Similar to how the IPCC represents key scientific consensus on climate change, IPBES produces important findings for decision making and stakeholders in the field of biodiversity. In 2019, the plenary yielded a global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services that sounded the alarm on a global crisis of biodiversity loss. According to the report, one million plant and animal species across the world are at risk of extinction. Although these numbers are sobering, this knowledge is essential for conservation policy and science. This year, the platform planned to approve two new reports highlighting the diverse uses and values of wildlife to humans and non-humans.

IPBES 9 took place both virtually and in Bonn, Germany from July 3-9, 2022. Students from the master program Global Change Ecology (GCE) could attend either as observers of the conference or as volunteers with the IPBES secretariat. In both cases, they were able to attend sessions, meet science and policy experts, and see firsthand the process of international negotiations. GCE sent more than 20 student volunteers to help run the event. This included tasks such as registration, running the help desk, managing the IPBES social media channels, working in the back office, and managing representatives in the session.

Personal Reflections from a Back Office Volunteer

When I first signed up to volunteer at IPBES 9, I was not sure what to expect. In all honesty, I had never actually heard of IPBES before. Nevertheless, I was interested in learning more about the organization and gaining experience through volunteering.

I chose to volunteer in the back office because I have technical skills that could come in handy. I had volunteered at some conferences in the past, so I figured that the experience would be somewhat similar. However, upon arriving at the venue, I realized that this experience would be different in some key ways.

For one, the stakes were much higher. As a matter of international diplomacy, attendees were not representing themselves, but their governments. Additionally, while IPBES is not a UN body, the United Nations Environment Program provides the secretariat for the plenary. As a result, student volunteers got to volunteer and interact with UN employees. The international and intergovernmental nature of this event made it feel very “serious” and, as student volunteers, we appreciated the importance of our work. 

When it came to my work specifically, I was very satisfied with my experience volunteering in the back office. I assisted the technical team with essential tasks such as:

• Sending push notifications to attendees through the conference app
• Updating the session schedule as times changed
• Posting media releases to the website
• Managing and monitoring online participants
• Troubleshooting technical issues

As an outside observer of IPBES 9, it would be easy to overlook the people working “behind the scenes”. As a volunteer, however, it is clear that there is a lot more that goes into these negotiations than meets the eye. While the experts, policy makers, diplomats and stakeholders are the focus of the negotiations, it is the IPBES secretariat and conference technicians that ensure the meeting goes smoothly.

Working on the technical side of the conference meant doing a lot of “little things” such as hitting “record” on zoom sessions, checking equipment, responding to emails, editing powerpoints, etc. Many of these tasks needed to be completed simultaneously or in a limited time period. While the work was fast-paced, I definitely feel like I learned a lot about managing my time, prioritizing tasks, and problem solving. Additionally, I always worked on a team and with a supervisor who could assist if need be.

Due to the nature of the work, I listened closely to the discussions and followed along for the duration of the (lengthy) sessions. As a result, I was able to pay attention to the details and nuances of the diplomatic process. It was surprising to see how finely the member states dissected the language and terminology of the reports. Of course, the point of the plenary is precisely this, to involve various governments in the communication of science and policy. This meant that every member state had to agree on every single word of the documents approved.

The tedious reviewing process took place every day, all day. When the reports were finally approved, it was hard not to get swept up in the emotion of it all. It was particularly exciting for the experts who had been working on these documents for four years to finally see their work come to fruition. Even as a volunteer who had just recently learned about the mission of IPBES, I was ecstatic that I could see this process happen. In a way, it felt as if I were along for the ride, especially after seeing all of the hard work that the volunteers, secretariat and technicians had put into facilitating it. The final days were marked by overwhelming excitement (and exhaustion) after a very busy and intense week. Now we waited for the outside world to get the reports.

Results of IPBES 9

The result of IPBES 9 was the publishing of two landmark reports, the “Assessment report on the sustainable use of wild species” and the “Methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits”. With thousands of references and dozens of contributing authors, these reports present important scientific and policy consensus.

According to the sustainable use assessment, 1 in 5 people around the world rely on some 50,000 wild species for purposes such as food, fuel, medicine etc. For the world’s poor, this dependence is even greater. The findings from this assessment highlight the importance of wild species for humans.

The values assessment points out that the predominant short-sighted view of nature is the main driver of biodiversity loss. Instead of viewing nature as merely a commodity to exploit, the assessment highlights more than 50 alternative methods and approaches to value nature. This includes indigenous perspectives and women’s involvement in stewardship decisions.

When considered together, the findings highlight the importance of changing our relationship to nature and protecting biodiversity. Especially in order to protect vulnerable people all over the world in the face of climate change, conflict, the pandemic, and inflation. As a student who studies in the field of ecology, biodiversity, and global change, it was a truly educational experience to learn about these two reports. Not to mention the skills, experiences, and networking I did along the way.

The post Reflections on IPBES 9 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

We look forward to receiving your applications!

Application deadline: 15 June, 2022!
Learn more clicking here.

Starting date: October 2022
Location: Bayreuth, Germany

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS for the M.Sc. Global Change Ecology appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Although economic and social impacts are more apparent, the effects the pandemic has had on the environment and biodiversity are substantial. The Global Risks Report 2022 shows that, since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, risks such as human environmental damage, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, and climate action failure, have worsened by 7.8%, 8.4%, 22.7%, and 25.4%, respectively. Furthermore, climate change failure and extreme weather will soon become a critical threat to the world, followed by biodiversity loss, natural resources crises, and human environmental damage. These five represent 50% of the top ten most severe risks on a global scale.

Nonetheless, the risks are not isolated in themselves, generating repercussions to other risks and vice-versa. For instance, biodiversity losses impact not only their environment and habitats, but also have effects on livelihood crises, infectious diseases spread, and pollution harms to health, to mention a few. International cooperation is essential on directing efforts and resources to mitigate the current reality and potentially change future scenarios before those risks become irreversible or self-reinforcing.

For further insights, you can read the Global Risks Report 2022 clicking here, and watch below the Press Conference of The Global Risks Report 2022, where the speakers discuss key findings from the report:

The post The Global Risks Report 2022: A call for awakening appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

BiodiverCities by 2030(1) is an initiative of the World Economic Forum and the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute with the Government of Colombia. Together, the organizations gathered a large group of world-renowned experts and professionals from many sectors to use the latest research to improve and have a more inclusive nature-positive urban development. Although there has always been a dichotomy between cities and nature, it is now time to understand and apply nature-positive technologies to urban environments. World statistics show that, by 2030, 60% of the global population will be living in cities (2; 3). The consequences of increasing rural exodus can be positive and negative, ranging from improving lives to exacerbating inequalities and nature degradation. As the world still deals with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the triple planetary crisis of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, it has become increasingly clear how unsustainable our ways of urbanization have been.

In this context, the BiodiverCities by 2030 report states that we must rethink and restructure our cities in a way that rescues nature’s value by bringing harmony and synergy to this dichotomy, and ensuring conservation, sustainability, and health as well as scientific and economic development. In fact, the report finds that investing in nature-based solutions could generate over 59 million jobs in cities around the world and achieve more than $1.5 trillion in annual business value by 2030. One of their key-findings was that the adoption of nature-based solutions is an opportunity that will lead to more resilient and competitive cities.

The report is structured in three main chapters. The first addresses cities’ relationship with nature, covering how the fast expansion of the urban environment has proven to be destructive for the natural environment. They also discuss the importance of cities for the global GDP and  how cities’ impact on nature can also be a critical economic problem, before concluding with a brighter perspective of how the cities of tomorrow can bring healing through nature-positive infrastructure alternatives for urban development. The second covers the economic case for BiodiverCities, advocating further for nature-based urban transformation, showing examples of investment and job opportunities by sector, and how their relevance differs by region. And the third chapter discusses three fundamental systemic shifts towards a nature-positive urban development: urban governance, spatial (re)integration, and investment mobilization. In the end, they conclude with a call for multistakeholder action.

To bring nature forward, respect it, and live in harmony with it should be at the core of our lives and our cities. There, it can only have benefits and growth for the planet, for us, and for future generations. BiodiverCities by 2030 is an incredible initiative with ties to SDG11. Hopefully their message will spread to many nations, improving people’s health and the economy while recognizing planetary boundaries.

The BiodiverCities by 2030 report can be found clicking here. Something to note is that GCE Alumna María Mejía was involved with the BiodiverCities by 2030 Initiative at the National Research Institute of Biodiversity of Colombia. You can read her GCE Alumni interview here.

References

1 BiodiverCities by 2030

2 Destatis – Statistisches Bundesamt (2022)

3 UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs Population Dynamics – World Urbanization Prospects 2018

The post Bringing Nature Forward: The BiodiverCities by 2030 report appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

In the past 20 years, we have seen a continued rise in fast fashion. This term refers to mass-produced, inexpensive clothing that is intended to be stylish yet short-lived [4]. The process for traditional fashion – from design to production to distribution to sales – can take a year to a year and a half to complete and results in one or two seasonal releases per year. The same process takes anywhere from a couple weeks to four months for fast fashion, with up to 24 releases each year [1]. Using a quick-response production framework, fast fashion retailers like Zara and H&M churn out new styles as soon as they pop up on the runway or on celebrities. These offerings are changed very often in stores via a dynamic assortment process, with hundreds of new product introductions per week [1]. Together, these methods encourage frequent consumption of cheaply made, trendy garments and give consumers a sense of urgency about buying products.

We see this shift in business model reflected in consumer habits. At the basic level: the newest styles are available, prices are lower than ever, and people want to buy more. Since 2000, brands have almost doubled their garment production [2]. Between 1996-2014, there was a similar 40% increase in clothing purchases among Europeans [3]. However, all these garments are worn for 36% less time relative to 2005 [2]. In Germany, 16.7 kg of new clothing is bought per person per year, coming in second only to the UK at 26 kg, and around 11 kg is discarded [3]. This acceleration of production and consumption of products comes with a cost that is not reflected on price tags in stores.

The footprint of fast fashion

A significant amount of water is tied up in the production of your wardrobe. In 2015, the fashion industry used up 79 billion cubic meters of it [2, 3]! Much of this lies in cotton, which is the thirstiest fiber used in fashion, though water is also used in dyeing, bleaching, and other processes associated with the manufacture of clothing. With the 2,700 liters of water that is required to produce just one cotton t-shirt, a person could have drinking water for about 2.5 years [3].

Yet, production goes beyond only the use of water. The processes that fall under making fabrics and creating garments require chemical inputs and generate a lot of waste. This includes agrochemicals and petrochemicals associated with natural and synthetic production respectively, as well as solvents used in the manufacture of textiles and creation of specific garments [2]. Lax standards, poor infrastructure, and inadequate management allow for improper application techniques and untreated wastewater, which results in toxins and heavy metal inputs to the local environment [2]. Even once consumers have the garment, they can continue to pollute. Laundering clothes made from synthetic fibers like polyester releases microplastic into the environment, accounting for 35% of oceanic microplastic pollution [2, 3].

Due to their low cost and quality, high availability, and quick turnover of fashion trends, consumers view the clothing that comes as a result of the above processes as disposable. While some are recycled or resold domestically or abroad, up to 85% of textiles are sent to landfills or burned [3, 4]. As a result, we also see a lot of solid waste and associated hazards stemming from the fashion industry [4].

What about greenhouse gases? Estimates from the IPCC suggest that the fashion industry contributes up to 10% of global emissions. These emissions can come from fiber production (particularly of synthetics, which are made from oil), energy use during manufacturing and production of garments, and transport. The specific numbers can vary based on location, as various factories run on different energy sources [2]. Overall, the climate impact of fashion is greater than that of all international flights and maritime shipping combined [3].

Ultimately, industry globalization means that the consequences of fast fashion are not evenly distributed. Garment production, and all that comes along with it, tends to take place in low- or middle-income countries, while consumption is highest in western countries [2, 4]. In this way, unsafe working conditions, water scarcity, and toxic pollution – all leading to significant negative health impacts for people primarily in production countries – are fueled by consumption countries.

Shifting the trajectory

Clearly, the current path of the fashion industry is completely unsustainable and damaging to people and the environment. To address this, we need to see transformations across the board. At the international level, the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion intends to facilitate change in the industry and turn fashion into a driver of sustainable development by engaging with outreach, knowledge sharing, active collaboration among stakeholders, and identifying synergies. Specific modifications to the current system can include the use of sustainable fabrics (like Lyocell, which is made from the cellulose of bamboo) as well as renewable energy in textile production [2, 4]. Cohesive standards for corporate sustainability should be introduced, as many companies are now taking advantage of greenwashing to market themselves or their products as “eco-friendly” without truly comparative criteria [4]. Policy can also be used as a tool to promote workers’ rights and limit environmental impacts of fast fashion [3, 4]. In line with this is the EU Commission Circular Economy Action Plan, which includes measures to support circularity in the system by improving recycling and ensuring reparability of products as well as giving consumers information on the impacts of the products they buy [3].

On the individual level, people can do their part to change the paradigm of fast fashion by extending the lives of their garments. Simply put, we should be wearing the same clothes for longer. This might involve repairing or reworking older garments. When clothing needs to be replaced, you could try thrifting for new-to-you clothing that still has plenty of life left. Another option that is gaining popularity is renting garments, which is especially useful in the case of a specific event that requires clothing that you might only wear once or twice. However, if you would rather buy fully new, try to focus on quality items, preferably made using sustainable fibers, and choose to support businesses that engage with safer practices which minimize negative impacts on people and the environment [4].

If you are interested in learning more about the impacts of fashion, check out “The Clothes We Wear,” a short documentary from Deutsch Welle, below.

References

[1] Caro F., Martínez-de-Albéniz V. 2015. Fast Fashion: Business Model Overview and Research Opportunities. In: Agrawal N., Smith S. (eds) Retail Supply Chain Management. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 223. Springer, Boston, MA. Access here.

[2] Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H. et al. 2020. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 189–200. Access here.

[3] European Parliament. 2021. The impact of textile production and waste on the environment. Access here.

[4] Bick, R., Halsey, E. & Ekenga, C.C. 2018. The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environ Health 17,92. Access here.

The post The true cost of your closet appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) originated in Japan (as “Teikei”, which means partnership), and in Switzerland independently from each other in the 1970s [1]. Since then, it has been propagated worldwide, and it can be found in many different forms and under various names. There is no fixed way of doing CSA. Still, the international CSA network URGENCI defines it as: “a framework to inspire communities to work together with their local farmers, provide mutual benefits and reconnect people to the land where their food is grown” [2].

CSA is an association between farmers or gardeners and private households, in which the needs of everyone – including the environment – are respected.  The members of this closed economic circle do not pay for individual food items, but rather for the upkeep and running of the agricultural business. In return, they receive a share of the harvest, which is usually provided to them on a weekly basis. This way of operating results, not only in the sharing of costs, but also the responsibilities and risks between the farmers and members, having benefits for both sides.

Small-scale, regional and sustainable agriculture are supported and furthered through these practices. CSA gives the farmers financial and planning security, besides assuring a fair wage for them [3, 4]. The financial security gives the farmers more flexibility and room for maneuver to try out new or traditional as well as more sustainable and organic ways of farming [3]. The time and money for trying out these practices often lack in conventional farming. In conventional agriculture, farmers also tend to concentrate on a small number of crops, vegetables or fruits they specialize in, to maximize efficiency. By implementing CSA, the farmers can grow a large range of products to satisfy the members of the association with a variety of products each week [3]. This increases diversity, which also has positive implications for the soil and local fauna. Furthermore, food wastage is reduced, as products that do not meet market standards are still distributed to and consumed by the members [3, 5]. The members receive fresh, regional, nutritious produce and the benefit of knowing where their food come from.  

There are different ways in which CSAs operate. Most commonly the farmers calculate the expenses for the year, based on the produce the members would like them to grow [3]. Then, either the costs are split evenly between all members in terms of a monthly membership fee, or, at a bidding round, each member can suggest what they could pay for the year. If after the bidding round not the whole costs are covered, the bidding round is done again, until they are [3]. The second option is based on the solidarity principal, as those, who can afford to, pay more, and those, who cannot, pay less. This way no one is excluded based on their financial situation.

Another aspect of CSA is the involvement of the members in the running of the farm. This is done to a varying extent at different CSA farms. For instance, members can either help out with the harvest, during planting events, or in the organization of food pick-ups. This way the consumer turns into a prosumer – a combination of consumer and producer. The idea behind this is that people do not only support the local farmer, but also experience where their food comes from. This puts the value back in the food, and it makes people think more about what they buy and eat. Therefore, there is a great educational value in CSA too.

There are many success stories of CSAs worldwide. But a relevant example, that shines a light on the problems some CSA farmers experience, is the study case by Ostrom in 2007 [4] on over 20 CSA farms in the Minneapolis and Madison area (USA). The study showed that especially the community idea behind CSA – farmers and members united as a community, sharing not only the benefits but also risks of farming – is often difficult to develop, and expectations of farmers and members tend to diverge. Since the initiative comes from the farmers in most cases, there is often a struggle to find members or to keep them involved [4]. The consequence of this is that farmers might orient the fees on what the members are willing to pay, rather than on what they really need to run the farm with fair wages and the other benefits that are meant to come with running a CSA [4]. Still, farmers, who can overcome the divergent expectations between themselves and members, and that can induce member engagement, are successful [4].

Notwithstanding, it has to be noted that this study conducted by Ostrom (2007) cannot be generalized, as it was conducted in one region [4]. A study on several CSAs in Germany, for example, found that most CSA members were motivated and engaged in farm activities [5]. Furthermore, the assessment conducted by Ostrom in 2007 revealed that members, who really engage with the CSA practices, experience a lifestyle shift, as they change their shopping behavior, cook healthier and with more variety [4]. This led the author to conclude that “part of the power of CSA as social movement lies with its ability to gradually forge a new understanding of what it means to eat” [4]. A concept that, therefore, bears ecological and social transformative potential.

If you would also like to change the way you eat and support local farmers, you can find information on CSAs around Bayreuth and how to get involved here. In Germany CSA is organized in the Netzwerk Solidarische Landwirtschaft , currently there are 368 CSA farms registered on their website [6].

References:

Where not otherwise indicated: https://www.solidarische-landwirtschaft.org/das-konzept

[1] https://urgenci.net/csa-history/ (last accessed 23.09.2021)

[2] https://urgenci.net/about-urgenci/ (last accessed 23.09.2021)

[3] Simpfendörfer C. (2017) Solidarische Landwirtschaft: Verbraucher gestalten Land(wirt)schaft. In: Kost S., Kölking C. (eds) Transitorische Stadtlandschaften. Hybride Metropolen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13726-7_6

[4] Ostrom M. (2007). “Community Supported Agriculture as an Agent of Change: Is it Working?”. Remaking the North American Food System, Clare Hinrichs and Tom Lyson (eds). University of Nebraska Press, pp 99-120.

[5] Bechtel D, van Elsen T. (2015). Potenziale Solidarischer Landwirtschaft für Naturschutz in der Kulturlandschaft. 13. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau. Available online: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/26965/  

[6] https://www.solidarische-landwirtschaft.org/solawis-finden/auflistung/solawis#accordionHead131864 (last accessed 23.09.2021)

The post Community-supported agriculture – a transformative approach appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“A Life on Our Planet” is a 2020 documentary where David Attenborough talks about ecosystem restoration, ecology, climate change, and evolutionary history by recounting some of his adventures world-wide during his 93 years of life. The film starts in the ruins of the Ukranian city where nuclear power station of Chernobyl exploded in 1986. As it presents that tragedy as the biggest environmental catastrophe in the history of mankind, resulting from bad planning and human errors, Attenborough connects this to a currently unfolding tragedy: the loss of Earth’s wild places and their biodiversity.

After the audience receives this context for the film, we are taken on a historical trip starting in 1937. David explains about extinction events, the Holocene (our time), and how biodiversity is key to the stability of the planet. To me, it is wonderful how the various organisms from different ecosystems across the world are contributing to the functioning of the Earth, just by developing their “instinctive” function/activity. How marvelous is that?

As the historical trip continues through a catalogue of years, we are introduced to data about that year’s population, atmospheric CO2, and the percentage of the remaining wilderness in the planet. In 1937, human population included 2.3 billion people. In the Earth´s atmosphere, CO2 levels were at 280 ppm. On the ground, there were still 66% of natural places, i.e., land without human interference. 83 years later, in 2020, we find 7.8 billion inhabitants of the Earth, 415 ppm of atmospheric CO2, and only 35% of remaining wilderness.

Contrasting technological advancement and the records of his previous documentaries, such as “The Blue Planet” and “Frozen Place”, David shows how nature was back then and how humans transformed the environment, leading up to the consequences we face today: temperature rise, pollution and biodiversity loss. We are presented to dual future scenarios. In one, we could use our intellectual power to revert the damaging trend that we see now. In the other, we see the consequences that could happen if we don´t start acting now in favor of nature. Which should we choose?

A stable planet is a livable planet. To safeguard our current levels of stability, we need to protect and restore biodiversity. A term used in the film that I personally liked was to “rewild the world”. Protecting species, restoring ecosystems, using renewable energy, sustainable farming and much more! These things are already happening. For instance, Morocco has today the largest solar farm in the world and supplies 40% of their energy demand from the Sun. We can also look to the Netherlands, which has been successfully applying technologies to produce food vertically, reducing demand for land, water and pesticides, as well as lowering carbon emissions. These incredible practices show that sustainability is possible. The conflicting dichotomy between technology and nature can, in fact, become an extraordinary partnership instead.

By the end of the movie, we go back to the city where the Chernobyl disaster occurred. An area now without human interference whatsoever has been taken back by forest trees and wildlife. Nature has the power reestablish itself, when it is not being constantly destroyed. To reverse the ecological damages the planet has been going through, we must act now, with wisdom and willpower.

I will not give any more details about this film here. What I will say is… go and watch it ASAP! “A Life on Our Planet” is one of those precious films that, in a simple structure, brings a lot of understanding about global change to anyone who watches it. Inspirational and at the same time heartbreaking, it serves as a wake-up call for all of us, inhabitants of this land.

The post Rewild the World: A Life on Our Planet Review appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Why did you decide to study GCE?
GCE was the only study program that I found which combined multiple different topics pertaining to sustainability. I have always enjoyed learning about a broad range of subjects and GCE offered exactly that.

What did you like most about GCE?
Like I said previously, the broad range of subjects is what I liked about GCE the most. However, I was always drawn to the Societal Change modules since they included ways in which we might steer away from the unsustainable path our global civilization is currently on. In terms of the study program itself, I particularly liked the teaching and examination format. It encouraged critical thinking and practical work, rather than the outdated rote learning and repetition of information. This is especially relevant in today’s world where information can be accessed in a matter of seconds using a smartphone and an internet connection while the ability to critically process that information is much more important.

How has your career continued after GCE?
After essentially a year of looking for a job I applied for a PhD at the Professorship of Ecological Services with Prof. Dr. Thomas Koellner as the supervisor. And for the past three years this has been my job. My contract has finished in February 2021, but I am still continuing to work on the PhD.

What is your current position? What are your tasks?
Currently I am partly employed as a GCE lecturer teaching the course M16 Modeling Ecosystem Functions with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). And the rest of my time is split between working on the PhD and caring for my newborn son together with my wife.

How has GCE supported your career?
GCE enabled me to do two internships, one at IPBES and one at UNCCD where I also worked as a consultant. I found these experiences at the UN extremely valuable and enjoyed them very much. GCE has also given me the opportunity to further my career by doing a PhD, as well as allowing me to give something back to GCE by becoming one of the lecturers.

What do you recommend to the current GCE students?
I would say, make the most out of the variety of courses offered by GCE. It is a rare opportunity since the vast majority of study programs force you to specialize in a single narrow field while GCE gives you the option for specialization, as well as a broader perspective.

The post GCE Alumni (12): PhD at the Professorship of Ecological Services appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“Kiss the ground” is a documentary that was released last year (2020). It was directed by Joshua Tickell and Rebecca Harrell Tickell, with a duration of 1 hour and 24 minutes. The introduction of the film gives an overview about the greatness of planet Earth, but also quickly presents news about climate change and natural disasters, sort of justifying humans’ current “state of paralysis.” Right after declaring that the human race gave up on Earth, the narrator (Woody Harrelson), suggests a revolutionary path, a solution deemed simple: SOIL!

Stating that that soil might save us (the whole planet), the film presents some soil functions: greenhouse gas sequestration rebalancing our climate, replenishing freshwater supplies, and food production. By advocating for the soil’s well-being, “Kiss the Ground” also takes us back in time to show the audience that tilling and chemical fertilizers are not allies for sustainable production and are actually degrading the soil. The film explains how plowing caused the loss of 200 million acres of cropland in the U.S. Midwestern Plains in the 1930s, and how agricultural pesticides started being used after US chemical companies imported the creation of German scientist Fritz Harber. Harber intended to make synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to increase food production, but also created poisons which were first used as chemical weapons during the war and the Holocaust.

The documentary gathers scientists, researchers, and environmental activists. While presenting how the Earth system works and the consequences of the current, unsustainable soil management and agricultural practices, it urges for a more regenerative approach in order to heal our soil and our climate. The film’s arguments are easy for everyone to follow and it is a lecture we should not skip. As mentioned in the film, in general, the producers don’t understand how soil works, and as they are benefitted by subsidies, and the hope of high profit from promised crop prices by companies, they just follow procedures to deliver the products demanded. This way, they perpetuate a broken system without knowing they have been damaging their own world and way of living.

The conclusion is not surprising, as pointed out by conservation agronomist Ray Archuleta (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service): Education is an ecological issue. Archuleta hosts workshops to farmers on how to develop better agricultural practices in hope to plant a seed that will bring change. The film does a good job by presenting the action of people that are really engaged to work for the well-being of the planet and its living beings. I felt very inspired by the projects showcased in the documentary about biosequestration, including the “4 per 1000: Soils for food security and climate,” created by French Minister of Agriculture Stéphane Le Foll; farmers testimonies about developing economically viable and low-impact permaculture and agroforestry systems; NASA models now able to compare tilling periods and plant growth seasons influence on CO2 emissions. It gives the viewer a sense of hope, considering all the knowledge and technology that has developed.

Through science, “Kiss the Ground” brings to light contrasting realities and proposes ways that we can still make a big, positive impact for the sake of our Earth. It discusses politics, ecology, regenerative solutions, composting, diet, supporting sustainable farming systems, and coming together as one for the planet. Four words come to my mind: love, education, hope and regeneration. Those are within the essence presented in this documentary. It covers a lot more than I can possibly tell you in this short post. I will say this: go watch it right now, share it with someone, and join the movement, because, quoting ecologist John D. Liu, (Commonland Foundation), “To see a stream return and flow, to bring back fertile soils, to see biodiversity return to a place that was completely devastated, this is where everyone can find tremendous satisfaction and the meaning of our lives.”

“Kiss the Ground” is available to stream on Netflix, on Vimeo (rent $1), or you can also watch the 45 minute educational version for free on the official website (for schools):

https://kissthegroundmovie.com/

The post Thank the Earth: “Kiss the Ground” Film Review appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The curriculum

This year’s AEMS summer school took place over three weeks through late July and August. Over this period of time, students learned not only the basics about financial systems but also about tools of change across different sectors. What are some realistic ways in which our current systems can shift to be more sustainable and how can we add our own power behind this push? We explored this question through interaction with speakers and other students, writing blog posts and the final group project, in which we all presented our own idea for a project of change.

In Vienna… Or anywhere!

In total, thirty-six students from seventeen countries took part in the course. While the digital format meant that many participants were not located in Vienna, it made the science school very accessible to students and lecturers across the world. Students, organizers and lecturers could maintain contact and easily ask or answer questions as they arose through the use of digital tools like Zoom, Discord and YouTube. Furthermore, even after the school has ended, the channels remain open.

My experience

I absolutely had concerns about completing a fully digital science school! I worried about missing out on the personal side of group cooperation and learning, which (as I am sure we all know by now) comes so much more naturally in a physical setting compared to online. I thought I would have trouble remaining engaged through a computer screen and might not absorb the material well or burn out. I will admit that these things did end up being, at times, a challenge. At the beginning, I did struggle with feeling awkward trying to connect with a bunch of total strangers over the internet. And yes, sometimes it did take extra work to focus myself on lessons through a screen. However, all those strangers and I were both invested and interested in exploring avenues toward a better future, and we all found common ground just like in a physical setting – and suddenly, we became true colleagues! It was a mentally strenuous few weeks, but with motivation (and well-placed computer breaks), we made it through to our final change projects. It was great to hear how different groups integrated the weeks’ knowledge to propose change projects about how to support climate-friendly mobility, how to maintain businesses within planetary boundaries, the role of community currency, food sovereignty and more!

In the end…

The organizers of the AEMS science school were able to provide academically rigorous instruction for students online without sacrificing the elements of collaboration and group discussion that can potentially pose a problem for digital learning formats. Ultimately, the course organizers as well as the students both agree that AEMS 2020 accomplished the overall aim of “spreading the ideas of change and showing alternatives to the current economic and monetary system” and support student learning “to achieve a socially just and environmentally sustainable future”!

The post Alternative Economic and Monetary Systems (AEMS) Summer School 2020 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.