Various Events at COP26

The COP conference is divided into Blue Zone and Green Zone. While the Blue Zone is only accessible for accredited participants, the Green Zone is open to the public. Within the Blue Zone, several negotiations and side events are taking place. They’re designated into either open or closed meetings. The closed meetings are not open to the observers, but this group can participate in open meetings with the compliance of the Covid-19 Code of Conduct. On the 1st and 2nd of November, UNFCCC launched a ticket system for NGO badge holders in light of the capacity limit in different negotiation rooms. The ticket collection process was very chaotic and confusing in the beginning, given that no one had experience with this pandemic-specific rule before and the organizers did not communicate instructions adequately. The ticket system was lifted after the World Leaders Summit; however, every negotiation room allows only for one representative from nine different NGO constituencies. The University of Bayreuth belongs to RINGO (Research and Independent NGOs), and it is highly recommended to attend the RINGO coordination meetings every morning for scheduling, as well as added information for any special events that take place and need to adopt the ticket system again.  

Apart from the negotiation and consultation for the technical details in the Agreements, there is a broad range of events organized by the UNFCCC secretariat and different pavilions. Some parties and organizations have their own pavilion, while some share with others. The pavilions provide a space for networking, experience sharing, panel discussions, and open dialogue between participants and experts. It’s very interesting to wander around different pavilions and see various projects and initiatives coming from the bottom-up. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that some of the host organizations are trying to promote certain ideas, so the messages that they deliver can be quite one-sided. On the other hand, the official side events from UNFCCC include different voices from various groups. It was more interesting for us to attend different side events and listen to both affirmative and negative sides.

Achievements in the first week

COP26 was kick-started by the World Leaders Summit on Monday. After the first week of negotiations, four main commitments were made in COP26:

1. 134 countries, covering 91% of the world’s forests, agreed to halt deforestation and land degradation by 2030.
2. 103 countries signed up for the Global Methane Pledge to cut 30% of methane emissions by 2030.
3. 40 countries have signed up for the Glasgow Breakthroughs, aiming to make green technologies affordable, accessible, and attractive globally by 2030. It focuses on five polluted sectors, including power, road transport, steel, hydrogen, and agriculture.
4. Over 450 of the world’s largest banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and many more finance-related institutions have committed to the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). Signatories have committed to reporting on the annual carbon emissions related to their investments. The alliance does not include requirements to divest from fossil fuels, for example. In total, a sum of $ 130 trillion is covered under GFANZ, an equivalent of 40% of global GDP.

In addition to that, individual countries also ramped up their ambitions and made new commitments to curb carbon emission and mobilize climate finance. For example, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi pledged to net zero by 2070. Additionally, new commitments came from the United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Australia, Norway, Ireland, and Luxembourg related to climate finance, contributing to closing the gap and probably delivering the promised $100 billion to developing countries every year by 2023.

Making progress but still not enough

We are witnessing progress at COP26. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that temperature will rise 1.8 degrees if all the updated targets and pledges on the table are met. Before COP26, the climate action tracker projected that we are on a warming trajectory of  2.7 ℃. From 2.7  ℃ to 1.8  ℃ is great progress, but it’s still not enough. The latest IPCC report clearly stated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have largely changed the climate system and are directly linked to extreme weather hazards. Each additional degree of warming will no doubt increase and magnify natural disasters and might induce some devasting compound extreme events. It’s the code red for humanity. For many geographically vulnerable and least economically developed countries, 1.5 ℃ does not represent a choice but  a right to survival.

Moreover, most climate finance flows into projects that reduce carbon emissions instead of helping people adapt to the new climate. Adaptation accounts for less than 10 % of the global landscape of climate finance. Wealthy countries favor mitigation projects because success is easier and measurable. Another reason is that mitigation projects can be loan-based and the return is foreseen. If the world leaders can’t fix the disproportionate difference between mitigation and adaptation, it’s clear that climate justice still takes a distant back seat. Another uncertainty we must keep in mind is how the leaders bring their commitments back home and implement them in policies and laws. How to keep countries accountable would rely on the various mechanisms in the Paris Agreement, such as the ratchet mechanism and global stocktake. Much more technical details must be discussed in the second week. Thus, we should not be satisfied with the current outcomes. The more we get comfort from our achievement, the closer we get to failure. 

The post COP26 Summary of Week 1 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.

As malnutrition has been identified as a serious health-related problem affecting developed and developing countries around the world alike, the United Nations (UN) has named the time between 2016 and 2025 the Decade of Action on Nutrition [1]. With the aim of reducing global malnutrition as well as diet-related non-communicable diseases by 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have set clear targets throughout the Second International Conference on Nutrition. The beginning of the Decade of Action on Nutrition coincides with the implementation of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which were adopted in 2015 and came into force in 2016. Within the framework of the SDGs, the UN aims to end hunger by 2030, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture (SDG 2). Additionally, the UN aims to ensure healthy lives and promote global well-being for people at all ages (SDG 3) [2]. To achieve these goals, the WHO has implemented a nutrition strategy to ensure access to healthy and sustainably grown diets on a global scale.

These strategies and goals come in pressing times, as malnutrition is affecting people worldwide. It occurs in various forms, the four most relevant including: wasting, which refers to a low weight-for height ratio; stunting, referring to a low height-for-age ratio; underweight, meaning a low weight-for-age ratio; and obesity, which occurs when a person is too heavy for their height [1]. Current estimates indicate that about 8.9 percent of the world population are suffering from hunger, while one in ten people in the world are exposed to severe levels of food insecurity [2]. The highest proportion of undernourished people can be found in Asian countries, directly followed by many African nations. Hunger has increased over the last five years, with 462 million adults being underweight globally (2021) [1]. Children under the age of 5 are at particular risk of long-lasting effects due to early childhood malnutrition. Around 7% of children in this age category suffer from acute under-nutrition [3], and 45% of deaths among children under 5 years of age are in one way or another linked to under-nutrition [1]. Stunting in young children has decreased globally by 11% compared to 2000; however, an alarming 22% are still affected by it [3]. Little to no progress has been made regarding wasting, which continues to affect around 7% of children around the world [3].

In terms of number of people affected, obesity, or over-nutrition, seems to be the bigger issue, with numbers almost tripling since 1975. 1.9 billion adults (2016), 340 million adolescents (2016) and roughly 39 million children below the age of 5 years are currently overweight or obese (2021) [4], with numbers rising slowly but steadily. This means that over-nutrition affects around 6% of children under 5 years of age [3]. Over-nutrition affects developed and developing countries alike and is a reason for concern in many low- and middle-income countries, as they face the double burden of under- and over-nutrition. The main reason for obesity in developing countries is the cheap availability of high-fat, high-sugar but oftentimes nutrient-poor foods combined with low physical activity [5]. Therefore, while under-nutrition affects mostly developing countries, over-nutrition can affect both developed and developing nations.

Where does our food come from now?

The highest share of exported agricultural products, amounting to $118 billion (2021) [6], comes from the United States of America. Major crops for export include corn, soybean, and wheat. The US is followed by the Netherlands ($79 billion, although mostly in flowers and live plants), Germany ($71 billion through organic products especially) [7], France ($68 billion through mostly wheat, sugar, wine, and beef) [8] and Brazil ($55 billion through soybeans, meat, sugar, coffee, corn, and fruit) [9] (2021). It is projected that international food trade will become even more important in the future. With rising temperatures, the global food system will also continue to become more exposed to the effects of climate change [10].

Climate change projections on terrestrial food supply

Estimates show that from 1980 to 2011, climate change reduced global maize and wheat production by approximately 5%. If we fail to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and instead steer towards a 4°C warming by the end of the century, models suggest that there will be a 25% reduction of maize and a 15% reduction of corn by 2100 [10]. The CO₂ fertilization effect, possibly beneficial for plant growth, is already included in these calculations.

This decrease of food production goes along with a predicted increasing demand for agricultural products due to a growing world population. Additionally, most of this population growth is projected to happen in regions that already experience high levels of malnutrition or food scarcity, such as many African and Asian countries [11]. Moreover, the stress on food supply will be exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. It must be noted at this point that predictions around climate change impacts have a great spatial variability. This means that some regions, like more northern latitudes, could profit from those changes (through more suitable growing conditions, for example), while the changes are likely to result in a loss of agricultural productivity in other regions.

Especially tropical areas will experience a decline in yields (Figure 2) [11]. Many of those regions, like some African countries, will thus face a three-part challenge: first, present high levels of malnutrition; second, a projected population growth; and third, significant yield losses caused by global warming.

On the bright side, more and more agricultural products are part of the global food trade system, which has the power to balance supply shortages in one country by providing food exports from another country. Nevertheless, climate change can and will also increase pressure on international food trade through increased climate variability and more frequent extreme events [10].

An example for the effects of extreme weather on international food trade could be observed back in 2010. In 2010, Russia was struck by an unprecedented heat wave, with July temperatures climbing to the highest values in 130 years. The heat wave was accompanied by numerous wildfires leading to 17% of total Russian crop area being affected by severe heat or fires [12]. With Russia being the 4^th largest wheat exporter and accounting for 14% of global wheat trade, the extreme weather thus had severe effects on the international food market. International grain prices increased as soon as news about a reduced grain production in Russia due to the heat wave were released. In order to protect local customers and ensure food security, the Russian government imposed an export ban on wheat, barley, and rye from August 2010 on, which lasted until July 2011 [12, 13]. Consequently, Russia’s wheat exports dropped by almost 40 % from 2009 to 2010 [13]. This export ban had drastic implications on the importing countries. For example, Russia’s fourth biggest wheat customer, Pakistan, saw 16% higher wheat prices and a 1.6% increase in poverty during this period [12]. According to some studies, the Russian export ban on grain products played a decisive role in the Arab spring, which started in December 2010 in Egypt. The country obtains roughly 50% of its grain supply from Russia and the export stop of grain led to riots and violence on the streets, with people protesting against the increasing prices for food which they were struggling to afford at that time [12, 13].

Under the influence of climate change, extreme events like the Russian heat wave in 2010 are likely to happen more often in future decades. A study by Kornhuber et al. (2020) has shown that with increasing global temperatures, atmospheric dynamics will change, which will lead to a stronger meandering of the jet-stream and more persistent Rossby waves. These changes will mainly impact the northern mid-latitudes, which are often considered as breadbasket regions, given that they export a great share of their agricultural produce [14]. With an increasing share of global food production moving away from regions with the highest projected population growth and towards more northern latitudes, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events threatens the global food system [10].

Considering the above-mentioned effects that result from rising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming, agriculture and the whole food production system need to adapt and change. This gets even clearer, when keeping in mind that without major changes, the agricultural sector alone would exceed the total global carbon budget to limit global warming to below 1.5°C by the end of the century [15].

Direct effects of CO2 on crops

Rising CO₂ levels not only affect temperature and our earth’s climate, but also have an influence on crops. One could argue that a higher CO₂ level in the atmosphere would simply act as a natural fertilizer by increasing plant growth – and therefore could be considered as something positive for the overall food production and food security. Unfortunately, this is oversimplified and remains a common myth. Clearly, higher concentrations of CO₂ are acknowledged for stimulating plant photosynthesis and growth [16]. However, this is only the case as long as nothing else changes. Higher CO₂ levels in the atmosphere not only affect the plant available water and available CO₂, but also temperature, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and more. Therefore, the direct impacts of increased atmospheric CO₂ are likely to be extremely complex. Furthermore, the effects are not only complex, but vary greatly from region to region and from one kind of farming to another [17]. Therefore, it is hard for studies to reveal the concrete outcome for the direct effects of CO₂ in the atmosphere on agriculture.

For example, in the case of wheat in Europe, higher CO₂ levels in the atmosphere and associated higher temperature could extend the growing season. This is especially the case for regions where temperature is the limiting factor. It is estimated that the growing season is lengthened by about 10 days per degree Celsius [18] if the mean annual temperature increase remains under 3 degrees Celsius. Increases that are higher than 3 degrees Celsius are likely to be problematic and to limit the growing season again, because the increased evapotranspiration rate leads to decreased crop-water availability.

Besides crop growth and quantity, which can be enhanced by higher CO₂ levels under certain conditions, crop quality is also an important issue. Crop quality refers to the amounts of nutrients, as well as the composition between carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. A protein and nutrient deficiency can be especially problematic when it comes to food quality.

Studies revealed that important minerals like iron and zinc are decreasing in legumes and C3 crops (e.g., wheat, soybeans, oats, rice) [17]. This is critical, since many people all over the world rely on those crops as their primary source for iron and zinc. Furthermore, studies revealed that also the protein content is decreasing with elevated CO₂ levels. These elevated CO₂ levels can reduce the nutritional quality of staple crops. Crops with higher carbohydrate conditions and less protein content as well as less mineral content could be part of our future under climate change.

Especially a deficiency in zinc and iron, which some regions already struggle with, will continue to grow into an even bigger problem in the future. Countries that are already affected by nutrient deficiency will be disproportionately more affected in the future [19]. These deficiencies in iron and zinc can lead to human health issues. A deficiency in zinc for example can lead to a weaker immune system, which makes the human body more vulnerable to infections. A good immune system is always important, but in times of a global pandemic it has an even higher priority. Therefore, good quality crops are important for overall human health across the world.

Genetically modified seeds

Periods of dryness, heavy rain, and other extreme events have a direct impact on crop growth and agriculture. Furthermore, new invasive insect species due to climate change or new crop diseases hit the agricultural sector and global food security hard. Therefore, the demand is high to genetically modify seeds in a such a way that they can better tolerate dry conditions and stress. These seeds that are modified in their DNA are called genetically modified seeds. The degree to which the seeds are modified varies, but all modifications have the same goal: make the seeds more adaptable to certain environmental circumstances.

Currently, soy, maize, cotton, and canola are the top four crops which are seeded in genetically modified versions [18]. The most induced traits are herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. There are also other experiments with crops to make them more resistant to drier soils. Having crops that are more resilient when it comes to water stress could be beneficial in the face of climate change. Having genetically modified crops that are more insect resistant could also reduce the amount of pesticides used by farmers.

There is no clear statement on whether the consumption of genetically modified seeds is good or bad for human health. However, there are concerns, not only from an ethical point of view. To control and supervise every impact that a genetically modified seed has on the plant, on the soil, or on the consumer is a complex and hard to achieve task. Many environmental organizations, like the BUND, have strong concerns about growing genetically modified seeds because the overall impacts of the modifications are not clear yet. In summary, genetically modified seeds may help to keep up food production in the face of climate change. But the question of whether this is the only solution to provide a high level of global food security remains.

Climate change and its impacts on oceanic fisheries

Not only the food on our lands is in danger due to climate change but also that in our oceans. Oceans absorb 93% of the heat that accumulates in the earth’s atmosphere and a quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitted by fossil fuels, making them important players in climate dynamics. Temperature variations, acidification, deoxygenation, and changes in currents are all effects of climate change on marine ecosystems. These impacts can alter the distribution of fish stocks and the food they consume. Furthermore, these stocks face over-fishing and other anthropogenic pressures. To preserve our oceans and maintain fish populations, we must move towards sustainable fishing. To manage fishing sustainably, it is also necessary to adapt to the challenges that climate change presents [20].

In the last 30 years, marine heatwaves are thought to have increased by more than 50%. Ocean temperatures are expected to rise by 1-4°C globally by 2100 [21]. Marine life is being damaged by these changes. Temperature spikes and acidity can result in the decline or death of marine environments and species. The distribution of fish stocks and the structure of ecosystems are changing because of shifting ocean currents and warming seas. It is predicted that the tropics will see a 40% decrease of oceanic life by 2050; on the other hand, some areas in North Atlantic and North Pacific are witnessing some increases in the range of some fish species [22].

Many people around the world rely on fish as a significant source of food and livelihood. According to FAO, 3.3 billion people acquire at least 20% of their daily protein intake from fish. Moreover, 39 million people are employed for wild capture of fishing and 37% of people living in coastal communities are directly employed in the fishing industry. Notably, half of the traded sea food comes from developing nations. Asia accounted for 85% of the global population involved in fisheries and aquaculture, followed by Africa (9%) and the Americas (4%) in 2018 [23]. With the increase of anthropogenic influence on oceanic activities, the potential for negative consequences for people, species, and marine habitats increases. The more sustainable our fishing becomes, the more vulnerable populations as well as future generations will benefit from food security and a stable livelihood in a well-functioning ecosystem.

One example of a human-induced disaster with negative consequences for ecology and for the people dependent on it as a source of food supply and livelihood is the Aral Sea case. The situation started in 1960s, as the Soviet Union diverted Amu Darya and Syr Darya, the two major inflows of Aral Sea. The blockage of the water source, combined with high summer temperatures of 60ºC at lake’s location in the Turkestan Desert, led to an increase in the salinity of water from 1% to 10% and a shrinkage of lake area by 10% from its original size. By 2007, the aquatic life could no longer thrive. The two river deltas’ wetlands, as well as their accompanying ecosystems, largely vanished. The shoreline has shrunk to 10km inside the former lake shore, and the surface of the water body is more saline.  With the fish gone and ecosystems vastly altered, local communities have no longer been able to rely on the sea as a significant source of livelihood and resources. Additionally, due to the lack of moisture and the loss of most of the lake’s moderating influence, the regional climate is drier, with more severe temperature extremes. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns, causing a variety of respiratory illnesses.

As we can see, global food supply is already at risk, but will be subjected to further stress due to anthropogenically induced climate change as it alters atmospheric CO₂ balances, causes heavier and more frequent extreme events, and affects temperature and precipitation patterns. This will have detrimental consequences on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 3, as it will exacerbate hunger and insecurity in developing countries and put the health of populations across the world at risk. Mitigating climate change is of utmost priority and will help save millions of lives.

[1] WHO. (2021). Fact sheets – Malnutrition. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition.

[2] UN. (2021). Food. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/food.

[3] WHO. (2021). The UNICEF/WHO/WB Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates (JME) group released new data for 2021. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/06-05-2021-the-unicef-who-wb-joint-child-malnutrition-estimates-group-released-new-data-for-2021.

[4] WHO. (2021). Obesity and overweight. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and overweight.

[5] WHO. (2020). Malnutrition. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/malnutrition.

[6] Simpson, S. D. (2021, May). Top Agricultural Producing Countries. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx. 

[7] ITA. (2019). Germany – Agricultural Sectors. export.gov. https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=Germany-Agricultural-Sectors.

[8] Nations Encyclopedia. (2007). France – Agriculture. Encyclopedia of the Nations. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/France-AGRICULTURE.html#:~:text=France%20is%20one%20of%20the,among%20the%20chief%20agricultural%20imports.

[9] Pham, N. (2017, June). U.S. Agricultural Export Opportunities in Brazil. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/us-agricultural-export-opportunities-brazil#:~:text=Top%20agricultural%20exports%20include%20soybeans,soybeans%20after%20the%20United%20States.

[10] Myers, S. (2020). Food and Nutrition on a Rapidly Changing Planet. In: Myers, S. & Frumkin, H. (2020). Planetary Health – Protecting Nature to Protect Ourselves. Island Press. DOI: https//doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-966-1

[11] Wheeler, T.; von Braun, J. (2013). Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science 341(6245). DOI: 10.1126/science.1239402

[12] Welton, G. (2011). The Impact of Russia’s 2010 Grain Export Ban. Oxfam Research Reports. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/impact-russias-2010-grain-export-ban (last visited: 21.07.2021)

[13] Johnstone, S.; Mazo, J. (2011). Global Warming and the Arab Spring. Survival 53(2). DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571006

[14] Kornhuber, K., Coumou, D., Vogel, E. et al. (2020). Amplified Rossby waves enhance risk of concurrent heatwaves in major breadbasket regions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0637-z

[15] Macdiarmid, J., & Whybrow, S. (2019). Nutrition from a climate change perspective. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 78(3), 380-387. doi:10.1017/S0029665118002896

[16] Beach, R. H., Sulser, T. B., Crimmins, A., Cenacchi, N., Cole, J., Fukagawa, N. K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Myers, S., Sarofim, M. C., Smith, M., & Ziska, L. H. (2019). Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study. The Lancet. Planetary health, 3(7), e307–e317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30094-4

[17] Ebi, K., Ziska, L. (2018). Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide: Anticipated negative effects on food quality. Plos Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002600

[18] Parry, M. L. 1990. Climate change and world agriculture. Routledge.

[19] Toreti, A., Deryng, D., Tubiello, F. N., Müller, C., Kimball, B. A., Moser, G., … & Rosenzweig, C. (2020). Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated co 2 on crops. Nature Food, 1(12), 775-782.

[20] Botana, L. M., Louzao, M. C., & Vilarino, N. (Eds.). (2015). Climate change and marine and freshwater toxins. de Gruyter.

[21] Smale, D.A., Wernberg, T., Oliver, E.C.J. et al. (2019). Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0412-1

[22] Cheung, W. W., Lam, V. W., Sarmiento, J. L., Kearney, K., Watson, R. E. G., Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (2010). Large‐scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology, 16(1), 24-35.

[23] UNFAO, SOFIA 2020. FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofia/en/

The post Climate Change and its Impact on Global Food Supply and Nutrition appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The coronavirus pandemic has affected societies, governments and economies across the world. Due to the numerous restrictions put in place to deal with this health crisis, many businesses are struggling, and layoffs are unavoidable in some areas. These pandemic restrictions have led to a temporary decrease in carbon emissions which has unexpectedly caused some countries like Germany to reach their emission goals in 2020 [1]. Nevertheless, the reduction of emissions is just a snapshot and not a long-term trend, proved by countries like the UK that have seen a rapid increase in carbon emissions after the lockdown has been lifted [2]. Unfortunately, the drop in emissions caused by the pandemic will only result in a 0.01 °C decrease in temperatures – which is well within natural variability [3].

In the face of a global recession, governments used stimulus packages to support affected business sectors to maintain employment or create new jobs. Simultaneously, the pressing challenge of tackling climate is more relevant than ever with 2020 being among the hottest years ever recorded [4]. There was great demand from scientists to include environmental and climatic conditions in the stimulus packages seeing the pandemic as a green rebound chance. The considerable spending during the time of crisis will have long-term effects on the structure of economies.

In this brief report, green stimulus packages are explained and connections to the 2009 financial crisis, where a green rebound was under discussion already, are shown. Next, the current stimulus packages of the G20 countries – which account for roughly 75 % of global carbon emissions [5] – are analysed according to their greenness and effectiveness to mitigate climate change. In conclusion, we deliver recommendations which stimulus measures prove the highest chances for tackling both the coronavirus pandemic, the economic downturn caused hereby and climate change.

Financial Crisis Stimulus Packages 2009

During the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2008-09, carbon emissions reduced sharply, but already by 2010, emissions reached a record level [6]. This increase could be explained by the fiscal measures governments worldwide implemented to stimulate economies, which were rather designed to revive the existing economies than considering the environmental consequences.  Although the recession caused by COVID-19 differs from the GFC, as a broader range of sectors is currently affected, some lessons could be learned from the last efforts of recovery [7]. The knowledge gained over a decade ago should be used to design recovery packages with a green stimulus to prevent a negative environmental impact like the one in 2009. Especially as COVID-19 spending with more than USD12 trillion to date [7] outsizes the GFC measures, which comprised approximately USD3 trillion [8].

Analysing the green stimulus of GFC recovery packages, 17.1 % of G20 public spending was dedicated to the support of renewable energy, energy efficiency and pollution control [9]. Those measures mostly focused on reducing carbon emissions while nature and biodiversity have been particularly neglected. One crucial finding emerges regarding the timeframe of the measures. After the economy began recovering in 2010, there has been no green expenditure of comparable size in any country, which suggests that short term policies are not sufficient for structural transformation of economies.

Moreover, a comparison of the stimulus types implemented in different countries shows an advantage of targeted policies as supporting green R&D investment over spending on large-scale infrastructure projects. As the limited success of the GFC recovery packages reveals, public spending alone cannot build up a sustainable economy. For this reason, various authors highlight the importance of pricing carbon and environmental damages [9]. A more general lesson learnt from the GFC crisis is that proper policy design is necessary to prevent environmentally harmful rebound effects [10].

Current Stimulus Packages

The amount of money spent by G20 governments on stimulus packages until December 2020 varies widely. Figure 1 shows per capita fiscal stimulus spending and per capita CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, the GSI of those stimulus packages is displayed. Interestingly, most countries that spend little money on stimulus packages have a very low GSI index, indicating that sustainability and climate-friendly measures are not implemented. One reason could be that some of those countries still heavily depend on fossil energy sources like coal (China), natural gas (Russia) and crude oil (Saudi Arabia) and thus are not willing to engage in green recovery measures.

Moving Forward

Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, an 8% reduction of CO₂ occurred. This reduction puts us within the 7.6% of global yearly reduction that the UNFCCC says are required between 2020 and 2030 to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C – and achieve the Paris agreement [7]. Therefore, in the effort to mitigate anthropogenic climate change the fight against COVID-19 must be used as a turning point in the climate discussion [14]. As a result of the unprecedented year of 2020, we have seen that change is possible. This is our chance to move forward as the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has cast a light on many of the systemic issues long ignored while also showing some potential solution [15].

The effects of the pandemic are striking, in fact, global energy demand was estimated to decrease by 6% in 2020 which was not only seven times what was seen after the 2008-2009 economic crisis, but it was also the first major decrease seen since World War II (Figure 2) [14]. The pandemic effectively demonstrated that many of the “dirtier industries” and fossil fuels were not resilient in the pandemic, seeing large economic losses [14, 16]. As many experts argue, this weakening of the power of fossil fuels and changes in norm creates the perfect time to transition away for these industries [3, 14, 15, 16]. This change is enabled further by the USD 9 trillion pledged by governments to combat the economic situation – which on average accounted for 7% of a countries GDP [17]. Experts argue that if used effectively these packages can bring us out of the pandemic and minimize the effects of climate change at the same time [16]. This is the case because the stimuli have more lasting impacts than regular discretionary spending [14].

Seeing these recovery packages as a tool to fight anthropogenic climate change is essential because of their potential to lock us into a more sustainable renewable energy-based future rather than continue reinforcing the statuesque [18]. For packages to be effective at dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and being climate-friendly, the International Energy Agency put forward some recommendations [5]. It provided a sustainable recovery plan to implement in the next 3 years (2021-2023). If implemented the annual energy related GHG emissions would be 4.5 billion tones lower in 2023 making 2019 the peak of global emission and would put us on the path of reaching Paris targets while also creating 1.1% of economic growth globally each year while creating 9 million jobs. The areas they recommended to focus investments in were: increasing energy efficiency of buildings and manufacturing, fostering low carbon electricity and transportation, and innovation. Therefore, creating jobs, increases in economic growth and a better future are all compatible and not at odds.

Conclusion

Moving forward, we are essentially at a crossroads of what to do, we can pick one of several emission scenarios as seen in Figure 3. Where we can recover with green stimuli, fossil fuels, or have a 2-year blip due to COVID-19 restrictions and then a return to normal [5]. These scenarios have very different implications for the future of the planet. Since governments are already investing so heavily into their economies now is the perfect time to lock in a more resilient and sustainable future, one that creates new jobs and opportunities, rather than repeat the mistakes of the past. In effect, as we fight to “get back to normal” it is essential to ask what normal do we want?

References

[1] DW (2021). Deutschland übertrifft wegen Corona Klimaziel 2020. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/de/deutschland-%C3%BCbertrifft-wegen-corona-klimaziel-2020/a-56121979 (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[2] Harvey, F. (2020). Surprisingly rapid rebound in carbon emissions post-lockdown. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/11/carbon-emissions-in-surprisingly-rapid-surge-postlockdown (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[3] Forster, P. M., Forster, H. I., Evans, M. J., Gidden, M. J., Jones, C. D., Keller, C. A., … & Turnock, S. T. (2020). Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nature Climate Change, 10(10), 913-919.

[4] Yulsman, T. (2020). Has 2020 Ended as the Warmest Year on Record?. Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/will-2020-end-as-the-warmest-year-on-record (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[5] Godinho, C. et al. (2020). The Climate Transparency Report 2020. Climate Transparency. https://www.climate-transparency.org/g20-climate-performance/the-climate-transparency-report-2020 (last visited: 05.01.2021)

 [6] Cassim, Z. et al. (2020). The $10 trillion rescue: How governments can deliver impact. McKinsey&Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-10-trillion-dollar-rescue-how-governments-can-deliver-impact# (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[7] Hepburn, C. et al. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36(S1).

[8] Robins, N. et al. (2009). A Climate for Recovery. The colour of stimulus goes green. HSBC Bank plc. https://www.globaldashboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/HSBC_Green_New_Deal.pdf (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[9] Barbier, E. B. (2020). Greening the Post-Pandemic Recovery in the G20. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76:685-703.

 [10] Agrawala, S., D. Dussaux and N. Monti (2020), “What policies for greening the crisis response and economic recovery?: Lessons learned from past green stimulus measures and implications for the COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 164, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c50f186f-en

[11] Vivid Economics (2020).  Greenness of Stimulus Index. An assessment of COVID-19 stimulus by G20 countries and other major economies in relation to climate action and biodiversity goals. https://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/201214-GSI-report_December-release.pdf (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[12] Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Solazzo, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J.G.J., Vignati, E., Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries – 2020 Report, EUR 30358 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21515-8, doi:10.2760/143674, JRC121460.

[13] United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Populations Prospects 2019. Total Population – Both Sexes. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ (last visited: 13.01.2021)

[14] Mukanjari, S., & Sterner, T. (2020). Charting a “green path” for recovery from COVID-19. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 825-853.

[15] Benach, J. (2020). We Must Take Advantage of This Pandemic to Make a Radical Social Change: The Coronavirus as a Global Health, Inequality, and Eco-Social Problem. International Journal of Health Services, 0020731420946594.

[16] IEA (2020), Renewables 2020, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 (Last visited 11.01.2021)

[17] IEA (2020), Sustainable Recovery, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery(Last visited 13.01.2021)

[18] Jagers S.C., Harring, N., Lofgren, A. et al. 2020. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Journal of the Human Environment 49(2):1282-1296

[19] G20 (2021). https://www.g20.org/en/index.html (last visited: 17.01.2021)

The post How to Tackle Climate Change with Green COVID-19 Recovery Packages appeared first on Global Change Ecology.