The formation of a populist government in Italy has been causing disarray among policymakers and policy advisors working in a framework that has not assimilated advances in interdisciplinary sustainability science.

Their discussions are dominated by the prospect of a clash of interests between Italy’s agenda, dominated by unemployment and irregular migration, and the lack of political will among northern countries to bend budgetary rules or accept more refugees and asylum seekers.

They are missing an opportunity to exploit the common ground of sustainability to agree on reforms for Italy and the other member states in a way that could even provide the foundations for a renewal of the European project in line with ecological goals.

Popular discontent

On May 6 I attended a roundtable event on the ‘political crisis in Italy and the Eurozone’ at the European University Institute. Four prominent experts in the field of European policy, and especially economic policy, presented their thoughts: Stefano Bartolini, Henrik Enderlein, Ramon Marimon, and Jean Pisani-Ferry.

They agreed on a fair diagnosis of the immediate problem that the new Italian government represents for Italy and for its relationship with the rest of the EU: it is an expression of popular discontent with two decades of economic stagnation and high unemployment, and its flagship programmes of tax cuts and handouts pose an unprecedented challenge to the European project because they are impossible to fund without borrowing beyond the limits allowed by EU fiscal rules.

What is more, it is now politically impossible to force through the further austerity measures that would be required to address Italy’s national debt problem, which is hampering growth.

One by one, each panelist openly confessed to having very little idea of how to address the problem. Henrik Enderlein rightly criticized the simplistic ‘solutions’ that some economists have proposed, such as the ‘more austerity’ or its opposite, ‘increased spending’.

But he candidly admitted that he did not know what should be done, and was only able to advocate a vague ‘mixture’ of supply side and demand side measures, without specifying what these should be.

Diverse economy

None of the panelists confronted the key political matter of migration, and instead appeared to reduce popular anxieties over migration to the question of economic stagnation and above all unemployment.

Their assumption appeared to be that if you can solve growth and unemployment, then people will stop worrying about migration. But, as the case of Hungary shows, a populist prime minister can also successfully exploit anti-immigrant sentiments for political gain in a context of strong growth and low unemployment.

Jean Pisani Ferry, a former advisor to French President Macron, argued that more business consolidation is the solution for modernizing the Italian economy, thus implying that it should follow France’s somewhat dubious example.

In fact Italy’s relatively diverse economy, with its range of small and family-run businesses, has afforded it a certain resilience in the long term; small businesses have given Italy the privilege of occupying a range of niches, thanks to the persistence of specialised artisans, an area which is indeed growing.

Global sustainability

For better or worse, there are also two sides to the coin of the level of irregularity in Italy: on the one hand, tax avoidance is rife, which erodes trust in the system while reducing the actual returns that are collected; on the other hand, there is a gigantic ‘shadow’ economy which, though illegal, helps Italy to survive economic crises.

Ramon Marimon inadvertently suggested a clue as to how to approach the Italian problem differently. He mentioned in passing the government’s inclusion in its programme of progressive measures for ‘greening’ the economy.

None of the panelists commented on this, and they consequently missed their chance to find a new way of framing their discussion in a way that could provide a policy context for agreement on other issues.

The ‘contract’ between the Lega and the Five Star Movement includes a focus on the circular economy, climate change and ‘sustainable mobility’ (green transport), and while these are not given much substance in terms of numbers or deadlines, they nevertheless express a clear consensus as to general policy direction that is in line with those of their northern European neighbours.

It would be worth attempting to put the Italian problem into the wider context of global sustainability. For instance, migration is a sustainability issue.

This is not just because climate change or environmental degradation may lead some people to migrate. Of more immediate significance is the fact that Italy’s birth rate is very low, while that of sub-Saharan Africa is very high – facts which amount to elements of a wicked problem that is reducible neither to changing territorial carrying capacity nor to evolving the demographics of economic productivity.

Global inequality

Migration should also be thought of in relation to the unsustainable trend of widening global social and economic inequality. As Hein de Haas has shown, migration has not increased globally in proportion to population – but what has changed is that wealth has become more concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, which have become favoured migrant destinations. Meanwhile, continued growth is known to be unsustainable on a global scale.

Global inequality may not bear a linear causal relationship towards migration, but it does seem to underpin the beggar-thy-neighbour attitude that increasingly prevails in wealthy countries towards migrants, leading to reductions in legal avenues for migration, which have been matched by proportional increases in ‘irregular’ migration, as migration scholars frequently point out.

The pattern of inequality in relation to migration is also evident on the Italian electoral map: the more vocally anti-migrant Lega has most support in the rich north of Italy, while the anti-system M5S dominates in the poor south, where the dramatic maritime arrivals of migrants occur (though this pattern also results from the Lega’s traditional antipathy to southern Italian immigrants, and from the deeper ‘anti-system’ sentiment skillfully exploited by the Movement in the south).

I know from my own fieldwork in Sicily and Calabria that anti-immigrant feeling does not dominate there. I have also found further evidence of the fact that environmental and social sustainability are best addressed together.

Common ground of sustainability

My research shows how small scale migrant reception centres in rural parts of southern Italy are offering a valuable opportunity for regeneration in a context of long term economic and demographic decline: in territories largely abandoned by the state and by their own youth, young migrants are studying, doing apprenticeships and taking up work that nobody else wants, giving local services like schools and buses a reason to continue to function. 

I suggest that an opportunity exists to exploit the common ground of sustainability in European negotiations to agree on reforms for Italy and the other member states.

Re-framed as a wider problem of social and ecological sustainability – as well as a problem of the sustainability of the European Union itself, the Italian crisis could even sow the seed of a renewal of the European project in line with ecological goals.

Sustainability is already a major policy priority area for the EU, and the framing of policies to address the problem of managing migration in terms of sustainability could make them more politically palatable.

For example, a special exception to EU fiscal rules could be made for borrowing and spending on green and sustainable investment – including sustainable migration policies such as ‘diffused’ migrant reception, which can help revive rural areas.

Valuable opportunity

The area of sustainability also offers a valuable opportunity to drive a wedge between European and American populism.

Trumpian populism is driven in part by the fossil fuel industry and its sponsorship of climate change scepticism, and this feature is not shared by continental European populism, which has not sought to undermine the Paris Agreement or other cooperation agreements on sustainability such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

Why is the common ground of sustainability invisible to so many economists and political scientists? Mainstream economists tend to see environmental economics and ecological economics as specialist areas.

Interdisciplinary sustainability science is rapidly growing but its influence remains marginal, partly because of the difficult challenge of working outside comfortable disciplinary silos.

But the problems of migration, unemployment and economic stagnation should be treated together as part of a single problem, which can only be usefully framed in terms of sustainability. Policy advisors should be jumping at this opportunity for political reconciliation and renewal.

This Author

Marc Brightman is co-director of the Centre for the Anthropology of Sustainability at University College London and co-author of The Anthropology of Sustainability: Beyond Development and Progress. He is currently a EURIAS ( European Institutes for Advanced Study ) fellow at the University of Bologna and visiting fellow at the European University Institute. This article first appeared on Opendemocracy.net

During the Obama era, the United States took many steps toward protecting the environment and fighting climate change. The Obama administration passed landmark legislation, such as the Clean Power Plan, and signed the United States up for the Paris Climate Accord.

Now that Trump is in office, he is working persistently to dismantle much of the progress made during the Obama administration. Some things he has successfully reversed, while other changes are still in the works.

This situation has many environmentalists feeling like we took one step forward and now we’re taking two back. So, what has Trump done to dissemble Obama’s climate efforts and what is he planning to do? Here’s a rundown.

Trump’s Appointments

The first sign of trouble for the environment following Trump’s election was his appointees. In February 2017, the Senate confirmed Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, as secretary of state. Many saw this as a validation of their fears about Trump siding with the fossil fuel industry.

Later, Scott Pruitt, who had frequently sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the past, became its head.

Stream Protection

One of the first Obama-era rules that Trump repealed was the Stream Protection Rule, which Obama signed just before he left office. The rule made restrictions on dumping coal mining waste into waterways stricter.

Clean Water

Shortly after the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule, Trump issued an executive order requesting that the EPA review the Obama-era Waters of the United States rule.

The rule clarified which waters are under the jurisdiction of the federal Clean Water Act and expanded it to some waterways, which will lead to continued contamination of drinking water in rural areas that will require water filtration systems to make water safe for consumption.

The rule is currently suspended until 2020, while the EPA reviews it.

Lead Ammunition

On Ryan Zinke’s first day as Secretary of the Interior, he rescinded a rule passed the day before Trump’s inauguration banning lead ammunition and fishing tackle from use on federal lands and waters.

Obama’s Fish and Wildlife Service passed the ban to protect animals from lead poisoning. The National Rifle Association applauded the ban’s repeal.

Climate Information

Since the Trump administration began, information about science and climate change has disappeared from government websites. In March 2017, the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology took the word science out of its mission statement.

In April, the Interior Department removed almost all mention of climate change from its website. The EPA later took similar measures with its climate change site.

Coal Support

Under the Trump administration, a number of major pipeline projects got approval, including Dakota Access and Keystone XL, which both faced significant opposition from activists.

Trump also ordered a review of bans on offshore oil and gas drilling in parts of the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Clean Power

In March 2017, Trump issued perhaps his most destructive executive order to environmental protection. Essentially, it began the process of dismantling Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan.

It directed various departments to start identifying and removing rules related to CPP. It also lifted moratoriums on new coal leases on federal lands.

Methane Rule

Trump also attempted to get rid of regulations on methane emissions put forth in the Obama era. The rules limited the venting and flaring that natural and oil companies could conduct on U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands.

While the House approved the proposal, the Senate rejected it by a slim margin, leaving the rule in place.

Paris Agreement

In one of Trump’s most famous environment-related moves, he pulled the United States out of the landmark Paris Climate Accord in June 2017.

The agreement, which includes 194 other countries, sought to cut global emissions. Although Trump announced withdrawal from the agreement, the process of withdrawing will take several years. Trump has dropped hints that he would reconsider if the deal’s conditions for the U.S. change.

Wildlife Protections

During the Trump administration, various wildlife protections have gone by the wayside. In April of this year, the Interior Department proposed changes to the policies that environmentalists fear could remove protections for around 300 threatened species.

Air Pollution

The Trump administration has also proposed getting rid of or loosening various air pollution regulations, including the Clinton-era once-in-always-in policy and emissions requirements for certain vehicles.

The EPA planned to delay the implementation of Obama-era ozone regulations, but reversed its position in the face of a lawsuit from 16 states.

Climate Monitoring

On May 9, the Trump administration cut NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System initiative, which funded pilot programs to improve carbon emission monitoring.

The program was related to the Paris Agreement, as monitoring helped ensure compliance with the accord. NASA still, however, has several satellites for monitoring the climate in operation.

Fighting Back

The Trump administration has been doing its best to reverse many of the environmental efforts of the Obama era, but scientists, environmentalists, state and local governments, and citizens are fighting back.

Many of Trump’s actions have been met with lawsuits and opposing actions by state and local leaders. On Earth Day 2017, thousands of scientists marched on Washington to protest the administration’s environmental and science policies.

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, which Trump claimed had the largest crowd in history, the National Park Service tweeted a photo comparing the inauguration crowd to that of Obama’s.

Several Twitter accounts then surfaced, claiming to be run by National Park Service and other federal officials, to take a stance against Trump’s policies and actions.

Perhaps Trump’s donation of his first quarter salary to the National Park Service was meant to smooth over this relationship. Then again, Trump’s 2018 budget blueprint also proposed cutting the Interior Department’s budget, under which the National Park Service falls, by $1.5 billion.

Trump seems to be determined to wage his personal war on conservation, and it’s the duty of scientists and concerned citizens to bring these efforts into the light. The Trump administration must be held accountable for its anti-environmental actions.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

A major new initiative to restore degraded wetlands and boreal forests in Finland has been launched.

Rewilding Europe, the non-profit organisation behind the project, hopes it’ll help restore biodiversity values and create new carbon sinks across the country.

Pilot sites are already operational and this re-wilding model has the potential to be replicated in up to 5 million hectares of degraded lands in Finland

An innovative model

The initiative also contains steps to address biodiversity loss and re-wilding opportunities with the Sámi, the only Indigenous peoples of Europe. New business models are a part of the initiative.

Matthew McLuckie, Investment Manager of Rewilding Europe Capital and Timon Rutten, Head of Enterprise commented:  “Restoring and rewilding valuable peatlands creates benefits for all Europeans. 

“This ambitious transformational project aims to connect ecosystems, businesses and communities in collaboration to protect these natural landscapes and their ecosystem services. 

“Not only focusing on climate change mitigation, the project partners are working to ensure these peatlands positively contribute to local communities and economies and support Finland in exceeding their environmental goals and commitments.”

Mitigation potential

Of all the countries in Europe, Finland has the highest potential for carbon sequestration in its natural forests, peatlands and wetlands.

With a growing global need to mitigate and offset carbon emissions and counter climate change, carbon credits could become an important tool for Finnish climate change policy and rural economic development. 

Rewilding of drained forests and rewetting of peatlands is an attractive strategy to combine climate adaptation with sustainable land-use models that support biodiversity, wildlife and nature-based economies such as tourism.

With support from the European Investment Bank’s Natural Capital Finance Facility, Rewilding Europe and Snowchange Cooperative have started their work to secure, restore and protect Finland’s forests and wetlands using new forms of finance. 

Starting this process, up to € 1.2 million is expected to be allocated over the next five years to expand the pilot stage. Across the 2020s the initiative is expected to be scaled up to thousands of hectares of restored wetlands as sinks and forests.

Pilot projects

Purchasing high natural value strategic locations aims to prove the ecological and socio-economic relevance of the rewilding model. In 2017 the Linnunsuo area (110 ha) at the source of the wider Jukajoki basin (9,000 ha) was chosen as the first test case for this new approach. 

Encouraged by the first results, three new pilot sites will become operational in 2018, covering 209 hectares but positively influencing another 19,000 ha. 

The project is now developing rewilding process and building income from carbon offsetting and other services. 

With the expected increase of the value of  carbon credits (from January 2019 the aviation sector will be obliged to monitor and offset their carbon footprint), the project aims to rapidly expand using funding from new investors within the private sector.

This Author

Catherine Harte is a contributing editor to The Ecologist. This story is based on a news release from The Gaia Foundation.

Concrete policies to improve household energy efficiency, support carbon capture and storage and incentives for people to buy electric vehicles must all be delivered in the next 12 months, the government’s climate change advisor said today.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was created through the 2008 Climate Change Act to advise government on how to tackle the issue as well as scrutinising its progress.

In its annual progress report to Parliament published today, it welcomes the overall reduction in emissions of 43 percent compared with 1990.

Existing policies

However, this has been achieved almost entirely through cuts from the power and waste sectors, which “masks a worrying trend in other sectors,” the committee said.

“In this report, we refer to the ‘uneven’ balance of emissions reduction, a polite way of drawing attention to government inaction in a host of areas”, it states.

“This can’t go on. In the last five years, emissions outside of power and waste have plateaued. My committee has chosen this moment to give a strong message to government: act now, climate change will not pause while we consider our options,” the report reads.

Lack of action means that the UK is not on track to meet its legally binding fourth or fifth “carbon budgets” set under the Climate Change Act.

Neither will be achieved unless risks to the delivery of existing policies are reduced significantly, and the government brings forward effective new policies beyond the electricity generation and waste sectors, the committee warned.

Low-cost and low-risk

It urged the government to take action in the consumer interest, highlighting in particular onshore wind, which it said was low-cost and low risk.

Deployment of onshore wind has stalled in recent years since the government tightened planning rules and excluded the technology from auctions for energy contracts.

Standards to reduce emissions from vehicles also need to be enforced, since consumers have been cheated by misleading industry claims, the committee added.

The committee also highlighted the need for the environment department (Defra) to deal with emissions from agriculture and land use, as voluntary measures have not worked; and the Department for Transport’s failure to publish a strategy for road transport, which was expected in March.

Lord Deben, the CCC chairman, said: “Although the UK seeks to lead the world in tackling climate change, the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s.”

The elephant in the Cabinet Room

The report was welcomed by environmental campaign groups and industry. Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of renewable energy trade body RenewableUK, said that onshore wind was the cheapest source of electricity, even beating gas and nuclear, and that any politician blocking onshore wind would have to explain to voters why they were being denied the lowest-cost power source.

Paul Morozzo, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “Transport is the elephant in the Cabinet Room. This government can’t live up to its claims to climate leadership as long as it backs and new Heathrow runway and stalls action on cleaning up our road transport.”

Oliver Hayes, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said that the government’s approach to climate change was “dangerously inadequate”.

“Confirmation that the UK is off course for meeting its climate targets makes this week’s decisions to expand Heathrow and scrap the tidal lagoon at Swansea Bay even less justifiable,” he said.

On Monday, MPs voted 415 to 190 in favour of a third runway at Heathrow. The same day, the government said it would not support plans for a tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay, estimated to generate 11 percent of Welsh electricity consumption every year. It said the £1.3bn project was too expensive, but developers said that it would directly generate more than 2,000 jobs.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

It is now 10 years since the Climate Change Act (CCA) was first brought into law. Professor Chris Rapley CBE was one of the authors of the piece of legislation that served to hold governing ministers to account.

A decade on it is time to ask where it has put the UK in the context of the Paris Agreement and is it still fit for purpose.

Rapley speaks candidly about our preparedness for an ever-rising tide of climate impacts that are already having a disastrous effect on nearly all regions of the world.

Nick Breeze (NB): Can you summarise why the Climate Change Act (CCA) was significant when it was brought into law a decade ago?

Professor Chris Rapley CBE (CR): Ok, CCA was a really innovative piece of legislation and the fundamental core of it was that it makes the secretary of state, whoever they are in the future, in a statutory way, responsible for ensuring that the UK reduces its carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. And indeed, following a trajectory that is dictated by an independent body. 

NB: Would you say that this has been effective in the 10 years it has been enforced? 

CR: Well, up until now, yes. The UK’s carbon emissions are today 40 percent lower then they were in 1990. Partly, there are a whole load of factors that contributed to that.

But at the same time, the economy has grown by 60 percent, so one of the big results is that the myth that you can not decarbonise without damaging the economy has been blown out of the water. It’s clear: you can. 

NB: Where does this place Britain in the context of climate action compared with other countries? 

CR: From the government and the statutory point of view it places the UK well in the lead. It is a very innovative piece of legislation which many other nations are considering following.

Spain among others has been looking at it because it is seen as overcoming the four or five yearly electoral cycle. It commits the nation to a long-term set of action. So, this has been highly beneficial. 

NB: And do you think it stood the test of time? 

CR: Yes, I think it has. The Climate Change Committee which was established as the independent body to lay out the trajectory that the country needs to follow, and the Adaptation Sub-Committee which has been looking at the nation’s preparedness for climate change which is inevitably happening around us, now.

These are both very prestigious bodies. They are regarded – even at a time where experts are suspect – they are regarded as being rigorous and having done a very effective job. 

So, it’s established a process which I think is largely admired. What it reveals though, is that there are many areas where government action or national action is still, lagging.

But nevertheless, we have an independent and rigorous means of exposing that and once you expose the problem, then, of course, you can begin to address it. 

NB:  Do you think 10 years on, there are areas now where you think well, that could be tightened up or this could be improved upon. I mean, are there elements of the CCA that could be changed?  

CR: I think in terms of the act itself and the processes, the structures that had been set up to support it, I think they’ve stood the test of the time.

What we see now is the actual action on the ground is not keeping up in many areas. So for example, there are some very good examples of flood protection plans, like the London flood plan.

We know that there are many other areas around the country, which are very poorly prepared for sea level rise, flooding, or the intense rainfall flooding, that we are already experiencing. So there is plenty to do. 

NB: And, do you think when you highlight risks outside of London, in other parts of Britain, do you think these are being acted on right now? 

CR: It’s very patchy. There are some good examples and there are some areas where there is really insufficient knowledge and action. The present administration has definitely not helped.

For example, there had been a long process by which zero carbon home legislation was being prepared. The new administration abandoned that, and when they did so, they also removed the ability of local councils to impose conditions for the development on developers.

These conditions would make sure that the future developments are future and climate-proofed. 

So, a huge opportunity was lost to ensure that the local appropriate action was being taken. And if you talk to local councils now, or boroughs, the austerity and cutbacks have so reduced their staffing, that often you will find that there is nobody responsible for climate change at all.

So, if one has a new report that provides some useful advice there is literally nobody to send it to because there is nobody in the borough administration who is assigned that task. 

NB: Ok, I was curious whether [ministers] might be making a lot of noise but not actually taking a lot of action.

CR: Well we don’t know. Ah, well the cynic in me says, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’, but we have to be…there are good signs because the markets are beginning to have an effect, in two ways. 

Firstly, the green technology, the experience curves, the cost of the solar PV and wind have so plummeted, so much faster than was expected, that they are cost competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the world, but also in the UK.

So we see the kind of baseload delivery of green energy increasing: I mean, we have been through periods were coal contributed nothing to the UK electricity supply for a couple of days on end. 

But in addition, large investment companies, say pension funds and so on, are increasingly nervous of potential carbon bubbles, and stranded assets.

So you can see, the huge supertanker is a probably a very good metaphor, you can see the nose ineluctably begin to move towards the green and clean future, almost regardless of what the government may do. 

NB: Are there signs you can see that change is happening at the speed we need to see it, to avert the worst of climate impacts?

CR: Well yes we do things are happening but absolutely not at the scale, or pace that is necessary if we are serious about keeping the overall warming to about 2 degrees Centigrade, or less. 

We are currently on a track to 3-3.5ºC maybe even 4ºC at the end of the century. And we may have gone over a threshold where we have committed the Earth to rising sea levels of many metres over hundreds, if not thousands of years. 

So, certainly, the actions that we all collectively take over the next decade or two will determine the trajectory of the planet for thousands of years.

I absolutely do not see the scale and pace that is necessary to achieve our aspirations, which is two degrees of warming maximum and a planet that stabilizes in the next century or so. 

NB: You had a lot of experience, obviously with British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and so on, when we talk about many meters of sea level rise, this is a game-changer for the civilisation, isn’t it?

CR: Yes. British Antarctic Survey and of course all of the polar scientists have many contributions to understanding how the planet works. Antarctica is a big and important piece of the planetary machinery.

It is the air-conditioning system, or the water conditioning system, and at present, it is not the major contributor to the sea level rise that we are measuring now.

That is coming from the thermal expansion of the ocean as it warms and from Greenland and the glaciers on mountains around the world. 

But the paper came out last week that shows that the contribution of Antarctica to rising sea levels rise tripled in the last five years. So, it is beginning to accelerate.

Some years ago, I likened the Antarctic to a slumbering giant, and said, there were signs that it was awakening, and more recently I said, I think it is beginning to stretch its limbs and we should be very nervous about what is happening down there. 

NB:  When you consider a climate timeline of action versus impacts what concerns you the most? 

CR: Well, let’s talk about impacts, what we have seen is that climate change is happening now. This is not some abstract thing that is going to happen, to other people, somewhere else in the future. It is happening right now. 

There is a wonderful book that just came out called The Water Will Come by the journalist called Jeff Goodell which I recommend. And he has done a wonderful job, really investigating Florida and Venice and all of the obvious places that sea-level rises is going to impact. 

And there are people in Miami who are making decisions now, about whether to sell some of their condominiums now, before the prices collapse, or perhaps keep it, and sell it, or rent it to low-income people and finally let it go at the zero value. 

So people are seeing that the climate change is happening around them and they are reacting to it. One of the more controversial aspects of the climate change is that there is evidence that it is driving migration already, and it is migration probably more than anything else, that will be so disruptive in the future. 

Climate refugees from areas that are too hot, where crops fail, from areas that are flooded either through the sea-level flooding or whatever.

Or through the areas that no longer have a water supply because the winter system of snowfall that sits on the top of the mountains and then delivers water in the summer, from the Himalayas or Alps or wherever it is, no longer functions. 

So, very large numbers of people will move. We have seen the destabilising effect that has on Europe. Of course, the migrants we are seeing in Europe are not solely driven, or even largely driven by climate change, although there is a climate change component.

But that threat multiplier is a really serious consequence of climate change, and we are beginning to see it happening and it is only going to get worse, and that could cause very, very unpleasant social consequences. 

NB: In the struggle to communicate the challenges of climate change, what gives you the most strength? 

CR: Well the fact that a large percentage, although not all of the people, are genuinely what you might call communalistic, that is they believe that there is such a thing as society – despite that what we are told – and they are outraged by injustice.

And they are concerned about future of their children and their children’s children and, indeed, other’s people’s children’s children. 

So, what I see is a willingness on the part of people to bond together and act. If only they understood what it is that they can do. So, the strength is that there is a willingness out there. The weakness is, that it is very difficult to offer people agency in a way that it is effective. 

What I say to people is: personal, professional and political. You can organise your own life so that it is a low carbon, you can work within, amongst your colleagues, so assuming you have a job, and often do much more that way.

But the political pressure is where people can really make a difference, keeping that pressure on elected representatives to recognise that this is an issue that needs an action. 

This Author

Nick Breeze is a climate change interviewer and can be followed on Twitter here: @NickGBreeze – He also blogs at Envisionation.co.uk.

Planting season for corn and soybeans across the United States corn belt is drawing to a close. As they plant, farmers are participating in what is likely to be one of the largest deployments of insecticides in United States history.

Almost every field corn seed planted this year in the US – approximately 90 million acres’ worth – will be coated with neonicotinoid insecticides, the most widely used class of insecticides in the world.

The same is true for seeds in about half of US soybeans – roughly 45 million acres and nearly all cotton – about 14 million acres. In total, by my estimate, these insecticides will be used across at least 150 million acres of cropland, an area about the size the Texas.

Yield loss

Neonicotinoids are very good at killing insects. In many cases they require only parts per billion, equivalent to a few drops of insecticide in a swimming pool of water.

In recent years, concerns have been raised about the influence of neonicotinoids on bee populations. As an applied insect ecologist and extension specialist who works with farmers on pest control, I believe the focus on bees has obscured larger concerns.

In my view, US farmers are using these pesticides far more heavily than necessary, with potential negative impacts on ecosystems that are poorly understood.

Neonicotinoid use by crop from 1992 to 2014. The y-axis represents mass of neonicotinoid active ingredient applied in millions of kg. Tooker, Douglas, Krupke, 2017, doi:10.2134/ael2017.08.0026, CC BY-NC-ND

Most neonicotinoids in the United States are used to coat field crop seeds. Their role is to protect against a relatively small suite of secondary insect pests – that is, not the main pests that tend to cause yield loss.

National companies or seed suppliers apply these coatings, so that when farmers buy seed, they just have to plant it.

Limited time

The percentage of corn and soybean acreage planted with neonicotinoid seed coatings has increased dramatically since 2004.

By 2011, over 90 percent of field corn and 40 percent of soybeans planted were treated with a neonicotinoid. Between 2011 and 2014, the area treated crept toward 100 percent for corn and 50 percent for soybeans.

And the mass of neonicotinoids deployed in each crop doubled, indicating that seed suppliers applied about twice as much insecticide per seed. Unfortunately, many farmers are unaware of what is coated on their seeds, while others like the peace of mind that comes from an apparently better protected seed.

Unlike most insecticides, neonicotinoids are water soluble. This means that when a seedling grows from a treated seed, its roots can absorb some of the insecticide that coated the seed.

This can protect the seedling for a limited time from insects. But only a small fraction of the insecticide applied to seeds is actually taken up by seedlings.

For example, corn seedlings only take up about two percent, and it only persists in the plant for two to three weeks. The critical question is where the rest goes.

Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid used almost exclusively as a coating on seed corn. Maps from USGS.

Pervading the environment

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble, the leftover insecticide not taken up by plants can easily wash into nearby waterways. Neonicotinoids from seed coatings are now routinely found polluting streams and rivers around the country.

Here it is likely that they are poisoning and killing off some of the aquatic insects that are vital food sources for fishes, birds and other wildlife.

In the Netherlands, neonicotinoids in surface waters have been associated with widespread declines in insectivorous bird populations – a sign that concentrations of these insecticides are having strong effects on food webs.

Neonicotinoids also can strongly influence pest and predator populations in crop fields. My lab’s research has revealed that use of coated seeds can indirectly reduce crop yield by poisoning insect predators that usually kill slugs, which are important crop pests in mid-Atlantic corn and soybeans fields.

More broadly, planting coated seeds generally decreases populations of insect predators in crop fields by 15 to 20 percent. These predatory insects can eat insect pests, such as black cutworm and armyworm, that can reduce yield. Crop fields with fewer resident predators are more vulnerable to pest infestations.

Slugs, shown here on a soybean plant, are unaffected by neonicotinoids, but can transmit the insecticides to beetles that are important slug predators. Nick Sloff/Penn State University, CC BY-ND

An exaggerated need

Neonicotinoid advocates point to reports – often funded by industry – which argue that these products provide value to field crop agriculture and farmers.

However, these sources typically assume that insecticides of some type are needed on every acre of corn and soybeans. Therefore, their value calculations rest on comparing neonicotinoid seed coatings to the cost of other available insecticides.

History shows that this assumption is clearly faulty. In the decade before neonicotinoid seed coatings entered the market, only about 35 percent of US corn acres and 5 percent of soybean acres were treated with insecticides. In other words, pest populations did not cause economically significant harm very often.

Importantly, the pest complex attacking corn today is more or less the same as it was in the 1990s. This suggests that it is not necessary to treat hundreds of millions of acres of crops with neonicotinoid seed coatings.

Neonicotinoids can harm birds via multiple pathways, sometimes in very small quantities.

From overkill to moderation

Should the United States follow the European Union’s lead and pass a broad ban on neonicotinoids? In my view, action this drastic is not necessary.

Neonicotinoids provide good value in controlling critical pest species, particularly in vegetable and fruit production. However, their use on field crops needs to be reined in.

In the Canadian province of Ontario, growers can only use neonicotinoid seed treatments on 20 percent of their acres. This seems like a good start, but does not accommodate farmers’ needs very well.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a control strategy based on using pesticides only when they are economically justified, offers valuable guidelines.

It was introduced in the late 1950s in response to issues stemming from overuse of insecticides, including environmental damage and pest populations that had evolved resistance. Field-crop growers have a good history of using IPM, but current use of neonicotinoids ignores pest risk and conflicts with this approach.

To implement IPM in field crops with neonicotinoids, seed companies need to acknowledge that the current approach is overkill and poses serious environmental hazards.

Extension entomologists will then need to provide growers with unbiased information on strengths and limitations of neonicotinoids, and help farmers identify crop acres that will benefit from their use.

Finally, the agricultural industry needs to eliminate practices that encourage unnecessary use of seed coatings, such as bundling together various seed-based pest management products, and provide more uncoated seeds in their catalogs. These steps could end the ongoing escalation of neonicotinoid use and change the goal from “wherever possible” to “just enough.”

This Author

John F. Tooker is a associate professor of entomology and extension specialist at Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It is now 10 years since the Climate Change Act (CCA) was first brought into law. Professor Chris Rapley CBE was one of the authors of the piece of legislation that served to hold governing ministers to account.

A decade on it is time to ask where it has put the UK in the context of the Paris Agreement and is it still fit for purpose.

Rapley speaks candidly about our preparedness for an ever-rising tide of climate impacts that are already having a disastrous effect on nearly all regions of the world.

Nick Breeze (NB): Can you summarise why the Climate Change Act (CCA) was significant when it was brought into law a decade ago?

Professor Chris Rapley CBE (CR): Ok, CCA was a really innovative piece of legislation and the fundamental core of it was that it makes the secretary of state, whoever they are in the future, in a statutory way, responsible for ensuring that the UK reduces its carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. And indeed, following a trajectory that is dictated by an independent body. 

NB: Would you say that this has been effective in the 10 years it has been enforced? 

CR: Well, up until now, yes. The UK’s carbon emissions are today 40 percent lower then they were in 1990. Partly, there are a whole load of factors that contributed to that.

But at the same time, the economy has grown by 60 percent, so one of the big results is that the myth that you can not decarbonise without damaging the economy has been blown out of the water. It’s clear: you can. 

NB: Where does this place Britain in the context of climate action compared with other countries? 

CR: From the government and the statutory point of view it places the UK well in the lead. It is a very innovative piece of legislation which many other nations are considering following.

Spain among others has been looking at it because it is seen as overcoming the four or five yearly electoral cycle. It commits the nation to a long-term set of action. So, this has been highly beneficial. 

NB: And do you think it stood the test of time? 

CR: Yes, I think it has. The Climate Change Committee which was established as the independent body to lay out the trajectory that the country needs to follow, and the Adaptation Sub-Committee which has been looking at the nation’s preparedness for climate change which is inevitably happening around us, now.

These are both very prestigious bodies. They are regarded – even at a time where experts are suspect – they are regarded as being rigorous and having done a very effective job. 

So, it’s established a process which I think is largely admired. What it reveals though, is that there are many areas where government action or national action is still, lagging.

But nevertheless, we have an independent and rigorous means of exposing that and once you expose the problem, then, of course, you can begin to address it. 

NB:  Do you think 10 years on, there are areas now where you think well, that could be tightened up or this could be improved upon. I mean, are there elements of the CCA that could be changed?  

CR: I think in terms of the act itself and the processes, the structures that had been set up to support it, I think they’ve stood the test of the time.

What we see now is the actual action on the ground is not keeping up in many areas. So for example, there are some very good examples of flood protection plans, like the London flood plan.

We know that there are many other areas around the country, which are very poorly prepared for sea level rise, flooding, or the intense rainfall flooding, that we are already experiencing. So there is plenty to do. 

NB: And, do you think when you highlight risks outside of London, in other parts of Britain, do you think these are being acted on right now? 

CR: It’s very patchy. There are some good examples and there are some areas where there is really insufficient knowledge and action. The present administration has definitely not helped.

For example, there had been a long process by which zero carbon home legislation was being prepared. The new administration abandoned that, and when they did so, they also removed the ability of local councils to impose conditions for the development on developers.

These conditions would make sure that the future developments are future and climate-proofed. 

So, a huge opportunity was lost to ensure that the local appropriate action was being taken. And if you talk to local councils now, or boroughs, the austerity and cutbacks have so reduced their staffing, that often you will find that there is nobody responsible for climate change at all.

So, if one has a new report that provides some useful advice there is literally nobody to send it to because there is nobody in the borough administration who is assigned that task. 

NB: Ok, I was curious whether [ministers] might be making a lot of noise but not actually taking a lot of action.

CR: Well we don’t know. Ah, well the cynic in me says, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’, but we have to be…there are good signs because the markets are beginning to have an effect, in two ways. 

Firstly, the green technology, the experience curves, the cost of the solar PV and wind have so plummeted, so much faster than was expected, that they are cost competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the world, but also in the UK.

So we see the kind of baseload delivery of green energy increasing: I mean, we have been through periods were coal contributed nothing to the UK electricity supply for a couple of days on end. 

But in addition, large investment companies, say pension funds and so on, are increasingly nervous of potential carbon bubbles, and stranded assets.

So you can see, the huge supertanker is a probably a very good metaphor, you can see the nose ineluctably begin to move towards the green and clean future, almost regardless of what the government may do. 

NB: Are there signs you can see that change is happening at the speed we need to see it, to avert the worst of climate impacts?

CR: Well yes we do things are happening but absolutely not at the scale, or pace that is necessary if we are serious about keeping the overall warming to about 2 degrees Centigrade, or less. 

We are currently on a track to 3-3.5ºC maybe even 4ºC at the end of the century. And we may have gone over a threshold where we have committed the Earth to rising sea levels of many metres over hundreds, if not thousands of years. 

So, certainly, the actions that we all collectively take over the next decade or two will determine the trajectory of the planet for thousands of years.

I absolutely do not see the scale and pace that is necessary to achieve our aspirations, which is two degrees of warming maximum and a planet that stabilizes in the next century or so. 

NB: You had a lot of experience, obviously with British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and so on, when we talk about many meters of sea level rise, this is a game-changer for the civilisation, isn’t it?

CR: Yes. British Antarctic Survey and of course all of the polar scientists have many contributions to understanding how the planet works. Antarctica is a big and important piece of the planetary machinery.

It is the air-conditioning system, or the water conditioning system, and at present, it is not the major contributor to the sea level rise that we are measuring now.

That is coming from the thermal expansion of the ocean as it warms and from Greenland and the glaciers on mountains around the world. 

But the paper came out last week that shows that the contribution of Antarctica to rising sea levels rise tripled in the last five years. So, it is beginning to accelerate.

Some years ago, I likened the Antarctic to a slumbering giant, and said, there were signs that it was awakening, and more recently I said, I think it is beginning to stretch its limbs and we should be very nervous about what is happening down there. 

NB:  When you consider a climate timeline of action versus impacts what concerns you the most? 

CR: Well, let’s talk about impacts, what we have seen is that climate change is happening now. This is not some abstract thing that is going to happen, to other people, somewhere else in the future. It is happening right now. 

There is a wonderful book that just came out called The Water Will Come by the journalist called Jeff Goodell which I recommend. And he has done a wonderful job, really investigating Florida and Venice and all of the obvious places that sea-level rises is going to impact. 

And there are people in Miami who are making decisions now, about whether to sell some of their condominiums now, before the prices collapse, or perhaps keep it, and sell it, or rent it to low-income people and finally let it go at the zero value. 

So people are seeing that the climate change is happening around them and they are reacting to it. One of the more controversial aspects of the climate change is that there is evidence that it is driving migration already, and it is migration probably more than anything else, that will be so disruptive in the future. 

Climate refugees from areas that are too hot, where crops fail, from areas that are flooded either through the sea-level flooding or whatever.

Or through the areas that no longer have a water supply because the winter system of snowfall that sits on the top of the mountains and then delivers water in the summer, from the Himalayas or Alps or wherever it is, no longer functions. 

So, very large numbers of people will move. We have seen the destabilising effect that has on Europe. Of course, the migrants we are seeing in Europe are not solely driven, or even largely driven by climate change, although there is a climate change component.

But that threat multiplier is a really serious consequence of climate change, and we are beginning to see it happening and it is only going to get worse, and that could cause very, very unpleasant social consequences. 

NB: In the struggle to communicate the challenges of climate change, what gives you the most strength? 

CR: Well the fact that a large percentage, although not all of the people, are genuinely what you might call communalistic, that is they believe that there is such a thing as society – despite that what we are told – and they are outraged by injustice.

And they are concerned about future of their children and their children’s children and, indeed, other’s people’s children’s children. 

So, what I see is a willingness on the part of people to bond together and act. If only they understood what it is that they can do. So, the strength is that there is a willingness out there. The weakness is, that it is very difficult to offer people agency in a way that it is effective. 

What I say to people is: personal, professional and political. You can organise your own life so that it is a low carbon, you can work within, amongst your colleagues, so assuming you have a job, and often do much more that way.

But the political pressure is where people can really make a difference, keeping that pressure on elected representatives to recognise that this is an issue that needs an action. 

This Author

Nick Breeze is a climate change interviewer and can be followed on Twitter here: @NickGBreeze – He also blogs at Envisionation.co.uk.

Planting season for corn and soybeans across the United States corn belt is drawing to a close. As they plant, farmers are participating in what is likely to be one of the largest deployments of insecticides in United States history.

Almost every field corn seed planted this year in the US – approximately 90 million acres’ worth – will be coated with neonicotinoid insecticides, the most widely used class of insecticides in the world.

The same is true for seeds in about half of US soybeans – roughly 45 million acres and nearly all cotton – about 14 million acres. In total, by my estimate, these insecticides will be used across at least 150 million acres of cropland, an area about the size the Texas.

Yield loss

Neonicotinoids are very good at killing insects. In many cases they require only parts per billion, equivalent to a few drops of insecticide in a swimming pool of water.

In recent years, concerns have been raised about the influence of neonicotinoids on bee populations. As an applied insect ecologist and extension specialist who works with farmers on pest control, I believe the focus on bees has obscured larger concerns.

In my view, US farmers are using these pesticides far more heavily than necessary, with potential negative impacts on ecosystems that are poorly understood.

Neonicotinoid use by crop from 1992 to 2014. The y-axis represents mass of neonicotinoid active ingredient applied in millions of kg. Tooker, Douglas, Krupke, 2017, doi:10.2134/ael2017.08.0026, CC BY-NC-ND

Most neonicotinoids in the United States are used to coat field crop seeds. Their role is to protect against a relatively small suite of secondary insect pests – that is, not the main pests that tend to cause yield loss.

National companies or seed suppliers apply these coatings, so that when farmers buy seed, they just have to plant it.

Limited time

The percentage of corn and soybean acreage planted with neonicotinoid seed coatings has increased dramatically since 2004.

By 2011, over 90 percent of field corn and 40 percent of soybeans planted were treated with a neonicotinoid. Between 2011 and 2014, the area treated crept toward 100 percent for corn and 50 percent for soybeans.

And the mass of neonicotinoids deployed in each crop doubled, indicating that seed suppliers applied about twice as much insecticide per seed. Unfortunately, many farmers are unaware of what is coated on their seeds, while others like the peace of mind that comes from an apparently better protected seed.

Unlike most insecticides, neonicotinoids are water soluble. This means that when a seedling grows from a treated seed, its roots can absorb some of the insecticide that coated the seed.

This can protect the seedling for a limited time from insects. But only a small fraction of the insecticide applied to seeds is actually taken up by seedlings.

For example, corn seedlings only take up about two percent, and it only persists in the plant for two to three weeks. The critical question is where the rest goes.

Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid used almost exclusively as a coating on seed corn. Maps from USGS.

Pervading the environment

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble, the leftover insecticide not taken up by plants can easily wash into nearby waterways. Neonicotinoids from seed coatings are now routinely found polluting streams and rivers around the country.

Here it is likely that they are poisoning and killing off some of the aquatic insects that are vital food sources for fishes, birds and other wildlife.

In the Netherlands, neonicotinoids in surface waters have been associated with widespread declines in insectivorous bird populations – a sign that concentrations of these insecticides are having strong effects on food webs.

Neonicotinoids also can strongly influence pest and predator populations in crop fields. My lab’s research has revealed that use of coated seeds can indirectly reduce crop yield by poisoning insect predators that usually kill slugs, which are important crop pests in mid-Atlantic corn and soybeans fields.

More broadly, planting coated seeds generally decreases populations of insect predators in crop fields by 15 to 20 percent. These predatory insects can eat insect pests, such as black cutworm and armyworm, that can reduce yield. Crop fields with fewer resident predators are more vulnerable to pest infestations.

Slugs, shown here on a soybean plant, are unaffected by neonicotinoids, but can transmit the insecticides to beetles that are important slug predators. Nick Sloff/Penn State University, CC BY-ND

An exaggerated need

Neonicotinoid advocates point to reports – often funded by industry – which argue that these products provide value to field crop agriculture and farmers.

However, these sources typically assume that insecticides of some type are needed on every acre of corn and soybeans. Therefore, their value calculations rest on comparing neonicotinoid seed coatings to the cost of other available insecticides.

History shows that this assumption is clearly faulty. In the decade before neonicotinoid seed coatings entered the market, only about 35 percent of US corn acres and 5 percent of soybean acres were treated with insecticides. In other words, pest populations did not cause economically significant harm very often.

Importantly, the pest complex attacking corn today is more or less the same as it was in the 1990s. This suggests that it is not necessary to treat hundreds of millions of acres of crops with neonicotinoid seed coatings.

Neonicotinoids can harm birds via multiple pathways, sometimes in very small quantities.

From overkill to moderation

Should the United States follow the European Union’s lead and pass a broad ban on neonicotinoids? In my view, action this drastic is not necessary.

Neonicotinoids provide good value in controlling critical pest species, particularly in vegetable and fruit production. However, their use on field crops needs to be reined in.

In the Canadian province of Ontario, growers can only use neonicotinoid seed treatments on 20 percent of their acres. This seems like a good start, but does not accommodate farmers’ needs very well.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a control strategy based on using pesticides only when they are economically justified, offers valuable guidelines.

It was introduced in the late 1950s in response to issues stemming from overuse of insecticides, including environmental damage and pest populations that had evolved resistance. Field-crop growers have a good history of using IPM, but current use of neonicotinoids ignores pest risk and conflicts with this approach.

To implement IPM in field crops with neonicotinoids, seed companies need to acknowledge that the current approach is overkill and poses serious environmental hazards.

Extension entomologists will then need to provide growers with unbiased information on strengths and limitations of neonicotinoids, and help farmers identify crop acres that will benefit from their use.

Finally, the agricultural industry needs to eliminate practices that encourage unnecessary use of seed coatings, such as bundling together various seed-based pest management products, and provide more uncoated seeds in their catalogs. These steps could end the ongoing escalation of neonicotinoid use and change the goal from “wherever possible” to “just enough.”

This Author

John F. Tooker is a associate professor of entomology and extension specialist at Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It is now 10 years since the Climate Change Act (CCA) was first brought into law. Professor Chris Rapley CBE was one of the authors of the piece of legislation that served to hold governing ministers to account.

A decade on it is time to ask where it has put the UK in the context of the Paris Agreement and is it still fit for purpose.

Rapley speaks candidly about our preparedness for an ever-rising tide of climate impacts that are already having a disastrous effect on nearly all regions of the world.

Nick Breeze (NB): Can you summarise why the Climate Change Act (CCA) was significant when it was brought into law a decade ago?

Professor Chris Rapley CBE (CR): Ok, CCA was a really innovative piece of legislation and the fundamental core of it was that it makes the secretary of state, whoever they are in the future, in a statutory way, responsible for ensuring that the UK reduces its carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. And indeed, following a trajectory that is dictated by an independent body. 

NB: Would you say that this has been effective in the 10 years it has been enforced? 

CR: Well, up until now, yes. The UK’s carbon emissions are today 40 percent lower then they were in 1990. Partly, there are a whole load of factors that contributed to that.

But at the same time, the economy has grown by 60 percent, so one of the big results is that the myth that you can not decarbonise without damaging the economy has been blown out of the water. It’s clear: you can. 

NB: Where does this place Britain in the context of climate action compared with other countries? 

CR: From the government and the statutory point of view it places the UK well in the lead. It is a very innovative piece of legislation which many other nations are considering following.

Spain among others has been looking at it because it is seen as overcoming the four or five yearly electoral cycle. It commits the nation to a long-term set of action. So, this has been highly beneficial. 

NB: And do you think it stood the test of time? 

CR: Yes, I think it has. The Climate Change Committee which was established as the independent body to lay out the trajectory that the country needs to follow, and the Adaptation Sub-Committee which has been looking at the nation’s preparedness for climate change which is inevitably happening around us, now.

These are both very prestigious bodies. They are regarded – even at a time where experts are suspect – they are regarded as being rigorous and having done a very effective job. 

So, it’s established a process which I think is largely admired. What it reveals though, is that there are many areas where government action or national action is still, lagging.

But nevertheless, we have an independent and rigorous means of exposing that and once you expose the problem, then, of course, you can begin to address it. 

NB:  Do you think 10 years on, there are areas now where you think well, that could be tightened up or this could be improved upon. I mean, are there elements of the CCA that could be changed?  

CR: I think in terms of the act itself and the processes, the structures that had been set up to support it, I think they’ve stood the test of the time.

What we see now is the actual action on the ground is not keeping up in many areas. So for example, there are some very good examples of flood protection plans, like the London flood plan.

We know that there are many other areas around the country, which are very poorly prepared for sea level rise, flooding, or the intense rainfall flooding, that we are already experiencing. So there is plenty to do. 

NB: And, do you think when you highlight risks outside of London, in other parts of Britain, do you think these are being acted on right now? 

CR: It’s very patchy. There are some good examples and there are some areas where there is really insufficient knowledge and action. The present administration has definitely not helped.

For example, there had been a long process by which zero carbon home legislation was being prepared. The new administration abandoned that, and when they did so, they also removed the ability of local councils to impose conditions for the development on developers.

These conditions would make sure that the future developments are future and climate-proofed. 

So, a huge opportunity was lost to ensure that the local appropriate action was being taken. And if you talk to local councils now, or boroughs, the austerity and cutbacks have so reduced their staffing, that often you will find that there is nobody responsible for climate change at all.

So, if one has a new report that provides some useful advice there is literally nobody to send it to because there is nobody in the borough administration who is assigned that task. 

NB: Ok, I was curious whether [ministers] might be making a lot of noise but not actually taking a lot of action.

CR: Well we don’t know. Ah, well the cynic in me says, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’, but we have to be…there are good signs because the markets are beginning to have an effect, in two ways. 

Firstly, the green technology, the experience curves, the cost of the solar PV and wind have so plummeted, so much faster than was expected, that they are cost competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the world, but also in the UK.

So we see the kind of baseload delivery of green energy increasing: I mean, we have been through periods were coal contributed nothing to the UK electricity supply for a couple of days on end. 

But in addition, large investment companies, say pension funds and so on, are increasingly nervous of potential carbon bubbles, and stranded assets.

So you can see, the huge supertanker is a probably a very good metaphor, you can see the nose ineluctably begin to move towards the green and clean future, almost regardless of what the government may do. 

NB: Are there signs you can see that change is happening at the speed we need to see it, to avert the worst of climate impacts?

CR: Well yes we do things are happening but absolutely not at the scale, or pace that is necessary if we are serious about keeping the overall warming to about 2 degrees Centigrade, or less. 

We are currently on a track to 3-3.5ºC maybe even 4ºC at the end of the century. And we may have gone over a threshold where we have committed the Earth to rising sea levels of many metres over hundreds, if not thousands of years. 

So, certainly, the actions that we all collectively take over the next decade or two will determine the trajectory of the planet for thousands of years.

I absolutely do not see the scale and pace that is necessary to achieve our aspirations, which is two degrees of warming maximum and a planet that stabilizes in the next century or so. 

NB: You had a lot of experience, obviously with British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and so on, when we talk about many meters of sea level rise, this is a game-changer for the civilisation, isn’t it?

CR: Yes. British Antarctic Survey and of course all of the polar scientists have many contributions to understanding how the planet works. Antarctica is a big and important piece of the planetary machinery.

It is the air-conditioning system, or the water conditioning system, and at present, it is not the major contributor to the sea level rise that we are measuring now.

That is coming from the thermal expansion of the ocean as it warms and from Greenland and the glaciers on mountains around the world. 

But the paper came out last week that shows that the contribution of Antarctica to rising sea levels rise tripled in the last five years. So, it is beginning to accelerate.

Some years ago, I likened the Antarctic to a slumbering giant, and said, there were signs that it was awakening, and more recently I said, I think it is beginning to stretch its limbs and we should be very nervous about what is happening down there. 

NB:  When you consider a climate timeline of action versus impacts what concerns you the most? 

CR: Well, let’s talk about impacts, what we have seen is that climate change is happening now. This is not some abstract thing that is going to happen, to other people, somewhere else in the future. It is happening right now. 

There is a wonderful book that just came out called The Water Will Come by the journalist called Jeff Goodell which I recommend. And he has done a wonderful job, really investigating Florida and Venice and all of the obvious places that sea-level rises is going to impact. 

And there are people in Miami who are making decisions now, about whether to sell some of their condominiums now, before the prices collapse, or perhaps keep it, and sell it, or rent it to low-income people and finally let it go at the zero value. 

So people are seeing that the climate change is happening around them and they are reacting to it. One of the more controversial aspects of the climate change is that there is evidence that it is driving migration already, and it is migration probably more than anything else, that will be so disruptive in the future. 

Climate refugees from areas that are too hot, where crops fail, from areas that are flooded either through the sea-level flooding or whatever.

Or through the areas that no longer have a water supply because the winter system of snowfall that sits on the top of the mountains and then delivers water in the summer, from the Himalayas or Alps or wherever it is, no longer functions. 

So, very large numbers of people will move. We have seen the destabilising effect that has on Europe. Of course, the migrants we are seeing in Europe are not solely driven, or even largely driven by climate change, although there is a climate change component.

But that threat multiplier is a really serious consequence of climate change, and we are beginning to see it happening and it is only going to get worse, and that could cause very, very unpleasant social consequences. 

NB: In the struggle to communicate the challenges of climate change, what gives you the most strength? 

CR: Well the fact that a large percentage, although not all of the people, are genuinely what you might call communalistic, that is they believe that there is such a thing as society – despite that what we are told – and they are outraged by injustice.

And they are concerned about future of their children and their children’s children and, indeed, other’s people’s children’s children. 

So, what I see is a willingness on the part of people to bond together and act. If only they understood what it is that they can do. So, the strength is that there is a willingness out there. The weakness is, that it is very difficult to offer people agency in a way that it is effective. 

What I say to people is: personal, professional and political. You can organise your own life so that it is a low carbon, you can work within, amongst your colleagues, so assuming you have a job, and often do much more that way.

But the political pressure is where people can really make a difference, keeping that pressure on elected representatives to recognise that this is an issue that needs an action. 

This Author

Nick Breeze is a climate change interviewer and can be followed on Twitter here: @NickGBreeze – He also blogs at Envisionation.co.uk.

Planting season for corn and soybeans across the United States corn belt is drawing to a close. As they plant, farmers are participating in what is likely to be one of the largest deployments of insecticides in United States history.

Almost every field corn seed planted this year in the US – approximately 90 million acres’ worth – will be coated with neonicotinoid insecticides, the most widely used class of insecticides in the world.

The same is true for seeds in about half of US soybeans – roughly 45 million acres and nearly all cotton – about 14 million acres. In total, by my estimate, these insecticides will be used across at least 150 million acres of cropland, an area about the size the Texas.

Yield loss

Neonicotinoids are very good at killing insects. In many cases they require only parts per billion, equivalent to a few drops of insecticide in a swimming pool of water.

In recent years, concerns have been raised about the influence of neonicotinoids on bee populations. As an applied insect ecologist and extension specialist who works with farmers on pest control, I believe the focus on bees has obscured larger concerns.

In my view, US farmers are using these pesticides far more heavily than necessary, with potential negative impacts on ecosystems that are poorly understood.

Neonicotinoid use by crop from 1992 to 2014. The y-axis represents mass of neonicotinoid active ingredient applied in millions of kg. Tooker, Douglas, Krupke, 2017, doi:10.2134/ael2017.08.0026, CC BY-NC-ND

Most neonicotinoids in the United States are used to coat field crop seeds. Their role is to protect against a relatively small suite of secondary insect pests – that is, not the main pests that tend to cause yield loss.

National companies or seed suppliers apply these coatings, so that when farmers buy seed, they just have to plant it.

Limited time

The percentage of corn and soybean acreage planted with neonicotinoid seed coatings has increased dramatically since 2004.

By 2011, over 90 percent of field corn and 40 percent of soybeans planted were treated with a neonicotinoid. Between 2011 and 2014, the area treated crept toward 100 percent for corn and 50 percent for soybeans.

And the mass of neonicotinoids deployed in each crop doubled, indicating that seed suppliers applied about twice as much insecticide per seed. Unfortunately, many farmers are unaware of what is coated on their seeds, while others like the peace of mind that comes from an apparently better protected seed.

Unlike most insecticides, neonicotinoids are water soluble. This means that when a seedling grows from a treated seed, its roots can absorb some of the insecticide that coated the seed.

This can protect the seedling for a limited time from insects. But only a small fraction of the insecticide applied to seeds is actually taken up by seedlings.

For example, corn seedlings only take up about two percent, and it only persists in the plant for two to three weeks. The critical question is where the rest goes.

Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid used almost exclusively as a coating on seed corn. Maps from USGS.

Pervading the environment

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble, the leftover insecticide not taken up by plants can easily wash into nearby waterways. Neonicotinoids from seed coatings are now routinely found polluting streams and rivers around the country.

Here it is likely that they are poisoning and killing off some of the aquatic insects that are vital food sources for fishes, birds and other wildlife.

In the Netherlands, neonicotinoids in surface waters have been associated with widespread declines in insectivorous bird populations – a sign that concentrations of these insecticides are having strong effects on food webs.

Neonicotinoids also can strongly influence pest and predator populations in crop fields. My lab’s research has revealed that use of coated seeds can indirectly reduce crop yield by poisoning insect predators that usually kill slugs, which are important crop pests in mid-Atlantic corn and soybeans fields.

More broadly, planting coated seeds generally decreases populations of insect predators in crop fields by 15 to 20 percent. These predatory insects can eat insect pests, such as black cutworm and armyworm, that can reduce yield. Crop fields with fewer resident predators are more vulnerable to pest infestations.

Slugs, shown here on a soybean plant, are unaffected by neonicotinoids, but can transmit the insecticides to beetles that are important slug predators. Nick Sloff/Penn State University, CC BY-ND

An exaggerated need

Neonicotinoid advocates point to reports – often funded by industry – which argue that these products provide value to field crop agriculture and farmers.

However, these sources typically assume that insecticides of some type are needed on every acre of corn and soybeans. Therefore, their value calculations rest on comparing neonicotinoid seed coatings to the cost of other available insecticides.

History shows that this assumption is clearly faulty. In the decade before neonicotinoid seed coatings entered the market, only about 35 percent of US corn acres and 5 percent of soybean acres were treated with insecticides. In other words, pest populations did not cause economically significant harm very often.

Importantly, the pest complex attacking corn today is more or less the same as it was in the 1990s. This suggests that it is not necessary to treat hundreds of millions of acres of crops with neonicotinoid seed coatings.

Neonicotinoids can harm birds via multiple pathways, sometimes in very small quantities.

From overkill to moderation

Should the United States follow the European Union’s lead and pass a broad ban on neonicotinoids? In my view, action this drastic is not necessary.

Neonicotinoids provide good value in controlling critical pest species, particularly in vegetable and fruit production. However, their use on field crops needs to be reined in.

In the Canadian province of Ontario, growers can only use neonicotinoid seed treatments on 20 percent of their acres. This seems like a good start, but does not accommodate farmers’ needs very well.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a control strategy based on using pesticides only when they are economically justified, offers valuable guidelines.

It was introduced in the late 1950s in response to issues stemming from overuse of insecticides, including environmental damage and pest populations that had evolved resistance. Field-crop growers have a good history of using IPM, but current use of neonicotinoids ignores pest risk and conflicts with this approach.

To implement IPM in field crops with neonicotinoids, seed companies need to acknowledge that the current approach is overkill and poses serious environmental hazards.

Extension entomologists will then need to provide growers with unbiased information on strengths and limitations of neonicotinoids, and help farmers identify crop acres that will benefit from their use.

Finally, the agricultural industry needs to eliminate practices that encourage unnecessary use of seed coatings, such as bundling together various seed-based pest management products, and provide more uncoated seeds in their catalogs. These steps could end the ongoing escalation of neonicotinoid use and change the goal from “wherever possible” to “just enough.”

This Author

John F. Tooker is a associate professor of entomology and extension specialist at Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.