it is widely believed that zoos help to grow the populations of endangered species and conserve endangered ones by developing breeding programmes that have saved species including the Socorro Dove from extinction. Zoos have data bases showing the recorded family and breeding history of each individual to ensure the gene pool can grow and there is no risk or inbreeding which can lead to a population collapse. These often involve either the exchange in individuals between zoos or the gifting of genetic material that can be used for artificial insemination. The main end goal of these programmes is advertised as release into the wild or sanctuaries but I wanted to look at a few example to see if this really was the case.
Regardless if you agree with the ethics of zoos and these programmes, you cannot argue there have been many captive breeding programmes that have been successful such as the Amur Tiger breeding programme in Europe that currently has 287 individuals within the programme.There have been cases of species being extinct in the wild that have increased in population size such as Przewalski's horses that have been extinct in the wild since the 1960's but a successful reintroduction programme the species conservation status was updated in 2008. There are also accreditation programmes for zoos to ensure that they are regulated and the animals are healthy and cared for properly. This also means the breeding programmes are monitored and have to be approved by a regulating body to ensure that no inbreeding or crossbreeding occurs as this will impact the health and life expectancy of any offspring. Despite these, different species are crossbred in zoos to attract visitors and increase profits. One example would be a liger which is a hybrid between a lion and tiger which are bred artificially in captivity as in the wild they are found on different continents making it impossible for them to be bred naturally. The USA has the greatest number with 30 with many of these cases being claimed to be an accident, however it is standard policy to keep different species separate so these claims are mostly likely false or are cases of neglect towards the proper care of animals.
There are several disadvantage to there being zoos open to the public the first of which being that animals become dependant on humans or used to their presence which can put them at risk of being hunted if they are released into the wild. This also means they can lose valuable skills such as the ability to hunt or source food on their own which, again, will greatly reduce their chance of survival. There is research to suggests that the survival rate for captive breed carnivores (i.e. lions and tigers) is only 33% as they have not learnt behavioural and survival instincts. This is because in the wild individuals are competing for mates, hunting grounds and food. Individuals born in the wild have learnt survival skills from their mother and others in the wild, putting them at an advantage over those raised in captivity. Therefore it can be argued that funds should be invested into conservation of wild habitats and species in the wild rather than of those in captivity.
I feel that is should be made clear the difference between a sanctuary/rehabilitation centre and a zoo. As a zoo dies aid conservation but has a focus on engagement with the public and ticket sales with education and conservation as a second priority. Rehabilitation centres take injured individuals from the wild for a short period of time with the aim of releasing them back into their natural habitat. In my opinion, rehabilitation centres are a better alternative to zoos and will educate people on local wildlife rather than those from the other side of the world. In terms of aiding conservation, you could argue that they do but they need to be regulated to ensure all the individuals have enrichment, a healthy diet and enough space to live. There should also be a chance for individuals to see their natural habitat if they have good enough survival chances but rehabilitation are by far a much better option.
References-
http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/conservation-breeding-programmes
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/p/przewalskis-horse/
https://www.zsl.org/conservation-initiatives/conservation-breeding/amur-tiger-european-breeding-programme
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/01/predators-captivity-habitat-animals/
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 January 2020
Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Is the honey industry killing the bees?
 |
| Photo from pexels.com |
The average honey bee colony contains 50,000 bees, with the majority being worker bees whose role is to collect nectar for the hive. One hive can produce 14 KG of honey. That seems like an awful lot for one hive so is it really an issue for us to have some honey? To make 0.45 KG of honey the hive will have to get to two million flowers and travel around 55,000 miles to do this only for us to steal the majority of their food collected which, in my opinion, doesn't seem very fair to the the poor hard working bees. With CCD increasing in concern, we should be giving the bees the best chance for survival and that means ensuring that they have enough food to survive and reproduce.
To increase honey production, some beekeepers, mainly in the US, have resorted to artificial insemination to increase the number of drones in the hive, thus increasing the pollen collected. Although very few beekeepers are doing this is does mean killing at least one drone in order to collect the semen. The head and first segment of the body are crushed in order for the muscles to contract, making it easy to collect the semen. The queen bee is then held down via hooks in order to be inseminated which can lead to injury and possibly death of the queen. There have also been some cases where the queens wings have been clipped to prevent any chance of her flying away. With bee population becoming so scarce, should we be killing bees in order to artificially increase honey production for human consumption?
Despite these issues there are many other reasons for a declining bee population that don't involve honey. There is an argument that bee farms increase populations by increasing the amount of hives, planting flowers and reducing pesticides to increase bee populations. Bees in honey hives will also pollinate the surrounding area, helping to increase plant biodiversity which is the base of every food web, in turn supporting larger mammals in the area. It has also never been proven that there is a link between honey production and declining bee populations and there are many things we can do to limit the impact honey production has on bees. One thing could be to ban artificial insemination and limit the amount that can be taken form a single hive. So this begs the question, should governments be doing more to reduce our impact rather than stop eating honey altogether?
Personally, I think that ethically it isn't right for us to take the honey from the bees especially seeing as the entire hive is built around it. There are so many other alternatives, such as maple syrup, agave and date syrup, all derived from plants essentially cutting out the middle man. With bees being so important and becoming so scarce, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to protect them?
Resources -
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-complex-worldwide-bee-declines.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn
https://friendsoftheearth.uk/bees/honey-ethical-guide
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/honey-factory-farmed-bees/
Sunday, 19 May 2019
Rewilding: The most basic but effective conservation technique?
It's exciting to see a book about wildlife conservation in the UK being a top seller and highly advertised in bookstores. If you haven't heard of the book 'Wilding' yet by Isabella Tree I would highly recommend you pick it up. The book talks about the conservation technique of rewilding (obviously) in the Knepp estate in West Sussex and how this technique can be replicated in other habitats. The book defines this technique as essentially doing nothing. It is removing all intensive management and allowing natural succession of a habitat to occur with minimal human impact or intervention. The idea is that it will increase the population of the native species and possibly attract new species. This can also include the reintroduction of native species that are no longer found in that habitat (similar to my blogpost on beaver reintroduction). However, this is sparking some debate, particularly with locals when this technique is done on open land (or commons) such as Dartmoor which begs the question is a technique that we should be implementing more?
One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.
Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.
The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.
However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.
Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon.
One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.
Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.
The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.
However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.
Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon.
Tuesday, 30 April 2019
Scottish Beaver Reintroduction
The European Beaver that became extinct in the UK in the 16th century after being hunted to extinction for their fur and medicinal purposes. They excrete castoreum which is an oil originally used to treat headaches. Reintroduction programmes for this beautiful mammal began in the early 2000's in Scotland with aims of sustaining a healthy population in order to reverse years of hunting.
The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.
There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.
There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.
Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.
Resources -
 |
| A photo of the Eurasian Beaver. Photo from CreamTeam.be |
The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.
There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.
There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.
Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.
Resources -
- https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/union-reiterates-opposition-reintroduction-beavers-tayside-following-snh-report
- https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/
- https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/beaver-trial-faqs/when-do-beavers-start-breeding-and-are-they-around-all-year/
- https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-and-wild-places/saving-species/beavers
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38096751
Thursday, 7 February 2019
The Danger of the Fishing Industry
Overfishing is defined as “the taking of fish species which exceeds its reproductive capacity” and as a result, we could have fishless oceans by 2048. Overfishing is a result of the mismanagement of fish stocks which leads to fishing above the maximum sustainable yield which is what lead to the collapse of the Newfoundland cod stocks in 1992. Reports show that between 90-100 million tons of fish are caught annually but with a growing population and consequently a higher demand for fish, overfishing is on the rise which could lead to grave environmental impacts.
One of these impacts is bycatch, or the removal or non-target species, due to unsustainable fishing methods such as demersal trawling.At least 40% of global catch is estimated to be bycatch and has been linked to a decline in population of large marine species, including the hammerhead shark. Leatherback turtles are likely to become extinct in the next 5 – 30 years with the main cause being pacific long line fisheries, designed to catch tuna. However, a large proportion of bycatch is believed to be unreported as it is discarded overboard to avoid fines once the vessel reaches shore which can stop effective conservation and designations in the areas in greatest need of protection. Bycatch has a major impact on marine ecosystems and will increase as the fishing industry grows.
One of these impacts is bycatch, or the removal or non-target species, due to unsustainable fishing methods such as demersal trawling.At least 40% of global catch is estimated to be bycatch and has been linked to a decline in population of large marine species, including the hammerhead shark. Leatherback turtles are likely to become extinct in the next 5 – 30 years with the main cause being pacific long line fisheries, designed to catch tuna. However, a large proportion of bycatch is believed to be unreported as it is discarded overboard to avoid fines once the vessel reaches shore which can stop effective conservation and designations in the areas in greatest need of protection. Bycatch has a major impact on marine ecosystems and will increase as the fishing industry grows.
Unsustainable fishing methods are also a major cause of habitat destruction, the most damaging being deep-sea trawling (figure 1) that tears up the sea bed which kills a range for species including coral and sea grass. This can also have an indirect effect as the disturbance of the sea bed causes a decline in photosynthesis by the removal or green sea plants and suspended particles, created by trawling, cause oxygen levels to fall making areas of the ocean uninhabitable to certain marine species. Trawling has been linked to the destruction of 30-50% of the coral along the Norwegian continental shelf and was the main reason for the Røst reef becoming a no take zone in 2002 with other nations protecting habitats on the sea bed.
Abandoned fishing nets has created the issue of ghost fishing which is when marine organisms become trapped in unused fishing gear. Not only does this account for 10% of marine debris, but each net can catch anywhere between 30-40 individuals included the Leatherback turtle. A positive feedback mechanism is also created as trapped organisms can act as bait for the apex predators, including rare shark species that can put them at greater risk.
Consumers have the ability to reduce these impacts by buying sustainable fish or cutting fish from their diet altogether. If consumers wish to buy fish they should purchase from the MCS sustainable fish list (some of which can be seen in figure 2) and look for the MSC logo on the packaging. Overall the fishing industry is unsustainable and this needs to change to protect the oceans. Personally, I feel the only 'sustainable method' is to stop fishing as there are many scientific studies showing we don't actually need to eat fish. If fish populations are going to recover, we need to stop eating them.
Abandoned fishing nets has created the issue of ghost fishing which is when marine organisms become trapped in unused fishing gear. Not only does this account for 10% of marine debris, but each net can catch anywhere between 30-40 individuals included the Leatherback turtle. A positive feedback mechanism is also created as trapped organisms can act as bait for the apex predators, including rare shark species that can put them at greater risk.
 |
| Figure 2 - A list of the most and least sustainable fish to buy (activation.com) |
Consumers have the ability to reduce these impacts by buying sustainable fish or cutting fish from their diet altogether. If consumers wish to buy fish they should purchase from the MCS sustainable fish list (some of which can be seen in figure 2) and look for the MSC logo on the packaging. Overall the fishing industry is unsustainable and this needs to change to protect the oceans. Personally, I feel the only 'sustainable method' is to stop fishing as there are many scientific studies showing we don't actually need to eat fish. If fish populations are going to recover, we need to stop eating them.
Bibliography
Activation. (2016). Fish: The Farmed v. Wild Debate, from activation.com. Retrieved October 1 2018. https://www.activationproducts.com/blog/farmed-fish-wild-fish-debate/
Activation. (2016). Fish: The Farmed v. Wild Debate, from activation.com. Retrieved October 1 2018. https://www.activationproducts.com/blog/farmed-fish-wild-fish-debate/
Australian Government. (2018). Trawling. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from Australian Fisheries Management Authority: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-management/methods-and-gear/trawling
Buhl-Mortensen, P., & Buhl-Mortensen. (2018, Febuary 27). Impacts of Bottom Trawling and Litter on the Seabed in Norwegian Waters. Frontiers in Marine Science. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00042/full
FAO. (2012). WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES. New York: United Nations. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf
Kemp, D. (1998). The Environment Dictionary. London: Routledge. Retrieved October 1, 2018
Mason, F. (2002). The Newfoundland Cod Stock Collapse: A Review and Analysis of Social Factors. Electronic Green Journal, 1(17).
NOAA. (2009, October 19). Deep Water Corals. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://web.archive.org/web/20100221152237/http://coris.noaa.gov/about/deep/#fossa
Roach, J. (2002, November 2). Seafood May Be Gone by 2048, Study Says. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2006/11/seafood-biodiversity/
United Nations. (2009, May 6). Ghost nets hurting marine environment. Retrieved from FAO: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/
WWF. (2010). Factsheet: Bycatch. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from panda.org: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_factsheet.pdf
Sunday, 4 November 2018
Animal Agriculture and Climate Change
 |
| https://climatevulture.com/category/blog-topics/agriculture/ |
Climate change is a major global issue with it being a key talking point amongst governments and IGO's (*ahem America*). Everyone is aware of the obvious contributors including exhaust emissions and fossil fuels but recently it has been suggested that animal agriculture may be a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than originally thought. There has been evidence to suggest that as our meat consumption has grown so have our carbon emissions but this could also be due to the growth of industry, population and a greater dependence on fossil fuels. So does this mean documentaries like Cowspiracy are wrong?
With animal agriculture covering an estimated 45% of land, livestock is a primary contributor to habitat loss and deforestation on a global scale. Globally, all agriculture is responsible for 80% of deforestation, with the biggest causes for habitat destruction in the Amazon basin being cattle ranches and soya plantations. Although crops are a cause for deforestation, we will see a very small percentage of these yields as most will be used for animal feed. In order to achieve maximum yield and profit, cattle require a large amount of food. If we think about this in terms of tropic levels, as we move up a level (or a stage in the food chain) 90% of energy is lost so we need more cows to produce the amount of beef we need to meet our energy needs. This means more cattle ranches and more animal feed. As most of us are aware, forests are an important carbon sink and help to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect and if agriculture continues to grow, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Did you know a farm with 2,500 cattle produces the same amount of waste as over 410,000 people? If it is disposed of incorrectly it can result in anaerobic digestion, again resulting in the release of methane. Another side effect is eutrophication reducing nutrient availability, creating algal blooms and a decline in biodiversity. Not to mention the fact it is a direct cause of water pollution and poses a huge health risk to animals and humans alike.
So overall do I believe a plant based diet will help reduce carbon emissions. Yes, all the facts support this. However it is important that we also understand that we have a meat eating culture spanning thousands of years and we have been taught our whole lives nutrition must contain animal products. Therefore this change cannot be expected to happen overnight but even if you only eat meant 3 or 4 times a week, you will still have significantly cut your carbon footprint.
Resources -
- https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/
- http://stockfreeorganic.net/deforestation-livestock-destroying-the-living-earth/
- https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
- http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
- https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
- https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/901V0100.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP
- https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf
Friday, 5 October 2018
How Does Plastic Travel in the Ocean
 |
| Map of ocean currents - (Pidwirny, 2006) |
In 2017, scientists estimated that there was roughly 100 million tons of plastic in our oceans, with this figure constantly on the rise. The plastics are constantly circulating the globe via ocean currents which is the movement of sea water between locations, in a similar way to a conveyor belt, that are generated by a range of forces that change regionally including wind speed and force as well temperature difference. This has led to large accumulations, particularly of microplastic, specific areas of the ocean with the most well-known being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All the mentioned factors (plus many more) mean that rubbish from my university in Plymouth could end up polluting the Great Barrier Reef.
Ocean currents are defined as “a horizontal flow of water through the ocean” (according to the freedictionary.com) that redistributes heat from the sun through the globe. The movements that generate the currents are often seasonal and affected by a range of factors including:
• Differences in temperature
• Wind direction and speed
• Gravitational pull from moon and sun
• Rise and fall of the tides
• Salinity
• Atmospheric pressure
The global system of ocean currents has an important role within a range of ecosystems as well as the global climate. Ocean currents carry heat from tropical regions and transports and redistributes this heat away from the equator to warm coastal areas, making land more habitable and increasing soil fertility. They also have an impact on the weather as warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation, resulting in heavier rainfall in tropical regions which allows the tropical rainforests to have the heavy rainfall and humidity it is known for. This is what gives these rainforests the fertile soil that allows the beautiful tropical plants to grow. Currents also increase the biodiversity in the photic zone (or the top layer of the ocean) as upwelling occurs that bring nutrients to the surface. This allows phytoplankton to grow and increase in population that increase oxygen levels and provide more food for the primary consumers in the food chain. Needless to say this has a knock on effect and affects higher trophic levels within the ecosystem.
The global transport of plastics via ocean currents has created ‘rubbish hotspots’ such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Despite public belief, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not a large mound of debris in the middle of the pacific like the name suggests and it is not even visible by satellite. The other name the Pacific Trash Vortex describes the area much better as it is a gyre containing high concentrations of marine litter and chemicals that circulate the North Pacific Ocean. With 1.9 million pieces of microplastic per square mile, the risk to the ecosystem in this area is huge and as 70% of all litter in the ocean sink to the floor the unseen impacts may be even greater than expected. The North Pacific Gyre keeps the debris circulating the North Pacific Ocean and creates convergence zones that are the natural gathering points within the ocean current system. In the case of the North Pacific, the two largest convergence zones are the western Garbage Patch and the eastern Garbage Patch (shown below). The constant movement of the gyre means that the microplastic and other marine debris remains trapped within the North Pacific ecosystem, amplifying the damage even more.
 |
| A map showing the North Pacific Garbage patch, (NOAA - Response and Restoration, 2013) |
As the amount of plastic within our oceans continues to
rise, we could be seeing more gatherings of plastics like the pacific garbage
patch as it is transported globally and deposited by ocean currents. This has a
huge impact on biodiversity in these areas and have been ingested by species, particularly
seas turtles, as well as entangling others. With 17% or all threatened marine
species being affected by plastic in our oceans, we need to be more aware that
plastic does travel within our oceans and dropping a plastic bottle on your
local beach could impact the Great Barrier Reef or be ingested by the
endangered Leatherback turtle.
References -
- Krieger, A. (2016, Febuary 7). What will it take to get plastics out of the ocean? Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10928788/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions
- National Geographic. (2014, September 19). Great Pacific Garbage Patch. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
- NOAA - Response and Restoration. (2013, Febuary 7th). How Big Is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"? Science vs. Myth. Office of Response and Restoration: https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html
- Pidwirny, M. (2006). Surface and Subsurface Ocean Currents: Ocean Current Map. Retrieved from Fundamentals of Physical Geography: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html
- Sea Turtle Conservancy. (2017). Information About Sea Turtles: Threats from Marine Debris. Sea Turtle Conservancy: https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-threats-marine-debris/
Saturday, 22 September 2018
Dear Hollywood, Stop Making Us Afraid of Sharks
 |
| Photo of a Great White Shark Photo from https://wall.alphacoders.com/by_sub_category.php?id=206047&name=Great+White+Shark+Wallpapers |
I love sharks. I think they're some of the most beautiful and interesting species in our oceans which is the main reason I want to study them for my dissertation. My dream is to be able to travel to Australia and study the Great White and work on conserving them. However, this seems to be an unpopular opinion with 39% of adults in the UK saying they HATE sharks, with just under half of these justifying their answer with the argument that they attack humans. Granted the slightly scary appearance, particularly the large teeth, can scare some but could the main reason be the fact they often come off a vicious monsters in blockbuster films such as The Shallows. These films are designed to scare us and keep us on the edge of our seats and as a result they have been mad out to these giant human killers that isn't really the case. I feel the majority of selachophobia, or a fear of sharks, has been brought about by the growing genre of shark attack films.
Firstly, I am not saying that shark attacks do not occur because they do and beach goers in shark waters should be cautious. Everyone is aware of the tragic case of surfer Bethany Hamilton who had her arm bitten off in 2003 by a tiger shark. However, despite what Hollywood will have us believe, the danger from dying as a result of a shark attack is far smaller than we may initially think. Did you know you have a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of dying by shark attack? To put this into perspective, the risk of dying of heart disease is 1 in 5 and dying as a result of a car accident is 1 in 84. Even your chance of drowning is 1 in 1,134 making the ocean itself far more dangerous than the scariest creatures in them. In fact there are on average 4 sharks related deaths a year which is 16 less than deaths caused by cows (both in the USA). Another false fact seemingly portrayed is that we're a tasty snack for sharks, particularly Great Whites but if they bite us, they tend to spit us out because our bones are too dense for their slow digestive systems. In fact the only reason they bite us (in the very few cases that there actually are of shark bites) is out of curiosity. Although all sharks are carnivores, roughly 70-80% of their diet is made up of small fish making the chance of being bitten by a shark very slim. With over 465 known species, very few even pose a threat to humans and even the largest species (the Whale Shark) are actually filter feeders meaning they feed in a similar way to most whales with a diet mainly made from plankton. They also range in size the smallest being the Pygmy shark at 7-inches long suggesting the Hollywood image that shark are giant hunters lurking along our coastlines may be inaccurate.
As a matter of fact, we need sharks. Firstly, sharks contribute to ecotourism that help boost local and national economies. In Fiji alone, 78% of all visiting divers participate in some form of shark diving which created US$5.9 million in taxes in 2010. In fact, the shark-diving industry in Fiji is valued at US$42.2 million annually. This isn't taking into account the 'economic multipliers' that benefit the local economies including accommodation for tourists as well as tourists spending money in local businesses. In fact in Ganbaai (South Africa)50% of all local business sales are related in some way to Great White Sharks. Sharks also play a very important role within the ecosystem as they keep the food webs in balance by maintaining healthy fish populations. Sharks are often the top predators and are often referred to as keystone species as the health of the ecosystem can be estimated by monitoring the shark population. Without the sharks, the prey populations (i.e. small fish) would get too big causing overgrazing of the sea plants therefore reducing the amount of oxygen available. Not to mention this limits the damage to coral reefs from large fish populations. Believe it or not, they can actually limit or stop the spread of disease as they are more likely to prey on the weak, sick and older fish meaning they stop outbreaks and a declining population. Did you also know that sharks have helped to design wet suits? Biomimetics is using a natural structure (or an organism) in science and engineering so shark skins were studied to create the aerodynamic style of wet suits. These are just three ways sharks actually benefit us and the planet. I could write lists and lists about all the ways we need sharks but it would take forever to read and also that;s a lot of effort to write.
So why are we so afraid of sharks if they don't actually pose a huge threat to us, in fact it has been proven they benefit us. Personally I feel that they are turned into villains by the film industry. As money is the priority for this industry (well actually most industries) scary things sell so any predator is at risk of being displayed inaccurately with little scientific evidence. Could this be increasing the amount of shark hunting? That however is up for debate.
 |
| Comparision of the size of different shark species. Photo from https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/511299363927109368/ |
As a matter of fact, we need sharks. Firstly, sharks contribute to ecotourism that help boost local and national economies. In Fiji alone, 78% of all visiting divers participate in some form of shark diving which created US$5.9 million in taxes in 2010. In fact, the shark-diving industry in Fiji is valued at US$42.2 million annually. This isn't taking into account the 'economic multipliers' that benefit the local economies including accommodation for tourists as well as tourists spending money in local businesses. In fact in Ganbaai (South Africa)50% of all local business sales are related in some way to Great White Sharks. Sharks also play a very important role within the ecosystem as they keep the food webs in balance by maintaining healthy fish populations. Sharks are often the top predators and are often referred to as keystone species as the health of the ecosystem can be estimated by monitoring the shark population. Without the sharks, the prey populations (i.e. small fish) would get too big causing overgrazing of the sea plants therefore reducing the amount of oxygen available. Not to mention this limits the damage to coral reefs from large fish populations. Believe it or not, they can actually limit or stop the spread of disease as they are more likely to prey on the weak, sick and older fish meaning they stop outbreaks and a declining population. Did you also know that sharks have helped to design wet suits? Biomimetics is using a natural structure (or an organism) in science and engineering so shark skins were studied to create the aerodynamic style of wet suits. These are just three ways sharks actually benefit us and the planet. I could write lists and lists about all the ways we need sharks but it would take forever to read and also that;s a lot of effort to write.
So why are we so afraid of sharks if they don't actually pose a huge threat to us, in fact it has been proven they benefit us. Personally I feel that they are turned into villains by the film industry. As money is the priority for this industry (well actually most industries) scary things sell so any predator is at risk of being displayed inaccurately with little scientific evidence. Could this be increasing the amount of shark hunting? That however is up for debate.
Resources -
- Charlotte Chivers, Why are we so afraid of sharks?, One Poll, November 2015, http://www.onepoll.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-sharks/
- Elizabeth Palermo, Why are people so afraid of sharks? Live Science, July 2016, https://www.livescience.com/51579-fear-of-sharks-psychology.html
- Elaina Zachos, Why are we so afraid of sharks? There's a scientific explanation., National Geographic, January 2018, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/sharks-attack-fear-science-psychology-spd/
- WildAid, Ecotourism: Dollars and Sense, Shark Savers, 2012, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-and-ecotourism/
- WildAid, Shark's Role In The Oceans, Shark Savers, 2009, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-role-in-the-ocean/
Thursday, 13 September 2018
Ghost Fishing: The unseen problem in our oceans
 |
| photograph of ghost gear on the sea bed - https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=ghost+fishing#id=5D43E26A116A7D8952B16078B4095F728572BE87 |
With the growing human impact on our oceans being widely mentioned in the media (thanks Blue Planet) things like using plastic straws have fallen out of fashion with the general public being more conscious of our impact on marine life. Although I am so happy about the interest in our oceans, plastic straws only make up a small percentage of plastic waste and most of it is waste from the fishing industry. This got me thinking about ghost fishing, a subject I studied during college, that has such a huge negative impact but is barely spoken about in the media in an attempt to raise awareness of this growing problem.
So what is 'ghost fishing'? It's when old fishing equipment that is no longer in use has been abandoned in our oceans and still traps fish and other marine animals including the beloved sea turtle. This creates a positive feedback mechanism as the trapped fish act as bait for larger fish, capturing and endangering a greater number of marine species. The abandoned equipment also causes alterations to the sea floor, damaging the sea bed and the habitat for species including sea stars and crabs.
The abandoned 'ghost gear' accounts for 10% of all marine litter (which is a lot higher than plastic straws) and entangles, on average, 11 whales annually in West Coast America alone so imagine how many become injured or die globally because of this abandoned equipment. With an estimated 640,000 tonnes of fishing nets (not including lobster traps and other fishing gear) polluting our oceans we are putting a huge number of rare species at risk unnecessarily. With a single net entangling between 30-40 marine animals, these have a severe impact on the ecosystem as they have been known to entangle a huge range of species from sharks and whales to sea stars and small fish. Another environmental issue is the damage to habitat. Heavy equipment ,such as crab and lobster traps, sink to the bottom and disturb the sea bed and can be responsible for dredging as well as smothering organisms that live on the sea bed including sea grasses and crabs. Coral reefs are at great risk as ocean currents carry heavy traps that can destroy the coral habitat.
Currently there are several programmes an initiatives globally that aim to tackle and reduce this problem including the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), which DEFRA is participating in, that aims to improve the health of our marine ecosystems by removing discarded fishing gear. One thing they do is collect evidence and information including how much equipment has been collected and it is mapped to work out any trends and possible impacts to biodiversity by locating any hotspots. They also aim to define and enforce polices, including management of gear on board to ensure that no equipment is lost at seas particularly in stormy weather. These are just a few simple ways this initiative is helping this growing issue and with participation from governments, NGO's and the private sector the GGGI will continue to develop further and hopefully achieve the aim of cleaner oceans. One example of a participating organisation is KIMO international which run the GGGI Solution Project in Scotland which is responsible for removing 50 tonnes of ghost gear from Scottish coastlines.
Ghost fishing has become much more regulated by governments who are aiming to punish those responsible but in my view much more can be done to tackle this growing issue starting with public awareness. Let's focus less on plastic straws and more on larger marine debris that has a much larger, and more fatal impact.
Resources -
- Global Ghost Gear Initiative, Governance Bodies, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/sites/default/files/attachments/gggi_governance_bodies.pdf
- Global Ghost Gear Inititaive, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/
- Hannah Gould, Hidden problem of 'ghost gear': the abandoned fishing nets clogging up oceans, The Guardian, 10th September 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/sep/10/fishing-industry-vows-to-tackle-wildlife-deaths-from-ghost-gear
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Impact of "Ghost Fishing" via Derelict Fishing Gear, NOAA Marine Debris Programme Report, 2015, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf
- FAO, Ghost nets hurting marine environment, United Nations, 2009, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/
Sunday, 8 July 2018
The Five Plants You NEED To Grow
With urbanisation continuing to rise and open green areas in rapid decline, how we use our gardens is becoming increasingly important for the wildlife and the environment. Around 1,000 of our agricultural plants rely on pollinators to grow to increasing the habitat available for birds, bees and bats is important for our food system and larger populations leads to a higher food production. They are also the basis of the ecosystem and the food chains as they contribute to the growth of wild fruits and green plants that feed the primary consumers such as rabbits and wild mice. They can also protect habitats of large economic and cultural significance. Experts say that the majority of plants should be native to this country (around 70%) to replicate the natural habitat of British wildlife. Another thing to remember is to allow plants and organic matter to decay to attract other invertebrates ( such as woodlice) and larger mammals like hedge hogs that are also becoming more vulnerable. So, here are the top five plants to include in your garden to help see these populations rise.
Lavender -
Not only will these add a beautiful colour to your garden and smell amazing, but pollinators love them. They provide a large amount of nectar and pollen which can increase bee and butterfly populations in particular. Ladybirds also love them which eat pests such as aphids and the smell also repels other pests and can act as a natural form of pest control which could also benefit any vegetable patches you may choose to grow.
Holly -
The holly tree is an evergreen plant meaning it grows all year round and provide a food source for birds in particular and can ensure populations survive winter. With over 400 species of the holly plant, it attracts a wide range of wildlife from thrushes and blackbirds to butterflies and moths. Due to its evergreen nature it is used for nesting and can be used by small mammals during the hibernation season.
Hawthorn -
Hawthorns are one of the most common shrubs in the UK and attract around 150 species of insects and can provide a habitat for birds such as Goldfinches and Thrushes as it produces berries during the autumn. When the flowers bloom during the summer months, bumble bees love this plant and it also provides a habitat for ladybirds and earwigs. It is also a great food plant for caterpillar and can boost butterfly populations in your garden.
Honeysuckle -
Honeysuckle is so important to a wide range of species, particularly pollinators due to the incredibly sweet nectar it produces. . It also is important to the rare white admiral butterfly as the caterpillars will only feed on this plant. It also provides food and shelter for small mammals, in particular dormice.
Thyme -
Experts encourage gardeners to include a wild range of plants including herbs. Thyme is a great one to grow as it provides nectar for bees and other pollinators but the ground cover it provides creates a safe habitat for other small invertebrates including detritivores that can improve the soil quality and organic matter content.
Obviously, I'm not saying that if you don't plant these you don;t care about the environment because there are a range of factors to take into account such as the type of property you own, allergies and any pets you may have. If you have a large garden be sure to include a range of plants from trees, shrubs, flowers and herbs. Also don't forget to include grass as some butterflies have been known to lay eggs in the tall blades. In my opinion, we all need to be doing our bit to improve insect populations as they are vital for our way of life so even just planting a few flower pots along a balcony of a flat is a great start and should be encouraged.
Lavender -
Not only will these add a beautiful colour to your garden and smell amazing, but pollinators love them. They provide a large amount of nectar and pollen which can increase bee and butterfly populations in particular. Ladybirds also love them which eat pests such as aphids and the smell also repels other pests and can act as a natural form of pest control which could also benefit any vegetable patches you may choose to grow.
 |
| Photo from https://www.theflowerexpert.com/content/giftflowers/flowersandfragrances/lavenders |
Holly -
The holly tree is an evergreen plant meaning it grows all year round and provide a food source for birds in particular and can ensure populations survive winter. With over 400 species of the holly plant, it attracts a wide range of wildlife from thrushes and blackbirds to butterflies and moths. Due to its evergreen nature it is used for nesting and can be used by small mammals during the hibernation season.
 |
| Photo from https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/home-garden/gardening/plants/trees/how-to-grow-holly-and-get-berries |
Hawthorn -
Hawthorns are one of the most common shrubs in the UK and attract around 150 species of insects and can provide a habitat for birds such as Goldfinches and Thrushes as it produces berries during the autumn. When the flowers bloom during the summer months, bumble bees love this plant and it also provides a habitat for ladybirds and earwigs. It is also a great food plant for caterpillar and can boost butterfly populations in your garden.
 |
| Photo from https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/english-hawthorn |
Honeysuckle -
Honeysuckle is so important to a wide range of species, particularly pollinators due to the incredibly sweet nectar it produces. . It also is important to the rare white admiral butterfly as the caterpillars will only feed on this plant. It also provides food and shelter for small mammals, in particular dormice.
 |
| Photo from https://www.gardenia.net/plant/Lonicera-fragrantissima-Sweetest-Honeysuckle |
Thyme -
Experts encourage gardeners to include a wild range of plants including herbs. Thyme is a great one to grow as it provides nectar for bees and other pollinators but the ground cover it provides creates a safe habitat for other small invertebrates including detritivores that can improve the soil quality and organic matter content.
 |
| Photo from http://www.johnnyseeds.com/herbs/thyme/orange-thyme-seed-2934.html |
Obviously, I'm not saying that if you don't plant these you don;t care about the environment because there are a range of factors to take into account such as the type of property you own, allergies and any pets you may have. If you have a large garden be sure to include a range of plants from trees, shrubs, flowers and herbs. Also don't forget to include grass as some butterflies have been known to lay eggs in the tall blades. In my opinion, we all need to be doing our bit to improve insect populations as they are vital for our way of life so even just planting a few flower pots along a balcony of a flat is a great start and should be encouraged.
Monday, 4 June 2018
Can Cotton Be Sustainable?
 |
| Image from www.heraldsun.com.au |
I was in Primark the other day (not the most eco-friendly I'll admit) and I noticed that they had a sustainable cotton section. Cotton farming requires a huge amount of land that is often derived from unsustainable deforestation methods (i.e. slash and burn) and the growing and harvesting process has a huge environmental impact so I was happy to see a big retailer trying to reduce the environmental impact. However this did get me thinking what made this cotton sustainable? Can cotton farming ever be sustainable?
Firstly why is cotton farming so unsustainable?
Cotton farming has huge ethical and environmental implications the first of which being the huge water consumption with the average water footprint being 10,000 litres per kilogram. With 730 million without access to clean water globally, cotton farming increases water scarcity in the areas with the greatest need for water. Cotton is also considered the 'dirtiest crop' by many organisations, such as the EJF, with cotton farming using 16% of all insecticides. Over 98% of all insecticides kill no target species causing a decline in the main pollinator species. There is also a risk of contamination of aquatic environments from runoff causing a decline in aquatic organisms. There are also health implications for workers and with 99% of all cotton farmers living in third world countries, there is a lack of safety and hazard testing. For example, a common pesticide used for cotton farming is easily absorbed via the skin and has the potential to kill. Other health implications of insecticides include respiratory illnesses, memory loss and seizures. There is also a huge amount of pollution produced as a result of deforestation and the chemicals used in the dyeing and bleaching process causes a large amount of environmental degradation. These chemicals include heavy metals and benzidine/chlorine bleaches which have been linked to an increased risk of cancer.
There is also a huge socioeconomic impact with the workers in third world nations receiving low wages and the rich TNC's receiving the majority of profits, driving the poverty cycle. The majority of workers receive wages lower than the amount needed to meet their basic human needs. Many of these workers work long working days (with hours above the limit set by the International Labour Organisation) and overtime often goes unpaid. There is also a huge number of children working in the fields and Uzbekistan has been outed for shutting schools and forcing children to work in cotton fields.
This begs the question what is the difference between 'normal' cotton and sustainable cotton, like the one used in Primark?
Sustainable cotton is defines as the sources being 'either organic, better or recycled' which has the potential to vastly reduce the environmental footprint of cotton farming. With the greatest amount of energy being used, resulting in a large amount of pollution, is during the extraction and processing of cotton so recycled cotton will greatly reduce the ecological footprint. Cotton that is certified GRS (Global Recycle Standard) ensures that cotton has been produced with minimal environmental and chemical impacts throughout the entire production process. This ensures the cotton farm has a chemical management system in place to meet all the legal requirements and to reduce the amount of pollution and run off. It also ensures that all companies meet the set target for energy use (as set by Textile Exchange) and there are frequent reviews to help improve energy efficiency. there are also set targets for water use and air pollution levels helping to reduce the environmental impact further.
Organic is defined as "produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" in the Oxford dictionary. Although natural pesticides and fertilisers can still be harmful, there is less contribution to acidification and eutrophaction, reducing the impact on aquatic life and the soil in the surrounding area helping both the local people and the biodiversity. The chemicals used to treat regular cotton can bio-accumulate within the food chain meaning the impacts can be seen in the top predators even though they are not in direct contact with the chemical as it is stored in the fatty tissue of smaller, prey organisms. Pesticides have been linked to 67 million annual deaths in birds in the U.S. alone due to the bio-accumulating properties. With less pesticide use, there is a greater chance of bio-diversity recovering in cotton farming areas.
 |
| Photo of certified organic cotton labels from babycribbed.com |
There are also major differences to the workers, with organisations working to improve working conditions. The Better Cotton Initiative ensure that farmers receive more of the profits, better working conditions and healthcare and has been based on UN labour standards. This mean there is a better quality of life for the workers as there is less fear of discrimination and better workers rights so they are not afraid of becoming unemployed if they do not receive a pay cut. The increase in disposable income means there is a greater chance of improving sanitation, education and access to clean water and food. The knock on effects mean that workers under these initiatives have a chance at a better quality of life.
There are a large number of cotton standards and projects to help improve the sustainability but with less than 1% of the worlds cotton being certified organic, there is still a huge amount of demand and need for unsustainable farming methods to meet the huge demand. With 120.8 million bales (at 480 pounds each) being produced in 2017, more retailers need to enforce these farming methods to ensure the minimal environmental impact and ensure we have cotton as a resource for the future. However, in my opinion cotton is one of the most unsustainable materials and there are better options for retailers to invest in with a much smaller impact. For example, not only is hemp a more durable material, which will help reduce the production demand, but also requires half the amount of land that cotton does and requires less water at 2,000 L per kg. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. A life cycle assessment carried out but the Textile Exchange staes that organic farmed cotton was "significantly more environmental friendly" but organic cotton also requires more land than convential cotton as it has a much lower yield so some believe that it may lead to an increase in deforestation, questioning the sustainability of organic cotton. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry.
Overall, my personal view is that recycled cotton is a better option than organic and conventional cotton due to the reduced chemical and land use. Despite this I do feel that there are better options available and companies should be investing in these materials. I do feel that some responsibility should lie with the consumer as there are alternatives such as buying second hand clothing and choosing your clothing brands more carefully.
References -
- Risks of cotton processing, Organic Cotton, (2016), https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton/Risk-of-cotton-processing.php
- Ethical Issues in Cotton Production, Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (August 2017), http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/fashionindustry/cotton.aspx
- Global Cotton Production, Statista, (2018), https://www.statista.com/statistics/259392/cotton-production-worldwide-since-1990/
- What Is the Most Animal and Eco-Friendly Material for Clothing?, Lindsay Patton, (January 26 2015), http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/what-is-the-most-animal-and-eco-friendly-material-for-clothing/
- Global Recycled Standard, Textile Exchange, (2017), http://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Global-Recycled-Standard-v4.0.pdf
- 13 brands sign sustainable cotton pledge - but is organic cotton really better?, Vlvlan Herdrlksz, Fashion United, (7 June 2017), https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/13-brands-sign-sustainable-cotton-pledge-but-is-organic-cotton-really-better/2017060724755
Sunday, 1 April 2018
Is A No-Growth Economy The Answer?
When I first discovered my passion for nature, I never thought I would have to study economics . In fact I thought these two subjects could never coexist. In fact it's actually quite surprising that the majority of economic growth comes from the ecosystem. Our economy is built on manufacturing and consumers paying for the manufactured goods. We build our economy on exports and the more the produce, the more we sell and the more we grow. The main question is what happens to these goods we we don't need them? The answer is they go back into the ecosystem as waste which can be through landfill or pollution.
Countries develop their economy by increasing production and thereby increasing consumption. However, in order to do this a large amount of extraction has to happen in order to get the necessary fuel and resources. And how do we get this? Deforestion, mining and basically any process that kills wildlife and causes our biodiversity to decline.
So this poses the question, can the economy and the ecosystem grow and develop together? Short answer is no. As one grows the other shrinks and with us prioritising the economy, the ecosystem is continuing to decline. The theory and idea of ecological economics doesn't suggest we revert to a preindustrial society with no technology, but states we should maintain our current economy to avoid and limit future extraction. This will help to preserve our natural resource and the earth for future generations. This will also limit the disposal of waste going back into the ecosystem. If we can also reuse and develop our waste it will also limit the extraction process. Ecological economics calls for a shift from conventional economics to stop economic growth because we simply cannot sustain it. We need to stop growing. I mean imagine if every single country reached the same level of development as the UK or America. It simply is not possible. We need better allocation and management of our natural resources to save our planet.
So to summer use, the economy and the ecosystem are connected and if the economy grows (as every government wants to), the ecosystem will decline. Instead of making the production system an open system, it needs to become closed with a focus on reusing and repurposing waste rather than disposal. Society also needs to shift away from a consumer based economy, in a sense. We need to stop buying what we want and what we need. We need to reduce all the unnecessary stuff we have that damages our environment.
Thursday, 29 March 2018
Only One Earth
We only have one Earth. No plan B, no second planet tucked away at the back of the solar system. So why are we destroying it? Money? Development? Or are we just oblivious to the fact we need to change?
From a young age the natural world has fascinated me. It started with a love for animals which made me want to become a vet and help save our beautiful companion animals. This developed into a love for being outdoors and a want to explore all the world has to offer by experiencing all the amazing creatures I'm their natural habitat. But as I grew older I realised the danger the natural world was in and the scale of it. I remember being horrified in school learning that people we willing to chop down our rainforests and damage our oceans for fuel and resources that would eventually run out and what made it even worse was that the burning of these fuels isincreasing climate change. This made me want to take my passion for the environment further and lead me to !y current uni course environmental science. I decided I was going to do my part to protect and conserve the diverse wildlife on our planet because once it's gone it's gone.
I wanted to create this blog to share my thoughts and opinions on current environmental issues in the hope others will learn to help our planet and achieve a more sustainable lifestyle. I also felt this is the perfect way of sharing everything I learn at uni and apply my leaning to the real world.
So join me, a passionate tree hugging student, towards my goal of a more sustainable lifestyle and I hope you leaning something while you're here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)