Scandinavian countries are already among the best in the world when it comes to boasting low levels of carbon emissions, garbage recycling, and sustainable living. Sweden recycles 99 percent of its garbage, and now Norway has pledged to become climate neutral by 2030–20 years earlier than previously planned. Norway currently emits around 53 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

On Tuesday night the Norwegian parliament agreed to accelerate its CO2 cutting program to try and meet the carbon emission goals that were set for 2050 two decades sooner. But this might be hard to accomplish considering Norway’s major export products are oil and gas. The leader of the Norwegian Green Party Rasmus Hansson said: “This is a direct response to the commitments Norway took on by ratifying the Paris agreement and means that we will have to step up our climate action dramatically.”

The climate talks in Paris took place in December 2015 and resulted in the world’s first legally binding agreement concerning the global climate. In total, 196 countries agreed to keep global warming down and reduce emissions.

#Norway says it will be climate-neutral by 2030, accelerating goal by 20 years https://t.co/QFPSHGr2FT pic.twitter.com/sXpkBSbFYv

— The Local Norway (@TheLocalNorway) June 7, 2016

The ruling Progress and Conservative parties voted no to the proposal on Tuesday, with the argument that overly ambitious reductions today could result in interference with future climate negotiations.

However, the next step is for the government to go back to Parliament to discuss how to implement the change. Some ways to achieve the ambitious goal are to work for the reduction of gas-fueled cars (24 percent of the country’s cars are already electric), increase the use of wind power, and emissions trading.

At the end of May, Norway voted to commit to zero deforestation, making it the first country in the world to do so. This means that no product that has contributed to deforestation will be used or sold in Norway. The country has also donated money to other countries’ rainforest preservation efforts, such as Guyana and Brazil.

Norway’s commitment to zero deforestation led Alec Baldwin to tweet this video greeting:

Watch this clip of my greeting to my friends in Oslo. Thank you, @VidarHelgesen https://t.co/aDL65niVom

— AlecBaldwin (@AlecBaldwin) June 14, 2016

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was also in Oslo on Wednesday signing a deal for a closer cooperation between the nations on protecting the world’s forests.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Norway Vows to Be Carbon Neutral by 2030: 20 Years Earlier Than Planned appeared first on Law Street.

Regardless of the political debates about global warming, scientists have long been involved in trying to combat this environmental problem. But what exactly are activist-scientists doing–or not doing–to address global warming?

One facet of combatting global warming is dealing with raised carbon dioxide levels. A lot of talk about carbon dioxide levels focuses on so-called “carbon sinks”–forests that, due to plants’ ability to process carbon dioxide, remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere–and their potential to mitigate the effects of global warming. But can forests and artificial means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere actually “save us” from global warming?

Capturing Carbon Dioxide

Instead of working to prevent the rising carbon dioxide levels that have been fueling global warming, one of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent projects has been the capturing and storage of excess carbon dioxide. This process involves the harvesting of carbon dioxide from facilities such as electricity power plants that emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Once the carbon dioxide is harvested directly from these sources, it is channeled–sometimes by pipeline and sometimes by truck–usually underground, where it is re-introduced into the earth in order to produce more oil.

Carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration is often upheld as an easy fix to global warming:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide capture can occur through three basic methods. Pre-combustion capture is used in industrial processes like natural gas burning; post-combustion capture is used in the food and beverage industries; and oxyfuel combustion capture is used with water instead of air as a combustion material in industries other than power generation.

Once harvested, the carbon is transported and injected into the earth in liquid form, where it is often channeled into increasing oil production. While sponsors of carbon capture argue that this process is completely safe, there are serious concerns that the injection of such large amounts of liquid into the earth actually increases the likelihood of devastating earthquakes.

Is fueling oil production to fight global warming wise?

Though many support carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, there are serious concerns that this process is used to directly increase, rather than reduce, dependence on non-renewable, highly toxic oil production and use. The carbon dioxide that is harvested from power plants is channeled back into oil production and therefore “helps the United States continue producing record amounts of oil.”

This capture and sequestration method is arguably so popular because it actually creates profits for the massive multinational corporations involved in oil production and related fields. But some scientists are concerned that this process actually further entrenches unsustainable energy practices. David Biello at Scientific American points out:

The process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere.

There’s certainly evidence that this corporate-motivated approach to reducing carbon emissions has its drawbacks, especially given the amount of energy that is inefficiently used by the capture and sequestration technology.

 Alternative to Oil: Artificial Photosynthesis

Some scientists are beginning to reevaluate their hesitations about carbon sequestration. Scientists at Berkeley have been working to refine a way that captured carbon can be broken down through artificial photosynthesis instead of being channeled back into oil production.

Dr. Peidong Yang, a chemist at the Berkeley Lab working on artificial photosynthesis–the process that plants use to create food by breaking down carbon dioxide and sunlight into glucose and water—has stated about the research that:

Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground.

Through combining nanowire technology with specific bacterial populations to mimic the photosynthetic processes that leaves undergo naturally, the Berkeley team has created the potential for solar-powered chemistry that non-lethally utilizes sequestered carbon.

The question now is once this new technology is ready for market (it is not quite there yet) will the corporations that profit from the current methods of the re-use of sequestered carbon utilize it?

To the Forests: Natural Photosynthesis and Global Warming

It is important to note, however, that despite the hopefulness with which many are embracing the new developments in artificial photosynthetic capabilities, we seem to be forgetting one crucial thing: Photosynthesis, even on a massive scale such as that accomplished by rainforests, cannot reverse or halt global warming.

Because carbon dioxide is essentially “plant food,” it is easy to focus on an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being good for plant growth. In turn, the more plants there are, the more carbon dioxide will be taken out of the atmosphere. Since extremely excessive carbon dioxide emissions are a principle driver of global warming, plants (particularly strong concentrations of plants, such as rainforests) are often thought to be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and in slowing global warming. Indeed, some scientific studies show that, under certain laboratory greenhouse conditions, increased carbon dioxide levels can contribute to a greater amount of plant growth. This is extremely important because, as Carol Rasmussen, a member of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, reports:

Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. If the rate of absorption were to slow down, the rate of global warming would speed up in return.

Through a natural process referred to as carbon fertilization, plants “eat” the extra carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human processes, thus reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, however, the purported impacts of carbon fertilization have been called into question: a recent study found that increased tree growth does not always result from increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether forest growth is stimulated by increased carbon dioxide, Climate Science Watch encourages us to think beyond the small picture of plants taking already overwhelming amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There is a bigger picture of the relationship between global warming–which is already occurring–and plant life. A report by Climate Science Watch reminds us that:

Climate [change] impacts like drought, floods, extreme weather, shifting seasons, and increasing ranges of weeds, invasive species, and plant pests will all negatively impact crop yields [and other plant growth].

Additionally, other nutrient restrictions limit the amount of increased natural photosynthesis that can occur in forests. Differentials in rainfall levels and subsequent droughts that are already being caused by global warming negatively impact the amount of plants that can grow and photosynthesize.

Hammering home these cautionary pieces of evidence is the fact that massive forests like the Amazon have been suffering from increased tree mortality–both due to direct human destruction and the indirect impacts of altered conditions from climate change. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest is consuming a billion tons less each year than it has previously. For perspective, each yearly Amazon drop amounts to twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.K. per year.

So Should We Take Carbon Dioxide Back Out of the Atmosphere?

Investing hope and massive resources in carbon capture and sequestration, forest-driven photosynthesis, and artificial photosynthesis produces a sense of calm in many that the impacts of global warming can be combated without creating actual changes in the corporate practices that are increasing dangerous carbon dioxide levels. These debates about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are important, but they are fundamentally invested in addressing symptoms rather than causes. While these are great scientific achievements, the causes of global warming need to be addressed as well.

Resources

Primary

Environmental Protection Agency: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

NASA: NASA Finds Food News about Forests and Carbon Dioxide

Additional

Environment 360: Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Alternet: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit From Global Warming

Guardian: Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling

Guardian: Tropical Rainforests Not Absorbing as Much Carbon as Expected

Guardian: Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Science Daily: Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win For the Environment

Climate Science Watch: The CO2 “Fertilization” Effect Won’t Deter Climate Change

Corp Watch: Climate Change and Environmental Racism

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carbon Dioxide Capture: Can it Stop Global Warming? appeared first on Law Street.

Images of deforestation are among the most striking when it comes to addressing human impact on the environment and all the problems that follow. Similarly, endangered animals are constantly in the conversation and the need to enact more protections and conservation measures remains pressing.

Read More: Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough?

Yet what tends to be overlooked is that from both an ecological and human policy-related standpoint these things are deeply interrelated. When we consider how to protect and improve our forests and our biodiversity, we should think about them in tandem.

Among the innumerable reasons why maintaining forests is important, one is that they store carbon. Having it naturally contained in the biomass means that there is less in the atmosphere; forests help keep greenhouse gases and climate change in check. But, as has been a topic of conversation for decades now, some of the most substantial ones, such as the Amazon Rainforest, are in danger. A 30-year study by the University of Leeds concluded that the unnaturally large amount of carbon in the atmosphere has accelerated the lifespans of trees there. This means that they die younger; high tree mortality is an unexpected contributor to the shrinking of the rainforest. It is not just a matter of logging and increased building. With a higher tree mortality and a decreasing range of the forest, the amount of carbon the rainforest can store has been overtaken by the amount of fossil fuel emissions in Latin America.

Courtesy of CIFOR via Flickr.

Another consequence of deforestation is the loss of biodiversity that resides therein. It has been determined that there exists a “threshold” for forest cover, and if it is surpassed then the loss of species accelerates in quantity and geographic spread. Most surveys tracking deforesting activity indicate that thresholds are drawing quite near or have recently been surpassed. The problem with the way this issue is approached is that Brazilian law applies activity to individual farms and their property. Rather, due to the more complex nature of animal geographies and forest topography, policies need to take into account particular regions in the rainforest.

This concept is further complicated by the interrelatedness of forests and animals. It is not just a matter of aesthetically preserving animals, but they play an integral role in the health of the forest itself. Similar to how bees have a key function in floral reproduction because they distribute pollen from plant to plant, large animals spread around tree seeds as they go about their business. Big mammals in particular tend to have a wide range, traveling far in search of food and marking their territory. As forests and animals affect each other reciprocally, damaging one invariably damages the other, which in turn degenerates the other further and onward in the vicious cycle. This is another series of reasons why the New Jersey bear hunt ought to be rethought.

Courtesy of laurence_baulch via Flickr.

These problems are not restricted to the Amazon and Latin America. The national park system in the United States is primarily designed to preserve scenic natural wonders. Yet a new study demonstrates that the locations of these parks do not line up with the general locations of biodiversity in the country that are in need of protection. The bulk of parks is concentrated in the American West, where the lands are relatively sparsely inhabited compared to the East, South, and Appalachians, which contain many “unique or rare species” whose interests are not properly addressed. It is in these geographic regions, researchers explain, that the majority of the continent’s endemic species are located. Meaning that they are not found elsewhere in the world or in other habitats, endemic species play an vital role in the health and operations of their ecosystems. Once more, if they become too severely threatened and begin to die out then the surrounding forests and general environments themselves, and subsequently human health, are likely to degrade substantially.

In addition to striving to protect the correct and most vulnerable areas, there are generally speaking two measures we can take in order to avert crises. The first is to pursue development in a more conservation-oriented fashion. Laying down specific ground rules when pursuing building projects, especially roadways and infrastructure, can help decrease the amount of destruction that follows. This way, as representatives of the plan have put it, “We’re not anti-development, we’re anti-environmentally destructive development.” The second course of action is to actively attempt to restore forest cover. Leading the way in this endeavor is China, whose Three-North Shelter Forest Program is creating a corridor of trees intended to diminish expansion of the Gobi Desert. Reducing desertification will also ensure there is more farmable land, which is obviously in human interest as well.

We have been talking for a very long time about saving the trees and preserving the rainforest. But there is a lot more at stake than symbolic environmentalism or ensuring there is enough oxygen to breathe. Carbon storage, wildlife habitats, anti-erosion, anti-desertification, and many other things on a long list are at stake. Addressing these concerns, while also thinking about the status of many animals, will help to improve the condition of both as well as the many interrelated factors on the Earth.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Protecting Forests and Animals Should Be the Same Mission appeared first on Law Street.

Next Monday begins the week-long tradition of the New Jersey black bear hunt. During this process, between 250-300 bears of a population that tends to dance around a total of 3,400 north of Interstate 80 are “harvested” so as to keep their numbers in check. The reasons for this hunt and the manners in which it is pursued are controversial, and there may exist more progressive and responsible alternatives.

The general argument is that black bear populations can get out of control; they encroach upon our territory and into our backyards, and the likelihood of people experiencing dangerous encounters with them increases. We do not pause to consider that human populations might be the ones getting out of control. Rampant development and overbuilding in the North Jersey area means habitat damage for all manners of local wildlife. As forests are bulldozed, bears’ homes are destroyed. Furthermore, the homes of the animals on which they prey are destroyed as well, meaning that they all must relocate. This concentrates bears into smaller areas, which might produce the illusion that there are more of them while in actuality we simply see them more frequently.

The extensive building does not effectively take into account animal geographies; that is to say, the routes and manners in which they travel, hunt, court and mate, and go about their business. As we build out of control, bears are channeled into ever narrowing corridors or their paths are completely blocked, forcing them to pass through our backyards. We should also keep in mind that leveling wooded areas might put a strain on their food supply; the common image of a black bear sifting through people’s trash might not be a result of overly aggressive and bold bears seeking out human habitat in order to feed, but a last resort to which we have reduced them.

A site of deforestation and habitat destruction. Courtesy of crustmania via Flickr.

The very concept that a large and occasionally predatory animal such as a bear is constantly undergoing a population explosion seems to run contrary to the laws of nature. The food chain is a pyramid; the things on the bottom are the most numerous and as one ascends there are fewer and fewer of those creatures that prey on them. For example, as plants are at the bottom of every food chain, their numbers are astronomical. Then, the small rodents that eat them are naturally less numerous than the plants on which they feed, and the foxes that eat those rodents are fewer still. Bears are very large and, while they feed on roots, berries, and things of that nature as well, there would first have to be population explosions at every level of the food chain below them if their own numbers were to get out of control.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s black bear management policy declares that it intends to consider

The cultural carrying capacity, which is the number of bears that can co-exist compatibly with the local human population in a given area in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears.

There are two things wrong with this statement. The first, in conjunction with the previous discussion, is that it presumes to take into our own hands the bear population for the sake of the biological carrying capacity of the local environment. It assumes that the exploding bear population will overwhelm the local ecosystem and it is our responsibility to keep it in check. Again, if the population is growing rampantly it is because the ecosystem is flourishing in a manner so as to support it; the bears will not simply increase on their own. Therefore the ecosystem would maintain its balance. If for some reason at a particular point in time the bear population was unusually large, competition for food, shelter, and reproduction would increase and some bears would lose out and die off. Thus the ecosystem would self regulate. That’s the point; these things occur naturally all the time. Humans do not need to step in and play God.

The second problem with the management policy’s statement is that it assumes bear populations are the only factor in measuring the quality of the cultural carrying capacity. It declares that only a certain number of bears is suitable for a healthy carrying capacity; then if their populations get too high things go wrong. Why must this be the determining factor? Instead, if the unlikely situation arises that their populations do rise substantially, why can’t we readdress our own behavior, building policies, and attitudes and interactions with the environments of which we are a part? Why do we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? On the local level, humans aren’t exactly putting checks on their own populations; it is always others who are in the wrong and must get out of the way.

Let’s assume the bear populations are in fact rising. How is this determined? A team uses a DNA sampling technique in order to estimate the number of actively breeding bears in the region. Based on this, the total number is subsequently calculated. This method is supposedly more accurate than the more traditional catch, tag, and release systems. Be that as it may, does the hunt account for this delicate dynamic or do we shoot indiscriminately? What if, say, 80 percent of the bears killed during a particular hunt are active breeders? This could potentially devastate the bear population. It is not simply a matter of how many bears should or should not be killed, but which ones and where.

Courtesy of Tim Lumley via Flickr.

Rather than turn to black bears as scape goats, we should admit that we are causing habitat destruction and environmental damage. The validity of the black bear management policy has been questioned in the past, but to no avail. On the basis of not just science and policy but inward social reflection and questions of human behavior and value systems, it is time to challenge it again.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Change the Problematic New Jersey Black Bear Hunt appeared first on Law Street.