Author: Flora Beverley

Aside from their fascinating social structure (many bees are ‘eusocial’, meaning each individual plays a role within a colony, which itself could be seen as a living individual), bees play a vital role in the continuing existence of humans. They pollinate around a third of the food we eat (although the exact figure is hotly debated), many of the crops that make our clothes, and those used for feeding livestock. Out of the 400 different types of plants grown for human consumption, bees play some role in the yield and quality of 84%. As a result, it’s estimated that annually, bees contribute $170bn worth of crop pollination around the world – vital with our ever-growing population in need of food. Economically speaking, beekeeping can be an important sustainable and alternative source of income in rural areas, benefiting communities living in and around forests. 

Unsurprisingly, bees provide services to ecosystems beyond this anthropocentric viewpoint too. They have evolved to be highly efficient pollinators of a huge variety of trees and other plants, vital for nature’s biodiversity. Bees visit plants for their food, nectar and pollen and have evolved to do so while also (usually) benefitting the plant they are visiting. Their bodies are covered in hairs to trap nectar and pollen, which they can do so year-round (climate dependent), so long as there are flowers available. Their co-evolution over millions of years has led to symbiotic relationships as old as each species – nectar and pollen from flowering plants are bees’ only food source – nectar for energy and pollen for baby food – and bees a primary pollinator for many plants. Bees also act as indicators of the state of the environment. Their presence or absence tells us of the current health of that ecosystem. 

Because of all of this, there has been an increase in awareness-raising for the plight of bees. In the six years leading up to 2013, more than 10 million honey bee colonies across the world were lost, often to Colony Collapse Disorder, where bees abandon their hives, leaving the queen and young to fend for themselves. Although the full cause of CCD has not yet been established, evidence points towards the use of Neonicotinoids, pesticides brought in to replace other banned pesticides. Inevitably following CCD the hives die out, although mercifully farmers are able to restock honeybee numbers each year. The same cannot be said for less blatantly economically beneficial species, such as solitary bees, which make up the vast majority of bee species. Of these, around 1 in 10 face extinction as a result of intensive farming, insecticide use and climate change. The habitats they depend on for nesting sites and foraging are rapidly diminishing due to urbanisation – since 1945, 97% of wildflower meadows in the UK have vanished – leaving precious few refuges for them to bounce back. 

Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, was published nearly 60 years ago. It’s credited with catalysing the environmental movement in the US and UK, after documenting the devastating effects for bee populations of indiscriminate use of pesticides such as DDT on crops. In 1972 the EPA banned DDT and it is now classified as a probable human carcinogen. And yet, 60 years on, there is still a constant battle between agricultural industry, and environmental organisations. Following the banning of DDT, new pesticides have been introduced – such as the Neonicotinoids that contribute to CCD – and many subsequently banned. Who’d have thought that removing the base of the food chain would cause everything above to collapse? Despite decades of proving that the indiscriminate wiping out of large swathes of the food chain is harmful to the whole ecosystem, the battle between industry and nature continues. 

SO HOW CAN WE HELP? IT’S NOT TO LAER TO SAVE OUR BEES FROM EXTINCTION. HERE ARE SOME OF THE BEST WAYS YOU CAN PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF BEES, BOTH CLOSE TO HOME AND BEYOND

Buy organic

One of the best things we can do to promote bee-friendly growing techniques is to buy organic. According to the Soil Association, plant, insect and bird life is 50% more abundant of organic farms. By supporting these farms, you’re supporting the expansion of organic farming practices, thus helping bee populations further afield. 

Fill your garden with bee-friendly plants

Reducing the frequency of mowing, and planting native flowers can massively benefit bee populations. You don’t need a lot of space either – window boxes of flowers and un-mown patches of lawn all provide shelter and food sources for multiple different species. Aim to have flowers that bloom year round – grow snowdrops, crocuses and daffodils for early spring feasts and cyclamen, dahlias and begonias for autumn stockpiling. Look for wildflower seed mixes. They’re tough to grow but in the right conditions provide the most benefits for our pollinators. 

Create nesting sites

While honeybees require large hives to thrive in, the majority of bee species require much less space. Create a bee hotel to allow them to nest and rest, or build a rock garden. Many bee habitats are considered ‘messy’ to most gardeners, but by maintaining some areas of the garden undisturbed, the nooks and crannies can act as warm shelters for the local solitary bees. 

Avoid herbicides and pesticides

As tempting as it may be, using herbicides and pesticides can significantly harm bee populations, as well as everything further up the food chain, such as your garden birds. Mulch around the base of trees and on bare earth – not only will this suppress weeds, it’ll also provide nutrients to your plants, and nesting sites for overwintering insects! Look into ‘companion planting’ – planting more attractive or naturally repellent plants between your crops, to attract or repel unwanted insects. 

Buy local honey

Honeybees are not the be all and end all of the bee population in the UK or further afield. However, buying local honey supports local bees pollinating plants in your local area – a win win for the environment and the beekeepers. Purchasing from small businesses also protects against mass production of supermarket-bought, pollen-free ‘honey’, often packed with artificial sweeteners such as high-fructose corn syrup. If you eat honey, make sure it’s from local hives. 

“But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.” 
― Rachel Carson

Forests are home to about 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, with more that 60,000 tree species, and around 1.6 billion people directly depend on them for food, shelter, energy, medicines and income, with the rest of the global population indirectly relying on them for the very air we breathe. The world is losing 10 million hectares of forest each year – about the size of Iceland – which accounts for 12% to 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Land degradation affects a further 2 billion hectares – an area larger than South America – increasing the forests’ vulnerability to climate change.

The UK government has planted millions of trees over the last decade and is pledging to plant another million between 2020 and 2024, in an effort to improve biodiversity and sequester carbon. However, Friends of the Earth said this fell far short of what was needed to have a real impact on climate change. It’s important to understand the real effects of carbon offsetting via tree planting, its unintended consequences and potential limitations.

Do they provide an ‘everyone wins’ climate solution? Who do they benefit? Do they have the potential to cause harm? How effective even are they?

Tree planting and carbon offsetting

Carbon offsetting is a way of paying for others to reduce emissions or absorb CO₂ to compensate for one’s own emissions. This can be via tree planting, or funding projects using green energy (which may otherwise have used fossil fuels). Tree planting is now being provided everywhere, from holiday-providers to delivery services and beyond, with a myriad of companies claiming to offset emissions with a range of different schemes. 

Many studies suggest that planting trees is one of the more effective ways of tacking land degradation and absorbing excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimated in 2018 that at least 10% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions derive from deforestation alone, and other studies have suggested that reforestation could remove three billion to 18 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. In 2017 land use changes – mostly deforestation – contributed four billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions to the global total of 41 billion tonnes of CO₂. If we stopped cutting down trees in the first place, our annual emissions would be reduced by around 10%. These are all significant numbers.

Limitations

However, many experts are concerned that offsetting projects don’t lead to the behavioural change we really need to see if we want a palpably different future than the one projected. Offsetting has been shown to encourage people to continue with behaviour they know is harmful, and allows the worst polluters like BP and Shell to continue with unsustainable behaviour, while simultaneously shifting responsibility onto the consumer to reduce damage. Heathrow, too – which hopes to take an extra 265,000 flights a year with a third runway – has stated that it plans to use offsets to make it “carbon neutral” by 2030 and to be “zero-carbon” by 2050, even though it will be directly responsible for releasing millions of extra tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere with the plans. 

Planting trees, while vital in many areas, cannot be a replacement for not producing emissions in the first place. Due to trees’ slow-growing nature, it can take as many as 20 years to capture the amount of CO₂ that a carbon offset scheme promises with the click of a button. Tree planting is not the ‘rapid-response’ action we need when it comes to climate change and GHG emissions – it plays a role in reforesting areas that we can previously deforested, and in mitigating the long-term effects of climate change. However it can only provide a fraction of the carbon reductions needed to keep temperatures below the 1.5C to 2C goals, and must be used in conjunction with behavioural change and other faster-acting climate solutions. 

Concerns have also been raised about the issue of climate colonialism, which has been defined as “the domination of less powerful countries and peoples by richer countries through initiatives meant to slow the pace of climate breakdown”. Carbon offsetting projects, such as tree-planting schemes, are cheaper to set up in the Global South rather than closer to home (which is in as much need of reforestation as anywhere else). Because of this, there is a lack of connection between the people paying for the projects, the companies providing them, and the local people on the ground, including Indigenous People. For example, Amnesty International reports that the Sengwer people of Embobut forest in Kenya were violently forced from their homes and dispossessed of their ancestral lands as part of a government plan to reduce deforestation. The Sengwer people were moved without being consulted, and never consented to the plans for their removal – a violation of both Kenyan and international law. The world’s 370 million Indigenous Peoples make up less than 5% of the total human population but manage over 25% of the world’s land surface and support about 80% of the global biodiversity. Extra pressure in the form of ‘doing good’ from overseas can exacerbate their persecution and expedite ecosystem degradation, rather than the opposite. Climate justice requires an in-depth understanding of the needs of local peoples, and offsetting schemes often do not have this knowledge. Saving the planet cannot come at the cost of the people living on it.

Theoretically, so long as local people are consulted and suitable regions identified for reforestation, tree planting can have positive effects, but only if the right species are used. Many of the trees being planted are monocultures of fast-growing species – useful for carbon sequestration, but provide next to no ecosystem benefits. Biodiversity, or species richness, is crucially important for the success of these projects, provided the species are of local origin and not invasive. Regardless, a large body of literature shows that even the best planned forest restoration projects are unlikely to fully recover the biodiversity of intact forest, which in many cases have taken thousands of years to establish. This shows the importance of preserving what forest we have left, and only reforesting in addition to other measures to address the key causes of deforestation. Prevention is better than cure. 

Summary

It is evident that our forests are crucially important to the survival of our planet, and the rate at which we are deforesting the planet, many things need to be done to preserve what we have left and restore what we have broken. Tree-planting carbon offset schemes, however, have limitations due to intrinsic factors, such as how slowly trees grow, to their impact on local communities and species diversity. 

When choosing a carbon offsetting scheme, ask yourself the following questions:

• Am I doing this to offset guilt as much as carbon? Could/should I avoid doing this polluting activity in the first place?
• Are the trees native and will they support biodiversity?
• How long before the trees will absorb the amount of CO₂ that the organisation promises? Will they be protected for the decades it takes?
• Who is planting the trees? Are they being paid/treated fairly?
• Who is encouraging this offset? If it is an oil or gas company or an airline, think about why they are doing this and what you can do to reduce fossil fuel use in the first place.
• Look for projects supported by the Gold Standard to quantify and certify impact in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

It is estimated that people in the UK use 5m tonnes of plastic every year, around half of which is single-use. Recently, however, there has been a rise in alternative packaging options, from bio plastics, to compostable plastics, to plastic alternatives, such as glass and metal. 

Single use plastics are problematic because they are notoriously difficult to recycle, and because we make so much of it. We create around 300m tonnes of plastic waste each year with 5m to 14m tonnes of that ending up in the ocean. Because of the sheer amount we produce, plastic is everywhere, from the top of Mount Everest, to the Mariana Trench, to our own drinking water. 

Is plastic recyclable?

Plastic is a whole category of materials, and only a few types (PET and HDPE) are easily recyclable in most areas. Contrary to aluminium, however, which is infinitely recyclable, plastics can only be recycled a limited number of times. Because of this, and the fact that virgin plastics often have to be added to reuse recycled plastics, they’re usually downcycled, limiting their lifespan. But, theoretically, the above types of plastic are recyclable, if only a limited number of times. 

Other types of plastic, such as LDPE (thin film plastics) are extremely difficult to recycle, and in most cases should not be put in curbside recycling, as it can damage recycling plants. Putting these into the recycling bin can do more harm than good, as they can clog up recycling machines, and the people at the plants have to pay to have them removed, further lowering the profitability of recycling. Some film plastics, such as plastic bags, bread packaging, frozen food bags, some crisp packets etc can be recycled at specialist recycling centres. The best thing to do with these (if they are unable to be reused) is to store them up and then take them to large supermarkets for recycling. More and more supermarket chains in the UK provide this, so take a look next time you go!

The alternatives

Needless to say, these are not perfect solutions, with the amount of single use plastic still at a historical high. However, the use of ‘alternative plastics’ has exploded in recent years, with ‘bioplastic’ production set to quadruple between 2016 and 2021. So what are these alternative plastics, and are they better than our current solutions?

There are lots of varieties of alternative plastic, with more being made each day. There are two key labels – bioplastic and compostable – that many put on their packaging as evidence of their ‘greener’ nature. However, the environmental thinktank Green Alliance suggested there was evidence that by using terms such as ‘biodegradable’, customers were more likely to discard items into the environment, making pollution on land and at sea even worse.

Bioplastics are a diverse group of materials, and the term has several meanings. They can be made from plant-based sources such as starch, oils, cellulose etc., but are not necessarily biodegradable. These ‘bio’ building blocks can be used to create non-biodegradable plastics that behave in exactly the same way as conventional plastics – just because ‘bio’ is in the name does not mean it is biodegradable. Coca Cola’s PlantBottle, for example, though partly derived from sugarcane, is chemically identical to hard-to-breakdown PET bottles. So, it can be recycled, but it won’t break down for centuries if placed in compost. Equally, the term bioplastic can refer to plastics created from fossil fuels which are made to be biodegradable. The term is used for a wide range of materials that do not necessarily all behave in the same way – see the graph below (WRAP).

Then we have compostable plastics. Thankfully, there is an industry standard that plastics must meet to be deemed ‘compostable,’ which ensures they can decompose/biodegrade in industrial composting conditions. Not all biodegradable plastics are compostable, but all compostable plastics are biodegradable, in the right conditions. What this does not mean is that they can be placed in household composting – these products must be specifically labelled ‘home compostable’. If placed in the wrong bins, these plastics could do more harm than good. Vegware, for example, must be composted industrially for it to biodegrade. It cannot be recycled, and will not biodegrade in your home compost. If you can’t send it to be industrially composted, it should be placed in your normal landfill bin.

Because of this, many of these alternative plastics are best limited to closed environments where post-use collection is possible, e.g. in a restaurant, university etc. Otherwise, they’re no better (perhaps even worse!) than conventional, recyclable plastic. Any plastic that evades appropriate collection and treatment systems and instead makes its way into the environment has the potential to have long-lasting negative impacts. Jo Ruxton, cofounder of Plastic Oceans, shares that even biodegradable plastics can take years to break down at sea. “They can be mistaken for food and ingested, they can entangle animals. They can do everything that plastic does – they just don’t last as long.”

What are the solutions?

As always, reducing plastic consumption is the first step to solving the problem. If you have less waste, you don’t have to worry about which bin it can go into. Producing more single use alternative plastics will only exacerbate the problem, contributing to our single-use lifestyle and adding to the confusion. See if you can opt for circular schemes, such as Loop, and refillable models. 

Reusing plastics is the next best option. Butter tubs can be useful for storing wires, screws and other miscellaneous goods. Bread bags are great to use instead of new ziplock bags or sandwich bags. Plastic bags can be reused again and again for shopping. Make sure every item has the longest life possible before making its way to your bin. 

Recycle the plastics you can recycle, compost the ones that you can compost and make sure everything else makes its way safely to your bin – do not let it get into the environment! 

Beyond this, it’s important to push companies to create less waste to begin with. If you have a company you love, send them an email to let them know that you’d love to see them move away from single use plastic packaging. Check out the Break Free From Plastic campaign and Plastic Patrol, who are working to hold brands accountable for the waste they produce. Use your voice and your vote to influence governments. 

There is a lot we can do individually to enforce change, both at home and country-wide, and it starts with individual action. Knowledge is power, so share this article with others so that together we can have a profound impact on the environment around us. 

Recently we delved into fashion’s waste problem and the innovators looking to change it. We have seen that the fashion industry has exploded in recent decades, and demand for new clothes has led to a surplus of waste fabrics at every stage of production, from factory offcuts to post-consumer waste in landfills.

However, waste comes in many forms, and the process of producing clothes leads to a lot of it in every conceivable manner. The source of water pollution and waste in the fashion industry is threefold – large amounts of fertiliser to grow crops for clothes, chemicals used to treat clothes and microfibres released once those clothes are washed. The textiles industry relies mostly on non-renewable resources – 98 million tonnes in total per year – including oil to produce synthetic fibres, fertilisers to grow cotton, and chemicals to produce, dye, and finish fibres and textiles. The fashion industry also contributes to 20% of wastewater production globally, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems.

This extensive use of hazardous substances in textile production has negative effects not only on local wildlife but also the farmers that harvest the raw materials, factory workers who work them, and locals whose environments are permanently polluted. Unfortunately, there is a lack of knowledge or research into the sheer volume of hazardous chemicals that are used in the textile industry. Sadly, as with so many industries where labour is outsourced to other countries, especially the Global South, out of sight really does mean out of mind. Despite growing concerns raised by NGOs, the public, policymakers, and across the textiles value chain itself, there is very low transparency on the chemicals used across the industry, making the true scale of the pollution – and its associated economic, environmental, and societal impacts – difficult to evaluate. Improving knowledge of what goes into our clothes and how we can better choose what we buy is vital to changing this.

HOW ARE CHEMICALS PROBLEMATIC?

Annually, 43 million tonnes of 8000 different types of chemical are used to produce textiles. However, there is a remarkable lack of understanding about the chemicals that go into textile production and the effects they have. Despite this, many have been found to be carcinogenic or hormone-disrupting, likely harmful to the factory workers who are in contact with them on a daily basis and the waterways into which they are disposed. Many of the chemicals are also known to bio-accumulate: they become more concentrated over time in the environment, posing increasingly greater risks the longer they are in the environment.

Substances used in the production of clothes often stay in the clothes after they are made and sold, meaning that they work their way to the consumer too. Not only does this spread the issue of water contamination far and wide, but also has led to reports of allergic reactions, respiratory diseases and loss of aquatic life. Needless to say, it is in everyone’s best interest to better understand and then better control what substances are used in the making of our clothes. A 2017 report estimates that eliminating today’s negative health impacts due to poor chemicals management in the industry would have an economic benefit of EUR 7 billion (USD 8 billion) annually.

WHAT OTHER WASTE IS THERE?

Synthetic clothes also release microfibres when they are washed and as we buy an increasing volume of synthetic fibres, this issue intensifies. It has been estimated that around half a million tonnes of microfibres are released into waterways during the washing of plastic-based textiles each year. This is a preventable problem – filters built in to washing machines could trap the majority of these, to be disposed of safely – but this would take legislative change that governments don’t seem willing to make.

As the use of synthetic fibres such as polyester (which currently makes up 60% of fibres used in clothing) grows, not only will we perpetuate the demand for fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources, we will also contribute increasingly to a non-biodegradable environmental disaster in our oceans and waterways. As with many chemicals, microplastics such as these are persistent in the environment (they take a long time to break down), and accumulate up the food chain, leading to deaths of animals such as seabirds, whales and dolphins by starvation – they fill the stomach but provide no actual nutrients, leading to death or severe illness.

HOW CAN WE HELP?

Buy less, buy better
The best thing to do to reduce your contribution to fashion waste is to buy as infrequently as possible and use what you already have. Buy second-hand and from sustainable brands, or swap clothes with friends. Only by reducing the demand for clothes can we reduce the amount created.

Look for accreditations such as OEKO-TEX and GOTS
There are some accreditations that offer third-party auditing of supply chains to ensure only non-harmful dyes and treatments are used. Two of the best known are OEKO-TEX and GOTS. These often also look as social criteria and set ethical standards too, so you know clothes with these are likely made with ethics and sustainability in mind.

Avoid synthetic clothing
Organic cotton and linen are not without their own issues, but these products avoid the use of excessive chemicals in their production and have the added benefit of not releasing microfibres when placed in the wash.

Use a Guppyfriend bag
If you have a lot of synthetic clothing, such as sportswear, that you wash regularly, invest in a filter for your washing machine. One of the most effective is Guppyfriend, a bag to place your laundry in that will collect microfibres released from your clothes to be safely disposed on in landfill, instead of being released into waterways.

Campaign and lobby brands
Many brands get away with having no transparency and poor working conditions. Campaigners and groups such as Fashion Revolution have forced brands to improve transparency and have led to changes in the clothing production process. Use your voice on social media and via letters and petitions to force brands to be open about who their workers are, how they’re treated and what working conditions are like. Avoid brands that are resistant.

Vote
There is a lot we can do individually, but without legislative changes (e.g. banning the use of certain chemicals, introducing filters on washing machines etc), there’s only so much that will happen. Many of us are privileged enough to spend more to shop with sustainable brands, but that isn’t the case for everyone. Voting for a government who will hold brands and businesses to account when it comes to their environmental footprint will have far more impact than individual action.

The World Health Organisation and the UK Government recognise air pollution to be the largest environmental health risk we face today. While plastic pollution has been front and centre of recent pollution concerns (with good reason), this other insidious and oft overlooked type of pollution continues to cause deaths around the world.

With Coronavirus top of the health agenda, many other health concerns have been pushed aside, especially those we cannot see, such as the air we breathe. Air pollution has caused more deaths than COVID this year, and yet the issue has been easily ignored by the world’s politicians. This is not to downplay the impact of COVID or to compare the two concerns, but more to raise awareness of the sheer number of deaths that continue to occur year on year due to pollution and its related diseases.

Those most impacted by pollution (MAPA – most affected people and areas) are often those least contributing to the problem globally, specifically those with lower socioeconomic status (SES). Unfortunately, the impacts of environmental health hazards such as air pollution continue to disproportionately affect those from lower SES communities, making them disappointingly easy for governments to ignore. When it comes to pollution, young children, adults and households in poverty have the highest levels of exposure, despite there being an inverse relationship between poverty and emissions generation (i.e. people who live in poverty have lower emissions). This is therefore an environmental justice issue and requires a collective global response.

In the UK, pollution is a bigger killer than smoking, and costs the UK economy over £20bn per year. The biggest culprits are Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), emitted mainly by diesel vehicles, and PM2.5, fine particulate matter linked to adverse health effects. In Europe the toxic air is causing more than 1000 premature deaths each day from PM2.5 – a figure which is 10 times higher than the number of deaths from traffic accidents. A recent study by King’s College found that adults living within 50 meters of a busy road parameter had an increased risk of lung cancer by 10%, and children suffered from stunted lung growth by 3-14%. To put this in perspective, around a third of Londoners (about three million people) are thought to live in these high-risk areas. 

Some work is being done, however, to reduce the amount of pollution affecting people around the UK, especially those living in cities. A coalition of 15 health and environment NGOs are calling for legal levels of particulate pollution to be reduced to the limits indicated by the World Health Organization by 2030. At the moment, current UK legal limits for PM2.5 are more than double this, and no political party has committed to bringing levels down to the WHO suggested limit by 2030. Thankfully, studies suggest that pollution levels drop rapidly in response to pollution-reducing measures and events, for example during the 2019 Extinction Rebellion protests, or throughout various Olympic Games. In fact, data collected by Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air suggests that the incidental reduction in pollution at the start of the coronavirus pandemic prevented approximately 15,000 deaths. This gives some hope that any measures implemented to reduce city pollution levels will have immediate beneficial effects even within the space of a number of days. In the meantime, these are a few ways you can reduce your exposure to air pollution.

How can we protect ourselves and others against pollution?

• Avoid walking streets with heavy traffic – walking even just one block over from main roads can reduce exposure by up to 50%.
• Take public transport where possible. Fumes inside cars can be significantly higher than just outside the car, thanks to the circulation of fumes around the enclosed space. Taking public transport also reduces heavily polluting private vehicles on roads, reducing overall levels of pollution.
• If you are moving house, look at the pollution levels where you are moving. Avoid main roads and polluted streets if you have the ability to do so.
• Switch to a green energy provider and aim to conserve energy where possible. This will reduce overall levels of pollution, and may even save you money!
• Avoid excessive use of wood burners, fireplaces and candles. As we move into the colder months, fires become larger contributor to wintertime pollution. Reducing wood burning and candles in enclosed spaces reduces their impact on health and pollution levels.
• Choose to exercise outdoors in the mornings if you will be running busy roads – pollution builds up throughout the day, especially during summer.
• Aim to walk on tree-lined roads and in parks. Even small amounts of greenery help reduce pollution significantly.

Recently, Netflix released Sir David Attenborough’s newest documentary, A Life On Our Planet, leaving viewers collectively galvanised to make a change. Created in partnership with WWF, the film documents pivotal points in Attenborough’s career, and the changes that have happened to our natural world throughout that time. The documentary came at a good time – 2020 marks the end of the UN Decade of Biodiversity, yet the world has failed to meet a single one of the targets laid out.

Biodiversity was a term that came up again and again in the documentary, as viewers were reminded how biodiversity loss is a huge threat to the planet. In fact, biodiversity loss has been highlighted as 3rd biggest risk to the world both in terms of likelihood and severity this year, ahead of infectious diseases, terror attacks and interstate conflict. Biodiversity is the abundance and variety of life on earth, and humans are entirely dependent on global biodiversity for the air we breath, the food we eat and the water we drink. Almost half of global GDP – around €40 trillion – depends on nature and the services it provides, so its importance cannot be overstated. In Europe alone, biodiversity loss costs the continent around 3% of its GDP each year. The loss of biodiversity has reached unsafe levels across 65% of the world’s land surface – this issue must be brought to the front of global powers’ priorities sooner rather than later.

The recent COVID pandemic has brought to light just how much we rely on biodiversity for our safety and comfort, with scientists positing that the increased incidences of viruses such as Ebola, Bird Flu, Dengue Fever and COVID are exacerbated, if not caused, by biodiversity loss, deforestation and the illegal wildlife trade. In addition, many cures and treatments for such diseases are found or inspired by substances found in the natural world. Without biodiversity, we may lose life-saving treatments for diseases we may not even know about yet. It is important now, more than ever, to understand what it is that causes the loss of biodiversity, and work on bringing it back.

Biodiversity loss is not only an environmental issue, it also impacts upon many of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those tacking food security, poverty, peace, justice and development. As stated by Sir Robert Watson, chair of the IPBES, biodiversity is “a security issue in so far as loss of natural resources, especially in developing countries, can lead to conflict. It is an ethical issue because loss of biodiversity hurts the poorest people, further exacerbating an already inequitable world. And it is also a moral issue, because we should not destroy the living planet.”(Guardian, Nov, 2018). Closer to home, biodiversity in green spaces is inextricably linked to mental health and wellbeing for all of us.

WHAT IS CAUSING BIODIVERSITY LOSS?

The key driver of biodiversity loss is conversion of land from wild space to agricultural or urbanised land. This is not simply due to population growth, but primarily due to overconsumption and overexploitation of natural resources for the existing population, especially in the world’s richest countries. Factors such as climate change also reduce the resilience of ecosystems to these pressures, increasing the likelihood they will not remain in equilibrium, leading to ecological collapse.

The introduction of invasive species (often accidentally through trade and transport) can also unbalance ecosystems, leading to the demise of others within the same ecological niche. Pollution is the final major cause of biodiversity loss.
Many of these reasons are linked, as they are all to do with the expansion of humanity into all realms of our planet, coupled with the desire for development, growth and increased consumption, often at the cost of the natural world.

Half of Earth’s habitable land is taken up for agricultural use, 77% of which is used for grazing livestock. However, while livestock take up most agricultural land, they only provide 18% of the world’s calories, and 37% of total protein, suggesting this is an inefficient use of space – it takes considerably more land and water to raise cattle (and indeed any animal for human consumption) than to grow almost any vegetable. The exact figures vary vastly depending on the production system, e.g. feedlot vs grass-fed.
Either way, of the 28,000 species threatened with extinction, 24,000 have agriculture listed as a key reason for their demise. Even land that is left for arable farming is used to feed the vast number of livestock we raise – over a third of all crops grown are used to feed livestock rather than humans, and only 55% of the world’s crop calories are directly eaten by people. This is another example to show that population growth is not an issue in and of itself – it is the way we choose to use resources (especially in richer countries) that is problematic

WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP?

One thing lacking from the Attenborough documentary was a strong call to action. For many viewers, the issues were clearly laid out, but lacked tangible action points. Many watching the documentary will be the greatest contributors to global biodiversity loss – people in rich countries consume up to 10 times more natural resources than those in the poorest countries. And yet, the negative impacts of this are most keenly felt in the poorest countries themselves, once again leading to an environmental justice issue where those least contributing to the problem are those most affected by it, maintaining global inequalities in wealth and quality of life.

CHANGE YOUR DIET
Projections suggest that without increasing the land we currently farm, we have enough food to feed an extra 4 billion people, provided we grow food primarily for direct human consumption, rather than feeling the world’s 70 billion livestock. By choosing a more plant-based diet, we can collectively reduce the amount of land needed to feed livestock globally, allowing more food to be used for direct human consumption. In the UK, we eat almost double the world average meat consumption per capita, and two times the protein we actually need, so there is room for a decrease in meat consumption both from an environmental and a health-based point of view. There are some suggestions that a flexiterian/plant-based diet with some animal products in may be more beneficial for the environment than a purely vegan diet (dependent on a number of factors), but what is widely accepted is that in the global north we should all be reducing out meat and dairy consumption, and buying better quality, more ethically and sustainably raised animal-based foods when we do eat them.

VOTE, SIGN PETITIONS & LOBBY GOVERNMENTS
Currently, most countries signed up to the Paris Agreement are on track to miss most or all of the targets laid out. Unfortunately, it seems all too easy for governments to prioritise growth and expansion under capitalism than more sustainable long-term goals, such as increasing biodiversity and taxing unsustainable business practises. Alone, we can choose to live as sustainably as we can, but we will never be able to make the change we need without voting in governments who prioritise our environment both within the country and via collaboration across borders. By voting for governments that will prioritise long-term solutions to our biodiversity crisis and lobbying the government we have, we have a chance to make a real change, both close to home and further afield.

BUY FROM SUSTAINABLE SOURCES
There are so many accreditations that claim to certify the sustainability of the clothes we wear, goods we buy and food we eat that it can be hard to know what is reliable and what is not. However, keeping an eye out for accreditations that guarantee the source and cultivation method of a particular object (with the knowledge that they are not infallible) can help you make better decisions when it comes to shopping. Aiming to buy only products that you need and that are sustainably sourced can help lower your environmental impact. Goods such as coffee, woodenfurniture and cotton have vast differences in their biodiversity and environmental impact depending on their growing conditions, so ensure you’re buying ethically and sustainably sourced versions, and only when you need to.

DONATE
It’s tough to keep track of environmental injustices and governmental mishaps, but by donating to charities and NGOs that have made it their mission to maintain and improve biodiversity in the natural world, you can play a small part in financing the positive steps made possibly by the work of many non-profits. There are plenty of charities to choose from, and each will have its role. Find one that aligns in what you believe is highest priority and if you are able, set up a monthly donation.

There are so many ways in which we can help improve biodiversity at home, within the country and even globally, but it can often feel overwhelming and like a small drop in the ocean compared to the work that really needs to be done. Unfortunately, while global powers prioritise profits over all else, saving the world’s biodiversity is sure to be an uphill battle, but we can only do what we can do. Use your voice, share articles, papers, charities, petitions, vote for who you believe in and we may yet be able to make a change.

With so many articles on the subject, sometimes it can feel overwhelming to think about how to have the biggest impact.

A country’s climate footprint is loosely defined as the amount of resources it uses, including the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by that country. Their carbon footprint, specifically the amount of carbon dioxide released, is often broken down into per capita consumption to see how much each individual is emitting, as obviously larger countries with more people will have a larger footprint if looking as the country as a whole.

If you are reading this piece, you’ll likely have a higher carbon footprint than most of the rest of the world. The UK’s average carbon output per capita is 5.62T, the US is 16.56T and Australia has the highest in the world, at around 17T. For comparison, the global average is around 4.8T (2017). In just under 2.5 days the average American or Australian emits as much as the average Malian or Nigerian does in a year. In order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we must reach ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by 2050. The UK became the first major economy in the world to pass a law committing itself to this target. So far the government has fully achieved only 2 out of the 31 milestones set.

An individual’s carbon footprint is not the sole measure of their climate impact however. Their use of resources, such as consuming clothes, food, plastic etc., has an impact of its own. Behaviours such as recycling have a small impact on carbon emissions, but a much larger impact on reducing waste and conserving resources, which is why they are so important.

Tackling the climate crisis requires a multifaceted approach. Thankfully, we have the information and technologies we need to make a real difference, we just need to implement them in order to prevent more irreversible damage. Much of this can be helped through individual action, but the role of governments and cross-border cooperation such as the Paris Agreement in implementing larger-scale policies cannot be downplayed.

Below are some great steps you can take as an individual to make a real impact on our future.

SWITCH TO A GREEN ENERGY PROVIDER
One of the reasons the UK’s per capita carbon footprint is lower than many comparable countries around the world, is because a much larger proportion of energy produced in the UK is from renewable resources. Switching to a green energy provider not only reduces your carbon footprint, but also allows these companies to expand. The more money we put into green energy globally, the better. As we move into autumn, it’s the perfect time to move over to an energy provider that is not only better for the planet but also potentially better for your wallet too. The UK’s favourites are Bulb and Octopus Energy. The great thing about switching is that once it’s done, other than being sensible about energy usage, it’s not something you have to think about every day, unlike some other lifestyle choices. Switching energy provider takes about 5 minutes, and once it’s done, it’s done!

SWITCH TO AN ETHICAL BANK
While many people focus a lot of energy on how they spend their money, aiming to be as sustainable as possible, not many people think about how their money in the bank is being invested. A report was released in 2018 suggesting that the ‘big 5’ UK banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, RBS and Santander) are hindering our efforts to tackle climate change. The report shared that in 2019 alone, banks invested $736 billion in fossil fuels. They also provide financing for companies that exploit natural resources unsustainably, fund tobacco, nuclear weapons and practices such as fracking. By switching to an ethical bank you can remove your money from these investments, instead placing it into projects that make a positive environmental and social impact on the planet. Moving your money to an ethical bank places pressure on mainstream banks to follow suit and clean up their game. If you don’t want to change bank, at least ensure that any investments you make are not funding the fossil fuel industry. Many banks now have ‘ethical investment’ portfolios.

REDUCE, RE-USE
Before we come onto recycling, it is important to remember that reducing consumption and reusing items is absolutely vital if we are to protect the environment. Simply buying second hand and items made from recycled materials, reusing what we already have and passing on unwanted belongings to friends, family and charity shops can significantly reduce the impact those items have on the planet. Reducing consumption is probably the most important of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ – we cannot live in a world where we continue to consume unrenewable resources at the rate we currently do. Before buying something, consider whether you really need it. This is especially important with clothes. If the fashion industry were a country, its emissions would rank almost as highly as the entirety of Europe, and the average item of clothing in the UK has a lifespan of just 2.2 years before being thrown out. Extending this lifespan by just three months would lead to a 5-10% reduction in their carbon, water and waste footprints, and cut resource costs by £2bn. As an incredibly unsustainable industry, it is important we buy only what we need, and ensure that items remain in circulation for as long as possible, before being recycled at the end of their lives. For household goods, aim to purchase refillable options to reduce packaging. Reuse items as long as possible – a glass jar used just twice has half the impact per use than one used just once and then recycled. Only if an item cannot be reused should it be recycled.

RECYLE
Recycling is something taught at many schools, and yet as adults, we seem incapable of remembering to do it on a mass scale. Part of this is because the recycling systems in place in the UK are outdated and often difficult to understand. However, it is still vitally important. The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle is enough to power a lightbulb for four hours. Recycling a plastic bottle would power a bulb for up to six hours, as it takes significantly less energy to create new bottles from recycled materials. Not only does this save energy, it also saves valuable resources, too. All the oil, water and other resources used to make an object are wasted if that product isn’t recycled. Keep the loop closed and minimise landfill waste by recycling everything you can.

VOTE
While these are all great ways to reduce your individual impact, there is without a doubt the need for systemic change. Without voting for parties who you feel will tackle the climate crisis head on, it is hard to believe that individual chance will be enough to lead to global improvements. However much we reduce the amount we drive, change what we eat and take fewer flights, so long as governmental regulations allow for unsustainable practices in industry, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to reverse the impact we have had on this planet. Voting is one of the most important things we can all do to reduce the country’s climate footprint.

There are many more things we could and should be doing to reduce our climate footprint, from flying and driving less to switching to a plant-based diet.
The above suggestions are just the start, but can make a great impact with relatively little effort. Individual action counts!

“Use your voice, use your vote, use your choice” – Al Gore.