Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

What if we did everything right? This is what the world could look like in 2050

What if we did everything right? This is what the world could look like in 2050

The World We Are Creating

It is 2050. Beyond the emissions reductions registered in 2015, no further efforts were made to control emissions. We are heading for a world that will be more than 3 degrees warmer by 2100.

The first thing that hits you is the air.

In many places around the world, the air is hot, heavy, and depending on the day, clogged with particulate pollution. Your eyes often water. Your cough never seems to disappear. You think about some countries in Asia, where out of consideration sick people used to wear white masks to protect others from airborne infection. Now you wear a daily mask to protect yourself from air pollution. You can no longer walk out your front door and breathe fresh air: there is none. Instead, before opening doors or windows in the morning, you check your phone to see what the air quality will be. Everything might look fine— sunny and clear— but you know better. When storms and heat waves overlap and cluster, the air pollution and intensified surface ozone levels make it dangerous to go outside without a specially designed face mask (which only some can afford).

Southeast Asia and Central Africa lose more lives to filthy air than do Europe or the United States. There few people work outdoors anymore, and even indoors the air tastes slightly acidic, making you feel nauseated throughout the day. China stopped burning coal ten years ago, but that hasn’t made much difference in air quality around the world because you are still breathing dangerous exhaust fumes from millions of cars and buses everywhere. China has experimented with seeding rain clouds— the process of artificially inducing rain— hoping to wash pollution out of the sky, but results are mixed. Seeding clouds to artificially create more rain is difficult and unreliable, and even the wealthiest countries cannot achieve consistent results. In Europe and Asia, the practice has triggered international incidents because even the most skilled experts can’t control where the rain will fall, never mind that acid rain is deleterious to crops, wreaking havoc on food supply. As a result, crops are increasingly grown under cover to protect them from the weather, a trend that will only get stronger.

 

 

Our world is getting hotter. Over the next two decades, projections tell us that temperatures in some areas of the globe will rise even higher, an irreversible development utterly beyond our control. The world’s ecosystems have stopped absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and are, on balance, emitting it. Oceans, forests, plants, trees, and soil had for many years absorbed half the carbon dioxide we spewed out. Now there are few forests left, most of them either logged or consumed by wildfire, and the permafrost is belching greenhouse gases into an already overburdened atmosphere.

The increasing heat of the Earth is suffocating us, and in five to ten years, vast swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable. By 2100, Australia, North Africa, and parts of the western United States might be entirely abandoned. Now everyone knows what the future holds for their children and grandchildren: tipping point after tipping point has been reached until eventually there will be no more civilization. Humans will be cast to the winds again, gathering in small tribes, hunkered down and living on whatever patch of land might sustain them.

The planet has already reached several such tipping points. First was the vanishing of coral reefs. Some of us still remember diving amid majestic coral reefs, brimming with multicolored fish of all shapes and sizes. Corals are now almost gone. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is the largest aquatic cemetery in the world. Efforts have been made to grow artificial corals farther north and south from the equator where the water is a bit cooler, but these efforts have failed, and marine life has not returned. Soon there will be no reefs anywhere— it is only a matter of a few years before the last 10 percent dies off.

The second tipping point was the melting of the ice sheets in the Arctic. There is no summer Arctic sea ice anymore because warming is worse at the poles— between 6 and 8 degrees higher than other areas. The melting happened silently in that cold place far north of most of the inhabited world, but its effects were soon noticed. The Great Melting was an accelerant of further global warming. The white ice used to reflect the sun’s heat, but now it’s gone, so the dark sea water absorbs more heat, expanding the mass of water and pushing sea levels even higher. More moisture in the air and higher sea surface temperatures have caused a surge in extreme hurricanes and tropical storms. Recently, coastal cities in Bangladesh, Mexico, and the United States have suffered brutal infrastructure destruction and extreme flooding, killing many thousands and displacing millions. This happens with increasing frequency now. Every day, because of rising water levels, some part of the world must evacuate to higher ground. Every day the news shows images of mothers with babies strapped to their backs, wading through floodwaters, and homes ripped apart by vicious currents that resemble mountain rivers. News stories tell of people living in houses with water up to their ankles because they have nowhere else to go, their children coughing and wheezing because of the mold growing in their beds, insurance companies declaring bankruptcy leaving survivors without resources to rebuild their lives. Contaminated water supplies, sea salt intrusions, and agricultural runoff are the order of the day. Because multiple disasters are always happening simultaneously in every country, it can take weeks or even months for basic food and water relief to reach areas pummeled by extreme floods. Diseases such as malaria, dengue, cholera, respiratory illnesses, and malnutrition are rampant.

Now all eyes are on the western Antarctic ice sheet. If and when it disappears, it could release a deluge of freshwater into the oceans, raising sea levels by over five meters. Cities like Miami, Shanghai, and Dhaka will be uninhabitable—ghostly Atlantises dotting the coasts of each continent, their skyscrapers jutting out of the water, their people evacuated or dead.

Those around the world who chose to remain on the coast because it had always been their home have more to deal with than rising water and floods— they must now witness the demise of a way of life-based on fishing. As oceans have absorbed carbon dioxide, the water has become more acidic, and the pH levels are now so hostile to marine life that all countries have banned fishing, even in international waters. Many people insist that the few fish that are left should be enjoyed while they last— an argument, hard to fault in many parts of the world, that applies to so much that is vanishing.

As devastating as rising oceans have been, droughts and heatwaves inland have created a special hell. Vast regions have succumbed to severe aridification followed by desertification, and wildlife has become a distant memory. These places can barely support human life; their aquifers dried up long ago, and their groundwater is almost gone. Marrakech and Volgograd are on the verge of becoming deserts. Hong Kong, Barcelona, and Abu Dhabi have been desalinating seawater for years, desperately trying to keep up with the constant wave of immigration from areas that have gone completely dry.

The Sahara Desert, which was once contained in Africa, now extends to Europe, into areas of Spain, Greece, and southern France. Extreme heat is on the march. If you live in Paris, you endure summer temperatures that regularly rise to 44 degrees Celsius (111 degrees Fahrenheit). This is no longer the headline-grabbing event it would have been thirty years ago. Everyone stays inside, drinks water, and dreams of air conditioning. You lie on your couch, a cold wet towel over your face, and try to rest without dwelling on the poor farmers on the outskirts of town who, despite recurrent droughts and wildfires, are still trying to grow grapes, olives, or soy— luxuries for the rich, not for you.

You try not to think about the 2 billion people who live in the hottest parts of the world, where, for upward of forty-five days per year, temperatures skyrocket to 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit)— a point at which the human body cannot be outside for longer than six hours because it loses the ability to cool itself down. Places such as central India are becoming uninhabitable. For a while people tried to carry on, but when you can’t work outside, when you can fall asleep only at four a.m. for a couple of hours because that’s the coolest part of the day, there’s not much you can do but leave. Mass migrations to less hot rural areas are beset by a host of refugee problems, civil unrest, and bloodshed over diminished water availability.

Inland glaciers around the world are almost gone. The millions who depended on the Himalayan, Alpine, and Andean glaciers to regulate water availability throughout the year are in a state of constant emergency: there is no more snow turning to ice atop mountains in the winter, so there is no more gradual melting for the spring and summer. Now there are either torrential rains leading to flooding or prolonged droughts. The most vulnerable communities with the least resources have already seen what ensues when water is scarce: sectarian violence, mass migration, and death.

Even in some parts of the United States, there are fiery conflicts over water, battles between the rich who are willing to pay for as much water as they want and everyone else demanding equal access to the life-enabling resource. The taps in nearly all public facilities are locked, and those in restrooms are coin-operated. At the federal level, Congress is in an uproar over water redistribution: states with less water demand what they see as their fair share from states that have more. Government leaders have been stymied on the River and the Rio Grande shrink further. Looming on the horizon are conflicts with Mexico, no longer able to guarantee deliveries of water from the depleted Rio Conchos and Rio Grande. Similar disputes have arisen in Peru, China, and Russia.

Food production swings wildly from month to month, season to season, depending on where you live. More people are starving than ever before. Climate zones have shifted, so some new areas have become available for agriculture (Alaska, the Arctic), while others have dried up (Mexico, California). Still others are unstable because of the extreme heat, never mind flooding, wildfire, and tornadoes. This makes the food supply in general highly unpredictable. One thing hasn’t changed, though— if you have money, you have access. Global trade has slowed as countries such as China stop exporting and seek to hold on to their own resources. Disasters and wars rage, choking off trade routes. The tyranny of supply and demand is now unforgiving; because of its scarcity, food is now wildly expensive. Income inequality has always existed, but it has never been this stark or this dangerous.

Whole countries suffer from epidemics of stunting and malnutrition. Reproduction has slowed overall, but most acutely in those countries where food scarcity is dire. Infant mortality is sky high, and international aid has proven to be politically impossible to defend in light of mass poverty. Countries with enough food are resolute about holding on to it.

In some places, the inability to gain access to such basics as wheat, rice, or sorghum has led to economic collapse and civil unrest more quickly than even the most pessimistic sociologists had previously imagined. Scientists tried to develop varieties of staples that could stand up to drought, temperature fluctuations, and salt, but we started too late. Now there simply aren’t enough resilient varieties to feed the population. As a result, food riots, coups, and civil wars throw the world’s most vulnerable from the frying pan into the fire. As developed countries seek to seal their borders from mass migration, they too feel the consequences. Stock markets are crashing, currencies are wildly fluctuating, and the European Union has disbanded.

As committed as nations are to keeping wealth and resources within their borders, they’re determined to keep people out. Most countries’ armies are now just highly militarized border patrols. Lockdown is the goal, but it hasn’t been a total success. Desperate people will always find a way. Some countries have been better global Good Samaritans than others, but even they have now effectively shut their borders, their wallets, and their eyes.

When the equatorial belt became mostly uninhabitable just a few years ago, you watched the news with disbelieving eyes. Undulating crowds of migrants, half a billion people, were moving north from Central America toward Mexico and the United States. Others moved south toward the tips of Chile and Argentina. The same scenes played out across Europe and Asia. Most people who lived between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn were driving or walking away in a giant band of humanity. Enormous political pressure was placed on northern and southern countries to either welcome migrants or keep them out. Some countries let people in, but only under conditions approaching indentured servitude. It will be years before the stranded migrants are able to find asylum or settle into new refugee cities that have formed along the borders.

Even if you live in areas with more temperate climates such as Canada and Scandinavia, you are still extremely vulnerable. Severe tornadoes, flash floods, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards are always in the back of your mind. Depending on where you live, you have a fully stocked storm cellar, an emergency go-bag in your car, or a six-foot fire moat around your house. People are glued to oncoming weather reports. No one shuts their phones off at night. When the emergency hits, you may only have minutes to respond. The alert systems set up by the government are basic and subject to glitches and irregularities depending on access to technology. The rich, who subscribe to private, reliable satellite-based alert systems, sleep better.

The weather is unavoidable, but lately the news about what’s going on at the borders has become too much for most people to endure. Because of the alarming spike in suicides, and under increasing pressure from public health officials, news organizations have decreased the number of stories devoted to genocide, slave trading, and refugee virus outbreaks. You can no longer trust the news. Social media, long the grim source of live feeds and disaster reporting, is brimming with conspiracy theories and doctored videos. Overall, the news has taken a strange, seemingly controlled turn toward distorting reality and spinning a falsely positive narrative.

Everyone living within a stable country is physically safe, yes, but the psychological toll is mounting. With each new tipping point passed, they feel hope slipping away. There is no chance of stopping the runaway warming of our planet, and no doubt we are slowly but surely heading toward human extinction. And not just because it’s too hot. Melting permafrost is also releasing ancient microbes that today’s humans have never been exposed to— and as a result have no resistance to. Diseases spread by mosquitoes and ticks are rampant as these species flourish in the changed climate, spreading to previously safe parts of the planet, overwhelming us. Worse still, the public health crisis of antibiotic resistance has only intensified as the population has grown denser in the last inhabitable areas and temperatures continue to rise.

The demise of the human species is being discussed more and more— its trajectory seems locked in. The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last, how many more generations will see the light of day. Suicides are the most obvious manifestation of the prevailing despair, but there are other indications: a sense of bottomless loss, unbearable guilt, and fierce resentment at previous generations who did nothing to ward off this final, unstoppable calamity.

 

The World We Must Create

It is 2050. We have been successful at halving emissions every decade since 2020. We are heading for a world that will be no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100.

In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution.

You have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.

It wasn’t the single solution we required, but the proliferation of trees bought us the time we needed to vanquish carbon emissions. Corporate donations and public money funded the biggest tree- planting campaign in history. When we started, it was purely practical, a tactic to combat climate change by relocating the carbon: the trees took carbon dioxide out of the air, released oxygen, and put the carbon back where it belongs, in the soil. This of course helped to diminish climate change, but the benefits were even greater. On every sensory level, the ambient feeling of living on what has again become a green planet has been transformative, especially in cities. Cities have never been better places to live. With many more trees and far fewer cars, it has been possible to reclaim whole streets for urban agriculture and for children’s play. Every vacant lot, every grimy unused alley, has been repurposed and turned into a shady grove. Every rooftop has been converted to either a vegetable or a floral garden. Windowless buildings that were once scrawled with graffiti are instead carpeted with verdant vines.

The greening movement in Spain had begun as an effort to combat rising temperatures. Because of Madrid’s latitude, it is one of the driest cities in Europe. And even though the city now has a grip on its emissions, it was previously at risk of desertification. Because of the “heat island” effect of cities— buildings trap warmth and dark, paved surfaces absorb heat from the sun— Madrid, home to more than 6 million people, was several degrees warmer than the countryside just a few miles away. In addition, air pollution was leading to a rising incidence of premature births, and a spike in deaths was linked to cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. With a health care system already strained by the arrival of subtropical diseases like dengue fever and malaria, government officials and citizens rallied. Madrid made dramatic efforts to reduce the number of vehicles and create a “green envelope” around the city to help with cooling, oxygenating, and filtering pollution. Plazas were repaved with porous material to capture rainwater; all black roofs were painted white; and plants were omnipresent. The plants cut noise, released oxygen, insulated south- facing walls, shaded pavements, and released water vapor into the air. The massive effort was a huge success and was replicated all over the world. Madrid’s economy boomed as its expertise put it on the cutting edge of a new industry.

Most cities found that lower temperatures raised the standard of living. There are still slums, but the trees, largely responsible for countering the temperature rise in most places, have made things far more bearable for all.

Reimagining and restructuring cities was crucial to solving the climate challenge puzzle. But further steps had to be taken, which meant that global rewilding efforts had to reach well beyond the cities. The forest cover worldwide is now 50 percent, and agriculture has evolved to become more tree-based. The result is that many countries are unrecognizable, in a good way. No one seems to miss wideopen plains or monocultures. Now we have shady groves of nut and fruit orchards, timberland interspersed with grazing, parkland areas that spread for miles, new havens for our regenerated population of pollinators.

Luckily for the 75 percent of the population who live in cities, new electric railways crisscross interior landscapes. In the United States, high- speed rail networks on the East and West coasts have replaced the vast majority of domestic flights, with East coast connectors to Atlanta and Chicago. Because flight speeds have slowed down to gain fuel efficiency, passenger bullet trains make some journeys even faster and with no emissions whatsoever. The U.S. Train Initiative was a monumental public project that sparked the economy for a decade. Replacing miles and miles of interstate highways with a new transportation system created millions of jobs— for train technology experts, engineers, and construction workers who designed and built raised rail tracks to circumvent floodplains. This massive effort helped to reeducate and retrain many of those displaced by the dying fossil fuel economy. It also introduced a new generation of workers to the excitement and innovation of the new climate economy.

Running parallel to this mega public works effort was an increasingly confident race to harness the power of renewable sources of energy. A major part of the shift to net- zero emissions was a focus on electricity; achieving the goal required not only an overhaul of existing infrastructure but also a structural shift. In some ways, breaking up grids and decentralizing power proved easy. We no longer burn fossil fuels. There is some nuclear energy in those countries that can afford the expensive technology,6 but most of our energy now comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. All homes and buildings produce their own electricity— every available surface is covered with solar paint that contains millions of nanoparticles, which harvest energy from the sunlight, and every windy spot has a wind turbine. If you live on a particularly sunny or windy hill, your house might harvest more energy than it can use, in which case the energy will simply flow back to the smart grid. Because there is no combustion cost, energy is basically free. It is also more abundant and more efficiently used than ever.

Smart tech prevents unnecessary energy consumption, as artificial intelligence units switch off appliances and machines when not in use. The efficiency of the system means that, with a few exceptions, our quality of life has not suffered. In many respects, it has improved.

For the developed world, the wide-ranging transition to renewable energy was at times uncomfortable, as it often involved retrofitting old infrastructure and doing things in new ways. But for the developing world, it was the dawn of a new era. Most of the infrastructure that it needed for economic growth and poverty alleviation was built according to the new standards: low carbon emissions and high resilience. In remote areas, the billion people who had no electricity at the start of the twenty-first century now have energy generated by their own rooftop solar modules or by wind-powered minigrids in their communities. This new access opened the door to so much more. Entire populations have leaped forward with improved sanitation, education, and health care. People who had struggled to get clean water can now provide it to their families. Children can study at night.

Remote health clinics can operate effectively. Homes and buildings all over the world are becoming self- sustaining far beyond their electrical needs. For example, all buildings now collect rainwater and manage their own water use. Renewable sources of electricity made possible localized desalination, which means clean drinking water can now be produced on-demand anywhere in the world. We also use it to irrigate hydroponic gardens, flush toilets, and shower. Overall, we’ve successfully rebuilt, reorganized, and restructured our lives to live in a more localized way. Although energy prices have dropped dramatically, we are choosing local life over long commutes. Due to greater connectivity, many people work from home, allowing for more flexibility and more time to call their own.

We are making communities stronger. As a child, you might have seen your neighbors only in passing. But now, to make things cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable, your orientation in every part of your life is more local. Things that used to be done individually are now done communally— growing vegetables, capturing rainwater, and composting. Resources and responsibilities are shared now. At first you resisted this togetherness— you were used to doing things individually and in the privacy of your own home. But pretty quickly the camaraderie and unexpected new network of support started to feel good, something to be prized. For most people, the new way has turned out to be a better recipe for happiness.

Food production and procurement are a big part of the communal effort. When it became clear we needed to revolutionize farms, with increased community reliance on small farms. Instead of going to a big grocery store for food flown in from hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, you buy most of your food from small local farmers and producers. Buildings, neighborhoods, and even large extended families form a food purchase group, which is how most people buy their food now. As a unit they sign up for a weekly dropoff, then distribute the food among the group members. Distribution, coordination, and management are everyone’s responsibility, which means you might be partnered with a downstairs neighbor for distribution one week and your upstairs neighbor the next.

While this community approach to food production makes things more sustainable, food is still expensive, consuming up to 30 percent of household budgets, which is why growing your own is such a necessity. In community gardens, on rooftops, at schools, and even hanging from vertical gardens on balconies, food sometimes seems to be growing everywhere.

We’ve come to realize, by growing our own, that food is expensive because it should be expensive— it takes valuable resources to grow it, after all. Water. Soil. Sweat. Time. For that reason, the most resource- depleting foods of all— animal protein and dairy products— have practically disappeared from our diets. But the plant-based replacements are so good that most of us don’t notice the absence of meat and dairy. Most young children cannot believe we used to kill any animals for food. Fish is still available, but it is farmed and yields are better managed by improved technology.

We make smarter choices about bad foods, which have become an ever- diminishing part of our diets. Government taxes on processed meats, sugars, and fatty foods helped us reduce the carbon emissions from farming. The biggest boon of all was to our collective health. Thanks to reduced cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, people are living longer, and health services around the world cost less and less. In fact, a huge portion of the costs of combating climate change were recuperated by governments’ savings on public health.

Along with outrageous spending on health care, gasoline and diesel cars are also anachronisms. Most countries banned their manufacture in 2030, but it took another fifteen years to get the internal combustion engine off the road completely. Now they are seen only in transport museums or at special rallies where classic car owners pay an offset fee to allow them to drive a few short miles around the track. And of course, they are all hauled in on the backs of huge electric trucks.

When it came to making the switch, some countries were already ahead of the curve. Technology-driven countries such as Norway and bicycle-friendly nations like the Netherlands managed to impose a moratorium on cars much earlier. Unsurprisingly, the United States had the hardest time of all. First, it restricted their sale, and then it banned them from certain parts of cities— Extreme Low Emission Zones. Then came the breakthrough in the battery storage capacity of electric vehicles, the cost reductions that came from finding alternative materials for manufacture, and finally the complete overhaul of the charging and parking infrastructure. This allowed people easier access to cheap power for their electric vehicles. Even better, car batteries are now bi-directionally connected with the electric grid, so they can either charge from the grid or provide power to the grid when they aren’t being driven. This helps back up the smart grid that is running on renewable energy.

The ubiquity and ease of electric vehicles were alluring, but satisfaction of our appetite for speed finally did the trick. Supposedly, to stop a bad habit you have to replace it with one that is more salubrious or at least as enjoyable. At first China dominated the manufacture of electric vehicles, but soon U.S. companies started making vehicles that were more desirable than ever before. Even some classic cars got an upgrade, switching from combustion to electric engines that could go from zero to sixty mph in 3.5 seconds. What’s strange is that it took us so long to realize that the electric motor is simply a better way of powering vehicles. It gives you more torque, more speed when you need it, and the ability to recapture energy when you brake, and it requires dramatically less maintenance.

As people from rural areas moved to the cities, they had less need even for electric vehicles. In cities it’s now easy to get around— transportation is frictionless. When you take the electric train, you don’t have to fumble around for a metro card or wait in line to pay— the system tracks your location, so it knows where you got on and where you got off, and it deducts money from your account accordingly. We also share cars without thinking twice. In fact, regulating and ensuring the safety of driverless ride-sharing was the biggest transportation hurdle for cities to overcome. The goal has been to eliminate private ownership of vehicles by 2050 in major metropolitan areas. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re making progress.

We have also reduced land transport needs. Threedimensional (3D) printers are readily available, cutting down on what people need to purchase away from home. Drones organized along aerial corridors are now delivering packages, further reducing the need for vehicles. Thus we are currently narrowing roads, eliminating parking spaces, and investing in urban planning projects that make it easier to walk and bike in the city. Parking garages are used only for ride-sharing, electric vehicle charging, and storage— those ugly concrete stacking systems and edifices of yore are now enveloped in green. Cities now seem designed for the coexistence of people and nature.

International air travel has been transformed. Biofuels have replaced jet fuel. Communications technology has advanced so much that we can participate virtually in meetings anywhere in the world without traveling. Air travel still exists, but it is used more sparingly and is extremely costly. Because work is now increasingly decentralized and can often be done from anywhere, people save and plan for “slow- cations”— international trips that last weeks or months instead of days. If you live in the United States and want to visit Europe, you might plan to stay there for several months or more, working your way across the continent using local, zero-emissions transportation.

While we may have successfully reduced carbon emissions, we’re still dealing with the after-effects of record levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The long-living greenhouse gases have nowhere to go other than the alreadyloaded atmosphere, so they are still causing increasingly extreme weather— though it’s less extreme than would have been had we continued to burn fossil fuels. Glaciers and Arctic ice are still melting, and the sea is still rising. Severe droughts and desertification are occurring in the western United States, the Mediterranean, and parts of China. Ongoing extreme weather and resource degradation continue to multiply existing disparities in income, public health, food security, and water availability. But now governments have recognized climate change factors for the threat multipliers that they are. That awareness allows us to predict downstream problems and head them off before they become humanitarian crises. So while many people remain at risk every day, the situation is not as drastic or chaotic as it might have been. Economies in developing nations are strong, and unexpected global coalitions have formed with a renewed sense of trust. Now when a population is in need of aid, the political will and resources are available to meet that need.

The ongoing refugee situation has been escalating for decades, and it is still a major source of strife and discord. But around fifteen years ago, we stopped calling it a crisis. Countries agreed on guidelines for managing refugee influxes— how to smoothly assimilate populations, how to distribute aid and resources, and how to share the tasks within particular regions. These agreements work well most of the time, but things get thrown off balance occasionally when a country flirts with fascism for an election cycle or two.

Technology and business sectors stepped up, too, seizing the opportunity of government contracts to provide largescale solutions for distributing food and providing shelter for the newly displaced. One company invented a giant robot that could autonomously build a four-person dwelling within days. Automation and 3D printing have made it possible to quickly and affordably construct high-quality housing for refugees. The private sector has innovated with water transportation technology and sanitation solutions. Fewer tent cities and housing shortages have led to less cholera.

Everyone understands that we are all in this together. A disaster that occurs in one country is likely to occur in another in only a matter of years. It took us a while to realize that if we worked out how to save the Pacific Islands from rising sea levels this year, then we might find a way to save Rotterdam in another five years. It is in the interest of every country to bring all its resources to bear on problems across the world. For one thing, creating innovative solutions to climate challenges and beta testing them years ahead of using them is just plain smart. For another, we’re nurturing goodwill; when we need help, we know we will be able to count on others to step up.

The zeitgeist has shifted profoundly. How we feel about the world has changed, deeply. And unexpectedly, so has how we feel about one another.

When the alarm bells rang in 2020, thanks in large part to the youth movement, we realized that we suffered from too much consumption, competition, and greedy self-interest. Our commitment to these values and our drive for profit and status had led us to steamroll our environment. As a species we were out of control, and the result was the near-collapse of our world. We could no longer avoid seeing on a tangible, geophysical level that when you spurn regeneration, collaboration, and community, the consequence is impending devastation.

Extricating ourselves from self- destruction would have been impossible if we hadn’t changed our mindset and our priorities, if we hadn’t realized that doing what is good for humanity goes hand in hand with doing what is good for the Earth. The most fundamental change was that collectively— as citizens, corporations, and governments— we began adhering to a new bottom line: “Is it good for humanity whether profit is made or not?”

The climate change crisis of the beginning of the century jolted us out of our stupor. As we worked to rebuild and care for our environment, it was only natural that we also turned to each other with greater care and concern. We realized that the perpetuation of our species was about war more than saving ourselves from extreme weather. It was about being good stewards of the land and of one another. When we began the fight for the fate of humanity, we were thinking only about the species’ survival, but at some point, we understood that it was as much about the fate of our humanity. We emerged from the climate crisis as more mature members of the community of life, capable of not only restoring ecosystems but also of unfolding our dormant potentials of human strength and discernment. Humanity was only ever as doomed as it believed itself to be. Vanquishing that belief was our true legacy.

Join our Book Club to discuss the extract.

To join the Book Club, click here.

To follow the Book Club on Twitter, click here.

To follow the Book Club on Instagram, click here.

 


 

This is the carbon footprint of your internet activity

This is the carbon footprint of your internet activity
  • Data centres processing and storing the world’s data already use around 1% of the electricity we generate, according to the IEA.
  • Computing is expected to account for up to 8% of global power demand by 2030.
  • The emissions associated with everyday computing could be surprisingly high.

A stone’s throw from a power station on the barren outskirts of Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, a grey warehouse surrounded by metal containers hums to the sound of money.

Inside, hundreds of computer servers work continuously to solve complicated mathematical equations generating the digital currency Bitcoin – burning enough electricity to power tens of thousands of homes in the process.

“Any high-performance computing … is energy intensive,” explained Joe Capes of global blockchain company The Bitfury Group, which operates the facility in Tbilisi.

Cryptocurrencies are one of several new technologies, like artificial intelligence and 5G networks, that climate experts worry could derail efforts to tackle global warming by consuming ever-growing amounts of power.

Data centres processing and storing data from online activities, such as sending emails and streaming videos, already account for about 1% of global electricity use, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

 

Sending one less ‘thank you’ email a day could save 16,433 tonnes of carbon a year.
Image: Statista

 

That’s about the same amount of electricity that Australia consumes in a year.

But as societies become more digitalised, computing is expected to account for up to 8% of the world’s total power demand by 2030, according to some estimates, raising fears this could lead to the burning of more fossil fuels.

“If we don’t take into account the carbon footprint, we are going to have a climate change nightmare coming from information technology,” said Babak Falsafi, a professor of computer and communication science at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne.

 

Efficient Data

One solution is to improve the efficiency of data centres, which is something operators are naturally prone to do since electricity accounts for a large share of their running costs, according to data experts.

“As a rule of thumb, a megawatt costs a million dollars per year … This obviously catches management’s attention,” said Dale Sartor, who oversees the U.S. Department of Energy’s Center of Expertise for Data Centers in Berkeley, California.

Energy demand from data centres in the United States has remained largely flat over the past decade as improvements in computing have allowed processors to do more with the same amount of power, he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone.

But that is set to change, predict tech analysts.

The 50-year-old trend known as Moore’s Law, which has seen computer chips double in capacity every two years, is expected to slow down as it becomes harder to add any more transistors to a chip.

Some companies have been looking at other ways to make savings.

In Georgia, where most electricity is generated by hydropower, Bitfury deployed a system to reduce the energy needed to cool down its heating servers.

Cooling can account for up to half of a data centre’s total energy use, the company says.

While some of its processors are still cooled with outside air, others are immersed inside metal tanks filled with a special liquid with a low boiling point.

As the liquid boils, the vapour transfers heat away from the processors, keeping them fresh and allowing the company to do away with fans and save water.

“Air is free … but it is not efficient,” explained Capes, who heads Bitfury’s liquid cooling technology subsidiary, adding that the system consumes 40% less electricity than traditional air cooling solutions.

Others have taken similar steps.

A Google data centre in Finland uses recycled seawater to reduce energy use while some companies have opened facilities near the Arctic Circle to benefit from naturally cold air.

But improving efficiency “can only get you so far”, said Elizabeth Jardim, a senior corporate campaigner at environmental group Greenpeace. “At some point you will have to address the type of energy that is powering the facility.”

Tech giants including Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft have committed to using only renewable energy but some still use fossil fuels, and more needs to be done to bring others on board, she said.

Jardim suggested governments enact policies to incentivise tech companies to procure green energy and increase transparency around the data sector’s carbon footprint.

 

Less Cat Videos

Meanwhile, internet users can also play a role by switching to greener companies or simply reducing their data use, said Jardim.

“Right now data pretty much is equivalent to energy, so the more data something takes the more energy you can assume it’s using,” she said.

Simply sending a photo by email can emit about the same amount of planet-warming gases as driving a car for a kilometre, said Luigi Carafa, executive director of the Climate Infrastructure Partnership, a Barcelona-based non-profit.

“The problem is we don’t really see this, so we don’t perceive it as a problem at all,” he said by phone.

A 2019 study by energy supplier OVO Energy found that if Britons sent one less email a day the country could reduce its carbon output by the equivalent of more than 81,000 flights from London to Madrid.

Global online video viewings alone generated as many carbon emissions as the whole of Spain in 2018, according to French think tank The Shift Project.

“People can already reduce their carbon emissions today if they stop watching cat videos,” said Falsafi, the Lausanne professor, who heads the university’s research centre for sustainable computing, EcoCloud.

“Unfortunately, they are neither aware of the issue nor incentivised to reduce carbon emissions.”

 


 

These wild seed hunters go on perilous ‘Indiana Jones’ adventures to secure the food of our future

These wild seed hunters go on perilous ‘Indiana Jones’ adventures to secure the food of our future
  • Climate change poses a major risk to global food supplies.
  • A team of researchers travelled the world to find wild relatives of 28 important crops, in an effort to increase diversity.
  • This diversity will give farmers and breeders the biggest possible choice in adapting and mitigating against the effects of climate change.

Tiger attacks and terrorist militia couldn’t deter scientists working to track down resilient crops in a bid to shore up humanity’s food supply against global warming.

A team of scientists braved snakebites, tiger attacks and even terrorist insurgencies to track down the wild variants of common crops that will help guarantee humanity’s food supply in the face of climate change.

Their efforts drew comparisons with the intrepid archeologist Indiana Jones, as more than 100 researchers from 25 countries travelled by jeep, canoe, horse and even elephant to collect wild relatives of 28 globally important crops. These staple foodstuffs – which included rice, maize, barley, beans and potatoes – form the backbone of nutrition for large swathes of humanity, but are vulnerable to climate change after generations of selective breeding have left them with weakened gene pools.

The six-year collecting phase, described as an ‘urgent rescue mission’, is part of the Crop Wild Relatives project, a multi-stage collaboration between Kew Gardens’ Millennium Seed Bank and the Crop Trust, funded by the Norwegian government. It came not a moment too soon: a report released in October by the Global Center on Adaptation predicted that global food supplies could fall 30% by 2050 unless urgent action is taken to adapt global agriculture to climate change.

 

Extreme measures

The collecting involved a total of 2,973 days in the field, with researchers bagging 4,644 seed samples from 371 wild relatives. Teams ventured into the bush armed with seed guides, sieves for cleaning the seeds, silica gel for drying them and a GPS for geotagging the location.

‘The expeditions were not a walk in the park,’ said Hannes Dempewolf, head of global initiatives at the Crop Trust. ‘They were perilous at times and physically demanding, with heat, dust, sweat and danger from wild animals – from blood-sucking leeches to tigers. The stories these seed collectors brought back from the field often resemble scenes from an Indiana Jones movie.’

 

Unusual transport deployed in Nepal.
Image: L.M. Salazar/ Crop Trust

 

In Nepal, teams were forced to travel by elephant to ward off tiger and rhino attacks. In Ecuador, researchers ventured into snake country as they hunted elusive wild rice. To prevent snakebites, they donned shin-length plastic boots with metal tips – and finally brought home the desired seed.

In Pakistan, much of the tribal border area is unsafe for foreigners and even locals. Collectors were forced to travel with guides on short trips in daylight hours to ensure their safety. In Nigeria, despite the disruption caused by the Boko Haram insurgency and heavy flooding, CWR’s national partners still managed to secure 205 varieties of 20 species, including sweet potato, sorghum and aubergine.

Successful finds often involved a healthy dose of serendipity, with several trips needed to secure elusive crops. Researchers were forced to return the following year if they’d missed a collecting window. One team in Italy had almost given up hope of finding a particular pea with edible tubers, when a scientist from the University of Padua spotted its distinctive red flowers from the window of a speeding train.

 

Into the wild

So why the desperate need for genetic diversity in our foodstuffs? Humanity’s staple crops are all domesticated versions of wild plants. Selectively bred for yield and nutritional value over generations – more than 10,000 years, in the case of wheat – they have a narrowed gene pool which leaves them open to common threats. For example, banana crops are susceptible to a fungus called Panama disease, which has devastated numerous plantations since the 1940s.

‘In the process of trying to create ideal crop plants, certain genetic information has been lost and that makes them more vulnerable to fluctuations,’ explained Chris Cockel, Crop Wild Relatives project coordinator at the Millennium Seed Bank. ‘Whether it’s climate or pests, they often don’t have the genetic diversity built in to help them withstand those conditions.’

Climate change is predicted to exacerbate many common threats, including drought, flooding, temperature fluctuations, pests and plant diseases. The crops’ wild cousins have retained the genetic diversity to handle these harsh conditions, thriving in often poor-quality soils despite lack of rainfall or extremes of temperature.

‘All our crops come from wild species,’ said Dempewolf. ‘And so these wild ancestors are usually still around. Because a farmer tends to their crops, they pamper them, if you wish. The aim is to get some of those wild traits back into the domesticated gene pool, because some of the challenges we’re now facing with climate change are so vast that we need to go back to the wild.’

 

Rice, okra and eggplant seeds collected during the mission.
Image: L.M. Salazar/ Crop Trust

 

Researchers were especially pleased to track down a wild relative of the carrot that grows in salty water, as well as a wild rice from a Pakistani estuary that tolerates salinity. With rising sea levels set to increase the soil salinity, this could become an important trait.

Other key finds were an oat wild relative that is resistant to the common powdery mildew fungus, and an elusive variety of the Bambara groundnut – a high-protein legume that tolerates high temperatures and drought, and grows well in poor soils.

The aim, however, was not specific traits but diversity. ‘It’s difficult to predict when you see one of these plants in the field what it could be useful for in the future,’ said Dempewolf. ‘We just want to be able to provide breeders and farmers with the largest variety and array of options to look at it when it comes to adapting their crops to climate change.’

 

Open source

Now that the collecting phase has finished, the CWR programme continues with the pre-breeding stage, which involves the isolation of desirable traits, such as heat, drought or salinity tolerance, from undesirable traits. Breeders are already at work on this process with 19 crops in 48 countries. Some crops are even further along: farmers in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta are currently trialling rice crossed with wild varieties.

The material is freely available to breeders and farmers under the terms of a UN agreement called the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

‘The whole intention of this project is that material should be shared equally and is not at this moment for commercial gain. Our national partners are not making a profit and neither is Kew – we’re not selling the seed,’ said Cockel. ‘Agricultural institutions, universities or seed banks in partner countries have received training, and sent us a portion of the seed collected, but they’ve also retained some in the country so they improve their own capacity to look after these things.’

‘This project has only succeeded thanks to the dedication and hard work of individuals in organisations around the world working toward a common goal, to safeguard crop wild relatives, that previously were overlooked and disregarded, but probably hold the key to the world’s food security in the years ahead,’ he said.

 


 

New York’s plastic ban begins on March 1st

New York’s plastic ban begins on March 1st
  • A year after New York passed a ban on grocery store plastic bags — the law is going into effect on March 1st 2020.
  • Retailers violating the ban will first receive a warning, followed by a $250 fine, leading to a $500 fine.

Nearly one year after New York became the second state in the nation to pass a ban on grocery store plastic bags — the law is going into effect on Sunday.

In accordance with the budge bill passed last year, New York State retailers will be banned from doling out single-use plastic bags, starting on March 1. California and Hawaii already have their ban in place and now New York is one of eight states inching toward implementing the ban, as Gothamist reported.

 

York is one of eight states inching toward implementing the ban.
Image: National Conference of State Legislatures

 

Some New York municipalities will also charge a five-cent fee for people who want a plastic bag, though that fee will be waived for customers using food stamps to make their purchases. The five cents will be used as a tax, with two cents going to local governments, and three cents going to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, as the New York Post reported.

The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, tweeted when the ban was first set to pass, “Plastic bags have blighted our environment and clogged our waterways. By banning them, we will protect our natural resources for future generations of New Yorkers,” as EcoWatch reported.

Now Cuomo is looking forward to seeing the bags gone.

“It’s no doubt that this is smart; you see these bags all over the place,” Cuomo, who added that the bags hang in trees like “bizarre Christmas ornaments,” said as WRVO Public Media reported. “I’ve been 30 miles out in the ocean and you see garbage floating and plastic bags floating. It’s terrible.”

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has recently increased its efforts in recent days to help New Yorkers understand the new rules. The department has run ads on social media and videos on its website and YouTube channel, according to WRVO Public Media. The DEC is also distributing 270,000 reusable bags to low and middle-income families to help them ease into the transition.

The plastic bag ban will apply to all retailers that collect sales tax, including grocery stores and bodegas. The DEC claims that currently more than 23 billion plastic bags are used each year and only for 12 minutes, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, as the New York Post reported.

There are exceptions to the ban. According to Gothamist, plastic bags can still be used for:

  • Uncooked animal products or other non-prepackaged food
  • Flowers, plants, or other items that require plastic to avoid contamination, prevent damage, or for health purposes
  • Bulk packaging of fruits, vegetables, grains, candy, hardware products like nuts, bolts, and screws, live insects like crickets, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, or other items that require a waterproof bag
  • Sliced food or food prepared to order
  • Newspapers for subscribers
  • Prepackaged plastic bags sold in bulk, such as garbage bags, sandwich bags, or bags used for pet poop pick-up
  • Dry-cleaner or laundry service clothing bags
  • Pharmacy bags for prescription drugs

While the law goes into effect on Sunday, the DEC will actually not enforce it for a few more months as stores and customers adapt to their plastic bag-free shopping. Once it does enforce the law, retailers violating the ban will first receive a warning, followed by a $250 fine, leading to a $500 fine for subsequent violations in the same calendar year, as Gothamist reported.

Environmental advocates are pleased with the ban, but worry about a loophole that allows for thicker types of plastic bags. While they are not yet commercially made, environmental advocates worry the plastic bag industry will start to manufacture the thicker type of plastic bags.

“It was most unfortunate,” Judith Enck, who runs Beyond Plastics at Bennington College and worked at the EPA under President Obama, said to WRVO Public Media. “Why even open the door to that?”

 


 

5 reasons why CEOs must care about safeguarding nature

5 reasons why CEOs must care about safeguarding nature
  • A new series – the New Nature Economy reports – is being launched to make the business case for safeguarding nature.
  • The first, Nature Risk Rising, explains why nature-related risks have direct relevance for business through their impact and dependency on nature.
  • Here are five key lessons from that first report.

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos in January this year, there was unprecedented interest in and commitment to fighting the climate and nature emergencies facing humanity. Although the world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things by weight, humanity has already caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of all plants. Supporting the concept of stakeholder capitalism, leading CEOs, government leaders and heads of civil society organizations came together in the Swiss Alps to galvanize support for an integrated nature action agenda across the issues of climate, biodiversity, forests, oceans and sustainable development.

Despite increasing attention on the topic of nature loss, there is still limited understanding on how nature loss can be material to businesses and what the private sector can do to address this challenge. The World Economic Forum is launching a series of New Nature Economy (NNE) reports in 2020, making a business and economic case for safeguarding nature. Nature Risk Rising, the first of the NNE series, aims to show how nature-related risks are material to business and why they must be urgently mainstreamed in risk-management strategies.

 

Here are the five key lessons from the Nature Risk Rising report:

1. Economic growth has come at a heavy cost to natural systems

The economic growth model of the 19th and 20th centuries has brought remarkable development and prosperity. Globally, we produce more food and energy than ever before. The human population has doubled, the global economy has expanded four-fold and more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty.

However, we have caused great harm to the planet. Three-quarters of ice-free land and 66% of the marine environment have been altered and 1 million species are at the risk of extinction in the coming decades, mostly due to human activities.

2. Five direct drivers are responsible for 90% of nature loss

Five direct drivers of change in nature have accounted for over 90% of nature loss in the past 50 years. Namely, land-and-sea-use change, natural resource exploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species. These five drivers ultimately stem from a combination of production and consumption patterns, population dynamics and other human activities.

There is often a dissonance between economics and earth system science. While present economic frameworks see nature as an externality, nothing could be further from the truth. The global economy is embedded in Earth’s broader ecosystems and is dependent upon them.

When focused on measuring progress against the single indicator of gross domestic product (GDP), we risk failing to recognize and prevent the loss of our ecological foundations.

3. Nature loss is often hidden

Nature is often hidden or incorrectly priced in supply chains, blurring the link between nature loss and the bottom line. There are three ways in which the loss of nature creates risks for businesses:

i. Dependence of business on nature: Businesses depend directly on nature for their operations, supply chain performance, real estate asset values, physical security and business continuity. Our research shows that $44 trillion of economic value generation – over half the world’s total GDP – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services, and is therefore exposed to risks from nature loss. Together, the three largest sectors (construction, agriculture, and food and beverages) that are highly dependent on nature generate close to $8 trillion of gross value-added (GVA). This is roughly twice the size of the German economy.

ii. Fallout of business impacts on nature: The direct and indirect impacts of business activities on nature loss could trigger negative consequences, such as losing customers or entire markets, costly legal action and adverse regulatory changes. Consumers and investors are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental damage caused by industries and are demanding action. Companies that stay at the forefront of this shift in consumer consciousness and preferences stand to benefit.

iii. Impacts of nature loss on society: When nature loss aggravates the disruption of the society in which businesses operate, this can in turn create physical and market risks. For instance, the degradation and loss of natural systems can affect health outcomes. The onset of infectious diseases has been connected to ecosystem disturbances, including the strong links between deforestation and outbreaks of animal-transmitted diseases such as Ebola and the Zika virus.

 

Five direct drivers of nature loss have accelerated since 1970
Image: Nature Risk Rising report

 

4. A risks framework for nature

As the global community works towards transitioning to a nature-positive economy, an urgent reframing of the financial materiality of nature risks is required. The climate change agenda leveraged the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework to tackle this issue. Over 870 organizations – including companies with a combined market cap of over $9.2 trillion and financial institutions responsible for assets of nearly $118 trillion – have signed up to support the TCFD. A similar initiative – that draws lessons from the TCFD and which is backed by public and private stakeholders – is now needed for nature.

5. Business as champions for nature

As we are facing an unprecedented planetary emergency, businesses have an important role to innovate and advance solutions for a nature-positive economy and society. Some economies have shown how nature and business can work hand in hand. Costa Rica, for one, has in the last three decades stopped tropical deforestation, doubled its forest cover and reached near 100% renewable electric energy while GDP per capita has tripled. By realizing how nature-loss is material to their operations and growth models, businesses can and must be a key part of the solution. As the trend for greater transparency and accountability continues, costs are likely to rise for businesses which have not begun to include nature at the core of their enterprise operations. The World Economic Forum along with key partners and constituents will be furthering a business for nature mobilization to halt biodiversity loss and invest in nature over the coming years. The next steps are to identify the areas where strategic transformation of current business models can contribute most to halting and reversing nature loss, and the ways to finance this transition.

Please reach out to [email protected] if you want to learn more about the New Nature Economy report series and engage in the process.

 


 

Peatlands are under threat. Here’s why we must act now to save them

Peatlands are under threat. Here’s why we must act now to save them
  • Peatlands play a huge role as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots.
  • Centuries of depletion, either by drainage or peat extraction, have put them under huge risk.
  • The damage can be reversed, as current projects demonstrate.
  • We must regenerate damaged peatlands and save those that still exist today.

Wetlands are known by many names such as peatlands, marshes, bogs, fens or mires. What they all have in common is that their landscape is temporarily or permanently saturated with water. But if you think that these areas are just swamps with no significant role, then you are wrong. These landscapes are of special importance – not only for their water storage and purification capacity, but also in their roles as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots.

Why are peatlands important?

Peatlands are a particular type of wetland that builds up peat by accumulating dead plant material, which is prevented from biodegrading thanks to the water saturation. In peatlands, this constantly growing layer of organic matter (peat) slowly accumulates carbon and permanently sequesters it. And even though little attention has been given to peatlands so far, their hidden potential is enormous. Currently covering around 3% of the earth’s solid surface, peatlands store around 33% of the world’s overall carbon, which represent more carbon than in all forests combined worldwide.

Peatlands are also hotspots for biodiversity. Although few plant and animal species live in these nutrient-poor, acidic and wet raised wetlands, those that do are highly specialised and dependent on this habitat.

An intact peatland also contributes to a balanced water budget for an entire landscape by helping attenuate floodings during heavy precipitation.

Peatlands are at risk

Peatlands have been at risk for centuries. They are either drained to make way for fertile pasture and cropland, or they are destroyed by the extraction of peat, which is used as a source of energy. When peatlands are drained, their peat is exposed to air and releases its carbon in form of CO2, 20 times faster than it was sequestered.

Peatlands in Switzerland

In the early 19th century, there were around 250,000 hectares of wetlands in Switzerland. This area had already reduced by 40% by 1900; today there are less than 2,000 hectares left. This means that over the past 200 years, more than 90% of the peatlands in Switzerland have been lost. They might be gone altogether within this century if no action is taken.

Restoring peatlands

To avoid this nearly irreversible loss, regeneration measures have been taken in around 30% of the remaining Swiss peatlands over the past three decades. To date, regeneration projects have been financed mainly by the Swiss federal government and the cantons.

As part of its sustainability efforts for the 2019 Annual Meeting, the World Economic Forum also supported the restoration of 2.5 hectares of three different peatlands in the region of the Engadin in the Grisons, two of which are now completed. Acknowledging that an event such as the meeting in Davos by nature consumes finite resources and causes emissions, the Forum wanted to take responsibility for both. In addition to measuring and offsetting these, the Forum also sought to create a positive legacy within the region that hosts the Annual Meeting.

The biggest of the three sites – ‘Salastrains’, in St. Moritz – was drained in the last century by the installation of artificial ditches and its peat was mined for heating purposes. Three restoration measures have been taken in response: First, the installation of watertight wooden dams around the area; second, damming the old drainage ditches; and third, directing the spring water back into the bog area. The peatland area is now rewetted, stopping biological degradation and the release of CO2 emissions, but instead sequestering carbon. Regular plant samples allow us to assess the condition of the rewetted area, and progress of the peat development over time. A final report on this project will be published in April this year.

With only 1 to 10 millimetres of peat being built up per year in a peatland, regeneration measures are indispensable, and protecting the remaining peatlands is crucial.

Read more about sustainability at the Forum: http://wef.ch/sustainability