*Global CA-CoP* *CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE*
*for sustainable agriculture and land management*
Dear Subscribers,
Please see herebelow a communication from David Duthie of Bioplan about the
climate change report.
Apologies for any cross-posting.
*Amir Kassam *
*Moderator*
*Global CA-CoP*
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: www.fao.org/ag/ca
*Conservation Agriculture is an ecosystem approach to regenerative
sustainable agriculture and land management based on the practical
application of context-specific and locally adapted three interlinked
principles of: (i) Continuous no or minimum mechanical soil disturbance
(no-till seeding/planting and weeding, and minimum soil disturbance with
all other farm operations including harvesting); (ii) permanent
maintenance of soil mulch cover (crop biomass, stubble and cover crops);
and (iii) diversification of cropping system (economically, environmentally
and socially adapted rotations and/or sequences and/or associations
involving annuals and perennials, including legumes and cover crops), along
with other complementary good agricultural production and land management
practices. Conservation Agriculture systems are present in all continents,
involving rainfed and irrigated systems including annual cropland systems,
perennial systems, orchards and plantation systems, agroforestry systems,
crop-livestock systems, pasture and rangeland systems, organic production
systems and rice-based systems *(more at: www.fao.org/ag/ca).
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Duthie <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:28 PM
Subject: Doing something by doing nothing - or less
To: bioplan <[log in to unmask]>
Dear BIOPLANNERS,
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by Myles Allen, one of
the lead co-authors of the IPCC "1.5" report where, using just a few
slides, he neatly "unpacked" the report to reveal its "hidden innards" or
key messages. The lecture was live-streamed and will be available on You
Tube soon, so I will send a link then.
Myles did not explicitly mention it in his lecture, but today I read the
article below which points out that at least one of the scenarios reviewed
by the IPCC mitigation pathways incorporates a reduction in overall
consumption (aka GDP) to reduce emissions fast enough to avoid the BECCS
"gamble", something Myles demonstrates nicely towards the end of his
lecture (see also the links in the article below).
Grubler, Arnulf, Charlie Wilson, Nuno Bento, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Volker
Krey, David L McCollum, and others, ‘*A Low Energy Demand Scenario for
Meeting the 1.5 °C Target and Sustainable Development Goals Without
Negative Emission Technologies*’, Nature Energy, 3 (2018), 515–27
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1038%2Fs41560-018-0172-6&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=SRwmlXCDoEqtnnp%2ByRsisJNGWX1qwORWgfPtmz5hRUk%3D&reserved=0>
(subscription
required, but cover article here
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%2Fis-a-new-kind-of-consumerism-the-fix-to-climate-change%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=Lww6yqrI%2FQwMxdT0ux%2BTRg1kJxxWHb%2BUslPsdCBoc3c%3D&reserved=0>
.
*A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable
development goals without negative emission technologies. Achieving
sustainable development goals while meeting the 1.5 °C climate target
requires radical changes to how we use energy. A scenario of low energy
demand shows how this can be done by down-sizing the global energy system
to enable feasible deployment rates of renewable energy resources.*
As a gentleman of (relative) leisure these days, I have been exploring
"doing nothing" or "low carbon time" along the lines advocated below -
walking 3 miles along the beautiful Oxford-Banbury canal this morning to
buy fruit and veg from a local producer (no plastic packaging), reading
books I bought years ago and still had not read, growing vegetables, herbs
and spices in a greenhouse, even preparing BIOPLAN postings, are all
examples of how slowing down inevitably reduces carbon footprints.
A notable point that came up in the Q&A of the lecture was that, to date,
BECCS is the only negative emission technology that has been incorporated
into the current integrated assessment models in the literature reviewed by
the IPCC. If a range of affordable other (DAC - direct air capture)
technologies can be developed and implemented in parallel, maybe we can
avoid the inevitable problems that arise when we do any one thing at the
"speed and scale" we are rapidly making mandatory, but we had the chance to
start to do parallel mitigation with the Stabilization Wedges concept in
2004, but are still only "winning slowly".
Another sign of the increasing mainstreaming of, and necessity for,
degrowth comes from a recent article published this month:
Götmark, Frank, Philip Cafaro, and Jane O’Sullivan, ‘*Aging Human
Populations: Good for Us, Good for the Earth*’, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.015
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.tree.2018.08.015&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=OqKevYFF57mzmA17YR1xck4X1a%2FZB5%2Fj8QO6NDVkWyk%3D&reserved=0>
(Free
Access)
*As the nations of the world grapple with the task of creating sustainable
societies, ending and in some cases reversing population growth will be
necessary to succeed. Yet stable or declining populations are typically
reported in the media as a problem, or even a crisis, due to demographic
aging. This is misguided, as economic analyses show that the costs
connected with aging societies are manageable, while the economic, social,
and environmental benefits of smaller populations are substantial. Earth’**s
human-carrying capacity has been exceeded; hence, population growth must
end and aging societies are unavoidable. They should be embraced as part of
a just and prosperous future for people and the other species with whom we
share our planet.*
Best wishes
David Duthie
****************************
*The Hope at the Heart of the Apocalyptic Climate Change Report*
Along with their latest dire predictions, the world’s leading climate
scientists offered a new path forward—but will anyone take it?
*BY JASON HICKEL
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2Fauthor%2Fjason-hickel%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=DRk2%2F9bbl4pjwSguNNxPmAHuwKV5FpDhUsuGd1TeyzQ%3D&reserved=0>
| OCTOBER 18, 2018, 1:58 PM*
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/18/the-hope-at-the-heart-of-the-apocalyptic-climate-change-report/
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2018%2F10%2F18%2Fthe-hope-at-the-heart-of-the-apocalyptic-climate-change-report%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=0DQon0R85e5gQXpW%2BubUb%2FZFHRbBqxAhHu7h5QqjeoU%3D&reserved=0>
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a new
special report
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Freport%2Fsr15%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=990SbomFTrByI08kJ8GXB9oBZbiFsvCEI%2F6qN%2BWVpCU%3D&reserved=0>
last week, it came with both good news and bad.
The good news is that the carbon budget for staying under 1.5 degrees
Celsius of warming is larger than we thought, so we have a bit more time to
act. The bad news is that the consequences of overshooting that threshold
are very, very bad. The catastrophes that we once believed would be
triggered by only 2 degrees of warming are likely to occur at this lower
threshold, including widespread collapse of food yields and extreme levels
of human displacement.
The IPCC has issued a clear and trenchant call for action—its most urgent
yet. It says we need to cut annual global emissions by half in the next 12
years and hit net zero by the middle of the century.
It would be difficult to overstate how dramatic this trajectory is. It
requires nothing less than a total and rapid reversal of our present
direction as a civilization. The challenge is staggering in its scale, and
the stakes are even more so. As the co-chair of an IPCC working group put it
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatechangenews.com%2F2018%2F10%2F08%2Fimportant-years-history-major-un-report-sounds-last-minute-climate-alarm%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=DgANZtoUqMyooRUTmgdy26XbDyZSNbSfVYc6CYRcU2k%3D&reserved=0>,
“The next few years are probably the most important in our history.” After
decades of delay, this is our last chance to get it right.
Most people hope that we’ll be able to prevent catastrophe by rolling out
clean energy systems, ultimately decarbonizing the economy. But so far this
plan has not been working very well. Global emissions continue to rise,
year after year, and the peak is nowhere in sight. Even with the Paris
climate agreement in place, adding up all of the pledges that the world’s
governments have made, the IPCC predicts that we’re headed for as much as
3.4 degrees of warming. The destruction will be unimaginable.
It’s not for lack of trying. Of course, we must try much harder, but the
problem is that economic growth is devouring our best attempts to
decarbonize. The economy is expanding much faster than we are able to
transition to clean energy. We’re fighting an uphill battle, and we’re
losing.
Think about it this way. The IPCC says we need to cut emissions to net zero
by the middle of the century. But during that very same period, the global
economy is set to nearly triple in size. That means three times more
production and consumption than we are already doing each year. It would be
hard enough to decarbonize the existing global economy in such a short
timespan. It’s virtually impossible to do it three times over.
If we carry on with growth as usual, then cutting emissions in half by 2030
would require that we decarbonize the economy at a rate of 11 percent per
year. For perspective, that’s more than five times faster than the historic
rate of decarbonization and about three times faster than what scientists
project is possible even under highly optimistic conditions. If we roll out
a towering carbon tax and massive subsidies for clean energy, we might be
able to decarbonize by 3 to 4 percent per year
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fipccreports%2Fsres%2Femission%2Findex.php%3Fidp%3D46&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=jyp4z8AF%2B0Zt4bBL1wAzuSw72AdNjLGxUlNVZoqsnc4%3D&reserved=0>,
but that’s nowhere near fast enough.
This is a problem, and the IPCC knows it. The special report sets out
several possible scenarios for keeping us under 1.5 degrees. Most of them
assume that we continue growing global industrial output. And because this
makes the challenge so difficult, they rely on speculative “negative
emissions” technologies to save us. We can go ahead and pollute now
(exceeding the carbon budget twice over) so long as we figure out a way to
suck that carbon back out of the atmosphere later in the century.
The plan the IPCC has in mind is called BECCS, which stands for “bioenergy
with carbon capture and storage.” The idea is to grow massive plantations
around the world to absorb carbon dioxide, turn those crops into biofuel,
burn it in power stations, capture the carbon dioxide that’s emitted from
the smokestacks, and store it deep under the ground. Voila: negative
emissions.
It sounds like an elegant solution. Politicians love it because it suggests
that we can prevent climate catastrophe without having to make any major
changes to the economic status quo.
It’s a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.
But there are problems. First, we have no evidence that the technology will
work at scale. If it doesn’t, we’ll be locked into a high-temperature
pathway that’s impossible to escape.
That’s why Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, two of the world’s leading
climate scientists, have argued
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscience.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2F354%2F6309%2F182&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=v%2BfUJDqJn%2BPp3w65KetMZr99KzsBeyVNCVQr2DmKhxY%3D&reserved=0>
that relying on BECCS is “an unjust and high-stakes gamble”—a major moral
hazard. It lulls us into postponing real action, with potentially
disastrous consequences.
Even if BECCS does work at scale, we’ll bump into other problems. For one,
it would require devoting huge tracts of agricultural land to biofuels,
with plantations equivalent to twice the size of India. Not only is this
likely to drive severe food shortages, but it would also be an ecological
disaster. A team of researchers led by the German scientist Vera Heck has
found
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41558-017-0064-y&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=6cB4jnDAMu7Qn%2Btb93HtStZcY%2Fab6lHbDgtMaQvIxzo%3D&reserved=0>
that BECCS would trigger a 10 percent loss of global forest cover and a 7
percent collapse in biodiversity, exacerbating existing crises while causing
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnclimate2870&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=cqqWyAgW77dzAHMVu%2BrS4J%2FpYDuPEogn%2BM7kHxqD7RQ%3D&reserved=0>
widespread water scarcity and soil depletion.
Scientists have been lining up to sound the alarm. In 2014, 15 scholars
attacked
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnclimate2392&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=Jr79AxZq5b5aSGMIx8it5FzlAwMCKRnF2DBZJ9P3s1U%3D&reserved=0>
the credibility of BECCS in the prestigious journal Nature Climate Change.
The following year, another 40 scholars argued
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnclimate2870&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=cqqWyAgW77dzAHMVu%2BrS4J%2FpYDuPEogn%2BM7kHxqD7RQ%3D&reserved=0>
in the same journal that reliance on BECCS was “extremely risky.” This
year, the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, a body that brings
together the national science academies of all EU member states, published
a report
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feasac.eu%2Fnews%2Fdetails%2Fclimate-change-wont-be-solved-by-removing-excess-co2-from-atmosphere%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=JBD%2FUGEUjGQwjWCpASmBKbXDlgMeaYEhgBHZc%2FHrPeA%3D&reserved=0>
condemning the IPCC for relying on BECCS and other negative emissions
schemes. The consensus on this is now rock-solid.
The IPCC is finally getting the message. Last week’s special report
includes an exciting new scenario that—for the first time—does not rely on
speculative technology. Developed by an international team of scientists,
it projects
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41560-018-0172-6.epdf&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797830357&sdata=B2%2BwsteNPfr8fYjNaifUUA6C047ccmIYLto4QWyC8BM%3D&reserved=0>
that we can reduce emissions fast enough to keep under 1.5 degrees but only
if we’re willing to fundamentally change the logic of our economy. Instead
of growing industrial output at all costs, it proposes a simple
alternative: that we start to consume less.
The new IPCC model calls for us to scale down global material consumption
by 20 percent, with rich countries leading the way. What does that look
like? It means moving away from disposable products toward goods that last.
It means repairing our existing things rather than buying new ones. It
means designing things so that they can be repaired (modular devices such
as Fairphones rather than proprietary devices such as iPhones). It means
investing in public goods and finding ways to share stuff—from cars to lawn
mowers—shifting from an ethic of ownership to an ethic of usership.
Reducing our industrial output will slash our need for energy, making it
much easier to decarbonize the economy in time to avert climate breakdown.
What’s more, scientists say
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2018%2F09%2F12%2Fwhy-growth-cant-be-green%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797986597&sdata=7Pz0yJoWBm5jqBtp3Mo0083sAofKN7o6QBWmy1JDhBY%3D&reserved=0>
it’s also our best hope of reversing other aspects of ecosystem collapse.
And because this scenario doesn’t require giving land over to BECCS, it
leaves lots of room for reforestation, ending poverty and hunger, and
improving biodiversity.
How do we get there? This isn’t just about tweaking individual behavior. It
requires system-level change. The first step would be to impose caps on
resource consumption. We could also roll out laws against planned
obsolescence and encourage long-lasting design and recyclability by having
businesses take back defunct products. We might even think about getting
rid of public advertising, as São Paulo has done, liberating people from
the psychological pressure to consume unnecessary stuff. There are dozens
of ideas we could consider.
There’s just one catch. This approach requires evolving beyond the rigid
constraints of capitalism. Whatever else capitalism might be, it is
ultimately a system that is dependent on perpetual growth, which places
immense pressure on our living planet. Such a system might have seemed
reasonable enough when it first emerged in the 1800s, but in an era of
ecological breakdown, it just won’t do.
The good news is that rich countries no longer need aggregate growth. In a
recent statement to the European Union, 238 scientists argued
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F16%2Fthe-eu-needs-a-stability-and-wellbeing-pact-not-more-growth&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797986597&sdata=uLTYDUZ7Pt53K4GSRicx04Xf%2Br6HIJHgaAE%2B0XA4N%2B0%3D&reserved=0>
that we can improve people’s lives and provide meaningful work right now,
without any growth at all, simply by distributing what we already have more
fairly. That might sound politically difficult, but large majorities
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sustainablebrands.com%2Fnews_and_views%2Fnext_economy%2Fjennifer_elks%2Fhavas_smarter_consumers_will_significantly_alter_economic_&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797986597&sdata=PXsIMfKU2lesFuKcnLX84j0UfUQ17sQ2tFRiiyUQ0i0%3D&reserved=0>
of people in middle- and high-income countries say they want a new
economy—one that’s less dependent on growing consumption and better suited
to the realities of the 21st century. Now is the time to build it.
*Jason Hickel* is an anthropologist, author, and a fellow of the Royal
Society of Arts. @jasonhickel
<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2Fjasonhickel&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C603758a3530c447dcf0408d635ed19a3%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C636755689797986597&sdata=olpgA6SsnYmE1bYwHSm7SGvwHqIokca3mMzfQ%2FvwWoQ%3D&reserved=0>
********************* Bioplan is a list server run jointly by UNDP and
UNEP. To join / leave bioplan, email: [log in to unmask] with
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Please note: If you wish
to reply to the sender only you must create a new message addressed only to
that individual, or forward the message to that individual. Using the
"reply" or "reply all" option delivers your response to list administrator.
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CA-Cop-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/scripts/wa-fao.exe?SUBED1=CA-COP-L
|