Blog Archives

'The Verdant Yank' up for the best of Ireland's 2016 blogs!

7/29/2016

HUGE thanks to Littlewoods Ireland's Blog Awards 2016 for nominating 'The Verdant Yank' to their Longlist for consideration as one of the best of Ireland's blogs! The blog has made the cut in both 'Current Affairs & Politics' and 'Education & Science' categories, proving once again how environment stands at the interface of multiple topics (one of the many reasons I love writing about it!).

Short-listing takes place between now and September and short-listed entries will be opened up to a public vote, so stay tuned because you may get a call to mobilization from yours truly soon!

Here's hoping for a positive outcome because (in my humble, unbiased opinion) we need a lot more awareness of environmental issues in Ireland and no better way for this Irish-American Verdant Yank to help achieve that than with a seal of approval from the Irish Blog Awards!

Find out more about the Irish Blog Awards here.

Fingers and toes crossed until September!
-Cara

PS. Congratulations to fellow blogger and my amazing friend, Melanie Clark Pullen, for nomination of her blog and podcast 'Strut and Bellow' in the 'Arts and Culture' category. One to watch, people!

2 Comments

Regret + Optimism = 2100

7/26/2016

1 Comment

Visions 2100

This week, I was invited to participate in the Dublin event for Visions 2100 - A book by John O'Brien launched at COP21 last year, which contains 80 vision statements from global influencers such as Mary Robinson, Bill McKibben, and Christina Figueres.

One of the most challenging aspects of climate communication is the task of trying to convey what a world of climate chaos or a world of climate action could look like. If only I could show you a split screen of what your daily life would look like if we do nothing about climate and if we do everything, the choice would become blindingly obvious. In my mind, a world dependent on fossil fuels is dirty, noisy, unhealthy, unsafe, sprawling and unfair, whereas a world of climate action is cleaner, quieter, safer, resilient, vibrant, connected, and more equitable.

Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to create such a visual treat (though this video narrated by Morgan Freeman does a pretty good job of portraying a world of climate action). I tried to paint this picture in words as part of my TEDxUCD talk, 'Fossil Free Ireland' - To describe what Ireland might look like in 2050 was hard enough and took months of research, but trying to conceive of what the entire world might look like in 2100 seems monumental in comparison.

So why go through such enormous effort to create a vision of the world in eight and a half decades when most of us will be gone? My colleague John Gibbons explained it best when he quoted Nelson Mandela at Visions 2100 Dublin:

"Action without vision is only passing time, vision without action is merely day dreaming, but vision with action can change the world."

We need "the vision thing" to figure out what steps to take now to get there, and 2100 is far enough away to let our imaginations run wild, unconstrained by today's technological and societal limits.

Emotion = Energy in Motion

John O'Brien's introductory comments at Vision 2100 Dublin reminded me of the constant communication struggle we have between rationality and emotion. He explained:

John O'Brein speaking at Visions 2100 Dublin, July 2016

"Climate science is so wonderfully rational, and that is not enough."

Obviously, he's right -otherwise the terrifying projections of IPCC reports would have been enough to cause us to act on climate long ago. But the solution isn't as simple as telling us all to speak with more emotion and dismiss rationality.

For scientists in particular, this conflict between speaking with emotion and rationality is head wrecking. We're told we need to express more urgency to convey environmental threats more convincingly, but when we do, we're attacked for trying to advance an "activist agenda" and discredited for being alarmist.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't... It's no wonder most scientists just try and keep their heads down and advance the science. Why be outspoken and emotional when it only makes you susceptible to attack and threatens your career prospects?

That's why John O'Brien's Vision 2100 project is so useful. It gives all of us (yes, you too) the space to speak with emotion without risk of being discredited since no one can tell us our vision of 2100 is wrong (or at least we'll be dead by the time they do!).

The Latin derivative for the word emotion, ‘emotere’, means 'energy in motion' and it involves not just mental sensations by physical ones too. When we feel something physically, we connect to it at a deeper level and we're more encouraged to act or move compared to when we are confronted with rational facts.

A recent example of this has been seen in the European migrant crisis. Thousands of people drowned in the Mediterranean Sea last summer trying to escape their homeland for a better life in Europe. For the early part of the crisis, our government lay idly by and the many said that our culture couldn't afford to be disrupted by an influx of migrants, but the second we saw (and felt) that tragic photo of a Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach, we changed.

time.com

Within 24 hours, our government reversed its migrant policy as a result of public outcry (though they've yet to take the 4,000 they committed to).

We simply have to become more emotional about climate change and climate action in spite of personal consequences. A friend recently reminded me that all major decisions are based on either fear or love. Facts and figures aren't going to enable the kind of action we need on climate.

A rationale for 2100

In 2100, I expect the world to be almost unrecognizable compared to present day. I grew up before the internet – So in just 3 decades, technology (and thus society) has already changed dramatically.

Space tourism: A reality in 2100?

In preparing my 2100 vision, I went so far as to explore the future of space travel and read work from School of Physics at University of Glasgow that predicted teleportation will be a reality by 2080! I can't begin to predict where technology will go in the next eight decades and how our social values and interactions may follow.

It’s equally hard to conceive of what our climate, and consequently humanity, might be like in 2100. The variability in the IPCC climate projections is enormous by the time you get to 2100, with anything from a 1.8 degree Celsius temperature rise from pre-industrial baseline (unlikely now given our lack of action to date) to up to 6 degree Celsius rise.

The last time the Earth experienced a 19-20 degree average surface temperature (6 degrees above pre-industrial temperature), nearly 300 million years ago, 95% of the world’s species were wiped out. A 2100 vision looks pretty bleak if we go with the IPCC’s worst case scenario of a world that remains dominated by fossil intensive energy systems as it is today.

But when I look around the world today (excluding technological-laggard Ireland), I see much of it already moving toward an energy system dominated by renewables.

IPCC, 2007

There are so many economic, societal, health and security reasons for most countries to do this, I think it’s fair to assume the world won’t remain dominated by fossil intensive energy for much longer.

As a result of that global shift toward renewable energy, I think there will also be a reform of the social inequality we see today. If the world were only 100 people, right now 50% of the wealth would be owned by one individual! The trend of consolidating wealth to a smaller and smaller group of individuals has reached its limits, and the solution to that unsustainable greed is in local social and environmental sustainability.

An unlikely model in Cuba

When I think of what a local sustainability might look like in 2100, I think of Cuba today.

Urban agriculture, Cuba

As a result of it political isolation 50 years ago, Cuba was forced to become a leader in urban agriculture because it lacked sufficient fuel to transport food great distances to markets. Instead, local farmers’ markets are open 12 hours a day, 7 days a week selling food produced on urban plots or worker-owned cooperative farms.

Cuba also lacked sufficient agri-chemicals and fertilizers for food production, so 80% of the country's produce is organic.

Inadvertently, they created a platform for sustainable food production where locally-grown, organic food has become the most convenient and inexpensive food available to people. Another interesting thing about Cuba is that an individual is only permitted to own one place of business, so the majority of businesses remain locally-owned and community focused. This is where our own food production systems need to go if we’re serious about sustainability.

The greatest threat to Cuba’s localized model today is the capitalist consumer dream that the rest of the world has so deeply bought into. In my 2100 vision, the rest of the world finally comes to the realization that consumerism only benefits the mighty few, so we’ve traded that pipe dream for a dream of well-being, health, education, and re-connection of community for all the Earth’s citizens.

Regret + Optimism = 2100

Emotionally, my vision of the world in 2100 is a mix of regret and optimism...

As a scientist, I couldn’t ignore the fact that the world has already warmed 1 degree Celsius from its pre-industrial average and that we’re already witnessing the impacts of climate change in the form of severe weather, drought and ocean acidification, among many other ecological impacts.

I couldn’t ignore the fact that even if we stopped burning all fossil fuel today, we’ve locked in a further 0.6 degrees Celsius temperature rise and that we know low lying areas like the Maldives and Bangladesh will struggle to survive in a world with warming beyond 1.5 degrees C. I think those facts warrant some serious regret.

But I am also an optimist (at least until Donald Trump destroys the planet), and I see signs all around me of a global society that wants change -not climate change, but system change.

I see people of all ages all over the world demanding a fairer society and a redistribution of wealth. This was evident on the streets of Paris last December and streets around the world during the People's Climate March in 2015. I believe, in the next eight decades, a just society will prevail because people power out-numbers corporate power by sheer weight and volume.

People's Climate March, New York 2015

My 2100 Vision

"We waited too long to act. By mid-century, climate change and its tragic consequences were inevitable. Saharan heatwaves swept across the Mediterranean. “Super-hurricanes” became the norm. Glaciers melted and their freshwater was lost. Seas rose and maps had to be redrawn. People were forced to migrate and cities are crowded now, but we prevailed and learned from the mistakes of our forebears. Eventually, we defeated corporate fossil fuel powers and de-carbonized our energy and transport systems, an admirable feat that united the world and empowered civil society.

By 2100, we achieved a higher level of human development than the materialistic dreams of our ancestors, which only ever came true for a privileged minority. Our society is no longer dominated by the acquisition of monetary wealth and goods but based on connectedness, health, education, equality and well-being. We learned that as systems got bigger, corruption and waste seeped in. Rather, we localize and encourage self-reliance: food grows where it’s eaten; people shop and work where they live, in contrast to the soulless commuter belts and urban sprawl of our past. Both physically and psychologically, we have grown up instead of out. "

-Dr. Cara Augustenborg,
Environmental Scientist, Climate Lecturer, Writer & Chairperson at Friends of the Earth Ireland

Your Turn

We all need to bring a little imagination back into our lives and reflect on what the world might look like or what we want it to look like in 2100. John O'Brien has a dream to get as many people as possible to write their own 200-word vision statement, so now it's your turn. You might find yourself among the next 80 influencers in Visions 2100 Volume II!

Pictured at Visions 2100 Dublin with fellow speakers John O'Brien, Phil Kearney, & John Gibbons (July 2016)

Submit your 2100 Vision here, and keep fighting the good fight!
-Cara

1 Comment

The Ecologist New Voices

7/6/2016

0 Comments

As a college student, I used to pour over the pages of The Ecologist magazine. I loved the way it stood at the interface of environmental science and activism and wasn't at the mercy of advertising which might compromise the message.

So when I saw a request looking for new writers, I jumped at the call and was thrilled when Editor Susan Clark responded with an offer to join their "New Voices" team

Reading back through The Ecologist's 46 year history makes me even more proud to now call myself a part of their legacy. Through words, they've affected real change and still continue to do so. Former Ecologist Editor Mark Anslow once said "Understanding how climate change is linked to economic growth, population, consumption, and the structure of Western society is something few seem willing to contemplate – The Ecologist's role has always been to point out these links." If you've read any of my blogs, you can see that this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

Check out my first comment piece: A message to the scientific societies that climate and politics are still at odds, and if they really want to help, polite letter writing simply isn't enough!

Read On

0 Comments

A Round Up on Monsanto

7/5/2016

0 Comments

I recently penned an opinion piece for the Agri-business section of Irish Examiner on the EU debate on agri-chemical glyphosate (commonly known as RoundUp, manufactured by Monsanto). You know you've made an impact when the trolls come alive and accuse you of all sorts... My latest blog on the Verdant Yank is an extended version of my Examiner OpEd to provide the evidence base to dispute their attacks.

No time to read? Watch my v-log with Prof. Jane Stout of Trinity College Dublin on bees, neonicotinoids, glyphosate and what we can do to help protect Ireland's pollinators filmed at Bloom in the Park garden festival in Dublin's Phoenix Park (4min run-time).

“Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee” – Why nature works better than RoundUp.

Glyphosate is the world’s most ubiquitous herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp. Its license for application within the E.U. expired at the end of June. Last Tuesday, the EU extended the license by 18-months pending further scientific study in spite of failing to obtain a qualified majority when Member States voted on the decision the previous week.

When glyphosate was officially authorised in the E.U. in 2002, the evidence used in the approval process relied entirely on studies funded by the pesticides industry, many which were unpublished. The 2002 E.U. approval process also only considered studies on glyphosate alone without the full spectrum of chemicals in RoundUp, which some studies indicate may increase the toxicity of glyphosate.

Furthermore, the 2002 approval process for glyphosate failed to consider whether the herbicide could disrupt human hormone and reproductive systems. In parts of South America, rates of birth defect and miscarriage have increased in areas where pregnant women live close to fields sprayed with glyphosate. When this piece was published in the Irish Examiner, that sentence elicited a strong response, with some on Twitter calling it a "gish gallop" and accusing me of "ignoring the literature". As a scientist, I take pride in being able to support claims with scientific peer-reviewed evidence, so it was with extreme caution and discussion with the Editor that I included that statement in my OpEd. Unfortunately, a 750 word limit doesn't give you the opportunity to demonstrate the consideration that goes in to every sentence. To address those unfounded accusations, here's a brief peer-reviewed evidence base:

A study in Paraguay: babies of women living within one kilometre of fields sprayed with glyphosate were more than twice as likely to have birth defects (Benítez-Leite et al., 2009 Archivos de Pediatría del Uruguay Vol 80 pp 237-247).
Lab-based studies have shown malformations in frog and chicken embryos exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides (Paganelli A et al, 2010 Chemical Research in Toxicology Vol 23 pp 1586-1595)
Glyphosate and AMPA have both been shown to be “genotoxic” – that is they interfere with a cell’s ability to accurately copy DNA and reproduce, leading to potential genetic mutations and an increased risk of cancer (Hoeijmakers, 2001 Nature Vol 411 pp 366-374).
In Ecuador and Colombia, where glyphosate herbicides have been used to control cocaine production, studies have found genetic damage and increased rates of miscarriage during the spraying period (Paz-y-Mino et al., 2007 Genetics and Molecular Biology Vol 30 pp 456-460 and Bolognesi et al. 2009 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A Vol 72 pp 986-997) and in the soy-growing Chaco district of Argentina where glyphosate is used, cancer rates have increased fourfold in the last decade (López SL et al. 2012 Advances in Molecular Toxicology Vol. 6 pp. 41-75)

Non-governmental organisations have fought hard to prevent further application of glyphosate, arguing the EU should uphold the precautionary principle to avoid further public risk until scientific evidence is evaluated. In contrast, the agricultural lobby sees glyphosate as “vital” for crop protection and argues banning glyphosate will catalyse outlawing hundreds of other “vital” agricultural chemicals.

In an open letter to EU policy makers, presidents of the UK farming organisations wrote, “European farmers need glyphosate to provide a safe, secure and affordable food supply while increasingly responding to consumer demand for greater environmental sensitivity.”

Do we really need glyphosate for “safe, secure and affordable” food? The World Health Organisation declared glyphosate a ‘probable carcinogen’ last year, and there’s no doubt glyphosate negatively impacts farmland biodiversity, water quality and food supplies for birds and insects. Glyphosate can hardly be categorised as “safe”.

One could argue in the short term glyphosate could make our food supply more available by making farmers’ work easier and possibly increasing crop yields. However, in the long-term, continued use of such chemicals is more likely to decrease our food safety and security rather than improve it.

Ultimately, food security is dependent on nature. When chemicals like glyphosate kill the food supply of birds and insects, they contribute to the death of wildlife we need to pollinate our crops, fertilise our soils or control pests naturally.

We’ve already seen how agricultural chemicals can damage nature with the collapse of honeybee populations as a result of neonicotinoid pesticides in the EU or with the historic ‘Silent Spring’ detailed by Rachel Carson in the 1970s after DDT was implicated in thinning eggshells in bird populations across the U.S.A.

Both neonicotinoids and DDT are banned as a result of their devastating impacts on nature, but these chemicals persist and accumulate in flora and fauna and even in our bodies. Despite a U.S. ban 40 years ago, DDT continues to be found in American produce and has been measured in the blood of 99% of Americans tested. DDT is still implicated as a cause of cancer, infertility, and other health effects among the U.S. population.

Glyphosate appears no less endemic. A 2015 study carried out by University of California San Francisco found glyphosate in the urine of 93% of Americans tested, and a 2013 study in Europe found traces of glyphosate in the urine of individuals from all 18 countries tested.

The more glyphosate is applied, the more weeds become resistant and the more application is required to achieve the same effect. In an effort to combat these “super weeds”, we expose our environment and our bodies to more of this chemical.

The farming lobby argues glyphosate improves soil structure, but it also damages soil chemistry by affecting the biological and chemical processes around plant roots, including the ability to fix nitrogen, resulting in the need for increased fertilisers at additional environmental and economic cost.

In this battle between the agricultural industry and environmentalists, the argument has been falsely framed as a choice between “safe, secure and affordable food” versus protection of nature and environment. In reality, what environmentalists are fighting for is not nature at the expense of people’s food but “nature for people’s food”.

In the long term, what may make farmers’ jobs a little easier today will take such a toll on nature that their livelihoods, and our food security, will become more challenging in the decades to come. It is nature that creates the optimal conditions to grow food, not Monsanto.

For more on glyphosate and how you can get involved, check out Friends of the Earth Europe's great work.

Keep fighting the good fight!
-Cara

0 Comments

'The Verdant Yank' up for the best of Ireland's 2016 blogs!

Regret + Optimism = 2100

Visions 2100

Emotion = Energy in Motion

A rationale for 2100

An unlikely model in Cuba

Regret + Optimism = 2100

My 2100 Vision

Your Turn

The Ecologist New Voices

A Round Up on Monsanto

​“Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee” – Why nature works better than RoundUp.

Archives

Categories

“Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee” – Why nature works better than RoundUp.