I hope you are well!

For a few months now, the entire world has been experiencing isolation, a passive yet active fight to be safe, to protect the ones we care about, the ones we don’t even know and the ones working in the front lines – all staff from the health care system. We wonder, we have anxiety, we check every day for information to verify if the corona curve is decreasing, and we hope that the odds be ever in our favour. We are living in a historical moment, a pandemic that makes us reflect on ourselves, our world and our role as capable agents of change. Despite trying to carry on with our daily routines, that curve repeatedly comes to the forefront of our minds! Has that ever happened to you? Or is it just me? Indeed, we are mainly talking about the corona curve, but there is another curve that also concerns us.

In 1798, Thomas Malthus, an English renowned economist, wrote a book entitled “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. In this book, he addresses many subjects about human beings, their mindset, society, economy, resources and even issues of the heart. But the first and principal thesis of what his book is about is, as he well states, the great concern that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”. Meaning that as population grows in a geometrical ratio (exponential now) and subsistence (resources) is produced in an arithmetical ratio, the system will more than likely collapse! Does that sound familiar?

Currently, people everywhere have been asked to #StayAtHome, #BleibZuhause, and governments have decreed the quarantine as a measure of containment. These efforts are not only for people to not get contaminated by the coronavirus, but also because the health care system has a LIMITED capacity to support a determined number of sick people. It is the same with our planet. Planet Earth is a whole system that has FINITE resources, a limited support capacity, where the Law of Conservation of Mass, highlighted by Antoine Lavoisier in 1789, conducts the harmony of Earth’s Symphony as nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed.

As many individuals seek to have their personal needs met, lacking awareness towards others, neither to the planet’s finite system and not even to future generations, we are led to the “Tragedy of the commons” as discoursed by Garrett Hardin in 1968. In his article, Hardin uses the analogy of a pasture open to all herdsman, who will try to maintain the highest number of their cattle there. At first, the pasture is able to provide the needs of the cattle. However, as years pass by, the “day of the reckoning” comes. Hardin defines that day as the time when each herdsman seeks to maximise his profits, so he adds more cattle to the pasture. And it only takes one person for the others to follow. As they add more cattle, the pasture finally reaches a tipping point, being unable to provide further resources.

Planet Earth could be considered the pasture in the tragedy of the commons. Then, the “herdsmen” refer to both each individual as well as the companies and the production system that exist within. The arguments of Malthus (1798) and Hardin (1968) focus on population growth and human reproduction, which led to the conclusion of “the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed”. This is because, as Hardin states: “a finite world can support only a finite population: therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero”. (Calm down! Stop the conspiracy theories about eliminating a percentage of the world’s population! We are not in an Avengers movie and Thanos doesn’t exist!).

Back to reality…  It is a fact that the planet cannot sustain so many people, and the situation will be aggravated even more if the population continues to grow at an exponential rate. Besides the population, the pressure on natural resources is intensified highly by the production system that overexploits them. A system that harvests in destruction, expendability and unceasing exploration, resulting in a considerable alteration of the environment, extinction and pollution. Our lifestyles are a by-product of the consumerism culture that we live in and of this exacerbated production system.

Therefore, to flatten the exploitation of natural resources curve – that surpasses the limited support capacity of the planet –, a development founded in sustainability is crucial. There are several roles in this game. We, as consumers, have a voice to demand, choose and re-think how much we consume and the responsibility to act in favour of the planet. In 1968, Hardin said: “Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed”. I will leave you here with some food for thought: Have you ever questioned your lifestyle? How much do you really need? Are you ready to flatten the curve?

We only have one Earth. How many planets are required to support your current lifestyle? The answer for this can be discovered by calculating the Ecological Footprint on the link below:

https://www.footprintcalculator.org/

            Let us know about your results and thoughts on the comments section!

            All the best!

References:

The Tragedy of the Commons:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/162/3859/1243.full.pdf.

Thomas Malthus:

http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf

The post Earth’s Support Capacity: Flatten the curve, save the world? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

This situation could happen soon. In May 2018, the EU has announced to ban certain single-use plastic items. These include: plastic cutlery, plastic dishes, plastic straws, plastic drink stirrers, plastic cotton buds and plastic mounts for air balloons. Single-use drinks containers will only be allowed to be sold if their caps are attached permanently so that they don’t fall off and lie around if people don’t pick their trash up. Furthermore, the member states have to fulfil some consumption reduction targets: they have to reduce the use of plastic food containers and drinking cups. Also, the member states will have to collect 90% of single-use plastic bottles by 2025 – the German Pfand system (you pay a certain amount when buying the bottle and once you bring it back to the supermarket you get this money back) might be a solution for this. In 2030, 100% of plastic bottles shall be recyclable.

In the future, producers of single-use plastics will have to pay according to the “polluter pays principle” which is an obligation set under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. This means that the producers of most littered plastic items have to cover the costs of clean-ups. The member states will have to pay as well: for the clean-up of nature and for environmental education campaigns. The same accounts for producers of fishing gear which accounts for 27% of the trash on beaches – they will have to pay for the clean-ups and awareness-raising measures.

Why did the EU pass these new restrictions? One reason for the ban of certain single-plastic use items is that 85% of the trash in the oceans worldwide consists of plastic. As we know (also from former articles on the GCE blog), this waste is polluting oceanic ecosystems and most of it is not biodegradable. According to the EU, the EU alone comes up with 26 million tons of plastic waste per year. Not even a third of this trash is reused – the rest goes to landfills or into the environment. The plastic and microplastic in the oceans finally ends in the stomach of birds, fish and other animals living in the sea. In the end, the microplastic in the ocean comes back to us on our plates – when we eat fish or even when we drink water from single-use plastic bottles as they also excrete micro plastic. Even veggies are polluted by microplastic as it also reaches our fields through plastic waste that is thrown away into the organic waste.

As the EU is mainly an economic union, there is of course also a financial aspect: On the long run, the EU will probably save up to 6.5 billion Euro (he did not state clearly if this sum is saved per year or in total), says EU-commissioner Jyrki Katainen from Finland who is responsible for jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness.

Are there going to be alternatives for the banned and restricted items? The producers of single-use plastic products are already working on that – Tetrapak for example has announced to switch to paper straws for juice or milk cartons until the end of the year.

This ban and restrictions are a good step into the right direction. They address harmful and unnecessary items which can be easily replaced: when going to a barbecue party, just take your own plates and cutlery, when cleaning your ears, use cotton buds with wood sticks – they are already available in drug stores. These things are not costing you more money (actually less, as you don’t have to buy plastic forks and plates).

But the critics towards these plans also have a point. Martin Häusling, deputy of the green party in the EU parliament, calls it  “politics of symbols” – he calls for a ban on the packaging of food and more systematic recycling. Others compliment the approach of the EU and throw in the idea of a tax on plastics: this would in their eyes be much more effective if we want to address the problem of plastic pollution. Another aspect of the critics is the question which materials are going to replace the plastic-based ones – so called “bioplastics” (made from corn for example) need a lot of space and resources and are also very slowly in degrading.

This is dead right. But instead of grumping, let’s acknowledge the positive aspects of this ban: It is an eye opener, targeting this really big problem of plastic pollution. It could push the discussion about how we can act environmentally better. It will change the consumption of single-use plastics by not allowing companies to produce them. It is not possible to stop pollution from one day to the other – but small steps could also in the end lead to success. This plan might have its flaws – but it is hopefully a step into the right direction.

To not to choke in a giant mountain of waste and trash, we must change the way we consume. This article is the part of a series dealing with the chaotic and broad topic of waste. We want to give you different views on the topic and highlight ways how to reduce your personal waste generation. Find more articles here.

The post Is Europe going to be plastic-free in the future? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Although the negotiations in the Bula Zone were still going on until Saturday midnight, the exhibition booths and pavillions in the Bonn Zone – where the side events had taken place for the past two weeks – were being dismantled and packed for the next occasion.

During our stay in Bonn, all of us heard many opinions about COP23. Those opinions were a mixed bag. While some of them were optimistic, some were pessimistic. Some people had criticized the slow pace of the #ClimateChange negotiations and there were others (including me), who remained thoughtful.

Throughout my time at COP23 I had a nagging thought in my mind. I had witnessed how world-class politicians would talk about #Change, but as soon as they would leave the room, their #ChangeMomentum would vanish. Their rhetoric speeches that had called for global climate efforts vanished into empty ambitions, in an aesthetic diplomacy, in “just words”.

Many were wondering why the political discourse at COP23 sometimes resemble a business talk that gave the impression that our future was being negotiated and traded. Perhaps going back to one essential thought was necessary at COP23 to realize the urgency of a Changing Climate and of a Changing Nature:

With every second, minute and hour that went by during the Conference:

One more tree was cut in the Amazon
One more fish died drowned in oil
One more ice drop thawed from the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields
One more ton of Greenhouse Gas was emitted
One more human suffered the consequences of a Climate Change

And overall,  as another day passed by,
in the lives of some, the day brought no big news nor worries,
and in the lives of others, the day brought damages and losses.

So, how could we all talk for hours,
when it is exactly now that things are happening?
It is exactly right now that Action is needed?

On one hand, the ongoing negotiations of COP23 left behind a taste of uncertainty in regards to concrete efforts towards Global Climate Action, towards Energy transition and towards an effective and pragmatic implementation of the Paris Agreement 2015 in the subscribed countries’ national policies.

On the other hand, a collective call for urgency and hope was also heard at COP23 and it forged the necessary optimism and confidence that Change is not only possible, but that it should be done by Our Hands.

Perhaps, after all what has been said and done, the greatest achievement of COP23 was to unite around twenty thousand voices of agents of change from all over the World and to gather them in the same place and at the same time.

COP23 brought the vulnerable, the emerging and the powerful Nations together. In spite of their political and historical differences – reunited them around the goal of protecting Nature and its inhabitants – from ourselves.

From Pacific Island Climate Warriors and indigenous Amazonian and Andean voices, to change-driving Eco-villages and civil initiatives in Africa and Europe, everybody shared their own testimonials of change, of local empowerment, and existing solutions.

The message that impressed me the most was from the “African Voices” Event (Talanoa, Bonn Zone) which reminded us that there are no seventeen Mankind Goals*, instead, there is just one and that is love. Love for nature and love for each other, to reflect on our actions, to assume responsibility and to take care of all the inhabitants of this planet.

To the Love component, the Action component was added this past Wednesday, when Timoci Naulusala – a 12-year old Fijian schoolboy – reminded us that “it’s not about how or who, but it’ s about what you can do as an individual”.

As complicated as international agreements may seem, the Change we all really stand for is as basic as Love put into Action, Conviction put in practice and Justice made reality.

International negotiations and agreements either at this COP23 or at any COP ahead will stand for Sustainability and Peace. However, what we should truly stand for is the empowerment of our individual Potential of Change, the courage to challenge our mindsets, the conviction to improve our lifestyles and the realization that this is the only Planet we have, for us today, and for the coming generations.

* Mankind Goals referring to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The post COP23: Hope and love to protect nature appeared first on Global Change Ecology.