UT Shield

Climate

, Filed Under: Climate

Four Strategies to Advance Equitable Climate Finance in the Developing World

Intersection of Climate and Finance

It is common knowledge that climate change leads to extreme weather patterns, which create a variety of problems in communities around the world as they work to recover from increasingly frequent tropical storms, droughts, flood events, wildfires, and other climate-related shocks. In addition to the lives and communities affected, these events also cause negative financial consequences for governments and private industries. To avoid long-term reactive measures, governments and private industries should invest in climate action efforts. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects that to achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming scenario outlined in the Paris Agreement, $5.7 trillion USD in yearly investments are needed in the global energy transition. With the inclusion of hundreds of billions of dollars toward modernizing the US energy system in legislation such as the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the United States and many other developed countries have already begun their clean energy transition. 

Developing countries, on the other hand, face many obstacles in the realm of climate finance, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation measures. At the UNFCCC’s 15th Conference of Parties in 2009, developed countries agreed to a collective goal of mobilizing $100 billion USD per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries. However, this goal has not been met, with developed countries only committing $89.6 billion USD in financing for climate action in developing countries in 2021. In addition to falling short of the UNFCCC goal, the vast majority of these funds flowed to middle-income countries, leaving countries with high climate vulnerability and poverty with just a fraction of the available funds for climate mitigation and adaptation needs. Several think tanks estimate that the cost of climate adaptation, which is the primary priority in developing countries, will be closer to $300 billion by 2030, rising to $500 billion by 2050. Significant investments are urgently needed in the developing world to help advance the adoption of clean energy technologies and other climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. The following memo discusses possible approaches that can be taken by state actors, international organizations, NGOs, and private industries around financing global climate action, and highlights some critical gaps and recommendations for future progress.

Image from https://ecdpm.org/work

Strategy #1: States should alleviate debt burdens in the developing world by engaging in bilateral debt-for-climate swaps.

Foreign aid for climate action does not finance the full extent of countries’ adaptation and mitigation activities, creating the need for debt financing for many climate projects. According to the OECD, the majority of climate adaptation efforts are financed using debt, with this shift becoming even more prominent in the last few years. This means that countries, primarily in the developing world, are taking on more debt to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Debt-for-climate swaps, which are financial instruments that allow countries to forgive or refinance outstanding debt with other countries, allow developing countries to use debt service savings to finance climate action. Debt-for-climate swaps can alleviate debt burdens in the developing world while still allowing lower-income countries to advance their climate mitigation and adaptation goals.

Benefits:

  • Debt-for-climate swaps allow developing countries to invest in climate mitigation and adaptation measures while reducing their debt burden.
  • Bilateral agreements to cancel or refinance debt can provide dedicated funding for climate action, with debtor countries committing to use savings for specific climate-related projects. 

Strategy #2:  Policy think tanks and research organizations can engage in more elite advocacy.

Think tanks and research organizations across the world can engage in more elite advocacy with powerful decision-makers in the countries they work in and private corporations whose values align with this mission. The influence of these institutions in donor states can increase political will to achieve major climate finance goals. Moreover, the nature of climate adaptation investments makes them risky and have low return on investment. To overcome this, ESG and climate-aligned companies can be encouraged to make private dollars available through philanthropy and low-interest loans available for climate finance. 

Benefits:

  • Successful advocacy will increase the pool of money available for developing countries which is the overall goal.
  • The donation of private dollars will not increase the debt burden of developing countries.
  • Models that use these mechanisms and ideas already exist.
Image from https://www.scalingsolar.org/

Strategy #3: Create a global market for energy equipment leases and physical power purchase agreements (PPA’s).

As described by the EPA, energy equipment leases are essentially public-private partnerships which allow for private consumers and organizations to stretch the payment for large clean energy investments over several years. When the equipment lease ends, the customer may purchase or return the equipment (ex. high-efficiency HVAC systems or solar panels) or extend the contract, depending on the type of lease. Leases may be provided by state or local governments or third-party/private companies. One example similar to this is the Scaling Solar program implemented by groups within the World Bank for scaling solar power in African countries.

Benefits:

  • Equipment leases and PPAs could allow low-income individuals and/or developing countries to commit to the clean energy transition which in other cases, may not be available or affordable.
  • Energy equipment leasing partnerships and PPAs could also boost green workforce development in both developed and developing nations.
  • Multiple lease options are available, including operating, capital, and municipal leases.

Strategy #4: International organizations should secure funds for developing nations to aid them in their climate change mitigation efforts.

International organizations must oversee the routing of funds from developed economies towards developing ones to bridge the capacity gap between the two and aid the latter in their climate change mitigation efforts. International organizations are to establish transparent and standardized accounting practices for climate finance to address the ambiguity and lack of transparency in defining international climate and clean energy finance. Additionally, they must advocate for initiatives that aim to increase capital flows to developing countries for the clean energy transition, ensuring that financing is accessible to a broader range of countries and projects beyond the current limited scope. Moreover, international organizations could promote the development of risk mitigation mechanisms and financial instruments to address perceived risks associated with investing in emerging markets, thereby attracting more private capital to clean energy projects in these regions.

Benefits:

  • Support bridging the capacity gap between developed and developing countries by providing financial resources to the latter for climate change mitigation efforts.
  • Transparent and standardized accounting practices increase accountability and trust in the management and use of climate finance, reducing the risk of corruption and mismanagement.
  • Effective risk mitigation attracts more private sector engagement in climate projects, leveraging additional resources and expertise to scale up clean energy initiatives.

The Bottom Line

With the impacts of climate change increasingly affecting vulnerable populations around the world, the urgency of climate action for developing countries highlights the need for timely financing solutions. By employing these strategies, the states, international organizations, and NGOs can foster pathways toward the 1.5 degree Celsius global warming scenario set out in the Paris Agreement, facilitating regional and bilateral agreements among high-emitting developed countries and highly vulnerable developing countries.

, Filed Under: Air Pollution, Climate

Maximizing Carbon Emissions Reductions

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is COP15_1.jpg
A plenary session at the COP15. (Photo: UN Climate Change)

Climate change has threatened human, plant and animal populations around the world. Because it is a global issue, global leadership and global solutions are needed. The international community established a global warming target of 1.5°C in the Paris Agreement. The objective of recent international agreements has been in response to that target. However, further steps must be taken to achieve and surpass the 1.5°C. Rather than simply reduce present levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the international community must push for net-zero commitments from all countries around the world and a redesigning of the global economy.

How do we accomplish this?

Different countries and entities have unique strategies to approach carbon emission reductions. Common strategies include:

  • Carbon Pricing

“Carbon pricing is an instrument that captures the external costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—the costs of emissions that the public pays for, such as damage to crops, health care costs from heat waves and droughts, and loss of property from flooding and sea level rise—and ties them to their sources through a price, usually in the form of a price on the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted.”

–The World Bank, Carbon Pricing Dashboard
  • Carbon Offsets

“A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through land restoration or the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere.”


–Carbon Offset Guide
  • Carbon Taxes

“Under a carbon tax, the government sets a price that emitters must pay for each ton of greenhouse gas emissions they emit. Businesses and consumers will take steps, such as switching fuels or adopting new technologies, to reduce their emissions to avoid paying the tax.”

–Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
  • Cap and trade

“Cap and trade reduces emissions, such as those from power plants, by setting a limit on pollution and creating a market where emitters can purchase emissions capacity.”

-Environmental Defense Fund

By aggregating such policy strategies, reductions can be maximized. There are three steps towards achieving the economic shift needed to sustainably beat climate change.

Step 1: Legal/Regulatory Strategy
To compel states to research, strategize and deploy a net-zero emissions strategy and to write it into law.

Since writing their net-zero commitments into law, the United Kingdom has secured 29% reductions in carbon emissions. Although they are behind their target, because they created laws to reach said targets, they have made more progress than other signatories of the Paris Agreement. The UK designed a net-zero strategy and then set it into law. Imagine the progress to be made if more countries could be encouraged to do the same!

Step 2: Financial/Technological Strategy
To leverage the funding committed at COP15 and finance a transition to a green global economy.

In 2009 at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15), developed countries committed to finance a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). By signing onto the CDM, developed countries agreed to budget for a transition to a green economy. They even agreed to designate funds to aid developing countries as they renovated their domestic markets.

Financing the transition to a green economy is necessary because until clean energy and technology is widely available, products and services derived from those sources may be more expensive than non-sustainably-sourced products. Additionally, government subsidy will be needed to stabilize companies as they adjust their trajectory to net-zero.

These finances represent the beginning of a shift to more sustainable products and materials. Moving away from economic practices that destroy the planet towards sustainable development strategies is a crucial part of slowing global warming and climate change.

Step 3: Climate Action Strategies
To bring awareness to the public about their contribution to and the status of the carbon emissions reduction effort.

In the United Kingdom, as the government moved towards a greener policies, companies also began to make projections about the financial viability of greener products. It became apparent that investment in these products would cost companies more in the short term. However, market research showed that because of awareness campaigns, the public was willing to accept these costs to purchase products that were better for the environment. This kind of commitment from the public is needed for governments around the world to make the needed investments into a greener future.

The Bottom Line

The world has an urgent decision to make: can global finances, policies and innovations be directed towards slowing climate change? Can this happen despite international challenges such as COVID-19? With the collaboration of nations, international organizations, corporations and the public, there are significant gains to be made towards reducing global warming and climate change.

, Filed Under: Climate, Oceans/Fisheries

Sour Oceans

Ocean Acidification Needs Attention

Coral Bleaching, a sign of rising ocean temperatures. WWF / Jürgen Freund

The earth’s oceans are known to be in danger. Plastic pollution, oil spills, and diminishing fish populations are just some of the popular threats people will recognize. One threat, however, poses potentially greater and longer-term damage but is relatively unknown and under-researched — ocean acidification. Acidification is an enormous threat to marine life, ocean and global environmental stability, and communities across the world. The biggest obstacle, though, is we do not know nearly enough to make effective policies.

The oceans play a significant role in the stability of our planet’s climate and systems. Specific to the discussion, the oceans function critically in the carbon cycle by sequestering 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. Through a variety of paths, such as wind and waves, surface waters absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), which dissolves into the water as carbonic acid and breaks down into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions. Since the start of the industrial revolution, humans have dumped almost 40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which has made its way into the oceans. At the current level of oceanic CO2, the pH of surface waters has lowered (grown more acidic) by .1 pH units, which seems like a small number, but represents a 30% increase in acidity since pre-industrial levels.

Ocean acidification poses a significant threat to marine life and communities. All marine life rely on stable ocean chemistry for their security. Changes in ocean acidity have shown to affect the sensory skills, formation, and life span of several species of flora and fauna. Mollusks and other calcifying animals, like crabs and coral, build their shells and skeletons by using the calcium and carbonate from seawater. The process of acidification leaves fewer carbonate ions for these animals to use. Worse still, if the seawater becomes too acidic, it can dissolve the shell or bone. For example, one study placed pteropod shells in seawater with the pH level predicted for the year 2100, and the shells dissolved within 45 days.

Magnified microscope images of 1-day old Pacific oyster larvae from the same parents. The larger, smoother larva (left) was grown with water at optimal pH levels for optimal oyster growth. The smaller, degraded larva (right) was grown in water with lower pH levels. George Waldbusser and Elizabeth Brunner, Oregon State University.

Our oceans directly support the economies and communities around the world. For 8% of the world population, the oceans and marine life provide income. And, for the rest of the world, the oceans provide a staple of their diet and form a large part of their cultural identity. Ocean acidification threatens these communities by ruining the future of these economies and cultures. In the United States, the Pacific Northwest population of North Pacific crab, which is the highest revenue fishery in the region, is decreasing significantly due to rising temperatures and acidity. Toxic algae blooms are on the rise and force the closure of nearby fisheries because of the risk to human life. The American economy could experience a $230 million USD loss in the shellfish industry and a $150 billion USD loss in benefits from tourism and recreation.

… read more 

, Filed Under: Climate

Is There Still A Place for A Carbon Tax in U.S. Climate Policy?

A Corrective Tax on Carbon Emissions

In most states dropping a piece of trash on the sidewalk can earn someone a hefty fine. Consumer trash or liquid deposits are considered an environmental hazard to the larger public. Similarly, greenhouse gas emissions generate negative environmental impacts. Impacts from greenhouse gas emissions can include decreasing air quality due to smog and air pollution, which can contribute to increased public health risks from respiratory illnesses. More broadly, greenhouse gas emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which has created a global warming effect that is changing the climate in devastating and lasting ways.

In the U.S., the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation sector, closely followed by the electricity sector. Electricity in the U.S. is moving toward cleaner energy sources, but according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 62% of the nation’s electricity still comes from carbon-based fuel sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Companies emitting large quantities of emissions profit off the burning of fossil fuels but seldom feel the cost burdens of the negative impacts.

How Would It Work?

In December of 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put out a report – with options on reducing the federal budget deficit – detailing how a carbon tax might operate in the United States. CBO proposed a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton on most, but not all, emissions generated by a variety of sectors including electricity, manufacturing, and transportation. The tax would increase yearly by 2%. CBO predicted the first ten years of a carbon tax would see $977 billion accrued in tax revenue for the federal government and a 9% reduction in emissions across all participating sectors. Taxing carbon can be a way to not only improve atmospheric air quality but also to generate revenue towards additional climate mitigation strategies.

Additionally, carbon taxes can be structured in a way that builds flexibility for markets to have autonomy over how they choose to reduce emissions – the onus doesn’t need to be on curbing productivity. Emissions reduction can take place through lower emissions intensity, reductions in energy demand, or through capture and storage. A carbon tax could also standardize emissions monitoring and data collection through a federal regulatory body.

And finally, creating a U.S. tax on carbon emissions would be feeding into a global framework. As shown by the World Bank’s Carbon Pricing Dashboard, more than 70 national and subnational jurisdictions have carbon pricing policies. A carbon price enacted in one of the world’s richest economies can act as a price signal for the global economy to move polluting industries and their associated supply chains away from carbon-based fuel sources.

How Might It Fail?

A carbon tax can be an effective environmental and financial tool. But where and how can it go wrong?

  • A global issue – Climate change is problem created and felt globally, and for true effectiveness, so must the solution. A U.S. carbon tax might help mitigate the greenhouse gas emission of one o the leading polluting countries in the world, other high emitting countries may not be inclined to follow.
  • Political resistance – Fossil fuel companies would commonly weaponize these policies politically by indicating that the costs of these taxes would be felt most by consumers. Additionally, increasing taxes of any kind is rarely politically palatable.  
  • The price is high – In 2018, the United Nation’s climate science panel indicated a carbon tax would need to be at least $135 per metric ton to stop global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius. To be truly effective at reducing large amounts of emissions, the price needs to be much higher than the average carbon tax.

Only One of the Tools in the Toolbox

The truth is, while a carbon tax might hit at a root of the climate crisis – polluters unwilling motivated to significantly reduce emissions – the global community is out of time and needs bold dramatic action to combat climate change. And unfortunately, as the effects of climate change advance in severity, there is a grooming disconnect between the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of carbon pricing.

While a carbon tax can lend credibility to the U.S.’s role as a climate leader, especially among those like Canada, the EU, and Mexico, it shouldn’t be the centerpiece of the federal climate policy legislation. In an ideal world, the highest polluting countries would work together to designate mutually agreed upon carbon tax that would start low but steadily increase and make it costly through trade sanctions for high polluting countries do not have a carbon tax. A carbon tax can instead provide a backstop for other public and private mitigation strategies, such as a federal renewable energy standard.

, Filed Under: Air Pollution, Climate

Driving Down Emissions

To tackle climate change, we have to revolutionize how Americans travel

When most people imagine greenhouse gas emissions they picture the smoky fumes and flares from oil wells and coal-fired power plants. While these industrial sites are a large part of the problem, transportation is actually the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. What’s more, most of these transportation emissions are not from airplanes or big rigs–they come from the passenger cars most Americans drive every day.

Automotive News

The Biden administration has made it clear that climate change is one of its top priority and it wants the US to be a climate leader. But before the US can lead others, it needs to adopt stronger domestic climate policies. Improving the way Americans travel is an important first step.

Part of the reason for high transportation emissions in the US is because Americans drive more than people in any other country. Americans drive about 3.2 trillion miles every year, in part because US communities are built to provide space, rather than compact efficiency. Likewise, American vehicle manufacturers have historically prioritized size, rather than fuel economy (remember Hummers?). In 2018, light-duty vehicles emitted 1,105.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to 279 coal-fired power plants. All of that carbon is trapping heat in the planet’s atmosphere and changing our environment.

Our Changing Climate

Not only is reducing transportation emissions better for the environment, but it’s also better for people too. Aside from carbon dioxide, tailpipe emissions also release toxic pollutants like particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants can cause several health issues, including asthma, respiratory infections, and certain cancers. When these pollutants interact with sunlight, they also create ground-level ozone. When ozone forms in the atmosphere it helps protect us from UV radiation. At the ground level, it can trigger severe respiratory distress and reduce lung function. Long-term exposure to ground-level ozone can even cause permanent scarring. People are constantly exposed to these airborne pollutants. However, exposure is especially high in concentrated urban areas and when people stand near idling vehicles, such as students waiting to get on their school bus.

Fuel Freedom Foundation

There are three main ways to transform the transportation sector in the US and reduce greenhouse gas emissions: make electric vehicles (EVs) more accessible for the average American, expand (and electrify) public transportation networks, and make walking and bike riding more feasible.

Make EVs more accessible to consumers

US EPA

Every year, more and more people are buying EVs. In fact, there will likely be 18 million EVs on the road by 2025! But many people on the market looking to buy a new car balk when they see the EV price tag. What they don’t know is that the federal government and most states offer tax incentives or rebates for EV buyers. Once these discounts are applied, the price of an EV is usually comparable to a traditional vehicle. The Biden Administration’s recently announced American Jobs Plan also includes spending for EV development, which will help bring down prices over the next few years. Compared to traditional vehicles, EVs also save money in the long run. The average EV owner will save over $4,500 in fuel costs within the first few years, not to mention lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. With Jaguar and GM announcing their plans to go all-electric within the next 5 to 15 years, respectively, it is a matter of time before EVs are the norm.

Expand electric public transportation

Expanding public transportation is a great way to reduce emissions, air pollution, and traffic congestion. But electric public transportation is even better. Some communities are beginning to explore electric public transit by adopting electric school buses. If school buses can go electric, there’s no reason public buses can’t be electric too. Recent proposals have called for an alliance between utility companies and school districts (or local governments) to finance electric buses. Essentially, the school district would receive the bus and the utility company would receive extra energy storage.

“We’re still coasting on infrastructure choices that were made in the 1950s. Now’s our chance to make infrastructure choices for the future that are going to serve us well in the 2030s and onto the middle of the century…”

Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation

When communities think creatively they can develop solutions that benefit everyone, like the school-utility alliance. Instead of putting more money into highway expansions and parking lots, communities need to consider what the future of transportation looks like and how they can get there. Electric public transportation is the future, and communities need creative problem solving and public support to make it a reality.

Make communities more user-friendly

While EVs and public transportation are excellent ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nothing can top walking and bike riding. Unfortunately, most communities are developed for cars. In suburban communities, having a car is essential to get around, and little attention is given to safe walking or bike paths. Newer cities, such as cities in Florida, were also developed for cars, and it is often unsafe to get around any other way. As a result, almost 6,000 pedestrians and bicyclists are killed annually across the United States, and thousands more are injured.

If new community developments are compact and designed to encourage walking and biking, the whole community will be better off. People are healthier and happier when they exercise and are outdoors. With fewer cars on the road, air pollution and noise pollution are reduced, and there will be less traffic for those that need to drive. And of course, there are fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Existing communities can adapt to be more pedestrian and bicyclist friendly by implementing Complete Street policies. Complete Streets modify roadways with elements, like medians or bike lanes, to make the street safer for everyone. Ultimately, communities should be built for people–not cars.

What can you do?

  1. Call on your state representatives to support the Driving America Forward Act. The Driving America Forward Act would double the number of federal tax credits available for EV purchases and extend the tax credits through 2028.
  2. Call on your local representatives to adopt Complete Street policies. Complete Streets policies make the roadways safer for everyone and will encourage more people to walk or ride their bikes.
  3. Vote in local elections to support transportation ballot measures. Statewide and local elections often include ballot measures on funding and expanding public transportation. In 2016, transportation projects worth over $200 billion were voted on across the country. When voters turn out for these initiatives, it shows elected officials that people care about transportation.
  4. Consider making your next vehicle an EV. With tax incentives and rebates, the price of an EV is on par with a traditional diesel vehicle. Follow these links to see what federal and state-based incentives are currently available.
  5. Walk, bike, or take public transportation when these options are available.

Kathlina Brady

, Filed Under: Climate, Forests

Brazil’s Beef with the Amazon

As domestic conservation prospects for the Amazon rainforest grow dim, the international community must address Brazil’s most damaging industry.

The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has been a prevalent topic among conservation policy and advocacy groups since the 1970s. Brazil, home to 60% of the Amazon’s 2.6 million square miles of rainforest, has always the focus of conservation efforts. For decades, the catastrophic deforestation of Brazil’s rainforest seemed inevitable. Perspectives began to change in the early 2010s when deforestation rates in Brazil began to decrease drastically, with a 70% decline in the annual rate by 2012 compared to 2005 rates.  

This decline in deforestation has been tied directly to the successful implementation and enforcement of new policies and interventions in Brazil’s soy and beef supply chains. But protecting the Amazon is a continual process, a process that Brazil’s President Bolsonaro has systematically dismantled since he took office in January 2019.  

Starting early in his term, Bolsonaro has promoted the expansion of industrial projects in the Amazon, worked to overturn environmental laws, limited funding to Brazil’s environmental protection agency, and made efforts to dismantle the system of protections and land rights afforded to Indigenous communities by Brazil’s Constitution. In conglomerate, these measures have resulted in the accelerated deforestation of the Amazon, with the 2020 deforestation rate coming in at nearly 2.5 times that of 2012. Bolsonaro’s actions have not only given legal avenues for industry to cut down larger swaths of the Amazon, but his administration’s inaction on policing protected forests has resulted in increasing illegal land seizures and deforestation.  

Though an array of farming and industrial activities has contributed to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, the country’s growing beef industry has long been the leading driver of deforestation, both legal and illegal. Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of beef products, exporting a reported a record-setting 2.02 million metric tons in 2020. The reported revenue from this trade is $8.4 billion. While both the domestic and export markets for Brazil’s beef are an important part of the Brazilian economy, the industry has come at a steep price for the country’s vital rainforest, the loss of which has wider ramifications for both the regional and global climate, as well as biodiversity. 

Data released in 2019 by Trase, a deforestation and commodities monitoring platform, shows how damaging the demand for beef has been for the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Every year an estimated 260,000 to 580,000 hectares of the Amazon rainforest is cleared due to expanding cattle ranching. From 1988 to 2014, 63% of the area deforested in Brazil became cattle pastureland. Between the forest loss and the gasses emitted from the cattle during digestion, Brazil’s beef industry is responsible for around half of the country’s greenhouse emissions.  

According to Trase, over two-thirds of the country’s cattle-related deforestation risk comes from Brazil’s top three beef exporters, JBS, Minerva, and Marfrig. Separate investigations by the NGOs Amnesty International and Global Witness have linked all three companies to cattle ranches where illegal deforestation has occurred. According to a 2020 study, it is estimated that least 17% of Brazilian beef exports are linked to illegal deforestation due to improper monitoring of beef supply chains. 

Brazil’s beef industry is not only disastrous for the Amazon rainforest and global decarbonization efforts, but it has also limited Brazil’s economic potential. Many rural farmers operating in the Amazon have continued to ranch cattle, even though they could make more money – and protect the Amazon from further degradation – by growing acai or oranges. However, social preferences and lagging supply chain infrastructure in Brazil’s rural regions has kept industry tied to low-income and highly environmentally damaging cattle farming.  

What can be done?  

Although previous evidence indicates that domestic policy and enforcement can go far in decreasing the beef industry’s impact on deforestation, the Bolsonaro administration is unlikely to adopt the measures necessary to do so. In the continued absence of domestic action against deforestation in Brazil, there are steps individuals, businesses, investors, and other states’ policymakers can take to protect the Amazon and disincentivize illegal deforestation related to cattle farming. 

One of the best ways to protect the Brazilian rainforest is to decrease demand for Brazilian beef. Both individuals and companies should work to either cut their purchase of Brazilian beef, or else more carefully monitor the supply chain of the Brazilian companies they do purchase from. Both should avoid beef exported by JBS, Minerva, or Marfrig until these companies take more credible commitments to eliminate all links to illegal deforestation. Decreasing the consumption of beef from Brazil will also decrease deforestation caused by another major industry contributing to the deforestation of the Amazon – soy farming. Much of the soy farmed in Brazil is used to make cheap protein-rich feed for cows. If less beef is consumed, fewer cattle will be farmed, and less rainforest will be cutdown for soy farms.  

Another powerful tool to influence change could be through trade sanctions. Much of the illegal deforestation in the Amazon is a result of the absence of punitive measures under Bolsonaro’s administration. If Brazil’s major beef importers set trade barriers and restrictions on Brazilian beef exporters tied to illegal cattle farms, they could fill this gap, changing the incentives of Brazil’s rural farmers.  

Investors can help conservation efforts by investing in the processing, storage, and marketing infrastructure necessary to move Brazil’s agriculture industry away from the low-income and environmentally damaging cattle farming to more sustainable and profitable agricultural industries.  

Rachel Gossett

, Filed Under: Climate

The Right to a Clean and Healthy Environmnet

Houstonians evacuating their homes through flood waters during Hurricane Harvey (ABC News)

Hurricane Harvey was my first taste of the catastrophic effects of climate change. The storm stalled over Houston for four days, dumping a total of 60 inches of rain. A storm of this nature was unprecedented, the constant rainfall in conjunction with poor land management caused serious flooding that damaged hundreds of thousands of homes. When the rain cleared cleanup efforts started and everyone did their best to move forward but the shadow of Harvey still hangs over the city. 

Beyond the increasingly dangerous nature of storms, their frequency has increased as well. Just last year there were a record number of storms in the Atlantic. Hurricane Harvey is evidence of the impact of climate change and a mere glimpse of what our future will be if we do not appropriately address Climate Change.

The global average temperature is rising as a result of greenhouse gasses, like carbon, in the atmosphere. If temperatures rise above 2 degrees, the effects would be beyond those catastrophic events we have already witnessed. As we face the realities of Climate Change, we must work harder to prevent temperatures from rising beyond catastrophic levels and consider how we will address the fallout of climate change. Regardless of what level of warming we hit, there will be impacts and we must be prepared to face them.

The primary approach to address climate change has been through international environmental agreements which set goals to reduce carbon emissions. There has been some success in these efforts, but I believe we can go further by addressing climate change through a Human Rights framework. Enumerating our environmental rights in an international convention, via additional protocol to an existing convention, would put the focus on us, the humans that will suffer if climate change goes unchecked. 

The international human rights regime is already well established with mechanisms for enforcement in place. There is even a precedent for environmental rights. Under both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights there is a protection for the right to an adequate standard of living. This is not a specific enumeration of environmental rights, but the negative impacts of climate change certainly violate this right. Therefore, we need to add a specific protocol on environmental rights to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Having an environmental rights protocol would provide a secondary means of holding States accountable to their Climate Change commitments and might incline more states to actively participate in mitigation efforts. A human rights approach will also help address the tension between developed and developing states when it comes to commitments – ensuring no state is detrimentally affected by climate goals. Finally, a human rights approach will help us prepare for the very real consequences of climate change that we will have to face.

When the catastrophic impacts of climate change start to make areas of the planet inhabitable and climate refugees are displaced from their homes a human rights framework will give them legal standing. Additionally, it is my hope that by emphasizing a rights-based framework to climate change and putting the focus on those people that feel the effects of the warming planet, others will be more compassionate and more inclined to change their behaviors to help mitigate the effects. 

You can support a rights-based approach to climate change with just your voice. Be vocal about environmental rights, and write your representatives illustrating your support for a protocol on environmental rights. Additionally, you can support environmental rights by supporting NGOs that work to protect and promote environmental rights. 

We need to take climate change and its effects seriously and that means taking a rights-based approach to climate change. 

, Filed Under: Climate

Save the planet, go vegan

The Earth will thank you!

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic shattered normalcy around the globe—a tragic reminder of the fragility of the global economic system and a dark illustration of the deep connection between human health and our environment. As months turned into a year of stay-at-home orders amidst high levels of unemployment and food insecurity, anxiety increased and angst over the future reached an all-time high. 

Despite the feeling of helplessness that increased during our ‘new normal,’ there is always a reason for hope, even during the darkest hour.

When government across all levels failed to meet the needs of the majority of its population, mutual aid organizations, in the tradition of the Black Panther Party and the Young Lord’s projects of survival, swiftly mobilized to fulfill the government’s role.

Just as the Black Panther Party established a community free breakfast program to feed young Black children so that they would be nourished and sustained to participate in the revolution, mutual aid organizations not only met the needs of their communities, they organized protests, banner drops, marches, and encampments and to demand action on housing, racial justice, and the climate crisis. 

Sunrise Movement (2021)

The unease that lingers as developed nations increase vaccine disruption while developed nations’ cases and deaths continue to swell is not new. That creeping feeling of hopelessness is reminiscent of “climate anxiety”— the mental condition caused by the existential threat of the climate crisis, felt most deeply by young people. 

As the battle to waive patent rights to the COVID-19 vaccine continues, there still may be light at the end of a devastating year and a half, and although not even the global shutdown caused a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), there are ways in which individuals can feel empowered every day to take action, even against the greatest threat to human life: the climate crisis.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) the agriculture, forest, and land-use sector is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world, more than the transportation, building, energy, and ‘general industries’ and nearly tied with electricity.  

Because the lionshare of emissions within the food sector is caused by meat and dairy production, going vegan is one of the most impactful lifestyle changes that you can make to curb climate change. 

Researchers at Oxford University found that switching to a vegan diet reduces an individual’s carbon footprint from food by up to 73%. Without major dietary shifts and agricultural reform, multiple studies have concluded that it will be impossible to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement to mitigate global temperatures “well below” 2◦C.

Leading international bodies, including the IPCC and UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and other experts have long advocated for widespread dietary shifts to curb the impacts of climate change, particularly among developed nations. 

Ilmi Granoff from the Overseas Development Institute, a leading think tank in the UK, has advocated that the “fastest way to address climate change would be to dramatically reduce the amount of meat people eat.”

The burden to reduce meat consumption falls most heavily on the US; the average American consumes around 220 pounds of red meat and poultry per year and has been projected to eat as much as 10 ounces of meat and poultry per day—4.5 ounces more than the recommended amount.

Data source: Implications of Future US Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Center for Sustainable Systems (University of Michigan)

A 2020 study from the University of Michigan found that if Americans cut their consumption of animal-based foods by 50% (including a 90% cut to their consumption of beef), it could reduce diet-related US GHGE by 51%. In addition,

a recent report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF,) the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), EAT and Climate Focus found that including food systems in signatories’ Paris Agreement carbon goals could reduce emissions by as much as 12.5 Gt CO2e—the equivalent of taking 2.7 billion cars off the road—and could deliver up to 20% of emission reductions needed.  

The GHGE released from both meat and dairy production—methane, and nitrous oxide—are even more potent than those from the transportation or energy sectors and have 56 times and 280 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Yet, because methane remains in the atmosphere for a significantly shorter amount of time than carbon dioxide, reducing methane emissions today from the agriculture industry can produce immediate results. 

The EAT-Lancet Commission confirms that global food and agricultural production are the top drivers of deforestation, land conversion, biodiversity loss, topsoil loss, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The food system, particularly meat and dairy production, is responsible for nearly half (40%) of global land and the majority (70%) of freshwater use. 

Source:  Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2017)

The extractive industries that produce meat and dairy products in the US and abroad produce more GHGE than the entire country of Germany, and more than top oil producers.

By refusing to support these industries (which primarily employee people of color and immigrants in some of the US’ most dangerous jobs, even before the pandemic) you are joining a growing movement of individuals across the country and the world that are boycotting meat and dairy products and holding these businesses accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers continue to boycott Wendy’s, one of the only fast food chains that has not meet their demands

Boycotts have served as a powerful strategy throughout history, particularly in the fight for racial and labor justice in the US.

Most famously, the Montgomery bus boycott—the 381-day mass protest against the bus system of Montgomery, Alabama by civil rights activists and their supporters—led to a 1956 US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Montgomery’s bus segregation laws were unconstitutional. 

More recently, the Coalition for Immokalee Workers, a human rights organization led by farmers in Florida, forced fast-food chains like Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and Burger King to meet their demands to improve wages for tomato pickers in their supply chains after a series of national farmworker boycott of those restaurants.

These successful movements show the power of targeted boycotts in forcing industries to shift to more sustainable practices or transition from producing animal products altogether.

Alongside a shift to a primarily plant-based diet, you can make your contribution even more impactful by also lobbying Congress (find your legislators here,) to ask that they support the Green New Deal and expand the scope of President Biden’s Paris Agreement target carbon emissions plan to include a reduction in factory farming and meat production/consumption.

Food is a human right that we should all enjoy—incorporating and prioritizing a plant-based diet over a meat and dairy heavy diet is one step that anyone can take to ensure that folks around the world will be able to enjoy healthy, culturally apprioate, delicious food (and a healthy planet) for years to come.

—

Brand new to veganism?

The revolution is more fun in groups; check out environmental organizations like Extinction Rebellion that are advocating for immediate action on climate change and an end to animal production and consumption.

Don’t forget, when shifting your diet, you can start small with Meatless Mondays and slowly transition to removing more animal products—use these startup guides to get inspired!

, Filed Under: Climate

Action Items for Rio Grande Access

By Claudia Canfield, submitted to the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

The 2020 water delivery crisis began when farmers in Chihuahua, Mexico began protesting the water deliveries Mexico’s National Water Commission was making from the Río Conchos to the Rio Grande in compliance with the 1944 water treaty that governs the US and Mexico’s shared water resources. At one point, the protesters took control of a key dam in Chihuahua and stopped the water deliveries. This crisis caused a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety for South Texas farmers and ranchers who rely on Mexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande to supply water they use to irrigate their crops and support their livestock through the hottest months of the year. The many weeks South Texas spent at various levels of elevated drought conditions exacerbated the uncertainty and left many farmers and ranchers feeling helpless during this crisis.

Rio Grande | American Rivers
The Rio Grande Basin drains a vast, binational area provides irrigation water to farmers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valle and northern Mexico.

If this story seems like history is repeating itself, that’s because it is. The water delivery crisis of 2000 was the first time Mexico failed to meet two consecutive water delivery cycles. In fact, this problem was so contentious it required a meeting between US President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox for the two countries to reach a resolution. The US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) agreement the two presidents helped facilitate in 2001 set out the terms for Mexico to repay the water it owed the US and committed both countries to working together to identify opportunities for cooperation and water conservation in the Rio Grande Basin. The 2003 water conservation plan proposed infrastructure modernization projects that saved approximately 321,023 acre-feet of water annually, and the delivery cycles from 2000-2010 ended without deficit. This feat would not have been possible without the North American Development Bank (NADB) providing $40 million to fully fund the projects.

While we can’t undo the damage of last summer’s crisis, what can be done to stop this cycle and prevent future water crises?

Thankfully, the IBWC agreement that established how the 2020 water debt would be paid also created the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group. This task force has until December 2023 to develop a plan for implementing water conservation projects that will improve reliability and predictability of Mexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande. An area with large potential water savings is irrigation infrastructure. Estimates indicate up to 90% of the water used in the Río Conchos Basin is used for irrigation, and an analysis of the Río Salado, another Rio Grande tributary, indicates it is under similar stress from irrigation. Projects to improve irrigation efficiency for farmers in Mexico include replacing outdated infrastructure, installing automatic timers, fitting pumps with sensors that detect leaks or excessive use, and introducing drip irrigation where possible. These efforts will vastly improve irrigation efficiency for Mexican farmers, and therefore ensure more water is available for Mexico’s water deliveries to the US. Greater water efficiency for Mexican farmers means more reliable water access for South Texas farmers and ranchers.

Greater irrigation efficiency can make low water levels in Chihuahuan reservoirs (above) and in the Rio Grande (below) a thing of the past.

The one outstanding piece of the puzzle is NADB funding; the US Congress has not yet allocated the funds that would ensure NADB is able to fully support the water conservation projects the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group will propose in the next two years. This is where the voices of South Texas farmers and ranchers can make a big difference. 

Here are three ways you can help secure reliable access to Rio Grande water for your farm or ranch:

Action Item 1: Email and Call Congress

(If you’re not sure who your representative is, click here.)

Congressional Districts: 

  • District 15: Vicente Gonzalez, click here to email, call (202) 225-2531
  • District 23: Tony Gonzales, click here to email, call (202) 225-4511
  • District 28: Henry Cuellar, click here to email, call (202) 225-1640 
  • District 34: Filemon Vela, click here to email, call (202) 225-9901

Senators:

  • John Cornyn, click here to email, call (202) 224-2934
  • Ted Cruz, click here to email, call (202) 224-5922

Sample email:

Dear [Representative/Senator name],

My name is [name] and I live in [town or county name], Texas. I’m emailing to urge you to support legislation that ensures the North American Development Bank is able to fully fund water conservation projects proposed by the US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission’s Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group.

[Include several sentences here explaining how your farm or ranch operations were impacted by the water delivery crisis. Whether you lost crops or had to sell livestock because the irrigation water ran out, be as specific and detailed as possible. Personal stories from constituents can have a huge impact on how representatives vote.]

In 2003, the IBWC proposed infrastructure projects to conserve water and prevent water deficits. These projects were successful because they received full funding from the North American Development Bank. I am asking you to ensure the water conservation projects are fully funded this time as well; farmers, ranchers, and the agriculture sector in your district are counting on you.

Sincerely,

[Sign with your full name and phone number]  

Sample phone message:

“Hello, my name is [name] and I live in [name of town or county], Texas. I’m calling to ask [Representative/Senator name] to support legislation that will ensure the North American Development Bank is able to fully fund water conservation projects proposed by the US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission’s Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group.

[Explain that you are a farmer/rancher, and you depend on Rio Grande water to support your crops/livestock. Personal details will stand out and the staffer you are speaking with will be more likely to remember your conversation.]

Will [Representative/Senator name] publicly announce his support for this legislation?

[Make sure to thank the staffer for their time before hanging up.]

Action Item 2: Attend the Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum

The next meeting will be held July 28, 2021, 3:00 – 5:00 PM CDT via webinar. Please contact Lori Kuczmanski at lori.kuczmanski@ibwc.gov or (915) 494-6027 for more information. This will be an excellent opportunity to hear updates on the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group, ask questions about the project development process, and give your input on the agenda items.

Action Item 3: Share this page with other South Texas farmers and ranchers! 

We need as many people as possible to join together in support of the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group; our access to the Rio Grande is on the line.

, Filed Under: Climate, Forests, Lead Story, Oceans/Fisheries, Wildlife

30 x 30: Protecting 30% of our land and ocean by 2030

By Holly Sarkissian

The Problem: Not enough has been done to protect the biodiversity of our land and sea

Plant and animal species are going extinct at an alarming rate, putting the earth is on track to a mass extinction unless immediate action is taken. Amphibians are the world’s most endangered animals with half of the species at risk of extinction and many other creatures are facing extinction, including:

Source: https://www.campaignfornature.org/
  • One-third of corals, freshwater mollusks, sharks, and rays
  • One-fourth of mammals
  • One-fifth of reptiles 
  • One-sixth of birds

We have already lost 90% of big ocean fish in the last century and 60% of terrestrial wildlife in the last 50 years due to deforestation and land degradation. Although the Ocean covers 70% of the Earth, only 2% is strongly protected from destructive or extractive activities. At the same time, only 15% of land is protected.

Why is protecting the land and ocean important?

The degradation of land and ocean endangers our health, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and countless livelihoods.

Safeguarding human health: 75% of emerging infectious disease comes from animals. Displacing animals from their habitats increases the likelihood they will be pushed into areas inhabited by humans and risk transmitting zoonotic diseases. Scientists believe that the origins of the recent Ebola and COVID-19 epidemics are linked to human interactions with animals which were displaced from their original habitat.

The importance of the ocean: The ocean is home to 80% of all life on the planet. It is estimate that the ocean absorbs 30% of the excess carbon dioxide emissions and over 90% of the heat from global warming. It is the largest provider of protein in the world, sustaining 3 billion people who eat seafood as their primary source of protein. The ocean also contributes to ~$1.5 trillion USD in global economic activity and supports more than $39 billion USD annually from maritime and tourism activities alone.

Sea Turtle and Dolphin in the Ocean
Source: World Animal Foundation

What is the solution?

Scientists warn that we must protect at least 30% of our oceans, lands, rivers, lakes, and wetlands by 2030 to prevent mass extinctions and bolster resilience to climate change. By 2050, scientists say we need half of the planet in its natural state to prevent the extinction of one million species, stay below 1.5°C global warming, and safeguard all people that rely on nature to survive and thrive.

The initiative to protect 30% of our land and oceans by 2030, known as 30×30, will help give us a chance to maintain global biodiversity. We have seen that when areas are protected wildlife comes back:

  • Wolves in the U.S.: After being extinct for 70 years, wolves were successfully reintroduced to Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the 1990s. Since then, research has found that wolf recovery leads to greater biodiversity in the region as wolves prey on elk and the elk caucuses provide food to other animals.
  • Large Mammals in Rwanda: In the aftermath of war and genocide, Rwanda’s wildlife in Akagera National Park began to disappear; the lions were gone by 2002 and the last black rhino was seen in 2007. But in 2009 the big 5 (leopards, lions, Cape buffalo, elephants, and rhinoceros) were reintroduced to the park and now their populations are rebounding.
The big 5 (leopards, lions, Cape buffalo, elephants, and rhinoceros) in Akagera National Park
  • Rhinos in India and Nepal: By the early 19th century there were fewer than 200 greater one-horned rhinos. However, with protection from Indian and Nepalese wildlife authorities in national parks their numbers have grown to around 3,600 today. 

Similar successes have been observed in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs):

  • Species Diversity and Fish in Apo Island Marine Sanctuary, Philippines: The biomass of large predatory fish have increased 8-fold and the biomass and diversity of species has increased in the reserve overall.
Source: Lonely Planet

What can governments do?

Make the 30×30 commitment: Governments must commit to preserving at least 30% of their country’s oceans and land by 2030 with a focus on areas more important for biodiversity and on indigenous-controlled lands. 37% of Earth’s remaining natural lands are managed by indigenous peoples who, in some cases, must risk their lives to stand up against poachers and others who encroach on their land for illegal resource extraction or degradation activities.  Furthermore, scientific studies indicate that Indigenous peoples and local communities are usually more effective at implementing conservation than government-funded agencies.

Bring 30×30 to the international stage: As part of the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) negotiations world leaders committed to protecting 17% of land and 10% of the ocean by 2020. A 2020 report concluded that from 2010-2019, the percentage of the Earth’s surface covered by protected areas increased from 14.1% to 15.3% on land, and from 2.9% to 7.5% in the ocean, falling short of previous CBD commitments. Now world leaders must not only strive to meet their 2020 targets as soon as possible but they also must increase their ambition and commit to global biodiversity targets of 30 x 30 or greater at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the CBD taking place in November 2021.

Strategic Implementation of 30×30: It is not enough for our leaders to make this commitment on paper, the must then take action to implement 30×30 strategically:

Source: Boreal Conservation
  1. Consider representation – Ideally, protection efforts will encompass a broad representation of species and ecosystems i.e., a little bit of everything. Leaders must preserve this variety when implementing their 30×30 commitments and not just conserve barren rock or ice.
  2. Prioritize intact ecosystems – Intact wilderness provides huge benefits for carbon sequestration, resilience, and species persistence.
  3. Invest in indigenous initiatives – Many of these important wildness areas lie on indigenous lands. These communities need support and protection.
  4. Fund Protection – Once a commitment has been made it is not enough to leave these areas untouched, these areas must also be monitored, studied, and managed for the best results. Such action requires resources and world leaders must ensure there is a national budget line to fund protection.
  5. Protect crucial ecosystems at risk of industrial development – We must guard key habitats against industrial anthropogenic impacts from forestry, mining, oil and gas, hydropower, and infrastructure in important ecosystems like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Boreal Forest.
  6. Pair with efforts to reduce environmental degradation and pollution beyond the 30×30 areas – Our leaders must also strengthen the environmental protection of the remaining 70% of land and oceans.

Case of the U.S.

Source: New York Magazine

The U.S. has signed but not yet ratified CBD so it cannot directly participate in COP15. Nevertheless, the Biden-Harris Administration has committed to protecting 30 % of U.S. lands and waters by the year 2030. President Biden also stressed the importance of world leaders joining 30 x 30 during last month’s climate summit.

Today, only about 12% of America’s land area is under some type of environmental protection, while ~26% of the country’s ocean territories are protected. While the nation close to achieving the 30 x 30 goal offshore, getting to 30% on land will require environmental protections for a combined land area equal to twice the size of Texas.

To meet this challenge, the Biden-Harris Administration released a report on its “America the Beautiful” initiative for a 10-year, locally led and voluntary nationwide effort to restore and conserve America’s lands, waters, and wildlife. The report does not specify which lands will be conserved. It does, however, lay out the priorities for the beginning phase of the initiative which include supporting tribally led conservation and restoration, expanding collaborative conservation of fish and wildlife habitats and corridors, and incentivizing the voluntary conservation efforts of fishers, ranchers, farmers, and forest owners.

To combat climate change, the Biden-Harris Administration must incorporate maximizing carbon sequestration into its 30 x 30 strategy. According to a scientific study  in 2018, the U.S. could potentially sequester the equivalent of 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2025, an amount that is equal to 21% of current net annual emissions of the United States. These scientists suggest strategies to enhance carbon capture including reforestation, better management of forests on private lands, protecting forests from conversion to other uses, protecting grasslands from conversion to cropland, and restoring tidal wetlands.

Global Country Commitments

In January 2021, 50 countries committed to protecting 30% of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 known as the high ambition coalition. By March 2021, 83 countries joined this commitment. The first 50 countries to sign on collectively control:

Source: High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People
  • 30% of global terrestrial biodiversity (using vertebrates as a proxy)
  • 25% of the world’s terrestrial carbon stores (biomass and soil)
  • 28% of ocean biodiversity priority areas
  • one-third of the ocean carbon stores

Now, other countries must join the 30×30 campaign and strategically implement their commitments.

What can Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) do?

NGOs have been critical in shaping and directing the international community’s response to global environmental challenges. They act as agitators for environmental action, architects of governance solutions, and entrepreneurs for new sorts of initiatives. They can also lobby governments and “name and shame” governments who are not living up to their commitments.

NGOs must push for global adoption of the 30×30 targets at COP15. At a country-level, NGOs can advocate for the adoption of the 30×30 target and push for its strategic and effective implementation, protecting the most important and intact ecosystems. They can support the science-based monitoring and management of protected areas. They can also advocate for the aid and protection of indigenous communities, so they are not displaced or subjected to violence by poachers and others engaging in illegal resource extraction.

NGOs are already building and strengthening transnational advocacy networks for 30 x 30. For example, the Campaign for Nature is a partnership of the Wyss Campaign for Nature, National Geographic Society, and a growing international coalition of 100+ conservation NGOs calling on policymakers to commit to protecting at least 30% of the planet by 2030 by agreeing on a science-driven, ambitious new deal for nature at COP-15. The coalition is lobbying world leaders to mobilize funding to manage protected areas and to integrate indigenous leadership into their biodiversity conservation approaches. They will be working behind the scenes at COP-15 to push world leaders to make ambitious 30 x 30 commitments.

What can businesses do?

Over half of the world’s GDP, $44 trillion of economic value, is at moderate or severe risk due to nature loss. Businesses must examine their potential to both help and harm the environment. On the negative side, businesses consume large quantities of natural resources and generate significant negative externalities such as waste and pollution. They must work to reduce their environmental impacts. On the positive side, businesses can wield private authority by creating standards or practices that other actors adopt.

A way to promote compliance from businesses is to engage them in a green club volunteer program like Business for Nature which promotes standards of conduct which produce public environmental benefits. In return, club members get exclusive benefits such as affiliation with the club’s positive brand name. Successful clubs induce members to take progressive environmental action beyond what they would have done unilaterally. According to the Nature for Business coalition, 530 businesses have committed to taking action to reverse nature loss and 1200 businesses are already taking action to reduce their negative impact on nature, invest in protecting and restoring nature, and scale up products and technologies to have a lower environmental impact.

For example, Kering, a French-based multinational corporation specialized in luxury goods, is working in partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society and other partners to increase the sustainability of the cashmere industry in Mongolia. Increased world demand for cashmere has led to a surge in goat numbers in Mongolia and the increase in goat grazing has led to the degradation Mongolian grasslands. For this initiative, Kering is working with its local suppliers to leverage technology to improve the efficient of goat-combing and to monitor the pasture quality by satellite to better manage grazing. More businesses must join this effort to re-orient their strategies and supply chains to prevent additional nature loss.

Goats in Mongolia
Source: Business for Nature

What can you do?

  1. Call on your world leaders to commit to protecting 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 and to incorporate that commitment into the agreed targets of Convention on Biodiversity at COP15.
  2. Stay up to date on current scientific and political developments and ensure that your government is implementing its commitments.
  3. Use your time and money to support initiatives by NGOs and businesses working towards the 30×30 commitments.

Pushing for 30×30 is key to addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis we face. We must join efforts to make sure our world leaders set ambitious land and ocean protection targets and work successfully to achieve them.