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.

Why are expectations so high?  

Since Paris, Glasgow is the first conference at which countries must present their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which should include more ambitious emission reductions. So far, only 122 countries have submitted new NDCs. And even with those fresh commitments, the emission gap to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 stays worryingly large. This means that current commitments are not enough to limit global warming to 1.5°C, as agreed upon in Paris six years ago. To date, 46 countries have not submitted any NDCs at all.  

Many deem COP26 as the very last chance to finally get on track for the big goal of reaching net-zero by 2050. An utterly important milestone to reach this goal is the achievement of a 50% emission reduction until 2030. As the year draws to a close, 2030 is only 9 years away! This is not much time for the vast and systemic changes that must happen.  

Time is running out – this is the main reason COP26 must deliver.  

The Presidency of this year’s COP has identified four main goals which have to be achieved:  

1. This goal sets the scene: As already explained, securing net-zero by 2050 is existential to keeping global warming to 1.5°C and thus of utmost importance. 

2. Mobilising finance: The second most important and probably hottest discussed topic at this year’s conference will be finance. In Copenhagen 2009, wealthy countries committed to providing $100 bn annually from 2020 to 2025 in order to help developing countries finance mitigation and adaptation measures. Countries have fallen short of achieving this goal in 2020. Analyses show that global climate finance flows even need to increase substantially in the coming years.  

3. Adaptation and loss and damage are high on the agenda at this year’s conference. As mitigating climate change will not prevent extreme weather events and long-lasting changes in the earth system from happening, countries and communities need to adapt to the new normal, which will likely be an at least 1.5°C warmer world. Additionally, delegates want to find ways to better support communities, which are so severely affected that adaptation is not enough anymore. This falls under the umbrella of loss and damage, where finally meaningful improvements need to be seen. 

4. All stakeholders, including governments, businesses and the civil society must collaborate and work on solutions together in order to let action follow the promises and tackle the challenge lying ahead. Cooperation is key and indispensable. 

Thanks to our study programme’s support, a group of Global Change Ecology students was selected to participate in this year’s COP. We want to thank our coordination, especially Stephanie Thomas, and our head of course, Carl Beierkuhnlein, for providing this incredible opportunity.  

We will try to share as much of our experiences as possible with you, by posting on our Twitter and Instagram accounts and by publishing more extensive insights here on the GCE blog.  

Feel free to reach out to us in case of any enquiries or questions.  

Week 1 attendees: Kelly Heroux, Christoffer Johansson, Theresa Landwehr, Theresia Romann, Katja Scharrer, Selina Scheer, Sandra Schira, Steffen Schwardmann, Marco Thalhofer, Yun-Yun Tsai, Hannah Weishäupl, Carolin Wicke 

Week 2 attendees: Pia Bradler, Alexis Case, Hannah Pepe, Diana Miriam Pineda Fernández, Veronika Schlosser, Éverton Souza da Silva, Eva Späte, Gabriela Vielma, Ana Letitia Vital, Elena Wiese, Manuela Zindler 

The post Global Change Ecology at COP26 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

            This summer, I took part in the Potsdam Summer School (PSS). This science school was cooperatively organized by the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), the Helmholtz-Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and the University of Potsdam in partnership with Geo.X and the City of Potsdam. With the Hydrosphere at its core, the eight day long programme covered climate change, the role of the cryosphere, water as a hazard, the interaction between water, land and humans, hydrological modelling, and oceans, as well as economy, management, governance, and stakeholder engagement.

            Virtually united

            This year was the first time that the PSS occurred in an online format due to the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, I have to say that the PSS was a wonderful experience. One could tell that the whole structure of the summer school was carefully planned to provide all the participants with the best experience possible. And they surely succeeded!

            Personally, I was impressed when I logged in for the first on the SCOOCS platform. There, we had the lectures (already available for us two weeks prior to the event!), the weekly schedule, networking tables, participants profile, and study cases. We had to prepare ourselves beforehand by watching the lectures, reading suggested materials, and making our questions for the discussion sessions. The 2021 edition of the school occurred from August 9^th to August 20^th.

            The eight day event kicked-off with a warm welcome from Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn, scientific director of the IASS. This was followed by an interactive session with Dr. Thomas Bruhn, where we were put in break-out rooms and met our fellow colleagues to talk about ourselves, our backgrounds, and motivations. The afternoon brought a talk by Prof. Dr. Johan Rockström regarding water within planetary boundaries in light of the most recent released IPCC report. We got to have the first meeting of our working groups, to which we were assigned prior to the event.

            I was assigned to the working group about modelling hydrology. Within our working group, we had small lectures which nurtured the discussions in break-out rooms and in the plenary. We also had the opportunity to present our own work related to the study case that we submitted as part of our preparation for the school. This allowed us a place to share our projects, ideas, and different realities, as well as to receive valuable feedback, insights, and suggestions that we could try to implement to further improve our research. At the working groups, we also had the chance to get to know our colleagues further and develop a presentation to be given in the plenary in the last of the school.

            I always was looking forward to the beginning of another day of the summer school. The first moment would always be the welcome and 15-minute interactive session, as well as a moment of reflection within ourselves. After connecting to the others, we began a discussion of the talks. Finally, we joined our working groups. I particularly liked how they structured the programme, the topics covered and how they were presented in light of current research and new technologies. This included bringing awareness to climate change, natural hazards, food-water-energy-ecosystem nexus, international cooperation, and water governance. Another highlight was the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals, how they interact and how they are grounded in four SDGs that are particularly important: SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate action), SDG 14 (Life below water), and SDG 15 (Life on land).

            I feel very grateful for the opportunity to participate in the Potsdam Summer School, for the new knowledge, exchange of information and experience, as well as new insights on current research and even self-discovery. I would like to show my appreciation for everyone that made this summer school possible, and particularly for the organisation team that was always very present, friendly, and helpful. A special shout out to Angela Borowski (IASS) who has always been kind and welcoming to all of us! Thank you!

            There is so much to share about the PSS that a short blog post cannot cover. But you can visit their website (https://potsdam-summer-school.org/ ) and get to know more about the program, the wonderful speakers, and participants of this 2021 PSS Edition. It was a pity that we could not meet in Potsdam for this amazing event, but I myself cannot wait to visit this incredible city! Finally, if you are looking to expand your horizons, have access to current research and networking, I can only recommend this summer school. So, be attentive for the application process that should start in the beginning of next year, good luck, and maybe I will even see you there in 2022(?)!

The post Potsdam Summer School 2021: Water Our Global Common Good appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

In their first-ever collaboration, the IPCC and the IPBES co-sponsored a workshop, bringing 50 climate and biodiversity experts together to study relationships and identify solutions for solving these crises. The result of this meeting was a peer-reviewed workshop report that went live this week! In this blog post, we will discuss some of the workshop’s findings at the intersection of climate, biodiversity, and human society.

Climate-biodiversity-human linkages

How do these factors interplay? Underlying anthropogenic drivers, such as economic production and consumption, give rise to direct impacts like land use change, pollution, and overexploitation of natural systems – all of which contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss. These declines, in turn, can reinforce each other. For instance, climate change effects such as temperature increases, precipitation shifts, or extreme events can cause extinctions and erode ecosystem resilience. Associated biodiversity loss then influences the climate system via changes in nutrient cycling, for example. All of this also gives rise to impacts on human livelihoods and well-being, with consequences to across sectors like public health and food production and security.

Minimal tradeoffs, maximal benefits

Some interventions come with tradeoffs. For instance, a common idea is that the planting of forests stores carbon, thus lowering atmospheric C concentrations and limiting climate change. However, the solution is not quite so simple. Large swaths of monoculture forests can increase the risk of pests and diseases as well as limit productivity and take up space for habitat, damaging biodiversity and ecosystem services. At the same time, solutions exist that can benefit both climate and biodiversity by restoring and protecting carbon- and species-rich ecosystems.

There are ways that we can combine measures in order to both limit tradeoffs and gain benefits. A good example is the use of solar farms to generate clean energy, which is necessary for climate objectives. At the same time, these solar farms use large amounts of land, potentially contributing to the clearing of important habitat. However, by implementing grazing and cropping around panels, we can benefit soil carbon stocks and pollinators, while also providing food (and still gaining clean energy). The integration of climate and biodiversity allow us to support solutions that complement each other by balancing tradeoffs and promoting co-benefits.

Transformative change

It is clear that we need to explicitly consider connections between climate, biodiversity, and people in governance and policy decisions in order to develop the most efficient solutions. However, the report notes that this integration will require transformative change in governance systems and in policies, to support higher levels of intersectoral cooperation and inclusive decision-making as well as to create effective incentives. Ultimately, this coincides with a need for an overall shift in society’s collective values. This can involve, for instance, changing from a focus on “development” defined by ever-increasing economic growth to a focus on just, equitable, and resilient development within planetary boundaries.

For more detailed information on the climate-biodiversity nexus and how this interacts with human well-being, take a look at the full scientific outcome from the workshop!

References:

[1] Pörtner, HO et al. 2021. IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and IPCC. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4782538. Access here, full outcome here.

[2] Images generated by IPCC and IPBES. Access here.

The post Climate and Biodiversity Crises: Two Parts of One Problem appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

CDR methods comprise any technique that intentionally removes CO2 from the atmosphere [4, 5]. With this decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentration, we should see a reduction in the greenhouse effect. This then leads to a stabilization of global mean temperature or even a cooling effect [4], depending on the extent of removal and level of residual emissions. There are two subcategories of CDR methods: biological based solutions, which enhance the natural carbon sequestration of biological systems, and engineering based solutions, which use engineered systems to sequester carbon [4].

What can these methods look like?

An example of biological based CDR methods is ocean fertilization. In this method the biological pump of the ocean is enhanced by adding otherwise limiting nutrients (e.g. iron) to the water [4]. The idea behind this method is that the addition of nutrients leads to increased algae growth, which in turn leads to increased CO2 sequestration by photosynthesis [4]. Since algae are taken up by other organisms, which then release the CO2 by respiration in deeper layers of the ocean, carbon is removed from the surface and stored in deeper layers [4]. However, the effectiveness of ocean fertilization is debated, as not all of the sequestered carbon will be moved to deeper ocean layers and there might be a decrease in productivity and therefor carbon sequestration in neighboring areas of the ocean [4]. Thus, ocean fertilization might just lead to a shift in the location of carbon sequestration, but not an enhancement [4]. Also, this method impacts the whole marine ecosystem with unpredictable and possibly negative side effects [4]. Some authors argue that it is not a viable CDR method due to its sustainability issues and low efficiency [6].

Another biological based CDR method is enhanced weathering. The natural process of rock decomposition sequesters carbon [4]. The aim of enhanced weathering is to speed up this typically slow natural process and thus enhance carbon sequestration [6]. There are several ways this could be done, from enlarging the reactive surface by grinding rocks or spreading minerals in agricultural soil to catalyzing the reaction of rocks and CO2 in chemical engineering plants [4, 6]. Besides capturing carbon, the weathered rocks could also have a fertilizing effect in soils [6]. A downside to these methods lies in the fact that large quantities of minerals would be required in order to sequester a significant amount of CO2, the mining for which would be energy intensive and destructive to ecosystems [4]. Other side effects are hard to predict and would vary depending on the used rock and application site [6]. The sequestration potential of enhanced weathering is estimated to be between 2 and 4 Gt CO2/year by 2050 at a cost of 50 to 200 US$/t CO2 [6]. Up to now, discussions about enhanced weathering have been theoretical and are mainly based on models [6], but the previously mentioned trials in the UK will include a project involving the application of crushed silicate rocks on farmlands [2]. 

An example for an engineered CDR method is the direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). Here, CO2 is directly captured from ambient air and the resulting CO2 stream can either be further processed or stored (e.g., in geological formations) [4, 6]. There are no biophysical constraints to this method and minimal side effects are expected; the limitations come from costs and storage [6]. If these constraints were overcome, this technique would have a high potential [6]. A method very similar to DACCS is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). It basically works the same, but BECCS filters out the CO2 that gets emitted at bioenergy production sites [4]. At these locations, the CO2 concentration is higher than in ambient air, making the filtering process easier. However, this method comes with the limitations and side effects of bioenergy production by biomass, which requires large areas of land and induces land use change and associated emissions [6]. For both DACCS and BECCS, a potential of 0.5 to 5 Gt CO2/year by 2050 is estimated [6]. In terms of cost, BECCS is estimated to be slightly cheaper (100 – 200 US$/t CO2) than DACCS (100 – 300 US$/t CO2) [6]. Small-scale pilot projects already exist for both methods, but upscaling is still needed for wide-spread applications.

The role of CDR in tackling climate change

The methods discussed above are just a few examples for CDR methods, but they already show that more research and upscaling is necessary in order to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Yet, given that our carbon budget is very limited, CDR methods are an important tool to achieve the Paris agreement goals – in fact, they are a substantial part of most 1.5 °C consistent pathways in the IPCC report [5, 6, 7]. CDR methods function to attain net negative emissions to come back to 1.5 °C after an overshoot and/or to offset residual emissions in these pathways [7]. The IPCC models mostly consider BECCS or afforestation/reforestation as CDR methods only, as the other methods are not understood well enough yet [7]. According to the IPCC, between 100 and 1.000 Gt CO2 need to be captured by CDR methods by the end of the century for 1.5 °C consistent pathways with no or low overshoot [7]. If only BECCS is considered, the implementation would have to reach a potential of up to 8 Gt CO2/year by 2050 and double that by 2100 [7], which might not be possible. Using several CDR methods on a smaller scale might be better than using one method on a large scale, because this way the limitations and side effects could be minimized [5]. It also should be mentioned that estimations of potentials of different CDR methods are debated and represent a current area of research. There has been a study that found that BECCS, DACCS, enhanced weathering and ocean liming could theoretically remove sufficient CO2 from the atmosphere separately from another to keep within the 1.5 °C target [8]. But the authors also argue that it is likely not possible to implement the methods in time to achieve this goal, as more research and a global infrastructure as well as coordinated governance is needed for their large-scale application [8].  

Due to their slow-acting nature, CDR methods cannot be seen as emergency solutions to climate change, but rather as complementary to conventional mitigation strategies [4, 5, 7]. We should also not solely rely on these methods, as they do have unpredictable and adverse side effects [6] and assume that we fully understand the carbon cycle and can influence it [5]. However, the less we reduce our emissions now, the more we will rely on CDR methods in the future [5].

References:

[1] Neate R. 2021. Elon Musk pledges $100m to carbon capture contest. The Guardian. Access here.

[2] UK Research and Innovation. 2021. UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal. Access here.

[3] Carrington D. 2021. Trials to suck carbon dioxide from the air to start across the UK. The Guardian. Access here.

[4] The Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. RS Policy document 10/09. The Royal Society, London, UK. 82pp. Access here.

[5] Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartemann J, Khanna T, Lenzi D, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vincente JLV, Wilcox J, Dominguez MMZ. 2018. Negative emissions – Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters 13: 063001. Access here.

[6] Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, Dominguez MMZ, Minx JC. 2018. Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters 13: 063002. Access here.

[7] IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds.)]. In Press. Access here.

[8] Lawrence MG, Schäfer S, Muri H, Scott V, Oschlies A, Vaughan NE, Boucher O, Schmidt H, Haywood J, Scheffran J. 2018. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nature Communications 9: 3734. Access here.

Cover image: By Ralf Vetterle on Pixabay. Access here.

The post Carbon dioxide removal – Part of the solution to climate change? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.