The first LCOY Germany took place in Heidelberg in 2019. This year, four GCE students attended the 5^th edition in Lüneburg from October 28^th to 30^th. The three days in Northern Germany included many experts, inspiring workshops, exciting discussions, concentrated knowledge, and lots of fun! This year’s LCOY at Leuphana University of Lüneburg presented a variety of climate-related topics (e.g., COP27 & climate international, Connect & create, Climate Science, Culture & Society, Politics up close, Skill building, Economy, Market of Opportunities) in diverse ways and through a wide range of formats such as panel discussions, simulation games, discussion rounds, lectures, workshops, keynotes and a diverse supporting programme, so that there was really something for everyone. Organised by a team of volunteers all under the age of 28 years, the conference was fully funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment covering expenses on breakfast, lunch, dinner as well as accommodation for all participants. The conference was framed by a musical, artistic, playful programme with, among other things, (science) poetry slams, DJ, live band, movie night, jam sessions, improv theatre, power point karaoke, various community games, and bedtime stories.

The participants were free to choose from the diverse programme without registering for the single items. The conference mobile app was very helpful to keep an overview, although there were often so many interesting things offered at the same time that the decision was not always easy. After participating, we – the GCE students that attended the conference – were very enthusiastic and agreed that those days in Lüneburg created a hopeful perspective facing the climate crisis due to seeing and meeting the large number of young, interested, motivated, informed, and like-minded people. One key takeaway is the huge amount of knowledge that already exists, which should be shared openly, be used, and be translated into joint actions. Furthermore, the panel discussions, where representatives from different backgrounds (e.g., entrepreneurs, politicians, scientists, or activists) argued authentically, were very inspiring. In addition, we learned a lot through the skill building workshops that provided us methods on how to communicate the climate crisis properly or engaging tools that were already useful for the first meeting of the newly initiated GCE Hub*. Unfortunately, most programme items are held in German language (except from contributions such as “WTF – Where is the finance? Adaptation to climate change, the failure(s) of the Global North and other problems” or the panel discussion including the Egyptian and British embassy “Road from Glasgow to Sharm-el-Sheikh”) which might make attending the conference unattractive for non-German speaking students.

All in all, we would highly recommend attending future LCOYs to anyone who would like to get ready to participate in a COP, exchange ideas on climate-related issues and potential actions, broaden their knowledge of current climate science, meet relevant stakeholders from politics, economy, NGOs, and research, spend an inspiring and fun weekend in a new environment, or connect with other young, inspiring people who want to change the world for the better!

The post Localising climate conversation – The Local Conference of Youth (LCOY) Germany appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Ahead of COP26, expectations were high. These hopes were born out of urgency — the window to avert the worsening effects of climate change is rapidly closing. We know what is happening and we know why. The question now is, what do we do about it? To many, this conference was the place to get everyone in the room to answer this. What progress did we want? From the conference, many wanted to see more ambition. To achieve net zero by 2050 and limit warming to below 1.5°C, emissions gaps must be closed. This includes phasing out fossil fuels and supporting clean energy transition. We wanted to see agreements made on finance, delivering on the $100bn promised to developing countries as well as supporting their adaptation and resolving loss and damage. We wanted to see everyone working toward solving a common problem, taking accountability, and putting forth inclusive solutions. To tackle the current crisis, we need to work together and accelerate climate action in a just and concrete way – and this is what we wanted to see in Glasgow. 

GCE students’ impressions and experiences 

COP 26 was supposed to be the next world-changing Climate Conference after the Paris Agreement in 2015. This fact combined with the opportunity that GCE students have— to attend the UN Climate Change Conference as observers— created a very exciting moment that we were all looking forward to. After week 1 concluded, it was time for the second group of students to participate in the event as week 2 delegates. Thus, eleven students made their way to Glasgow (or more precisely, to small towns called “Bathgate” and “Barrhead,” where our accommodations were located). Every day, after approximately one hour train ride during beautiful early morning hours, we would arrive at the Scottish Exhibition Centre. 

Our first impression and probably the most mentioned word of the week: OVERWHELMING. It was really overwhelming to be at a conference where milestone agreements are supposed to be negotiated. COP26 comprised more than 20.000 attendants, numerous side events from different NGOs and GOs, and pavilions’ expositions (over 90!) from countries and organizations, where more events were held about their environmental initiatives, issues, technology as well as their culture. Additionally, some meetings were regularly scheduled, such as coordination meetings for different groups like RINGO (Research and Independent NGOs), under which GCE falls. We became more confident day by day, as we explored the venue and figured out how to arrange schedules for side events and the official negotiations. 

It was interesting to attend side events about different topics like peatlands, indigenous peoples’ rights, and carbon green washing. Furthermore, it was exciting to see how the draft version of the agreement was being negotiated. In the second week, a draft version of the COP outcome was already developed, and as a result “only” small adjustments were in debate. These events turned out to be really fascinating, as we learned “how can you discuss brackets in one paragraph for four hours” or “how to change words in paragraphs so they have a slightly different—but not too different— meaning.” We also heard discussions as the many nations searched for consensus to set up a very important element: the agreement itself. 

Another highlight for students was being able to meet Prof. Charlotte Streck, the lecturer for the GCE course of Climate Diplomacy (C1 Module: Climate Policies and Economies). While some had met Prof. Streck via Zoom during the Winter 2020/2021 Semester, COP26 marked the first time that students could interact with her in person. During a meeting with Prof. Streck in the “Action Hub” of the event centre, students were able to ask questions and gain insights into the COP experience. 

COP26 program week 2 

Each day at COP had a main theme set by the presidency. Week 2 started off with the Presidency Programme focusing on adaptation loss and damage. Major events as part of this included “Exploring Loss and Damage”, “Adaptation Fund Contributor Dialogue and Reflections from Recipients and Stakeholders”, and “Dialogue on Climate Finance”. Other major events were the “Annual gathering of indigenous knowledge holders (Part II)” as well as a speech by former US President Obama. Tuesday’s Presidency Programme was gender, science and innovation, with events such as “Advancing Gender Equality in Climate Action” and “Accelerating Innovation: collaboration for a net zero future” as some examples. The Wednesday theme was about transport, while Thursday focused on cities, regions, and the built environment. Friday was left free for the official closure of negotiations, although the COP26 continued into the weekend. In the end, there was no official closing ceremony on Friday. This happened instead on Saturday night, with some finalised agreements and agendas that had already been declared closed since Thursday evening. 

Civil society and action outside the negotiations  

Though the goal was to have “the most inclusive COP ever”, many have termed COP26 as rather exclusionary. This was especially the case for those from the Global South, due to the regularly changing COVID-19 travel regulations, travel costs, exorbitant accommodation prices, lack of interpreters (though our own week 2 attendee, Diana Pineda, was able to fill in!), representation and voice in the actual negotiation rooms where critical decisions were made. Blocking out the voices of those most impacted by climate change and injustice prevents us from delivering the outcomes needed for all. 

Therefore, a counter summit to COP26 also took place. “The People’s Summit for Climate Justice” was a society coalition of groups and individuals mobilized around climate justice during the COP. Among many other groups of people that didn´t have access to the COP26 (but wanted to participate) were environment and development NGOs, trade unions, feminist, faith, youth, and indigenous groups, as well as migrant and racial justice networks. Unanimously, the message was clear: “We are watching, and we demand climate justice!”. A series of demonstrations/protests took place throughout the summit, the largest ones happened on November 5^th and 12^th organized by Fridays for Future Scotland, convoking a big mass of people outside the venues, including participants from the civil society but also COP attendees.  

COP26 Outcomes 

COP26 was considered a last chance to keep 1.5 °C alive. Plenary and negotiations closed on Saturday, November 13^th, one day after the original schedule. In the end, parties adopted the “Glasgow Climate Pact”, and finalized the outstanding elements of the Paris Agreement. After two weeks of negotiations, the main outcomes from COP26 are: 

• The parties compromise to reduce the carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 (compared with 2010 levels). 
• Carbon emissions must be neutralized by 2050. This means that any additional emission must be compensated by reforestation or carbon capture mechanisms. 
• For the first time in the history of COPs, it has recognized the need to transition from fossil fuel to renewable fuel.  
• Parties must present new official government targets by the end of 2022, since the current targets cannot contain global warming to the level of 1.5º C. 

Although COP26 achieved some progress, environmentalists criticized the pact, mainly regarding coal power use. The total abandonment of coal was modified at the last minute under the pressure of India, China, and other major consuming countries. The official document now refers to the “phase-down of inefficient fossil fuels”, rather than the “phase-out of fossil fuels” — as originally proposed. 

Have the initial expectations been fulfilled? 

There has been a lot of criticism regarding the final COP26 outcome. In order to keep 1.5°C alive, the initial agenda of the COP26 contained the point “HOW to reach the 1.5 °C goal”. Many were looking forward to the concretization of this goal, since it is still unclear how to get there. However, on the first day of the COP, the UK presidency proposed to take this point off the agenda without opposition from the participating delegations. It was also pointed out that, even if countries would fulfil their announced NDCs, it would not suffice to reach the 1.5 °C goal. So, a strong appeal was made to the participating states to formulate more ambitious NDCs. Therefore, this topic has not been further discussed and remains fuzzy in the Glasgow agreement. Furthermore, human and indigenous rights in general remain to become more present and formulated in the agreement.  

This quote by a representative at the COP summarizes the mood on the last day of the COP quite well: “Avoiding failure is not a success.” The last-minute draft presented by the Indian delegation obviously weakened the affected article significantly. Under pressure to reach a result, COP president Alok Sharma declared the draft, despite the disappointment of several delegations, as accepted and tearfully apologized for the final outcome. A very criticized fact, also in the context of the result, is that the number of fossil fuel lobbyists was higher than the largest governmental delegation (which was Brazil, with 479 delegates).  

Thoughts regarding next COP in Egypt

The next COP is going to take place in Egypt. Some say that this might be a good setting for holding such a conference, since the country is a rising economic power and therefore some sort of connector between developed and developing countries. Besides, it might symbolize a focus from the African continent — strongly affected by climate change — in the upcoming negotiations. However, there are some concerns about COP27. In Glasgow, civil society and its commitment in the form of protests and side events outside of the so-called Blue Zone was a highlight. These activities might be limited at COP27, given the state of human rights, especially women rights, and the right to demonstrate in Egypt. The fact that the conference is going to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh, the largest tourist resort of Egypt, might give the impression that the host country wants to paint a certain picture. However, after years of unchecked abuse by government authorities that has landed thousands in prisons, blocked hundreds of independent and opposition media websites, and brought accusations of extrajudicial killings by Egyptian security forces, The New York Times reports that there seem to be attempts of progress in response to international pressure. Overall, it remains to be seen how the next COP will develop. 

Why is a global climate conference, despite the criticized points, still important? 

When we consider the COP, we must remember that it is a negotiation space. While this means that there is the opportunity for shared decisions on the global scale, the nature of negotiation and the inevitable compromises that must be made for so many states to agree mean that not everyone will be fully happy with the outcome. The point is to make progress. And, while the outcome might have fallen a bit short of our expectations, we did make progress. Beyond the official outcomes, there was space for actors across sectors to meet and share ideas and projects for implementation. Additionally, we saw a galvanized civil society contribution. As we move away from COP26, this push for climate action and justice will not end – and we hope to see this reflected more clearly in COP27 and beyond. In this way, we can preserve our planet and secure a safe, healthy, and just future for those who come after us. 

The post COP26 Summary of Week 2 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The plastic problem

Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues that many countries struggle with worldwide. During the last decade, the detrimental effects of plastics on the environment and human health have been extensively researched. Experts all agree that plastic is harmful to humans and it takes over 1000 years to decay, degrading into microplastics and accumulating in ecosystems.

Microplastics are particularly persistent in the environment and hard to capture and recycle. It is important to note that they are not just a result of the breakdown of bigger plastic pieces, but are also produced, for instance, by cosmetic firms to be included in a range of cosmetic products. Hence, after usage of these products the microplastics get washed down the drain, move through the wastewater treatment system, and end up in rivers and oceans. Once released into aquatic ecosystems, the tiny plastic particles are taken up via the food chain and accumulate in the higher trophic levels, in a process known as bioaccumulation. Moreover, microplastics can accrue in the soil, affecting plant growth and soil biota.

The problem with bioaccumulation of plastics are specific properties that have been proven to affect the endocrine system of mammals. By binding to hormone receptors, ingested plastic will result in a downstream cellular effect, leading to developmental changes. Fish have been known to feminize, resulting in detrimental effects on the ecosystem and harming multiple relationship chains established throughout the systems.

Humans ingest plastics through food, handling receipts and drinking from plastic water bottles. This problem has been analysed by researchers at the University of Bayreuth, who in a recent study have detected various types of microplastics in mussels obtained from supermarkets. With microplastics present in food obtained from the supermarket, it seems impossible for us to avoid it in our daily lives. This illustrates how careless actions stemming from short-term convenience not only devastate long-established ecosystem dynamics, but also end up affecting us humans for decades to come.     

Besides the effects of microplastic, the plastic litter in form of bigger pieces, called macroplastic, has a wide range of implications on the environment and ecosystems as well. These include entanglement, ingestion, and suffocation for organisms in marine and terrestrial environments.

Plastic usage in times of the Covid-19 pandemic

As the plastic pollution problem has been reported more and more in the media, the resulting rise in awareness of the effects of plastic usage on the environment greatly impacted governmental decision-making. New laws and specific legislation concerning plastic production and consumption were established. Several countries, including the EU and some U.S. States, started banning or were planning to ban single-use plastics, such as straws, cups and shopping bags, as well as the production of microbeads, which are commonly used in cosmetic products such as face scrubs and soaps. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has drastically affected the global efforts of tackling the plastic problem.

The pandemic has led to an arms race for personal protective equipment (PPE) all over the world. With an increase in both medical equipment such as facemasks, gloves and other protective clothing, as well as single-use plastics from food packaging, home-delivery services and e-commerce, the production and consumption of plastic immensely rose. Commitment to wear a mask has drastically increased the production of one-off masks and the resulting littering. It is estimated that there is a monthly need for 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves to contain the spread of the virus on a global scale. A large part of these can now be found as rubbish on the pavement or at the side of the road. In combination with other medical equipment, the resulting waste in the medical sector alone has increased to up to 370%.  

Social trends amplifying this problem include a growth in the throw away culture and online shopping, as well as the increased demand for food delivery and take-away packaging. This is a direct result of the fear-driven perceptions of hygienic and recycled products, as well as the Covid-19 associated sanitary concerns. Estimations predict a 14% increase in plastic and corrugated grocery packaging in the U.S., while reports from a Spanish plastic packaging company show a sales increase of 40%. Additionally, the low oil prices caused by the crisis have reduced the competitiveness of recycled plastics, leading to an increased usage of virgin plastics.

Due to the growing demand for plastic, there has been a temporary relaxation on the policies banning or reducing single-use plastics in many places around the world, including several U.S. States. This reversal or delay of policies relevant for the reduction in global plastic use will result in plastic industry lobbyists taking advantage of the situation, making future implementation of similar guidelines and laws very difficult. It is therefore important to address the fear-driven perceptions against the hygiene of reused and recycled products now, during as well as after the pandemic. It is important to increase people’s trust in packaging-free products and sustainable alternatives to prevent a lasting return of the throwaway culture and thus a resurgence in the use of single-use plastic. An overarching message here is the importance of continuing to move forward with a total system overhaul to make using reusables a safe and convenient option despite the pandemic.  

Waste management in times of the Covid-19 pandemic

Coming back to the example of our campus: The university was quick to respond to the littering problem by putting up more bins, specifically for plastic recycling. However, the increasing plastic waste remains an issue and the pandemic has negatively impacted the recycling sector as well.

In some countries, like Portugal, the government recommended not to recycle any possibly contaminated household waste and in Italy infected people were asked not to sort their waste at all. In the U.S. the recycling capacity was significantly lowered by recycling companies closing due to decreased demand from the industry, low oil prices favouring the use of virgin plastic over recycled plastic and fear of spreading the virus via recycled materials. In other countries, like the Netherlands, there was a backlog of recycling waste due to disruption in logistics.

Therefore, the motioned changes in the usage of plastics have implications for global waste management. The fact that already before the pandemic over two billion people lacked access to waste collection and over three billion people lacked access to waste disposal amplifies the current situation during the crisis.

As the failure to properly manage the waste generated from health facilities and households may escalate the spread of Covid-19 via secondary transmission, the virus creates additional challenges in waste management, including waste management practices and both environmental and global issues. These effects, including future solutions, are illustrated in the infographic shown here:

Conclusion

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a severe increase in the usage and disposal of single use plastic products. Some countries waste management facilities can not cope with the resulting amounts of waste, which consequently means an improper treatment of the surplus plastic waste. In combination with littering of PPE and other single use plastic products this will result in an increased plastic pollution in the environment, where it will persist for decades and negatively impact ecosystems. Since the pandemic has been going on for over a year and an end is not in sight yet, it is important to take notice of this issue and find ways to reduce our plastic consumption whilst keeping to current hygiene regulations.

References:

Aragaw, T. A. (2020). Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 159, 111517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111517  

Gorrasi, G., Sorrentino, A., & Lichtfouse, E. (2020). Back to plastic pollution in COVID times. Environmental Chemistry Letters. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01129-z

Greenpeace (2020). “Where did 5,500 tonnes of discarded face masks end up?”. Retrieved from: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/44629/where-did-5500-tonnes-of-discarded-face-masks-end-up/  

Kargar, S., Pourmehdi, M., & Paydar, M. M. (2020). Reverse logistics network design for medical waste management in the epidemic outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Science of The Total Environment, 746, 141183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141183 

Kulkarni B. N., Anantharama V. (2020). Repercussions [BC1] of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Science of the Total Environment, 743, 140693[BC2] . https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178

Kumar BNV, Löschel LA, Imhof HK, Löder MGJ, Laforsch C. (2021). Analysis of microplastics of a broad size range in commercially important mussels by combining FTIR and Raman spectroscopy approaches. Environmental Pollution , 269, 116147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116147

Nowakowski, P., Kuśnierz, S., Sosna, P., Mauer, J., & Maj, D. (2020). Disposal of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic Is a challenge for waste collection companies and society: A case study in Poland. Resources, 9(10), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9100116

Prata, J. C., Silva, A. L., Walker, T. R., Duarte, A. C., & Rocha-Santos, T. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(13), 7760-7765. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178

Sarkodie S. A., Owusu P. A. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on waste management. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00956-y

Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Cheela, V. S., Ranjan, V. P., Jaglan, A. K., Dubey, B., Goel S., Bhattacharya, J. (2020). Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162, 105052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105052

Silva A.L.P., Prata J.C., Walker T.R., Duarte A.C., Ouyang W., Barcelò D., Rocha-Santos T. (2020). Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations. Chemical Engineering Journal, 405, 126683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683

Vanapalli, K. R., Sharma, H. B., Ranjan, V. P., Samal, B., Bhattacharya, J., Dubey, B. K., & Goel, S. (2020). Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Science of The Total Environment, 750, 141514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141514

Wilson, D.C., Rodic, L., Modak, P., Soos, R., Carpintero, A., Velis, K., & Simonett, O. (2015). Global waste management outlook. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Retrieved from: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook.

The post How a virus stopped us from flattening the plastic curve appeared first on Global Change Ecology.