clothing ends up in the dump. The equivalent of one garbage truck full of clothes is burned or dumped in a landfill every second.

 

 

Landfill sights all across the world are filled with clothes.
Image: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

In total, up to 85% of textiles go into landfills each year. That’s enough to fill the Sydney harbor annually.

 

The Sydney Harbour could be filled twice annually with the textiles sent to landfill waste.
Image: REUTERS/David Gray

 

Washing clothes, meanwhile, releases 500,000 tons of microfibers into the ocean each year — the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.

Many of those fibers are polyester, a plastic found in an estimated 60% of garments. Producing polyester releases two to three times more carbon emissions than cotton, and polyester does not break down in the ocean.

A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that 35% of all microplastics — very small pieces of plastic that never biodegrade — in the ocean came from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.

 

35% of all microplastics come from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.
Image: Cheryl Ravelo/Reuters

 

Overall, microplastics are estimated to compose up to 31% of plastic pollution in the ocean.

 

Microplastic pollution accounts for nearly a third of all ocean plastics.
Image: Reuters

 

The fashion industry is responsible for 10% of humanity’s carbon emissions.

 

The fashion industry is responsible for 1/10 of carbon emissions.
Image: Stringer / Reuters

 

That’s more emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping combined.

If the fashion sector continues on its current trajectory, that share of the carbon budget could jump to 26% by 2050, according to a 2017 report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

The fashion industry is also the second-largest consumer of water worldwide.

 

The fashion industry uses vast quantities of water.
Image: REUTERS/P. Ravikumar/File Photo

 

It takes about 700 gallons of water to produce one cotton shirt. That’s enough water for one person to drink at least eight cups per day for three-and-a-half years.

It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans. That’s more than enough for one person to drink eight cups per day for 10 years.

That’s because both the jeans and the shirt are made from a highly water-intensive plant: cotton.

 

Cotton is highly water intensive.
Image: REUTERS/Luc Gnago

 

In Uzbekistan, for example, cotton farming used up so much water from the Aral Sea that it dried up after about 50 years. Once one of the world’s four largest lakes, the Aral Sea is now little more than desert and a few small ponds.

 

Cotton farming used up so much water from the Aral Sea that it dried up after about 50 years
Image: NASA

 

Fashion causes water-pollution problems, too. Textile dyeing is the world’s second-largest polluter of water, since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams, or rivers.

 

Dying textiles causes lots of water pollution.
Image: REUTERS/Jayanta Dey

 

The dyeing process uses enough water to fill 2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools each year.

 

The dying process.
Image: REUTERS/Rafiquar Rahman

 

All in all, the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of all industrial water pollution worldwide.

 

A fifth of water pollution comes from the fashion industry.
Image: REUTERS/Andrew Biraj (Bangladesh Environment Society)

 

Some apparel companies are starting to buck these trends by joining initiatives to cut back on textile pollution and grow cotton more sustainably. In March, the UN launched the Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, which will coordinate efforts across agencies to make the industry less harmful.

 


 

 

We can build a carbon-neutral world by 2050. Here’s how.

We can build a carbon-neutral world by 2050. Here’s how.

Is a carbon-neutral world possible by 2050? Yes. Will it happen? Again, yes. No politician will be able to ignore the social and economic pressures as climate impacts become more severe – but the longer it takes, the more expensive it will become. Governments, states, cities, businesses and investors know this.

The Paris Agreement provides an international framework for countries to set clear goals and increase their ambition, over time, to reach a net-zero carbon world. The Carbon Neutral Coalition – comprising 26 countries, 15 cities, 17 regions and states, and 192 companies – is spearheading ambitious efforts to implement policies and incentives that will support the process. The 20 cities of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance are taking action to drive aggressive emissions reductions. The Under2Coalition of 205 jurisdictions – representing 43 countries and six continents – is developing deep decarbonisation plans for 2050. And 412 companies have committed to set ‘science based targets’ to achieve the same aim.

Setting a clear goal that aligns with climate science takes bold leadership – mainly because it may not be possible to clearly articulate exactly how it will be achieved. But the intent sends a powerful signal to customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders about the direction of travel, which in turn helps to drive policy, behavioural changes and investment in solutions that will ultimately support the ability of companies to achieve the goal.

 

More and more companies are switching to renewable energy, or are committing to do so
Image: International Renewable Energy Agency

 

Mahindra is one of the companies not only setting this goal, but encouraging others to do the same. Anand Mahindra, chairman of the Mahindra Group, issued a challenge to the business community in Davos this year: he wants to see 500 businesses commit to setting science-based targets in time for the Global Climate Action Summit in California in September. It will take just 88 more companies to realise this call to action.

Setting a target is one thing; delivering it is another. Most companies begin this journey with the win-win solutions that can typically be realised through increasing energy productivity and switching to low carbon sources of power. These actions alone can make a big difference in reducing a company’s carbon footprint, as well as reducing operating costs.

An increasing number of companies are setting – and achieving – targets to consume 100% renewable power and the market is responding to support this. It is not necessarily true that the more power you use, the more difficult it is to switch. It has more to do with the options for accessing renewable power and these are increasing due to increased affordability and demand.

Reducing emissions from transport can be trickier – but solutions in this sector are also accelerating. The long-term trend towards the electrification of ground transport means that power utilities have a huge market opportunity as demand moves from gasoline to electricity. However, for this to be a carbon-smart choice, it does require an alignment of low-carbon power transition to be part of the solution. New partnerships across cities, power providers and electric vehicle companies are sprouting up to help ensure that the shift to electric vehicles also means a shift to clean mobility. And 18 companies have joined the EV100 initiative, setting a goal to switch to 100% electric vehicles.

Implementing the financially viable actions that can reduce emissions today makes business sense. But it won’t be long before tougher investment decisions need to be made. For some sectors that rely on fossil fuel for energy or industrial processes, government intervention to create mechanisms necessary for low-carbon transition is essential.

Rules that will come into play in 2021 for the aviation sector will drive the need for net-zero growth, which is achievable in the near-term through using the carbon market to offset emissions. The implementation and development of innovative low-carbon fuels and technologies, meanwhile, will play an important role in the longer term.

The shipping sector has also created a framework that will push for more aggressive carbon reduction through the implementation of improved technology. Other sectors that come under the remit of the Paris Agreement are seeing government intervention to support the transition through inclusion in carbon pricing schemes – whether through increased taxation or inclusion in carbon pricing regimes that enable market forces to determine the optimal economic choices.

But it is not just the fossil fuel-intensive sectors that are facing challenges in reducing their emissions. The land use sector is also increasingly under the spotlight. The nature of the food, agriculture and land use system means it is trickier to navigate political, ideological, social and environmental issues to put pressure on these sectors to reduce their emissions. However, the growing need to not only curb emissions from the sector, but to also ramp up the ‘carbon absorption’ capabilities of forests, soil, oceans and other natural sinks means it is time to address this challenge. It is a simple scientific fact that if the global goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is to be met, the role of natural carbon sinks (forests, oceans and soils, as well as other natural systems that ‘suck up’ carbon) will play an increasingly important role.

This, in turn, is sparking greater interest in the value proposition of nature-based solutions. For companies that rely on land, ocean or water-based resources within their value-chain, multi-stakeholder collaboration has helped drive efforts to address a broader range of sustainability issues. As a result, the carbon and climate benefits are not always a major focus. As intervention from governments and businesses that will rely on nature-based solutions to meet carbon-neutral goals becomes increasingly necessary, this area is gaining fresh attention and innovation. Whilst there are still challenges surrounding methodologies to effectively measure, verify and account for carbon emissions, smart technology is helping to increase transparency and build credibility. Robust accounting mechanisms along with appropriate governance are also needed to enable new financing flows.

All of these things together may not achieve the net-zero goal entirely. But as the price of carbon increases, as new innovations and technologies become more affordable, and as consumer behaviours shift, what may now seem unrealistic could soon play a role in dealing with the most stubborn carbon reduction challenges. These solutions range from affordable carbon capture and storage technologies, new forms of clean energy, carbon absorbing materials such as plastics and cement, to diets based on lower protein intake from meat.

The longer it takes to reduce greenhouse emissions and restore natural carbon sinks, the more extreme the climate impacts will become. The sooner we act on the low-hanging fruit at the same time as discussing workable solutions to the more challenging areas for mitigation and adaptation, the better chance we have to build a carbon-neutral world by 2050. Businesses have a huge role to play in this process. In the run up to 2020, as governments are developing their plans to deliver the Paris Agreement, now is exactly the right time to be part of building a carbon-neutral world with rules that make business sense.

 


 

Tokyo 2020 Olympics: from cardboard beds to recycled medals, how the Games are going green.

Tokyo 2020 Olympics: from cardboard beds to recycled medals, how the Games are going green.
  • Tokyo 2020 is aiming to be the greenest-ever Olympic Games.
  • Athletes will sleep on recyclable cardboard beds.
  • The event’s medals will be made from recycled precious metals.
  • Organizers hope the event will emit no more than 2.93 million tonnes of CO2.

Tokyo 2020’s dream of being the lowest-emission Olympic Games ever even extends to where the athletes will sleep – on cardboard beds.

The beds, which will be recycled after the event, are designed to withstand weights of up to 200 kilogrammes, although the organizers warn that they may break if jumped on.

Mattresses on the 18,000 cardboard beds provided for the event are also made to be fully recyclable after use.

 

No jumping now! Recyclable beds for Tokyo 2020.
Image: AP

 

It’s all part of an effort by the Tokyo Olympic committee to reduce the event’s carbon footprint. The 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games were estimated to have emitted 4.5 million tonnes of CO2. The 2012 London Games, which claimed to be the greenest ever, generated 3.3 million tonnes.

A major source of emissions at any international event comes from flying in competitors and spectators. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) says a return flight from New York to Tokyo will generate 946 kg of CO2 per passenger.

The organizers have devised an independently audited carbon offset programme designed to ensure the Games – which open on 24 July, followed by the Paralympics on 25 August – emit as little carbon as possible.

Gold, silver, bronze – all recycled

Electricity used at the Games will come from renewable sources such as solar, biomass and hydro. Energy efficiency measures include fitting only LED lights to all the event venues.

Tokyo 2020 is even using precious metals recovered from 6.2 million discarded mobile phones to cast its medals. The recycling effort yielded the 32 kg of gold, 3,500 kg of silver and 2,200 kg of bronze needed to produce 5,000 medals.

Podiums for the medal ceremonies are being made from recycled plastic donated by the public and recovered from the oceans. After the Games, these will be used for educational purposes or recycled to make bottles by sponsor Procter & Gamble.

 

Autonomous electric shuttles will ferry athletes between venues.
Image: Toyota

 

Zero-emission transport will also be used, including fuel-cell buses, autonomous battery shuttles and hydrogen-powered forklift trucks, which will be used to move heavy items around the Olympic sites.

Earthquake legacy of hope

The Olympic torch has been produced using aluminium waste from temporary housing that was built in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. And the uniforms worn by officials are being made from polyester derived from recycled bottles.

 

Even the Olympic torch is recycled.
Image: IOC

 

The Olympic village plaza will be built with sustainably-sourced timber donated by local authorities across Japan. After the Games, the timber will be reused as public benches or to build public buildings.