The American chestnut tree was attacked by the fungal pathogen (Cryphonectria parasitica) about a century ago, driving it to functional extinction.

Now, scientists at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF) claim to have created, through biotechnology, a resistant American chestnut variety.

They aim to petition the required regulatory agencies (USDA, FDA, EPA) for deregulation of their genetically engineered chestnut in the near future, with the stated goal of “restoring” the species to nature.  

Forest ecosystems

If it is deregulated, the GE chestnut would be the first GE forest tree species to be planted out in forests with the deliberate intention of spreading freely. Monitoring or reversing their spread, once released, would likely be impossible.

Performing valid risk assessments of the potential impacts of GE American chestnut on forests, wildlife, water, soils, pollinators or people, is hampered by our lack of knowledge about both the ecology of the American chestnut and forest ecosystems.  

Furthermore, since American chestnuts can live for more than 200 years, risk factors may change over the tree’s lifetime in unpredictable ways. 

Critically, the choices we make about the GE American chestnut will set a precedent for the future use of biotechnology on other forest tree species and even more broadly, on the use of biotechnology, including new technologies such as gene editing, gene drives etc as “tools for conservation”. 

It is therefore critical that we carefully evaluate the case of the GE American chestnut. Towards that end, we recently published “Biotechnology for Forest Health? The Test Case of the Genetically Engineered American Chestnut”.

Biotechnology in conservation

Our paper was inspired by previous experience with a 2018 National Academy of Sciences study group on “The Potential of Biotechnology to Address Forest Health”. 

The case for using genetically engineered American chestnut for species restoration featured within the NAS study group.  Similarly, GE chestnut has also been featured in other contexts where the potential for using biotechnology in conservation has been evaluated.  

For example, it is presented as a “case study” in the International Union for Conservation of Nature 2019 report “Genetic Frontiers for Conservation: An assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation”.

We felt compelled to clearly articulate and share our reasons for opposing the GE American chestnut.

Perfect tree

The American chestnut is a much beloved and iconic“perfect tree”. It was once a dominant species along the eastern USA and into Canada.  Prolific nuts reliably provided nutritious and delicious food, and fodder for livestock.

The wood is rot resistant, easy to work with and pleasing to the eye was prized by the timber industry.  

Cryphonectria, “the blight”, was a catastrophe – for the forests and wildlife, and for the human economies, especially those of rural Appalachia, where the seasonal nut harvest was key source of income, and sustenance. 

Restoring the American chestnut is a long-held dream for some people, even as our collective memory of chestnut-filled forests grows dim with the passage of time.  

The American Chestnut Foundation has worked to implement a breeding program that would hybridize American chestnut with the naturally blight resistant Asian chestnut, and then backcross to produce a blight resistance tree that nonetheless preserved the growth characteristics of the American chestnut. 

Hundreds of thousands of hours of painstaking work across many years has gone into this breeding program – a long process that has slowly progressed, albeit with some setbacks along the way. 

Engineering resistance 

The SUNY ESF scientists claim that genetic engineering will provide a faster solution. 

After experimenting with various genes and combinations of genes, they have settled on using a gene sequence derived from wheat that causes the tree to produce an enzyme, oxalate oxidase, (aka OxO) (Nelson et al., 2014).  This enzyme inhibits the spread of the fungus once established, making it less lethal to the tree.  

OxO is not uncommon in nature, and has been experimented with in a variety of common crops. In their promotional materials, the scientists are careful to highlight that OxO is common, and that the gene comes from ordinary wheat – conjuring images of saving the chestnut with nothing more dangerous than a tasty slice of buttered toast. 

But will the OxO trait really enable restoration of the species?  This is highly unlikely.  

First of all, engineering resistance to fungal pathogens in general has proven extremely challenging.  Biotechnologists have long struggled to do so with familiar common crops with which, unlike forest tree species, we have plenty of prior experience. 

New defenses

In spite of many, many efforts, only a single fungal pathogen resistant crop is commercially available (the Simplot potato, resistant to late blight).  The problem is that fungi are very good at finding new ways to evade plant defenses.

There is a virtual arms race going on between plants, evolving new defenses, and fungal pathogens, evolving new ways around those defenses. Hence making durable effective resistance is extremely difficult.  

As well, when plants invest in defending against a pathogen, their growth is often stunted or otherwise compromised and they can become more susceptible to other pathogens or stresses they encounter (Collinge et al., 2010).

SUNY ESF’s OxO engineered chestnut trees appear to be resistant to the blight – but only young trees in controlled lab and field trial conditions have been tested. The oldest trees tested to date are only about 15 years old – other more recently developed lines are even younger. 

Yet chestnuts can live for over two hundred years during which time they may experience many diverse conditions – weather extremes, insects and pathogens etc. that could affect the expression of the OxO trait, or other characteristics of the trees.

Unlikely restoration 

We cannot reasonably assume long term durable blight resistance in natural forests based on extrapolation from results on very young trees under controlled and laboratory conditions.  

Even the SUNY scientist most involved with developing the OxO engineered chestnuts, William Powell, openly acknowledges that long term stable resistance to Cryphonectria, based on the OxO trait alone, is unlikely to succeed.  

Powell stated: “Eventually we hope to fortify American chestnuts with many different genes that confer resistance in distinct ways. Then, even if the fungus evolves new weapons against one of the engineered defenses, the trees will not be helpless.”

Another pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi, (aka root rot or ink disease) had been killing off American chestnuts in the southern part of their range even before Cryphonectria arrived.  

That pathogen is meanwhile spreading northwards under a warming climate. Scientists agree that restoration of the chestnut would require stacking of multiple traits including for resistance to Phytophthora. The OxO trait alone will not restore American chestnuts.   

Public relations 

So why claim otherwise?  Why rush the GE chestnut into regulatory review when even its own creators recognize it cannot fulfill the goal of species restoration?  

Because the OxO engineered chestnut – using “nothing but a wheat gene” to “restore a beloved iconic species” – is being used as a public relations tool for winning over public opinion toward GE trees more generally, and for the use of biotechnology as a “tool of conservation”.

This is a strategy that biotechnology industry proponents expect will soften public opposition and open up the potential for commercializing a wide array of GE trees.

The GE American chestnut is in fact very explicitly referred to in terms of its value for public relations, and as a “test case”.  

For example, Maud Hinchee, former chief technology officer at tree biotechnology company, ArborGen, and formerly from Monsanto, stated: “We like to support projects that we think might not have commercial value but have huge value to society, like rescuing the chestnut.  It allows the public to see the use of the technology and understand the benefits and risks in something they care about. Chestnuts are a noble cause.”

Test case

Scott Wallinger of paper company MeadWestvaco (now Westrock) stated back in 2005: “This pathway [promoting the GE chestnut as forest restoration] can begin to provide the public with a much more personal sense of the value of forest biotechnology and receptivity to other aspects of genetic engineering.”

The Forest Health Initiative which funds the SUNY ESF GE chestnut project states their aim is to: “Advance the country’s understanding and the role of biotechnology to address some of today’s most pressing forest health challenges. The initiative will initially focus on a “test species” and an icon of eastern US forests–the American chestnut.”

And even the American Chestnut Foundation stated: “If SUNY ESF is successful in obtaining regulatory approval for its transgenic blight resistant American chestnut trees, then that would pave the way for broader use of transgenic trees in the landscape.”

What “broader use of transgenic trees” can we foresee?  A review of the literature on forest biotechnology reveals that most tree biotechnology research is focused not on addressing “forest health” for the public good, but on ways to engineer trees for commercial and industrial processes and profitability.  

Forest health

A review of forest biotechnology published in 2018 states: “Genetic engineering of trees to improve productivity, wood quality and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses has been the primary goal of the forest biotechnology community for decades.

“Examples include novel methods for lignin modification, solutions for long-standing problems related to pathogen resistance, modifications to flowering onset and fertility and drought and freeze tolerance.” (Chang et al., 2018)

Most efforts to address “forest health” are focused on species of commercial interest, which are often grown in industrial monoculture plantations, and therefore more vulnerable to a variety of pests, pathogens and health threats.

For example, there has been considerable research focussed on engineering resistance to insect pests in commercially important species such as pine, poplar and eucalyptus (Balestrazzi et al., 2006).

Meanwhile, with increasing awareness of the dangers inherent to using fossil fuels, burning wood is heavily subsidized (alongside solar panels and wind turbines) as renewable energy, and falsely accounted as “carbon neutral”.

Biofuels

Efforts to convert wood into liquid transportation fuels have so far largely failed to attain commercial scale in spite of massive investments.

Turning trees into biofuels, bioplastics etc. largely depends not only on genetically engineering specific characteristics into the trees, but also on engineering microbes that produce enzymes needed to break down, access and ferment the sugars in wood.  

A 2017 review, titled Biotechnology for bioenergy dedicated trees: meeting future energy needs points to eucalyptus, pine, poplar and willow as the species of most commercial interest, with biotechnology research focused on enhanced growth and yield, altered wood properties, side adaptability and stress tolerance, and the alteration of lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose for effective biorefinery conversion to cellulosic biofuels (Al-Ahmad, 2018).

In sum, there is much riding on winning over public opinion on GE trees.     

This is why such entities as Duke Energy, ArborGen and Monsanto, as well as various multinational timber corporations, are among those funding or promoting the GE chestnut.

Idealism and integrity

The Forest Health Initiative, which receives funding from some of the above, and in turn has provided large grants to the SUNY ESF research, stated: “Biotech trees will find their place in this world, providing fiber, fuel, and even sustainable comfort food (e.g. biotech chestnuts roasting on an open fire).

“This is an industry to watch as it evolves toward responsible use and takes its place in the pipeline of sustainable biotech products.” 

Enthusiasm for GE American chestnuts has so far been underwhelming. Recently, board members of the Massachusetts/Rhode Island chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation, Lois Breault-Melican and her husband, Denis M. Melican resigned in protest against the organizations’ embrace of SUNY ESF’s GE American chestnut. 

The couple had worked for over 16 years on backcross breeding of resistant American chestnuts.  

Breault-Melican stated: “We are unwilling to lift a finger, donate a nickel or spend one minute of our time assisting the development of genetically engineered trees or using the American chestnut to promote biotechnology in forests as any kind of benefit to the environment.

“The GE American chestnut is draining the idealism and integrity from TACF.”

Global protests 

Indeed, public opinion has long been solidly opposed to GE trees in general, and remains a significant barrier to their release.

A number of protests have taken place around the world where GE trees have been tested.  Women from social movements in Brazil including the MST (landless worker’s movement), cause the destruction of GE tree seedlings belonging to Futuragene in Brazil in 2016. 

The Campaign to Stop GE Trees was founded in 2014 and has both national and international presence.

When ArborGen sought to field test their GE eucalyptus in the US, several organizations filed a legal suit challenging the planned field trials in 2010.

And when the USDA issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement recommending approving deregulation of ArborGen’s GE eucalyptus in 2017, over 284,000 people signed onto or submitted their own comments opposing deregulation of the GE eucalyptus. To date, no final EIS has been issued by USDA and the petition for deregulation appears to be languishing.

Slippery slope

Forest certification bodies including Forest Stewardship Council, the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative have banned the use of GE trees and their products. The 2008 decision IX/5 (1) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties from 2008 recommended a precautionary approach to GE trees.

GE tree proponents claim that regulatory processes can ensure safety, and complain that they are overly burdensome.  But experience with common GE crops demonstrates that standard regulatory reviews, as exemplified by the escape and invasion of GE creeping bentgrass, do not preclude serious harms.

In the case of the GE American chestnut, uncontained spread is in fact intentional.  

Hence there will be no way to prevent contamination of remaining pure American chestnuts, or hybrid chestnut orchards. Nor will it be possible to prevent the spread of GE chestnuts across territorial boundaries.    

The GE American chestnut is meant to launch us down the slippery slope of tree biotechnology.  

Underlying drivers

In the wings, and waiting to follow in that newly forged path are a host of other GE forest tree species, engineered for commercial industrial purposes.

Meanwhile, natural forests are rapidly declining, even as climate science dictates that protecting and restoring forests is a crucial part of regaining carbon balance.  

Yet logging, even of the precious remaining old growth forests, continues largely unabated, often subsidized with public funding. Replacing real forests with tree plantations, and then referring to them as “planted forests”, conceals the fact that tree plantations are more akin to corn fields than forests.  

They often displace natural forests and rural communities, are monocultures lacking biodiversity, doused with herbicides and agrichemicals, rapidly drain fresh water sources, and are designated for fast growth and short rotation mechanical harvesting. 

Debates about forest health, and the potential for biotechnology to provide solutions are irrelevant when underlying drivers of forest demise are not addressed. 

If we are seriously concerned about protecting forest health, then reigning in those underlying drivers of forest destruction is the real solution – not genetically engineering trees or replacing diverse natural forests with industrial plantations.      

These Authors 

Rachel Smolker is codirector of Biofuelwatch where she works to raise awareness of the impacts of large scale bioenergy, the bioeconomy and biotechnology.  Her work has spanned from local grassroots organizing to participation in the United Nations conventions on climate and biodiversity. She is on the steering committee of the Campaign to Stop GE Trees, and is a board member of the Global Forest Coalition. 

Anne Petermann is the co-Founder and Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project and the co-founder and Coordinator of the international Campaign to STOP Genetically Engineered Trees. She has presented concerns about GE trees at UN climate, biodiversity and forest conferences, and to community and grassroots groups on six continents.  

The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) is calling for the creation of a clear and urgent Climate Emergency Action Plan, more ambitious targets, and funding and support for training programmes that will help the UK to roll out solutions at the scale and speed required.

CAT’s Zero Carbon Britain project coordinator, Paul Allen, responded to the UK’s commitment to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and said: “Early, effective action on climate change is vital – we cannot afford to wait.

“A target date of 2040 or earlier would show real global leadership whilst taking responsibility for our historic emissions and helping deliver climate justice.”

Political will 

Allen continued: “Given the urgency of the environmental crisis and the dire consequences if the world doesn’t reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with much of the reduction needed in the next 11 years, the UK has a global responsibility to be bold and ambitious.

“CAT is calling on the UK and devolved governments to create a Climate Emergency Action Plan targeting 2040 at the latest, detailing how this will be achieved, and including binding, ambitious interim targets.

“This plan must cover all emissions, including those from imported goods as well as international aviation and shipping, and should not rely on offsetting emissions.

“The solutions to the crisis already exist. CAT’s Zero Carbon Britain research project has shown how we could achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions using technology available today.

“What’s needed is the political and social will to make change happen. We need strong government policy and financial support to achieve the transition.

Radical plan

“By powering down energy demand from buildings and transport, powering up our clean energy supplies through investment in renewables, and by transforming diets and land-use, we can balance supply and demand and reach net-zero emissions.

“What’s more, we can do this in ways that improve public health, alleviate fuel poverty, restore habitats, and provide more wild space for nature to flourish, whilst creating over a million green jobs.

“The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted that a lack of skills in low and zero carbon solutions is one of the key barriers to change.

“CAT’s Graduate School of the Environment and associated training courses provide many of the essential skills, with over 1,500 people having graduated with degrees in sustainable solutions and thousands more having been trained through our renewable energy installers courses.

“These skills need to be made available to many more people as we scale up our response to the climate emergency.

“We can turn this around – but we need a radical climate emergency action plan, and we need to start now.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Centre for Alternative Technology. 

Theresa May’s announcement that the UK is to set a legally binding target to end its contribution to climate change by 2050 has been met with a mixed reaction.

The Government will lay out legislation in Parliament on Wednesday to set a new target to cut emissions to “net zero” by the middle of the century. But while some climate change figures welcomed the move, others gave a more cautious assessment.

Lord Deben, chairman of the Government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change, praised the “major commitment” and said he was looking forward to cross-party consensus on the issue.

Loophole

“This step will send a strong signal to other countries to follow suit – and will help to drive the global effort to tackle climate change required by the Paris Agreement,” he said.

Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of business group the CBI, said UK companies were “squarely behind” the commitment and called it the “right response to the global climate crisis”.

But she urged the Government to ensure the legislation was followed by long-term policies to support decarbonisation across the economy.

“Some sectors will need clear pathways to enable investment in low-carbon technologies, and it is vital that there is cross-Government coordination on the policies and regulation needed to deliver a clean future,” she said.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said it was a “big moment” for the climate, but added there were “questions to be asked about (the) offsetting loophole”, seemingly in reference to the plan’s allowance for international carbon credits which allow the UK to pay to offset its emissions elsewhere in the world.

Future

Craig Bennett, UK chief executive of Friends of the Earth, said Mrs May’s premiership had been “characterised by chronic inaction on climate breakdown” and 2050 is “still too slow to address catastrophic climate change”.

He said: “It is disappointing that the Government has ignored its climate advisers’ recommendation to exclude carbon offsets – as well as caving into Treasury pressure to review the target in five years’ time.

“Fiddling the figures would put a huge dent in our ability to avoid catastrophic climate change – and the Government’s credibility for taking this issue seriously. Having declared a climate emergency, Parliament must act to close these loopholes.

“2050 is still too slow to address catastrophic climate change, the UK can and must go faster. The next prime minister must legislate to end our contribution to climate breakdown earlier, put carbon-cutting at the centre of policy-making and pull the plug on plans for more roads, runways and fracking. It’s now time to build the carbon-free future that science requires and the public are so loudly demanding.”

Gareth Redmond King, head of climate change at the environmental charity WWF, said the announcement was a “crucial first step”.

Death sentence

He added: “If we want future generations to live on a viable planet where the mass extinctions we’re witnessing halt, food security is ensured and coastal regions are safe, then Government must accelerate policies and commit resource to slashing emissions, heat our homes with clean energy and make climate action a priority across all departments.”

He said the speed in developing innovative technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines in the past decade should provide hope the UK could go faster and reach net zero by 2045.

Meanwhile, shadow energy secretary Rebecca Long Bailey raised concerns over how the commitment would be put into practice.

“While this announcement is welcome in theory, in practice it comes from a Conservative government that is off track to meet existing climate targets, that has no plans for legislation or investment needed to cut emissions, and that has dismantled the UK renewable energy sector while pushing fracking,” she said.

Extinction Rebellion, the protest group that brought parts of London to a standstill with demonstrations in April, said Mrs May’s 2050 target was a “death sentence”. “People are already dying and this will only get worse with far off dates,” the group said.

Commitment

“Were we to put our minds to it and do what is required to mobilise society to address the threat with the seriousness it deserves, the UK could embrace transformative change and decarbonise in years not decades.

“We welcome that the Prime Minister is finally talking about the emergency. This is a testament to the public pressure – including the more than 1,000 people willingly arrested for this cause – that is forcing politicians to confront the existential reality of the climate and ecological emergency. But it is not nearly enough.”

Environment analyst Tom Burke said there was “quite a gap” emerging between announcements on climate change and the implementation of policies. He told BBC Breakfast: “The reality is it’s what you do, not what you say, that matters.

“There’s been quite a gap, in a way, emerging recently between what the Government has said it wants to do on climate change and the fact that the policies aren’t in place to deliver on the existing budgets, let alone the carbon budgets we’ll need if we’re to meet this new commitment.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This report is based on copy provided by the Press Association.

A group of thirty artists, performers and activists arrived at the National Portrait Gallery to disrupt the announcement ceremony of the BP Portrait Award this week.

While some of the group linked arms in doorways and chained themselves to gates to prevent party guests from entering the building, others handed out a fake awards programme that challenged BP’s long-standing sponsorship of the award.

You can read the fake programme here.

Live art

Meanwhile, a group of portrait artists and cartoonists created live artwork outside the gallery.

Some of the artwork depicted activists from West Papua, Mexico, Samoa, and the US Gulf Coast who are fighting back against BP and the oil industry’s pollution, corruption, and climate devastation.

Other pieces showed the BP executives who bear responsibility for these impacts – including those who were guests at tonight’s award ceremony.

The protesters succeeded in preventing entrance to the gallery for thirty minutes, creating a large queue of guests.

Protesters were then able to speak to the guests, hand out fake programmes and showcase the live rebel art display, as well as reading out quotes from the environmental defenders featured in the portraits.

Defiant singing

At the main entrance security guards attempted to roughly drag protesters away from the gates, but the activists succeeded in attaching themselves to and blocking the entranceway.

The second front entrance was also blocked by a team of activists, while at the rear of the building four protesters linked themselves together at the bottom of the entrance ramp.

After half an hour with all three pedestrian entrances blocked, the gallery decided to take unusual measures to get guests into the party.

Guests were directed to clamber awkwardly over a wall with assistance from security to enter the gallery, creating a long slow-moving queue along the street.

At 7.30pm, having achieved their goal of delaying the start of the award party, the protesters removed themselves from the doorways and gathered to sing songs of defiance before departing.

Creative action

This action followed the unprecedented news that one of the judges of this year’s Portrait Award – leading artist Gary Hume – has publicly called for the gallery to end its relationship with BP.

His call was echoed this morning by eight former exhibitors in the BP Portrait Award exhibition, including two former award winners, in a letter to Director Nicholas Cullinan.

Earlier this year, the gallery turned down a £1 million grant from the Sackler family on ethical grounds, due to their links with the opioid crisis.

Campaigners point out that this shows that the gallery can make ethical funding decisions when it chooses to do so.

BP or not BP? are the creative action group behind today’s protest. They have staged more than 50 rebel performances at BP-sponsored arts institutions.

Veneer of respectability

Sarah Horne, a member of the group, said: “The climate crisis is unfolding at terrifying speed. Those who have done least to cause the problem are worst hit, while oil companies like BP continue to rake in massive profits while actively making the problem worse.

“BP spends tens of millions every year lobbying against climate action and blocking clean energy alternatives, while pushing for access to yet more oil and gas that we cannot afford to burn.

“The National Portrait Gallery needs to stop giving this destructive and irresponsible company a veneer of respectability it does not deserve.”

Benny Wenda is an Indigenous leader from West Papua, a nation under brutal occupation by the Indonesian government and where BP runs a major gas extraction project. 

A print of Benny Wenda’s portrait (by the artist Dale Grimshaw) was one of the images displayed by the protesters outside the gallery today.

Illegal occupation

Mr Wenda said: “BP need to admit that they’re operating in the middle of a genocide. BP, you can’t just say that you’re only in West Papua for business.

“If you continue to work with this illegal occupation, then you’re part of the problem. You fund the illegal Indonesian government. They misuse your funds to buy guns and equipment to kill my people.

“You take our raw materials, make money, and give some of it to the occupier. We West Papuans see none of the benefits. Whether it’s human rights violations or global warming, BP’s actions directly impact my people.”

Another of today’s protesters, Deborah Locke, said: “We are sorry to cause disruption to guests at the Portrait Award this evening. We know that most of the people attending this event were not involved in the gallery’s decision to promote BP.

“But in the face of the climate emergency, and BP’s ongoing complicity in human rights abuses, we feel this is a step we have to take.

“We hope that guests at this event will understand the importance of these issues and bear with us.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from BP or not BP? 

Image: Mark Kerrison.

UN Environment published an unusually stark critique of carbon offsetting on Monday. On Tuesday, the article was taken down, following queries by Climate Home News.

In the original article, archived by the Wayback Machine, a climate specialist at the UN organisation warned against considering carbon offsets as “our get-out-jail-free card”.

Niklas Hagelberg wrote: “The era of carbon offsets is drawing to a close. Buying carbon credits in exchange for a clean conscience while you carry on flying, buying diesel cars and powering your home with fossil fuels is no longer acceptable or widely accepted.”

Conflicting messages

Since 2008, UN Environment has claimed to be climate neutral, based on buying carbon credits from a scheme administered by UN Climate Change.

While not indicating any change to that policy, the commentary appeared to attack the underlying concept of polluters paying others to cut emissions on their behalf.

Contacted by Climate Home News, Hagelberg blamed the editing process for introducing some “conflicting messages” to his original text and said a revised version would be published shortly.

Hagelberg continued: “This is a web story not an official position paper. However [UN Environment] does see offsets as an intermediate solution.”

At time of publication, spokespersons at UN Environment and UN Climate Change had not responded to requests for comment.

Carbon credits 

At issue is a system set up under the Kyoto Protocol to allow rich countries to gain carbon credits by investing in emission reduction projects in the developing world. 

UN Climate Change has since repurposed it as a voluntary mechanism for businesses, organisations and individuals to offset some of their carbon footprint.

Last August, UN Climate Change came under fire for releasing a video promoting carbon offsets as an easy remedy to climate change.

Entitled “keep calm and offset”, the advertisement appeared to suggest that viewers could lead a carbon-heavy lifestyle as long as they offset their emissions. It was taken down after a backlash.

Carbon offsets have long been a controversial proposition to tackle the climate crisis. At the last UN climate summit in December, negotiators were unable to reach consensus on whether and how to continue Kyoto-era offset schemes under the Paris Agreement. Talks resume in Bonn, Germany this month.

Problematic tool 

In parallel, the International Civil Aviation Organization is considering what types of carbon credits can be used by airlines to offset their emissions growth.

Transport & Environment, a Brussels-based campaign group for cleaner transport, urged UN Environment to restore the article “in the interest of effective climate policy”.

Campaigner  Andrew Murphy said: “With the aviation sector targeting offsetting as its get-out-of-jail-card for climate action, this piece threw some necessary cold water on what is an extremely problematic climate tool.”

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published by Climate Home News. 

Agblobashie, a slum in Ghana’s capital, is plagued by electronic waste from more industrialized nations. The health of local people suffers as a result.

Those smartphones everyone rushes out to buy, the old ones people casually toss in the rubbish bin – they have to go somewhere.

Why have humans become so addicted to throwing things out that no longer function as opposed to repairing them, and, more importantly, how can they keep discarded electronics from poisoning those who live on the other side of the world? 

Industrial pollution

We’ve grown accustomed to convenience. The price of purchasing new electronic devices often costs far less than simply replacing them — I recently discovered this while trying to repair a 15-year-old TV where the parts necessary to fix the gadget were no longer manufactured.

Many people living in industrialized nations take for granted the fact they can replace a broken computer or shattered iPhone the moment their contract permits. Few give pause to reflect upon the way such behavior impacts others. 

The citizens of Accra, Ghana would probably beg to differ with such wanton disposal. The Korle Lagoon in the city ranks as one of the most polluted bodies of water on earth.

This lake regularly floods, impacting the poor living in the vicinity most. Even though the city’s waste management department cleans the water daily, they only can keep up with 60 percent of the refuge entering the waterway, and the rest flows into the sea. 

Several industries in the region also contribute to high levels of pollution. But the fact remains that a huge portion of the waste clogging Ghana’s waterways stems from foreign sources. 

Colonial legacy

According to research, seven million people perish every year due to air pollution, with the nations of Ghana, Nigeria and India most impacted.

The e-dumping site in Agblobashie is a primary source of this pollution, along with vehicle exhausts and particulates from fires which provide the major source of heat and cooking fuel for many in the region. 

Humans can reduce the amount of electronic waste they produce, but few take measures to recycle their gadgets properly. Upgrading has become the new normal, and people willingly wait in line for hours to upgrade their devices.

But the very devices so many casually toss in the rubbish contain a ton of toxic chemicals which leach into soil and waterways when discarded.

What happens in Agblobashie boils down to a matter of racism, imperialism and the incessant human battle over vital resources. 

Dioxins

Many electronic components carry little cash value — plastic has grown so ubiquitous, the folks at Lego probably could function fine on ocean waste alone — wiring, especially copper wiring, remains a rich source of revenue.

While techniques exist to harvesting this wire from old gadgets, the impoverished people living in the region cannot afford such technology. Therefore, they continue to remove the insulation from this wiring by burning it.

Burning wire insulation releases toxic dioxins into the air. Dioxins do exist everywhere in the environment but proliferate in areas where backyard burning reigns supreme such as in Agblobashie.

Anyone who has ever stood downwind of a traditional paper mill has inhaled the nauseating aroma emitted by the toxin. 

Dioxins find a home in human and animal fat, and they nest there for quite some time. Dioxins remain in the body anywhere from 7-11 years, and they accumulate in the food chain as well. Those who regularly consume animal products can raise the levels of dioxins in their bodies significantly. 

Virtual reality

Many people in Ghana recognize the extent of the problem, and they take measures to address the issue of e-trash.

Two game designers have created a virtual reality game aimed at educating the populace about the safe handling of discarded electronics.

The plan holds promise, as virtual reality is quickly becoming a very popular method of teaching consumers about their health outcomes and environmental impact, due to its easy-to-digest format in a digitally-focused world. In addition, there’s also a Facebook group dedicated to cleaning up Agblobashie.

Most Americans pay little heed to the amount of trash they produce. Municipalities typically charge a flat fee for waste disposal, meaning few pay attention to what they toss in the rubbish.

And around the globe, scrappers – people who eke out an existence from the discarded remains of others – process said waste and remove usable components such as wiring. These people provide a valuable service that few respect. They deserve the tools necessary to do such work without putting their health and the health of the planet at risk.

Dumping ground

As the world’s wealthiest nations continue to turn countries such as Ghana into their personal dumping grounds, investing in the infrastructure for letting people process refuge safely seems more than fair. 

Technology has made life easier for many, but that need not mean others should suffer for their privilege.

This Author 

​​​​​​​Kate Harveston is a vegan health and sustainability writer and the editor of women’s wellness blog, So Well, So Woman.

The Wildlife Trusts’ annual challenge – 30 Days Wild – calls on everyone to go wild every day in June.

This year looks set to be bigger and wilder than ever. So far a record number of 60,000 people, families, schools, businesses and care homes throughout the UK have signed up to receive a free pack of ideas and to take part.

30 Days Wild encourages everyone to enjoy nature in our neighbourhoods through daily Random Acts of Wildness: listening to bird song, gazing at butterflies, growing borage for bees and making the most of our parks, gardens and school grounds. Evidence shows that taking part can also make us happier and healthier.

Fantastic challenge

Ellie Harrison, presenter of Countryfile and President of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, said: “Being outside in nature makes us all well. The smallest moments connecting – the surprise of a beetle revealing its wings; the fleeting secrets of bats at dusk; or the puff of valuable pollen from flowers we saw as weeds – all bring us wonder and enchantment.

“This June we’re challenging you to a Random Act of Wildness every single day of the month. What will you be delighted by?”

James McVey of The Vamps said: “30 Days Wild is a fantastic challenge and everyone can take part – whether it’s building a den, listening to the dawn chorus or visiting a favourite wild place, enjoying our wonderful wildlife can help us to feel happier and healthier, I’ll be joining in this June!”

Dr Amir Khan from Channel 5’s GPs Behind Closed Doors said: “Spending time outdoors, enjoying wildlife on our doorstep and in our communities is free and can benefit our mental and physical health in so many ways.

“Spend a few moments every day in June taking part in random acts of wildness – notice something new in nature, climb a tree or create space for nature in your neighbourhood – The Wildlife Trusts has lots of ideas and inspiration to help you make the most of the 30 Days Wild challenge. Go Wild!”

Happier and healthier 

The Wildlife Trust’s Leanne Manchester said: “30 Days Wild is a much-loved challenge and it’s set to be an exciting month for everyone taking part. Experiencing a moment of nature every day on our doorstep or during lunchtime at work is elating in June when wildlife is so active and visible.

“Take time out to sit in a wild spot, enjoy the sunset or feel cool grass between your toes – June is such a beautiful month and the perfect time to go a bit wild.”

The impact of taking part in 30 Days Wild has been tracked by academics at the University of Derby. Their study found that people who did something ‘wild’ each day for a month, felt happier, healthier and more connected to nature, with added benefits for the natural world too.

Miles Richardson from the University of Derby said: “Our research looked at the impact of 30 Days Wild on 1000 people, two months after completing the challenge.

“All those taking part benefitted, feeling 30 percent healthier than when they started on average. People who reported a disconnect from nature and who spend less time outdoors, showed the greatest improvement in happiness and pro-conservation behaviours.

“At a time when poor mental health is on the rise and the decline of our wildlife show no sign of slowing down, 30 Days Wild demonstrates what a much-needed new relationship with nature might look like, for everyone, throughout the year.”

Care homes

This year 30 Days Wild is encouraging care homes to share the joy of nature with their residents. For the first time, there’s a specially tailored activity pack and over 350 care homes have so far signed up to take part.

Among them is the Your Health Ltd group, which has ten care homes across England and trialled 30 Days Wild activities last year. The homes saw some remarkable benefits as a result of taking part, with residents experiencing less anxiety and fewer falls.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust volunteer Louise Baker, who trialled activities in the residential homes last year, said: “It doesn’t matter where our homes are, each will take something from the challenge and no two days, or activities will be the same.

“Our homes occupy urban streets, landscaped parkland and rural locations – one home will enjoy the birdsong heard in its suburban garden, while another will record wildlife that thrives in its wildflower meadow and orchard. We are looking forward to another magical month.”

Sign-up to 30 Days Wild is still open, download a free pack! Over the next month, thousands of wonderful experiences will be shared on social media. Take a look at #30DaysWild @30DaysWild and see how daily connections with nature are inspiring people to enjoy the wild world around them wherever they live. 

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is content editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Wildlife Trust. 

Image: Stockypics, Flickr. 

News of devastating climate change, species extinction and dwindling green spaces around the world rolls in daily. It has never been more important that we take action to protect nature on our own doorstep.

The North Devon UNESCO Biosphere Partnership is extremely concerned by the pressure on North Devon’s world class environment from rapid development and intensive land use. 

In response, we are  launching Pledge for Nature! – a new local initiative to galvanise community action for nature’s recovery.

Natural systems

Intensive land use has led to rapid declines in the quality of some habitats and populations of some of our key species like breeding cuckoos, lapwings and curlews in our farmland, salmon, sea trout and freshwater pearl mussels in the Taw and Torridge river systems, and even commoner species like hedgehogs, swallows and house martins, wildflowers and insects.

The declines of these “canaries” of our natural systems should be a wake-up call for everyone. Immediate action is needed to help North Devon’s nature to flourish again in our farmland, gardens, rivers and open spaces.

North Devon’s local economy of agriculture, tourism, forestry and fisheries depends on the natural environment, and our natural systems are also crucial for tackling climate change and safeguarding future generations.

It is therefore essential to maintain the world class environment of the area, which was the reason north Devon was awarded UNESCO status. 

Call to action

The priority is to give more space for nature and to create wilder areas – in our farmland, public spaces and gardens.

Small bands of dedicated volunteers, farmers and conservation organisations are already working hard to conserve nature – but their efforts are not enough and the problems can only be solved by galvanising many more people who know and love the area. 

Each quarter the project will issue a “call to action” with 3-4 projects to engage the community in voluntary actions for nature. Examples might be: “give 10 percent of your lawn over to a wildflower meadow”; “trim your farm hedges every 3 years rather than every year”; “put up a nestbox for swifts”; “join a community tree-planting team”. 

Individuals will be able to pledge their action on a map-based website, where they will also find technical advice and support from Biosphere partners.

Over three years, starting late autumn 2019, we aim to engage a minimum of 1000 volunteers, including at least 100 farmers/landowners.

Get involved

Through these voluntary actions, we aim to improve nature in at least: 400ha of pasture and arable land, 50km of hedges; 200ha of woodland, 300 gardens, 30 urban spaces or schools, 20km of road verges and 20km of rivers and streams.

We also aim to deliver specific targeted actions for at least 5 priority or declining species or invasive non-native species, and encourage at least 10,000 new trees. 

The total cost of this three-year project will be around £90,000. We are asking the National Lottery Heritage Fund to cover the majority of the coordination costs, but we urgently need your help to raise at least £10,000 as match funding to demonstrate that our community cares. 

If you love North Devon’s nature, help us by donating here, and telling your family, friends, employers and colleagues to help too! 

Bright future 

Tourism, forestry, agriculture and fishing – the mainstays of our local economy – depend on a thriving natural environment, which is also crucial for safeguarding us from the effects of climate change.

But nature in North Devon is in trouble: breeding birds such as cuckoos, lapwings and curlews are heading towards local extinction.

Salmon and freshwater pearl mussels in the Taw and Torridge rivers are in grave decline. Swifts, house martins, hedgehogs, bees and butterflies are becoming less and less abundant.

More than 92 percent of our flower-rich Culm grassland has disappeared over the past 100 years. These shocking statistics should serve as a wake-up call to us all.

It’s a grave situation, but with community action and support, we believe North Devon’s environmental fortunes can be given a bright future for the benefit of future generations. 

This Author 

Mike Moser is chair of the Nature Improvement Group at North Devon UNESCO Biosphere. If you love North Devon’s nature, help us by donating here, and telling your family, friends, employers and colleagues to help too! 

Image: A_Peach, Flickr. 

The quarterly update of Australia’s greenhouse gases, which span December 2018 to March 2019, showed a 0.7 percent hike in emissions.

All sectors were up, save for agriculture and electricity. Pollution from the manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors and domestic heating shot up by 6 percent.

The figures were released five days past their due date, despite a senate order calling on the government to meet the deadline. But before they were made public, the data did appear alongside an interview with energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor in The Australian.

Pollution data

Energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor told the newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, that the country was on track to honour its Paris Agreement target of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. He has previously said this would be done “in a canter”.

Data published by the Department of Environment and Energy in December, however, showed that the country was on course to reduce its emissions by 7 percent by 2030.

Shadow minister for climate change and energy Mark Butler simply dismissed Taylor’s comments as “a lie”.

Deputy leader of the Australian Greens Adam Bandt said: “The minister has continued with his contempt of the parliament, seemingly dropping the pollution figures to the Murdoch media before making them public.

“We wouldn’t accept the government selectively dropping the regular unemployment figures to its favourite media outlet. This pollution data needs to be released promptly, regularly and transparently.”

Cemented failure

It continues a trend of rising emissions since 2016, making the Paris target increasingly difficult to achieve, experts warned.

Climate analyst Ketan Joshi told Climate Home News: “The fact that we haven’t made a big dent in it, is very, very worrying.

“We have made reductions in our electricity sector, a lot of that comes down to technologies such as wind and solar. That is often framed as us on the way to meeting our Paris target, but of course that’s just one sector of Australia’s emissions.”

Head of the climate and energy programme at the Australia Institute think tank Richie Merzian told Climate Home News the newly released data also cemented the failure of one of the government’s key policies to combat climate change: the Climate Solutions Fund.

The fund, which incentivises emissions cuts rather than penalising polluters, has been “insufficient in terms of the reductions that were supposed to flow from the abatement purchase”, he said.

Top issue

In April, the Coalition government axed the fund further, opting to spread $2bn over 15 years rather than 10 years.

Merzian said: “So their plan is to do less of the same, and that plan has failed today and will continue to fail.” The government has said it intends to meet the Paris target using credits won in the era of the Kyoto Protocol – a measure most countries have ruled out.

Merzian continued: “Even with Australian government planning to use its credits from Kyoto, it will still fail.” 

The government’s delayed release of the figures comes amid growing awareness on climate change in Australia.

A poll by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that the environment ranked a top issue for 29 percent of participants, up by 9 percent in the 2016 election.

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published on Climate Home News.

Ibedrola is currently consulting the environment ministry over building a 590-megawatt solar farm in the Western region of Extramadurra, it said in a statement.

With a €300 million investment planned, the so-called Francisco Pizzarro plant will supply energy to 375,000 people every year and employ up to 1000 people in the process of construction, the company said.

The announcement comes amid increasingly competitive renewables prices and a favourable political atmosphere.

Falling costs

Since becoming minister for the ecological transition almost exactly one year ago Teresa Ribera has introduced climate legislation aiming to achieve 100 percent renewables by 2050.

In early October, Ribera scrapped the so-called “sun tax” – an unpopular levy on solar power affecting individuals and small businesses.

The government has also pledged to install between 6,000 and 7,000MW of renewable power every year until 2030.

Sergio de Otto, head of the Renewables Foundation told Climate Home News: “It’s clear that policies led by Teresa Ribera have given investors more confidence to throw themselves into projects like the one that Ibedrola has announced.” 

De Otto said costs for building renewable energy were falling “spectacularly”.

Extra growth

De Otto continued: “From our perspective, it is necessary that we – citizens and small businesses – lead the energy transition to 100 percent renewables by 2050, but we also understand the need for large solar plants produced by companies.

“We believe that in future these great installations will coexist with an extraordinary growth in small-scale renewables production. These are therefore two complementary models”

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article was first published on Climate Home News.